What does 熟合する mean?


A passage from the textbook I quoted in [this
question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/16232/3437) contains the
following sentence (emphasis added):

> それでは助動詞に続かず不便なので、のちに、それを補うために、連用形のあとにラ変動詞「あり」をつけて、「高く＋あり→高かり」のように **熟合させた**
> のが活用表の左の系列の活用である。

I am unable to find the lexical item 熟合 (read じゅくごう? My IME won't convert that
to anything useful, so perhaps not) in any of the dictionaries I have
consulted, including
[goo辞典](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/srch/jn/%E7%86%9F%E5%90%88/m0u/),
[kotobank](http://dic.search.yahoo.co.jp/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=kb&p=%E7%86%9F%E5%90%88&dic_id=all&stype=prefix),
and [Weblio EJ-JE](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E7%86%9F%E5%90%88). I think
I can more or less guess at the meaning based on the kanji and the context in
which it appears - 熟合する is probably something like "to combine" or "to merge"
- but given that it doesn't show up in the online dictionaries I have access
to, I'd like to double-check.

I presume 熟合 isn't a typo, given that I've found a few other uses of it
online, including [Weblio辞典's explanation of the etymology of
さすが](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E6%B5%81%E7%9F%B3) (emphasis added):

> 副詞「さ」，サ変動詞「す」，接続助詞「がに」が **熟合した** 「さすがに」から「に」が脱落したもの。




This is a relatively rare word! It has only one result in
[BCCWJ](http://www.kotonoha.gr.jp/shonagon/), and I couldn't find a definition
for it in any of the seven monolingual dictionaries I checked. However, I
_did_ find it mentioned in the definition for 熟す in 明鏡国語辞典, where it's given
as a synonym:

> ⑤ **ことばとことばが分かちがたく結びついて、熟語や慣用的な言い回しを作る。熟合{じゅくごう}する。**
> また、新奇だったことばが一般に行われるようになる。
>
> 「『綺語』は『狂言綺語』と熟して使うことが多い」  
>  「いまだ表現が熟さない(=こなれない)」
>
> =熟する

Here's my translation of the relevant passage:

> **To put two words together inseparably, forming an idiomatic word or
> expression.** Or, for a new word to become widely used.

As you can see, 熟合 is related to 熟す(る) and to 熟語／熟字, words I bet you're more
familiar with. I think Eiríkr Útlendi's gloss of **idiomatization** captures
this idea relatively well. It expresses that the combination is **non-
compositional** , which is to say, the meaning may not be predictable from the
pieces that were put together.

A related English term is
[**lexicalization**](http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Lexicalization),
where a new lexical item is formed, requiring its own dictionary entry because
its meaning can't be synchronically derived from a simple combination of other
lexical items. For example, English [_traffic
light_](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/traffic-
light) is clearly the combination of _traffic_ and _light_ , but it needs its
own dictionary entry because _" A set of automatically operated colored
lights, typically red, amber, and green, for controlling traffic at road
junctions and crosswalks"_ isn't something you can predict from those two
words alone.

However, in this particular example we're talking about a morphological
structure rather than a lexical item. And in this case,
[**morphologization**](http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Morphologization)
may be more appropriate:

> In morphologization "[P]honological processes and syntactic structures [...]
> become properly an aspect of morphological, rather than phonological or
> syntactic, organization" (Fox 1995: 102). As pointed out in the previous
> quote the two sources morphologizied structures can originate from are the
> phonological and the syntactic domain of grammar. Those two types of
> morphologization have also been labeled dephonologization and
> desyntactization respectively (Joseph 2003: 473).

Another related term is **fusion** , the combination of two forms into one.
This is the term used in Frellesvig's 2010 _A History of the Japanese
Language_ to describe the formation of _-kar-_ (p.40):

> Another similar set of forms are those where the existential verb _ar-_
> seemingly **fuses** with a preceding grammatical monosyllabic morpheme: the
> periphrastic stative _-te-ar-_ giving _-tar-_ , the extended negative
> _-(a)zu-ar-_ giving _-(a)zar-_ , and the extended adjectival copula **_-ku-
> ar_ giving _-kar-_**. In these cases, however, _ar-_ must be thought to
> **fuse** with the full inflected form, not just the suffix: _kakite-ar-_ ⇒
> _kakitar-_ , _kakazu-ar-_ ⇒ _kakazar-_ , _akaku-ar-_ ⇒ _akakar-_. **In OJ
> all such forms were simple phonological fusions (3.4.2.1.2), but in EMJ they
> were reanalysed to give rise to the morphemes _-tar-, -zar-_ , and _-kar-_
> (8.2.1)**.

