ロゼッタ石碑

manner fail

8月 13, 2008 · コメントはまだありません

“太陽”オグシオ夢散…「殺!殺!」報復応援に萎縮
YahooJAPANより

 オグシオを殺せ−。バドミントン女子ダブルスの小椋久美子、潮田玲子組は世界ランク3位で第2シードの中国ペアと準々決勝で対戦、0−2で惨敗した。確かに対戦相手は強かった。しかし、それ以上の難敵が、観客席にいた。

 「シャーッ! シャーッ!」。中国選手がスマッシュを打つたびに、中国人の大応援団から、敵を威嚇する獣のような声が起こった。漢字を当てると「殺!殺!」。本来はスマッシュの時のかけ声は「扣殺(コーシャー)!」がフェアな応援なのに、オグシオにむけて会場全体で一糸乱れず「殺せ!殺せ!」の大合唱をしていたのだ。

 バドミントンは中国のお家芸のひとつ。相手は確かに強かった。第1ゲームで8連続ポイント、第2ゲームで9連続ポイントを許すなど、オグシオは全く歯が立たず、途中からはまるでサンドバッグ状態に打ち込まれた。「試合で何が起きたのか全くわからなかった」(潮田)と振り返るのも、1打ごとのスタンドからの殺気がオグシオを蝕んだために違いない。

 当初は「中国の応援は気にならなかった」といっていた潮田だが帰り際に内容を聞いて「怖いです。怖いです」と何度も口にして震えていた。小椋は「最後は完全に飲まれてしまいました」と話し「この4年間バドミントンをたくさんの人たちに見てもらいたくて一生懸命やってきました。相手への対策もきちんとしてきたのに残念です」と五輪を終え、うつむいた。

 「殺せ」の引き金は、この試合よりも前に行われた女子ダブルス準々決勝。末綱・前田組が、世界ランク1位で第1シードの中国組を下す金星を挙げた。その報復として、中国人応援団が大挙してオグシオ2人に大ブーイングをしたのだ。

 アウエーの洗礼として片づけるのは簡単だが、04年サッカーアジア杯ではジーコジャパンへ前代未聞のブーイングが中国各地で起き、大きな社会問題に。北京での決勝戦では優勝したジーコジャパンメンバーのバスが一時、中国人サポーターに取り囲まれ、警官隊とにらみ合いまで起きた。

 中国側も北京五輪にむけて応援に関して「横断幕や国旗を振り回すことを厳禁」とする教則本を出したが、どこ吹く風。会場のあちこちで中国国旗が振られ、赤いシャツを着た中国応援団があちこちに陣取っていた。そして、「殺せ! 殺せ!」である。とても五輪とは思えない光景だ。

중국의 예의없는 응원 문화…양궁장에서 한국 선수들 ‘자극’
[쿠키 스포츠] 중국의 응원문화는 예상대로 거칠었고 예의도 없었다.

여자 양궁 단체전 결승이 열린 10일 베이징 올림픽그린 양궁장. 2004 아테네대회에 이어 4년만의 재대결이었다. 4년 전 한국은 241점을 쏘면서 중국에 1점차로 승리했다.

경기장은 그야말로 작은 한국이였다. 베이징 현지 교민과 한국에서 원정 응원온 1000여명의 응원단은 ‘대∼한민국’과 ‘오!필승 코리아’를 부르면서 중국 응원단의 코를 납작하게 눌렀다. 기세에 눌린 중국도 ‘자∼유’를 외치면서 응대했지만 한국 응원단의 조직적인 응원을 감당하지 못했다.

응원 열기 뿐만 아니라 응원 예절에서도 한국의 완승이었다.

한 발, 한 발 정신을 집중해야 하는 경기인 만큼 작은 소음도 치명적이었다. 한국 응원단은 양팀 선수들이 사대에 오르면 응원을 멈추고 마음으로 한국 선수들을 응원했다. 경기 초반 조용하던 중국 응원단이 시끄러워지기 시작한 것은 점수가 벌어지기 시작한 2엔드부터였다. 한국 선수들이 활 시위를 겨눌 때 마다 호루라기 등을 불면서 자극했다. ‘조용히 하라’는 장내 방송이 여러번 나왔지만 아랑곳하지 않았다. 하지만 한국 선수들도 이미 중국의 응원 문화를 예견한 듯 여유있게 활을 꽂아넣었고 오히려 점수차를 더 벌렸다.

올림픽에 첫 출전한 주현정(26·현대모비스)은 “그 동안 미디어게임, 담력 훈련을 했다. 한국에서 중국의 응원전에 대비한 시뮬레이션 게임도 해봤기 때문에 별 부담은 없었다”고 담담하게 말했다.

