Abstract

The aim of this article is to discuss how the Chinese loanword (佛) was incorporated into pre-Old Korean (pre-OK), Old Korean (OK), and Western Old Japanese (WOJ) on the basis of textual research using various primary sources from China, Korea, and Japan. The author proposes that two routes exist to explain the borrowing of the Chinese word (佛) into pre-OK, OK, and WOJ: one route from the Six Dynasties to the Korean Three Kingdoms period to Japan's pre-Nara period, and one from the Sui and Tang dynasties to the Unified Silla and Koryŏ periods.

The etymology of the Korean word corresponding to Buddha in Sanskrit (SKT) is enigmatic and the subject of ongoing debate (Kim 1977; Yi 1998; Pak 1990; Vovin 2005, 2006, 2007; Lee and Ramsey 2011; Nam 2014; Pellard 2014; Hwang 2014). Tracing back, this word takes the following forms.

Modern Standard Seoul Korean (MSSK) pwuche (부처, [pu.ʧ hə]), Late Middle Korean (LMK) pwùthyěy (부톄, [pu.thiəi]) ∼ pwùthyè (부텨, [pu.thiə]), Old Korean (OK) 仏体 (Later Han Chinese (LHan) *but.theiB > Middle Chinese (MC) *bjwət.thieiB; Middle Sino-Korean (MSK) pwulthyey (불톄, [pulH(L).thiəiH]) ∼ pulthyey (블톄, [pɨlH.thiəiH]), hereafter pwuche, appears in the hyangga (鄕歌, “country songs” or “local songs”)1 known collectively as Songs of the Ten Vows of Samantabhadra (Pohyŏn sibwŏn'ga 普賢十願歌), which were written down by Korean Buddhist master Kyunyŏ (均如, 923–73 CE) and collected in Hyŏk Yŏnjŏng's (赫連挺, ca. twelfth century CE) “Biography of Kyunyŏ” (Tae hwaŏm sujwa wŏnt'ong yangjung taesa Kyunyŏjŏn 大華嚴首座圓通兩重大師均如傳) during the Koryŏ (高麗, 918–1392 CE) period.2

This article argues that the Chinese rendering of the word for Buddha, (佛, LHan *but > MC *bjwət), comes from the way in which Chinese (佛) was borrowed into OK as the word pwuche (仏体); it further argues that the honorific suffix *kej ∼ kəj in pre-OK3 was loaned as into Western Old Japanese (WOJ) hotoke (保止氣). It bases these claims on a reexamination of various primary texts—including chronicles, literary texts, and epigraphs from China, Korea, and Japan—and their analysis from a historical linguistic perspective.

(佛) Is Not a Chinese Rendering of SKT Buddha

On the etymology of (佛) for “Buddha” in Chinese, after much discussion over the past century, a consensus has finally been reached. In 1933, preeminent scholar Hu Shi (胡適, 1891–1962) debated with Chen Yuan (陳垣, 1880–1971) about the usage of the Chinese words fútú (浮屠, LHan *bu.dɑ > MC *bjəu.duo) and (佛) for “Buddha” in different texts. Hu Shi contended that fútú (浮屠) was a derogatory rendering in old Chinese used by non-Buddhists,4 while (佛) was used by Buddhists uniformly as a logogram without specific meaning in Chinese, especially after a large volume of scriptures had been translated (Hu 1998: 5, 145–67). Here we must observe that the first accounts of the translation of Buddhist scriptures into Chinese date to the Eastern Han (東漢) period. These occur in the scriptures translated by An Shigao (安世高, ?–188 CE) from Anxi (安息, i.e., Parthia, Aršak), Zhi Loujiachen (支婁迦讖, SKT Lokakṣema, 147 CE–?) from the Great Yuezhi (大月氏, i.e., the realm of the Kushans, Guishuang 貴霜), as well as by other monks from Xiyu (西域, the Western Regions), but none directly from India (Zürcher 1991; Nattier 2008; Fang and Gao 2012).5

Subsequently, Ji Xianlin (1948, 1990) considered the pronunciation of the sinograph for “Buddha” (佛) to correspond to words in Indo-Iranian and Tocharian languages during the early period, including Middle Persian (i.e., Pahlavi) bwt in Zoroastrian classics;6 Manichaean Parthian bwt, bwty, and pwtyy in Manichaean Sogdian scripts; pwt in Buddhist Sogdian scripts; and a voiced *but in early Tocharian, attested as pät in Tocharian A (Yanqi 焉耆, Agni) and pūt, pud7 in Tocharian B (Qiuci 龜茲, Kucha).

On the other hand, Ji (1948, 1990) considered that the word fútú (浮屠) for “Buddha” during the earlier period was a borrowing from the disyllabic bodo, boddo, boudo in the Daxia language (大夏語), that is, Bactrian. And for Ji, fótuó (佛陀, LHan *but.dɑi > MC *bjwət.dâ) was certainly a much later disyllable rendering from SKT Buddha.

Undoubtedly, among the sixteen earliest and verifiable Chinese Buddhist translations8 from the Eastern Han and Chinese Three Kingdoms periods, the word for “Buddha” is the monosyllabic (佛), not fútú (浮屠) or fótuó (佛陀), as is attested via the Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association (CBETA 2020). However, fútú (浮屠) and its alternate transcription (i.e., alternate phonetic spelling, or spelling variant) fútú (浮圖, LHan *bu.dɑ > MC *bjəu.duo) that occur in non-Buddhist texts probably do not correspond to Bactrian, but rather come either from Buddho in Indian Prakrit (i.e., vernacular) languages and Pāli (Zhou 1956: 203) or possibly from SKT Buddha or Gāndhārī Budha (Pulleyblank 1962: 213).

In this article, I propose that the argument above is difficult to validate, since fútú (浮屠 ∼ 浮圖) appears only in non-Buddhist texts and, under the present state of Chinese historical phonology, the phonological study of the transcription between non-Sanskrit and Chinese in Buddhist texts prior to the MC period is rather tentative. However, the Eastern Jin dynasty (東晉, 226–420) phonogram fótuó (佛陀) as a rendering of SKT Buddha became more widely used in Chinese Buddhist texts, and has other transcriptions with different sinographs and different usages in other texts. For example, fótuó (佛陀, MC *bjwət.dâ), fótú (佛圖, MC *bjwət.duo), fútuó (佛馱, MC *bjwət.dâ), and fútuó (浮陀, MC *bu.dâ) usually appear in the names of monks in Chinese Buddhist scriptures. The phonograms buótuó (勃陀, MC *bwət.dâ), buótuó (勃馱, MC *bwət.dâ), mǔtuó (母馱, MC *məuB.dâ), and mòtuó (沒陀, MC *mwət.dâ),9 meanwhile, appear in incantations of the Esoteric Buddhist (Mizong 密宗) scriptures as more exotic and mysterious transliterations. By contrast, fútú (浮屠) ∼ fútú (浮圖) ∼ fútuó (浮陀) continue to be used only as terms for Buddha, Buddhism, monks, and pagodas in non-Buddhist scriptures (Ding 1984; Yu 2011).

In summary, the Chinese monosyllabic word (佛) refers to a word for Buddha, which is neither a rendering of SKT Buddha nor an abbreviation or a shortened term of fótuó (佛陀), but a rendering of a monosyllabic word in early Indo-Iranian languages. The origin of the disyllabic fútú (浮屠) ∼ fútú (浮圖) in Chinese non-Buddhist scriptures is uncertain; it probably derives from Bactrian or Indian Prakrit languages, or even from classic Sanskrit, but certainly not from a monosyllabic source.

