[OT] Iou-jima, Iou-tou, Iwo-jima, Iwo-tou
Mark Spahn
Jim Lockhart
> I asked about this here a few years ago, and I think the
> conclusion was that it came from a gaijin's misreading of old Japanese
> maps with the spelling いをじま or いをうじま
> (but I'm not at all sure about that; corrections welcome).
いわうじま
--Jim Lockhart
Peter Durfee
> いわうじま
A peek at a 古語辞典 shows that 硫黄 was once pronounced ユワ, perhaps
related to ユノアワ.
--
Peter Durfee
du...@gol.com
Tokyo
Benjamin Barrett
His o with macron is ambiguous with respect to おお and おう, but I
think this is おう here, so while 硫黄 was written いわう before WWII,
it was pronounced いをう. I think the pronunciation discrepancies were
one reason why the spelling system was modernized.
Benjamin Barrett
a cyberbreath for language life
livinglanguages.wordpress.com
Mark Spahn
His o with macron is ambiguous with respect to おお and おう, but I
think this is おう here, so while 硫黄 was written いわう before WWII,
it was pronounced いをう. I think the pronunciation discrepancies were
one reason why the spelling system was modernized.
Benjamin Barrett
Peter Durfee
> Just to clarify, いおう and いをう are pronounced exactly
> the same ("ee-oh", with no "w" sound), right?
> -- Mark Spahn
In 標準語, in the present age, yes, I think they're just about the same.
This hasn't always been the case in all dialects and eras, so when the name
first made its way into the ears of English speakers it might have had a
more pronounced /w/ in there.
Jim Lockhart
> Just to clarify, いおう and いをう are pronounced exactly
> the same ("ee-oh", with no "w" sound), right?
Right, in Japanese. Though there was never an をう combination: it was
わう. The romanization "wo" came about because of the position in the わ
行 of the syllabary:
わ ゐ う ゑ を
wa (w)i u (w)e (wo)o
But since all wi's, we's, and wo's have been superseded by i's, e's, and
wo's (with the exception of the を marker, which is nonetheless
pronounced /o:/), they are considered obsolete except for historical
purposes.
But in ENGLISH, it's 'ee-woh-''jee-ma, regardless of what any Japanese
say, think, decree, or try to impose: English is OUR language to mull
and mug. <g>
--Jim Lockhart
Benjamin Barrett
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:44:10 -0400
> "Mark Spahn" <msp...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Just to clarify, いおう and いをう are pronounced exactly
>> the same ("ee-oh", with no "w" sound), right?
>>
>
> Right, in Japanese. Though there was never an をう combination: it was
> わう. The romanization "wo" came about because of the position in the わ
> 行 of the syllabary:
>
> わ ゐ う ゑ を
> wa (w)i u (w)e (wo)o
>
> But since all wi's, we's, and wo's have been superseded by i's, e's, and
> wo's (with the exception of the を marker, which is nonetheless
> pronounced /o:/), they are considered obsolete except for historical
> purposes.
>
as /wo/ in formal settings. So in this case, my understanding is that
the kana was written わう, but the pronunciation was in fact /wo:/. And
in fact, it's hard to imagine how a word like をんな (おんな) came to be
written with を if the pronunciation was /o/. The explanation that there
was a sound /o/ and a sound /wo/ makes more sense. BB
Jim Lockhart
> > But since all wi's, we's, and wo's have been superseded by i's, e's, and
> > wo's (with the exception of the を marker, which is nonetheless
> > pronounced /o:/), they are considered obsolete except for historical
> > purposes.
> >
> I've been told by friends that they have heard older people pronounce を
> as /wo/ in formal settings. So in this case, my understanding is that
> the kana was written わう, but the pronunciation was in fact /wo:/. And
> in fact, it's hard to imagine how a word like をんな (おんな) came to be
> written with を if the pronunciation was /o/. The explanation that there
> was a sound /o/ and a sound /wo/ makes more sense. BB
There was once such a sound.
I'm not guessing or shooting from the hip here, Benjamin. With the
exception of some dialects, the /w/ sound was lost several centuries ago
except for わ. Apparrently (I forget where I read this, it was so long
ago) the /wo/ to /o/ shift was the most recently (i.e., ゐ and ゑ lost
their w's earlier, and perhaps an /wu/ lost its so early that it didn't
even get a kana!). People who pronounce the を marker /wo/, if they do
not speak one of those dialects, are probably (over?)compensating for a
perceived mistake.
--Jim Lockhart
Mika Jz
昔の言葉の名残が引き継がれているようです。
wやyの音が強調されています。
http://sanjiku.yokohama-noh.com/utai/mp3/takasago.mp3
Mika Jarmusz
Salem, Oregon USA
Alan Siegrist
> According to recent reports in English, the (pronunciation of the)
> official name of 硫黄島 has been changed from
> "Iwo Jima" to "Iwo To".