양궁 대표팀은 지난달 ‘미디어 및 소음 적응’을 주제로 실전 훈련을 펼쳤다. 올림픽대표 남녀 각 3명과 대항군의 대결을 위해 양궁협회는 1000명을 수용할 수 있는 관중석, 베이징올림픽 양궁경기장 모습과 함께 응원소리, 사진기자들의 셔터 소음이 나오는 와이드 스크린을 준비했다. 현장학습을 나온 학생들과 시민들이 관중석을 채웠다.

한국 선수들을 응원하기 위해 베이징을 찾았다는 백선희(48)씨는 “정말 불쾌했다. 그래도 이길거라는 생각이 있었기 때문에 여유를 갖고 아량으로 봐줬다”고 불만을 털어놨다.

김수녕 MBC 해설위원은 “중국 사람들이 예의없게 할 줄은 알았다”면서 “한국 선수들은 자신감이 있었기 때문에 별 문제 없었을 것”이라고 말했다. 베이징=국민일보 쿠키뉴스 서윤경 기자 y27k@kmib.co.kr

→ No Commentsカテゴリー: Society
タグ: , ,

痛っ–i mean, ow!

8月 10, 2008 · 2件のコメント

another reinux inspired thought;
it occured to me today that multi-lingual people (and i say this in observance of the contemporary trend of having tri or even tetralinguals around as formal acquaintances) seem to perceive pain differently as they switch through different languages.

let’s take english as an example.
the most oft ellicted response of a native english speaker to pain, or at least the stereotypical one, is “ouch” or “ow”. no one really knows why this unisyllabic mimetic is uttered when the pain receptors in our bodies are overloaded with electric impulses or why it is phonetically translated to “ow” or “ouch” when those impulses are then relayed into our mouths. one way to see it is that this type of response is innate and comes standard with every human being capable of feeling pain and expressing it–kinda like how a baby cries when its hungry, or when it makes a boo boo down under.

a tangent i want to add here is regarding the japanese response to pain; when a person of japanese neural configuration perceives pain he or she will usually exclaim 痛い! or some variation of it, which curiously is assigned an actual semantic value within the language, whereas the english “ow” is just considered an onomatopoeia. (i.e., 痛い in japanese is actually classified as an adjective in some senses and an interjection in another, whereas “ow” is simply just an interjection) given the history and the composition of the japanese language, however, it may not be too far away from the truth to say that the orthographic spelling of 痛い! was actually derived from the mimetic and onomatopoeic expression; the usage of the expression was so widespread that it was eventually granted official codification as a bona fide semantic token, as opposed to an utterance of pain. a second piece of fact that supports this claim lies within the character itself; the character, which was borrowed from the era of the Wu dynasty is pronounced teng in modern mandarin, and its adaptation into the Sino-Japanese lexicon is actually tsuu, which is much closer to the mandarin than the yamato japanese expression “itai”.

going back to the main point, the idea of these painful expressions being innate also finds camaraderie through examples found in the more primative “languages” spoken on earth: those of the members of the animal kingdom. animals too seem to have a distinct way of expressing pain; dogs “woof”, cats “meow” and cows “moo”. the key point to take from this is that animals don’t communicate through producing sound unless to signal some sort of duress or to alert others from danger: dogs bark only when something auspicious is going on or when it senses trouble; cats meow when their tails have been stepped on or when they encounter something surprising or strange.

and like every rule, this one is also one with an exception; dolphins are known to communicate to each other even when they’re not distressed and monkeys also tend to make some sort of a distinguishable noise when signallling to their potential mates. but the fact remains that they all produced a disctinctive sound, different from one that they usually make when they perceive pain or s sense of dangerl and the fact that this seems to run so universally would suggest that this is an innate trait of most animals living on earth, human beings included.

so how does this relate to the bigger theme of different expressions per different languages? it probably has alot to do with the fact that language acquisition is an innate process, and the mother language usually stays engrained within the framework of a person’s linguistic composition; and no matter how proficient or fluent a person may be in a foreign language, it will always feel natural and right to express pain in the language already programmed and stored from the early periods of one’s linguistic profile rather than the newly acquiesced alternative.

or at least thats why i think i say “fuck!” when my brain is tune to speaking english and i end up reverting to “痛っ!” when i’m by myself…

→ 2 Commentsカテゴリー: Language
タグ: ,

最近かなりはまっている麻婆豆腐のレシピ

8月 9, 2008 · コメントはまだありません

ためしてガッテンより

材料
油 大さじ7
豚ひき肉 100グラム
トウバンジャン 大さじ1と2分の1
テンメンジャン 大さじ1と3分の1
鶏がらスープ 60ミリリットル
絹豆腐(1センチ角) 1丁
酒 大さじ1強
しょうゆ 大さじ1と2分の1
(お好みで)花サンショウ(ほあじゃお) 小さじ3分の2
水溶き片栗粉(片栗粉 大さじ2を水 大さじ2で溶いたもの)
ねぎみじん切り 大3