Pwuche (仏体) Is a Korean Phonogram in OK

According to the “Koguryŏ Annals” (Koguryŏ pon'gi 高句麗本紀, vol. 18) and the “Paekche Annals” (Paekche pon'gi 百濟本紀, vol. 24) in the History of the Three Kingdoms (Samguk sagi 三國史記 [hereafter SK]; 1145 CE), the seventeenth king of Koguryŏ, Sosurim Wang (小獸林王, ?–384) officially accepted Pudo Sundo (浮屠順道, “Monk Sundo”) in 372 CE, a Buddha statue and Buddhist scriptures from Emperor Fu Jian (苻堅, 337–85 CE) of the Former Qin (Qiánqín 前秦, 351–94 CE), thus making Koguryŏ the first kingdom on the Korean peninsula to adopt Buddhism. Shortly after, in 384 CE, the fifteenth king of Paekche, Ch'imnyu (枕流), officially welcomed the monk Marananta (摩羅難陀, ?–?) from the Western Regions, who had traveled from the Eastern Jin dynasty and began to build temples in the next year. Finally, in 526 CE, Silla officially converted to Buddhism, though it may have been in contact with Buddhism before that time.

The phonogram pwuche (仏体, LHan *but.theiB > MC *bjwət.thieiB) is the so-called first Old Korean (of Unified Silla period) attestation of the word for “Buddha,” appearing thirteen times in the Songs of the Ten Vows of Samantabhadra composed by Kyunyŏ. Certainly pwuche (仏体) ∼ (佛体) is not a purely Chinese loanword, since it refers semantically to the “body of the Buddha” in Chinese, and not the word for “Buddha” itself. According to Ding (1984: 592), fótǐ (佛体) appears only once in the phrase fótǐ sèxìng shuàidūpó (佛体色性率都婆), which means “pagoda” (i.e., SKT stūpa 率都婆) in Esoteric Buddhism.

It is well accepted by most Koreanists (e.g., Kim 1977; Yi 1998; Pak 1990; Lee and Ramsey 2011; Nam 2014; and Hwang 2014) that MSSK pwuche (부처) has antecedents in LMK documents. These are pwùthyěy 부톄 [pu.thiəiH] in the Sŏkpo sangjŏl (釋譜詳節, Detailed Articles on the Record of Sakyamuni, 1446 CE; 6:16) and pwùthyè 부텨 [pu.thiə] in the Wŏrin sŏkpo (月印釋譜, a book combining the Wŏrin ch’ŏn'gang jigok [月印千江之曲, Songs of the Moon's Imprint on a Thousand Rivers], and the Sŏkpo sangjŏl, 1459 CE; 10:13) and in the Hunmong chahoe (訓蒙字會, Collection of Characters for Training the Unenlightened; Ch’oe [1527] 1971: 2). In MSSK, pwùthyěy and pwùthyè were palatalized to pwuche [pu.ʧ hə] (i.e., pu.thiəiH> pu.th> pu.ʧhjə > pu.ʧ hə). As Yi (1998: 83) and Lee and Ramsey (2011: 65, 164, 187) have demonstrated, pwuche (仏体) corresponds to the phrase pwùthyěy (부:톄), with a rising tone incorporating the low-pitched pwùthyè (부텨) followed by the high-pitched nominative particle y (ㅣ), and the consistency between the consonant [th] in (体) in MC and [th] (ㅌ) in MK implies the existence of dental aspirates in OK.

Earlier studies such as Kim (1977: 100) have explained MSSK pwuche (仏体) as a borrowing of fótuó (佛陀, LHan *but.dɑi > MC *bjwət.dâ), from the Chinese rendering of SKT Buddha. More recently Nam (2014: 47, 77, 85) has vaguely sought an etymology from an uncertain Sanskrit word. Both of these proposals, however, must be rejected for the following reasons.

First, as discussed in the previous section, (佛) was already a well-established word for “Buddha” in Chinese Buddhist translations from the Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms periods. It would thus not have been necessary or persuasive to borrow a later form, fótuó (佛陀), in MC. Second, it is impossible to explain the vowel correspondences between (体, LHan *theiB > MC *thieiB) to MC rhyme (薺), and tuó (陀, LHan *dɑi > MC*dâ) to rhyme (歌). Importantly, if we assume the laws of vowel harmony10 to have been developed during the OK period, fótuó (佛陀) does not obey these: the combination of the back vowel LHan *u > MC *jwə of (佛) and the front vowel LHan *ɑi > MC *â of tuó (陀) violates the vowel harmony rules in OK. Third, we should note that the sinographs (佛) and (仏) coexist in the eleven Songs of the Ten Vows of Samantabhadra with different usages.11 In the history of Chinese calligraphy, (仏) appears during the Six Dynasties (Liuchao 六朝, 220–589 CE) in Chinese texts as a suzi (俗字, popular form/vernacular character) of the formal character (佛) (Zhang 2010: 387). In the Songs of the Ten Vows of Samantabhadra, (佛) appears in Chinese loanwords, including Nammwupul (南無佛, “Namo Buddha”) in the “Song of Praising the Thus Come One Tathagata” (no. 2; Ch'ingch'an Yŏrae ka 稱讚如來歌 [hereafter CC]: 2), pwulto (佛道, “Buddhism, Buddhist doctrines”) in the “Song of Following the Teachings of the Buddhas at all Times” (no. 8; Sangsu pulhak ka 常隨仏學歌 [hereafter SS]: 9), pwulyeng (佛影, “statue of Buddha”) in the “Song of Requesting the Buddhas to Remain in the World” (no. 7; Ch’ŏngbul wangse ka 請仏住世歌 [hereafter CP]: 10), and the title of the “Song of Paying Homage and Respecting to all Buddhas” (no. 1; Yegyŏng chebul ka 礼敬諸佛歌 [hereafter YK]).

By contrast, (仏) occurs mostly in phonograms like pwuche (仏体), in YK: 2, 7; “Song of Making the Abundant Offerings” (no. 3; Kwangsu kongyang ka 廣修供養歌 [hereafter KS]: 7); “Song of Repenting Misdeeds and Evil Karmas” (no. 4; Ch'amhoeŏpchang ka 懺悔業障歌 [hereafter CH]: 8); CP: 1; SS: 1; “Songs of Accommodating and Benefitting All Living Beings” (no. 9; Hangsun chungsaeng ka 恒順衆生歌 [hereafter HS]: 8, 10).12

In addition, pwuche (仏体) can attach to other phonograms, like the phonogram ‐置 (i.e., 仏体置 in SS: 8) corresponding to the Korean verb stem twu‐ (두‐, “to put, to place”), ‐刀 (i.e., 仏体刀) in the “Song of Transferring All Merits and Virtues to Benefiting All Beings” (no. 10; Pogaehoehyang ka 普皆廻向歌 [hereafter PK]: 9) corresponding to the Korean particle to (도), and 叱 (i.e., 仏体叱) in YK: 5; PK: 5; “Song of Keeping Vowing Endlessly” (no. 11; Ch'onggyŏlmujin ka 摠結无尽歌 [hereafter CK]: 8) corresponding to the Korean adnominal particle s (ㅅ) as mentioned in Pak (1990: 42). Furthermore, in the phonogram pwul-i (仏伊, “Buddha-nominative particle i [이]”) in the “Song of Rejoicing in Others' Merits and Virtues” (no. 5; Suhŭi kongdŏk ka 隨喜功德歌 [hereafter SH]: 3) and pwul-ap (仏前, “Buddha-locative noun ap [앞]”) in KS: 2, the postpositive Korean grammatical phonogram i (伊) and locative noun ap (앞) are added after the popular form (仏). The character sequence pwulpwul (仏仏, “Buddha Buddha”) in KS: 8, Pwulhoyahuy (仏會阿希, “Ceremony for Buddhists?”) in the “Song of Requesting the Buddhas to Continue Teaching” (no. 6; Ch’ŏngjŏn pŏmnyun ka 請轉法輪歌 [hereafter CCP]: 2) are still only tentatively deciphered. The sinograph (仏) also appears in the titles of the CP (Ch’ŏngbul wangse ka 請仏住世歌) and the SS (Sangsu pulhak ka 常隨仏學歌) when we would rather expect the full form (佛).

Meanwhile, we must take into account the Sino-Korean pronunciation of (佛). In the Assorted Matters of Jilin (Jilinleishi 雞林類事; Sun [1103] 1990), Sunmu (孫穆, ?–? CE) from the Northern Song dynasty probably wrote down the pronunciation of (佛) of Early Middle Korean (EMK) using Song dynasty Chinese pronunciations (i.e., Late Middle Chinese). In one note he writes “fó yuē bó” (佛曰孛, pwul wal pal in modern Sino-Korean pronunciation), meaning “ (佛, pwul) is pronounced like (孛, pal),” and later he notes, “huǒ yuē bó” (火曰孛, hwa wal pal), meaning “huǒ (火, hwa, ‘fire’) is also to be pronounced like (孛, pal).”

