Japanese Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for students, teachers, and linguists wanting to discuss the finer points of the Japanese language. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It occurred to me the other day that if ハ行転呼 had affected all applicable environments without exception, 母 /haha/ (or I guess properly it was /ɸaɸa/, right?)should have become /hawa/.

The Japanese wiki page for ハ行転呼 makes note of this and kind of handwaves it away by saying it's thought the relationship between 父/爺 and 母/婆 influenced 母 enough to keep its pronunciation from undergoing ハ行転呼, but there's no citation and it kinda just sounds to me like a "we have no clue" answer.


It does say 「一旦『はわ』に変化したのち」, so /haha/ (/ɸaɸa/?) did become /hawa/ before changing (back?) to /haha/. Is this maybe a case of spelling pronunciation or a conscious effort on (educated?) speakers' part to pronounce 母 in a deliberate, different way? I'm thinking like how some English speakers pronounce the "t" in often both because of its spelling and relationship to oft.

Since I couldn't find citations or sources, I guess my question is basically: Did 母 undergo ハ行転呼 and then change (back) to /haha/? Or was it an exception to the rule from the get-go?

(And now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if there are dialects that pronounce it /hawa/, or if there were until relatively recently.)

share|improve this question
up vote 8 down vote accepted

Did 母 undergo ハ行転呼 and then change (back) to /haha/?

Yes, it did become hawa (or rather ɸawa) before changing back. You may find citations here.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.