![[No-sword]](http://no-sword.jp/images/site/no-sword_banner.jpg)
CJ verbs, part 2
A refinement of the theory based on Ronald@IDR's comments:
A CJ verb consists of stem + ending. There are three main types of verbs:
- C-type verbs are consonant-stem (sC) (e.g. omoh.u).
- V-type verbs are vowel stem (sV) (e.g. mi.ru, ke.ru).
- D-type verbs have a consonant stem (sC) and a vowel stem (sV) (e.g. sug.u/sugi, at.u/ate) The vowel stem is used whenever "available" (usually for MZ, RY and MR) and the consonant stem otherwise, but for some reason the RT and IZ consonant stems always take the post-vowel allomorphs.
| D-type stem + ending | verb form | ending (post-C allomorph) | ending (post-V allomorph) | Consonant cluster handling (if necessary) |
| sV + e(V) | MZ | a | 0 | - |
| sV + e(V) | RY | i | 0 | - |
| sC + e(C) | SS | u | ru | - |
| sC + e(V) | RT | u | ru | z.r → n C.rV → C.u.rV |
| sC + e(V) | IZ | e | re | z.r → n C.rV → C.u.rV |
| sV + e(V) | MR | e | yo | - |
Notice that I've added "z.r → n" to go with "C.rV → C.u.rV". This lets me claim the extremely common negative auxiliary verb ず as a 100% regular D-type verb with the stems z/zu. (This is also why I'm still dubious that the .u. in C.u.rV is the SS form u -- "z.r → n" makes sense to me as a sound change, but "zu.r → n" doesn't, and nor is any sound change even required since it's not a consonant cluster in the first place.)
How we handle exceptions:
- aru-type verbs = C-type verbs, except the SS form is replaced (in its entirety) with the RY form. (I call this variant "C(r)-type".)
- su and ku = D-type verbs, except that sV is not available for the RY form. (D(s/k)-type.)
- sinu and its ilk = D-type verbs, except that sV is not available anywhere. (Post-vowel ending allomorphs are still used for IZ and RT, though.) (D(n)-type.)
| FORM ↓/ verb type → | Regular D-type | D(se/ko)-type (s/k) | D(n)-type (sinu et al) |
| MZ | sV + e(V) | sV + e(V) | sC + e(C) |
| RY | sV + e(V) | sC + e(C) | sC + e(C) |
| SS | sC + e(C) | sC + e(C) | sC + e(C) |
| RT | sC + e(V) | sC + e(V) | sC + e(V) |
| IZ | sC + e(V) | sC + e(V) | sC + e(V) |
| MR | sV + e(V) | sV + e(V) | sC + e(C) |
(Remembering, of course, to apply "z.r → n" and "C.rV → C.u.rV" to the RT and IZ rows.)
Armed with C-type, C(r)-type, D-type, D(s/k)-type, D(n)-type, we can now classify the vast majority of CJ's auxiliary verb system. In fact, I believe we can classify all of it. (Interestingly, none of them are V-type.)
First, the most normal ones. These behave like regular verbs and attach to entire verb forms (stem + ending).
| Traditional name | Type | Stem/s | Attaches to... | Notes |
| む | C | m | MZ | - |
| むず | D(s/k) | mu.z / 0 | MZ | or "nz". む＋す with rendaku. Has no sV since there is no place it would be used |
| らむ | C | ra.m | SS | same m? |
| けむ | C | ke.m | RY | same m? same k(e) as keri below?? |
| けり | C(r) | k.er | RY | k + り (see next table)? |
| しむ | D | sim / sime | MZ | - |
| ず | D | z / zu | MZ | has partly merged with a parallel form derived from z.ar(u) |
| つ（完了） | D | t / te | RY | - |
| たり（完了） | C(r) | t.ar | RY | same t as つ（完了） |
| ぬ（完了） | D(n) | n | RY | - |
| めり | C(r) | mer | SS | from "見あり", I hear |
Next, the ones that attach to stems alone, without an intervening ending. These all prefer to attach to an sV, but will settle for an sC if nothing else is available.
| Traditional name | Type | post-sC stem/s | post-sV stem/s |
| る／らる | D | ar / are | rar / rare |
| す／さす | D | as / ase | sas / sase |
| り（完了） | C(r) | er | r |
Then there some that conjugate like adjectives (BECAUSE THEY ARE. YEAH, I WENT THERE): たし、べし、ごとし (short-stem), まじ、まほし (long-stem).
Finally, there are a few weird ones belonging to a special group of conjugations I like to call X. The main feature of X is a lack of variation.
| Form ↓ / Aux → | らし、じ (XC-type) | まし(XD-type) | き（過去) (XD(k)-type) |
| MZ | - | mase or mas.ika | se |
| RY | - | - | - |
| SS | ras.i | mas.i | k.i |
| RT | ras.i | mas.i | s.i |
| IZ | ras.i | mas.ika | s.ika |
| MR | - | - |
I'm not even going to bother dealing with the various naris and taris. They're all C(r) with optional particle-usage instead of RY forms, because they're made of those particles + ari, basically. Not difficult.
New issues:
- Can we simplify all those auxes made of k, m, r and t?
- Does it matter that this setup doesn't let us predict where certain forms will be missing? Can we let semantics handle that? (E.g. there is no imperative form of zu, but there is a z.are. Do we need to know this?)
- What's up with those X forms? Are they perhaps hideously deformed adjectives? How can they not have a RY form when RY is the stablest, most enduring form in the entire system?
Azuma:
Wow, o-tsukare. I want to think about what you have here before commenting in too much detail, but two thoughts:
One, as for the missing RY, which I emphatically agree with you is the center of the verb system, not the SS/dictionary form. I think it's a matter of usage. Because masi almost always comes at the end of its verbal phrase, we never get a RYK. The existence of an IZK is probably due to kakari-josi, similarly the SSK. I think we only have a MZK because of the frequency of "maseba, masikaba". I bet there aren't any "mashikazu" for example. I think they'd use "ji" instead.
As for rashi and ki, I'm not as sure. We know rashi proved haler than some of the big kids in the end (*ahem* keri *ahem*) for all its defectiveness, so why not at least a MZK for a negative, or a RYK for a past tense? My best guess is the fact that it sticks to the SSK shows it mostly occured at the end of its verb phrase, allowing no further. nari(hearsay), meri, and ramu, of similar meaning are all the same, and even the kemu that takes the RYK is missing its MZK and RYK. Actually, now that I look at it, all the auxiliaries that are a rainbow of variation on だろう are missing the same two forms, mu and ji as well. It makes sense. だろう comes after everything else in modern Japanese, too, negative, positive, what have you.
I just don't know why ki is screwed up. I think the technical reason is the same--it comes last except in a few select circumstances (ba, do). But why it should be so different than the other past-tense auxiliaries is a mystery to me. Perhaps its strange conjugation hints at an older origin, and somewhere in its history lies the answer.
Second ( long comment!): On a more general level, I don't feel so comfortable with your sequencing rules and exceptions. They don't seem wrong to me, but somehow they don't seem neat. But all the time you spent on it for the three or four of us who care (thanks!) deserves a thoughtful and detailed response, so more later.