It would be misleading, however, to read huǒ (火) as “hwa” in its modern Sino-Korean pronunciation. Around 1103 CE, during the Koryŏ period, (佛) and huǒ (火) had the same Late Middle Chinese pronunciation (孛), so it is reasonable for us to infer that huǒ (火) should be understood as a semantogram, used to represent the vernacular Korean word, corresponding to pul (블, [pɨlH]) with the Koreanized coda [-l].13 In MSK texts, (佛) was read as both pwul (불, [pul] ∼ 불, [pulH/L]) and pul (블, [pɨl] ∼ 블, [pɨlH]) (Itō 2007: 166, 182).

On the premises of the discussion above, this present article proposes that pwuche (仏体) is a pure Korean phonogram, which can be reconstructed in OK as *pu.t(h)je/ǝi(H). There are four arguments to support this.

First, it is reasonable to reconstruct the first syllable as a voiceless *pu- internally, but with a final *-t. The final *-t is attested in Chinese Buddhist scriptures from the Koryŏ period accompanied by sŏktok kugyŏl (釋讀口訣) interpretive glosses.14 Thus the Commentaries on the Mahā-vaihulya-buddhâvataṃsaka-sūtra (Taebanggwangbul Hwaŏm kyŏng so 大方廣佛華嚴經䟽 [hereafter HS], first half of the twelfth century; vol. 35, 7:18–19, 13:12–13/13–14, 20:1–3, 13–14, 14–16, 16–17, 23:15–16,16–17, 19–20, 25:2–3, 26:18) glosses (佛) as ?puti (佛), while the Mahā-vaihulya-buddhâvataṃsaka-sūtra (Taebanggwangbul Hwaŏm kyŏng 大方廣佛華嚴經 [hereafter HK], second half of the twelfth century; vol. 14, 3:13, 2:13–14) glosses it as ?puti (佛) (vol. 14, 4:19/23, 7:19, 8:3/23, 10:15, 11:3, 14:1–2, 15:10, 17:3).

According to Nam (2014: 149, 483), the kugyŏl glosses ?ti () and ?ti () can be functionally (or morphosyntactically) interpreted from their abbreviated sinographs, zhǐ (止, LHan *tśǝB > *tśɨB > MC *tśɨB) and zhī (知,15 LHan *ṭie > MC *ṭje), as corresponding to the nominative and genitive particles, respectively, and both can be reconstructed as *ti (디 [ti]). In other words, we can conclude in that ?puti (佛 ∼ 佛) represents the pronunciation *pu.ti as a result of resyllabification in the kugyŏl-glossed Buddhist scriptures.

Importantly, *pu.ti (佛) coexists with its nominative form *pu.ti.i (佛, in HS, vol. 35, 13:1–2) additionally glossed with nominative particle *-i (), an abbreviation of the sinograph shì (是; > LMK i, y [i] -이/ㅣ). This indicates, in kugyŏl, that the final *-t of (佛) from MC was probably kept in OK and not naturalized as a final [-l]. The argument for resyllabification is further support through the occurrence of the phonograms pwuli (仏伊) in the hyangga corresponding to the kugyŏl-glossed *pu.ti (佛 ∼ 佛), in which case it is possible to consider pwuche (仏体) as a native OK form corresponding to *pu.ti.i (佛). In other words, the kugyŏl glosses and represent *ti 디 as marŭmch’ŏmgi (末音添記; for more details, see Sin 1998), and the latter particle in 佛 is in fact pleonastic, functioning as a phonetic determinative.

Second, Vovin (2005, 2006, 2007: 74–75) suggests that the word for Buddha in OK can be reconstructed as *pwutukye with a voiceless *p- and a suffix *-kye. For this, Vovin employs an external reconstruction premised on OK being the source for Manchu fucihi and WOJ potökë. In the case of Manchu, Vovin proposes fucihi < Old Jurchen (OJur; i.e., Pre-Manchu) *puciki (?), where pre-Manchu had no distinction between k and h. Kim (1977: 101) has further proposed that -ci in Manchu fucihi is probably from previous *-ti. If so, *pu.ti.i (仏体 ∼ 佛) may represent an unaspirated *-t- in the pre-OK period, rather than the aspirate consonant [th] that is apparently represented by (體 ∼ 体) in MC. The LMK pwùthyè (부텨) that contains an aspirated th (ㅌ, [th]) must be a later form.16 One problem, however, is that the OJur form *putiki ends in *-i, which does not match either the OK or the WOJ forms. Nevertheless, it is still likely to be a borrowing from OK, as theoretically OJur could have borrowed OK *-ye [jə] as OJur *-iye [jə]. Although -iye rarely occurs in final position in Manchu, it is possible that *-iye [jə] existed in OJur too. Additionally, OJur *-i is a substitute for front OK *[e] (> *-ye [jə]), as mentioned in Miyake (2018).17

Third, phonologically the vowel *-i in OK *pu.ti (仏伊 ∼ 佛 ∼ 佛) probably changed to a glide-vowel sequence *je ∼ jǝ as a result of the i-breaking phenomenon, as happened in the word for “island” in OK *sima (斯麻 ∼ WOJ [sima] > 苫 EMK *ʃjem > :셤LMK [ʃjǝmLH] > 섬 MSSK [sǝm]) (Kwŏn 2005; Vovin 2010: 183–84). In addition, it is more reasonable to consider *pu.ti.i (仏体 ∼ 佛) as a nominative form of OK *pu.tje ∼ *pu.tjǝ (仏伊 ∼ 佛 ∼ 佛), since the nominative particle in LMK, i (이/ㅣ), only co-occurs with the vowel o (, [ʌ]—i.e., the “arae a”), u (, [ɨ]), wo (ㅗ, [o]), a (ㅏ, [a]), wu (ㅜ, [u]), and e (ㅓ, [ǝ]), and not with vowel i (-이/ㅣ) itself (Yi 1998: 311–14).

Fourth, as discussed in further detail below, considering the direction of the historical spread of Buddhism from the Korean peninsula to Japan, we may also propose that the word for “Buddha” in WOJ potökë (保止氣, ホト(乙)(乙), [pə.tə.kəj]) is a borrowing from pre-OK, possibly from Paekche.

In summary, according to Buddhism-related texts such as the Songs of the Ten Vows of Samantabhadra and data from sŏktok kugyŏl sources, the word for “Buddha” in Korean must be a loan word from the Chinese rendering of the word (佛 ∼ 仏) that then evolved through the addition of grammatical elements and phonological change, thus: 仏伊 ∼ 佛 ∼ 佛 OK *pu.ti > *pu.t(h)je/ǝ ∼ 仏体 ∼ 佛 OK *pu.t(h)je/ǝ.i(H) > *pu.t(h)je/ǝi(H) > 부텨 LMK [pu.thiə] ∼ 부톄LMK [pu.thiəiH].

Hotoke (保止氣) Is a Loanword from Pre-OK

According to the nineteenth volume of the Chronicles of Japan (Nihon shoki 日本書紀 [hereafter NS]; 720 CE), Buddhism was introduced from Paekche to Japan in 552 CE, when King Sŏngmyŏng (聖明王, ?–554 CE) sent Buddha statues and Buddhist scriptures to Japan. However, the Japanese may have been in contact with Buddhism before that time. The popular form sinograph (仏) was also borrowed into WOJ as well. (仏) accurately corresponds to the disyllabic voiced ブツ [bu.tu] (> Modern Standard Japanese [MSJ] [bu.tsɯ]) and voiceless フツ [pu.tu] (> MSJ [pu.tsɯ]) in Go-on and Kan-on pronunciations, respectively. The word for “Buddha,” MSJ hotokesama (仏様, ホトケサマ [ho.to.ke.sa.ma]), is a compound combining hotoke and the honorific suffix -sama.

