珊瑚礁より囲まれをるも

[Guampalm2024]

An old World War II map with written details.

The following passage was transcribed...but there is a kanji (shown as ▢) which is challenge to me...any suggestions? Thanks for assistance...

正天朝井兩村海岸ハ殆ド大部分
海岸線ヨリ三〇〇乃至五〇〇米沖ヲ珊
瑚礁ヨリ▢マレヲルモ滿潮時ニ膝ヲ没
スル程度ナルニ付強行上陸ナサントセバ
可能ナリ

Attachment provides reference and verification of transcription.

 

[Joschl]

To me, it looks like "圍", the contemporary form of which is "囲".

圍(カコ)マレヲルモ ?

 

[Guampalm2024]

Thank you much Joschl. I had perceived the radical 囗 along with 土which the latter sent me into a spin. Thanks again as now I see the stroke pattern to form 圍 also for the insight to provide equivalent contemporary 囲 as the Japanese kanji usage tend to change. Glyphwiki assists with possible variant candidates or simplified version. Thanks again.

 

[enzymes]

I think "圍マレヲルモ" means "囲まれているが" in modern Japanese as suggested by @Joschl . I am rather curious where "正天朝井兩村海岸" is... It can be the beach close to both "正天村" and "朝井村" as the letter "兩" is the old form of "両".

 

[Joschl]

I think "圍マレヲルモ" means "囲まれているが" in modern Japanese

A monolingual interlinear glossing might be helpful:

圍マレヲルモ (kakomare or-u mo)
囲まれているけれど (kakomare-te i-ru keredo)
囲まれていても (kakomare-te i-te mo)

I am rather curious where "正天朝井兩村海岸" is.

I also want to know where that beach is.

 

[Flaminius]

I don't know their exact locations, but at least they were in Guam. In page 51*, a table of agricultural statistics in the island lists populations and arable areas by the villages, which are 正天村, 朝井村, 稲田村, 松山村, and 馬田村. Between 1941 and 44, the island was under the military rule by the Japanese Empire. The name of the island was changed to 大宮島 during the occupation. It is likely that the five villages were not Japanese settlements but pre-existing habitats that got their names japanised by the occupation forces.

*宮坂梧朗「グアム島食糧の需給構造」『食糧經濟』第8号第10巻 (1942年10月)、46-55ページ。

 

[Guampalm2024]

I apologize for the delayed response. Yes, as Flaminius, the notes are from a map (1944) of Guam under the Japanese Administration. If it is of any interest, I am reviewing the nomenclature and their application as well as a bit of politics. As for the ~村 suffix, albeit it is the applied "village" but according to the application, it means 'the municipality of' as much as the term 'barrio'. The contemporary 'village' that applies to the central concentrations did not reflect in the US Census and would best be described as the island was divided into village districts. The Japanese maps from Japanese newspapers and the maps found at the Diet Library only identify a few towns namely Agat and Piti while Agana was labelled a city. All else were identified as a place name without any suffix. Of course, if there is evidence to expand on my observations, I welcome the discussion. Thank you "J" for your question and for Flaminius' response as I was once told about the 1944 report with the 'village' breakdown as I didn't know its title.

 

[Guampalm2024]

I think "圍マレヲルモ" means "囲まれているが" in modern Japanese as suggested by @Joschl . I am rather curious where "正天朝井兩村海岸" is... It can be the beach close to both "正天村" and "朝井村" as the letter "兩" is the old form of "両".

(1) 正天朝井兩村海岸は殆ど大部分

正天 (しょうでん) place name. Shouden; historical place name. Piti
朝井 (あさい) place name. Asai; historical place name. Asan
兩~ → 両~ (りょう) n. two; both
村 (むら) n. village (municipality)
海岸 (かいがん) n. coast; beach
は particle. TOPIC marker
殆ど (ほとんど) adv. almost; mostly
大部分 (だいぶぶん) n. greater part

translation:

literal. Piti, Asan both municipality beach as for almost a greater part

adjusted. as for both municipality beaches (TOPIC), Piti (and) Asan, mostly a great part (of)

Location: Guam during Japanese Administration.

