Reconstruction talk:Proto-Japonic/sima

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Chuterix in topic Relatedness
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Relatedness

[edit]

@Atitarev, Karaeng Matoaya, Suzukaze-c, any others interested --

Japanese shima appears to be related to verb root shim-, describing "closed, not open":

  • しまう (shimau, to put something away; to do something completely, irrevocably)
  • 閉まる (shimaru, to be closed, not open)
  • 閉める (shimeru, to close something)
  • 染みる (shimiru, to seep or soak into something and not come out again; to stain)
  • 沈る (shimoru, to take on water and sink, archaic)

Compare the sense of Latin insula (island) and derived English insulate (to close off).

This prompts me to ask:

  • Is there any similar cluster in Koreanic terms around this apparent root? If so, we might be dealing with a cognate, or at any rate, a very old borrowing that has had time to nativize and produce derivatives.
  • If there are no related terms in Koreanic, might this be a borrowing from Japonic?
  • If it is instead a borrowing from Koreanic into Japonic, what would account for all the apparently related verbs in Japanese? Chance resemblance?

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: Thanks for the ping, I am interesting in the subject but I don't have much knowledge on this etymology. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
IIRC Vovin (2010) considers this a borrowing. From pre-root *sim with *-a suffixed. Chuterix (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Interesting, thank you! However, I note that Vovin's ideas go back and forth over the years -- a good thing, if someone is actively studying and learning more. If memory serves, his thoughts on the source of (wata) changed a few times, for instance. I can't easily agree with the contention that the Japanese is a borrowing, given the large list of semantically related terms. If instead you mean that the Korean is a borrowing, I have no particular argument -- my familiarity with Korean is much more limited.
FWIW, titles of works are much more user-friendly than this unfortunately opaque [NAME] [YEAR] notation.
Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
See Wiktionary:About Proto-Japonic and look at the Vovin (2010) section @Eirikr. Chuterix (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Re: sources, yes, I saw that earlier. My point still stands: it is much easier for people when you give the title of a work rather than [NAME] [YEAR]. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
(whatever...) Chuterix (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Usability is a thing, my friend. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
forgot real to visit Wiktionary:About Proto-Japonic/references and go to V sectiom Chuterix (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Eirikr Chuterix (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply