Pronounciation

[Ed Rhodes]

I've got a copy of "Idiots Guide to Conversational Japanese." Seems to be pretty decent although I'm surprised at what the author considers "easy." (But still, he grew up with it, so I guess for him it was.)

I have a question about how the words are pronounced.

Let's take for example, one of the simplest questions;

What is it?

The book shows it as;

NaN desu ka.

The second capital "N" is a stand alone vowel pronounced in the back of the throat.

So, if I'm reading it correctly, the sentence should have five vowels;

Nah en de su ka

but whenever I've heard it in animes, it sounds like there's three vowels;

Nan dess ka.


Am I missing something?

[rbb...@gmail.com]

It's not a vowel. Pronounce it the way you've heard it. Also, if you learn hiragana, which only takes a few days, the difference between stand-alone "n" and the "n" in "na ni nu ne no" will become much clearer. In my experience, romaji is a terrible hindrance.

[muchan]

>
> NaN desu ka.
>
> The second capital "N" is a stand alone vowel pronounced in the back
> of the throat.
>

It is not standalone vowel, but it's consonant.

Pronounciation is either like /n/, /m/,
or /ng/ (like ending of English ~ing)

Rule of choice, (not strict rule but just practical rule) is:

/n/ when followed by consonants t,d,s,z,n and r(l)

/m/ when followed by consonants m, p

/ng/ when followd by consonants k, g, h, y, w or vowels
or not followed by anything... (end of sentence or before long pause,
etc.)

Native Japanese conceives N as lexically identical N, in whichever
variation of pronounciation is used.

So, in case of nandesuka (何ですか), N is pronounced as /n/ because
consonant /d/ is following.

Actually (with practice) you don't need to think about what follows it.
You can think it as "a sound from nose, while waiting the next
syllable".
i.e.
The next syllable is using top of tongue (t,d,s,z,n,r), you close the
path with top of tongue (waiting in the next position), and air goes to
nose. The next syllable starts with closed lips (m,p), you close the
lips and air goes to nose.

muchan

[chance]

Putting aside all the nonsense, let's simply say 'それなんですか’
for 'What is it?'

CK

[Bart Mathias]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:06:23 +0100
muchan <much...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >
> > NaN desu ka.
> >
> > The second capital "N" is a stand alone vowel pronounced in the back
> > of the throat.
> >

> It is not standalone vowel, but it's consonant.
>
> Pronounciation is either like /n/, /m/,
> or /ng/ (like ending of English ~ing)

I understand you using the non-word *"pronounciation," but the OP sounded
otherwise like a native speaker. Strange.

> [...]

> /ng/ when followd by consonants k, g, h, y, w or vowels
> or not followed by anything... (end of sentence or before long pause,
> etc.)

Better not pronounce it as "ng" between vowels or before "y." "Hon wo yomu,"
for example, will sound like "hogoyomu" or "hongoyomu," depending on whether
the "ng" is drawn out or not. Very hard to understand correctly either way.
Maybe even worse than "honoyomu"?

Many Japanese phoneticists have insisted that a final "N" is pronounced as
a uvular nasal. I have heard (and seen) final "N" pronounced variously as "ng,"
"m" (this is the one easy to see), and "n," but mostly as a vowel of varying
nasality, as it has to be before vowels or "y."

Whether it is a back, central, or front nasal vowel depends on its
environment. In "kiNyo:bi" (or "kin'youbi") it tends to be fronted. In "hoN o"
("hon wo") it's normally back.

--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[muchan]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 16:44:52 -1000
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:06:23 +0100
> muchan <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > [...]
> > /ng/ when followd by consonants k, g, h, y, w or vowels
> > or not followed by anything... (end of sentence or before long
> > pause, etc.)
>
> Better not pronounce it as "ng" between vowels or before "y." "Hon wo
> yomu," for example, will sound like "hogoyomu" or "hongoyomu,"
> depending on whether the "ng" is drawn out or not. Very hard to
> understand correctly either way. Maybe even worse than "honoyomu"?
>

For "hon wo", I difinitely use place of /ng/, not /n/,
not sounding like hong-go. And I wasn't precise enough to write above,
but I don't say /wo/ but /o/ in this case. So it's not followed by
consonant /w/ but vowel /o/. If there is/was a company called
"saNwaginkoo", this is N before consonant w.
(and I think I use /ng/ position)

> Many Japanese phoneticists have insisted that a final "N" is
> pronounced as a uvular nasal. I have heard (and seen) final "N"
> pronounced variously as "ng," "m" (this is the one easy to see), and
> "n," but mostly as a vowel of varying nasality, as it has to be
> before vowels or "y."

Here I don't know because I can't distinguish the difference of
"uvular nasal" and "ng" in my mouth. 8)

> Whether it is a back, central, or front nasal vowel depends on its
> environment. In "kiNyo:bi" (or "kin'youbi") it tends to be fronted.
> In "hoN o" ("hon wo") it's normally back.
>

Here I agree. After writing long, I reread yours and found
that actually you wrote it more in compact phrase.
for "kiNyo:bi" (or "kin'youbi"), I think what I say is still /ng/,
but can be slightly "fronted". yes.

muchan

[jg2...@wonder.ocn.ne.jp]

2013年3月2日土曜日 12時20分39秒 UTC+9 Ed Rhodes:

No,I think you are not missing any.
If I point out one point out our your question or the cited
supposition, I do not understand your description of "Nah en de su ka".
Why should it be "Hah en" instead of "Nan" or "NaN"?

Your description of "Nan dess ka." may be good, though literally it is
supposed to be "Nan desu ka." when written in letters.

I know you have two questions, one is "N,ん" and the other is "su,す".
The Japanese "ん”is not a vowel but one 'mora"(?). Only it is counted
equivalently as one word when we read our poems (Haiku, Waka etc).

"...desuka?" is almost always pronounced as you cedcribed, in which "u"
sounds almost silent. PLease think about and compare the following examples.

Whereas the following words like "sushi, suzu, sumo, suzume, subaru" should
be pronounded clearly as "su-" and another words like "basu(either bath or buss), kisu (Engllish kiss), tasuki, kasumi, tasukeru, kasukana" may be practically pronounced a little bit different slightly missing the the vowel sound of "u" in between.

B. Ito

[Bart Mathias]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 11:22:24 +0100
muchan <much...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 16:44:52 -1000
> Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:06:23 +0100
> > muchan <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > > [...]
> > > /ng/ when followd by consonants k, g, h, y, w or vowels
> > > or not followed by anything... (end of sentence or before long
> > > pause, etc.)
> >
> > Better not pronounce it as "ng" between vowels or before "y." "Hon wo
> > yomu," for example, will sound like "hogoyomu" or "hongoyomu,"
> > depending on whether the "ng" is drawn out or not. Very hard to
> > understand correctly either way. Maybe even worse than "honoyomu"?
> >
>
> For "hon wo", I difinitely use place of /ng/, not /n/,
> not sounding like hong-go. And I wasn't precise enough to write above,
> but I don't say /wo/ but /o/ in this case. So it's not followed by
> consonant /w/ but vowel /o/. If there is/was a company called
> "saNwaginkoo", this is N before consonant w.
> (and I think I use /ng/ position)

Try this experiment: Pinch your nostrils closed, then say ほんを, then
ほんご with a definite "ng," and ほご, which many people pronounce with
a "'g'-less 'ng'." Or similarly, try it with さん and English "song."

Which are the same, and which are different? Especially the last two:
See how long you can drag each out, without letting air out your nose.
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[Ed Rhodes]

> > Am I missing something?
>
>
>
> Putting aside all the nonsense, let's simply say 'それなんですか’
>
> for 'What is it?'

Nope, that doesn't mean anything to me. I don't think I'm up to studying up to 2000 symbols (which someone said was the bare minimum to read a newspaper.)

[Ed Rhodes]

[Ed Rhodes]

On Sunday, March 3, 2013 8:23:16 AM UTC-5, jg2...@wonder.ocn.ne.jp wrote:
> 2013年3月2日土曜日 12時20分39秒 UTC+9 Ed Rhodes:
>
> > I've got a copy of "Idiots Guide to Conversational Japanese." Seems to be pretty decent although I'm surprised at what the author considers "easy." (But still, he grew up with it, so I guess for him it was.)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have a question about how the words are pronounced.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Let's take for example, one of the simplest questions;
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What is it?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The book shows it as;
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > NaN desu ka.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The second capital "N" is a stand alone vowel pronounced in the back of the throat.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So, if I'm reading it correctly, the sentence should have five vowels;
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Nah en de su ka
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > but whenever I've heard it in animes, it sounds like there's three vowels;
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Nan dess ka.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Am I missing something?
>
>
>
> No,I think you are not missing any.
>
> If I point out one point out our your question or the cited
>
> supposition, I do not understand your description of "Nah en de su ka".
>
> Why should it be "Hah en" instead of "Nan" or "NaN"?

My question is; is the stand alone constenant (sp) pronounced separately from the rest of the word? Is it "Nan" or "Na en"?

And so far, no one has addressed the next word; desu. I always hear it pronounced "dess" with no "u" sound at the end.

As a VERY casual student. I'm not entering into the world of hirigana (sp?) yet.
The symbols don't make sounds to me in my head.

[Don Kirkman]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 19:15:39 -0800 (PST), Ed Rhodes
<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 3, 2013 8:23:16 AM UTC-5, jg2...@wonder.ocn.ne.jp wrote:
>> 2013年3月2日土曜日 12時20分39秒 UTC+9 Ed Rhodes:
>>
>> > I've got a copy of "Idiots Guide to Conversational Japanese." Seems to be pretty decent although I'm surprised at what
the author considers "easy." (But still, he grew up with it, so I guess for him it was.)

>> > Let's take for example, one of the simplest questions;

>> > What is it?

>> > The book shows it as;

>> > NaN desu ka.

>> > The second capital "N" is a stand alone vowel pronounced in the back of the throat.

Actually, no, it's not. It's a consonant that is part of a word.

>> > So, if I'm reading it correctly, the sentence should have five vowels;

>> > Nah en de su ka

"N" is not "en",

>> > but whenever I've heard it in animes, it sounds like there's three vowels;

Animes are a tricky place to start learning Japanese. They may have
historical usage or 21st century slang, and without a ground somewhere
in reality a beginner could get lost.

>> > Nan dess ka.

>>
>> > Am I missing something?

>> No,I think you are not missing any.
>>
>> If I point out one point out our your question or the cited
>>
>> supposition, I do not understand your description of "Nah en de su ka".
>>
>> Why should it be "Hah en" instead of "Nan" or "NaN"?
>
>My question is; is the stand alone constenant (sp) pronounced separately from the rest of the word? Is it "Nan" or "Na en"?

How would you pronounce the "t" in "wha t"? That's what you're trying
to do to Japanese. :-)

>And so far, no one has addressed the next word; desu. I always hear it pronounced "dess" with no "u" sound at the end.

I've seen it addressed, but perhaps not in a way you recognized. How
"desu" is pronounced varies. There is everyday casual usage, formal
or "stilted" usage, and probably others. It's to be learned, not
parsed or explained. The "su" often is be an unvoiced vowel--that is,
the mouth is forming a "u" after the "s" but not sounding it (or maybe
sounding it faintly but not in full strength). Doubling the "ss"
could only be used for stress, and IMO even that would be very rare.

>As a VERY casual student. I'm not entering into the world of hirigana (sp?) yet.
>The symbols don't make sounds to me in my head.

Japanese is not written in alphabets or letters but in sound blocks
(kana or kanji). Words will never sound right for you until you think
of them as made up of sound units, not spelling units. Holding on to
the concept of alphabetical spelling may slow your progress
significantly.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[muchan]

I'm not native speaker of English, and/but thought English word "song"
is said with 'g'-less 'ng', (ng indicates the closing position,
not 'n' followed by 'g'). As I say this way, 'ng' part of さん and
'song' are quite similar. I can't drag 'ng' out without letting air out.

ほんを and ほんご are definitely not alike even when the nose is closen.
Even with 'g'-less 'ngo'. The difference is, that for ほんを, no
liaison, like two separate "hong, o" even when I say it fast.
The difference is the timing of (touching) 'ng' is released
and vowel 'o' is started.

muchan

[Ed Rhodes]

No, because the "t" is not a "stand alone" anything. They make a big deal out of this letter being "stand alone." So, should it be pronounced separately? The answer appears to be "no" which leads me to wonder why it's made to stand out.

> >And so far, no one has addressed the next word; desu. I always hear it pronounced "dess" with no "u" sound at the end.
>
> I've seen it addressed, but perhaps not in a way you recognized. How
> "desu" is pronounced varies. There is everyday casual usage, formal
> or "stilted" usage, and probably others. It's to be learned, not
> parsed or explained. The "su" often is be an unvoiced vowel--that is,
> the mouth is forming a "u" after the "s" but not sounding it (or maybe
> sounding it faintly but not in full strength). Doubling the "ss"
> could only be used for stress, and IMO even that would be very rare.

OK, that answers my question, simply and directly. Thanks.

>
>
> >As a VERY casual student. I'm not entering into the world of hirigana (sp?) yet.
>
> >The symbols don't make sounds to me in my head.
>
>
>
> Japanese is not written in alphabets or letters but in sound blocks
> (kana or kanji). Words will never sound right for you until you think
> of them as made up of sound units, not spelling units. Holding on to
> the concept of alphabetical spelling may slow your progress
> significantly.

Such is life.

> Don Kirkman
>
> don...@charter.net

Thanks Don, you did give me quite a bit of info.

[Michael Gardner]

On Mar 5, 2013, at 21:48 , Ed Rhodes <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> How would you pronounce the "t" in "wha t"? That's what you're trying
>> to do to Japanese. :-)
>
> No, because the "t" is not a "stand alone" anything. They make a big deal out of this letter being "stand alone." So, should it be pronounced separately? The answer appears to be "no" which leads me to wonder why it's made to stand out.

The basic phoneme in Japanese is what we would call a syllable (which is why Hiragana and Katakana are syllabaries, not alphabets). These syllables are always consonant+vowel, or vowel only, *except* for ん (n). Formally speaking, ん is its own syllable, and textbooks will in general teach you formal grammar.

But in real life, people don't always speak the way the textbooks say they should (e.g. "comfortable" should have four syllables, but many people pronounce it with three)-- I think that's what Don was trying to tell you. By the way, you will still hear the ん pronounced as a separate syllable when someone is sounding out a word (e.g. "na.n", similar to "com.for.ta.ble").

[Don Kirkman]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 19:48:56 -0800 (PST), Ed Rhodes

Exactly. My point is that ん　is not stand alone either; it typically
ends a syllable within or at the end of a word.

Be aware that I don't have the knowledge or patience to use Japanese
grammatical terms; I'm just boiling some of the basics down to what
happens no matter what it's called

>> >And so far, no one has addressed the next word; desu. I always hear it pronounced "dess" with no "u" sound at the end.
>>
>> I've seen it addressed, but perhaps not in a way you recognized. How
>> "desu" is pronounced varies. There is everyday casual usage, formal
>> or "stilted" usage, and probably others. It's to be learned, not
>> parsed or explained. The "su" often is be an unvoiced vowel--that is,
>> the mouth is forming a "u" after the "s" but not sounding it (or maybe
>> sounding it faintly but not in full strength). Doubling the "ss"
>> could only be used for stress, and IMO even that would be very rare.
>
>OK, that answers my question, simply and directly. Thanks.

>> >As a VERY casual student. I'm not entering into the world of hirigana (sp?) yet.
>>
>> >The symbols don't make sounds to me in my head.

>> Japanese is not written in alphabets or letters but in sound blocks
>> (kana or kanji). Words will never sound right for you until you think
>> of them as made up of sound units, not spelling units. Holding on to
>> the concept of alphabetical spelling may slow your progress
>> significantly.

>

>Thanks Don, you did give me quite a bit of info.

My pleasure. It's been a long time since I've had a chance to use any
real Japanese I may have picked up. Good luck.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[muchan]

> ほんを and ほんご are definitely not alike even when the nose is
> closen. Even with 'g'-less 'ngo'. The difference is, that for ほんを,
> no liaison, like two separate "hong, o" even when I say it fast.
> The difference is the timing of (touching) 'ng' is released
> and vowel 'o' is started.
>
> muchan
>

Self follow-up:

When we native speaker of (mora based) Japanese learn to speak
English or French, we need to learn conciously pronounce the "liaison",
when syllable ending consonant is followed by vowel of next word.

Japanese learner tends to say
"It is a..." as イットイズア (/itto iz a/ or /it'iz'a/), but when we
listen to native speakers of English it sounds like イッティーザ
(/ittiiza/).

"Les amis" in French is not レ アミ, but レザミ, etc.

After learning to "connect" ending consonant to following vowel,
we can sound more natural to native speakers (of English or French).

Maybe contrally is true for English speaker to learn (mora based)
Japanese. Like this "hong'o" not sounding like "hong-ngo" or "hogo".

muchan

[Jim Beard]

Muchan is right on target, but there is a simple matter that no one seems
to remember, but that newbies usually do not know.

Japanese is a syllabic-timed language. Each syllable (mora) takes about
the same amount of time to say.

NaN desu ka, your original example, requires five units of time to say,
one each for Na N de su ka.

The u is there to combine with s to form a syllable. You may not hear it
(and in fact it may not be voiced) but it is there, for timing purposes.

Consider mou as in mou takusan desu. It is often transliterated as moo
(As in Moe, Larry and Curly for Three Stoges fans), and the u does
nothing but extend the length of the word to two syllables/two units of
time.

Takusan become tak san but with ta k' sa and n each taking up a unit of
time to say.

This is not to say that every syllable will always be exactly the same
length in time to say, but it is generally close, exceptions for special
effects allowed: (the fish was) ookii pronounced oouuuuuuukiiiiiiii with
the first and final vowels stretched to correspond to the size of the
fish (which, as always for the big ones, got away).

Cheers!

jim b.

--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

[Jens Egon Nyborg]

But you really need the kanas and that's only a hundred or so.

Then learn the kanji you need, if and as you need them. Not all 2000 at
the same time ;-)

It's not necessarily hard even if it takes a number of years

[Bart Mathias]

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:33:07 -0800
Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net> wrote:

> Japanese is not written in alphabets or letters but in sound blocks
> (kana or kanji). Words will never sound right for you until you think
> of them as made up of sound units, not spelling units. Holding on to
> the concept of alphabetical spelling may slow your progress
> significantly.

The last sentence at least is certainly a solid point. Consider what a disaster trying to learn English from its spelling rather than how it sounds would be!
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[Bart Mathias]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 23:40:49 -0600
Michael Gardner <gard...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 5, 2013, at 21:48 , Ed Rhodes <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> How would you pronounce the "t" in "wha t"? That's what you're trying
> >> to do to Japanese. :-)
> >
> > No, because the "t" is not a "stand alone" anything. They make a big deal out of this letter being "stand alone." So, should it be pronounced separately? The answer appears to be "no" which leads me to wonder why it's made to stand out.
>
> The basic phoneme in Japanese is what we would call a syllable (which is why Hiragana and Katakana are syllabaries, not alphabets). These syllables are always consonant+vowel, or vowel only, *except* for ん (n). Formally speaking, ん is its own syllable, and textbooks will in general teach you formal grammar.

These aren't crucial matters for the present subject, but kana doesn't relate
directly to phonemes. All but seven of the normally used full-size kana are
read as two phonemes apiece.

In the following (at least that's where it comes up here) post from Don, he
points out that moraic /N/ is likely to *end* a syallable. In fact, there is
good reason to keep the notions of mora and syllable separate (for Japanese
as well as other languages). For example, that allows us to say that only the
first mora in a syllable can be accented.
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[Michael Gardner]

On Mar 8, 2013, at 19:34 , Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote:

> These aren't crucial matters for the present subject, but kana doesn't relate
> directly to phonemes. All but seven of the normally used full-size kana are
> read as two phonemes apiece.

Interesting; thanks for the correction. I had thought of moras as the smallest phonetic building block of Japanese, which is why I thought they must be considered phonemes. But I guess I shouldn't open my mouth unless I'm sure I know what I'm talking about!

By the way, I assume six of the seven you mention are あ, い, う, え, お, and ん. Is the seventh を, even though it's sometimes pronounced "wo"?

> In the following (at least that's where it comes up here) post from Don, he
> points out that moraic /N/ is likely to *end* a syallable. In fact, there is
> good reason to keep the notions of mora and syllable separate (for Japanese
> as well as other languages). For example, that allows us to say that only the
> first mora in a syllable can be accented.

Thanks for this correction also. I'd heard the term "mora" used in discussions about Japanese, but wasn't aware of the distinction between that and a syllable-- e.g. that よう would be considered one syllable but two moras (if I understand correctly). I was under the mistaken impression that よう would be considered two syllables, even though in practice the う does sound like part of a single long vowel.

[Bart Mathias]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 20:33:38 -0600
Michael Gardner <gard...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 8, 2013, at 19:34 , Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>
> > These aren't crucial matters for the present subject, but kana doesn't relate
> > directly to phonemes. All but seven of the normally used full-size kana are
> > read as two phonemes apiece.
>
> Interesting; thanks for the correction. I had thought of moras as the smallest phonetic building block of Japanese, which is why I thought they must be considered phonemes. But I guess I shouldn't open my mouth unless I'm sure I know what I'm talking about!
>
> By the way, I assume six of the seven you mention are あ, い, う, え, お, and ん. Is the seventh を, even though it's sometimes pronounced "wo"?

That's the one I had in mind. I'm not sure it's any more likely to be
pronounced "wo" than お is, but that can raise a lot of argument hereabouts.

> > In the following (at least that's where it comes up here) post from Don, he
> > points out that moraic /N/ is likely to *end* a syallable. In fact, there is
> > good reason to keep the notions of mora and syllable separate (for Japanese
> > as well as other languages). For example, that allows us to say that only the
> > first mora in a syllable can be accented.
>
> Thanks for this correction also. I'd heard the term "mora" used in discussions about Japanese, but wasn't aware of the distinction between that and a syllable-- e.g. that よう would be considered one syllable but two moras (if I understand correctly). I was under the mistaken impression that よう would be considered two syllables, even though in practice the う does sound like part of a single long vowel.

It was common, I believe, to think of kana, the (elements of the) syllabary,
to after all be syllables, and they all can be syllables, after all. So I was among those who referred to moras as syllables when I was learning Japanese
and maybe even after I started teaching it. But when I learned otherwise, things
got much neater. When one considers syllables in terms of accent, things like
あい and おん -- at least if accented -- have to be two-mora syllables, because there cannot be a pitch drop after the second moras. (I suppose one could
consider unaccented cases to be two unaccented syllables if one wanted to for
some reason.)
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[Bart Mathias]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 20:33:38 -0600
Michael Gardner <gard...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]

> Thanks for this correction also. I'd heard the term "mora" used in discussions about Japanese, but wasn't aware of the distinction between that and a syllable-- e.g. that よう would be considered one syllable but two moras (if I understand correctly). I was under the mistaken impression that よう would be considered two syllables, even though in practice the う does sound like part of a single long vowel.

Language always likes to complicate things, of course. I normally can't tell
an "(-)o" row kana followed by お from one followed by う, given no accent
clue. But at least some times when the う is pronounced "u" it may have to
be considered a separate syllable. おう ("o-u") for "chase" is perhaps
ambiguous, except in the case of おうの "one who chases," where the う is
accented, and must be regarded as a separate syllable. (One would probably
want to on the grounds of the morphemic break anyway.) A bit more striking
are the apparent pronunciations by some of "many" おおい accenting the second
お as a syllable and of もよおす accenting the お.
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[Ed Rhodes]

I don't agree. The symbols you present here mean nothing to me so first I would have to spend weeks learning a new symbol system (or actually three) And then I would have to start studying the grammar and syntax of the language.

Incidently (sp) I found the book (while looking for a different book, of course) it's "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Conversational Japanese" by Dr. Naoya Fujita, Ph.D. The back cover reads; "Naoya Fujita, Ph.D., is an assoicate professor at Pacific University in Oregon, teaching Japanese and linguistics. He has taught Japanese for more than 15 years at institutions including Harvard University, Cornell University, University of Rochester, and Ohio State University. He has also taught English in private institutes (sic) in Tokyo."

In the Japanese/English (and English/Japanese) dictionary at the back of the book, he does give the written versions of each of the words. Also, at the end of the book, he does give the groups (since you don't like the term "alphabits" of both kana and katakana. He gives a overview of kanji, but suggests you find an in depth book if you want to learn them. My favorite quote from that paragraph is; "As a result of not discarding kanji, written Japanese can express highly abstract ideas. This is great unless you're one of the many young Japanese students having to memorize all the basic kanji! I remember taking hundreds and thousands of kanji quizzes when I was in school." And; "The Japanese Ministry of Education and Science says the mastery of a little fewer than 2,000 kanji characters would be sufficient to read more than 90 percent of daily Japanese words." - So, thank you, no.

[Don Kirkman]

It's me again, Ed.

I think you've put your foot in it this time. Prof. Bart Mathias, who
retired from the University of Hawaii, probably has many years of
experience on Prof. Fujita. He has taught both Japanese and Korean
and has been a major contributor to this discussion group over the
years. A full professor beats an associate professor; Dr. Fujita
seems to have been at a number of institutions for a 15-year
career--and apparently hasn't gained tenure.since you say he is an
associate professor at Pacific University.

Bart is co-author of "The Complete Guide to Everyday Kanji" and
"Decoding Kanji: A Practical Approach to Learning Look-Alike
Characters" and author of "The Selected Features of Japanese Verbs",
as well as a number of articles.

Bart can speak for himself, though he may choose not to, but again I
want to challenge your approach to learning Japanese and dealing with
its complexities.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Bart Mathias]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:13:40 -0700
Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:37:20 -0700 (PDT), Ed Rhodes
> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, March 8, 2013 8:20:19 PM UTC-5, Bart Mathias wrote:
> >> On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:33:07 -0800
> >>
> >> Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Japanese is not written in alphabets or letters but in sound blocks
> >> > (kana or kanji). Words will never sound right for you until you think
> >> > of them as made up of sound units, not spelling units. Holding on to
> >> > the concept of alphabetical spelling may slow your progress
> >> > significantly.
> >>
> >> The last sentence at least is certainly a solid point. Consider what a disaster trying to learn English from its spelling rather than how it sounds would be!

> >I don't agree. The symbols you present here mean nothing to me so first I would have to spend weeks learning a new symbol system (or actually three) And then I would have to start studying the grammar and syntax of the language.

Actually I don't see any symbols that I have presented. I'm not sure what
you mean here.

> I think you've put your foot in it this time. Prof. Bart Mathias, who
> retired from the University of Hawaii, probably has many years of
> experience on Prof. Fujita. He has taught both Japanese and Korean
> and has been a major contributor to this discussion group over the
> years. A full professor beats an associate professor; Dr. Fujita
> seems to have been at a number of institutions for a 15-year
> career--and apparently hasn't gained tenure.since you say he is an
> associate professor at Pacific University.

Sorry, Don. I never made full Professor. It takes more than co-authoring a
kanji book. And if Prof. Fujita doesn't have tenure, that is unusual. Tenure
and Assoc. Professorships usually go hand in hand.

My statement that Mr. Rhodes objects was supposed to simply mean that I do
not think it wise to place emphasis on a language's writing system when trying
to learn it (or apparently, in Mr. Rhodes' case, what it sounds like). Sound is
what counts. You don't get much of a hint at what Japanese sounds like from
kana (let alone kanji!) or romanization. And English is of course worse.

rbbbbbb should have limited his answer to the OP's query,

"... it sounds like there's three vowels; Nan dess ka.
Am I missing something?"

to a simple, "Pronounce it the way you've heard it."
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[rbb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:39:35 PM UTC-4, Bart Mathias wrote:

> My statement that Mr. Rhodes objects was supposed to simply mean that I do
>
> not think it wise to place emphasis on a language's writing system when trying
>
> to learn it (or apparently, in Mr. Rhodes' case, what it sounds like). Sound is
>
> what counts. You don't get much of a hint at what Japanese sounds like from
>
> kana (let alone kanji!) or romanization. And English is of course worse.
>
>
>
> rbbbbbb should have limited his answer to the OP's query,
>
>
>
> "... it sounds like there's three vowels; Nan dess ka.
>
> Am I missing something?"
>
>
>
> to a simple, "Pronounce it the way you've heard it."
>
> --
>
> Bart Mathias

I don't have a dog in the hunt for who swings the bigger lectern around, but I would say that, if one is trying to learn *using a book*, it seems preferable to me to learn kana rather than somebody's dotty roomaji system. After all, the OP's question arose from confusion created by the roomaji in his book. I know that when I started using Eleanor Harz Jordan's books (as a third-year student), I had to transcribe every single exercise out of that weird circumflected roomaji system she used, into kana/kanji before I could study it (or even read it) properly. I never found it useful in the slightest way for understanding verb stems and the like, which is apparently what it was intended for. If you use a book, you need a writing system, and it may as well be the native one, as early as is practical. 「郷に入っては郷に従え」 tte yu koto jan?

That said, it's the OP's decision, and depends largely on what his goals are. If he gets more seriously into the language on down the road, he won't be able to avoid learning hiragana, at the very least.

[Bart Mathias]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
rbb...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

> I don't have a dog in the hunt for who swings the bigger lectern around, but I would say that, if one is trying to learn *using a book*, it seems preferable to me to learn kana rather than somebody's dotty roomaji system. After all, the OP's question arose from confusion created by the roomaji in his book. I know that when I started using Eleanor Harz Jordan's books (as a third-year student), I had to transcribe every single exercise out of that weird circumflected roomaji system she used, into kana/kanji before I could study it (or even read it) properly. I never found it useful in the slightest way for understanding verb stems and the like, which is apparently what it was intended for. If you use a book, you need a writing system, and it may as well be the native one, as early as is practical. 「郷に入っては郷に従え」 tte yu koto jan?
>

I started out with kana. I learned it (and the Japanese pronunciation of kanji)
largely from train station signs where I could correlate it with romaji to be
sure, but I soon graduated to Japanese magazines, and I learned Japanese
grammar from a book used by kids studying for college entrance exams. (If the
Japanese had really hangulized the language, kokubunpou would be very different.)

My first contact with Jorden (not "Jordan," another case of a native script not being quite adequate) romanization probably came almost 20 years later, but
I found it easy to read right from the start, and could see how it could have
been very useful. It tells you exactly how to pronounce words, something
you can't get from kana or kanji, unless under the oral-aural tutelage of a
native speaker. Suppose you learned はな "flower" and はな "nose," or はし
"bridge" and はし "chopstick" from kana. How would you know which was which?
What are the odds you would read ためいき "sigh" correctly if the kana was all
you had to go on? How likely would one be to read the そう in ほそうで correctly?

OK, granted, 1) if you know the meanings of the last two, you'll probably
come close, and 2) those words might not even show up in Jorden, but it's
still a good point. Kana worship, observed a great deal over 30 years in this
group, has always struck me as just that: some sort of religious belief.
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[Ed Rhodes]

>
> > >I don't agree. The symbols you present here mean nothing to me so first I would have to spend weeks learning a new symbol system (or actually three) And then I would have to start studying the grammar and syntax of the language.
>
> Actually I don't see any symbols that I have presented. I'm not sure what
> you mean here.

Generic "you." Several people have presented kana symbols in this thread saying "[symbol] is easier to pronounce than [romanized version of symbol] and I just don't see it as the kana symbol doesn't really mean anything to me and doesn't make the sound for me in my head. If I were to take quite a while studying the symbols first, then looking at the symbol would give me the sound, but as I'm a very VERY casual student of the Japanese language, that's not going to happen.

NaN desu ka, I can read and sound out. [symbol for Na, N, de, su, ka (I can't do the symbols, sorry) don't say anything to me.

[Don Kirkman]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:39:35 -1000, Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

Sorry for the errors, Bart. And I probably overstressed my feelings
about Mr. Rhodes' approach to learning Japanese, but I assure him they
are genuine. :-)

>My statement that Mr. Rhodes objects was supposed to simply mean that I do
>not think it wise to place emphasis on a language's writing system when trying
>to learn it (or apparently, in Mr. Rhodes' case, what it sounds like). Sound is
>what counts. You don't get much of a hint at what Japanese sounds like from
>kana (let alone kanji!) or romanization. And English is of course worse.
>
>rbbbbbb should have limited his answer to the OP's query,
>
>"... it sounds like there's three vowels; Nan dess ka.
>Am I missing something?"
>
>to a simple, "Pronounce it the way you've heard it."
--

Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[rbb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:16:42 AM UTC-4, Bart Mathias wrote:

> I started out with kana. I learned it (and the Japanese pronunciation of kanji)
>
> largely from train station signs where I could correlate it with romaji to be
>
> sure, but I soon graduated to Japanese magazines, and I learned Japanese
>
> grammar from a book used by kids studying for college entrance exams. (If the
>
> Japanese had really hangulized the language, kokubunpou would be very different.)
>
>
>
> My first contact with Jorden (not "Jordan," another case of a native script not being quite adequate) romanization probably came almost 20 years later, but
>
> I found it easy to read right from the start, and could see how it could have
>
> been very useful. It tells you exactly how to pronounce words, something
>
> you can't get from kana or kanji, unless under the oral-aural tutelage of a
>
> native speaker. Suppose you learned はな "flower" and はな "nose," or はし
>
> "bridge" and はし "chopstick" from kana. How would you know which was which?
>
> What are the odds you would read ためいき "sigh" correctly if the kana was all
>
> you had to go on? How likely would one be to read the そう in ほそうで correctly?
>
>
>
> OK, granted, 1) if you know the meanings of the last two, you'll probably
>
> come close, and 2) those words might not even show up in Jorden, but it's
>
> still a good point. Kana worship, observed a great deal over 30 years in this
>
> group, has always struck me as just that: some sort of religious belief.
>
> --
>
> Bart Mathias

Do you mean to say that "ためいき" isn't the noun form of "ためいく"? :) Yes, I can see the advantage of diacriticalized roomaji in these cases. I would add the caveat that, if one doesn't know the word, one has to look it up anyway, at which point parsing the two halves of the word should become clear.

I'm not an educator, so I can't claim to speak to the pedagogical advantages of Jorden's roomaji, but there are kokugo dictionaries that provide pitch annotations. In fact, in fifth year classes, which did not use Jorden's books, we were required to have one of them. I can see using roomaji for introductory courses, but the Jorden system uses it clear to the end of fourth year classes, which seems a bridge too far to me. IMHO, over-reliance on roomaji hinders the transition into using native materials. It may very well be that if the Japanese writing system had been reformed in the same way as Korean, it would be easier and better, but it wasn't and it isn't. I don't see the use of kana in learning Japanese as an article of faith, but as a practical necessity.

BTW, I'm not denigrating Jorden's system as a whole; I found it rigorous and well-designed. In particular, Mari Noda's implementation of the system is very fine. Maybe it was my own failing, but having entered into the Jorden system after learning kana/kanji, I was never able to reach any level of comfort with the system's roomaji.

[Bart Mathias]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
rbb...@gmail.com wrote:

> [...]

> Do you mean to say that "ためいき" isn't the noun form of "ためいく"? :) Yes, I can see the advantage of diacriticalized roomaji in these cases. I would add the caveat that, if one doesn't know the word, one has to look it up anyway, at which point parsing the two halves of the word should become clear.
>
> I'm not an educator, so I can't claim to speak to the pedagogical advantages of Jorden's roomaji, but there are kokugo dictionaries that provide pitch annotations. In fact, in fifth year classes, which did not use Jorden's books, we were required to have one of them. I can see using roomaji for introductory courses, but the Jorden system uses it clear to the end of fourth year classes, which seems a bridge too far to me. IMHO, over-reliance on roomaji hinders the transition into using native materials. It may very well be that if the Japanese writing system had been reformed in the same way as Korean, it would be easier and better, but it wasn't and it isn't. I don't see the use of kana in learning Japanese as an article of faith, but as a practical necessity.
>

Shortly after posting a pitch for using ro-mazi as a means of consistently
marking Japanese accent, I remembered that I detested Jorden's way of doing so.
One accent mark per word is enough!

I think most kokugojiten include accent info one way or another; I find
Kindaichi Haruo's numbers in circles kind of neat. Still, as one who spent
most of his first year studying from Vaccari's Readers and a Japanese
magazine picked up on my way to Korea, I got way behind in learning how
particular lexical items were accented, even though I did put in considerable
time with the Green Goddess. Even after using Linguaphone for a couple of
months and living in Japan two days a week for over a year, I have never quite
made up the deficit, over 60 years later, still unsure about many words (and
incorrectly sure about many others!). If I had had something like Jorden to
start with, I'd be way head of where I am.

Of course, nowadays I imagine CD courses would be the way to go.

I'm pretty sure we (University of Hawaii) only used Jorden for two years,
and that included the reading texts. I can't imagine them at the fourth
year.

> BTW, I'm not denigrating Jorden's system as a whole; I found it rigorous and well-designed. In particular, Mari Noda's implementation of the system is very fine. Maybe it was my own failing, but having entered into the Jorden system after learning kana/kanji, I was never able to reach any level of comfort with the system's roomaji.
>

Understood. My first Japanese class was fourth semester at Berkeley, and I
bet I would have hated a romanized text book.
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>