Talk:Japanese phonology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Oddities

The article is improving. Good. However:

1. Moras are represented orthographically in katakana and hiragana–each kana being one mora–and are referred to in Japanese as 'on' or 'onji'.
2. kyo 巨 'hugeness' 1-mora word

Seemingly a contradiction, as kyo is written with two kana (キョ).

Each mora occupies one rhythmic unit, i.e. it has the same approximate time value.

Does he really say that? Going around the Yamanote line: for "Takadanobaba", yes, this seems true; for "Uguisudani", no it doesn't. (True, intuition doesn't count for much. Especially when it's only L2 intuition.) I thought I remembered being (wrongly?) told that the third mora in "hanashita" (for example) was destressed and thus shorter than the other three. -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

He says that they're "perceived as isochronous". Destressed? Do you mean to say that the vowel /i/ is silenced? Could it be that the consonant then merges with the previous syllable: CV.CVC.CV? Either way, I don't really know the answer to that. --Lfdder (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Perceived as isochronous, maybe. But I think that even this would be for most morae, not all. I think that somebody who didn't know either Japanese or phonology would analyse "hanashita" as somewhere between either (1a) [ha.na.shta] or (1b) [ha.nash.ta] and (2) [ha.na.shi.ta]. If I remember right, Samuel Martin (the Japanese and Korean reference grammars man) brought out one or two very elementary introduction to speaking Japanese for the hurried tourist or GI, within them writing "hanashta" (or possibly "hanash'ta"). -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is complicated by literacy. The mora is the tone-bearing unit, but I'm not sure sokuon actually counts as a mora in that regard. But when reading poetry, each mora (incl. sokuon) is given equal time, and this affects people's perception, making them think that this is the underlying structure of the language. Whether that's true for unmonitored speech is another question. If I remember correctly, kyo has been called a 'heavy' mora because it really is a bit longer than ko, whereas sokuon is a 'light' mora. — kwami (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Hoary, the number of kana used is not necessarily an indication of the number of morae. Note the distinction between キヨ (kiyo) and キョ (kyo). This is very intentional, and this is also phonemically important. Note too the distinction between シヨ (shiyo) and ショ (sho). There are many such two-kana spellings for single morae. In modern Japanese, these are generally limited to usage of the small "y" kana to represent /j/ glides, though there are other two-kana spellings for single morae, such as /fa/ that appears in some borrowed words, usually spelled ファ. In historical usage, there have also been /ɰ/ glides, such as クヮ (kwa).

In short, don't go solely by kana count to try to figure out the number of morae -- also pay attention to the size of each kana. Any small kana are likely intended to be considered in combination with the preceding regular-sized kana as a single moraic unit (with the exception of the small っ / ッ used for the sokuon, which is counted as a mora in its own right). -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming what I'd unconfidently thought. And also, probably, for fixing a note to the article so that the oversimplification has been removed. (Perhaps this wasn't you; if not, then thanks to whomever.) Of course Japanese orthography presents additional archaisms and oddities (I immediately think of Canon's preference for キヤノン with an old-style large ヤ) that complicate "one mora per kana (unless the kana is small [unless the kana is っ])", but this is an article on phonology, not orthography, so talk of these can be omitted. -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "Consonantal moras are restricted from occurring word initially, though utterances starting with [n] are possible." is confusing.

Nowhere is a consonantal mora defined, and many readers might assume "any mora containing a consonant", whereas Q and N were what was actually intended.

What is an "utterance" here? *Words* beginning with [n] are possible, but which doesn't really need saying (does it?), as [n] belongs to /n/, a separate phoneme from N. As it's written now, one might suppose that some exception to the restriction just stated was being given, that N and /n/ were in allophonic variation, or that neutralization was being described. -- David Russell Watson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.106.163 (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It probably means to state that words cannot start with /N/ or /Q/, even though one can say something, beginning with a /N/ or /Q/ (that utterance won't be a proper word, or grammatically correct, however).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

ったく starts with a /Q/. Checkmate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.144.37 (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, you can say things that start with っ (i.e. /Q/), but it's not a "proper" word, or grammatically correct. ったく (ttaku) does fall under that. You can say it, but it's not used in written Japanese and it's not a proper word.

You can/will see it in written form occasionally, but that will only be in, say, a speech bubble in a manga (which represents spoken dialogue) or possibly a bit in internet chats.

It is a colloquial abbreviation of まったく (mattaku. 全く, in kanji), which is itself a bit of an abbreviation. It's much the same as such English "words" as: 'cause (because), 'n (and) and the such. It can occur, but they're not proper words.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, how is まったく an abbreviation? It is an adverb, and is used as a standalone interjection, much like the English completely, or totally. But it's not an abbreviation, as far as I'm aware (unless you mean to point out that it's kind of a half-thought, relying upon the context for fuller meaning, same as the English examples). — Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your surprise/confusion/objection. I wasn't aware of this myself, until I looked it up, just to get the info completely right.

It seems that 全く (mattaku), by itself, only means "indeed", "truly", "completely", or so. The meaning that is relevant here, which is more along the lines of "good grief", is 全くもう (mattaku mou). Using "mattaku" for that meaning, is thus an abbreviated form of "mattaku mou". (sources to confirm: 1, 2, 3)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"equal length and loudness"

The article says:

In English, stressed syllables in a word are pronounced louder, longer, and with higher pitch, while unstressed syllables are relatively shorter in duration. In Japanese, all moras are pronounced with equal length and loudness.