 

[Guampalm2024]

I think "圍マレヲルモ" means "囲まれているが" in modern Japanese as suggested by @Joschl . I am rather curious where "正天朝井兩村海岸" is... It can be the beach close to both "正天村" and "朝井村" as the letter "兩" is the old form of "両".

enzymes, can you explain how 圍マレヲルモ transforms to 囲まれているが. I can make out 圍マレ → 囲ま + れる → passive, but it is ヲルモ (をるも) that evades my understanding.

As you pointed out, 囲ま + れる → 囲ま + れ + ~て + いる + (が)
Did ヲ once function as connective for ~て and ル be the abbreviated form of いる and finally (が) as phrase connective?

Yes, I am attempting translation and this clause was indeed as much a challenge.

 

[Guampalm2024]

enzymes, can you explain how 圍マレヲルモ transforms to 囲まれているが. I can make out 圍マレ → 囲ま + れる → passive, but it is ヲルモ (をるも) that evades my understanding.

As you pointed out, 囲ま + れる → 囲ま + れ + ~て + いる + (が)
Did ヲ once function as connective for ~て and ル be the abbreviated form of いる and finally (が) as phrase connective?

Yes, I am attempting translation and this clause was indeed as much a challenge.

も - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

• も (mo) always replaces を (o) and が (ga), but may follow other particles.
• When after a verb, the verb is conjugated as て (-te) in conventional language and as the dictionary form in literary language: しても (shite mo), するも (suru mo).

 

[Joschl]

I should have explained to you properly in my post #5 above. The structure of the construction looks like this:

masu-stem form of the main verb + subsidiary verb "or-i (> or-u)" + conjunctive particle "mo"

The main verb "kakom-u" is modified by the derivational suffix -re- for passivization. That suffix doesn't change the part of speech of the entire word but determines the inflection class of the new verb created by the derivation.

kakom-u (consonant-stem verb)+ suffix -re-
[[kakom-a-]+[-re-]vowel-stem verb]
<another common morphological segmentation: [[kakom-]+[-are-]].>

The older construction "masu-stem form of a main verb + subsidiary verb "or-i (> or-u)" is equivalent to the contemporary one "te-form of the main verb + subsidiary verb "i-ru", expressing the resultative-stative aspect of the predicate "kakoma-re-ru".
"mo" is the conjunctive particle that is equivalent to the conjunctive particles "ke(re)do", "ga" or the construction "[V(i)Te] mo".

... ke(re)do/ga 'although ...'
"[V(i)Te] mo" 'even if ...'

------
Flaminiusさん、タイトルを「珊瑚礁より囲まれ[...]るも」から「珊瑚礁より囲まれ[を/お]るも」に直して頂けますか。

 

[Joschl]

・When after a verb, the verb is conjugated as て (-te) in conventional language and as the dictionary form in literary language: しても (shite mo), するも (suru mo).

I think this description can lead to a misunderstanding because it doesn't distinguish between the conjunctive particle (接続助詞) "mo" and the binding particle (係助詞) "mo".

"mo" in the above subordinate clause is definitely the conjunctive particle (接続助詞) "mo" preceded by the adnominal form (連体形) of the subsidiary verb "or-i", which is "or-u".

も ［接助］形容詞・形容詞型活用語の連用形、動詞・動詞型活用語の連体形に付く。逆接の意を表す。…とも。…ても。…けれども。「見たくも見られない」「努力するも報われなかった」
をり [二] 補助動詞ラ行変格活用｛ら／り／り／る／れ／れ｝
〔動詞の連用形に付いて〕…し続ける。…している。

From the Western (general) linguistic perspective, the class of the conjunctive particles (接続助詞) seems to be quite heterogeneous. The conjunctive particle "mo" is close to a conjunction connecting clauses, while the conjunctive particle "te/de" is close to an inflectional verbal suffix.

 

[Joschl]

I stand corrected - the dictionary form of the passivized main verb must be "kakoma-ru", and not "kakoma-re-ru" as I had written (see post #11) because the text is written in Classical Japanese.

