GrandPiano wrote: ↑30 Jan 2021 02:39
I think you're misunderstanding the basis of my argument. The primary basis of my argument is verbs like 帰る káeru
and 入る háiru
, which have the accent on the third-to-last mora even though they belong to an accent category that normally places the accent on the second-to-last mora in the dictionary form (and also noticing that this only happens with certain vowel sequences, e.g. 倒す taósu
has the expected accent placement).
It does appear that somehow I missed the part of your argument where you mentioned the verbs having either no accent or having an accent on the penultimate mora of the final morpheme. I apologize for rambling on and on without having read that portion clearly.
To me, the natural explanation for this is that accent placement is actually based on syllables, not moras, and these verbs have two syllables. It also seems to me that this analysis can explain an apparent difference in accentual behavior between godan and ichidan verbs: accented godan verbs with endings like -airu, -aeru, and -ooru have the accent on the third-to-last mora, but accented ichidan verbs with endings like -aeru, -oiru, and -iiru have the accent on the second-to-last mora. Under this analysis, a simple explanation is that the suffix in the dictionary form of an ichidan verb is actually -eru/-iru, not -ru, and so there is a morpheme boundary between the two adjacent vowels (I suppose this would also synchronically explain why ichidan verbs can only end in -eru or -iru).
clawgrip wrote: ↑26 Jan 2021 13:06
Then there's also the matter of words like マイカー maìkā
, 喘ぐ aègu
, and ツイン tsuìn
, which also run against this theory, as the two vowels are within the same morpheme.
Admittedly, I wasn't aware of 喘ぐ. I suppose it's the same sort of situation as 通る tóoru
vs. 催す moyoósu
. The only solution I can think of is to analyze 通る as /toː.ɾu/ but 催す as /mo.jo.o.su/, and similar to analyze 帰る /kae.ɾu/ but 喘ぐ as /a.e.gu/, though I recognize that this isn't a very satisfying explanation.
This explanation is begging the question. The premise that 喘ぐ aégu
must have a morpheme boundary between /a/ and /e/ while 帰る káeru
need not is only valid if we have already accepted the conclusion that /áe/ can occur in a single morpheme while /aé/ cannot. Therefore, it cannot stand as evidence of that conclusion. (I'll get to toosu
Still, if you disagree with my analysis, I'm curious how you explain the accentual behavior I described above.
My main issue is that you appear to be suggesting a complete change to Japanese phonology based on an irregularity found in a handful of words at most, and it may not even be an irregularity at all.
First off, I want to say that after rereading your posts, I will go back on another thing I said: namely, I will accept that verb suffixes can affect the accent pattern in the way you say. But let's look at our examples:
"to throw down"
This comes from the Classical Japanese 倒す tafusu
, a compound of ta
(not sure what this is) plus 伏す/臥す fusu
"to lie down". So this is not a single morpheme. The fu
instead of expected u
probably to dissimilate it from tō
would almost certainly contract to tō
This word does not appear to exist in Classical Japanese; instead, 入る iru
was used. Although I am having difficulty finding an etymology for hairu
, it's almost certainly a compound of some root ha
However, 参る máiru
can be traced to to Old Japanese mawiru
, so I think the stem is a single morpheme.
This can be traced back to Old Japanese kaperu
, but I can't find anything else, so it is likely a single morpheme. It does bear a resemblance in sound and meaning (go back to a previous place/state) to 変える/換える/代える/etc. kaeru
"change; replace; substitute" but I found no link in the bit of research I did.
"to go past"
above, this can be traced back to Old Japanese as toporu
, so I believe the stem to be a single morpheme.
There's also the word 遠い tooi
, which seems to allow for varying pronunciations, including toói
. I also have to wonder though if these are the same root, since the stems are identical aside from accent, and "far" and "pass through" seem like they could be somewhat semantically related.
Here are the counterexamples presented:
does appear to be across two morphemes. Although rare, 催い moyoi
does appear to be a word, or at least a suffix (a quick search shows that it seems primarily to be appended to 雨 ame
, 雪 yuki
, and 船 fune
). Therefore, this counterexample is invalidated.
can be found in Classical Japanese as 喘く ahaku
, with the aha
stem being an onomatopoeic representation of a panting sound. This is clearly a single morpheme.
is borrowed directly from English twin and is obviously a single morpheme.
