Help talk:IPA/Japanese

Clutter On the use of a minor prosodic break

User:Mazamadao has singlehandedly added a symbol accompanied by a cluttering list of examples without seeking prior consensus and without aligning existing transcriptions to the new help page. I asked them to open a discussion but I wasn’t listened. Let’s see if they’re willing to discuss here rather than on my personal talk page. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I would actually support adding the ⟨|⟩ symbol to all guides that need it, i.e. those that allow allophony transcending word boundaries to be transcribed. On the other hand, this would be alienating to many editors who don't have as much phonetic knowledge of the transcribed language, or it would create transcriptions not supported by the key, which is (arguably) even worse. Then, there are cases where there are multiple places where you can put the minor break, you can also skip them (I'm not really a fan of a parenthesised ⟨(|)⟩ just as I'm not a fan of a parenthesised palatalization mark in Help:IPA/Ukrainian). I'm not at all sure about Japanese, though. I'm ambivalent. It's certainly good for allophonic transcriptions of specific recordings (its bigger brother ⟨||⟩ is not as useful in my experience, though). Sol505000 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's my case. In Japanese dictionary transcription (and I don't give a damn about "other languages"), in order to make it clear that there are two distinct prosodic phrases, a middle dot is used, as in ミナモトノ・ヨリトモ. Now obviously this is not compatible with the IPA, so we have to convert it. The English literature, including Vance's The Sound of Japanese, Labrune's Phonology of Japanese, etc terms these prosodic phrases "minor phrases" or "accentual phrases". The symbol for a minor break is |, which is used by Vance. Why it's important to use this symbol? Because the fundamentals of pitch accent dictate that there can't be more than one pitch fall in a minor phrase. This means that if there are more than one pitch fall, there must be more than one phrase. The minor break lets us know that there's a pitch "reset", which is signaled by a pitch rise from the first mora to the second of each phrase. In the NHK and Shin Meikai dictionaries, this is shown graphically by a lack of a "high" mark on the 1st mora. A parenthesized break, (|) signals that the break is optional in some cases, usually when one of the phrases is unaccented. Mr Scrooge here arbitrarily decided that that was unnecessary because "other languages" don't need it, even though that literally doesn't mean anything relevant, and proposed that spaces are good enough, which is not what spaces are for even for "other languages" as he ignorantly claims. Spaces are for word breaks, and we need to maintain this distinction between a word break and a prosodic break where there's a discrepancy between the word count and prosodic phrase count. Thus we have something like [minamoto no (|) joɾitomo] where there are three words but two minor phrases. In fact, prosodic breaks may be necessary for some African languages with similar tonal structures to Japanese, although I have enough humility to not elaborate on things I know nothing about. The minor break is crucial to accurately transcribe long phrases, including names of notable figures and organizations, which are frequently pronounced as multiple minor phrases. Mazamadao (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Here are some visuals in case my verbal explanation's confusing:

You don't get to tell me to open discussions given how you clearly thought you were the ultimate authority on this. The onus was on you to open this discussion. And again, quit gesturing vaguely at "existing transcriptions" of "other languages". What does that have to do with anything? You seem to have some unknown problem with the vertical bar, an official IPA character, that you've refused to explain, while pretending it was about "clutter". What is it? If it was about clutter, why not discuss with me on how to reduce clutter and improve clarity, instead of obstinately removing a crucial transcription feature? You just quietly got rid of it and are now making up inconsistent excuses about "clutter" and I don't buy your them for a second. Mazamadao (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

"I wasn’t listened" Oh really? You do know how frustrating it is to be talking to an unresponsive opponent? Mazamadao (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The onus was on you to open this discussion. That is not correct - see WP:BRD. You're the one who added that character to the guide. As it wasn't present before, transcriptions linking to this guide had not been using it up to the point of its addition here. See MOS:IPAINTEGRITY, which applies to all guides alike, not just this one. Ivan is correct on this (assuming this is what he meant, which I think he did). Sol505000 (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

