This recent question brought to mind a question of my own.

The Japanese name for the Twenty-One Demands made by Japan in 1915 to the Republic of China is romanised on the wikipedia page as 対華二十一ヵ条要求 (Taika Nijūichikkajō Yōkyū).

How is the combination 一ヵ条 meant to be pronounced? If the wikipedia page is correct, what explains the gemination between 一 and 条?

  • Perhaps the question you meant to ask is why for this instance いち+か ends up to be いちっか instead of いち+か normally being いっか. – Flaw Mar 1 '12 at 9:59
  • @Flaw: Yes, that is roughly what I wish to know. – jogloran Mar 1 '12 at 10:00

Same as in the previous answer, but this time with a different counter: ikkajō. This one is well known and should be searchable in a number of history books. Or you could try a dictionary as well: http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/132721/m6u/%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%80/

  • I think there is something more to it. いち + か(counter) almost invariably leads to いっか. But for the case the OP presented, it is instead いちっか. – Flaw Mar 1 '12 at 10:05
  • 1
    Are you basing that on the Wikipedia entry? Mistakes can be corrected. Take a look at the dictionary link that I gave. – Dono Mar 1 '12 at 10:07
  • 1
    It could most probably be a simple case of a typo on the wikipedia page. – Flaw Mar 1 '12 at 10:08
  • 1
    This is perhaps a good case study to show that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable. – Flaw Mar 1 '12 at 10:19
  • 1
    @Flaw: That much is already very well known :) – jogloran Mar 1 '12 at 10:31

Some times, the correct form/reading is not settled, just like there are two forms got and gotten for the English past participle. In careful slow speech, it is いちかじょう. In casual ordinary speech, it is いっかじょう.

The source you cited mixed these forms into an ungrammatical form. In your particular example, you should be able to tell it is wrong because (i) i-epenthesis: "it-kasho" → "itikasho" and (ii) gemination: "it-kasho" → "ikkasho" are independent strategies to repair a phonological sequence "tk" that is not allowed in Japanese, and there is no reason to apply both.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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