Is there some reason they don't call it Iwo Island or Io Island in English?
If so, the -jima or -tou discussion would have been moot.
As far as I know, most of the other named islands of Japan are generally
called xx Island such as Sado Island and Okinawa Island (when referring to
the main island not the prefecture).
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA
AlanFS...@Comcast.net
Manako Ihaya
the class to pronounce を as "wo." She corrected us every time we
pronounced it as "o." So that's how I also trained my kids, except
they were corrected here in California by a Japanese-language teacher
to pronounce it as "o."
Manako
--
Manako Ihaya (aka Monica)
ATA-Certified Japanese-English Translator
Lake Forest, California
--
Jim Lockhart
> FWIW, my first-grade teacher in 枚方市, circa 1968, taught and trained
> the class to pronounce を as "wo." She corrected us every time we
> pronounced it as "o." So that's how I also trained my kids, except
> they were corrected here in California by a Japanese-language teacher
> to pronounce it as "o."
>
Every language has its prescriptivists.
--Jim Lockhart
Nora Stevens Heath
> FWIW, my first-grade teacher in 枚方市, circa 1968, taught and trained
> the class to pronounce を as "wo." She corrected us every time we
> pronounced it as "o."
It kind of reminds me of the pronunciation of the word 場合 as ばわい,
as seen in the speech of one of my teachers in Shiga during college and
in the songs of some Japanese group or another whose album I have laying
around. Interesting.
Nora
--
Nora Stevens Heath <no...@fumizuki.com>
J-E translations: http://www.fumizuki.com/
James Sparks
> People who pronounce the を marker /wo/, if they do not speak one of
> those dialects, are probably (over?)compensating for a perceived
> mistake.
Isn't the wo sound still used in certain combinations today in
hyojungo? When I say その本を読んだ, I pronounce the を with a subtle W
sound. Not nearly as distinct as the W in Iwojima, but it's there. And
I do that because that is how I heard everyone else in Tokyo pronouncing
it. In fact, it is very difficult for me to pronounce the above
sentence without a W sound. It's almost like it's a part of the ん
sound, which doesn't manifest itself unless there is an O sound
following it (sort of like how silent consonants in French getted voiced
when followed by a vowel).
It's funny that Mark brought this up, because just yesterday a guy at
my gym was telling me that his wife (a war bride) told him that she used
to pronouce the name as いおうとう. I replied that I had never heard
that, although I knew that some island names in Japanese take the
on-yomi form. I know that Phi Phi Island (ピピ島) in Thailand is ピピト
ウ, not ピピジマ. So I told my friend that I would check into it, and
had planned on asking here on Honyaku!
Alan Siegrist wrote:
> Is there some reason they don't call it Iwo Island or Io Island in
English?
I think the pronunciation of foreign place names is pretty arbitrary in
most languages, and depends on who first pronounced a name and how well
that pronunciation spread. At least we can be thankful that we don't
call it Iwo Jima Island, as is the case with such names as Mount
Fujiyama and Ginkakuji Temple. "Miyajima Island" gets nearly 30k
googits. For that matter, "Iwo Jima Island" gets 984.
Speaking of islands, does anyone know how Hiroshima (or should I call
it Hiro Island <g>) got its name? Was it originally an island?
James Sparks
Alan Siegrist
> Speaking of islands, does anyone know how Hiroshima (or should I
> call it Hiro Island <g>) got its name? Was it originally an island?
According to Japanese Wikipedia:
| 都市名の由来
| 「広島」の都市名の由来は、築城を決定した島が三角州の中で最も広いこと
| 由来すると言われている（しかし、実際には2番目の大きさ）。他の説で
| は、毛利氏の祖である大江広元の「広」と、城普請の案内を務め、この界隈
| の地勢に詳しかった福島元長の「島」を合わせて「広島」と命名したと云う
| 由来もあり、こちらの方が一般的である。
Evidently there never was an island with the name Hiroshima, but rather the
name was first applied to Hiroshima Castle and the town around it, built by
the Mori Clan.
As you see, it is not exactly clear why the Mori chose that name, although
the fact that the castle was built on a broad island may certainly have
affected their choice of the name.
One thing that the Wikipedia article does not seem to address is whether the
island on which Hiroshima Castle was built actually has a name. It can't
possibly be 広島島, can it?
S Zaveloff
> Speaking of islands, does anyone know how Hiroshima (or should I call
> it Hiro Island <g>) got its name? Was it originally an island?
>
That's something I have wondered about also and it's not the only
non-island island in Japan. E.g., Fukushima, Matsushima, etc.
