The first question that needs to be answered is: “Why the second edition?” The response to this question is multilayered.
First, the first edition (Vovin 2005, 2009) was in two volumes because of the small format of the page used at the Global Oriental, the publisher for the first edition. Second, the second volume of the first edition was printed with the minimal number of copies, so it was almost immediately sold out, and almost for ten years only the electronic copy was available. Third, the second volume (2009) has special additions chapter that contains supplemental information for the first volume (2005). This made the usage of the grammar more difficult and cumbersome. Fourth, and most importantly, there have been new developments in the scholarship on Old Japanese within last ten years which need to be reflected.
The next question is: “How is the second edition different from the first except the proper incorporation of the additions chapter?” The response is also multilayered.
First, the comparative part of the grammar is greatly reduced. In the early 21th century there still was a necessity to argue against the “Altaic” hypothesis of the origins of the Japonic language family. Since this hypothesis is no longer taken seriously except by some truly faithful from the Moscow Nostratic school and Max Planck institute in Jena, there is really no need to use trees for the unnecessary discussion. In short, the comparative part has been reduced to the discussion of the internal Japonic data, Eastern Old Japanese and Ryukyuan. The only exception when any external data are discussed is made for loans from Ainu, Chinese and Korean. Also, it was becoming gradually clear in recent years that Japonic is an intrusive language family in the maritime North-East Asia, and that it probably has its ultimate Urheimat in Southern China and/or Northern South-East Asia. Japonic is not related to any of the language families found there, but it probably was for a quite long time in contact with some of the language families that are found in this region.
Second, the Eastern Old Japanese comparisons were revised considerably, mostly in the sense what texts can be taken as Eastern Old Japanese and which one cannot. The basis for this decision are two volumes of my translation of the Man’yōshū books fourteen and twenty that are currently our main source of information on Eastern Old Japanese (Vovin 2012, 2013).
Third, the romanization of Old Japanese was completely changed in such a way that it would reflect with the maximum accuracy the actual phonetics (to the extent we can know it) with the maximum accuracy. This was done mostly for the benefit of the colleagues and students who have not had a chance to study the history of the Japanese language, which is a prerequisite to understand phonologically oriented transcriptions. A single example will be sufficient: Old Japanese prenasalized voiced obstruents are most commonly transcribed as plain voiced b, d, g, z, but in this grammar the prenasalization is indicated by superscript m, n, and ŋ: mb, nd, ŋg, and nz.
Fourth, in spite of the reductions mentioned above, I also made important additions to Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10, that were overlooked in the first edition. I have also added a new Chapter 11 on interjections. Thus, the grammar is still almost 1,000 pages long, but it is the nature of the Old Japanese language itself that is to blame for the grammar’s size.
Fifth, some technical changes were made as well. The term ‘infinitive’ that is very misleading for Old Japanese was replaced with ‘converb.’ The notation of different types of particles that were lumped together as PT (= particle) in the textual examples of the first edition was subdivided into focus, interrogative, desiderative, emphatic, and restrictive particles. The numerical notation of the Man’yōshū poems was changed from ‘MYS I: 1’ to ‘MYS 1.1’ in order to make it uniform with my translation of this anthology (Vovin 2009b–2018).
In early 2014 after a quarter of the century spent at three different American universities I made an important decision to move to France for the remainder of my professional life. I can now dedicate much more time to my research while training Ph.D. students in Old Japanese, Manchu, and Middle Mongolian.
It seems that in every country of my residence I am able to make long-lasting friendships. Not everyone from the following list comes from or lives in France, and only few people among those are professional colleagues or students. But certainly all of them made my new life more enjoyable and fruitful: Irène Tamba, Ross Bender, Augustin de Benoist, Elena Perekhvalskaya, Bjarke Frellesvig, John Whitman, William McClure, Dieter Maue, Mehmet Ölmez, Étienne de la Vaissière, Pierre Marson, Redouane Djamouri, Christiane Babiak, Sami Saleh, Vladimir Bokarius, Alexei Egorov, Juha Janhunen, Maria Chiara Migliore, D. Zayabaatar, Wu Ying-zhe (Oyunch), Laurent Sagart, Guillaume Jacques, Guillaume Carré, Anton Antonov, Michelle Abud, Takubo Yukinori, Osada Toshiki, Suda Jun’ichi, Anna Bugaeva and my three current PhD students: Gao Hsiang-Tai (Baatar), Younès M’Ghari and Etienne Baudel.
I would also like to offer my thanks to several institutions that graciously supported my research: National Institute of the Japanese Language and Linguistics (NINJAL), Ecole des hautes études en sciences socials (EHESS), European Research Council (ERC), and Mongolian Government.
My special thanks go to my editors at Brill: Irene Jager and Patricia Radder.
Last, but not least, my gratitude goes to members of my family that is now found in three countries: France, Japan, and Russia—my parents-in-law Ishisaki Tetsuo and Ishisaki Fukiko, my wife Sambi, and my three children: Lesha (Alexei), Yasha (Jacob), and Masha (Marie). This edition is dedicated to Sambi.
Alexander Vovin
Poligny, Seine-et-Marne, August 23, 2019