14

According to When is the katakana form of wo (ヲ) used?, を is almost always used only for the particle, and is usually pronounced o (お).

There are some dialects where を is pronounced with a "w", but the same is true for the obsolete kana ゐ and ゑ:

Because the pronunciation was lost. "Wi" and "we" are still in some dialects, but standard Japanese does not have those sounds. These characters were just spelling. Similarly in English, we pronounce "through" as "thru" because the "gh" sound is long gone. [emphasis added]

Why was を spared even though ゐ and ゑ have been deemed obsolete? Was changing the writing of the object marker particle seen as too radical a change? Or is を pronounced "wo" more widely than ゐ and ゑ are pronounced as "wi" and "we"?

Golden Cuy
  • 16,209
  • 15
  • 74
  • 184
  • Presumably the same reason why the particles は and へ have also been spared from spelling reform... (Also, there are lots of words which used to be spelt with を, not just the particle.) – Zhen Lin Dec 28 '11 at 03:02
  • 3
    @ZhenLin I though someone is going to say the first part of what you wrote, but they are different. And for your second part, you care too much about classical literature. In present Japanese, the use of other than as a case particle is practially ignorable. While helps to identify an accusative case particle, and actually make it difficult to locate these particles. For this reason, in Japanese braille, is written as , but the particles and are written as and respectively. –  Dec 28 '11 at 04:19
  • 2
    @sawa: See the quote here: しかし、助詞というもの、ことに「が」「の」「に」「を」「へ」「は」などは、最もたくさん出てくる。〔中略〕いちいち「これわ」「それわ」「わたくしわ」「それお」「これお」「わたくしお」「これえ」「それえ」「わたくしえ」というように書くようになると、あまりにも、今までと変りすぎて異様さが目だち、ちょっと実行の手がにぶる。 – Zhen Lin Dec 28 '11 at 05:21
  • @ZhenLin That source only mentions that the pressure to preserve them as is was stronger than the idea of realizing a one-to-one correlation between kana and pronunciation. That makes sense for and , which have two pronunciations, but for , there is only one pronunciation 'o', and is unambiguous. Therefore, that argument makes no difference for . The change from "wo" to "o" is due to a genaral phonological rule, just like "wi" to "i", "wu" to "u", and "we" to "e", and has nothing to do with one-to-one mapping, unlike with and . –  Dec 28 '11 at 05:46
  • @sawa: I don't understand your reasoning. They said there was pressure to preserve the spelling of the particles, and を is a particle. Moreover the pronunciation of the particles は and へ as /wa/ and /e/ is also due to a phonological principle (ハ行転呼), albeit a more complicated one. – Zhen Lin Dec 28 '11 at 05:56
  • @ZhenLin Your whole argument takes us back to the original question; to give a particular case: Why do we write as 買います or 買えません instead of 買ゐます or 買ゑません while we write 本を instead of 本お? Your argument is not answering this, which means it is irrelevant to the question. There was an idea of getting rid of the ambiguity of the and . ハ行転呼 does not apply unconditionally. didn't have such problems. –  Dec 28 '11 at 06:08
  • @sawa: The question was, and I quote, "Why was を spared even though ゐ and ゑ have been deemed obsolete?" My claim answers that: it was retained so that the spelling of the particle を would not change. The spelling of all other words containing を were changed, however: 十 is no longer spelled とを, 男 is no longer spelled をとこ, 居る is no longer spelled をる etc. Also, your example of 買ゐます is spurious: it would have been 買ひます in the historical orthography. – Zhen Lin Dec 28 '11 at 06:43
  • @ZhenLin In present Japanese, the negative form is 買わない, which means that the stem is kaw-. Since the epenthetic vowel inserted before the polite -mas- is i, it would be logically expected that the underlying form is written as kawimasu or 買ゐます. And since the potential affix is -e-, it is expected that the underlying form is kawemasen or 買ゑません in present Japanese. The form 買ひます is reflecting the verb stem before the historical ハ行転呼 change, and is not relevant for present Japanese. –  Dec 28 '11 at 08:34
  • @ZhenLin And, "it was retained so that the spelling of the particle を would not change", this is a tautology. It is not an answer. –  Dec 28 '11 at 08:41
  • 4
    @sawa: You seem to be intent on ignoring any historical input on the matter. The fact is that the modern orthography was only enacted in the 1940s, when a large proportion of the population was already literate. The pressures to preserve the spellings of common "words" would be correspondingly large. Or do you deny that there was once a genuine phoneme /wo/ in Japanese, and that を should have been spelled お from the beginning of time? – Zhen Lin Dec 28 '11 at 09:03
  • @ZhenLin What you are guessing about me is totally the opposite. I not only acknowledge the existence of "wo" in the past but also acknowledge the existence of it in present Japanese within the underlying representation (even for dialects that don't actually pronounce it as "wo" at the surface representation). Moreover, as I wrote above, I gave a reason why it is better to write it as . I never said it should have been written . –  Dec 28 '11 at 09:07
  • @sawa: I don't think the morphophonemic principles you're thinking about were considered important back in the day that the modern orthography was designed. Even Korean orthography doesn't go that far in representing underlying forms (though it was tried once). – Zhen Lin Dec 28 '11 at 09:23
  • @sawa: In old Japanese, the negative of 買う(買ふ) would be 買はない. Dictionaries will list their old form, you don't have to guess. – fefe Dec 28 '11 at 15:22
  • @fefe As I am writing repeatedly, I am talking about present Japanese from a synchronic linguistic point of view. I am not discussing how it was written before. –  Dec 28 '11 at 19:35