We have some in the U.S. also such as Grand Island, Nebraska.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven H. Zaveloff gua...@gmail.com
P.O. Box 200203 Tel: (512)219-7142
Austin, Texas 78720-0203 Fax: (512)233-2770
http://home.earthlink.net/~zaveloff/
Not by harming life does one become noble.
One is termed noble for being gentle to all living things.
-Dhammapada
James Sparks
> | 「広島」の都市名の由来は、築城を決定した島が三角州の中で最も広いこと
> | 由来すると言われている（しかし、実際には2番目の大きさ）。
Ah, so they are calling it an island because it is bounded by two
rivers that lead to the sea. Technically, that is correct, although it
sure doesn't have the feel of an island in real life. Then again, we
call Manhattan an island for the same reason, so who am I to complain?
I just now flew over to Hiroshima Castle on Google Earth, and from way
up in the sky it doesn't really look much like an island.
> 他の説で
> は、毛利氏の祖である大江広元の「広」と、城普請の案内を務め、この界隈
> の地勢に詳しかった福島元長の「島」を合わせて「広島」と命名したと云う
> 由来もあり、こちらの方が一般的である。
Hmmm, the first explanation sounds a lot more likely to me.
> One thing that the Wikipedia article does not seem to address is whether the
> island on which Hiroshima Castle was built actually has a name. It can't
> possibly be 広島島, can it?
Wouldn't it just be 広島, as opposed to 広島県 or 広島市?
James Sparks
Alan Siegrist
> > | 「広島」の都市名の由来は、築城を決定した島が三角州の中で最も広いこと
> > | 由来すると言われている（しかし、実際には2番目の大きさ）。
>
> Ah, so they are calling it an island because it is bounded by two
> rivers that lead to the sea. Technically, that is correct, although it
> sure doesn't have the feel of an island in real life. Then again, we
> call Manhattan an island for the same reason, so who am I to complain?
> I just now flew over to Hiroshima Castle on Google Earth, and from way
> up in the sky it doesn't really look much like an island.
Well, that particular island where the castle is built is only one of
several islands in the delta of the river there, which I think is 広田川.
The way deltas form, the rivers tend to change course rapidly, so the
boundaries of islands in the delta tend to be somewhat fluid, that is, until
they start building cities in deltas and decide to build dikes and levees to
channel the river around them.
At any rate, they are definitely islands. In the local Sacramento River,
there are many islands, some but not all of them named.
> > 他の説で
> > は、毛利氏の祖である大江広元の「広」と、城普請の案内を務め、この界隈
> > の地勢に詳しかった福島元長の「島」を合わせて「広島」と命名したと云う
> > 由来もあり、こちらの方が一般的である。
>
> Hmmm, the first explanation sounds a lot more likely to me.
>
> > One thing that the Wikipedia article does not seem to address is whether
> > the island on which Hiroshima Castle was built actually has a name. It
> > can't possibly be 広島島, can it?
>
> Wouldn't it just be 広島, as opposed to 広島県 or 広島市?
Maybe, but I can't seem to find any mention of the name of the island, if it
has one.
Alan Siegrist
> > > One thing that the Wikipedia article does not seem to address is
> > > whether the island on which Hiroshima Castle was built actually has a
> > > name. It can't possibly be 広島島, can it?
> >
> > Wouldn't it just be 広島, as opposed to 広島県 or 広島市?
>
> Maybe, but I can't seem to find any mention of the name of the island, if
> it has one.
Looking at Mapion, I see that several addresses on the same island contain
the name 白島, so perhaps Hakushima is the name of that island.
Mika Jz
「島」の広義にとらえた方が
わかりやすいかもしれません。
②勢力範囲内にある限られた地域｡なわ張りとする土地｡｢島を荒らす｣
あるいは
（２）ある限られた地域。一般社会から区別された区域。遊郭ややくざの縄張り
などをいう。「この―はよその者には渡せない」
Mika Jz
「島」は広義にとらえた方が
「島」の文字は広義にとらえた方が
わかりやすいかもしれません。
Mika
Benjamin Barrett
friends told me as is a residual sound in dialects, but in any case, we
are both still agreeing that /wo/ is a historical sound. The only thing
we are apparently disagreeing about is whether /wo/ -> /o/ occurred
centuries ago or fairly recently.
And the question at hand is whether the English Iwo-Jima comes from a
Japanese source or an error. As the OP Mark Spahn said, "The big
mystery, though, is, Where did the 'W' sound come from?".
So was 硫黄 pronounced Iwou or Iou? It's known that the kana spelling
was わう and that the sound /au/ underwent a phonetic change to /ou/ in
many environments including /wau/.
It's possible that the わう spelling was updated to を even though を
was pronounced as /o/. I doubt it, though. It seems more reasonable that
を was used to represent /wo/, a sound that disappeared from mainstream
Japanese fairly recently (within 100 years or so).
Since the name got entered into English as Iwo, it seems reasonable that
the /wo/ sound stuck around long enough to be pronounced when Iwojima
entered English. That would have been either because /wo/ -> /o/
happened only recently (say the last 100 years or so) or because the
/wo/ sound remained in the dialect of the source of the English
pronunciation.
Alternatively, the OP also said, "I asked about this here a few years
ago, and I think the conclusion was that it came from a gaijin's
misreading of old Japanese maps with the spelling いをじま or いをうじま".
Once again, either that sound was extant at the time or else the
spelling わう had been updated to を even though the pronunciation was
simply /o/.
It would be interesting to know whether the sound sequence was /wau/ ->
/au/ -> /ou/ or if it was /wau/ -> /wou/ -> /ou/. Based on what seems to
have happened with the entry of Iwo into English, it seems the second is
more likely.
Chris Moore
Re: i_W_o Jima or "Y Z W?" (<g>)
I think a reasonable explanation is that the island was labeled that
way on the map before the newer standardized romanization systems
came into effect, similar to the older "Tokio" romanization for what
is now generally spelled as "Tokyo"
My 一銭 (not even close to being worth two cents)
Chris Moore
Mika Jz
一つ、硫黄は「ゆおう」とも読んでいたこと、
すなわち「ゆ」のあと、口がwoとすぼまります。
よって、日本語でもｗは発音されていたであろうと推測できます。
wa/wo のどちらだったのでしょうか．．．
中間だったかも．．．
もうウィキペディアご覧になった方も多いかと思いますが、
名称を何回も変更していたんですね。
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A1%AB%E9%BB%84%E5%B3%B6_(%E6%9D%B1%E4%B
A%AC%E9%83%BD)
硫黄島は、古くから島民等の間で「いおうとう」と呼称されていたが、戦時中米
国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、戦後も長く米国の統治下におかれていたことか
ら、「いおうじま(Iwo Jima)」と呼ばれることが多い。1968年に日本に統治権が
返還された際に地形図などは戦前の「いおうとう」に戻されたが、1982年の地形
図改訂の際には再び「いおうじま」とされ、さらに2007年には「いおうとう」に
なると、地形図上の地名が二転三転している。
Hovering over to the other spot on the map 広島...
州も「しま」と読みますから、福島元長にちなんで「島」としゃれたのかもしれ
ません。
憶測ですが。
Mark Spahn
一つ、硫黄は「ゆおう」とも読んでいたこと、
すなわち「ゆ」のあと、口がwoとすぼまります。
よって、日本語でもｗは発音されていたであろうと推測できます。
James Sparks
> 硫黄島は、古くから島民等の間で「いおうとう」と呼称されていたが、戦時中米
> 国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、戦後も長く米国の統治下におかれていたことか
> ら、「いおうじま(Iwo Jima)」と呼ばれることが多い。
That makes it sound as if the pronunciation was made up by the
Americans, which I find very hard to believe. The Americans surely
would have gotten the pronunciation from a Japanese source (I doubt that
the island was even noticed by Americans until the sabers began
rattling, and by then the American military wouldn't have just asked
some guy who had studied Japanese how to read the kanji name).
Moreover, it has already been mentioned in this thread that the Japanese
navy was using the いおうじま reading, so isn't it vastly more likely
that the source of the apparently incorrect pronunciation was on the
Japanese side? It seems a bit of a cheap shot (by the Wiki writer, not
you, Mika-san) to blame the Americans for the error.
There is a street called Versailles in the city where I live. The
natives here proudly insist on pronouncing it ver-SALES, and anyone with
the gall (Gaul?) to say it ver-SIGH is looked at disparagingly. As the
story goes, a street car conductor many years ago used to sing out the
street stop names, and out of ignorance used the wrong pronunciation.
It was considered cute by the locals, and it caught on and stuck.
That's the history, but I think I'll write a Wiki article and blame the
Japanese. <g>
James Sparks
Mark Spahn
Mika Jz
> 中米
> > 国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、戦後も長く米国の統治下におかれていたこ
> とか
> That makes it sound as if the pronunciation was made up by the
> Americans, which I find very hard to believe.
The Japanese Wiki page wasn't following our honyaku thread about the
"wo" pronunciation in 硫黄島, you know; it was only chronicling the
changes between とう＞じま＞とう＞じま＞とう, which I thought was
interesting. Sorry if it momentarily derailed our collective train of
thought.
清水美香 Mika Shimizu Jarmusz
Salem, Oregon USA
Alan Siegrist
> > 硫黄島は、古くから島民等の間で「いおうとう」と呼称されていたが、戦時中米
> > 国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、戦後も長く米国の統治下におかれていたことか
> > ら、「いおうじま(Iwo Jima)」と呼ばれることが多い。
>
> That makes it sound as if the pronunciation was made up by the
> Americans, which I find very hard to believe.
