Re: CHAT: F.L.O.E.S.

En réponse à Mark J. Reed :


>Dumb question: is there such a thing as "hu" in Japanese?  Not the phonemic
>spelling of "fu", nor "hyu", but the syllable [hM]?  And if so, how is
>it represented in kana?
I don't think it exists natively or in Chinese borrowings. It's possible it 
exists in other borrowings (those borrowings have introduced syllables like 
[ti] (the word "paatii" [pa:ti:]: "party" comes to mind) and [si], and some 
people even have [B] (from borrowings with [v], although most people still 
borrow [v] as [b]) so why not [hM]? Note though that many people still 
pronounce only [tSi] and [Si], even in such borrowings). In "paatii" 
(written in katakana, of course :) ), the "ti" part is written normal 
te-small i. In the same way, [tM] is written normal te-small u. So by 
analogy, I'd expect [hM], if it appears anywhere, to be written normal 
he-small u. In katakana of course, all those new syllables only ever appear 
in recent borrowings, which are all written in katakana.

>CG> Note that the same is done with "chi").
>
>AJ> I thought 'chi' was, so to speak, the 'ti' kana?
>
>It is.
Yep, but I prefer writing it "chi" personally. I don't like the "exact 
transliteration method". I find it difficult to read, and with all those 
borrowings that bring new syllables like [ti] and [tu], the "exact 
transliteration" method becomes cumbersome.


>That is the case.  Also for e.g. "jo" = "ji-yo", since "ji" is phonemically
>/zi/ and the *o kana of that series is pronounced [zo].
Exactly.


>I don't recall seeing the [s\] comment;
As I said earlier, me neither.

>  I thought the sh in /si/ etc
>was a genuine [S].
AFAIK it is.

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang. 

Reply