THE CLASSIFICATION OF OLD JAPANESE ADJECTIVES 43. Marshall unger yoko T88 Tomita I, Introduction ‘the purpose of this study is to classify the adjectives of O18 Japanese (i.e. Japanese of the eighth century) according to textual evi- ence, and to investigate how this classification elucidates the origins of adjective inflection in Japanese, It is extremely important to analyse the textual evidence in detail before bringing other, less direct kinds of ‘evidence into the picture because the morphological interpretation of OJ pdjectives has major implications for the comparison of Japanese with other Languages. Some scholars believe that at least some elements of adjective morphology were inherited from earlier languages; others regard adjective inflection as a relatively young phenomenon, and suspect that proto- Japanese may have been similar to Korean, in which there are only slight @ifferences between verbal and adjective inflection ‘the ceitique of Martin 1967 in Street 1978:223-224 illustrates the ‘eed for a careful lock at OJ adjectives. Martin points out that the so- called attributive and predicative allonorphs of Olé Japanese adjectives {the rentaike! and chiehike’ respectively) were not always used consis- tently: sonetines 4 predicative form is found modifying a noun or noun phrase. [martin] cites two authorities for this claim, The second, Kokugo-gakkai 1955.164 is apparently a lapaus since ‘the page in question shows nothing relevant to the question. (A check shows that this is not true—JMJ.) The other authority, Kindaichi 1962.1126, is a table summarizing the OJ ‘adjective paradigm, and it does indeod sugyest something slong the Lines of Martin's surprising remark; for conclusive [+ predicative] it Lists ef, but also admits sporadic forms in -ki for the MJ [= Middle Jepanese} of the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, But it clearly gives -2i as the conclusive form for 03 anf for Heian, For ateributive, this table gives “ki as the form for QJ as well as for Heian and Kamakura, but also admits forms in -ré for OJ--and this is apparently the ‘source for Martin's statement, Kindsichi's table is a simple summary; it merely lists the forms, with no citations or examples. What 4id Kindaichi have in mind when he aid this? 5. mace over is AaclatePrfemor of Sepneee at tha University Heit, rn, woe ‘Wko 1t6 Tomita earned ber Moke in 1979. ae 32Unger and Tomita: old Japanese adjectives Apparently the answer is to be found in Yamada 1954.119~ 20, the standard monograph on 0J morphology and gramnar. ‘There the author brings together examples of noun composition Anvolving adjectives (of the eiratama ‘white jewel’ type already noted above), and adds that, in the case of secondary adjectives (the ‘otku-type' of the Japanese grammarians), it is easy to make the error of supposing that a conclusive in yi has been used as an attributive because these adjectives have a ~ei already in place on the stem-form in which they fenter into composition. Thus, although OJ toFo ‘distant’ is a primary adjective, it also appears reduplicated in another adjective that happens to be a secondary adjective, apparently meaning the same thing, tdPotdFo-} end when this secondary ‘adjective appears in nominal composition, it will have its ~ei- in place; the example Yamada cites is toFotofoeikiet Where it is in composition with a place-name. As Yamada puts it, such formations have given rise to many misunderstandings, ard people sonetimes misinterpret them as instances of @ conclusive ~ei misused as an attribotive; but they are not. Kindaichi, and following him Martin, have been s0 misled. Further important evidence in the same general Airection is also provided in Yamada 1954,116, where he shows hhow the omission out of metrical considerations—of markers of kakart mieubt (igcontinsous correlation in syntax,’ Miller 1967.353) has led to passages in the OJ texts in which it is possible, but erroneous, to assune that the attributive “ki is ‘being used in place of, or as an equivalent for, the conclu- sive ei. Again, Yamada shows how