Hotoke is first attested in the form 保止氣 in the “Songs of the Stone with Footprints of the Buddha” (Bussokusekika 仏足跡歌, 753 CE). Pellard (2014) analyzed WOJ potökë (Proto-Japonic [pJ] *pə.tə.kəi ∼ pə.tə.kai > ホト(乙)(乙),18 [pə.tə.kəj] > [po.to.ke] > [fo.to.ke] > [ho.to.ke]) as a trisyllabic compound loan from OK. The etymology of the initial two syllables potö cannot be precisely determined. According to Arisaka's Law, neutralization could have occurred between o (オ(甲), [o]) and ö (オ(乙), [ə]), due to the fact that no root in WOJ can contain both o and ö. If it was borrowed as *putə, the form *pətə could have resulted from assimilation, since pJ *u and *ə do not usually coexist within the same root (Pellard 2014: 690). Meanwhile, considering the fact that the voiced stops of Japanese come from earlier prenasalized obstruents, and the opposition between voiced and voiceless in OK cannot be reconstructed, it is better to suppose that potö corresponds to a voiceless stop, probably in a loan from pre-OK (Paekchean). The syllable structure of pre-OK in Paekche was likely C1V1.C2V2. This is attested in other Paekche phonograms, including: pwuli (夫里; cf. OK ?*pɛl 伐 > LMK pel 벌, OK ?*pul 火 > LMK pul 블 MSK [pɨlH]) “community,” kwoma ∼ kwuma (固麻 ∼ 久麻; i.e., LMK kwòmá 고·마 > LMK kwǒm:곰) “bear,” and sama (斯麻) “island” (see the previous section). Thus, it is natural to expect a disyllabic *putə in Paekche corresponding to (佛, LHan *but).

Pellard (2014) suggests that the third syllable is a borrowed suffix from pre-OK with the meaning of “sir, lord.” I agree on this point and further propose that WOJ corresponds to the phonograms jiě (解) ∼ jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧) ∼ (奚) representing a homophonous honorific suffix in OK. This is based on three lines of textual evidence, elaborated below.

First, concerning the phonogram jiě (解, MC *kaɨB/C ∼ ɣaɨB/C), I propose it to be an honorific suffix or a title meaning “sir, lord” in pre-OK, similar to “king.” According to the “Account of Eastern Barbarians” (Dongyizhuan 東夷傳) in the History of the Sui (Suishu 隋書; 656 CE), vol. 81, the History of the Northern Dynasties (Beishi 北史; 659 CE), vol. 94, and the New History of the Tang (Xintangshu 新唐書; 1060 CE), vol. 220, we are told that the phonogram jiě (解) is one of eight clan names (i.e., Shā 沙, Yàn 燕, Lì 刕, Jiě 解, Zhēn 貞, Guó 國, Mù 木, Bái 苩19) of Paekche. Importantly, a notable number of official names from Paekche with jiě (解) are attested via epigraphs from China, Korea, and Japan.

In some cases, jiě (解) occurs as a clan name at the start of the names. Examples include the Paekche general Hae Yegon (觧禮昆, where 觧 is a variant of the character 解) from the History of Southern Qi  (Nanqishu 南齊書; 519 CE), vol. 58, and officials like Hae Ch'ung (解忠), Hae Su (解須), and Hae Ku (解丘) from SK, vol. 25. In other cases, however, jiě (解) occurs at the end of the names. These include one king's brother called Hun Hae (訓解) in SK, vol. 25; Prince Kyu Hae (糺解) in NS, vol. 26; King Ŭiridu Hae (意里都解) in the New Selection and Record of Hereditary Titles and Family Names (Shinsen shōjiroku 新撰姓氏錄 [hereafter SJRK]; 815 CE; see Saeki 1981); the general Makko Hae (莫古解) in SK, vol. 24, and NS, vol. 15; Makko (莫古) in NS, vol. 9; and some others like Chŏngmagi Hae (適莫爾解) and Koi Hae (古爾解) in NS, vol. 15.

Meanwhile, the phonogram jiě (解) also appears in the names of kings in Koguryŏ and Silla. For example, according to the “Annals of Koguryŏ” in SK, the first ancestor Sage King Tongmyŏng (東明) is called Chung Hae (衆解) in SK, vol. 13. The family name of the second king Yuri Wang (瑠璃王) is written as jiě (解) in the Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms (Samguk yusa 三國遺事 [hereafterYS]; 1281 CE; vol. 1), and the third king Taemusin Wang (大武神王) is also calledTae Hae Churyu Wang (大解朱留王) in SK, vol. 14, with the adnominal tae- (大) “big” and the phonogram jiě (解). The fourth king Minjung Wang (閔中王) is transmitted as Hae Saekchu (解色朱) and the fifth king Mobon Wang (慕本王) is written as Hae U (解憂) in SK, vol. 29. The seventeenth king Sosurim Wang (小獸林王) is also called So Hae Churyu Wang (小解朱留王, with So meaning “small”) in SK, vol. 18, and Hae Miryu Wang (解味留王) in SK, vol. 30.

In spite of this, according to the “Annals of Silla” (Silla pon'gi 新羅本紀) in SK and the “Account of the Calendar of Kings” (Wangnyŏk 王曆) in YS, vol. 1, the first Silla king is recorded as Nam Hae ch'ach'aung (南解次次雄, with Nam meaning “south”) or Nam Hae Wang (南解王) in YS, vol. 1, the fourth king is written as T'al Hae nisagŭm (脫解尼師今) in SK, vol. 1, T'al Hae (脫解) in YS, vol. 1, or T'o Hae (吐解) in YS, vol. 1; the tenth king is written as Na Hae (奈解) in SK, vol. 23, Na Hae Nisagŭm (奈解尼師今) in SK, vol. 2, or Na Hae Wang (奈解王) in YS, vol. 1; the twelfth king is recorded as Chŏmhae Nisagŭm (沾解尼師今) in SK, vol. 2, Chŏm Hae Wang (沾解王) and I Hae Nisgŭm (理解尼叱今) in YS, vol. 1. The sixteenth king is Hŭl Hae Nisagŭm (訖解尼師今) in the SK, vol. 2. The phonogram jiě (解) appears before the phonograms ch'ach'a'ung (次次雄) and nisagŭm (尼師今) ∼ nisgŭm (尼叱今), as well as before the semantogram wáng (王, “king”). Unfortunately, the meaning of ch'ach'a'ung (次次雄) is still not deciphered, but nisagŭm (尼師今) ∼ nisgŭm (尼叱今) represents a compound of ni (尼, OK *ni > ni 니 > i 이) “tooth” + adnominal/genitive sa ∼ s (師 ∼ 叱, OK *-s- > -s- -ㅅ-) + kŭm (今, OK *kɨm > kŭm 금) “king” in the meaning of “king with many teeth,” as written in SK, vol. 1. The word wáng (王) is a Chinese loanword in OK. The position of phonogram jiě (解) allows us to analyze the Silla kings' names as compounds or suffixed elements and to segment out jiě (解).

Additionally, according to the “Annals of Paekche” in SK, one king from North Puyŏ (北扶餘), written as Hae Puru (解扶婁), was the ancestor of the first Paekche king, Piryu Wang (沸流王), and had the clan name jiě (解). One official from South Okchŏ (南沃沮), which was located to the north of Silla, is recorded as Kup'a Hae (仇頗解) in SK, vol. 23, which includes a final jiě (解) as well.

Second, the phonograms jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧, MC *kăi ∼ ɣăi) and (奚, MC *ɣiei) can all be regarded as different phonograms of jiě (解), which is attested in toponyms from SK and names of nobility in the Kara (加羅) area from NS.