I think that "relatively shorter in duration" means "shorter". Do we have a well informed source for the assertion about Japanese? I've heard it many times but suspect that it means "all moras are pronounced with length and loudness varying far less than do the syllables of English". As it is, the assertion surprises me. I'd thought that (for example) the third syllable in やました was somehow "weaker" than the other three, whatever "weakness" means in this context. -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"short vs long"

The article says:

Vowels have a phonemic length contrast (i.e. short vs. long). Compare contrasting pairs of words like ojisan /ozisaɴ/ 'uncle' vs. ojiisan /oziisaɴ/ 'grandfather', or tsuki /tuki/ 'moon' vs. tsūki /tuuki/ 'airflow'.

In most phonological analyses, all syllables with a short vowel as their nucleus are treated as occurring within the timeframe of one mora, or in other terms, one beat. According to traditional conventions, long vowels are described as a sequence of two identical vowels. For example, ojiisan will be rendered as /oziisaɴ/, not /oziːsaɴ/. Analysing long vowels in this manner is in accord with the traditions of Japanese linguistics and poetry, wherein long vowels are always considered separate moras.

This sounds a bit odd. When I read "According to traditional conventions, [proposition]", I've come to expect "However" followed by some new insight. But here, there's nothing. Is there also a well-informed nontraditional analysis? If so, what's the state of play between/among the analyses? (If the article backs tradition, I don't think that this should be merely because tradition.) As for the phonetic facts, I think I've read that おう (or おお or とう) takes a lot less than twice the time of お (or と). If my memory's right and there is a source for this, would the matter be worth mentioning? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are sources saying they do take "a lot less than twice the time" I'd be interested in seeing them—I'd find that astounding. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems I was talking out of the wrong orifice. This paper (table 4, p.132) shows that (in Japanese as in Thai and Arabic) long vowels take over twice as long. And the "Background" section of this paper points to a number of papers about duration. -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there are alternate analyses. Is there even a citation for the claim that analyses with long vowels as a sequence of two identical vowels are more common or "traditional" than those with chronemes or those that simply treat long and short vowels as different vowels? Just because long vowels take up two morae in Japanese poetry, isn't evidence for the idea that they must be composed of two monomoraic [i] vowels in sequence. I know that at least historically, most of the long vowels don't originate from sequences of the same vowel, but from sequences of different vowels or from loanwords from Chinese. Also, many papers dealing with Japanese morphology use a morphological analysis where things like [oː] = |au| and [joː] = |eu|. So there are several alternative analyses at different levels of abstraction that seem like they should be mentioned as well. I'll try to find some good sources about these. 130.71.254.49 (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The close back vowel and the corresponding approximant

I've just changed the symbols ⟨ɯ ~ ɯᵝ⟩ and ⟨ɰ ~ ɰᵝ⟩ to the simpler ⟨u, w⟩. No set of symbols is completely correct here, so we should choose the simpler one. Also, as we're using /u, w/ in phonemic transcription, there's little reason to create a discrepancy. However, if there's a convincing reason to use /ɯ, ɰ/ (without ⟨ᵝ⟩) in phonemic transcription, then let's use it in both phonemic and phonetic transcription, because it is somewhat more correct - Japanese /u, w/ are not rounded and compressed back vowels/approximants generally sound slightly closer to unrounded back vowels than to rounded ones (the same thing applies to protruded front vowels, which sound more unrounded than rounded - visit Swedish phonology and listen to the recordings). Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would be strongly opposed to a mixed transcription /ɯ, w/ ~ [ɯ, w]. We should be consistent. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind (and indeed I prefer) having the generic symbols ⟨u w⟩ in the phonemic notation, but it seems misleading to not have distinct symbols in the phonetic transcriptions, because the actual sounds are so different from, for example, Spanish /u/ and English /w/. Anyway, Help:IPA for Japanese uses ⟨ɯ ɰ⟩. — Eru·tuon 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Well, Spanish /u/ is also quite different from English /u/ and so is Swedish /yː/ from German /yː/. As I said, I don't really care which set we use (and I actually slightly favor ⟨ɯ, ɰ⟩ over ⟨u, w⟩ for the reasons stated above), but we should be consistent and use that set everywhere. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: I'm sorry, are you talking about phonemic or phonetic transcriptions here when you say you prefer ⟨ɯ, ɰ⟩? — Eru·tuon 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: I'm saying that we should be consistent with whatever set we choose. So both. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Why? Phonemic and phonetic symbols don't have to be identical. — Eru·tuon 20:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: For the sake of simplicity and being noob-friendly. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Oh, I thought you were talking just phonemic. Yeah, in phonetic, ⟨ɯ, ɰ⟩ obviously would be more accurate (unless we choose to transcribe /u, w/ as [u͍, w͍] instead of [ɯᵝ, ɰᵝ]). I guess the extIPA symbol could be omitted where redundant, only because that's established in the same article. (But at the same time, one might mistake [ɯ, ɰ] as indicating a lack of compression, so there's reason to keep ⟨ᵝ⟩.) Nardog (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Yeah, [u͍, w͍] is a good narrow transcription if we're going to use ⟨u, w⟩ elsewhere. And it's consistent, all we'd be doing is adding or removing a diacritic. Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: The thing with [u͍, w͍], though, is that there seem to be few sources that prefer [u] over [ɯ] as the narrow transcription. So I'd say ⟨u, w⟩ for phonemic, ⟨ɯᵝ, ɰᵝ⟩ for narrow. Nardog (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: But I'm opposed to using narrow transcription throughout the article. There's simply no need for that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Let's write both [ɯᵝ, ɰᵝ] and [u͍, w͍] when describing the exact quality, then, so that readers would understand [ɯ, ɰ] and [u, w] could signify the same sounds. Nardog (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Ok. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, as you can see, Help:IPA for Japanese isn't phonemic. It's nowhere near as narrow as wikt:Template:ja-pron either, though.