作り方
1. 中華鍋を1分強火で熱し大さじ1の油をひく。
2. 中火にし、ひき肉を入れて大さじ3の油を入れて肉の脂が透き通るまでしっかり炒める。
3. トウバンジャンとテンメンジャンを入れて全体に同じ色になるくらい炒める。(20秒)
4. 鍋肌からスープを入れ、豆腐を入れる。
5. お酒、しょうゆを入れて中火の弱にして豆腐の水分を飛ばすように煮る。(1分)
6. 花サンショウをいれ(※お好みで)、水溶き片栗粉を4回くらいに分けて入れる。
7. ねぎのみじん切りを入れて化粧油大3を入れて強火にし40秒ほどグツグツ煮てできあがり。

→ No Commentsカテゴリー: Recipe
タグ:

laughmaker (a narrative)

7月 28, 2008 · コメントはまだありません

this is long overdue.
the story

ラフメイカー
作詞:藤原基央

涙で濡れた部屋にノックの音が転がった
誰にも会えない顔なのにもうなんだよどちら様?
「名乗る程 たいした名じゃないが 誰かがこう呼ぶ ”ラフ・メイカー”
アンタに笑顔を持って来た 寒いから入れてくれ」

ラフ・メイカー?
冗談じゃない! そんなモン呼んだ覚えはない
構わず消えてくれ そこに居られたら泣けないだろう

大洪水の部屋にノックの音が飛び込んだ
あの野郎まだ居やがったのか消えてくれって言ったろう
「そんな言葉を言われたのは生まれこの方初めてだ
非常に哀しくなってきたどうしよう泣きそうだ」

ラフ・メイカー?
冗談じゃない!アンタが泣いてちゃ仕様がない
泣きたいのは俺の方さこんなモン呼んだ覚えはない

二人分の泣き声 遠く・・・・・・

ドアを挟んで背中合わせしゃっくり混じりの泣き声
膝を抱えて背中合わせすっかり疲れた泣き声
今でもしっかり俺を笑わせるつもりかラフ・メイカー
「それだけが生き甲斐なんだ 笑わせないと帰れない」

今ではアンタを部屋に入れてもいいと思えたが
困った事にドアが開かない溜まった涙の水圧だ
そっちでドアを押してくれ鍵なら既に開けたから
ウンとかスンとか言ってくれ
どうした?
おい、まさか

ラフ・メイカー?
冗談じゃない!今更 俺一人置いて
構わず消えやがった信じた瞬間裏切った

ラフ・メイカー?
冗談じゃない!逆側の窓の割れる音
鉄パイプ持って泣き顔で「アンタに笑顔を持って来た」

小さな鏡を取り出して俺に突き付けてこう言った 「アンタの泣き顔笑えるぞ」
呆れたが、なるほど笑えた

laughmaker
written and composed by: motoo fujiwara
performed by: bump of chicken

as i was sitting in a room drenched with tears, a stranger came knocking at my door.
being in no state to answer the door, i yelped “who’s there?”

the stranger replied: “I’m just a nobody, passing through.
but some people call me the ‘laughmaker’;
i’ve come to put a smile on your face,
now please hurry and open the door if you will,
it’s getting rather cold outside…”

what on earth is this guy talking about? 
i don’t recall asking for a laughmaker!
“why don’t you bugger off so i can cry in peace”

the room, now flooded with tears, was interrupted by a familiar knock;
“i thought i told you to go away! why the hell are you still here” 

“oh wow, no one’s ever told me that before”
said the laughmaker, as he became deeply saddened.
“what should i do, i think i’m going to cry…”

what on earth is up with this guy?
he’s not supposed to cry,
i’m supposed to be the victim here!

only a door stood in between our turned backs,
as crying, accompanied by occasional wheezing filled the room.
we both hugged our knees and shed tears as our crying eventually became weaker.

and at that moment, i asked;
“are you still thinking about making me laugh, stranger”
the laughmaker replied:
“i’m not going back until you laugh, and you can bet my life on it!”

having heard him say that, i felt it was now safe to let him in;
but no matter how hard i pulled, the door wouldn’t budge.
“the door’s jammed shut because of all the pressure from the tears,
so push the door from your side, stranger.”

but my plea for help was returned to sender;
laughmaker left me no reply.
just as i was starting to trust him,
he abandoned me to cry in solitude once more…

as i was vainly cursing his name,
i suddenly heard a noise coming from the back window.
out of nowhere i saw a  hand holding a steel pipe crash through the window,
with laughmaker crying at the other end, wailing:
“i’m going to make you laugh, no matter what it takes”

safely back in the room,
he took out a small mirror from his inside pocket:
“take a peek, and it will turn your frown upside down”

and as i gazed into the mirror i saw an ugly, puffy face staring back;
although i was taken by surprise, but it sure did make me laugh.