So we could use this term in English, but **fusion** doesn't describe an
accompanying change in meaning, only a change in form. Searching online for
熟合, we find people often talk about the process in terms of an accompanying
change in meaning. For example, [this blog
post](http://yeemar.seesaa.net/article/13540788.html):

> 「 **複数のことばが熟合して1つになるとき、意味の変化が起こる**
> 」という説明はひとことですみます。でも、「川の魚」と「川魚」など、具体的な事例でどのようにその変化が起こっているかを考えるのは、簡単ではないし、それだけにまた、面白いのです。

Or [another similar example](http://www.asahi-
net.or.jp/%7EQM4H-IIM/k021002.htm):

> この問題は、 **語と語の熟合の度合いの問題** と捉えたほうがよいかもしれません。たとえば、
> **「北の風」ということばが熟して「北風」となると、意味が変わります**
> 。「北の風」は夏でも北から吹いてくれば「北の風」ですが、「北風」は冷たさを伴った冬の風です。「青い空」が「青空」の形に熟することによって意味が変わったと考えれば、今まで試みたような検討では、必ずしも形容詞と名詞の違いを見たことにはなりません。

So I think your guess "combine, merge" is pretty close, but 熟合 may also imply
an accompanying change in meaning.




This is a relatively rare word! It has only one result in
[BCCWJ](http://www.kotonoha.gr.jp/shonagon/), and I couldn't find a definition
for it in any of the seven monolingual dictionaries I checked. However, I
_did_ find it mentioned in the definition for 熟す in 明鏡国語辞典, where it's given
as a synonym:

> ⑤ **ことばとことばが分かちがたく結びついて、熟語や慣用的な言い回しを作る。熟合{じゅくごう}する。**
> また、新奇だったことばが一般に行われるようになる。
>
> 「『綺語』は『狂言綺語』と熟して使うことが多い」  
>  「いまだ表現が熟さない(=こなれない)」
>
> =熟する

Here's my translation of the relevant passage:

> **To put two words together inseparably, forming an idiomatic word or
> expression.** Or, for a new word to become widely used.

As you can see, 熟合 is related to 熟す(る) and to 熟語／熟字, words I bet you're more
familiar with. I think Eiríkr Útlendi's gloss of **idiomatization** captures
this idea relatively well. It expresses that the combination is **non-
compositional** , which is to say, the meaning may not be predictable from the
pieces that were put together.

A related English term is
[**lexicalization**](http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Lexicalization),
where a new lexical item is formed, requiring its own dictionary entry because
its meaning can't be synchronically derived from a simple combination of other
lexical items. For example, English [_traffic
light_](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/traffic-
light) is clearly the combination of _traffic_ and _light_ , but it needs its
own dictionary entry because _" A set of automatically operated colored
lights, typically red, amber, and green, for controlling traffic at road
junctions and crosswalks"_ isn't something you can predict from those two
words alone.

However, in this particular example we're talking about a morphological
structure rather than a lexical item. And in this case,
[**morphologization**](http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Morphologization)
may be more appropriate:

> In morphologization "[P]honological processes and syntactic structures [...]
> become properly an aspect of morphological, rather than phonological or
> syntactic, organization" (Fox 1995: 102). As pointed out in the previous
> quote the two sources morphologizied structures can originate from are the
> phonological and the syntactic domain of grammar. Those two types of
> morphologization have also been labeled dephonologization and
> desyntactization respectively (Joseph 2003: 473).

Another related term is **fusion** , the combination of two forms into one.
This is the term used in Frellesvig's 2010 _A History of the Japanese
Language_ to describe the formation of _-kar-_ (p.40):

> Another similar set of forms are those where the existential verb _ar-_
> seemingly **fuses** with a preceding grammatical monosyllabic morpheme: the
> periphrastic stative _-te-ar-_ giving _-tar-_ , the extended negative
> _-(a)zu-ar-_ giving _-(a)zar-_ , and the extended adjectival copula **_-ku-
> ar_ giving _-kar-_**. In these cases, however, _ar-_ must be thought to
> **fuse** with the full inflected form, not just the suffix: _kakite-ar-_ ⇒
> _kakitar-_ , _kakazu-ar-_ ⇒ _kakazar-_ , _akaku-ar-_ ⇒ _akakar-_. **In OJ
> all such forms were simple phonological fusions (3.4.2.1.2), but in EMJ they
> were reanalysed to give rise to the morphemes _-tar-, -zar-_ , and _-kar-_
> (8.2.1)**.

So we could use this term in English, but **fusion** doesn't describe an
accompanying change in meaning, only a change in form. Searching online for
熟合, we find people often talk about the process in terms of an accompanying
change in meaning. For example, [this blog
post](http://yeemar.seesaa.net/article/13540788.html):

> 「 **複数のことばが熟合して1つになるとき、意味の変化が起こる**
> 」という説明はひとことですみます。でも、「川の魚」と「川魚」など、具体的な事例でどのようにその変化が起こっているかを考えるのは、簡単ではないし、それだけにまた、面白いのです。

Or [another similar example](http://www.asahi-
net.or.jp/%7EQM4H-IIM/k021002.htm):

> この問題は、 **語と語の熟合の度合いの問題** と捉えたほうがよいかもしれません。たとえば、
> **「北の風」ということばが熟して「北風」となると、意味が変わります**
> 。「北の風」は夏でも北から吹いてくれば「北の風」ですが、「北風」は冷たさを伴った冬の風です。「青い空」が「青空」の形に熟することによって意味が変わったと考えれば、今まで試みたような検討では、必ずしも形容詞と名詞の違いを見たことにはなりません。

So I think your guess "combine, merge" is pretty close, but 熟合 may also imply
an accompanying change in meaning.