It actually uses ⟨ɯ⟩ for /u/ yet ⟨w⟩ for /w/, but I think it should stay that way. ⟨ɯ⟩ and ⟨ɰ⟩ may look too similar in a sequence, and ⟨w⟩ is the same as romaji, so it adds intuitiveness. Nardog (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Then, I'd say, let's use ⟨u, w⟩. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be my choice too. I think ⟨ɯ, ɰ⟩ (without the extIPA symbol) fail to convey that, albeit not "protruded", they are far from being unrounded. Nardog (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: I've just had a look at that Wiktionary template and whoever created it, must really like the IPA. Last year I changed symbols in the corresponding Spanish template to make it display a broad phonetic transcription. Looks like that Japanese template could use a similar treatment, but I'm afraid I'll break something. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I know, right? xD But if you went too broad, at some point you might as well just use romanization since the writing system of Japanese is pretty phonetic. What is not represented in orthography is accent and devoicing, both of which, however, heavily depend on the dialect. Nardog (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: That's partially true, but there also are people who aren't very familiar with romanizations of Japanese yet can read the IPA fluently. I'm one of them. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Phonotactics

The edit made 01:10, 27 July 2017‎ by Nardog has completely changed the table in the Phonotactics section. This table originally had IPA symbols on the first row and column of the table and hiragana in the other table cells. This efficiently described the phoneme sequences of hiragana, especially the "exceptions". For example, hiragana ふ was in the cell that was the intersection of row ɸ with column ɯᵝ where [ɸɯᵝ] is the IPA representation for ふ, and hiragana ひ was in the cell that was the intersection of row ç with column i where [çi] is the IPA representation for ひ. Now the first row and column of the tables contain romanji letters rather than IPA symbols and the IPA phoneme sequence for each hiragana is lost. For example, hiragana ふ is now in the cell that is the intersection of row h with column u where [hu] is not the IPA representation for ふ , but its romanji representation, and hiragana ひ is now in the cell that is the intersection of row h with column i where [hi] is not the IPA representation for ひ, but its romanji representation. IMMO, this table is now not a hiragana phonotactics table that describes phoneme sequences of hiragana, but rather just a hiragana sillabary table that has no connection with phoneme sequences. In addition to this, readers who look for a phonotactics table in the Phonotactics section will be misled in believing for example that ひ has the IPA representation [hi], and ふ has the IPA representation [hu]. I propose for this change to be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanpellegrin (talk • contribs) 09:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

From Phonotactics: "Phonotactics is a branch of phonology that deals with restrictions in a language on the permissible combinations of phonemes." In fact phonotactics is in Japanese called 音素配列論, literally "phoneme sequence study". So by definition the section has to deal with the permissible phoneme sequences and there is little point in having a table exclusively with allophonic representations. The captions on the table weren't "romaji letters", they're perfectly legitimate IPA representations, except they're phonemic representations, not allophonic ones; otherwise ⟨ɡ, j⟩ would have had to be ⟨g, y⟩.

Anyway, I have expanded the table so it now includes both phonemic and allophonic representations. Those looking for the corresponding graphemes can refer to the tables at Hiragana and Katakana. Nardog (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Devoicing: kishitsu?

I'm a native Japanese speaker and I've never pronounced 気質 kishitsu with the first i devoiced like in the example [kʲi̥ɕitsɯᵝ]. It's either [kʲiɕi̥tsɯᵝ] or [kʲi̥ɕi̥tsɯᵝ]. Is the opposite (as listed in the article) true for the majority of Japanese speakers, or is my pronunciation the more standard one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.213.236.124 (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think [kʲi̥ɕitsɯ] is more common, and you may be mistaking the palatalization in the first mora for voicing. Remember devoiced doesn't necessarily mean silent, it just means no vibration of the vocal cords. Since [k] is a stop and [ɕ] is a fricative, the transition between them (i.e. devoiced [i]) may sound just like [ç], which may trick one into thinking an actual vocoid is produced.

[kʲiɕi̥tsɯ], on the other hand, would render it indistinguishable from 既出 kishutsu. Although [kʲiɕɯ̥tsɯ] may still differ from [kʲiɕi̥tsɯ] in the lip shape, and, being a less common word, it may more often be enunciated as [kʲi̥ɕɯtsɯ]⁓[kʲiɕɯtsɯ], paralleling [kʲi̥ɕitsɯ], if you actually pronounce kishitsu as [kʲiɕi̥tsɯ], it should sound intermediate between kishitsu and kishutsu. Nardog (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"Archiphoneme" status of /N/ and /Q/

As far as I know, /N/ and /Q/ are not archiphonemes. I'm pretty sure that whoever said they are doesn't understand what an archiphoneme is, this has confused like 5 people I know just because of this one page. To my knowledge, an archiphoneme involves the neutralization of phonemes - it's only relevant in cases when separate phonemes don't contrast in a specific position. "This can be seen as an archiphoneme in that it has no underlying place or manner of articulation, and instead manifests as several phonetic realizations depending on context" sounds incredibly wrong to me, and I think the editor got confused by the "limp, lint, link" example on the archiphoneme page, but that's completely different from what occurs with the moraic nasal. 2601:4C4:C205:3C90:2048:379A:7CE7:F522 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Since Japanese already has /m/ and /n/ (and /ŋ/ according to some analyses) in syllable-initial positions, the syllable-final (moraic) nasal is exactly a case "when separate phonemes don't contrast in a specific position" much like the "limp, lint, link" example in English. The gemination is also such a case in that, again because of the limited distribution of phonemes in syllable-final positions, out of e.g. /p, t, k/, only /t/ can occur in e.g. /ka_ta/ (*/kapta/, */kakta/).

I don't necessarily question the truth of what you say given it is indeed the case that literature doesn't usually refer to the "special moras" as archiphonemes (just that the notation using capital letters is "archiphonemic representation", e.g. Kubozono 2015:34). I'm just wondering why it's so and how the article can be improved accrodingly. Nardog (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the notation is the same, and I imagine that had also been a source of confusion, but it is indeed the case that /N/ is analyzed as a single phoneme, not an example of neutralization. I'm not an expert on any of this, just applying what I know from reading, but I can offer my understanding of the difference between the English example and what occurs in Japanese. In English, /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/ regularly can and do occupy the coda alone, while only certain corresponding phonetic realizations can occur before certain consonants, something analyzed as a neutralization of phonemes. There's only one nasal phoneme available to fill the coda in Japanese, though, which doesn't even behave in a way that can be easily compared with one of /m/ or /n/. In a vacuum, the /N/ of /saN/, for instance, does not behave phonetically in a way which associates it with either of the two nasal phonemes that can appear in the onset. Just because /N/ surfaces as [m] or [n] in certain contexts does not mean that a distinction is being neutralized, because no distinction was available there in the first place. You can apply the same to /Q/ - there's no distinction to neutralize here either. 2601:4C4:C205:3C90:2517:CEC4:FBD3:9C18 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit circular, don't you think? /Phonemes/ are deduced from [phones], not the other way around. Just because /N/ surfaces as [m] or [n] in certain contexts does not mean that a distinction is being neutralized, because no distinction was available there in the first place. Well, there being no distinction available in certain contexts sure does sound like a case of neutralization. Otherwise, why is /N/ analyzed as a single phoneme in the first place then? In fact, linguists used to analyze the moraic nasal as allophones of /n/, and some still do (e.g. Kubozono). It's not that there is no neutralization because only /N, Q/ can occur in a coda, but that scholars felt necessity to posit /N, Q/ as separate phonemes precisely because there is neutralization. Anyway, here's an example of referring to /Q/ as an "archiphoneme". I think the article is correct after all. Nardog (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is that there is not a distinction "in certain contexts", there is no distinction in any context. What do you mean by "scholars felt necessity to posit /N, Q/ as separate phonemes precisely because there is neutralization"? How would neutralization prove their phonemicity? Neutralization is the dissolution of phonemic distinction, not the creation of new phonemes, it's shorthand for "one of several phonemes which are not distinct in this position". And even if you analyze /N/ as just /n/, which I do not believe is the prevailing view, that still doesn't make an archiphoneme? What distinction is supposed to be neutralized here? 2601:4C4:C205:3C90:2517:CEC4:FBD3:9C18 (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If /N, Q/ are not shorthand for "one of several phonemes which are not distinct in this position", what are they? Why were they conceived of in the first place, if not for the convenience of having a shorthand for a nasal or obstruent with no defined place of articulation? What distinction is supposed to be neutralized here? Between /m/ and /n/, before /p, b, m/ and /t, d, n, r/ respectively, of course. Sure, coda nasals occur in other environments too, but they can just as (or slightly less) plausibly be analyzed as allophones of /m/ or /n/. /N/ is only posited out of analytical convenience/economy, not observable fact. So /Q/ is an even better example of an archiphoneme, in that all its realizations are shared by other phonemes. It can be disposed of and it'll be perfectly fine; now you only have to write /tt/ instead of /Qt/ and so on. Nardog (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't personally get that analysis (why should a phoneme require a primary place or even manner of articulation?), but that's obviously irrelevant. Upon rather cursory research and a couple of inquiries to people who have read more than me... It is, indeed, a stance that is taken by some linguists, but I'm pretty sure it requires a different definition of archiphoneme (an archiphoneme isn't a phoneme at all under typical usage, which appears to be backed up by Wikipedia's own section on it). In any case, it is not definitionally true that /N/ and /Q/ are archiphonemes, as you seem to be asserting. That is just one analysis with one set of definitions, which, as far as I can tell, is not a matter of consensus at all. The majority of authors don't refer to the special moras as archiphonemes at all, and all those I could find that do offer no real explanation. In my opinion that is clearly not reason to leave the article as-is on the subject, but instead reason to elaborate on the differing stances in the literature after further research. Can sources that actually explain be found? Can the article be edited to reflect different common analyses? 2601:4C4:C205:3C90:9CC0:FA6B:B9CA:B21D (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, a clarification to address an issue with your recent edit: the point of what I said previously is that not everyone treats /N/ as an archiphoneme, even when it is analyzed as just that - /N/. /N/ as /N/ does not necessarily mean /N/ is being called an archiphoneme - your assertion was false not because there are other analyses, but because the very same analysis does not require the label of archiphoneme. In fact, under the typical definition of "archiphoneme", the analysis of the moraic nasal as one would instead require that it could be both /m/ and /n/, it is just that some authors use a separate definition of archiphoneme that allows it to be a phoneme in its own right. 2601:4C4:C205:3C90:F4C7:BFD9:504D:297E (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to add Hiragana to the IPA table?