Concerning the phonograms jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧), the “Geography Treatise”(Chiri-ji 地理志) of SK records that in the year 757, King Kyŏngdŏk (景德王, ?–765 CE) of Unified Silla standardized the toponyms of conquered Koguryŏ and Paekche as Chinese-style place names. The phonograms deployed in the newly createdChinese-style toponyms comprise a mix of both semantic and phonetic renderings of the original toponyms. For example, the new sinicized term for the original Koguryŏ toponym of Kae Paek (皆伯, MC *kăi-pɐk) is attested variously as Uwang-hyŏn (遇王縣, “king-meeting county”) in SK, vol. 35, and as Wangbong-hyŏn (王逢縣, “king-meetingcounty”) in SK, vol. 37.20 The phonogram jiē (皆) is supposed by modern Koreanists to have the meaning of the semantogram wáng (王) “king.” This same jiē (皆) occurs in another toponym Kaeri'i (皆利伊, MC *kăi-liC-Ɂi) that was subsequently sinicized as Haerye-hyŏn (解禮縣, MC *kaɨB/C/ɣaɨB/C-lieiB) in SK, vol. 37.

Separately, according to the “Account of Koguryŏ” (Gaogouli zhuan 高句麗傳) of the Weishu and the equivalent account in the Beishi, the courtesy name of the son of the Koguryŏ king Chumong (朱蒙) is transcribed as Shiryŏ Hae (始閭諧, MC *śɨB-lywo-ɣăi). The phonograms jiē (皆) and xié (諧) share the same phonetic element jiē (皆). Thus, we can propose that jiē (皆), xié (諧), and jiě (解) are variant phonograms.

Moreover, exclusively in Japanese texts, the final phonogram (奚, MC *Ɣiei) occurs more than seven times in the titles of nobility from Kara, including Shin'i Kei (辛已奚) in NS, vol. 17, Koden Kei (旣殿奚) in NS, vol. 17, Shiton Kei (夷呑奚) in NS, vol. 19, Koden Kei (古殿奚) in NS, vol. 19 (twice), and Sanhan Kei (散半奚) in NS, vol. 19 (twice), all with a final (奚). Meanwhile, the descendant of the thirteenth Paekche king Sokko (速古, i.e., Kŭnch'ogo Wang 近肖古王, ?–375 CE) is recorded as Monku Kei (汶休奚, in Go-on) in the SJRK. Note that the phonogram (奚) is only found in Japanese texts and represents the pronunciation of ケ, ke [ke] in Man'yōgana,21 [ɡei] in Go-on, and [kei] in Kan-on. So it is possible to regard (奚) as having the same meaning and grammatical function as the phonograms jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧) ∼ jiě (解).

What remains is to confirm the phonetic reconstruction of the phonograms jiě (解) ∼ jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧) ∼ (奚). First, it is reasonable to reconstruct a voiceless plosive velar *k- as the consonant in OK because all four phonograms share the common consonant [k-] in MC, in spite of the cases of jiě (解) ∼ xié (諧), which can be pronounced as the fricative [ɣ] or as *k ∼ ɣ, if the alternation also existed in OK. According to the “Account of Foreign Countries” (Zhuyizhuan 諸夷傳) in the History of the Liang (Liangshu 梁書; 636 CE) and the equivalent account in the History of the Southern Dynasties (Nanshi 南史; 659 CE), the Chinese noun (襦, “short jacket”) in Silla was called wèijiě (尉解, MC *Ɂjwət-kaɨ ∼ ɣaɨ); Yi (1998: 77) and Lee and Ramsey (2010) propose the Korean reflex of this to be wuthuy (우틔, [uthɨj], “clothes”), as attested in the Translation of the Lesser Learning (Pŏnyŏk sohak 翻譯小學, 1518 CE; vol. 9, 59). If this hypothesis is correct, then we can explain the aspirated [th] as having resulted from the lenition of the previous plosive *k (> h), and subsequent aspiration of the coda [-t] before the consonant [h-] according to well-known processes in MK phonology. Second, from the vocalism *aɨ ∼ ăi ∼ iei of the phonograms jiě (解), jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧) and their pronunciations in MSK as [hʌiR], [kʌiL] ∼ [hʌiR] (LMK [ʌ] < OK *ə, cf. Itō 2007: 267), and (奚) in Sino-Japanese, as mentioned above, we can reconstruct the phonograms jiě (解) ∼ jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧) ∼ (奚) as *ej ∼ əj phonetically, including a final semivowel *-j in OK. We conclude that the phonograms jiě (解) ∼ jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧) ∼ (奚) represent *kej ∼ kəj as an honorific suffix or a title meaning “sir, lord” in words for kings and officials, and that they were probably shared across Koguryŏ, Paekche, Silla, and Kara in pre-OK.

I propose as a further cognate to pre-OK jiě (解) ∼ jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧) *kej ∼ kəj or WOJ (奚) ∼ ke the ke (ケ) of orikoke (オリコケ), attested in NS as a katakana rendering of the sinographs for “Koguryŏ king” or 狛王. Previously, Pellard (2014: 690) and most Koreanists (e.g., Kōno 1987 and Lee and Ramsey 2011) have analyzed orikoke as cognate with the aristocratic word for “king,” yúluóxiá (於羅瑕, MC *Ɂuo ∼ Ɂjwo-lâ-ɣa) as attested in the History of the Zhou (Zhoushu 周書), vol. 49. This is premised on the “Puyŏ language family” hypothesis. Certainly, Paekche xiá (瑕, MC *ɣa) and Koguryŏ ke (ケ) look like a perfect match phonetically, but this must be rejected for the following reasons.

First, orikoke (オリコケ) is written in katakana, rather than in Man'yōgana or other sinographs used as phonograms, and it is uncertain during which period it was transcribed. In any case, the Iwasaki edition of the Nihon shoki is the oldest edition we can find, and it was completed at the end of the tenth century during the Heian period.

Second, the hypothesis premises both vowels being reflexes of MC *ɣa, but the vowel correspondence between xiá (瑕) and ke (ケ) does not enable this reconstruction. Xiá (瑕) can only represent the pronunciation of MC *ɣa in the Chinese dynastic chronicles and not in Sino-Japanese sources. By contrast, the correspondence of xiá (瑕) to the ke (ケ) in orikoke (オリコケ) rather relies on a separate Go-on pronunciation of xiá (瑕) as ke (ケ) in Japanese sources. There is no explanation by which the shared e vowel could be explained as a reflex of MC *ɣa because *a and *e are distinct vowels.

Third, Vovin (2005) has already convincingly demonstrated that yúluó (於羅-, MC *Ɂuo ∼ Ɂjwo-lâ) corresponds to *era- > ira- “high esteem for a man” which was loaned from Paekche to WOJ. If yúluó corresponds to *era-, then it cannot also correspond to oriko- of orikoke.

Fourth, there is alternative evidence to suggest that the xiá (瑕) of yúluóxiá (於羅瑕) rather corresponds with the jiā (加) that occurs in official Koguryŏ and Puyŏ titles attested in the “Account of Eastern Barbarians” (Dongyi zhuan 東夷傳), in the History of the Northern Wei (Weishu 魏書) of the Records of the Three Kingdoms (Sanguozhi 三國志; ca. 280–90 CE). These include xiāngjiā (相加, MC *sjaŋC-ka), gǔchújiā (古雛加, MC *kɑB ∼ kɔB-dẓju-ka), mǎjiā (馬加, MC *maB-ka) “horse ka,” niújiā (牛加, MC *njǝu-ka) “cow ka,” zhūjiā (豬加, MC *tywo-ka) “pig ka,” gǒujiā (狗加, MC *kǝuB-ka) “dog ka.” Here the phonograms jiā (加) and xiá (瑕) have the same (麻) rhyme in MC phonology and may thus be considered variant renderings of cognates of words from a northern Puyŏ-type system. By contrast, ke (ケ) in orikoke (オリコケ) corresponds to the phonograms in pre-OK jiě (解) ∼ jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧) *kej ∼ kəj or WOJ (奚) ∼ ke with the meaning of “sir, lord.” It is thus cognate to in WOJ potökë.

In summary, WOJ potökë can be hypothesized to be a loanword from pre-OK. Potö- means “Buddha,” probably from Paekche, while - corresponds to a homophonous suffix jiě (解) ∼ jiē (皆) ∼ xié (諧) ∼ (奚) *kej ∼ kəj meaning “sir, lord” in pre-OK, and is cognate with the -ke (ケ) in orikoke (the katakana rendering of 狛王 “Koguryŏ king”).

