Reconstruction talk:Proto-Japonic/namita

Tai Kradai angle

@Kwékwlos, do you have any basis for claiming non-relationship, as in diff? Vovin brings up this possibility, such as in his 2018 paper "Proto-K(r)adai ‘hand’, ‘eye’, and ‘bird’ revisited" (scroll down to page 158), which references earlier works from 2010 and 2014. Also, your proposed derivation doesn't make much sense -- tears don't form any visible waves when striking the ground (maybe soundwaves, arguably), and that still leaves the -ta portion unexplained. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, this is true if and only if Proto-Japonic was originally spoken in southern China. He then assumes dubious facts in this article: "Out of Southern China?", such as a Pre-Proto-Japonic SVO word order based on Janhunen's research (who likes to propose that most Pre-PJ words were originally monosyllabic, yet Vovin has *wasar in his Pre-PJ reconstruction). This doesn't seem like a strong evidence for an S.Chinese origin; we don't know how the Yayoi originated aside from Korea. He also dubiously compares PJ monosyllables with Kra-Dai words most of which don't even show any regular sound correspondences. So I consider that highly speculative. Focusing on the language, which has been proven to transmit across different ethnic groups (like how English is spoken by African Americans), I do think it had early contact with Indo-Europeans (as seen in mythology, cf. Chaoskampf = Susanoo vs Yamata and the close relationship between Vala/Iwato and Ushas/Uzume by Witzel), so a Central Asian origin of Japonic is likely although I think this is more certain than the Southern China theory. At the conclusion Vovin only proves the likely relationship of Kra-Dai and Austronesian. We could even say about the theory that PJ *tuntumi is linked to the Sanskrit (or Central Asian) word dundubhi, or that they are merely onomatopoeic formations after all after the drum's sound.

PS. How about explaining the word's origin with the Korean nunmul? Would that make sense? After all, we still have to find the missing pieces. Kwékwlos (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Rice agriculture was definitely a southern innovation, with no connection to Central Asia until possibly the historical era. We cannot rule out any southern contact given presently known facts. I don't agree with Vovin's mention of a Tai-Kradai basis for 睫 (matsuge), for instance, not least as that is wholly explainable internally to Japonic. However, 涙 (namida) is an odd duck, with no clear internal etyma that fit. The possibility persists that this may be a borrowing.

I'm not against mentioning Korean 눈물 (nunmul), or indeed other comparanda, if phonologically and semantically justifiable. However, I also think Vovin's Tai-Kradai theory bears mentioning -- he's one of the forefront authors in the field and serious students of this subject will likely have encountered this theory at some point or other, and it's worth including simply on that basis, even if we ultimately don't agree with it and add commentary to that effect. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)