I wish to know the match between Hiragana and IPA so that I can pronounce it. --dqwyy (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding hiragana to the IPA tables would clutter up those tables. The pronunciation of hiragana is shown in the article hiragana. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh thanks a lot. --dqwyy (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

pronunciations of す and つ differ between this article and the "Hiragana" and "Katakana" articles

This article states that す and つ are pronounced /sɨ/ and /tsɨ/ respectively (with a closed-mid unrounded vowel), while the Hiragana and Katakana articles state that they are pronounced /sɯ/ and /tsɯ/ instead (with a closed-back unrounded vowel). Are the pronunciations of said kana flexible, or is one more "correct" than the other? Switzrr02 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This article, being about the sound system of the language itself, includes more granular details (IOW adopts a narrower transcription), transcribing the allophony of /u/ after alveolar consonants and the palatalization of consonants before /i/. Hiragana and Katakana, on the other hand, use the conventions of the Help:IPA/Japanese key, which is used in various articles not necessarily related to linguistics and therefore uses the minimum required number of letters and diacritics to convey the pronunciation of Japanese words. Nardog (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Palatal consonants

Why is ひ written as /ç/ and not /hʲ/, while き is written as /kʲ/ and not /c/? --Saledomo (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Because /ç/ (and not /hʲ/) and /kʲ/ (and not /c/) are their respective sounds. -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is ひ /ç/ anyway? I can maybe understand it for hyaku but the example given under the voiceless palatal fricative is hito which is given as a sound part in "hitomakuri" without the IPA transcription making it a ç so the author isn't consistent in that regard. It's written in as one throwaway sentence. I might not have much knowledge in this regard since I'm new to all of this but this doesn't seem right to me personally. Anafyral (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Japanese does not use /u/

I see this in a lot of simple Japanese articles that think that the phonology is simpler and it's not. Japanese does not use the rounded close back vowel /u/, it uses the unrounded version /ɯ/ MarcosVille (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

/u/ is consistent with the International Phonetic Association's principles as a phonemic notation. See Handbook of the IPA, pp. 27–8, 159 § 4a. Nardog (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Phonemic representation of long vowels

The article is inconsistent in how it represents long vowels in phonemic notation. For example, it says "/ɡaijuu/ > [ɡaijɯː] gaiyū 外遊" but later on it says "/ɡjoːza/ > [ɡʲoːza] gyōza ぎょうざ". It should stick to one of the following ways:

1. /ɡaijuu/
2. /ɡaijuː/
3. /ɡaijuR/

I'm not sure which is best. Thoughts? Rdoegcd (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The first way ignores that satauya and sato'oya are different words, while the second way obscures mora boundaries. The third way has neither of the issues. --178.69.98.64 (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Something isn't accurated

“[ꭓ]”/“[χ]” isn't occurred in Japanese, it should be “[x]; [x ~ x̟(ʲ)]”. Because "ひ (hi)" by phoneme is “[ç]”, and “[x]” sounds similar to “[ç]”. Juidzi (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

“[ꭓ]” sounds like "ch" in German "acht". Juidzi (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Well it is what the source gives after all, for bahha, from German Bach. Low vowels like [a] involve contraction of the tongue so it may qualify as a uvular fricative when devoiced (which [h] essentially is—a voiceless version of the adjacent vowel) depending on the position of the dorsum. Nardog (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have more information? Juidzi (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Like what? Nardog (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Topique: Phonology of a sound “ひ (hi)” Juidzi (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The assimilation rules for /h/ apply regardless of whether it is geminated. So for example Chūrihhi 'Zürich' is [tɕɯꜜːɾiççi]. Nardog (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording

The current version of the article contains:

"/s, t/ before /i/ and /sj, tj/ are alveolo-palatal [ɕ, t͡ɕ]."

and:

"/z, d/ before /i/ and /zj, dj/ are [ʑ, d͡ʑ] [...]"

To me these sentences are ambiguous. I cannot make out what is meant:

• either: /s, t/ before /i/ as well as /s, t/ before /sj, tj/ are alveolo-palatal [ɕ, t͡ɕ].
• or: /s, t/ before /i/ as well as before /sj, tj/ are alveolo-palatal [ɕ, t͡ɕ].

Similarly, I can see at least two possible interpretations of the second quotation:

• either: /z, d/ before /i/ as well as /z, d/ before /zj, dj/ are [ʑ, d͡ʑ];
• or: /z, d/ before /i/ as well as before /zj, dj/ are [ʑ, d͡ʑ].