Conclusion

In conclusion, I propose two routes for the borrowing of the Chinese word (佛) in pre-OK, OK, and WOJ:

Route 1: Six Dynasties → Korean Three Kingdoms period → Japan's pre-Nara period 佛 LHan *but → pre-OK (Paekche) *pu.tə.kej/kəj → 保止氣 ホト(乙)(乙) WOJ [pə.tə.kəj]

Route 2: Sui and Tang dynasties → Unified Silla and Koryŏ periods 佛 LHan *but → 仏伊 ∼ 佛 ∼ 佛 OK *pu.ti > *pu.t(h)je/ǝ ∼ 仏体 ∼ 佛OK *pu.t(h)je/ǝ.i(H). 佛 LHan *but → 블 MSK [pɨlH]; 仏 (ブツ) Go-on [bu.tu]

While evidence for pre-OK and OK is, in most cases, scantier than we would like and in many cases is still under active investigation, the study of the various renderings of the word for “Buddha” in the sections above show us that the veil of OK can nonetheless be lifted by reexamining various primary sources in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese and analyzing them from a historical linguistic perspective, thus uncovering the way to a deeper understanding of language contact among these three languages in the early period.

I am extremely grateful to two anonymous reviewers and SJEAS editor Ross King—this article benefited greatly from their very valuable insights and detailed comments. I also wish to express my deepest gratitude to the following people, whose generous help and support made this article possible: Wang Weihui (汪維輝), Fang Yixin (方一新), Kwon In-han (權仁瀚), Zhen Dacheng (真大成), Bhumi Nath Tripathi, Andrew Logie, Xiao Yuening (蕭悅寧), Han Kyeong-ho (韓炅澔), Meng Yichen (孟奕辰), Yang Wanglong (楊望龍), Ji Huaye (嵇華燁), Walter Strömberg, Zhang Hang (張航), and Zhang Huan (張幻). All mistakes and shortcomings remain my own responsibility.

Notes

1.

Hyangga are the twenty-five oldest poems (including the eleven Songs of the Ten Vows of Samantabhadra) of completely Korean writing and literary composition that are still in existence. The method of transcription in hyangga is called hyangch'al. See more in Yang 1965, Kim 1980, and Lee and Ramsey 2011.

2.

In this article, romanized Korean data related to the word “Buddha” are rendered in Yale Romanization. However, other MSSK words and proper nouns are rendered in McCune-Reischauer. Phonetic reconstructions of LHan, fanqie (反切) spellings, and MC reconstructions (based on the Qieyun 切韻, 601 CE) use the systems presented in Schuessler 2009. The phonetic reconstructions of WOJ are based on Miyake 2003a and Frellesvig 2010. Phonetic reconstructions of the MSK and OK vowel systems are based on Itō 2007. The Go-on (吳音) and Kan-on(漢音) readings in the Sino-Japanese system are based on Tsukishima 2007 and Mair 2016.

3.

Generally speaking, Old Korean is defined as the language of the unified Silla state (668–935) (Yi 1998; Lee and Ramsey 2011). In the present article, I refer to the period before OK during the Three Kingdoms period as pre-OK.

4.

Literally, in fútú (浮屠) the character (浮) means “floating, superficial” and (屠) means “to massacre, to separate.”

5.

Regarding the traditional dating of Buddhism's arrival in China, the “Monograph on Buddhism and Daoism” (Shilaozhi 釋老志), in the History of the Wei (Weishu 魏書; 554 CE), states that an envoy from the realm of the Kushans called Yicun 伊存 had orally transmitted Futujing (Buddhist Sutras 浮屠經) to Jing Lu 景盧, who was a student at the imperial academy, in 2 BCE. According to the “Biographies of Ten Princes of Emperor Guangwu” (Guangwushiwang liezhuan 光武十王列傳) in the History of the Later Han (Houhanshu 後漢書), written before 445 CE, we are told that the Prince of Chu (楚王) Liu Ying 劉英 (?–71 CE) of the Han was the first person to officially study and chant Buddhist doctrine (Liang 1999: 13, 3715). Meanwhile, according to “Master Mou's Treatise Settling Doubts” (Mouzi lihuolun 牟子理惑論) in the Collection Aggrandizing and Clarifying [Buddhism] (Hongmingji 弘明集; 517 CE), written by Sengyou 僧祐 (445–518 CE), and the Scripture in Forty-two Sections (Sishi'erzhangjing 四十二章經) in the so-called Doubtful Scripture (Yijing 疑經), Emperor Ming (明帝) Liu Zhuang 劉莊 (28–75 CE) of the Han had sent envoys to the Western Regions to search for Buddhist scriptures after dreaming about a “golden man” in 64 CE, and this incident is regarded as the start of Buddhism's spread into China (Tang 2015: 15–26; Hu 1998: 5, 144; Nattier 2008: 35).

6.

As mentioned in Ji 1990, Bailey (1981) suggested that in the Vīdēvdāt (19, 1, 2, 43; completed in the middle of the second century BCE) but in Bundhišn corresponded to Būiti in the Avesta. The vowel i in Būiti here is probably from East Iranian languages. Moreover, a *Buti existed in New Persian, which corresponds to Sogdian pwty. For more, see Bailey 1981, 1978.

7.

Recently, according to A Dictionary of Tocharian B by Douglas Q. Adams, Tocharian B has listed pūd- instead of pud for “Buddha.” See http://ieed.ullet.net/tochB.html#pu%CC%84d-.

8.

The sixteen earliest verifiable Chinese Buddhist translations include the following twelve by An Shigao: the Daśottarasūtra (Chang'ahanshibaofa jing 長阿含十報法經), Mahānidānasūtra (Renbenyusheng jing 人本欲生經), Sarvāsravasūtra (Yiqieliusheshouyin jing 一切流攝守因經), Satyavibhaṅgasutra (Sidi jing 四諦經), Benxiangyizhi jing (本相猗致經; its Sanskrit title is uncertain), Shifafeifa jing (是法非法經; there is no parallel text in Pāli), Nirvedhika-sūtra (Loufenbu jing 漏分布經), Arthavistarasūtra (Pufayi jing 普法義經), Mithyātva-sūtra (Bazhengdao jing 八正道經), Saptasthāna-sūtra (Qichusanguan jīng 七處三觀經), chapter 6 of the PāliPeṭakopadesa (Yinchiru jing 陰持入經), and Daodi jing (道地經; its Sanskrit title is uncertain). The remaining four are Zhi Loujiachen's Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñãpāramitā (Daoxingbore jing 道行般若經) and Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra (Banzhousanmei jing 般舟三昧經; there are only unrevised prose portions); Ugraparipṛcchā (Fajing jing 法鏡經), translated by An Xuan 安玄 and Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調; and Middle-[length] Scripture on Former Events (Zhongbenqi jing 中本起經), translated by Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, Zhu Dali 竺大力, and Zhu Tanguo 竺曇果. For further details, see Zürcher 1991, Nattier 2008, and Fang and Gao 2012.

9.

Here the phonogram (母, MC *məuB) and (沒, MC *mwət) both have the onset [m-] in the groups of the initial míng (明; i.e., 明母, Míngmǔ) in MC. This may indicate that characters in the groups of initial bìng (並, i.e., 並母, bíngmǔ) had a nasalized Northwestern pronunciation *mb- in MC. For further details, see Luo 2012.

10.

The vowel harmony system certainly existed in Middle Korean texts, however, it is not very clear in OK. For basic understanding about the laws of vowel harmony in Korean, see Yi 1998 or Lee and Ramsey 2011.

11.

See File No. K2-723-v001 in Digital Jangseogak (jsg.aks.ac.kr/dir/view?catePath=&dataId=JSG_K2-723), not revised Modern Korean editions.

12.

Moreover, the popular form (仏) appears already in the Memoir of the Pilgrimage to the Five Indian Kingdoms by Silla monk Hyech'o (慧超, 704?–783? CE). Although scholars generally agree that the only extant manuscript discovered by Paul Pelliot (1878–1945) in Dunhuang's Mogao caves is not in Hyecho's hand, it is possible to consider it as a copy of the original. For further notes and interpretations of the manuscript, see Zhang 2000.