→ No Commentsカテゴリー: Translation
タグ: , ,

really cool recipe for cake (in a microwave)

7月 27, 2008 · コメントはまだありません

taken from http://www.dizzy-dee.com/recipe/chocolate-cake-in-5-minutes

Ingredients:

4 Tablespoons cake flour
4 Tablespoons sugar
2 Tablespoons
cocoa
1 Egg
3 Tablespoons milk
3 Tablespoons
oil
1 Mug

 

Instructions:

Mix flour, sugar and cocoa:

Spoon in 1 egg

Pour in milk and oil, and mix well

Put in microwave for 3 minutes on maximum power (1000watt)

Wait until it stops rising and sets in the mug

Tip contents out of mug onto saucer and enjoy!

→ No Commentsカテゴリー: Recipe
タグ: ,

real time translator

7月 14, 2008 · コメントはまだありません

so while i was walking home from class, i was suddenly hit with this idea that in the future speech recognition and human interface software would be so advanced to the point that interpreting and translating will be left entirely up to computers and machines.

this idea crossed my mind when i was thinking back to how advanced tts has become in the past two years (especially those developed by microsoft’s competitors) and when i was reminiscing back to the fact that it IS entirely possible to teach a computer how to speak a (human) language fluently, just impossible to give it its own tongue and a mind to communicate with other humans (and by communicating i mean the exchange of semantically and logically irrelevant language, like the ones only humans are capable of engaging in).

also the fact that a computer is supposeldy incapable of independent bias led me to believe that in the future translation and interpretation will all be outsourced to computers and machinery, unless the field of computational linguistics hits a huge brick wall and fails to progress from now until the end of time.

so in hypothesizing such an occurence of the future, i myself deduced the possible inner mechanism of a computer/program/machine capable of such a feat, and it scared me to think that such a machine could easily be built should the idea catch the attention of interested parties, or to think that there may already BE developers/inventors who could easily build such a mechanism… which led me to come up with a little blueprint of the machine of my own…

these are the key components of my “real time translator”:

1. speech to text
using speech-to-text technology, the machine will acoustically record and analyze the speech being spoken and transfer it into data, most likely in some form of text. http://www.brothersoft.com/downloads/speech-to-text.html is an example of speech to text technology being developed all around the world.

2. sentence breaker/pos tagger/word breaker
after the speech is transformed into analyzable data, the spoken speech is analyzed by a sentence breaker which given its knowledge/background in the syntactic structure of the language being spoken, breaks down the speech cluster into sentences. after the speech is broken down into simple sentences, each word is separated and given a “part of speech” tag, depending on the word’s placement within the sentence and the context of the sentence. The NLP project has demos for POS taggers and it is a widely known fact that Nuance and Microsoft have both been working on sentence breakers/word breakers for a long time now.

3. lexicalization
after each word has been broken down and tagged with a part-of-speech, the word is then referenced to the main language lexicon, which is basically a huge dictionary that stores information regarding how each word is pronunced, its frequency in usage within the language, how the word is used in different parts of speech if such information is applicable and so on. after such information is acquired from the main language lexicon, it needs to be then cross-referenced to a lexicon containing the same information in the target language so that “translation” can take place.

4. pos tagger/syntax builder
now that the “translated” data is available in the target language, another pos tagger needs to be applied in order to correctly label the new data, which will then be fed through a syntax builder in order for it to be correctly and accurately formed into a logical sentence in the target language.

5. text to speech
once the sentence is completely translated into the target language and is found to be syntactically and semantically accurate, the sentence then needs to be fed through a text to speech engine which will then relay the speech back to the targeted audience. text to speech can be found everywhere in the modern computer age, anywhere from global navigation systems, registry id calls, and even in windows pc’s which comes standard with a mediocre version of it in every copy (if you’re bored, go to accesories > accessibility options > text-to-speech)

the understood difficulties of this project are numerous and tantamount in scale: the lexicon will have to be updated on a regular basis to account for new words, terms, and definitions; machine translation would mean that translations will often lack variety and be monotonous in nature; the problem of how to set the machine to deal with terms and data that may not be within the lexicon (i.e. names of people, location, new things that may seem obscure); the irregularity of language that will most definitely throw the machine off course; and also the huge amount of processing power required would make instant translation/interpretation very hard or almost impossible.

