Talk:메주

Derivation
Apropos of the etymology note at 味噌 that Vovin traces the Japanese term to 🇨🇬, I note that 🇨🇬 could presumably be borrowed as 🇨🇬. While the second character in the purported Japanese etymon,, seems less likely to be borrowed as 🇨🇬, I note that modern 🇨🇬 has the reading chiùⁿ.

Reading Vovin's explanation for why he thinks Koreanic must be the origin of this term (here, pages 77-78), his reasoning doesn't quite wash with me -- why would 🇨🇬 ㅈ be borrowed into Japonic as ? Other borrowings into Japonic that include similar sounds are borrowed as those sounds, for the most part. If the original term were Chinese instead, would that not better explain its distribution?

Does anyone have any further information about the 🇨🇬 form of modern 🇨🇬, or other authors discussing a likely derivation?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Some follow-on notes.
 * For the Korean:
 * Vovin's paper notes the earliest Koreanic cite for was in the , dated to roughly 1103.
 * The term was recorded in Late Middle Chinese (LMC) orthography as.
 * Vovin reconstructs the term as Early Middle Korean (EMK) *mico, as compared to our reconstructed LMC reading of.
 * For the Japanese:
 * The earliest Japanese cite for miso was in governmental tax records, dated 365 years earlier in 738.
 * The term was recorded in Old Japanese kanji as (later replaced with homophonous kanji ).
 * This likely had the Old Japanese pronunciation misau based on the goon kanji readings, as compared to our reconstructed LMC reading of.
 * Considerations:
 * The dating alone could suggest a Japanese provenance, possibly derived from Chinese.
 * If the oldest Late Middle Chinese reading mit tso were the original form, we would expect gemination in the Japanese, as we see in other terms cited to in or just after the Old Japanese period, such as or .  We would also expect a final  in the Old Japanese, rather than the recorded.
 * If the oldest reconstructed Early Middle Korean reading *mico were the original form, we would again expect a final  in the Old Japanese.  Plus, I'm not sure how that medial  would be realized in Japanese.
 * → I do see mention of the spelling in Old Japanese over at the ja:w:味噌 article, presumably read as misu based on the goon kanji readings, but it's unclear to me when that appears and where.  If this spelling were w:man'yōgana, the reading would have been  → *.
 * Ideally, we should track down Old Japanese texts that include this term and see if we can definitively identify the Old Japanese phonetic realization. To that end, I've already searched the , and found that that text doesn't mention this word anywhere.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The dating is a red herring because the Jilin leishi is the earliest real source for basic Korean nouns. There is no Man'yoshu or Genji equivalent for Korean.
 * Old Korean was realized as  in clear-cut borrowings into Old Japanese: cf.  vs.,  vs..
 * Ultimately, I don't think a Chinese source for the word is implausible, although it depends on when exactly Korean developed. Korean  seems likely secondary; it's not common in native words, and there are cases like the same Silla queen being variably named  and, although data is limited.--Tibidibi (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your perspective!
 * Apologies for being fuzzy earlier -- I didn't intend so much to build a case that the Korean term only dates to 1103, but rather that the oldest known form of the word dates to then. Are there any accepted reconstructions of earlier Koreanic phonology?  365 years is a lot of time for sounds to shift.
 * Of potential interest, the article at ja:w:味噌 describes the Old Japanese term 未醤 (miso, "immature / unfinished + sauce"?) standing in apparent contrast to 主醤 (reading uncertain, "main + sauce"?) and 末醤 (reading uncertain, "finished + sauce"?) -- the former may have been pronounced as susau or suso? The latter perhaps as matusau, matuso, masau, or maso?  If these were jukujikun-style spellings, the readings could have been anything...  I don't suppose there are any Korean records mentioning any similar terms?
 * Cheers on the →  equivalency, those are good examples.  That said, do you have any where the  specifically precedes, and the Japonic realization is ?
 * The Silla variation between and  is particularly interesting to me, as this seems to mirror what happened to final  in borrowings from Middle Chinese into Old Japanese: Old Japanese had no coda consonants, so the  shifted to  instead (perhaps because the  was closest to the nasal?).
 * PS: I'm traveling for roughly the next week, with sporadic connectivity, so my replies might not be quick. :)
 * Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just saw the 🇨🇬 entry. Would the final  there possibly suggest a Chinese derivation, considering that neither the Korean nor Japanese terms have any final consonant?  I know nothing about Manchu, so that might instead be a native suffix, I have no real idea.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr It's not on Jidai Betsu Kokugo Daijiten Jodai-hen (Dictionary of Old Japanese), so I don't think this term exists in Old Japanese (is the man'yogana in japanese wikipedia some emj text? i don't think 蘇 could be used there; 曽 would probably be used in such text). Chuterix (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)