13.

Some Koreanists believe that Korean directly borrowed [-l] from a Northern MC dialect with -r < *-t. However, considering that the disyllablic phonogram fūlǐ (夫里, MC *bju- ljɨB), the monosyllabic phonograms (伐, MC *bjwɐt), (拔, MC *bwât), and (弗, MC *pjwət), and the semantogram huǒ (火) refer to the same administrative unit in OK toponyms, the coda [-l] must have existed from the pre-OK period, and thus does not directly reflect a late MC *-r.

14.

Sŏktok kugyŏl is a kind of kugyŏl glossing (kwukyel, 口訣) used to add Korean vernacular grammatical morphology (t'o 吐) to texts in Literary Sinitic.

15.

The gloss ?ti () is regarded as an abbreviated form of the sinograph (體) in Hwang et al. (2009: 353) without detailed explanation, but this proposal must be rejected. According to the history of Chinese calligraphy during the Six Dynasties, especially in the Caoshuti 草書體, “cursive scripts style” (Sun 2012: 804, 474; Mao 2014: 876, 1211), ?ti () is more similar to zhǐ (止) at first glance, rather than (體), which is written with the popular form (体) in hyangga.

16.

There are two explanations for the development of the aspirates in OK: (a) combination between plain obstruents medially and h (e.g., -ph-, -hp-); (b) clusters following the syncope of an interceding vowel (e.g., *huku- > khu-, “big”). For more details, see Lee and Ramsey 2011: 64–65.

17.

Although a borrowing between pre-OK and OJur may be possible, we should note that we do not have any earlier materials for OJur prior to the inscription on the “Stele of the Hills of Victory” (Dajin desheng tuosongbei 大金得勝陀頌碑, 1185 CE). We also need further research on the history of Buddhism in Khitan and Jurchen.

18.

Regarding the usage of the word hotoke (ホト(乙)(乙)) after the OJ period, it is well attested in Sinitic texts glossed with Japanese kunten (訓點). For more details, see Tsukishima 2007, 7:146–47.

19.

In this article, passages from Chinese dynastic chronicles are cited according to the new revised Zhonghua Book Company edition, where available.

20.

There is one passage of classic Chinese alongside this toponym: 漢氏美女迎安藏王之地, 故名王迎 (It is the place of the beauty of Han (漢) clan to welcome King Anjang (安藏王) of Koguryŏ, so it is called Wangyŏng (王迎) “king-welcome”).

21.

Man'yōgana refers to the subset of sinographs used to write Japanese phonographically (not logographically), not only in the poetry anthology Man'yōshū but also in other texts in the Middle Japanese period. For further details, see Frellesvig 2010.

