On the Etymology of the Name of Mt. Fuji

OJ puⁿzi ‘Mt. Fuji’ is attested in both EOJ and WOJ. The only EOJ text it appears in is MYS 14.3358b, while the remaining attestations are either in WOJ or in Sino-Japanese texts. Nevertheless, it is important that this place name appears in regional WOJ poems from Azuma.

As I mentioned above, Martin reconstructs pJN accent of *punsi as 2.3 (1987: 420). He is probably right, but there are problems with this accentual reconstruction. First, the Tokyo accent is HL, and this reflects 2.4 (LH) or 2.5 (LF), but not 2.3 (LL). The Kagoshima accent is even more puzzling: HL, which can reflect only 2.1 (HH) or 2.2 (HL). The modern Kyoto accent is HL, which can reflect either 2.3 (LL) or 2.2 (HL). Since the only overlap of accent patterns is between Kyoto and Kagoshima for 2.2, one might think that we should reconstruct PJ *punsi as 2.2 (HL). But such a mechanical reconstruction ignores both the history of the language and geographic realities. First we must explore the historical records of the accent for OJ puⁿzi > MJ fuⁿzi > MdJ fuzi. Table 9.2 above traces this accentual history.

TABLE 9.2 Accentual history of Fuji[6]

Segmental form	Accent	Textual source of accentual marks	Date
fuⁿzi	LL	various KKWKS manuscripts	late 11th c.–1333 AD
fuⁿzi	LL	SCS	1185–1190 AD
fuⁿzi	LL	Jōben-bon of SIWKS	1185–1333 AD
fuzi	HL	CMJF	end of 17th c.
fuzi	HL	HKMB	1776 AD
fuzi	HL	GK	mid-Edo period
fuzi	HL	WTS	first half of the 18th c.
fuzi	HL	modern Kyoto	20th c.

One can see from this table that all early attestations in late Heian and Kamakura periods have LL accent, while all late attestations starting from Edo period have HL accent. This is to be expected, because it is well known that the merger between 2.2 (HL) and 2.3 (LL) accent classes as a single 2.2 (HL) class did not happen in the Kyoto dialect before the fifteenth century. Therefore, the HL accent in modern Kyoto cannot reflect the original Kyoto 2.2 (HL) class, but must be a reflex of 2.3 (LL) before it merged with 2.2 (HL). As far as we rely on the historical data and the modern Kyoto dialect alone, Martin’s reconstruction of pJN accent as 2.3 is justified. But how do we explain the discrepancies with accentuation in Tokyo and Kagoshima?

The difference with Kagoshima might seem quite bothersome, because Kagoshima HL clearly points not to a LOW, but to a HIGH register. This is where the geographical and historical realities should be taken into serious consideration. Mt. Fuji is quite close to Tokyo, somewhat far from Kyoto, but very far from Kagoshima. How many people from the uneducated classes in Kagoshima had ever seen Mt. Fuji let alone even known of its existence prior to the twentieth century? In sum, this place name in Kagoshima is unlikely to be native, going back to pJN. On the contrary, it is more likely to be a loanword from the Kyoto dialect after the accentual shift LL > HL had occurred in the latter. Thus, the Kagoshima accent can be excluded from further consideration.

As far as Tokyo is concerned, we still have the same LOW register, because 2.3 (LL), 2.4 (LH), and 2.5 (LF) classes are all LOW-initial. For the purposes of this etymology, the LOW register is all that really matters as the reader will see below shortly. However, once the etymology has been established, I will return again to the problem of reconstructing the pJN accent for *punsi.

After all these preliminaries, I am finally ready to offer my own etymology for Mt. Fuji. As I have briefly mentioned above, this etymology was already obscure in the Heian period. It is quite possible that the same was already true in the Nara period: the complete absence of logographic spellings seems to offer at least partial circumstantial evidence for this point of view. Nevertheless, I am going to demonstrate below that this place name has a perfect Japanese etymology, and that the reason that it became obscure so early is that the language that underlies is not the WOJ of Yamatö, but EOJ of Azuma.