I don't think the Wikipedia entry implies that at all. The author is merely
noting that the island was called "Iwo Jima" by the Americans during the
war, which is a quite accurate statement. They simply don't mention how it
came to be called by that name. I'm not sure that anyone knows the exact
reason, but the Japanese naval maps with the いおうじま reading mentioned by
someone could have been the cause.
> There is a street called Versailles in the city where I live. The
> natives here proudly insist on pronouncing it ver-SALES, and anyone with
> the gall (Gaul?) to say it ver-SIGH is looked at disparagingly.
As would anyone in Paris, Texas calling the place 'Paree'.
James Sparks
>>>硫黄島は、古くから島民等の間で「いおうとう」と呼称されていたが、戦時中米
>>>国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、戦後も長く米国の統治下におかれていたことか
>>>ら、「いおうじま(Iwo Jima)」と呼ばれることが多い。
>> That makes it sound as if the pronunciation was made up by the
>> Americans, which I find very hard to believe.
>
> I don't think the Wikipedia entry implies that at all.
Really? I translate the above as "Iwo Jima has long been called 'Iwo
To' among island natives, but was called "Iwo Jima" in the United States
during the war, and because the island remained under American
administration for a long time after the war, it is usually referred to
as 'Iwo Jima.'"
If you don't see the implication there, then I guess our minds work
differently.
>> anyone with the gall (Gaul?) to say it ver-SIGH is looked at
disparagingly.
> As would anyone in Paris, Texas calling the place 'Paree'.
There is a gaping hole in your logic. Versailles as a place name is
pronounced ver-SIGH in English. Paris is pronounced PAIR-iss in
English. Can you spot the hole?
James Sparks
Alan Siegrist
> >>>硫黄島は、古くから島民等の間で「いおうとう」と呼称されていたが、戦時中
米
> >>>国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、戦後も長く米国の統治下におかれていたこと
か
> >>>ら、「いおうじま(Iwo Jima)」と呼ばれることが多い。
>
> >> That makes it sound as if the pronunciation was made up by the
> >> Americans, which I find very hard to believe.
> >
> > I don't think the Wikipedia entry implies that at all.
>
> Really? I translate the above as "Iwo Jima has long been called
> 'Iwo To' among island natives, but was called "Iwo Jima" in the United
> States during the war, and because the island remained under American
> administration for a long time after the war, it is usually referred to
> as 'Iwo Jima.'"
> If you don't see the implication there, then I guess our minds work
> differently.
Many place names are misspelled and mispronounced by foreigners, or at least
they are not spelled or pronounced in the same manner as by the natives.
There are many reasons why this is the case, but simply because someone like
the author of the Wikipedia article points out an instance of this does not
make this an accusation or implication of ignorance on the part of the
people misspelling or mispronouncing the name.
If so, what are we supposed to do with all the people who refer to the
European cities of Milan, Munich or Moscow? Is pointing out that many
English speakers don't use the same names as the locals an accusation of
ignorance?
> >> anyone with the gall (Gaul?) to say it ver-SIGH is looked at
> >> disparagingly.
>
> > As would anyone in Paris, Texas calling the place 'Paree'.
>
> There is a gaping hole in your logic. Versailles as a place name is
> pronounced ver-SIGH in English. Paris is pronounced PAIR-iss in
> English. Can you spot the hole?
No I cannot. Most americans pronounce neither Paris nor Versailles correctly
(that is, in the French fashion). Some pronounce Versailles as Ver-SALES
just like your street. Some people pronounce Versailles closer to ver-SIGH,
but this is not the correct French pronunciation anyway.
Just where is this gaping hole in my logic?
Mark Spahn
disparagingly.
> As would anyone in Paris, Texas calling the place 'Paree'.
There is a gaping hole in your logic. Versailles as a place name is
pronounced ver-SIGH in English. Paris is pronounced PAIR-iss in
English. Can you spot the hole?
James Sparks
James Sparks
> Many place names are misspelled and mispronounced by foreigners, or at least
> they are not spelled or pronounced in the same manner as by the natives.
> There are many reasons why this is the case, but simply because someone like
> the author of the Wikipedia article points out an instance of this
That seems to be a baseless conclusion. What evidence is there that
the pronunciation came from Americans? On the other hand, there does
seem to be evidence that it came from Japanese naval officers. This
isn't a case of foreigners mispronouncing anything; the name Iwo Jima
came from Japanese sources. If it is a mispronunciation (which is
debatable), then it should be attributed properly.
> If so, what are we supposed to do with all the people who refer to the
> European cities of Milan, Munich or Moscow? Is pointing out that many
> English speakers don't use the same names as the locals an accusation of
> ignorance?