the misunderstanding ‘enbodied in Kindaichi's table, and carried over into Martin's theories for the origins of these adjective morphemes, ori~ ‘ginally arose within the modern Japanese grarmatical tradi~ ‘tion, We nead not concem ourselves with this misunderstan- ‘ding any longer, nor should it inhibit us in our search for Altaic sources for these important and distinctive features of (03 morphology. Street's aim (216) is to support the theory of Murayama (1957130) "ve that the -ki attributive morpheme of the OJ adjective directly reflects the pA [= proto-Altaic] *-ki found in the Tungus genitive .. and 4 adjectival formations in Turkic and Mongolian," an idea "picked up and expanded” by Miller (1971:22-24). If, on the basis of independent evi~ ence, one can conclude that there is no -ki attribotive suffix for adjec~ tives in proto~Jepanese, not only would such a theory be untenable, but it ‘might also prove somewhat embarrassing to those who hed advanced it confi~ dently as an argument for a Japanese/Altaic relationship. This probably sccounts for the rather shrill tone of Street's comments. ‘The point of contention is really quite simple, In O18 Japanese, one finds two adjective conjogations (iatewé) as illustrated in Table 1. (ins Popers in East Asian Languages 1 (1983) this paper the so-called kl-oteu distinctions of 01d Japanese phonology are Indicated with subscripts attached to the relevant syllables, 4d is 1s oteu is 2; no subscript means either that a syllable is not one for which #S-oteu distinctions exist, or that, in the word cited, the syllable is never written in such a way that its kB-otau value can be determined.) As can be easily seen, the roots of #kilatype adjectives ani the shiighike! of $11 adjectives are morphologicelly the same: sone string of syllables followed by -ei. When an adjective is not attested in an adequate variety of forms or contexts, this can make it difficult to say exactly which kind of adjective it is and in what form it sppears. Further indeterminacies result from the difficulties of interpreting OF orthography in generol. ‘thus, in order to refute the hypothesis that what appears to be a predica- tive form of a particular adjective in a particular context is actually an old attributive, it does not euffice to say that the form in question might be something else; one must show that it cannot be an attributive, a task vinich, if possible at all, may require bringing into consideration other instances of the same adjective. table 1. Cconjugations & Key Forms of O14 Japanese Adjectives factatays — shilarkateys Root (gohan) waa reat Continuative Gen'ySked ——takaka soresthea Conclusive (shtshiked) takasi resi Atteibutive (nentaiked) ‘eakaki vresikty vores: 1 Teenited (gondttionel forms) in ~/keyte/ are generally acknowledged to be ‘Gacived team rentathet + /aze/, the taenket of the verb art ‘exist. 12, n aecondary conjugation in ~hart < nen'yOket + art exiets side by side With the primary conjugation! forms, 3. Tare are no meirettet (imperatives) 28 for verbs, 44 coctain rarely attested forns in ke are sometines said to be mézenket ‘Gogetive/presuapeive forms). But the lack of genuine misanket appesre tow of the asiient characteristica that separate adjectives fram verbe Tn Jepanese, and even in 01d Japanese, the mizenkei allonorgh for adjec~ tives In alscot always baad on the secondary conjugation in -hartUnger and Tanita: 01d Japanese adjectives ‘The claim of Keino (1976:7) that the /meygusi/ in Man'y6shG poem 800 is 2 chile adjective—the traditional theory (te‘seteu) holds that it is a ka adjective--illustrates the difficulties involved. Keino reasons that, ‘since the following word, /atukusi/, is also an adjective, /mezausi/ is part of a coordinate compound; hence, it must be in its root form, not in the ehlehtkei In Masamune's concordance (1974), three other instances are given, viz. Man'y6and poems 3560, 3978, and 4106. In the first of th Masamune reads /me,guku/ but the character he takes as /me,q/ could 3180 bbe read /me,gusi/; 0 the interpretation of this instance is