Talk:恥ずかしい

Derivation -- the か does not seem to be the -na adjective-forming suffix

@Chuterix, see also Reconstruction_talk:Proto-Japonic/pantuy. Other -shii adjectives formed from -na adjective-forming suffix か seem to show textual evidence for both forms, but I can find no evidence for any such adjective はじか or はずか. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Phonological development

@Chuterix, in your recent edit, you added a long train of phonological developments. I think this is a mistake on a few levels.

• This level of detail is overwhelming, and not really germane to the development of the word.
• We must consider the relative timing of the various sound shifts.
  • If the JA article section about は行#音韻史 is correct, the /p/ → /f/ (or rather [ɸ]) sound shift was already in place during the Nara period.
  • If the JA article section about イ音便 is correct, the /ki/ → /i/ shift was already mostly in place during the late Heian period, while the [ɸ] → [h] shift happened much more recently. For instance, /fad͡zukaɕiː/ is recorded in the Nippo Jisho here, in the then-current Portuguese romanization of fazzucaxij (where ⟨zzu⟩ denotes づ, ⟨xi⟩ denotes し, and ⟨ij⟩ denotes a long い).
  • If the JA article about づ is correct, /du/ didn't assibilate to /d͡zu/ until the late Muromachi period.
  • I don't think there is broad consensus that the /-k-/ in adjective suffixes voiced before eliding. As such, including */padukaɕiɡi/ and */padukaɕiɣi/ as intermediate steps seems like a mistake. By way of comparison, verbs with known voiced medial consonants that underwent イ音便 also saw the following consonant undergo voicing, such as かぎて → かいで, つぎて → ついで, etc. Consequently, if the adjective /-k-/ shifted as /-ɡ-/ → /-ɣ-/ → /-j-/, we would expect the same -te conjunctive auxiliary to manifest as *-de after adjectives -- but this does not happen.

I'll update the phonological development line shortly. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)