Why are you bringing that up? We are first of all talking here about
what the island is/was called _in Japanese_, the country of origin of
the name. I don't recall anyone saying that it was, is, or will be
incorrect for the island to continue to be called Iwo Jima in English
(and I would bet a large sum that that name will not change for at least
another generation; it carries too much significance to change). My
post pointed out that the Wiki article implied that the pronunciation い
おうじま (_in Japanese_) came from Americans, which I maintain is
incorrect (and ludicrous, really).
My comment about the street name in my city was meant to be partially
humorous, but mainly to show that even Americans can mispronounce their
own place names, so there is nothing really strange about some Japanese
naval officers going to a place called 硫黄島 on their maps and calling
it いおうじま, not knowing that the locals called it otherwise.
James Sparks
Anthony Bryant
On Jun 22, 2007, at 12:38 PM, Nora Stevens Heath wrote:
>
> It kind of reminds me of the pronunciation of the word 場合
> as ばわい,
> as seen in the speech of one of my teachers in Shiga during college
> and
> in the songs of some Japanese group or another whose album I have
> laying
> around. Interesting.
Now that you mention it, that was how *I* learned that one,
too. ばわい.
I always twitch when I say it for some reason, thinking it's just
wrong somehow...
Tony
Jim Lockhart
> > Many place names are misspelled and mispronounced by foreigners, or at least
> > they are not spelled or pronounced in the same manner as by the natives.
> > There are many reasons why this is the case, but simply because someone like
> > the author of the Wikipedia article points out an instance of this
>
> That seems to be a baseless conclusion. What evidence is there that
> the pronunciation came from Americans? On the other hand, there does
> seem to be evidence that it came from Japanese naval officers. This
> isn't a case of foreigners mispronouncing anything; the name Iwo Jima
> came from Japanese sources. If it is a mispronunciation (which is
> debatable), then it should be attributed properly.
[snip]
> .....
there is nothing really strange about some Japanese
> naval officers going to a place called 硫黄島 on their maps and calling
> it いおうじま, not knowing that the locals called it otherwise.
Spot on, James.
Rather than spinning their wheels in all their own conjecture, some
people might find it edifying to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iwo_Jima
and have a read, specifically from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iwo_Jima#Rename??
on to the end of the page.
Since I've already written my piece (of mind) there, I won't repeat it
here. Anyone interested, have a look.
Further, I suggest that folks stop, as one friend put it in a private
message, "conflating two issues--the name of the island in English, and
how the Japanese want to officially call the same island--into one".
--Jim Lockhart
Mika Jz
硫黄島は、古くから島民等の間で「いおうとう」と呼称されていたが、戦時中米
国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、戦後も長く米国の統治下におかれていたことか
ら、「いおうじま(Iwo Jima)」と呼ばれることが多い。
I find this interesting from a translation point of view, because James'
English translation sounds mostly accurate, and yet I find NOTHING in
the source text that is "hard to believe" or that "the (JIMA)
pronunciation was *made up* by the Americans".
That is why I didn't at first grasp whether he was on the topic of the
jima/tou switch or not.
If NES readers infer what James did from the above Japanese text, then
there may be something not spelled out yet THERE in the source text that
needs to be consciously spelled out by the translator.
I find the above Japanese text to be appropriately containing
"noteworthy" information regarding the JAPANESE naming of the island.
The stated fact from the other page, which says "Japanese naval officers
who arrived to fortify the island mistakenly called it Iwo Jima." does
NOT in my mind constitute a good reason for that "pronunciation becoming
mainstream" in Japan at least, because of the following;
1. to/jima error by ANY Japanese, even by the government, is
interchangeable and thus would not have stuck. They sooner or later
would have "corrected it", as we know they are so willing to do ;-)
2. American coinage, on the other hand, was a coinage of historical
proportion.
Actually, the English text that says "In this way, the "Iwo Jima"
pronunciation *became mainstream* and was the one used by American
forces" sounds a bit like a cart before the horse. But I must say that
Wiki backstage is quite intense, and I would not want to go there...ご苦
労様です。 よく利用させていただいてますので、今後ともよろしくお願いしま
す。
Ryan Field
> Isn't the wo sound still used in certain combinations today in
> hyojungo? When I say その本を読んだ, I pronounce the を with a subtle W
> sound. Not nearly as distinct as the W in Iwojima, but it's there. And
> I do that because that is how I heard everyone else in Tokyo pronouncing
> it. In fact, it is very difficult for me to pronounce the above
> sentence without a W sound. It's almost like it's a part of the ん
> sound, which doesn't manifest itself unless there is an O sound
> following it (sort of like how silent consonants in French getted voiced
> when followed by a vowel).
>
When it appears intervocalically (like above), it takes the form of a
nasalized vowel, rather than a consonant.
So, it's probably the transition from the nasalization (and the mouth
being slightly closed) to the vowel /o/ that gives a slight /w/ sound,
or labialization, to the を.