moot. On the ‘other hand, the remaining two examples show the unambiguously written form ‘oeygusi/ used in en atteibutive function, once before the noun /utusemy/ ‘cleada', and once before the particle /mo/. Are these instances of archaic attributives of @ ku adjective or roots of a ehiku adjective, presumably both Keino and Street would insist? Whichever side one takes, it is obvious that any adequate explanation of the evidence will neces- sarily have to go beyond Old Japanese grammar as e synchronic system and ‘take diachronic grammatical changes into account. in the kokugogaki Literature, this problem of determining morpho- logical types is often stated in a misleadingly general way: which came first, the Ja- or ohil-kateuyS paradign? See, for example, Ono 19593280, where it is asserted that the fu adjectives precede the shiku variety, and Kiyose 1971, in which it is mainteined that both paradigms are equally ‘ancient. Unless one first has a clear view of the functions of the various ‘adjectival allonorphs, such speculations are prenature. 11, Principles for Classifying Adjectives In this study, four criteria are used to classify Old Japanese adjec- tives, ‘The first is attestation of forns other than the shfiskiket: if the syllable /si/ occurs before the desinence, the adjective should be clas~ sified as shtiuketewS according to this criterion. In fect, only 198 (64.21) of the 308 adjectives collected are attested in man'ydgana in such a way that this sinple criterion can be applied. ‘The second criterion is conparative: if an adjective is not attested in “oblique” forms in man'yScana that clarify its conjugation in old Japanese, and if there are cognates in other dialects, then egreement among those dialects makes it likely that the conjugation was the same in 1d Jepenese as well. Presumably, this is the reasoning applied by Japanese ‘scholars when in doubt; therefore, we have relied on the conjugation desig~ nations in Omodaka 1967 when applying this criterion. ‘A third method for classifying adjectives was suggested by Sakurai (1962). In the Sermyd (imperial edicts) ané Horito (Shint6 prayers), verb ‘and adjective inflections and other notes are written in half-size charsc ‘ters in double-colunn format within the principal columns of text. Accor ing to Sakurai, we can tell whether or not the authors of these decunents. took the /-si(-}/ in adjective allonorphs as part of the root by examining the character size used to write that /-si(-)/ in _man'ydgana. & small character indicates lu-katew2 and a large one shiiu-katawy’.36 Papers in Fast Asian Languages (1983) Finally, there is Keino's claim that, in an adjective-noun compounds the sajective must be construed as a root (gohan). Though it is easy te Goeee that a ef-enAing form in such a position should not be interprets! os sare johitet, ie would be rash to conclude that it could not be an old Setributive, aleo, it is no easy task to distinguish between adjective foun compounds and noun phrases in which en adjective modifies a head-noun. Tor consistency, we have followed Omadaka 1967 when in doubt. ‘h farther problem with Keino's approach is that the evidence can be contradictory. Yor instance, /umahito/ ‘beautiful people’ and ‘Jonasiwchama/ *beautifol beech’ presumably botn incorporate the adjective ‘Jamasi/ ‘fine, lovely’. Keino merely says that these are “rydkateugo” oF ‘aouble-conjugetion words', end thus seems to evade the issue rather than ‘edaress it. on the other hand, such doublets may be particularly important fh shedding Light on the earliest level of Jepenese adjective morphology. IIL, Summary of the Data Tables in order to collect as many valid examples as possible and for pur- poses of double-checking, three principal sources were consulted: Oncdeks 3967, Masamune 1974, and Igarashi 1969, In collecting examples, priority was placed on locating allomorphs other than the shishtket oblique" forms) and on attestations in Man'ydehi and Serméy other texts were con sulted only if relevant allonorphs could not be found in these two texts. Adjectives were