1 Answers1

8

As @ZhenLin said in the comments, there are three particles left unchanged in the reform of the usage of kana: は へ を.

They are left unchanged because they are so widely used, and changing them would result in too much in the writing form. I quote from a book*(I don't know the book, so the contents are in fact from wiki):


*現代かなづかいの精神・抜粋(国語シリーズ8/文部省著、統計出版・昭和27年3月)
The spirit of the modern Kana usage (an extract) (Japanese Language Series 8, By the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)


「本を読む」のをば、をと書く例外をことわっている。これが問題である。なぜこんな例外を許したか。例外にせずに、これも「お」と書いたらよいではないか、という非難がごうごうと聞える。これには、こういう理由がある。

もちろん例外は、よくよくでないかぎりは設けないほうがよい。委員会でもそれは皆心得ていたことなのである。だから、この例外を設けたのは、よくよくのことなのである。

およそ改革は、ことに万人の所有である言語の改革は、まさつの少ない、万人のすぐついてこられるものでなければ、案がいかにりっぱでも、机上の理想論に終って、実現ができない。理想としては、だれもだれも助詞のをもにしてしまいたい。しかし、助詞というもの、ことに「が」「の」「に」「を」「へ」「は」などは、最もたくさん出てくる。〔中略〕いちいち

これわ それわ わたくしわ
それお これお わたくしお
これえ それえ わたくしえ

というように書くようになると、あまりにも、今までと変りすぎて異様さが目だち、ちょっと実行の手がにぶる。この助詞さえ、もし今までどおりにして置いてよかったら、他の点は、漢字で書くとほとんど隠れて、新かなづかいも、大部分今までどおりで済む〔中略〕助詞だけは漢字で書けず、いつもかなであって、必ずひっかかる、いちいち直すにかかる手もうるさいが、見る目にも抵抗が多過ぎて、すぐ実行できるか、あやぶまれる。これが、大新聞社側の決定的な意見であった〔中略〕いかにも、「わ」「お」「え」が、目にたって、一見異様であって親しめなかった記憶が、ある委員たちにもあったのである。

大事の前の小事である。実行できない案では、いかに美しくってもなんにもならない。要は実行できる案でなければ、一時強行されても、少しでも無理があると、動天返しになる憂いがある。
そこで委員会も、助詞を元どおりにのこすという妥協案を決定するよりほかにしかたがなかったようである。

"There is exceptions that を in 本を読む would be written as を. This is a problem. Why the exceptions are permitted? Why not write this as お and elimination all exceptions? Often there are criticisms about this. There is the following reason for this. Of course exceptions should not be allowed unless it can be avoided. The committee is well aware of that. However, these exceptions are the ones that cannot be avoided.

"Reform, especially the reform of language that is used be everybody, unless it can be followed by everybody in a short time, it will only be an ideal plan on the desk, and cannot become true. As an ideal (plan), everybody wanted change the particle を to お. However, the particle, especially 「が」「の」「に」「を」「へ」「は」 are most widely used. If we change them all, and write as

これわ それわ わたくしわ
それお これお わたくしお
これえ それえ わたくしえ

there would be too much change from the original writing, and would be hard to be put into practice. If only these particles are written as the original, other changes will mostly be hidden when kanji is used. The new kana usage will not have too much change in actual writing. (...) Only the particles won't be written in kanji, and are always written in kana, so will certainly be affected (by the reform). Changing all of them will cause too much effort, and it will cause too much resistance from people who read it. This is the decisive comment from the big publishing companies. (...) some members of the committee also (think) that 「わ」「お」「え」will stand out in the text, and make the text not look like normal Japanese.

