Apparent reversals of conjugation patterns in classical 形容詞 and 動詞, origin?


We observe the following peculiar apparent relations between the conjugation
patterns of 形容詞 and 動詞 (using 赤し and 行く as examples):

[code]

    連体形: 赤き / 行きし (past recollective)
    終止形: 赤し / 行きき (past recollective)
    
    連用形: 赤く / 行き
    連体形: 赤き / 行く
    
[/code]

In both of these cases we have an apparent reversal of two endings across the
two parts of speech: き←→し and く←→き.

Is there any explanation/etymology behind this, or is this thought to be a
coincidence?




There is no clear-cut etymological explanation, but some think there is a
connection. In _A History of the Japanese Language_ (2010), Frellesvig says:

> The suffixes which attach to the infinitive [i.e. _renyokei_ ] are [...]
> transparently agglutinating and their use as suffixes seems to be younger
> [than suffixes attaching to the _mizenkei_ , which Frellesvig argues were
> originally suffixes beginning with /a-/ and attaching directly to the verb
> stem]. It is possible to view all of them as being derived from a few
> elements which are also reflected in a number of other grammatical morphemes
> in OJ. They fall into two groups: (a) forms in _k ~ s_ , and (b) forms in _t
> ~ n_. It is likely that both sets reflect earlier copulas which were
> morphologized.
>
> The _**k ~ s**_ forms involve both of the past tense auxiliaries, _-i(ki)_
> and _-(i)kyeri_ (of which the modal past seems to be derived from the simple
> past: _kyer-_ < _ki-ar-_ ). **The forms of the adjectival copula** [by this
> he means endings like /-ki/, /-si/, etc.] **overlap to a large extent with
> the past tense auxiliaries** [...] **This suggests that these are different
> morphologizations of the same (copula) material, and lends further support
> to the analysis of the adjectival endings as a restricted copula. Note also
> that the _k ~ s_ alternation is exhibited by the adjectival copula
> infinitive _-ku_ and the * _-su_ which takes part in formation of the
> innovative negative forms** [here he means /-zu/ and so on, which he derives
> from /-ni.su/] [...] **The morpho-syntactic similarities between the
> adjectival infinitive and the negative infinitive are easier to explain if,
> as suggested here, they originate in variant copla forms.** It is further
> possible that the verb _se-_ "do", the focus particles _so_ and _ka_ [...]
> and the demonstratives _ko_ and _so_ [...] are root-related to these forms.

(Bold mine, everything in [square brackets] mine.)

So, there you go: a grand theory which does indeed link five of your six data
points (adjectival /-ki/, /-si/, and /-ku/ + verbal simple past auxiliary /ki/
and /si/) together, albeit hand-wavily.

It's important to note that this is all speculation; by the time people
started writing things down in OJ, any root-relations were long in the past.
But when it comes to proto-Old Japanese, very little speculation is as
informed as Frellesvig's.

Your final data point, the similarity between the adjectival infinitive ending
/-ku/ and the adnominal verb ending /-u/ (as dainichi says, the ending in
question only happens to be /ku/ in verbs with a stem ending in /k/, like
/ik.u/) doesn't fit into this pattern at all. Since the /k/ is a red herring,
really the only similarity is that it's a one-mora ending with the vowel /u/.
But note that for vowel-stem and irregular verbs the ending is /-(u)ru/;
meanwhile, in Eastern Old Japanese attributives sometimes end in /-(w)o/
instead of /-u/, but the adjectival /-ku/ ending never changes to an o-form.
So even the vowel similarity isn't all that strong. There doesn't seem to be
much of a case for a connection there.

**Edit:** Wait, I forgot one other non-repeated data point: infinitive /-i/
for verbs vs adnominal /-ki/ for adjectives. Here, too, though, it boils down
to a single vowel -- and if you reject the connection between /-u/ and /-ku/,
there's not even a semantic connection. Nothing to explain, in other words,
except maybe a very general "How come so many OJ verbal/adjectival endings end
in /i/ or /u/?"




There is no clear-cut etymological explanation, but some think there is a
connection. In _A History of the Japanese Language_ (2010), Frellesvig says:

> The suffixes which attach to the infinitive [i.e. _renyokei_ ] are [...]
> transparently agglutinating and their use as suffixes seems to be younger
> [than suffixes attaching to the _mizenkei_ , which Frellesvig argues were
> originally suffixes beginning with /a-/ and attaching directly to the verb
> stem]. It is possible to view all of them as being derived from a few
> elements which are also reflected in a number of other grammatical morphemes
> in OJ. They fall into two groups: (a) forms in _k ~ s_ , and (b) forms in _t
> ~ n_. It is likely that both sets reflect earlier copulas which were
> morphologized.
>
> The _**k ~ s**_ forms involve both of the past tense auxiliaries, _-i(ki)_
> and _-(i)kyeri_ (of which the modal past seems to be derived from the simple
> past: _kyer-_ < _ki-ar-_ ). **The forms of the adjectival copula** [by this
> he means endings like /-ki/, /-si/, etc.] **overlap to a large extent with
> the past tense auxiliaries** [...] **This suggests that these are different
> morphologizations of the same (copula) material, and lends further support
> to the analysis of the adjectival endings as a restricted copula. Note also
> that the _k ~ s_ alternation is exhibited by the adjectival copula
> infinitive _-ku_ and the * _-su_ which takes part in formation of the
> innovative negative forms** [here he means /-zu/ and so on, which he derives
> from /-ni.su/] [...] **The morpho-syntactic similarities between the
> adjectival infinitive and the negative infinitive are easier to explain if,
> as suggested here, they originate in variant copla forms.** It is further
> possible that the verb _se-_ "do", the focus particles _so_ and _ka_ [...]
> and the demonstratives _ko_ and _so_ [...] are root-related to these forms.

(Bold mine, everything in [square brackets] mine.)

So, there you go: a grand theory which does indeed link five of your six data
points (adjectival /-ki/, /-si/, and /-ku/ + verbal simple past auxiliary /ki/
and /si/) together, albeit hand-wavily.

It's important to note that this is all speculation; by the time people
started writing things down in OJ, any root-relations were long in the past.
But when it comes to proto-Old Japanese, very little speculation is as
informed as Frellesvig's.

Your final data point, the similarity between the adjectival infinitive ending
/-ku/ and the adnominal verb ending /-u/ (as dainichi says, the ending in
question only happens to be /ku/ in verbs with a stem ending in /k/, like
/ik.u/) doesn't fit into this pattern at all. Since the /k/ is a red herring,
really the only similarity is that it's a one-mora ending with the vowel /u/.
But note that for vowel-stem and irregular verbs the ending is /-(u)ru/;
meanwhile, in Eastern Old Japanese attributives sometimes end in /-(w)o/
instead of /-u/, but the adjectival /-ku/ ending never changes to an o-form.
So even the vowel similarity isn't all that strong. There doesn't seem to be
much of a case for a connection there.

**Edit:** Wait, I forgot one other non-repeated data point: infinitive /-i/
for verbs vs adnominal /-ki/ for adjectives. Here, too, though, it boils down
to a single vowel -- and if you reject the connection between /-u/ and /-ku/,
there's not even a semantic connection. Nothing to explain, in other words,
except maybe a very general "How come so many OJ verbal/adjectival endings end
in /i/ or /u/?"

