Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[dɮ the phoneme]

Has anyone else been under the impression that what is written in Rōmaji as ⟨ei⟩, e.g. in sensei, corresponded to /ei/ rather than to /eː/?

I have no idea what vowel "/eː/" is supposed to be.

?

Japanese has a five vowel system /i u e o a/ plus vowel length. So /eː/ is the long counterpart of /e/.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Has anyone else been under the impression that what is written in Rōmaji as ⟨ei⟩, e.g. in sensei, corresponded to /ei/ rather than to /eː/? When I studied Japanese back in school (which I have forgotten much of, and I was never good at it) I would pronounce sensei as [sɜ̃ntsej] (a complete butchering to be sure, note that I used a lower and more centralized vowel before /ɴ/). The curious part is that I distinguished an /e/ (as [e]) and an /ei/ (as [ej]), which obviously is a spelling pronunciation based on not being properly taught Japanese phonology, but which is also curious because English dialects do not normally distinguish [e] and [ej] unless they correspond to GA /ɛ/ and /eɪ/ (but my /ɛ/ is [ɜ] not [e]).

I actually have heard native speakers pronouncing it as two separate vowels when speaking very slowly, but I'm not sure this isn't a spelling pronunciation; the same in normal speech did not have a diphthong, just the expected long [eː~ɛː] sort of sound. I think, hypothetically, they would also be distinct with the -te form of a verb ending in -eku, like 招く (maneku), 招いて (maneite), but I've never heard that one pronounced. My guess is partly based on how shuushikei う (-u) is usually pronounced distinctly no matter what precedes it, but I believe this is an analogical formation and not a regular expected development.

[Qwynegold]

Has anyone else been under the impression that what is written in Rōmaji as ⟨ei⟩, e.g. in sensei, corresponded to /ei/ rather than to /eː/? When I studied Japanese back in school (which I have forgotten much of, and I was never good at it) I would pronounce sensei as [sɜ̃ntsej] (a complete butchering to be sure, note that I used a lower and more centralized vowel before /ɴ/). The curious part is that I distinguished an /e/ (as [e]) and an /ei/ (as [ej]), which obviously is a spelling pronunciation based on not being properly taught Japanese phonology, but which is also curious because English dialects do not normally distinguish [e] and [ej] unless they correspond to GA /ɛ/ and /eɪ/ (but my /ɛ/ is [ɜ] not [e]).

I believe that sens[ei] is something that non- native speakers use, or that native speakers might use (especially at a dōjō) because they don't want to confuse people with a pronunciation that doesn't match the rōmaji. When I studied Japanese, everyone just said sens[e:]. Similarly I think Japanese people say g[ei]sha because they want to make sure they get understood. I don't know what they say among themselves; I've never heard g[e:]sha.

[quinterbeck]

Has anyone else been under the impression that what is written in Rōmaji as ⟨ei⟩, e.g. in sensei, corresponded to /ei/ rather than to /eː/?

I've encountered [ei] as a singing pronunciation in japanese music. For example in the first verse of Rolling Star by Yui basutei sounds like [basɯ̥tej] and then in the chorus heiwa is distinctly [he.i.wa].

More: show

Mou gaman bakka shiterannai yo
Iitai koto wa iwanakucha
Kaerimichi yuugure no basutei
Ochikonda senaka ni Bye Bye Bye

Kimi no Fighting Pose misenakya oh oh

Yume ni made mita you na sekai wa
Arasoi mo naku heiwa na nichijou
Demo genjitsu wa hibi torabutte
Tama ni kuyandari shiteru
Sonna Rolling Days

Though in actual Japanese lessons I've always encountered it as [eː]

[KathTheDragon]

Has anyone else been under the impression that what is written in Rōmaji as ⟨ei⟩, e.g. in sensei, corresponded to /ei/ rather than to /eː/?

I have no idea what vowel "/eː/" is supposed to be.

?

Japanese has a five vowel system /i u e o a/ plus vowel length. So /eː/ is the long counterpart of /e/.

Oh, it's meant to be a Japanese vowel? I thought Travis was talking about English pronunciations.

[Travis B.]

I have no idea what vowel "/eː/" is supposed to be.

?

Japanese has a five vowel system /i u e o a/ plus vowel length. So /eː/ is the long counterpart of /e/.

Oh, it's meant to be a Japanese vowel? I thought Travis was talking about English pronunciations.

I meant the pronunciation of a Japanese vowel by a native English-speaker, i.e. myself.

[Linguoboy]

I meant the pronunciation of a Japanese vowel by a native English-speaker, i.e. myself.

Then colour me as confused as Kath. I don’t contrast /e:/ and /ei/ in English; I use the same diphthong for both.