References

Primary Sources
Chen Shou 陳壽. (Ca. 280–90)
1962
.
Sanguozhi
三國志 [Records of the Three Kingdoms].
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Ch'oe Sejin 崔世珍. (1527)
1971
.
Hunmong chahoe
訓蒙字會 [Collection of sinographs to enlighten the ignorant].
Seoul
:
Academy of Asian Studies in Dankook University
.
Fan Ye 范瞱. (Ca. 445)
1965
.
Houhanshu
後漢書 [History of the Later Han].
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Fujiwara no Otsugu 藤原緒嗣 et al (815)
1981
.
Shinsen shōjiroku
新撰姓氏錄 [New selection and record of hereditary titles and family names]. In Saeki Arikiyo 佐伯有清, Shinsenshōjiroku no kenkyū 新撰姓氏錄の硏究 [Studies on Shinsenshōjiroku].
Tokyo
:
Yoshikawa Kōbunkan
.
Iryŏn 一然. (1281)
1904
.
Samguk yusa
三國遺事 [Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms].
Tokyo
:
Yoshikawa Hanshichi
.
Kim Pusik 金富軾. (1145)
1928
.
Samguk sagi
三國史記 [History of the Three Kingdoms].
Keijō
:
Chōsenshigakukai
.
Li Yanshou 李延壽. (659)
1974
.
Beishi
北史 [History of the Northern Dynasties].
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Li Yanshou 李延壽 et al (659)
1975
.
Nanshi
南史 [History of the Southern Dynasties].
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Linghu Defen 令狐德棻. (636)
1971
.
Zhoushu
周書 [History of the Zhou].
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Ōtomo no Yakamochi 大伴持家 et al (700s)
2009–18
.
Man'yōshū
万葉集 [Collection of ten thousand leaves]. Translated by Alexander Vovin as Man'yōshū: A New English Translation Containing the Original Text, Kana Transliteration, Romanization, Glossing and Commentary.
20
vols.
Leiden
:
Global Oriental
.
Ou Yangxiu 歐陽修 et al (1060)
1975
.
Xintangshu
新唐書 [New history of the Tang].
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Sun Mu 孫穆. (1103)
1990
.
Jilinleishi
雞林類事 [Assorted matters of Jilin]. In Kang Sinhang, Kyerim yusa koryŏ pangŏn yŏn'gu [A study of the Koryŏ local language in the Jilin leishi].
Seoul
:
Sungkyunkwan University Press
.
Toneri Shinnō 舍人親王 et al (720)
1994
.
Nihon shoki
日本書紀 [The chronicles of Japan]. Collated by Sakamoto Tarō 坂本太郞, Ienaga Saburō 家永三郎, Inoue Mitsusada 井上光貞, and Ōno Susumu 大野晉.
Tokyo
:
Iwanami Shoten
.
Wei Shou 魏收. (554)
2017
.
Weishu
魏書 [History of the Wei]. Rev. ed.
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Wei Zheng 魏徵 et al (656)
2019
.
Suishu
隋書 [History of the Sui]. Rev. ed.
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Xiao Zixian 蕭子顯. (Ca. 526)
2017
.
Nanqishu
南齊書 [History of Southern Qi]. Rev. ed.
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Yao Silian 姚思廉. (636)
2020
.
Liangshu
梁書 [History of the Liang]. Rev. ed.
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Secondary Sources
Bailey, Harold W.
1978
.
Dictionary of Khotan Saka
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Bailey, Harold W.
1981
.
Opera Minora: Articles on Iranian Studies
. Vol.
1
. Edited by M. Nawabi.
Shiraz, Iran
:
Forozangah
.
Ding Fubao 丁福保, ed.
1984
.
Foxue dacidian
佛學大辭典 [Great dictionary of Buddhism].
Beijing
:
Cultural Relics Publishing House
.
Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過.
2012
.
Donghan yiwei fojing de yuyanxue kaobian yanjiu
東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究 [Linguistic studies on apocryphal Buddhist scriptures from the Eastern Han dynasty].
Beijing
:
People's Publishing House
.
Frellesvig, Bjarke.
2010
.
A History of the Japanese Language
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Han'gŭlhakhoe 한글학회, eds.
1992
.
Urimal k’ŭn sajŏn
(1, 2, 3, 4) 우리말 사전 [ (1, 2, 3, 4) Grand dictionary of the Korean language (1, 2, 3, 4)].
Seoul
:
Ŏmun'gak
.
Hu Shi 胡適.
1998
.
Hu Shi wenji
胡適文集 [Collected works of Hu Shi].
Beijing
:
Peking University Press
.
Hwang Sŏnyŏp 한글학회 et al, eds.
2009
.
Sŏktok kugyŏl sajŏn
석독구결 사전 [Dictionary of Sŏktok kugyŏl].
Seoul
:
Pangmunsa
.
Hwang Sŏnyŏp.
2014
. “
Hyangga ŭi ŏhwi
” 향가의 어휘 [The lexicon of Hyangga]. In
Kugyŏl hakhoe nonmunjip
[Proceedings of the conference on Kugyŏl],
49
60
.
Seoul
:
Society of Kugyŏl
.
Itō Chiyuki 伊藤智ゆき.
2007
.
Chōsen Kanjion Kenkyū
朝鮮漢字音研究 [A study of Sino-Korean phonology].
Tokyo
:
Kyūko Shoin
.
Ji Xianlin 季羨林.
1948
. “
Futu yu fo
” 浮屠與佛 [Futu and fo: On the oldest Chinese transliteration of the name of the Buddha)].
Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan
歷史語言研究所集刊
22
:
93
105
.
Ji Xianlin 季羨林.
1990
. “
Zaitan futu he fo
” 再談浮屠和佛 [Yet again on
futu
and fo].
Lishi yanjiu
歷史研究
2
:
3
11
.
Kim Wanjin 金完鎮.
1977
.
Kugŏ ŭmun ch'egye ŭi yŏn'gu
國語音韻體系의 硏究 [Studies on the phonological system of Korean].
Seoul
:
Ilchogak
.
Kim Wanjin 金完鎮.
1980
.
Hyangga haedokpŏp yŏn'gu
鄕歌 解讀法 硏究 [A study in Hyangga interpretation].
Seoul
:
Seoul National University Press
.
Kōno, Rokurō 河野六郎.
1987
. “
The Bilingualism of the Paekche Language
.”
Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko
45
:
75
86
.
Tokyo
:
Oriental Library
.
Kwŏn Inhan 權仁瀚.
2005
. “
Kodae kugŏ ŭi i-breaking hyŏnsang e taehan ilgoch'al” 고대국어의 i-breaking 현상에 대한 일고찰 [A study on the breaking of *i in Old Korean]
.
Chindan hakpo
100
, no.
12
:
165
82
.
Lee, Ki-Moon, and Samuel Robert Ramsey.
2011
.
A History of the Korean Language
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Liang Qichao. 梁啟超.
1999
.
Liang Qichao quanji
梁啟超全集 [Collected works of Liang Qichao].
Beijing
:
Beijing Publishing House
.
Luo Changpei 羅常培.
2012
.
Tangwudai xibei fangyin
唐五代西北方音 [Northwestern dialect during the Tang and Five Dynasties].
Beijing
:
Commercial Press
.
Mair, Victor H.
2016
.
ABC Dictionary of Sino-Japanese Readings
.
Honolulu
:
University of Hawai‘i Press
.
Mao Yuanming 毛遠明.
2014
.
Hanwei liuchao beike yitizidian
漢魏六朝碑刻異體字典 [Dictionary of Chinese variants in the tablet inscriptions from the Han-Wei and Six Dynasties].
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Miyake, Marc Hideo.
2003a
.
Old Japanese: A Phonetic Reconstruction
.
London
:
Routledge Curzon
.
Miyake, Marc Hideo.
2003b
.
‘Philological Evidence for *e and *o in Pre-Old Japanese
,’
Diachronica
20
, no.
1
:
81
137
.
Miyake, Marc Hideo.
2018
. “
Fishy Rhymes: Sino-Korean Evidence for Earlier Korean *e
.” In
Studies in Japanese and Korean Historical and Theoretical Linguistics and Beyond
, edited by Alexander Vovin and William McClure,
37
44
.
Leiden
:
Brill
.
Nam P'unghyŏn 南豊鉉.
2014
.
Kodae han'gugŏ non'go
古代韓國語論攷 [Studies on Old Korean].
P'aju
:
T'aehaksa
.
Nattier, Jan.
2008
.
A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han
東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods.
Tokyo
:
International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University
.
Pak Pyŏngch'ae 朴炳采.
1971
.
Kodae kugŏ ŭi yŏn'gu
古代國語의 硏究 [Studies on pre-modern Korean].
Seoul
:
Korea University Press
.
Pak Pyŏngch'ae 朴炳采.
1990
.
Kodae kugŏhak yŏn'gu
古代國語學硏究 [Studies in ancient Korean linguistics].
Seoul
:
Research Institute of Korean Studies, Korea University
.
Pellard, Thomas.
2014
. “
The Awakened Lord: The Name of the Buddha in East Asia
.”
Journal of the American Oriental Society
134
, no.
4
:
689
98
.
Pulleyblank, Edwin George.
1962
. “
The Consonantal System of Old Chinese: Part II
.”
Asia Major
9
:
58
144
, 206–65.
Schuessler, Axel.
2009
.
Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese
.
Honolulu
:
University of Hawai‘i Press
.
Sin, Chung chin 신중진.
1998
. “
Marŭmch’ŏmgi ŭi saengsŏng kwa paltal e taehayŏ
” 말음첨기의 생성과 발달에 대하여 [On the creation and development of Marŭmch’ŏmgi].
Kugyŏl yŏn'gu
4
:
85
114
.
Sueki Fumihiko 末木文美士.
1992
.
Nihon Bukkyōshi
日本仏教史 [History of Japanese Buddhism].
Tokyo
:
Shinchōsha
.
Tang Yongtong 湯用彤.
2015
.
Hanwei liangjin nanbeichao fojiaoshi
漢魏兩晉南北朝佛教史 [History of Buddhism during the Six Dynasties period].
Beijing
:
Commercial Press
.
Tsukishima Hiroshi 築島裕, ed.
2007
.
Kunten goi shūsē
訓點語彙集成 [Compendium of Kunten glossed vocabulary].
Tokyo
:
Kyūko shoin
.
Vovin, Alexander.
2005
. “
Koguryǒ and Paekche: Different Languages or Dialects of Old Korean?
Journal of Inner and East Asian Studies
2
, no.
2
:
108
40
.
Vovin, Alexander.
2006
. “
Why Manchu and Jurchen Look So Non-Tungustic?
” In
Tumen jalafun jecen akū: Manchu Studies in Honor of Giovanni Stary
, edited by Alessandra Pozzi, Juha Antero Janhunen, and Michael Weiers,
255
66
.
Wiesbaden
:
Harrassowitz
.
Vovin, Alexander.
2007
. “
Korean Loanwords in Jurchen and Manchu
.”
Altai Hakpo
17
:
73
84
.
Vovin, Alexander.
2010
.
Koreo–Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin
.
Honolulu
:
University of Hawai‘i Press
.
Xu Ye 徐燁.
2019
. “
Paekcheŏ ŭi chaŭm yŏn'gu: Hanchaŭm ŭi ŭmun taeŭng ŭl chungsim ŭro-
” 백제어의 자음 연구: 한자음의 음운 대응을 중심으로 [A phonological decipherment of the consonants of Old Korean in Baekche: Based upon the phonological correspondences of sinographic readings]. PhD diss.,
Ewha Womans University
.
Yang Chudong 梁柱東.
1965
.
Koga yŏn'gu
古歌硏究 [Studies on Old Korean poems]. Rev. ed.
Seoul
:
Ilchogak
.
Yi Kimun 李基文.
1998
.
Kugŏsa kaesŏl
國語史概說 [An introduction to the history of Korean].
P'aju
:
T'aehaksa
.
Yu Ch'angdon 劉昌惇.
1971
.
Ŏhwisa yŏn'gu
詞彙史研究 [Studies on the history of the Korean lexicon].
Seoul
:
Sŏnmyŏng Munhwasa
.
Yu Liming 俞理明.
2011
. “
Cong ‘fotuo’ jiqi yiyi kan fojiao yongyu de shetuan chayi
” 從 “佛陀” 及其異譯看佛教用語的社團差異 [The differentia of Buddhist diction in Chinese from the word Buddha and its different translations].
Hefei shefan xueyuan xuebao
合肥師範學院學報
29
, no.
4
:
18
24
.
Zhang Yi 張毅.
2000
.
Wang wu tianzhuguo zhuan jianshi
往五天竺國傳箋釋 [Notes and interpretations on Memoirs of a pilgrimage to the five kingdoms of India].
Beijing
:
Zhonghua Book Company
.
Zhang Yongquan 張涌泉.
2010
.
Hanyu suzi yanjiu
漢語俗字研究 [Studies on Chinese popular characters]. Rev. ed.
Beijing
:
Commercial Press
.
Zhou Fagao 周法高.
1956
. “
Lun futu yu fo
” 論浮屠與佛 [Remarks on Futu and Fo].
Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan
歷史語言研究所集刊 [Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology]
27
:
197
203
.
Zürcher, Erik.
1991
. “
A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts
.” In
From Benares to Beijing: Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Religion
, edited by Koichi Shinohara and Gregory Schopen,
277
304
.
Oakville
:
Mosaic
.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).