but as mentioned before, the benefits of such a machine would be endless as it would bridge countless gaps and holes that are duly formed because of language barriers, although it could effecitively mean that what was once a proud oral tradition of human kind will now be lost and permanantly outsourced to hearltess machines.

oh, and i’d be out of a job too, but that’s beside the point…

→ No Commentsカテゴリー: Language
タグ: , ,

お子様にしか受けないお笑い

7月 2, 2008 · 1件のコメント

7月2日12時14分配信 ツカサネット新聞

数年前から言われているが、現在は空前のお笑いブームであり、どのチャンネルをつけてもお笑い芸人を見ない日はない。お笑い番組のみならず、どんなバラエティ番組にも必ず数組はお笑い芸人が出ている。それだけ現在は芸人が豊富に存在するし、お笑い番組自体もたくさんある。

今、芸人として売れるためには「小学生の間で流行する」がキーワードだと言う。
例えば、

・世界のナベアツの「3のつく数字と3の倍数のときだけアホになる」
・エド・はるみの「グー」
・ジョイマンの自称「ラップ」
・鳥居みゆきの「ヒットエンドラーン!」

などなど、枚挙に暇がない。いずれも元気な小学生が好んでマネしそうなネタばかりだ。

しかし、肝心のレベルは低いと言わざるをえないのではないだろうか。こういったネタは、どちらかというと一発ギャグとも言うべきであり、何度もやると飽き られる。また、オチやツカミに持ってくると、流行している間は一応は笑いを取れることから、ネタの中心部分は適当になりがちである。これは漫才やコントで 追求される「純粋にしゃべりの内容で笑いを取る」という要素を全く無視した芸風だと言える。

いわゆる「イロモノ」である。

実際にお笑い番組を観ていると、ほとんどがイロモノで占められている。こういった芸は初見では笑いどころがわかりにくいためか、「笑うべき部分」で編集作業によってかなり大きな音量で笑い声が入っていたり司会者の爆笑している顔がアップになったりする。

つまり、ブームはテレビ局によって作られている部分が大きいのではないだろうか。

しゃべり自体が面白くないため、芸人の命は一発ギャグが受けている間だけ。そして、飽きられたら消えていく。芸人使い捨ての構図はこうしてできている。

売れるための足がかりは一発ギャグでかまわないと思う。「しゃべりが面白い」という特徴はすぐにはわかりにくいからだ。しかし、せっかく一発ギャグで視聴者に認知されたのなら、潔く一発ギャグは捨ててしまって、もっと普遍的な笑いを追求するべきではないだろうか。

また、事務所やテレビ局もお笑い低レベル化を招いている。そもそも「笑うべき部分」というのは見せる側が操作すべきものではない。

本当に面白い芸ならばおのずと笑いが生まれるはずだ。今のままでは、大人が観て心から笑えるお笑い番組は復活しない。

→ 1 Commentカテゴリー: Humor
タグ: ,

rendaku: a sequential voicing phenomenon in japanese

6月 23, 2008 · コメントはまだありません

Japanese is an overwhelmingly polyphonic language due to the fact that whereas the orthographic language itself is in large part borrowed and derived from the Sinitic language, the spoken and expressed language is closer to that of the Ryukyuan langage family, evident through the fact of mutually unintelligible “dialects” of Japanese, such as Okinawan and Amami . To further complicate the mess, in the 18th century, the Japanese language started a trend of importing vocabulary from indo-European languages (a trend which is still being continued to this day), adding to the ambiguity woes of the language (to non-native speakers, at the least), despite borrowed words making up the bottom layer of the polyphony hierarchy in our case.

The polyphonic nature of Japanese can be largely observed in the interpretation of the orthographic language, especially in that of kanji, which are orthographic characters borrowed from the Sinitic language. Because the Japanese language borrowed the orthographic alphabets to accommodate a pre-existing—presuming Ryukyuan—language, there are accordingly two different readings for each character; the read-out system most resembling its Sinitic origin is called the onyomi, or “reading by sound”, whereas the read-out system which still preserves the spoken language used by the native Japanese peoples prior to the Sinitic borrowing is known as kunyomi, or “reading by meaning”.