る 助動詞 下二段型《接続》四段・ラ変・ナ変の各動詞型活用語の未然形に付く。他の動詞型活用の語には「らる」が付く。
①〔受身〕…れる。

うっかりしていました。御免なさい。

 

[Guampalm2024]

圍マレヲルモ

Joschl, repeating your observations of 圍マレヲル...there are three components: (1) 圍マレ + (2) ヲル + (3) モ

(1)
圍マレ
dictionary form is 圍む → 囲む (かこむ) (かこむ) godan trans. vb.
passive form: 囲む + れる → 囲まれる

(2)
ヲル
をる → おる → いる

(1+2)
Combining verbs 囲まれる + いる by ~て
囲まれる + ~て + いる → 囲まれ~ている

Reflection.
圍マレヲル (sic) → 囲まれている
classical versus contemporary

(3)
モ
も → でも → けどでも

Reflection.
圍マレヲルモ (sic) → 囲まれているけどでも
classical versus contemporary

Thank you Flaminius especially Joschl for this learning moment. A humbling opportunity to reflect on the fluidity of language in terms of kanji forms changing toward the simplified and of impact made by standardization.

Joschl, your linguistic notations is enviable and someday I hope to learn it in order to communicate pronunciation to non-speakers of host language. I use kana to reflect pronunciation, but even that has its limitations. This thread is a wealth information on many levels—I had no idea that 圍マレヲルモ held much more my inquiry into identifying the kanji, 圍. Thank you both for sharing your insights and knowledge on classical Japanese text.

 

[Flaminius]

(2)
ヲル
をる → おる → いる

This seems as if the three forms evolved from one after another. No, they didn't. The two verbs おる and いる are cognates but different. A stative construction using おる/をる was discontinued and another with いる (ている) became dominant. Just as in English *goed went obsolete and yielded to went (the past form of wend, another verb), so one Japanese construction gave way to another. It's called suppletion.

(3)
モ
も → でも → けどでも

The relation between も and けれども is also suppletion. They are etymologically unrelated. For some reason "も as but" gave way to けれど/けれども. The latter form may be reinforcing the "but" value with the extra も.

 

[Joschl]

I have tried to contrast the words and constructions at the contemporary stage with those of the earlier one.

・kakoma-re oru mo (<- kakomu-ru ori mo)
・kakomarete iru keredo (<- kakomu-reru iru keredo)
'surround-passive be although'

These structures are both semantically and syntactically equivalent, but only the main verbs "圍む/囲む" and the verbal suffixes "る/れる" are etymologically related. The subsidiary verbs "をる/いる" and the conjunctive particles "も/けれど" are functionally equivalent in the above sentences, but etymologically unrelated. "も" in "をる も", "-ても/-でも" and "けれど(も)" are certainly semantically related to each other (on the basis of the adversative or concessive meaning of them), but I personally prefer to keep them separate. "も" in "けれど(も)" is an optional item.

 

[Joschl]

I'm afraid, I was not careful enough yet again. I should have contrasted "をり" and "いる (< ゐる)" with each other.

Flaminius, could you please explain to me how you use the term "suppletion" in your post #15? I customarily use the term "suppletion" when the paradigm of a lexical item is filled by the inflected forms of different items that are etymologically unrelated.

Neither "も" nor "けれど" has a paradigm because they are both uninflected words. Aa far as I can see, both "をり" and "いる (< ゐる)" have their own paradigms, which are not suppletive.

 

[Flaminius]

Well, maybe suppletion was not the right word. Anyway, I meant that the slot previously occupied by [adverbial form] + wori has now been taken by another form.

 

[Joschl]

The change of the word-form of the main verb from its bare infinitive (連用形)/masu-stem to its te-form also took place in the construction:

copula "ni" + subsidiary verb "ar-i" -->
copula "de (< "ni-te") + subsidiary verb "ar-u (< ar-i)"

I would be very grateful if someone could explain to me how that change happened. That change seems to be systematic.
-----
As far as "suppletion" is concerned, the website "Surrey Suppletion Database" provided by the "Surrey Morphology Group (smg)" can be helpful.