[Travis B.]

I meant the pronunciation of a Japanese vowel by a native English-speaker, i.e. myself.

Then colour me as confused as Kath. I don’t contrast /e:/ and /ei/ in English; I use the same diphthong for both.

The thing is that I only have [ej] in very limited circumstances in English, i.e. where there is an intervocalic elision, and my native realization of English /eɪ/ is just [e], so it is weird that I would realize Japanese /e:/ as [ej].

[KathTheDragon]

Maybe you should mention when you're talking about your own pronunciations? I recall nobody else here shares your particular idiolect, which makes questions about your own vowels rather hard to answer...

[Travis B.]

Maybe you should mention when you're talking about your own pronunciations? I recall nobody else here shares your particular idiolect, which makes questions about your own vowels rather hard to answer...

[e] for /eɪ/ is not limited to my own idiolect but rather is the normal pronunciation thereof here: also, I remember reading people's comments that associate /eɪ/ in NAE more with the monophthongs than with the diphthongs.

[KathTheDragon]

I said nobody here - as in, on the board.

[anteallach]

My /r/ is kinda weird - it is a uvular approximant, except if it follows a coronal where then it is a coarticulated retroflex-uvular approximant, and if it is word-initial it is also labialized - except if it is syllabic, where then it is always just a uvular approximant without labialization, even when initial. And yes, l-vocalization makes transcriptions look far weirder than they really are.

I'm really curious to hear how this manifests as I can't really imagine it - would you be up for posting a recording of your speech with a transcription?

I tried taking a recording yesterday, but the microphone on my machine was acting wonky, so I couldn't.

The thing is that audibly it isn't much different from your standard NAE alveolar or retroflex approximant with initial labialization, aside from that when I attempt to pronounce a plain alveolar or retroflex approximant I can't help but make it slightly lateral...

I think it's basically a "bunched r": i.e. a dorsal approximant which has some "bunching" or drawing backwards of the body of the tongue, leading it to sound different from a normal dorsal approximant and rather more like the coronal approximant which it's an alternative to for English /r/. That fits with your description of it as both dorsal and sounding similar to other realisations of English /r/. I think you make people think it's weirder than it really is when you transcribe it as [ʁ].

[Travis B.]

I'm really curious to hear how this manifests as I can't really imagine it - would you be up for posting a recording of your speech with a transcription?

I tried taking a recording yesterday, but the microphone on my machine was acting wonky, so I couldn't.

The thing is that audibly it isn't much different from your standard NAE alveolar or retroflex approximant with initial labialization, aside from that when I attempt to pronounce a plain alveolar or retroflex approximant I can't help but make it slightly lateral...

I think it's basically a "bunched r": i.e. a dorsal approximant which has some "bunching" or drawing backwards of the body of the tongue, leading it to sound different from a normal dorsal approximant and rather more like the coronal approximant which it's an alternative to for English /r/. That fits with your description of it as both dorsal and sounding similar to other realisations of English /r/. I think you make people think it's weirder than it really is when you transcribe it as [ʁ].

I have seen people describe their /r/s as having pharyngealization, and I do not perceive mine as being full-on pharyngealized, but it seems like it might indeed have a bit of pharyngealization on top of being dorsal.

[Linguoboy]

Which sounds longer to you: “half an hour” or “thirty minutes”?

[Gryphonic]

Which sounds longer to you: “half an hour” or “thirty minutes”?

"Half an hour", for prompting me to think in longer time periods.
Although I could see someone saying the opposite, for thirty is more units of anything than one-half.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I don't have a strong feeling either way.

[ratammer]

Thirty minutes sounds like it would feel shorter - it makes me think of a situation where every minute counts, like a deadline, whereas half an hour is time to kill and will feel like forever.

[Travis B.]

Thirty minutes sounds like it would feel shorter - it makes me think of a situation where every minute counts, like a deadline, whereas half an hour is time to kill and will feel like forever.

I feel the same way here.

[quinterbeck]

Which sounds longer to you: “half an hour” or “thirty minutes”?

For me they feel the same.

Relatedly, how do you all tend to quote the time of day?

• Do you lean towards constructions like 'x past y' and 'x to y' or number-quoting like 'xx:yy'? E.g. is 5:10 "ten past five" or "five ten"?
• Do you prefer numbers only or do you use the phrases 'half past', 'quarter past' and 'quarter to'?
• Do you ever abbreviate "half past x" to "half x"?
• What's your typical precision? Do you quote to the minute, or to the nearest five minutes?

[ratammer]

• Past and to.
• The phrases.
• Yes. I've heard there are places where "half x" confusingly means essentially "half to x", though.
• Usually nearest five.