Rendaku is a phonological phenomenon unique to the languages of Japan which governs the voicing of obstruents in compound words and morphemes. Although the phonological process behind Rendaku is relatively simple in that a voiceless obstruent becomes voiced, the process itself is overloaded with exceptions owing to common thematic factors in linguistics such as historical changes within the language and simultaneous phonological changes which prevent its happening. This paper aims to examine the reasons and the premise in which Rendaku occurs and fails to occur

Although the underlying process is phonological in nature, Rendaku, being a process which governs compound word and morpheme formation, serves a lexical purpose in the sense that it defines how semantic tokens within a compound morpheme modify or accompany each other. Ichihara (2001) identifies that in most cases, compound words which have undergone Rendaku usually entails that one of the words are modifying the other, usually in a genitive manner. The tried and true example used by most linguists in illustrating this process is found in the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (The Great Dictionary of the Japanese Language):

1a) [jama] n. “mountain” + [kawa] n. ”river” > [jamagawa],
Semantic implication: /yama no kawa/; n. “a river inside the mountain”
1b) [jama] n. “mountain” + [kawa] n. ”river” > [jamakawa],
Semantic implication: /yama to kawa/; “river and mountain”
1c) [jama] n. “mountain” + [kadi] n. “fire” > [jamakadi]
Semantic implication; /yama no kadi/; n. “forest fire”

As shown in 1a, Rendaku occurs when the compound word in question implies the genitive particle “no” but does not occur when the compound word in question implies the inclusive particle “to” as observed in 1b.

Hamano (2000) notes that although Rendaku will not occur in all instances of compound words implying the genitive particle—as seen in 1c and in words like [jamaita] “under the mountain” where if Rendaku had occurred would yield the pronunciation *[jamadita]—Rendaku can never occur when the compound in question entails the inclusive particle “to”. Another lexical restriction of Rendaku is noted by Ichihara (2001) in that Rendaku cannot occur if the first morpheme of the compound is an object or a direct object of the second morpheme, unless the first morpheme can be applied adverbially to the second morpheme :

2a) [jane] n. “roof” + [ki] v. “to thatch” > [janeuki] v. “to thatch a roof”
2b) [kawara] n. “tile” + [ki] v. “to thatch” > [kawarabuki] v. “to thatch (a roof) using tiles”
As seen in 2a, Rendaku does not take place when the noun [jane] modifies the verb [uki], but takes place when the noun [kawara] is actually the means in which the verb [uki] meets its end, as seen in 2b.

As aforementioned, the nature of Rendaku is not purely lexical and it influences (and also influenced by) many phonological changes throughout the many languages of Japan. The presence of Rendaku is especially prominent in phonological cases related to go-dan katsuyō, a systematical conjugation of verbs unique to the languages of Japan, which will be duly discussed in the latter parts of this paper.

The phonological process of Rendaku is akin to voicing assimilation and can be represented by the following linear rule:

[C]  [+voi] / { [CV(C)]σ [ _V(C)]σ }
syllable-initial obstruent consonants become voiced if such a consonant is located on the second morpheme of a compound word.

The following is the list of sounds that are affected by Rendaku and their voiced counterparts:

(. indicates a morpheme boundary)
[h]  [b] / [p] [mae] adj. “front” + [ha] n. “tooth” > [mae.ba] n. “front tooth”
[k]  [g] [mina] n. “everyone” + [koroi] n. “killing” > [mina.goroi] n. “killing off”
[s]  [z] [me] n. “eye” + [sameru] v. “to awake” > [me.zameru] v. “to wake up”
[]  [d] [neko] n. “cat” + [ita] n. “tongue” > [neko.dita] n. “cat-tongued”
[t]  [d] [uri] v. “the act of selling” + [taka] n. “price”  [uri.daka] n. “sale price”

The phonological process of Rendaku is rather straightforward and is undisputed by most linguists who research the phenomenon; most of the dispute surrounding Rendaku concerns the lexical category in which the compound word that undergoes the process belongs to, which requires a brief memorandum on the history and the composition or the structure of Japanese language in order for us to fully understand what is at stake.

Vance (1982) points out that the Modern Japanese lexicon is composed of four strata: Yamato Japanese, words which originate from the native inhabitants of Japan; Sino-Japanese, or lexical morphemes borrowed from the Chinese languages; gairaigo, or words borrowed from other foreign languages, such as Portuguese and English; and finally mimetic expressions, which are usually phonological reduplications of an onomatopoeic two-syllable word.

Despite the existence of such categories, native speakers of the language often confuse such distinctions on the orthographical level and often fail to recognize the occurrence of Rendaku. This is due to the fact that both Yamato Japanese and Sino-Japanese can be represented through kanji, or the ideographic character set borrowed from Chinese. For example, the modern Japanese word for “source” as in “a source of power” exists in Yamato Japanese as [mi.na.mo.to] and also in Sino-Japanese as [gen], but are both orthographically represented with the same kanji “源”. Cases such as these usually result in a misinterpretation or misreading—especially in the case where a Sino-Japanese morpheme composes part of the compound—of such characters which have historically resulted in the addition or deletion of Rendaku in some cases , as Unger (1988) points in his publication in the Journal of American Oriental Society.

