Talk:過ぎる

, what grounds do you have for reconstructing that /-i/ on the end of the root /*sùNkui-/?

The predicative form of both modern and  was just sugu in Classical and earlier, and then we also have adjective and adverb sugu. In early Old Japanese, we also have the intransitive / transitive pair suguru and sugusu. None of this would seem to work if we postulate that the proto root ended in /-i/. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yōsuke Igarashi (2022) points out two origins of -i₂ rooted verbs which is reflected commonly in both of Ryukyuan and some dialects in Kyushu (see page 9)

a. pJ *ətəi-「落ちる」 > 宮崎 ote- :: pR *ote- :: WOJ oti- b. pJ *ərəi-「下りる」 > 宮崎 ore- :: pR *ore- :: WOJ ori- c. pJ *əkəi-「起きる」 > 宮崎 oke- :: pR *oke- :: WOJ oki2- d. pJ *sugui-「過ぎる」 > 宮崎 sugi- :: pR *sugi- :: WOJ sugi2- e. pJ *ikui-「生きる」 > 宮崎 iki- :: pR *iki- :: WOJ N/A
 * They are respectively うてぃゆん *ote-, うりゆん *ore-, うきゆん *oke-, しじゆん *sugi-, いちちゅん *ikiki- in Okinawan.
 * By the existence of /-i/, we can explain the development of those examples. Bare /ə-/ and /u-/ don't reflect anything in the conjugated forms and dialectal variants. And 終止形 coda -u is a suffix, not part of the verb root itself and has own tone accent (the classical form 過ぐ was pronounced /sùgûː/ in the Heian period, with falling tone and virtual elongation of the final vowel). --荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , my understanding of Okinawan predicative verb forms is that these include a suffixing element. I see that there are a few verbs that were clearly yodan in Old Japanese, but that still manifest affrication in the Okinawan, like 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.  Do we have any clear indication that the front vowel we see in the Proto-Ryukyan is from the verb root, and not from the suffixing element?
 * I am also not convinced that the final -u in the mainland Japanese predicative form is a suffix, or more specifically, that any such suffix attaches to the continuative: phonologically, I don't think either -e + -u or -i + -u would collapse to just -u. If, instead, we posit that Proto-Japonic verb roots could end in consonants, then we could have the stem be sug-, to which predicative -u could attach just as cleanly as continuative -i.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  is very natural change and commonly seen in world languages, isn't it? There are no /CjV/ syllables in Old Japanese because they might have been absorbed into /CV/ in the prehistorical times.
 * If there weren't the *-i, how about 上一段活用 (<*ai → e₂> stem)? Any /u/ doesn't exist there. Even that alone shows that 終止形 -u is not part of the word stem.
 * sug- never be the stem of this verb. That one is the form only for yodan/godan verbs and most distant from the truth. The true nature of the Japonic verbs appears at 未然形, if you want to know the border between verb stem and suffix, the best way is to see the negative forms. In the case of Okinawan verb machun (to roll up; *mak-i-wori), it's makan, analysed as *mak-anu; in the case of ukiyun (to wake up; *oke-wori), it's ukiran, analysed as *oke-r-anu (note insertion of -r-, mimicking godan verbs; the stem-final vowel doesn't alter at all).
 * Every final *-i on the verb stem are complementarily distributed in exchange for the absence of yodan verb stem ends with *-j. Namely, it means that every Japonic verb stems were originally able to be considered consonant, but in the case of *-Vj, they have different conjugation as vowel stem *-Vi. --荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't understand some of your writing here. I'll address what I think I do understand.
 * " is very natural change and commonly seen in world languages, isn't it?"
 * Is it? It might be because it's morning, but I'm having trouble thinking of any examples that don't also cause other phonological changes.  The closest I can think of at the moment is English don't you becoming doncha.
 * In other instances that come to mind, eu becomes yo or yu -- like in in English, or like how the volitional evolved for 二段 verbs: たべむ → たべう → たびょう → たべよう, or みむ → みう → みょう → みよう.  In both English and Japanese, the original front vowel shifts to a, maintaining the basic feature of a front close vowel.
 * "If there weren't the *-i, how about 上一段活用 (<*ai → e₂> stem)?"
 * I do not understand you here -- there is no e₂ stem for 上一段 verbs.
 * "sug- never be the stem of this verb. That one is the form only for yodan/godan verbs and most distant from the truth."
 * There is some evidence that the 二段 conjugation patterns are defective shifts from the fuller 四段 paradigm. We still have various verbs in modern Japanese that reflect both patterns for 下二段, such as つく + つける, つむ + つめる, etc.  For 上二段, there are historical examples, such as いく + いきる or よろこぶ + よろこびる (which appears in OJP).
 * Some linguists also describe the 二段 conjugational pattern as a later development. See also "Old Japanese Conjugation Classes" by Bjark Frellesvig, in particular the second-to-last paragraph on page 12:
 * "The (primary) consonant base verbs thus exhibit a more synthetic inflection, in turn reflecting their higher age in the language, whereas the vowel base verbs have a more agglutinative and simpler inflection, in turn reflecting the younger age of the main vowel base classes, the Nidan verbs."
 * "The true nature of the Japonic verbs appears at 未然形, if you want to know the border between verb stem and suffix, the best way is to see the negative forms."
 * I have read before that linguists view the mizenkei as a derivative form and not a fundamental verb form. See again "Old Japanese Conjugation Classes", in particular this bit from the top of page 13:
 * "With a few adjustments, the katsuyookei system well expresses the basic morphophonological difference between consonant and vowel base verbs. The following representation will be adopted, including the basic stem and showing that the mizenkei is a derived stem and not a word form, and not positing a mizenkei for the vowel base verbs."
 * I confess I'm not entirely convinced that the mizenkei is not a word form, in part due to the existence of nominal forms that appear to be very old terms arising from the -a-ending mizenkei form of verbs, such as from, or  from.
 * "Every final *-i on the verb stem are complementarily distributed..."
 * I do not understand this part at all, I'm afraid.
 * ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The closest I can think of at the moment is English don't you becoming doncha.
 * sewer /ˈsuːɚ/, lewd /lu:d/, Stewart /ˈstuɝt/.
 * I do not understand you here -- there is no e₂ stem for 上一段 verbs.
 * O sorry, this is a mistake from 下一段.
 * See again "Old Japanese Conjugation Classes", in particular this bit from the top of page 13:
 * Oh dear... That paper shows stem of the verbs are ake- (=ake₂-) in 開ける（開く; < *akai-）, okwi- (= oki₂-) in 起きる（起く; < *okəi-）, mi- (= mi₁-) in 見る (< *mi-). The researcher on whom you are basing what you are saying also exactly says that the Old Japanese stem of these verbs are accompanied by (Proto-Japonic) *-i, so we should follow that.
 * I do not understand this part at all, I'm afraid.
 * ヤ行五段活用（ヤ行四段活用） is not existing. Like as in the dialectal form 起きやん ("not wake up"), ichidan verbs are the alternative to them.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * sewer /ˈsuːɚ/, lewd /lu:d/, Stewart /ˈstuɝt/.
 * Those are labialized, not palatalized. Chuterix (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to add. There are examples of prehistorical palatal glide disappearance:
 * 虹 (nizi/nuzi/nozi) with some dialectal forms reflecting prehistorical hiatus like /mjoːzi/. /njuːzi/, /bjoːzi/, seems from something like *mioNsi (note mʲ/nʲ shift which is not described in existing Proto-Japonic theories) [see Linguistic Atlas of Japan].
 * 兎 (usagi), is described as *osaNki in existing proto-Japonic theory, but some dialectal forms suggest older layer; ウシヤギ /usijagi/ (Hida), ウシヤゲ /usijage/ (Hida), オシヤゲ /osijage/ (Hida), ウッサギ /ussagi/ (Shimabara), ウッサグ /ussagu/ (Shimabara), ウシャギ /usjagi/ (Toyama/Ishikawa), オッシャギ /ossjagi/ (Ishikawa), ウチャ /ucja/ (Chiba) [retrieved from Nihon Kokugo Daijiten].
 * In Eastern Old Japanese, 家 (ie < ipe₁ イヘ甲) was ipa (イハ), so the proto-form can be considered as *ipia, and as well as かり (kari), Eastern dialectal form of けり (ke₁ri) of past tense has same structure *kiari.
 * --荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Side note, @Aramaki-san, am curious about rabbits and the literary auxiliary past verb. Suggest having a look at eastern OJP and OJP ? Any revisions needed, like whether there exists a Proto-Japonic wosanki or translations of poetry needs fix, are welcome. In progress of editing the rainbow entry. Dōmo, ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 09:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @荒巻モロゾフ:
 * The PJ stem form is *suNko(y/i)-, not *suNku(y/i)-.
 * < *sunko(y)su, deleted due to law that no vowel clusters exist in Old Japanese (or Japonic)! Chuterix (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just make it *suNkoi- might be better indeed. Even professional researchers' papers, their knowledge is never perfect especially this field.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chuterix, why would your medial (y) be deleted in すぐす, but not in すぎる? (Recall that modern すごす is described as a shift from older すぐす.)  How does this account for lower-bigrade verb すげる?  What about standalone adverb すぐ?
 * And in a different verb, how does this medial (y) theory explain how we have おこす and おこる and おきる? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr: Read ; I will now plagiarize cite this info in case it's not accessible:
 * (4) OJ suNgi2- ‘to pass (intr.)’ (M 5.816) has two different transitive counterparts: WOJ suNgus- ‘to pass (tr.)’ (M 5.804) and EOJ suNgo1s- ‘id.’ (M 14.3564). Martin believes that suNgus- > suNgo1s- and posits here the lowering of o1 to u (1987, p. 63). Although his assumption follows the Japanese tradition (Saeki and Mabuchi 1969, pp. 474, 476), it seems that there is no actual evidence supporting the lowering of o1 to u. Although we have seen the raising of o1 to u in EOJ in (2) above, we also know that EOJ sporadically preserves PJ *o (Thorpe 1983, p. 235). There are doublets in MJ: suNgus- (MS 86) and suNgos- (TM 31). The existence of lexical doublets always indicates that one form is inherited, and another is borrowed. Since we already saw in (3) above that MJ is more conservative than WOJ as far as the preservation of o1 is concerned, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the form suNgos- is native to MJ, while the form su Ngus- is borrowed from WOJ, even though the latter is more frequent than the former. Thus, the original nature of EOJ suNgo1s- is supported both by directionality of change and additional evidence from MJ. Consequently, OJ su Ngi2- ‘to pass (intr.)’ can go back only to PJ *suNgoy-, but not *suNguy-. It is worth noting that the Shuri form is siji- ‘to pass (intr.)’ (OGJ 1998, p. 487), demonstrating the palatalization g > j. Note that in (3) above we also had the palatalization k > cˇ. Compare also Shuri cicˇi ‘moon’ (OGJ 1998, p. 144) < PJ *tukuy, but Shuri kii ‘tree’ (OGJ 1998, p. 320) < PJ *ke y. The examples in (3) and (4), as well as these two examples, show that both PJ velars *k and *Ng have the same development in Shuri involving palatalization before *uy or *oy in contrast to the position before PJ *e y that does not palatalize. [...]
 * End of quotation.
 * Vovin also notes this:
 * This belief in Japanese tradition probably rests on the ad hoc assumption that all phenomena found in WOJ are archaisms, just because WOJ is the oldest attested standard form of Japanese. Thus, any later attestations, or even contemporary attestations in dialects are automatically viewed as deviations, and WOJ is essentially treated ‘‘as though it stands in the same relationship to all other known varieties of Japonic as Latin to all Romance languages’’ (Vovin 2010, p. 4).
 * End of quotation.
 * So I reject the Japanese belief that sugosu is a shift from sugusu. It's much easier to vowel raise from /o/ to /u/ unlike a unexplainable vowel lowering from /u/ to /o/; what explains Western Old Japanese pwi, pwo (火), and Eastern Old Japanese pu (< PJ )? or even the Eastern forms for stone osi and osu (< PJ ).
 * This is like we can reject the Japanese theory that 's second element is, despite being spellable as OJ ke2. Because there's a Koreanic etymology *Pwutukye and the second is "Peninsular-Japonic" koreanic element, seen in Buyeo and psuedo-Goguryeo as ky(e/a), itself obviously derived from Buddha. Chuterix (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And yes, I'm aware that I have to collaborate with other editors, not rely on Vovin every single time and replace everything with his work. But there's other evidence other than just Vovin has for /o/ > /u/ but not /u/ > /o/. Chuterix (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr https://www.jlect.com/search.php?r=%E3%81%97%E3%81%8E%E3%82%86%E3%82%93&l=all&group=words shuri Shigiyun < PR *suge.
 * Adverb sugu is nominalization of shushikei form < *suNku, but the reason why it was not deleted because sugiru derived very late, so it cannot be deleted; development: PJ *suNkoy- (*suNku) > OJ sugwi- (sugu) > MJ sugi- (sugu) > Pre-MdJ *sugi- (*suguru) > MdJ sugi- (sugiru). Chuterix (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominalization produces nouns. すぐ is attested as an adverb and adjective, but not a noun.
 * (The rest of your explanation about deletion is unfortunately not comprehensible to me.)
 * There are also the verbs すぐる, one is 四段 and attested in the Man'yōshū, the other is 下二段 and attested in the Nihon Shoki. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * the glide theory is probably used by kanade tokaimori (huisu yun).
 * just for reference; dialectial variants:
 * ウサ〔岩手・千葉〕ウサイ・ウサゲ・ウシヤギ・ウシヤゲ・オサキ・オシヤゲ〔飛騨〕ウサキ〔鹿児島方言・大隅〕ウサッ〔鹿児島方言〕ウサニ・オサン〔富山県〕ウシャギ〔富山県・石川〕ウシャゲ〔岐阜〕ウチャ〔千葉〕ウッサギ・ウッサグ〔島原方言〕オサギ〔茨城・越後・新潟頸城・富山県・石川・福井大飯・信州読本・飛騨・志摩・伊賀・京言葉・神戸・淡路・大和・紀州・和歌山県・和歌山・鳥取・岡山・広島県・徳島・讚岐・愛媛周桑・伊予・瀬戸内〕オサ〔青森・津軽語彙・岩手〕オサ・オサコ〔津軽語彙〕オサビ〔愛媛周桑〕オッシャギ〔石川〕ヲサギ〔秋田鹿角〕
 * AND IN TOKUGAWA'S NIHON HOGEN DAIJITEN (NOT HIRAYAMA TERUO'S EPIC GENDAI NIHONGO HOGEN DAIJITEN).
 * おしゃげ
 * （1）
 * 結末. 終末. 終わり.
 * 福井県大飯郡447／
 * 和歌山県690／
 * 島根県出雲市・簸川郡「おしゃげのはてに（結果として）負けてしまった」
 * 725
 * （2）
 * →うさぎ【兎】→おしあげ
 * おしゃん
 * （1）
 * 動物
 * うさぎ（兎）.
 * 富山県
 * 390
 * （2）
 * →しゃべり【喋】 Chuterix (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Kanade Tokaimori assumes the terminal stem belongs to primary stem, while every other conjugation is the secondary stem, and Ryukyuan uses the secondary stem. Chuterix (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Exploring apparent cognates / derivatives
(I feel like the long discussion above lost focus. This is an attempt at revisiting this discussion.)