Let me start from the second syllable ⁿzi of puⁿzi. I believe that it can be explained as ‑ⁿzi, a contraction of OJ nusi ‘master, owner’, which also occurs in OJ muraⁿzi ‘kabane title’ < *mura-nusi ‘village-master’, OJ tôⁿzi ‘mistress of the house’ < *tô-nusi ‘gate mistress’, OJ arôⁿzi (MJ aruⁿzi) ‘master’ < *ar-ô-nusi ‘exist-ATTR-master’. There is also MJ miyaⁿzi ‘majordomo’ (not attested phonographically in OJ texts) < *miya-nusi ‘palace-master’.

Then what is the first syllable pu‑? I believe it is EOJ pu ‘fire’[7] that corresponds to WOJ pï (pô‑ in compounds). EOJ pu ‘fire’ is a hapax legomenon attested only in MYS 20.4419, a sakîmôri poem:[8]

(1) 伊波呂尔波 (2) 安之布多氣騰母 (3) 須美与氣乎 (4) 都久之尔伊多里弖 (5) 古布志氣毛波母

(1) ipa-rö-ni pa (2) asi pu tak-ë-ⁿdömö (3) sum-î yö-kë-wo (4) Tukusi-ni itar-i-te (5) kôpusi-kë-mô pa mö

(1) house-DIM-LOC top (2) reed fire burn-EV-CONC (3) live-NML good-ATTR-ACC (4) Tukusi-LOC reach-INF-SUB (5) be.longing-ATTR-EXCL TOP PT

(2) Although [we] make a fire out of reeds (1) at [my] house, (3) the living [there] is good, so (5) [I] will be longing for it (4) when I reach Tukusi!

Note that pJ *poy ‘fire’ belongs to 1.3 (L) accentual class. The well-known rule of thumb for accentuation of Japanese nominal compounds is that the first element defines HIGH or LOW register, while the second element defines locus, if there is any. The LOW initial register of puⁿzi and its actual accentual class further confirm the possibility that the first syllable can be explained as EOJ pu ‘fire’. Thus, EOJ puⁿzi < pJN *po-nusi ‘fire master,’ is quite a fitting name for an active volcano. For the usage of nusi ‘master’ in volcano deities names, cf. the OJ name of the deity Opo-ana-nusi ‘big-hole-master’, which, as J. Marshall Unger once suggested (p. c.), could be the name of a volcano deity.

In conclusion, two issues need to be addressed. First, if my solution of this etymology is correct, then EOJ pu ‘fire’ is no longer a hapax Legomenon, and we have the second independent evidence that the EOJ word for ‘fire’ was indeed pu. It is almost customary now to reconstruct the PJ form of WOJ pï as *pəy (Martin 1987: 405) rather than *poy. However, I know of no examples where pJ *ə raises to EOJ u, because only pJ *o > EOJ u. Recently, both Pellard (on the basis of the Ryūkyūan evidence) (2011: 10), and myself on the basis of the philological evidence in WOJ (pace Mabuchi 1972: 88) and EOJ phonological evidence just mentioned above (Vovin 2011: 222) argued for the reconstruction of PJ *poy rather than *pəy. Another attestation of EOJ pu ‘fire’ gives further credence to the EOJ side of argument in favor of *poy.[9]

6

All the data in the right three columns in this table are from Akinaga, Kazue; Ueno, Kazuaki; Sakamoto, Kiyoe; Satō, Eisaku; Suzuki, Yutaka (1997: 432).

7

Technically EOJ pu ‘fire’ is a word from Muⁿzasi province, but it is from the Tatiᵐbana district located in the west of this province, which is barely 50 km. from Mt. Fuji.

8

The reconstruction of the original text, transcription, glossing and translation are from Vovin (2013: 188), with one minor adjustment in the transcription and additional highlighting made on purpose for this contribution.

9

Many thanks to John Whitman, with whom I have had a long discussion about the reconstruction of pJ word for ‘fire’ about five years ago. Many of his careful arguments against *poy vs. *pəy made me revise and rethink the present argumentation about the name of Mt. Fuji as being evidence for pJ *poy rather than *pəy.