Re: Futurese

>> [h] and [P] are allophones of just one consonant /h/,
>> being [P] the allophone used when vowel /u/ follows.
>
>No they aren't. Words with syllables like [Pa] and [Po] are common in
modern
>Japanese. Those two sounds are not allophones anymore.
Those words are all borrowed terms and many Japanese native
speakers find it hard to say just [Pa] and [Po] and usually
have to introduce a slight u in between [Pwa] [Pwo].

If you count those syllables and those sounds (such as [v])
that appear only in recent borrowings (mainly from English),
then you'll have to do the same with English and say that
e.g. English does have vowel ü because it is pronounced by
educated people in French and German borrowings or that
Spanish has sh separately from ch because many people
prononce it in English borrowings such as "show".


>> >[s]
>> >[S]
>>
>> The same, just one consonant /s/, [S] is the
>> allophone used when vowel /i/ follows.
>>
>
>You then forget the hundreds of Japanese words using syllables like [Sa],
[So]
>and [Su], contrasting with [sa], [so] and [su].
I didn't forget, because [Sa], [So] and [Su] are, phonemically,
/sya/, /syo/ and /syu/.


>> >[ts]/[dz]
>> >[tS]/[dZ]
>>
>> [ts] and [tS] are allophones of /t/, used respectively
>> when vowel /u/ and vowel /i/ follows.
>>
>
>You forget then all the words using syllables like [tSa], [tSo] and [tSu],
like
>the very common and important word [tSa]: tea.
The same, phonemically they're just /tya/, /tyo/ and /tyu/.


>> [dz] and [dZ] are allophones of /d/, used respectively
>> when vowel /u/ and vowel /i/ follows.
>>
>
>Idem, there are nowadays plenty of words with [dZa], [dZo] and [dZu], and
[dz]
>is now common with every vowel.
Which ones? Any native one?


>> >[w]/[j]
>> >[n]/[m]/[N] (though the last one is not phonemic but an allophone of
>> /n/
>> before
>>
>> Then, please don't count [N] as a Japanese consonant.
>>
>
>Okay, one less. Still, my other counts still fit.
>
>> >[k] or [g])
>> >[4]
>>
>> What ASCIIfication are you using? I don't know what
>> sound you're referring to with [4].
>>
>
>Alveolar flap, Spanish |r| between two vowels.
>
>>
>> >and [B] or [v] for some people in loanwords.
>>
>> If you count the sounds used in loanwords, then Spanish
>> uses consonant sh.
>>
>
>Well, why should we give loanwords a special status when they are used as
often
>as native words? The origin of the words is pointless. Their use is the
only
>thing that matters.
Yes, but when a loanwords uses a non-native sound, it
will be pronounced properly only by those most educated
people. A borrowing such as "show" is pronounced as [Sou]
but some people, while others make it easier for them
and adapt it as [tSou]. And the same can be said of
Japanese, where some people, those most educated, will
pronounce [v] in English borrowings, while others will
adapt if as [b].


>> Japanese consonants are:
>> /p/, /b/, /m/, /t/, /d/, /n/, /k/, /g/, /h/, /s/ and /r/
>>
>
>That was true 100 years ago (and even then, the Chinese loanwords that
were in
>the language for already centuries make that analysis caduque). But we're
in
>the 21st century, and it's the Japanese language of now that we're talking
>about. You should get your references updated.
And may I know which are those updatings I'm not aware of?


>> I would consider the combinations with [w] and [j]
>> as diphthongs much rather than considering [w] and
>> [j] as consonants.
>
>But that doesn't fit the language. If they are diphtongues, why can't they
be
>used with consonants, since a diphtongue counts as one vowel?
They ARE used with consonants (tya, hyo, myu, nya, syo, kyu...).


> But even if you consider them as
>> consonants, the total amount of Japanese consonants
>> would remain at 13, way far from 27. Well, and if
>> you also consider the glottal stop as a separate
>> consonant, then the total would be 14.
>
>No, since your analysis is flawed. The consonants you presented are not the
>only phonemic consonants of Japanese (or else you'll have to explain me
how the
>Japanese contrast words like |da|: to be and |ja|: good bye, or between
|ta|:
>field and |cha|: tea).
Yes, of course, it contrasts /da/ with /dya/ ("da" and "ja"
in Hepburn English-looking transcription) and /ta/ with /tya/
("ta" and "cha" in Hepburn).

It seems you're taking Hepburn transcription as if it really
reflected the phonemic nature of Japanese, which it certainly
does NOT. The Hepburn system is widely used abroad because
it makes things easier for English speakers to read the
transliterations, but the Japanese themselves prefer their
Nippon-shiki system (which is the official transliteration
of Japanese used by their government), harder to read for
foreigners but easier for the Japanese as it consistently
represents the same phoneme by the same letter (and thus,
syllable /si/, pronounced [Si], is written "si" instead of
Hepburn "shi").

Cheers,
Javier