first divided into far, sktbi- and indeterminate classes on this basis using the first two criteria, All Ma'ySshi and SemyS examples were then checked against the original texts. Table 2 shows the results of this phase of the study. When one or more “oblique” snoms are attested in mot'y6-gana, on exanple 18 given and the source 18 Stead; Mon'ydehSl and Sermyd axe referred to whenever possible Tf no such form is krown to exist, the akshitet is given indented; further informa ton on these items can be found in omodake 1967 or, in the rare instance fn which they are missing in that work, in Igarashi 1969. Teens in this thei are in the order they would have if written in kana, i.e, so-called tues order, In the case of the syllable /yo/, subscripts have been given fo parentheses to indicate Ké-oteu distinctions because there is reason £9 doubt that there were such distinctions for this syllable during the 6th ‘century (Lange 1973). ‘As already remarked, it was difficult to apply Keinc's criterion because the evidence tended to be scant ani sonetines contradictory. |The tame ean be said of Sakurai's criterion if one discounts the inconsistent Geages in the Sermy6, there are so few ei-ending adjectival forns remaining what it seems unwise to draw any conclusions sbout the conjugation of particular adjectives on the basis of the attestations there, Indeed, the Paty conclusion which appears to be justified is that, if Keino and Sakura rice Correctly identified normative rules of Old Japanese grammar and writing practice, then the adjectives paredigns mist have been somewhat Gratable. To that extent, this study tends to confirm Martin's viewunger and Tanita: Old Japanese adjectives ° ‘put the most stcilking result is surely the discovery that, within the Limitations under which we are working, more than one-third of all the Rttested adjectives cannot be cited in a form which unanbiquowsly indicates their conjugational status in Old Japanese, In particular the [ropporozposi/ which Street discusses is indeterminate, table 2 Kojiki Man' ysh0 wWihon shoki senmy® Adjective Gtoas Leow akakiy sincere m 4465 akarakegmiy reddish K IT OJin, Yakehae hime akara: pitiful [Ry8iki gives Rundoku, akarasiki-) aki rakegkiy clear M4466 i faint indifferent alive evil M3737 warn, atarasikiy dear 3247 adikinasi i11-mannered atuni: thick, deep 4094 at hot adukiynake of no value 4.2582 amakiy sueet RyBiki amanekiy pbiguitous —-Ry@iKi curious 4 4075 rough M3688 new M 4106 arigatasil rare M a01l arigaposikiy enduring Kinkafe kySenke awokiy bive KT Okuninusi no mikoto tkasi vigorous iieiydukusikabe depressing 4421. (Azuma) ikijdopporezsi vexing ieagi;yosi pore isasakezsi Litele isawosiku. brave nihon kéki, Enryake TT foukasi wicked36 Adjective iso,simiy staked itapasike; re iteburasi Aeisiruky, itisiroy ky Seukusikiy ieatusikiy itokenasi itogpasi itogposimiy ibukesimi; ibusemiy syasikiy iranake, ku iroggupasi ke, ku usirokarusi usukiy utagapasi utadano, si vdipayakiy utukusike, wtusikey utunasi vyauyasikeymo wyanasi vraganasikiy vragupasi vrago;pizsimi, uragoyposikey rane, sikiy wramotoznaku vurayamasi prawakemiy, urupasikiy wresike uretakiy egatakiy Papers in Fast Asian Longusges 1 (1983) Gioee ailligent painful painful marked marked dignified 2vigorous young aisagrecble unbearable doubtful depressing lowly regrettable beautiful disgusting carefree indifferent questionable delightfol dear real unfomiliar splendid exulting 1-mannered i11-mannered sad beautfiul Longing tong regrettable anxious jealous young beautiful Joyous envious hard to get {Wot listed in omodaka 1967.) ‘okokosi ogi roynakiy immense Locus 513 mM 4307 M886 Kaky® hyOshikh 3935 994 Norito Stone daiden-sai 532 yaad 4 3752 Kinkafo ay M3584 3752 3993 Seinei, Woke no mikoto 794 3495 3574 all 4284 1507 3573Adjootive osokiy odapizsimiy otodakasi onazikiy opokiy ‘opoposike ‘opotukar omugasis ‘omosi omosiroykiy {omodaka 1967 kapoyoc2) kia kamasi wayasuk4y, wayumy karakiy Unger and Tomita: odorozodore2sikiy femopijgurusi regrettable omoposikiy desirable 4 3962 oyazi e oyosi aged wakaraps inseparable