Could someone knowledgeable please disambiguate the text? Thanks!Redav (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither. It is the consonants /t, d, s, z/ followed by /i/, as well as the clusters /tj, dj, sj, zj/ followed by any vowel, that surface as alveolo-palatal consonants. But I can't think of a good wording myself at the moment. Nardog (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Try "The sequences /sj, tj/ coalesce into alveolo-palatal [ɕ, t͡ɕ]. Before /i/, /s, t/ too become [ɕ, t͡ɕ]." and the analogous wording for the voiced consonants. Sol505000 (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Pre-/i/ is the more prominent environment and "coalesce" IMO misleadingly implies there's some synchornic process, so I'd go with something like "/s, t/ are alveolo-palatal [ɕ, tɕ] before /i/, as are /sj, tj/ before any vowel." On second read, though, I can't figure out what the difference between the options Redav gave is. Nardog (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

First possible reading: /si/, /ssj/, /stj/ all are pronounced [ɕ]; /ti/, /tsj/, /ttj/ all are pronounced [t͡ɕ]. Second possible reading: /si/, /sj/ both are pronounced [ɕ]; /ti/, /tj/ both are pronounced [t͡ɕ]. (And similar for the voiced counterparts.} My problem is with the interpretation of "and". Does it join "/s, t/ before /i/" with "/sj, tj/"? Or does it join "/i/" with "/sj, tj/"? After reading the responses, I propose:

"both /si, ti/ and /sj, tj/ are alveolo-palatal, pronounced as [ɕ, t͡ɕ]."

and:

"both /zi, di/ and /zj, dj/ are pronounced as [ʑ, d͡ʑ]"Redav (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, the intended reading is neither of the possibilities you've identified. /si/ is [ɕi]. /ti/ is [t͡ɕi]. /sj/ is [ɕ] and /tj/ is [t͡ɕ], so e.g. /sja/ is [ɕa] and /tju/ is [t͡ɕɯ]. Your first reading strikes me as particularly implausible impossible, even without assuming the reader knows /stj, tsj/ don't occur in Japanese, because one would naturally write "/s, t/ before /i, sj, tj/" or "/s, t/ before /i/, /sj/, or /tj/" if that were the case, and even then it would mean /si, ssj, stj/ are [ɕi, ɕsj, ɕtj] and /ti, tsj, ttj/ are [t͡ɕi, t͡ɕsj, t͡ɕtj], not that they all somehow turn into single segments. Nardog (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

r vs ɾ in consonant table

The liquid alveolar consonant in the table is shown as /r/, while it is pronounced /ɾ/ in most dialects. Pronouncing it as /r/ (alveolar trill), which the chart shows, is rare. There is a comment saying "We use /r/ because realizations vary, just as do we at English phonology.". The explanation at English phonology is that it is rendered as /r/ because that's the way it is in the Latin alphabet. Shouldn't the table reflect the IPA realization of how it is most commonly pronounced instead of showing how it is transcribed in roma-ji? 68.0.59.20 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that there is a difference between [phonetic] notation, which should be stricter and closer to how things are actually pronounced, as opposed to /phonemic/ notation, which is generally looser and less tied to specific IPA glyphs. See more at the International Phonetic Alphabet article, particularly this text from the third paragraph in the lede (emphasis mine):

... For example, the sound of the English letter ⟨t⟩ may be transcribed in IPA with a single letter, [t], or with a letter plus diacritics, [t̺ʰ], depending on how precise one wishes to be. Slashes are used to signal phonemic transcription; thus /t/ is more abstract than either [t̺ʰ] or [t] and might refer to either, depending on the context and language.

And, from Phonetic_transcription#Narrow_versus_broad_transcription (comments in [square brackets] are mine):

... A further disadvantage of narrow transcription [i.e. phonetic notation in [square brackets]] is that it involves a larger number of symbols and diacritics that may be unfamiliar to non-specialists. The advantage of broad transcription [i.e. phonemic notation in /slashes/] is that it usually allows statements to be made which apply across a more diverse language community. It is thus more appropriate for the pronunciation data in foreign language dictionaries, which may discuss phonetic details in the preface but rarely give them for each entry. A rule of thumb in many linguistics contexts is therefore to use a narrow transcription when it is necessary for the point being made, but a broad transcription whenever possible.

The table at Japanese_phonology#Consonants gives a more phonemic or abstract list of symbols, rather than any strict phonetic representation -- we can see that also with the use of ⟨t⟩ to represent the voiceless dental plosive and ⟨p⟩ for the voiceless bilabial plosive, both of which are less aspirated in Japanese than in English.

Anecdotally, I spent some time living in Morioka in the north of Japan in the mid-90s, where I noticed that older folk who spoke Iwate dialect pronounced the consonant in らりるれろ much more as a liquid, so it sounded strikingly like /la li lu le lo/ with the voiced alveolar lateral approximant [l], and not at all as the tap /ɾ/ or trill /r/.

Considering the above, that the specific glyphs shown in the Japanese_phonology#Consonants table all link through to the fuller articles discussing each point of articulation, and also that the text below the Japanese_phonology#Consonants table gives details on the finer points of articulation in Japanese, including for /r/, it appears to me to be appropriate to use the ⟨r⟩ glyph as a "broad transcription" using a symbol that non-specialists will be more familar with, rather than the stricter specialist "narrow transcription" glyph ⟨ɾ⟩. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. 68.0.59.20 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

/r/ is by far the most common phonemic representation of the liquid, see e.g. Vance (1987, 2008), Shibatani (1990), Irwin (2011), Labrune (2012), Iwasaki (2013), Hasegawa (2014), Tsujimura (2014), Kubozono (2015), Irwin & Zisk (2019). The International Phonetic Association recommends using roman letters in broad transcriptions when the phonetic precision is not relevant, see Handbook of the IPA, pp. 28, 159–60. Nardog (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Voiced bilabial fricative [β̞] for the ⟨w⟩ kana?