What's your source on the accent for マイカー? I checked the NHK accent dictionary, and it says that マイカー is maikáa. I don't think ツイン is necessarily a counterexample. I wasn't able to think of an example for /ui/, so it could be that /ui/ just isn't one of the sequences that shows this behavior.
My source is actual usage, but here
is another source. But anyway, I searched for マイカー on YouTube and checked the first result
, and actually found something unexpectedly interesting.
The first time she says マイカー (at 0:05) she pronounces it with the pattern you suggest (maikáa
), but every subsequent time she pronounces it with the pattern I suggest (maìkaa
) (0:18, 0:24, 0:55, 0:59, maybe more but I got tired of watching the video at around the halfway point). The first instance pronounced maikáa
is probably to introduce the topic, as putting the accent on kaa
makes sense because that's the thing actually being discussed. But on subsequent mentions she reverts back to maìkaa
, which in my experience is the normal way to say it.
Also, notice that she says sheàkaa
"share car" and rentàkaa
"rent-a-car", which have the exact same pattern, placing the accent on the mora immediately before kaa
. There are many other words with the same pattern, such as ダンプカー danpùkaa
"dumptruck", エコカー ekòkaa
"eco-friendly car", コンパクトカー konpakutòkaa
"compact car", スポーツカー supootsùkaa
, etc. etc., so the fact that the accent falls on the i
is strong evidence that it is not a diphthong.
So the evidence káeru
has counterevidence aégu
The evidence máiru
has counterevidence maíkaa
The evidence tóoru
has counterevidence toói
(though admittedly as a pronunciation variant)
clawgrip wrote: ↑26 Jan 2021 13:06
When considering the diversity of Japanese dialects, which vary widely in their pitch patterns and conjugations, it seems a little silly to insist that single morphemes that have remained in the same place for at least 1,200 years are preventing the alteration of an accent in some way.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. I don't think dialects are relevant, because this is only about Standard Japanese, and I'm not quite sure I see why "remaining in the same place for at least 1,200 years" would affect whether a morpheme can be relevant to accent placement.
I recant on the morpheme thing, and the dialect thing made a bit more sense to me when I was arguing against something that you never actually posited.
clawgrip wrote: ↑29 Jan 2021 01:26
In the case of b., if we conclude that /oi/ in オイル òiru
is a diphthong, while /oi/ in 老いる oìru
is not a diphthong but rather two monophthongs in hiatus on account of the two vowels occurring in different morphemes, then by what reasoning can we consider /oi/ in オイル òiru
to be a diphthong, but not the /oi/ 黒い kuròi
, (in which /o/ and /i/ belong to different morphemes) for which the phonological realization is entirely identical in all respects (vowel quality, vowel length, pitch)?
I wonder if there's some confusion here about what is meant by "diphthong"? I think of a diphthong as being a phonological entity, not a phonetic entity. As I understand it, a diphthong is a sequence of two phonetic vowels which phonologically behave as a single unit. There isn't necessarily a phonetic difference between a diphthong and two monophthongs in hiatus (there might be a difference within a given language, but I don't think there's a universal difference).
For オイル vs. 黒い, I suppose one could argue that there's evidence from other words that diphthongs occur within morpheme boundaries but not across morpheme boundaries, and so it follows that オイル contains a diphthong but 黒い does not.
I recognize that morphology can influence phonology, but phonology itself is meant to describe the resultant material. Even if two different morphological processes produce the same result, that result is still a single phonological product. I'm not convinced that there is a way to describe in purely phonological terms why /ói/ is a diphthong while /ói/ is a sequence of monophthongs.
LinguistCat wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020 22:51
And I'm not even sure what it would mean for someone to claim there's a difference between an accent before a sokuon vs after it (aside from maybe /s:/), though I have seen some resources differentiate, for example, ma'tte vs asat'te.
Unrelated, but I was looking back through the thread and I noticed this. I've seen that accent for asatte
in some places as well, and I suspect that it's a mistake. The NHK accent dictionary gives asátte
. As far as I know, the sokuon can never carry the accent.
As far as I know, you're correct that sokuon never carries an accent.
Also I hope you recognize that there is no hostility in what I say. I wouldn't spend this much time looking up and writing all this stuff if I didn't think there was merit in discussing it.