What is it with Wikipedia editors stupidly taking the hard route and not providing guidelines like this when requested. I kept asking Scrooge a thousand times before what grounds he had and all I got was "too much stuff". This is like the fifth time this time-wasting idiocy has happened. If facts are on your side, why lie or obfuscate? Mazamadao (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You would think someone who decides to revolutionize an IPA key would know that there are hundreds or thousands of pages pointing there. As I told you multiple times. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Address the issue and quit diverting. I'll admit I have violated some procedure I didn't know about, which I do now only thanks to Sol505000, no thanks to you. Again, what's your problem with that one IPA symbol in particular, Mr Weasel? Mazamadao (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I never said I have a problem with the symbol. I have a problem with adding it with a verbose explanation, which was completely out of place, and countless unnecessary examples, as well as the fact it wouldn’t match the linked transcriptions, and ultimately with the fact that you unilaterally applied this important change without seeking prior consensus. How many times should I repeat it? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Enough with the lies and deflections. You removed the entire symbol, keep insisting it's not "helpful", that only spaces suffice, that "other languages" don't need it, only backtracked when I explained why the symbol is necessary. The "clutter" part is an excuse to cover your real intent. The "verbose" explanations can be trimmed down, but doesn't have to be removed altogether. They're in the footnotes just like the other explanations on the same page. There are four examples, about one or two more than other sets of examples, not "countless" (now this is just a blatant lie), because I knew this concept is a bit more advanced and foreign to non-Japanese speakers. What "linked transcriptions"? I applied it because I didn't know whether the procedure involved consesus-seeking debate. What did you do anyway? Making up subjective judgments, refusing to cite that WP:BRD thing, despite being asked repeatedly not to do so. How many times should I repeat this? Mazamadao (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pages with Japanese IPA. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh FFS, what the hell is this? Are you hellbent on not resolving this or what? Mazamadao (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

If you don’t know what that is you are the one who’s not listening. I’ll leave this to other editors to deal with. Have fun. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. "Open a discussion with somebody else who actually knows what they're talking about so I don't have to deal with the sh*t I started any more because I don't know anything and have no argument". Got it. Mazamadao (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Like at least don't make up obvious lies. The edit history and all our exchanges are still there aren't they? Mazamadao (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from your responses, your argument boils down too, "I don't like it here because I don't see it anywhere else". That's moronic. Mazamadao (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The symbol needs to be removed from the guide until we reach a consensus to add it. Transcriptions linking here (listed at Category:Pages with Japanese IPA, linked above) obviously do not use it which violates MOS:IPAINTEGRITY. Sol505000 (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Procedural issues aside, there does seem to be a strong linguistic case for including it. It’s true that some existing pages don’t use the symbol, though others already do. Adding it here and gradually updating pages where it’s relevant but missing would feel like a net improvement. Thoughts? Milhouse10000 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hearing no objections I'll make this change soon... Milhouse10000 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

“No objections” doesn’t mean there is consensus, quite the opposite actually. If you’re really gonna add it you’ll have to go through the various transcriptions and change them accordingly as well. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, happy to discuss further. Just to know where you/others stand, it sounds like based on your previous responses you think this is (in general) a good addition, and the main issues are that (a) not all the transcriptions are updated and that (b) the original addition to the table was too verbose, right? Milhouse10000 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. Even though I also believe it to be marginal enough that we can go on without it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable addition to me. (Although I would like for the note to be reasonably sized.) It would only be relevant in some cases, though. Isn't it possible to just have it as an optional tool, like the dot for syllabification?--Urszag (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, having it as an optional tool seems like exactly the right thing to do. The row removed in this edit (because there was not yet consensus) seems about right to me, what do you think? Milhouse10000 (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Gemination

I know there's a footnote on gemination, but it took a minute to find and it seems like it might be useful to add it up top somewhere. Like vowel length, this is one of the very fundamental things to know when writing IPA in Japanese, and there's not currently a concrete example anywhere in the tables above.

How about adding a line to the suprasegmentals table — something like ["doubled consonant", "Gemination", "gakkō [gakkoː]", "bookkeeper"] for the columns? Milhouse10000 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Other keys for languages with gemination (that use repeated consonants and not the length mark) don't include it, and it's pretty self-explanatory, so I don't see a need. Nardog (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Good points. Certainly some languages like Italian do not include it in the table. Some, like Hebrew and Arabic, do, although of course the cases are somewhat different.

I agree the double-consonant thing is fairly self-explanatory when reading IPA, but figuring out how to write it in IPA it is not super self-explanatory from this page — should I use a length mark or double the consonant? One footnote alludes to it but only in the context of affricate consonants.

Even Italian has a footnote discussing gemination in a general way; I think that would be an improvement here. Milhouse10000 (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hearing no objections I'll make this change soon... Milhouse10000 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

How to notate geminates could be made clearer, but where would you put it? Could you be more specific about what you have in mind?--Urszag (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure! My first instinct is to put it would be in the suprasegmentals table, like in Hebrew — something like ["doubled consonant", "Gemination", "gakkō [gakkoː]", "bookkeeper"] for the columns. Like syllabification (which is already in the table) it may not strictly speaking be a suprasegmental feature but it is very close, and it makes sense for it to be near ː (which is sometimes used for gemination).

