Re: Allophony

dirk elzinga wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Eric Christopherson wrote:
>
>> Speaking of Japanese, does anyone know how /tu/ became [tsM] ([M] is =
an
>> unrounded [u])? I had thought maybe the /M/ was originally a front =
vowel,
>> but then how does one account for the presence of /i/?
>
>This assumes that the vowel indicated by the romanization as <u>
>is in fact [u] underlyingly. I don't know that this is the case
>in Japanese; it may just be [M]. Historically, though, there may
>be arguments to assume that [M] was once [u], but everything
>I've seen on Japanese phonology assumes that [M] is now the
>synchronic underlying vowel.
The description I have of Japanese phonology in 'Handbook of the=20
International Phonetic Association' seems to indicate that Japanese=20
<u> is neither [u] nor [M], but something in between. The IPA has=20
two options for transcribing this phonetically; 1) [u] which is=20
centralized, lowered, and less rounded, or 2) [M] which is=20
centralized, lowered, and more rounded. (Ladefoged and Maddieson in=20
'Sounds of the World's Languages' describe it as /u/ with compressed=20
lips rather than simply rounded). So perhaps the [tsM] allophone of=20
/tu/ can be accounted for by the fact that /u/ is centralized, while=20
the [tSi] allophoneof /ti/ due to the frontness of /i/.

-kristian- 8)