@Nardog, you just updated the phonotactics tables to use ⟨β̞⟩ for /w/. β̞ redirects to Voiced_bilabial_fricative#Approximant, and the sole example given for Japanese is a variant pronunciation of Kobe.

Is ⟨β̞⟩ really the correct IPA glyph for the /w/ sound in Japanese? Or is the redirect incorrect, and this shouldn't point to Voiced_bilabial_fricative#Approximant? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the summary, it's per Maekawa (2020). See also the Consonants section. Nardog (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nardog: Hmm, ya, Maekawa's paper makes sense, thank you. The problem I see right now is that the page we have describing this symbol appears to define a different sound than what we get with Japanese わ (wa). The sequence awa in Japanese does not match the sequence ava in Spanish, but our content at Voiced_bilabial_fricative#Approximant combined with your edit here would suggest that these should have the same pronunciation.

With that in mind, I wonder about adopting Maekawa's other suggestion to use notation like [ɰʷ], adding the superscript "w" diacritic to mark labialization. This isn't too far from what we used to have, something like [ɰᵝ] with the diacritic to indicate bilabial articulation. That said, both of these are also problematic in that our article at Roundedness defines these instead as superscript "w" to mark protruded rounding and supercript "β" to mark compressed rounding.

Alternatively, with your expertise, could you update the content at Voiced_bilabial_fricative to better account for Japanese? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I already did. The allophone of /b/ is a fricative, not an approximant, according to the source cited there (Okada). Using ⟨ɰ⟩ for /w/ is misleading because it's the symbol for the velar approximant. The value of ⟨β̞⟩ is quite clear; it's even used as an exemplar of the diacritic on the official IPA chart. Nardog (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nardog: Thank you for moving the Kōbe example. Could you also add some Japanese examples of the approximant? Currently the table at Voiced_bilabial_fricative#Approximant has nothing for Japanese.

My sense is that the Spanish pronunciation of the ⟨v⟩ in lava is different from the Japanese ⟨w⟩ in awa, in that the Spanish strikes me as being more closed, where the lips are closer together, but I may be off-base. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Spanish [β] varies between fricative and approximant, like other voiced continuants ([ð, ʝ, ɣ]). Nardog (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Auxilliary む in spelling changes table

The table gives the modern spelling of む as ん, but it's my understanding that this is still a very literary/archaic spelling. I think the table should be updated to use う・よう instead. I'm not sure how best to include this, as the sound change also involves the 未然形 of the verb, so it's not just む > う, but あむ to おう (e.g. 行かむ > 行こう). Also む > よう for ichidan verbs (食べむ > 食べよう、見む > 見よう) Horse Battery (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Some Japanese allophone of /ɡ/

Allophone of /ɡ/ have only ⟨[ɣ]⟩, but it's possible to have ⟨[ɠ]⟩? Sometimes, I can hear a bit voiced velar implosive. Juidzi (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about D- in Phonotactics

In the Phonotactics section why are 5 of the 8 squares in the D- pronunciations darker? In IPA charts that usually means humans aren't capable of pronouncing the sound but that's not the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.171.1 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Because they're merged with /z-/ in most dialects (see Yotsugana). Nardog (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Moras or Morae

Isn't the plural of mora morae? This article uses "moras" exclusively. Does this need copyediting? GiggyMantis (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

At least it is consistent. My dictionary says both are acceptable. Equwal (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent additions: queries

@Urszag, regarding your recent additions, I've got a couple questions.

• About セロ, any chance that this is less "a unique exception showing adaptation of [t͡ɕe] to [se]" and more a simple matter of spelling pronunciation? Over in the NKD entry here at Kotobank, this is cited first to 1909, by which point anyone borrowing the term may have gotten it from a text and incorrectly assumed it was English, where a selo pronunciation for the spelling ⟨cello⟩ would be somewhat expected.
• About り, you added that "For example, Japanese has a suffix, |ri| that contains what Kawahara (2006) calls a "floating mora" that triggers gemination in certain cases (e.g. |tapu| +|ri| > [tappɯɾi] 'a lot of').". I'm not sure if this is an accurate characterization: the development of CVCCV-ri adverbs suggests instead that this may be more a matter of emphasis, where gemination is a common mechanism for this. For instance, we have pisshari and also pishari, zakkuri and also zakuri, (verb-derived) anmari and also amari, among others, where the geminated versions are often described in monolingual JA references as emphatic forms, such as with a note like〔「ungeminated version」を強めた語〕. Historically, the non-geminated versions are generally cited earlier than the geminated forms. Consider also zaburi, cited to 1275 (NKD entry), and zanburi, cited to 1735 (NKD entry). Apparently zaburi may come from even older saburi, cited to 1221 (NKD entry).
• Is 十針 citable with a reading of juhhari? I can only find tohari in references, suggesting that this juhhari may be either a dialectal pronunciation, or a relatively recent innovation.
• Is あふれる citable with a reading of ahureru? I have never seen mention of ふ pronounced as [hu] as opposed to [ɸu]; the biomechanics of the face and the place of articulation of the /u/ as realized in media-standard Japanese actually makes that difficult. Perhaps this is just a formatting / notation confusion? The other words in that short list suggest that these were intended to be romanizations, where ふ would be "fu" in Hepburn romanization, but from context, maybe these were supposed to be /phonemic slash notation/ instead? Otherwise, the "hu" looks strangely out of place here.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking about these; it's really nice to get feedback regarding the substance of the article!