Linguistic analytically yours,
Ryan Field
ryan....@shaw.ca
Chris Poole
>> as ばわい,
>
> wrong somehow...
Hey me too. I use it a lot, half thinking it's wrong half hoping it's cool.
Is it either?
Chris
James Sparks
> 硫黄島は、古くから島民等の間で「いおうとう」と呼称されていたが、戦時中米
> 国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、戦後も長く米国の統治下におかれていたことか
> ら、「いおうじま(Iwo Jima)」と呼ばれることが多い。
>
> I find this interesting from a translation point of view, because James'
> English translation sounds mostly accurate, and yet I find NOTHING in
> the source text that is "hard to believe" or that "the (JIMA)
> pronunciation was *made up* by the Americans".
Mika-san,
It's a logical implication, not an explicit statement.
(1) The island used to be called Iwo To by natives.
(2) However, (and this conjunction is important to the logic)
(3) It was called Iwo Jima in the US during the war.
(4) After the war, the island was under US administration for a long time.
(5) Therefore,
(6) It is often called Iwo Jima [in Japanese].
I realize that language "logic" is sometimes different between English
and Japanese speakers, but I don't think there is any difference in this
case, since the above six points make quite a clear progression in
either language. The clear implication of the above is that the
pronunciation of the island name as いおうじま originated with
Americans, and that is what is hard for me to believe.
I don't really know how to explain it if you don't see it on your own.
Perhaps someone else can make the case better than I. Or maybe I'm the
only one who sees it this way.
James Sparks
Steve Venti
>> 硫黄島は、古くから島民等の間で「いおうとう」と呼称されていたが、戦時中米
>> 国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、戦後も長く米国の統治下におかれていたことか
>> ら、「いおうじま(Iwo Jima)」と呼ばれることが多い。
> The clear implication of the above is that the pronunciation of the island
> name as いおうじま originated with Americans, and that is what is hard for me to believe.
Frankly, I don't think it implies that that at all. It says that the
reading Iwo Jima gained currency after the war because the island was
under the administration of the the US for a long period of time, and
that is what the Americans called it. Nothing more, nothing less; and
it say absolutely nothing about why the US forces called it Iwo Jima.
Furthermore, insofar as it is common knowledge that that the name was
shown on some Meiji era maps as Iwo Jima and that the IJN used that
reading on a regular basis, I see no reason to read more into that
paragraph than exactly what is written.
The ja.wikipedia article, BTW, currently says this:
硫黄島の呼称は、戦前は島民と主に陸軍の間では「いおうとう」、海軍の一部の間と、明治時代作成の海図では「いおうじま」としていた。
--
Steve Venti
The source of all unhappiness is other people.
--Wally
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Siegrist
> > 硫黄島は、古くから島民等の間で「いおうとう」と呼称されていたが、戦時中米
> > 国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、戦後も長く米国の統治下におかれていたことか
> > ら、「いおうじま(Iwo Jima)」と呼ばれることが多い。
> >
> > I find this interesting from a translation point of view, because James'
> > English translation sounds mostly accurate, and yet I find NOTHING in
> > the source text that is "hard to believe" or that "the (JIMA)
> > pronunciation was *made up* by the Americans".
I am with Mika. There is nothing in the above about the origin of the Jima
pronunciation. The origin of the Jima pronunciation is discussed later in
the same Wikipedia article, with regard to Japanese naval maps and such.
The clear logical implication made in the above is that it was the long use
of the Iwo Jima name by the Americans during the war and during the period
of American post-war administration that affected the Japanese pronunciation
of the name. It was this that had caused いおうじま to be a common
pronunciation in Japanese.
Since the island was under American rule for a period of time, its official
name became Iwo Jima in English during that period and it is not
unreasonable that this would affect how the Japanese in general would
pronounce the name of the island, since the original 1000 or so residents
were moved off of the island and presumably did not have much say in things.
> Mika-san,
> It's a logical implication, not an explicit statement.
> (1) The island used to be called Iwo To by natives.
> (2) However, (and this conjunction is important to the logic)
> (3) It was called Iwo Jima in the US during the war.
> (4) After the war, the island was under US administration for a long
> time.
> (5) Therefore,
> (6) It is often called Iwo Jima [in Japanese].
>
> I realize that language "logic" is sometimes different between
> English and Japanese speakers, but I don't think there is any difference
> in this case, since the above six points make quite a clear progression in
> either language. The clear implication of the above is that the
> pronunciation of the island name as いおうじま originated with
> Americans, and that is what is hard for me to believe.
I think you are failing to note the difference between the person that
originates something and the person or people that popularize it. This is a
very common misperception.
For example, few know that the term "heavy metal" for a music genre probably
originated from a song lyric in Steppenwolf's "Born to be Wild," a song and
band that would probably not be considered "heavy metal" at all. The term
was popularized by others to refer to other bands and songs.