Alternatively, it could be added as separate row at the bottom of the Consonants table as in Arabic, or a general footnote to the Consonants heading like in Italian.

Certainly open to thoughts here. Milhouse10000 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m in favor of adding a note on top of the Consonant section similarly to what we have for Italian. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree this is a good idea overall, but I don't think it deserves its own row. It can be done by expanding the existing note about gemination and adding examples.

Speaking of which, this seems like an excellent occasion to clarify how to represent geminated ⟨Cʲ⟩. Should it be e.g. ⟨hapʲpʲoː⟩ or ⟨happʲoː⟩? The former is obviously more accurate, but I find it overkill and too precise especially given we already omit ⟨ʲ⟩ before [i]. (The same question arises for ⟨bɯmʲmʲakɯ⟩ vs ⟨bɯmmʲakɯ⟩, though it's not /R/. In this case I don't even know if the former is more accurate. We also write ⟨saŋɡʲoː⟩ anyway, even though it's more narrowly [saŋʲɡʲoː].)

Similarly, should it be ⟨beꜜddo⟩ or ⟨beꜜtdo⟩? Nardog (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe the simpler notations [happʲoː] and [beddo] are more helpful to the average reader, especially the latter. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Given the constraints we're already working with, ppʲ, mmʲ, seem reasonable, despite not being consistent with the treatment of çç, ɕɕ, etc. I am opposed to transcriptions like /td/. As far as I can tell, devoicing of voiced geminate obstruents in Japanese is either a surface-level phonetic phenomenon (which doesn't belong in a phonemic transcription) or a phonological process (which results in /tt/ not /td/). Also, if I correctly understand the results of Kawahara 2005, the partial phonetic devoicing of geminates isn't necessarily a matter of the first half being voiceless and the second half being voiced; Figure 1 on page 91 shows closure voicing followed by a devoiced portion, which seems like it would be more accurately represented as [dt] if anything.--Urszag (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Syllabification marker

@Vampyricon: I am confused about what "Failed verification for phonemic syllabification in Japanese" means. The example [ɲiɰ̃.i] is phonetic brackets, not phonemic slashes. Was there some discussion elsewhere that I missed? I think that this page should include the syllable division marker, because it can occasionally be useful to use it in phonetic transcriptions of Japanese to make a point about syllabification. For example, it is used on the page Japanese phonology in the section discussing the moraic nasal (to emphasize the difference in syllabification between [kaɰ̃.a.ke], [kaɰ̃.juː] versus [ka.na.ke], [ka.ɲuː]) and in the section discussing rearticulated vowel sequences (to emphasize the difference in syllabification between [sɯꜜːɾi] and [sɯꜜ.ɯɾi]). So I think [.] should be listed on the key here. That's not saying that it is mandatory to use it: compare Help:IPA/English, which has the note "the IPA dot ⟨.⟩ may be used when it is wished to make explicit where a division between syllables is (or may be) made." Urszag (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that (afaict) every heterosyllabic sequence has a homosyllabic variant, meaning they are mere variants of each other and aren't phonemic. Syllables are inherently phonemic constructs, so if syllabification is not phonemic, then it's irrelevant to the language. This is especially true when all of those examples have additional distinguishing factors that can be much more easily argued to be the phonemic component, e.g. the moraic nasal takes up a mora, so [kaɰ̃ake] is tetramoraic whereas [kanake] is trimoraic, and [sɯꜜːɾi] contrasts with [sɯꜜːꜛɾi] due to the morpheme boundary and thus pitch accents. I'm perfectly happy to add it in if you can quote where the sources in the main page they state syllabification to be an element of the language though. Vampyricon (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've cited several sources in Japanese_phonology#Syllables that treat syllables as part of the prosodic structure of Japanese. This is different from saying that syllabification is phonemic: compare how stress can exist as a prosodic feature even in a language that has predictable rather than lexically contrastive stress placement. Kubozono 2015 "Introduction to Japanese phonetics and phonology", in Kubozono, Haruo (ed.), Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1–40, is one of the sources that explicitly discusses the argument about whether syllables are relevant in Japanese, and says, e.g. "In Tokyo Japanese, the syllable plays somewhat subsidiary roles, but there are many phenomena in which the bimoraic monosyllables pattern with monomoraic monosyllables and not with bimoraic disyllabic words" (p. 19), mentioning some aspects of accentuation and truncation processes. Kubozono also made the choice as an editor to have the transcriptions in this book use [.] to mark syllable boundaries (as noted on page 4), so that's relevant precedence for its use in linguistic discussions of Japanese.--Urszag (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Feel free to change that part back then! Vampyricon (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)