Re: USAGE: More Japanese

On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:06:36PM -0400, Jeff Jones wrote:
> Well, compared to some other threads, Mark, this is relatively on-topic!
True enough. :)

> Yes. It is (or was) limited to certain speakers, and mostly non-initial /g/
> IIRC.
> Is there an [i] or [j] after it?
Nope.

Specifically, a transcription of the lyrics I found on the web gives the
first line starting with "anoko na hutteita".  The singer seems to be
realizing that as [AnokoNAp\Mt:eitA].   I hear it as
[AnokonjApM?deitA], which makes sense auditory-artifactwise,
other than the [N] as [nj].  Everywhere else in the same song,
/g/ definitely sounds like [N] rather than [nj].

> >2. Does Japanese have [?] a an allophone of /t/?
>
> No. The end of a word in isolation, or the start of a word can sound like
> [?] due to crisp enunciation, but that's all I know of.
Okay.  I understand hearing geminate /t:/ as /?t/, /t?/, /?d/, /d?/,
etc.  But the same "ottomo" in which I hear no [m] at all also seems to
have [?:] for /t:/, nothing dental about it.

> I've heard of [Mmi] becoming [M.i], but this is lexically limited IIRC.
Interesting.

> Weird! I don't think [kw] or [rj] or [4m] can occur in Japanese either.
> What kind of recording is this?
Anime soundtrack CD.

> Is the singer native Japanese?
Yes.

> Also, I might as well ask how you know what's supposed to be there.
Like I said above, lyric transcription found online.

> Could [kwi] really be [kMi] and [rje] really [rie]?
That was my guess before I looked up the lyrics.  I also guessed that the
[irmM] was /irimM/ or /irumM/.

> Close. [f] should be bilabial. The others are close enough, I think.
Thanks!  As Garth said, the X-SAMPA for the bilabial is [p\].
Another question: is Japanese /a/ generally [a] or [A]?

-Mark