1. I also personally suspect that セロ could be a spelling pronunciation based on English spelling-to-sound rules, but the two sources cited treat it as an adaptation of [tʃe] (which doesn't seem impossible in light of the better-attested depalatalization of [dʒe] to [(d)ze] in some forms). Given its exceptional nature, it might not be necessary to mention this form in this article; I guess I included it mainly because it makes it harder to say without qualification that [tʃe] is always adapted faithfully (which otherwise seems to be accurate).
2. The part about the 'floating mora' in forms ending in -ri was there before my recent edits: it seems to have been added by User:Aeusoes1 here. I haven't read much about these forms yet, but based on what you say it does sound like the gemination may not be strictly linked to the addition of the suffix. Perhaps our description could be reworded to make it more accurate. As with a number of forms cited as evidence of Japanese phonology, I also wonder how productive the pattern of adding /N/ in this context is. Schourup and Tamori 1992:135 seem to imply that it might not be demonstrably productive when they make a point of saying there are only around 15 total examples of forms with /N/ in this context (citing Hamano 1986:139). Labrune 2012:105 cites other examples of /N/~/Q/ complementary distribution in forms prefixed with bu-.
3. I was also starting to wonder about how frequent the Sino-Japanese readings with /hh/ that Labrune mentions are. Labrune 2012 only mentions them in passing, but cites Lawrence, Wayne P . (1999) 'Ha-gyōon no mae no sokuon - gendaigo ni okeru /Qh/ [Geminate h in modem Japanese], Kokugogaku 199: 16-27" as the source.
4. " ahureru" isn't a phonetic transcription and definitely isn't meant to indicate [hu] as opposed to [ɸu]: "hu" is just how Nasu romanizes ふ here. I suppose that should be standardized to Hepburn style 'fu' to avoid confusion about this.

Unrelated to this, I have actually seen some descriptions that state that [hɯ] or something close to it may occur as as realization of ふ, in contrast to the standard description of it as [ɸɯ], but it's been hard for me to find peer-reviewed or printed academic sources that talk about this. Maddieson 2005 compares the Japanese pronunciation to Ewe and finds differences; Watanabe (2009) gives a mostly impressionistic argument; both also cite Uehara & Kiyose 1974's description. I've also seen an acoustic study by Scott Ruddell that suggests the use of [ɸ] in this context is variable ("An acoustic study of the Japanese voiceless bilabial fricative", Scott Ruddell, San Francisco State University) but this seems to have been an undergraduate project, and so I suppose not a suitable reference for this article to use.

Another question: when you used [ɸu], was [u] simply a convenient broad transcription, or did you intentionally use it instead of [ɯ]? Nardog's recent edit to standardize the phonetic transcriptions in the article reminded me that I feel somewhat conflicted about the practice of using [ɯ] as a broad transcription of Japanese /u/. While most learner-oriented linguistic material in English seems to use [ɯ], I think I've seen some use of [u] as a broad transcription in academic works. I found this presentation by Nogita and Yamane 2018 that argues that /u/ is phonologically accurate and suggests the absence of phonetic rounding might be no more pronounced than for Japanese /o/ or English /ʊ/, which are both commonly transcribed broadly as [o] and [ʊ]: here

--Urszag (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. 😊

• Re: ふ possibly pronounced as [hu], that is very interesting. I have subjectively noticed that the Japanese [ɸ] is somewhat like a blend between stricter definitions of [h] and [ɸ], inasmuch as the shape of the face when pronouncing the Japanese /u/ (more on that below) lends itself to this consonantal sound by dint of merely devoicing and increasing the amount of airflow. No need to change the shape of the lips, etc. I could well be wrong, not having studied this in any depth, but it seems to me that other instances of [ɸ], as in the colloquial urban UK English pronunciation of initial ⟨th⟩ like in thought, involve more compression of the lips to produce a more markedly fricative sound.
• Re: [u] in my query above, ya, that was me being lazy and just using the keyboard "u". Another interesting paper, thanks for the link. I do notice this tidbit in the front matter:

The participants read aloud Japanese 5 short vowels (/i, e, a, o, u/) in isolation 12 times...

I've noticed before that asking just about anyone to pronounce a specific sound in isolation usually results in a different realization as opposed to how that sound is usually produced in regular speech, so I have to wonder if the protrusion this study noticed in how some speakers say /u/ was more an artifact of the rarified pronunciation parameters, rather than anything indicative of how people normally speak. (Admittedly, I have so far only skimmed the paper, so the authors might address this somewhere.)

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Westbury and Hashi 1997 do suggest protrusion could be unnaturally emphasized in the laboratory. I think it seems a bit unexpected for speakers to add rounding in this context if the vowel typically has a completely unrounded target.--Urszag (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Satooya

Vance (2008: 58ff) backs up his claim of vowel rearticulation with waveforms. A glottal stop/constriction is also a possibility, but I would regard it as a possibility parallel to rearticulation, not a different description of the same phenomenon. Nardog (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I found it hard to tell whether the different descriptions were supposed to be referring to the same thing or not. In the case where glottal constriction is not involved, the transcription [ˀ] seems pretty inapt, but I guess there isn't any established IPA symbol for rearticulation.--Urszag (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)