It is a well-known fact that the following“sound law”(rule of phonetic correspondences) is found between the Kyoto-Tokyo dialect of Japanese and the Shuri dialect, which was the standard language of the former Ryukyuan Kingdom: Kyoto ki ke ka ko ku; gi ge ga go gu Shuri t_??_i ki ka ku ku; d_??_i gi ga gu gu On the other hand, several exceptions are found to this rule of correspondences, but all of them can be explained, so far as the author knows, in terms of comparative method principles. In this article, some exceptional phonetic correspondences found in Sino-Japanese words and signemes (morphemes) are explained as due to borrowing from Japanese into Ryukyuan. For example, Chinese characters and«meanings»Japanese old orthography and [the present pronunciation] Shuri forms Chinese pronunciation of the characters 假病«feigned illness»kebyau [kebjo_??_] t_??_ibjo_??_ (chia3-ping4) 系圖«pedigree»keidzu [ke_??_zu] t_??_i_??_dzi (his4-t_??_u2) 見物«sightseeing»kembutsu [ke_??_zu] t_??_imbutsi (chien4-wu4) 聖賢«sages»seiken [se_??_ken] _??_i_??_t_??_i_??_ sheng4-hsien2 藝能«public entertainments»geinou [ge_??_no_??_] dzi_??_nu_??_ (I4-nêng2) 玄関《vestibule》 genkwan [ge_??_ka_??_] d_??_i_??_kwa_??_ (hsüan2-kwan1) 日限《time-limit》 nichigen [nit_??_ige_??_] nit_??_id_??_i_??_ (jih4-hsien4) As contrastively shown in the above table, these Shuri words are evidently loanwords from Japanese, not from Chinese. However, if we adhere to the “sound law”mentioned above, the expected Shuri forms should be [kibjo:, ki:dzi, kimbutsi, _??_i:kiη, giηnuη, giηkwaη, nit_??_igiη]. That is to say that these Sino-Japanese words make exceptional correspondences, which are very difficult to explain. As the result of his researches to linguistically compare Japanese and Ryukyuan dialects, the author had come to a hypothesis, to the effect that the Shuri dialect has passed at least the following three stages of development: the A period *ki *ke *ka *ko *ku; *gi *ge *ga… the B period *ki *kii *ka *ku *ku; *gi *gii *ga… the C period t_??_i ki ka ku ku; d_??_i gi ga… (including the present) If the above Sino-Japanese words would have been borrowed in the period A or C from Japanese, the present forms of Shuri would have had [ki] and [gi] instead of [t_??_i] and [d_??_i]. Accordingly, the only possibility is that they were borrowed in the B period from the western Japanese dialects, where [k] in [ke] must have been palatalized to some extent, as it is so nowadays. The ears of the contemporary speakers of Ryukyuan must have been very keen to hear the feature of palatalization in [k], which discriminated [ki] from [kii], so that the Japanese [ke] sounded to the Ryukyuan ears as [ki] rather than [kii]. Studying the Yu-yin Fan-i 語音翻譯 (1501), the author has revealed that this document represents exactly the B stage of Ryukyuan, and conducting researches into various contemporary and later documents, he comes to the opinion that the B period probably lasted from around 1400 until the late 16th century. He supposes that a number of Japanese high priests who came to stay in Shuri around 1500 and taught the Ryukyuans in Buddhism, Japanese and Chinese classics apparently caused the borrowing of those Sino-Japanese words and signemes (morphemes), which are fairly numerous and firmly established in the present Shuri dialect.
“Phenomenology of Spirit”has an another title, namely the‘science of the experience of consciousness’. Corresponding to this twofoldness of the title, the Phenomenology is, on the one hand, the metaphysics of Subjektität (i.e. of subject-object relationship), and on the other, the metaphysics of intersubjectivity. In I, II and III of the Phenomenology, the fundamentals of the metaphysics of Subjektität are explained with regard to sense, perception and understanding respectively. In V-A, these fundamentals are developed within the element of reason as the synthesis of subject and object. In V-B, C, through the frustration of the metaphysics of Subjektität, Hegel's argument leads to the universal reason which is to grasp the concept of recognition (Anerkennen), as a basis for the metaphysics of intersubjectivity. In IV, the metaphysics of intersubjectivity was generally considered from the viewpoint of the concept of recognition. And this general consideration is developed further in VI as the manifold forms of recognition. Conscience, the highest form in VI, is the conclusion also in VII, and this conscience is the leading thread to the Absolute Knowing. Martin Heidegger defined Hegel's Phenomenology as the metaphysics of Subjektität. This definition is valid only for the introduction, I, II, III and V-A of Hegel's Phenomenology, but the rest (especially IV and VI) belongs to the metaphysics of intersubjectivity. This is the first point to which the present writer is intending to draw special attention in the interpretation of Hegel's Phenomenology. The foundation of the metaphysics of Subjektität appears first in VII-A-a (the religion as Light), and it is, in short, based on Hegel's interpretation of the Christian dogma of Creation. This is the second point to which attention is called.