Re: shimaDzu

Bart Mathias wrote:
Ben Monroe wrote:
Bart Mathias wrote:

<snip>

If you go back to when つ was still pronounced much like English "too,"
then づ was a matching "doo."

That is one theory.
However, I am more interested in the phonemic difference than the
phonetic one.
I will just settle with /tu/ and /du/.

I don't quite get what you mean with that "one theory."
Do you know another, and there's evidence for it?

I do not disagree. I also think that /tu/ and /du/ were once (broad
transcription) [tu] and [du], respectively.
I did not intend to suggest another theory.
My intention was to suggest that the phonemic status is more important
than phonetic status.
Diachronically, sounds always change.
The phonetic value is just the vocal realization of a phoneme at a
particular time and by a particular person.
Was /t,d/ phonemically realized as a dental, alveolar, or post-alveolar
plosive?
Maybe it varied like English.
Other phonetic questions can be asked as well.
But it really does not matter.
It is the same phoneme, regardless of the time or person.
It is clear that a distinction was once made between /tu/ and /du/.

Ben Monroe

.