kagupasikty fragrant ya37l waguroy ki, jet black mM 804 asikoy ki august m 4480 kasimasi noisy Tonclassified but surmised to be shiky in Onodaka 1967+) wasoyke2k iy, faint M4192 katake firm K If YOryaku, Mie no uneme katasi difficult probably one and the same.] katazikeznami katan [unclassi ‘1d Japanese adjectives 9 Gioee Louw late Wamybsy6 cain ssi noisy pompous 5 56 same mM 4076 much M3759 gloomy, sad M884, 3699 unclear joyous us_ky6enka heavy enjoyable y 3452 heavy 8 25 Igarashi 1969 calls it shtiu.) treats these as different words, but they are august 852 fileny wicked dear 4 3373 good-looking 3422 noisy fied put surmised to be shila in Onodaka 1967.) easy 4 4011 itchy M 2809 ity, painful M 3652o Adjective karusi kikiyosi iy tanakiy, kiposi kijrapasi Papers in East Asian Languages 1 (1983) Gtoee Loowe Light pleasant to hear fileny $43 want to wear 2Elickering [bclassified but surmised to be ehiky in Onodaka 1967-1 kip kiprasi khyyocay iy kosasi kusabukasi kasi kususimiy kusubasikiy, wudakuds kupasiki wupusike kumakumasikeiy koyasikiy korasi korusikiy, kuruposi [omodeke 1967 t 1969 takes it a waroykiy kegarapasi key sikiy wegnagakiy keyakesi Txd-oteu value kogko2rozitamiy kopko,ro,ganasi koko2r0guki, {< kokoro + kus: okorogurus kokorokopis: kopko2ro2naky ko2k02r02y6 kogaozsimiy ogdakaku kop titamiy, kogtogtakari kototosi koptognaku koppaku epright clear 4 3900 smelly grassy mysterious mysterious M4125 rare, unusual 4 4211 troublesome exquisite Shinsenjiky® 396-7-5 rev. Longing M4345 (Azuma) deep and dark Izumo fudoki regrettable M3939 dark painful M3969 agonizing akes this as the ren'ySkei of a verb; Igarashi is the shidehikei of a ahiky adjective.) black M804 dirty strange 43775 long past 3957 aifferent ephemeral M885 grave, serious $7 of the /ki/ questioned in Omodaka 1967-1] painful my 3542 ka touching mM 3639 bored 1450 bby rendaku according to Omodaka 1967-1 i anxious 4 Longing emotionless 3463 si comfortable rough au (trees) tall 4209 annoying 116 annoying 3482 noisy peaceful 534 strong Hokke-ky® gisoUnger and Tomita: Adjootive Gtoaa koypigsikiy kopitasi ko, pusiken ko, posikiy sokasixa sagasiku saganasi sakiy dear enging beloved beloved steep not good narrow chaste clever fer lonesome Lonesome many cold refreshing fintny 8 to whether sadasi satosi sike,sikiy (There is some doubt 1r02/+1 sigekiy sikogmezkiy sitagataku aitagokoroyosi sitasi lush ugly solid, firm comfortable familiar joyful quiet astringent reluctant obvious white pore refreshing melancholic few cool hopeless quick tall happy brave enough destitute sitawemasi sidukezsi yokanaky. sukunaku suzusikiy subegnakiy sumuyakegku sebami; takako tagi; tagi; sike takunasike takeykiy tasikegku tasinasi tatapasiku tadasikiy 014 Japanese adjectives Loow M3987 M4419 (Azuma) Mand RySiki T Go! K IT Nintoku, Medori no Kimi Worito hirose daiki-sai 3426 3734 3962 4116 3691 3234 IT ginma, Isukeyori hime the penult syllable is /si/ oF 3396 T Jindai, tzanagi no mikoto 11 YGryaku, Mie no uneme 4019 1 Okunisuni no mikoto 4015 3743 4308 392 3748 3507 3675, 11 Keik®, Yamato takeru Shinsenjiky8 757-12-17 obv. M4331 M 4094 M3324 Shingenjiky® 172-3-11 obv.6 Adjeotive taduganakiy tadutadusi tadopomiy, tanoymosik tanoy simi tapast tapi; rakegku taputo, ko tikaky tipi sakdy, Popers in Fast Asian Languages 1 (1983) Gtose tocua uncertain ” helpless far joyfur dependable Lewd peaceful august easily tired weak near m 3768 small Shinsenjiky® 454~7-34 rev. { Hooteu value of /pi/ questioned in Omodaka 1967.) tukarasike tutanasi tudaki {Deduced on the tubapirekey ke ‘euyo (2) ko eorake; ko oki topki;ziku toppokiy, toposirogsi toppotezposi topponagakiy topmosikiy, nagake naganagasi aki; nagusike nagupasi natukasiku naposi nanasi namidagumasi nameky nayamasike, nikuku nikosi niguroykiy, nitasiki; nipasike tire $45 inferior 2elumsy Haris fadoki basis of a folk etymology.) peaceful uncertain knowledgeable Rydiki 17-5 strong $45 ervel 4 397 sharp RyBiki 1.5 eternal M26 far M3453 great very far distant M3356 poor M4125 Long M4484 very long no 4 446 calm ‘Tango fudoki famed dear 4 3978 straight