"This is a 'little thing' before a big reform. A plan that cannot be put into practice will be nothing however good it is. If it is not a practical plan, even it is forced into use, it maybe reversed as long as there are something (unreasonable).

"Thus, the committee has to use the plan that keeps all the particles."

You should see that を is only kept as a particle, its appearances in other words are all changed to お, just like ゐ and ゑ changed to い and え.

fefe
  • 3,508
  • 18
  • 24
  • 1
    As I wrote in a comment, the real question is, why did and had to dissapear at all? By phonological rule in present Japanese, , and would be pronounced as "o", "i", and "e" anyway, just like , , , etc are pronounced "shi", "chi", "tsu" instead of "si", "ti", "tu". Realizing a mapping from kana to pronunciation is not a reason because it is already so for these characters. Therefore, the motivation for reforming them is questionable in the first place. –  Dec 28 '11 at 19:47
  • On the other hand, there is motivation for reforming and , and here, the pressure to preserve them becomes relevant. –  Dec 28 '11 at 19:47
  • 3
    @sawa: whether the reform is reasonable is not under discussion in this question, I think. – fefe Dec 29 '11 at 01:26
  • 2
    @sawa "Realizing a mapping from kana to pronunciation is not a reason". No, but realizing a mapping from pronunciation to kana is a reason. – dainichi Feb 09 '12 at 16:35
  • @dainichi Your reasoning cannot be the case. A mapping from pronunciation to kana is not realized. Cf. じ and ぢ, ず and づ. Also "wa" is sometimes written は, sometimes わ. "e" is written sometimes へ, sometimes え. –  Feb 09 '12 at 16:44
  • @sawa Agreed, it wasn't fully realized, but you might argue that it got closer. I am not saying that I agree with all the choices. – dainichi Feb 09 '12 at 23:34
  • @sawa Just to complete your list, "e" is written い sometimes as well, e.g. in けい, and "o" is written お, を or う (as in もう). I find the latter the most unfortunate of them all, since it seems to obey no obvious system and require the most memorization. I have to remember that もうかる is written with an う, while とおる is written with an お. – dainichi Feb 12 '12 at 13:41
  • @dainichi Those are different thing. ei → ee, ou → oo, wo → o are phonological rules, and before the application of these rules (some abstract process technically called underlying representation), that e sound is i, and o sound is e or wo. It is not unfortunate. –  Feb 12 '12 at 13:59
  • @sawa I don't understand what you're saying. 問う is pronounced tou, not too, so how does that fit into your rule? And even if your rule applied, it still wouldn't change the fact that I am wasting memory on remembering how 儲かる and 通る are spelled. – dainichi Feb 12 '12 at 15:28
  • @dainichi I didn't say that 問う is pronounced "tou". It is pronounced "too". Its underlying form is "tou". The problem with your 儲かる and 通る is because you try to (only) remember how they are pronounced (their surface forms). If you do that, you will have the same problem learning the English words their and there, or to, two, and too. For Japanese, what you should remember is how they are written, which will give you the pronunciation (in case of Japanese; It doesn't work for English). –  Feb 12 '12 at 15:49
  • @sawa Very interesting! I have always pronounced 問う tou, not too, and 思う omou, not omoo. I never knew or noticed that people ponounced them with oo. Even on this page http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1147100901 people seem to disagree. – dainichi Feb 12 '12 at 16:15
  • @dainichi My description was not accurate, and I also misread your previous comment. In isolation, it is pronounced "tou" as you wrote. When used as in 問うた, it is pronounced "too". The rule ou → oo is not unconditonal. It has restrictions related to the length of the word. –  Feb 12 '12 at 16:38
  • @sawa I still don't get it. 塔 and 問う are the same length and both spelled とう, still I feel one is pronounced too, the other tou. – dainichi Feb 12 '12 at 17:09
  • 1
    @sawa : I actually agree with you here. We should spell things like 会えない as 会ゑない (pre-reform 会へない), which respects the fact that the verb is aw-. – ithisa Oct 19 '13 at 15:35