Marc Adler
> another generation; it carries too much significance to change). My
> post pointed out that the Wiki article implied that the pronunciation い
> おうじま (_in Japanese_) came from Americans, which I maintain is
> incorrect (and ludicrous, really).
There is one possibility - US military translators misreading the name.
Pretty remote, but still a possibility.
> own place names, so there is nothing really strange about some Japanese
> naval officers going to a place called 硫黄島 on their maps and calling
> it いおうじま, not knowing that the locals called it otherwise.
I lived in Toyama Prefecture for three years in a place called 立山町 -
think you know how to pronounce it? Neither do the residents: there was
about a half-and-half split between たてやままち and たてやまちょう.
Neither side was entirely insistent that theirs was the "correct
pronunciation" (since they presumably ran into members of the opposing
team every once in a while), but I did hear on several occasions
comments like でも、まち・ちょう(take your pick)は本当は違うよ.
So it's possible that there was no single correct pronunciation (this
was back in the bad old pre-even-kana-reform days, so you can imagine
there was a bit slipping and sliding on names, etc.), and the Americans
just happened to pick up on one, for a reason that is lost in the mists
of time.
--
Marc Adler
Austin, TX
Alan Siegrist
> > My
> > post pointed out that the Wiki article implied that the pronunciation
> > いおうじま (_in Japanese_) came from Americans, which I maintain is
> > incorrect (and ludicrous, really).
>
> There is one possibility - US military translators misreading the name.
It is a possibility, but presumably even the military translators (who were
mostly Issei or Nisei) had access to previous maps and navigation charts
used by the merchant marine, and the names of important islands and
landmarks used for navigation had to be Romanized on these charts so that
they could be read by sailors that could not read Japanese.
This is probably why it is important to note that Iwo Jima had appeared on
some Meiji era maps and charts, and on IJN maps.
> I lived in Toyama Prefecture for three years in a place called 立山町 -
> think you know how to pronounce it? Neither do the residents: there was
> about a half-and-half split between たてやままち and たてやまちょう.
> Neither side was entirely insistent that theirs was the "correct
> pronunciation" (since they presumably ran into members of the opposing
> team every once in a while), but I did hear on several occasions
> comments like でも、まち・ちょう(take your pick)は本当は違うよ.
Looking at Yujirou, I find two different towns in Toyama:
富山市水橋立山町, read みずはしたてやまちょう
富山県中新川郡立山町, read なかにいかわぐんたてやままち
The Yujiro information is based on the "official" readings recognized by the
Japanese post office, so I see how the locals might have some difference of
opinions about how to read the town name. If you lived in the latter one,
then たてやままち is "officially" correct. (Nice place, by the way!)
Marc Adler
> Japanese post office, so I see how the locals might have some difference of
> opinions about how to read the town name. If you lived in the latter one,
> then たてやままち is "officially" correct. (Nice place, by the way!)
It was the latter, and it's interesting that たてやままち is the
official reading, since someone at the yakuba told me that in official
readings of names, ちょう is always correct because it's a hierarchical
designation (市町村), and not actually part of the name. I responded
that places were given names before official designations existed, and
he conceded, but that still, a rule's a rule.
So much for his rule.
Mika Jz
> I realize that language "logic" is sometimes different
> between English and Japanese speakers,
I hope not. Logic is logic.
It's just hard to see sometimes how it works.
> It's a logical implication, not an explicit statement.
I understand, and THAT's what's so interesting about it :)
As Steve mentioned, the updated Japanese Wiki description reads much
better, but let's look at the sentence again.
硫黄島は、古くから島民等の間で「いおうとう」と呼称されていたが、
> (1) The island used to be called Iwo To by natives.
When Japanese readers see the above text, there's a surprise element;
"oh, 島 is not しま？"
This sets the tone and plays an important part in how the sentence
unfolds.
When translated into English, however, what's not written don't always
get translated.... so, smart NES readers would logically understand the
sentence as James did.
> (2) However,
戦時中米国内で「Iwo Jima」と呼称され、
> (3) It was called Iwo Jima in the US during the war.
We know that 島=とう is perfectly fine, but しま is more common, so we
suppose that somehow this transliteration got into the hands of the
Americans.
No surprise there. Such a remote island with a little tricky name.
But translated into English, where does this "expectation" go?
I don't know how much background information a translator should insert,
but if the target audience draw different conclusions when reading the
translated text, then the translation could use some adjustment.
Alan Siegrist pointed out:
> I think you are failing to note the difference between the person that
> originates something and the person or people that popularize
> it. This is a
> very common misperception.
Yes. 呼称され、does not imply "origination", especially when the issue
at hand is しま/とう transliteration of 島.
Hope I'm stepping closer now?