fresh touching unceremonious 29 seductive © 3587 (Azuma) Ma K 11 Ojin, Yakapae hime Izumo fudoki 4389Unger and Tanita: Old Japanese adjectives 3 Adjeotive nipisi nuruky negepasi netake, ku pagesi pasikiy padukasi panapadasi parukezsi payakiy pisasikiy pitosi pinepinesi Piyrogmy pokakiy putosi purukiy pokasiki; posikiy pososi ponokurasi maganasikiy (Missing in Omodaka makuposikiy magupasi masasikiy madasimiy, matikaky madusi matozpoku maneko mi, gaposike miyzikakiy misusi midarakapasike midarikapasi nitunasi mijnikusi miyposi magasiku mutumasimiy munasikiy mezgusi [ome + kusi by oto Loous tepid 3875 hopeful envious m 4092 vigorous beloved M474 embarrassing intense distant quick 4023 Long-continued M 3600 2 ola wide 4 3434 deep M 4aon thick old 4 4077 different Kegonky® ongi desirable 800 thin dark aad 4413 1967; Masamune 1974 lists it unclassified.) want to M285 beautiful clear, sure shinsenjiky6 172-3-11 rev. sure Kegon-ky® ongi perfect M3742 too early M4207 near M3524 3441 frequent M207 Longing to see M 4111 short M3744 noisy untidy ny8 no shdge (Séni) untidy untalented ugly longing to satisfactory M 4105 familiar Kinkafu vain, empty 4 793 beloved rendaku according to Omodaka 1967.)6 Popers in Rast Asian Languages 1 (1983) Adjective medasikari mezdvrasiki; ‘monoganasi monokopisi morogsi yagatake [Missing in Omodaka yasasini; yasukiy yasurakezku yapasi yapiysasi yokurinasi yotakegki, yoyusikiy yoramiy yurusi yuruposi yekiy yoray ka yoy east Imy6gishd gives the yorokobasikiy Gloss adorable lovable [trees] dens: Longing Lonesome fragile hard 1967; Igarashi shy peaceful peaceful hungry stingy sudden ample lenient lenient lenient good) good, fine suitable Locus Bussokuseki-uta M2651 m 185, K IT YOryaku, Mie no uneme 1969 calls it mu.1 Mase M 2760 Norito daiden-sai m 4360 4475 K IT Seinei, Woke no mikoto NS Tenchi 10 M1550, 3412 faoidoiu "yorasiki".] delightful (Not Listed in Omodaka 1967.) yorokobosi yoprozsikiy youast kaki wakiwakist wabisi woreziku wiyanakiy, wemapasikiy wosawosasi wosikiy wodinami, womenasi wowosi delightful suitable weak young clear lonesome impolite Likable very young excellent regrettable inferior ‘vague gallant S61 4315 3962 4280 ‘ 4086 4505 TT Seinei, Hoke no mikotoLnger and Tanita: old Japanese adjectives: ‘BrBLTccRAeWY Fukuda Youhisuke. 1957. "Genshi Nihongo to bunp8.* Hthon bund isa 3 = ungishi. Tky6: Meiji shoin, gareshi Jintichi, 1969, d0dat Kmazutat (iter. nOhy6: shBoakkon, Kasuga Kazvo, 1974. "KeiySshi no hattatsu." — Hinahibeton mthontunp6 idsa 4. Téxyée Meiji shoin. Kawabata Yoshiaki, 1977. "Keiy6shi no katsuy’." Kokugo Foladuor 46:2, Keino Masaji. 1976. KeiySehi no Konkyd TOhyS: Kesama 26sho. Kindaichi Kyésuke, 1958, Netkat kogo (revised edition). Tokyé: Sanseidd. Kiyose Gisaburé. 1971. “Renketsu shiin to renketsu boin to: Nihongo Cabshi mukatsvy6-ron” Kolugopaku 86,56-42 (13-27). okugo-gakkai. 1955. Kolugogalu Jiton tekyt: Teky8aé. Lange, Roland A. 1973. the Phonology of Bighth Century Japanese: | a "Heconatruction Beaed upon Written Reaorde, Tékyé: Sophia University Press. Martin, Sanvel E. 1967. "On the Accent of Japanese Adjectives." Language 43:1,266-277. Masamune Atsuo. 1974. Man'ySehif edeakuin tangohen, TBkyé: Heibonshe, Millet, Roy Andrew, 1967. The Japanese Language, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. anceseonn. 1971. Japanese and the Other Altate Languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Murayama Shichir8, 1957. Studia Altatoa, wakateoka Bijiz6. 1927. Sermy6 = Kosho Wihon bungaku tatket 1, Téky6t Kokumin tosho. cwcdaka Hisataka, com, 1967. Jidatbeteu kolugo daijiten JOdathen, skye: sanseid6. Ono Susumu, 1959, "Wihongo: rekishi" = 262-286 in Ichikawa Sanki & Hattori Shic8, eds., Sekai gengo gaiveteu 2, TEky6: Kenkyisha Sakakura Atsuyoshi. 1966, GokBect no Kenly. Tékyé: Iwanami shoten, Sexurai Shigeharu. 1962. "Kodai Nihongo no keiy6shi no k626." Kolaugo Hokudbun 33.6 (August. Street, John. 1978. Altace Blonents in Old Japanese, Part 2 (Draft Version). Madison, Wisconsin: John Street. ‘yamada Yoshio. 1954, Nana-chd bunpdoht. Tékyte HBburkan.