Another issue which makes the occurrence of Rendaku hard to perceive has to do with the nature of how Sino-Japanese lexical morphemes were incorporated into the Japanese language. Whereas Yamato Japanese words which are orthographically represented by kanji always have only one reading, Japanese words of Chinese origin (or what is commonly referred to as onyomi) often possess two or three different readings owing to the fact that Japan borrowed sounds in different instances from different times and dynasties of China. To further elaborate this point, we take “京” the kanji for the word “capital” as in “capital city”, has three different Sino-Japanese readings “kei”, “kyō”, and “kin”. Tokugawa (1990) explains that the reading “kyō” was borrowed from the Wu dynasty of China during the 5th and 6th centuries and is still visible today in Sino-Japanese compounds such as “tōkyō”; “kei” was borrowed from the Tang dynasty of China during the 6th and 9th centuries and is found in compounds such as “keihin” (a district outside of the city of Tōkyō); while “kin” was borrowed during the Heian and Edo eras of Japanese history from contemporary Chinese dynasties of the time, and can be seen in the compound “pekin” (the city of Beijing, China).

One could easily argue that such issues are mainly to do with etymology and none with phonology, but there are many cases in Japanese where a Sino-Japanese reading of a kanji contains both a voiced and a voiceless version of what is essentially the same sound making it hard to determine whether Rendaku had taken place or not. For example, the kanji ”珠” has two contrastive readings of [u] and [du], and appears in most cases as the second morpheme of compound words. Such is also the case in the word [in. du] “pearl”. Unless one knows the exact etymological history behind the character, (i.e. when the word [shin.dzu] and the reading [du] for the kanji was incorporated into the language) it is almost impossible to determine whether the compound reading [shin.dzu] originated from a Rendaku formation of [in] + [u], or whether it was a simple compound involving just the sounds [in] + [du]. Although we know now that the latter was the case for the kanji “株” from evidence gathered through historical records of the Muromachi era , many other Sino-Japanese readings and combinations still remain in the gray and have subsequently become subjects of great research in Japanese linguistics.

Such contentions have brought forth ideas that Rendaku may only happen when affected compounds involve a morpheme of Yamato Japanese origin (Itō and Mester, 1998), and compounds of all other strata (Sino-Japanese, gairaigo) only observe the process if they are words that are commonly used or have been in long circulation. (Ōtsu, 1980) This view has some merit in that a research conducted by Vance in 1996 showed that 87% of compound words involving did observe Rendaku while only 10% of what Vance calls Sino-Japanese “binoms” did, but as this is not a subject of phonology but rather that of language change and etymology, we shall instead move on and further explore phonological conditions and phenomena which block the happening of Rendaku.

Setting aside semantic and lexical reasons, the non-occurrence of Rendaku in compound words is also heavily influenced by phonological changes that were introduced at various points throughout the history of Japan.

The most famous and the most compelling phonological change which blocks the happening of Rendaku was first observed by Kamo no Mabuchi, the fabled 18th century author of the “Tales of Genji”, who noted that “Rendaku is rarely seen in compound formations where the onset of the second syllable already contains a voiced consonant.” (Akinaga, 1990)

Kamo no Mabuchi’s discovery can be outlined by the following Modern Japanese examples:

(. indicates a morpheme boundary)
3a) [jari] n. “to do (inflected)” + [sugi] v. “to surpass” > [jari.sugi] n. “the act of overdoing”
3b) [neko] n. “cat” + [suki] v. “to like” (inflected) > [neko.zuki] n. “cat lover”
3c) [jari] + [sugi] > *[yari.zugi]
3d) [war] adj. “bad” + [gaki] n. “kid” > [waru.gaki] n. “ruffian, ragamuffin”

Compound words which contain a second morpheme with a voiced consonant already present does not undergo Rendaku as seen with /yarisugi/ in 3a, as opposed to cases where all the consonants are voiced, whereas in 3b /suki/ becomes voiced into /zuki/. (Example 3c demonstrates a grammatically unacceptable derivation, whereas 3d shows vacuous rule application)

Kamo no Mabuchi’s Rendaku exception was re-discovered by Benjamin Smith Lyman in 1894, who expanded Kamo no Mabuchi’s exception to “allow” it to apply to compound words where the second morpheme contains more than two syllables, by modifying (or rewording) it to say that Rendaku is not elicited if any consonant in the second morpheme contains a voiced consonant. Modern linguists have attributed this change to an example of the Obligatory Contour Principle, as did Ichihara (1998) who wrote that Rendaku observed the OCP in that the second morpheme of the compound would ensure that one of its consonants either dissimilate into a [-voi] in the case that Rendaku rendered both consonants voiceless, or Rendaku would not happen at all, assuming only consonants were specified for voicing in such environments.