Let's look at the words that look like cognates or derivatives of the same root that produced modern 🇨🇬 and.

As abbreviations below, EOJ = Eastern Old Japanese, WOJ = Western Old Japanese, EMJ = Early Middle Japanese.


 * -- generally described as deriving somehow from
 * -- follows nouns with other particles potentially in between, optionally followed by particle ; NKD entry at Sakura-Paris explicitly calls this out as cognate with in relation to the passing of time
 * -- used to make items used in Shinto, and described in some sources as related to root suga- in adjectives sugasugashii and sugayaka, from the idea of "clear, without obstruction" → "(spiritually) clean, clear"
 * → -- NKD entry notes that sugusu was the standard form in WOJ
 * -- described in some sources as likely related to and / or, from the idea of "excessive, extreme".
 * ???  -- the semantics of this verb are not so clearly related to the core sugu meaning, might not belong in this grouping
 * -- specifically described as the passive of
 * -- used to make items used in Shinto, and described in some sources as related to root suga- in adjectives sugasugashii and sugayaka, from the idea of "clear, without obstruction" → "(spiritually) clean, clear"
 * → -- NKD entry notes that sugusu was the standard form in WOJ
 * -- described in some sources as likely related to and / or, from the idea of "excessive, extreme".
 * ???  -- the semantics of this verb are not so clearly related to the core sugu meaning, might not belong in this grouping
 * -- specifically described as the passive of
 * ???  -- the semantics of this verb are not so clearly related to the core sugu meaning, might not belong in this grouping
 * -- specifically described as the passive of
 * ???  -- the semantics of this verb are not so clearly related to the core sugu meaning, might not belong in this grouping
 * -- specifically described as the passive of
 * -- specifically described as the passive of

Given the various verb forms, it seems that some speakers at least held the view of a base verb *sugu from which passive form sugaru and transitive form sugeru could derive. Compare also tsukeru and tsukaru deriving from basic form tsuku.

In addition, there appears to be a verb-formation pattern at the early stages of the language whereby an existing 四段 verb gets an extra -ru tacked onto the end to create a new separate verb, itself either 四段 or 二段 and of related meaning. Compare maku → makuru, muku → mukuru, hagu → haguru, tawamu → tawamureru, kuku → kuguru (formerly kukuru), etc. There is also kuyu (上二段, modern kuiru) → kuyuru (四段, ). An unattested base verb *sugu producing suguru would fit this pattern.

Curious what others think. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)