Another minor, yet fascinating, block against Rendaku is its bleeding rule order when in clash with various rules of onbin (phonaesthetics) governing adjectives. Although there is evidence that onbin applied differently in different dialects, one of the onbin rules which came into effect in the Kyoto dialect was the deletion of intervocalic [k] in inflected adjectives (Unger, 2004), which resulted in the following:

4a) [taka] adj. “tall” + [ki] renyo adjectival inflection > [taka.ki] > [taka.i] adj. “tall”
4b) [iro] adj. “white” + [ki] renyo adjectival inflection > [iro.ki] > [iro.i] “white”

In such cases, onbin rules take precedence over Rendaku and deletes the consonant before it can be voiced or devoiced and produce grammatically incorrect forms *[taka.gi] and *[iro.gi]. A more familiar version of this onbin-inspired change can be seen in Early Middle Japanese:

[o] indeterminate article + [hayo] adj. “early” + [ku] shuushi adjectical inflection > [o.hayo.] “good morning” lit. “you are early”

Despite the numerous and concurrent research regarding the subject matter, the exact premises and causes of Rendaku still remain uncertain. Although linguists have been able to make accurate predictions in determining the conditions in which Rendaku does not take place—such as Lyman’s Law, and the non-occurrence of Rendaku in compound patterns where the inclusive particle to is implied—the nature of the Japanese language as one that has had heavy influences from a variety of foreign makes it difficult to narrow such conditions down to black and white.

A factor that is especially hindering the progress of solving the mystery of Rendaku is that the native languages of Japan lacked an orthographic system prior to borrowing and developing the kana/kanji system from China (Kunihiro, 1983), which is ironic, since most of the lexical words that undergo Rendaku either contain a Native Japanese morpheme or are made up entirely of Native Japanese morphemes.

downloadable format can be found here: rendakufinal2

→ No Commentsカテゴリー: Language
タグ: ,

follow up to “on exodus..”

6月 21, 2008 · コメントはまだありません

→ No Commentsカテゴリー: Religion

“value” loaded words

6月 8, 2008 · コメントはまだありません

while making my daily trip to 7-11 i heard a little kid yell “you’re dumb!” to another kid who tripped on his own shoelace while trying to hurry himself into what looked like the family car. upon hearing and seeing what was going on, the presumptive mother of the two children immediately scolded the first child for his remark, rushed both the children into the car and sped out of the driveway.

i’m sure we’ve all been told not to call others “dumb” or “gay” when we were little under the premise of sounding rude and uneducated, but here’s the real reason why you should stop and think before saying these words.

english, being a mutt language, has the tendency to value-load a lot of its vocabulary; value-loading being the act of rendering a word intrinsically positive or negative between connotations. of course we take words like “dumb” and “gay” to be offensive at face-value and use it in a way that it relays such offensive sentiments to our intended targets, but we never really do think about the other values of the words when we speak them; which if we did, we probably would not use them as often.

take for example the word “dumb”. “dumb” in large part has two meanings;
1. lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted.
2. Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans.

because of the fact that words are often value-loaded, its very hard to distinguish exactly between the two meanings without further elaboration to the context its being used, hence it would curtail both meanings, given that the relative theory a=b, b=c; a=c is true. so in the end result, everytime someone uses the word “dumb” to describe a person as being “stupid” he/she is also indirectly classifying the group “those that cannot speak” with the value “lacking intelligence or good judgment”, which other than the fact that is politically incorrect, is also erroneous and prejudiced in nature. (same can be applied with the word “gay”: just replace “lacking intelligence or good judgment” with “homosexual, or of homoerotic nature”)

using value-loaded word doesn’t always provide underlyingly offensive and degrading results as some of these value-loaded words don’t necessarily curtail “offensive” connotations. take for example the northern californian slang “hella”. “hella” is derived from the midwest phrase “a hell of a”, which at face value is used to intensify words of adjectivial nature (i.e. “ooh, that’s hella nice!”). as you can guess, the word “hella” has a connotative token which refers, depending on what you believe, either to the murky underworld that sinners head to after they die or a very bad place. laws of semantics do imply that negative intensifiers can be used to intensify semantic tokens of negative nature (for example, the intensifier 絶対 in mandarin chinese is only used in intensifying other semantic tokens of negative nature) but “hella” seems to be quite arbitrary in colloquial usage–hella can be followed by a wide range of adjectives that are not negative in nature (although alot of them are), such as “tight, awesome, cool, sick, dope” etc.

so what is my main point…
jump before you leap? sip before you chug? check before you fuck?
any of these would probably do.

→ No Commentsカテゴリー: Language