1

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?

Community
  • 1
jogloran
  • 5,738
  • 1
  • 23
  • 35
  • 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 01 '12 at 09:59
  • @Flaw: Yes, that is roughly what I wish to know. – jogloran Mar 01 '12 at 10:00

2 Answers2

2

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/

Dono
  • 11,177
  • 7
  • 51
  • 63
  • 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 01 '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 01 '12 at 10:07
  • 一課 is read as いっか. But is 二十一課 read as にじゅう いっか or にじゅう いちっか ? – Flaw Mar 01 '12 at 10:07
  • 1
    It could most probably be a simple case of a typo on the wikipedia page. – Flaw Mar 01 '12 at 10:08
  • It is 対華二十一_箇_条要求, not 対華二十一_課_条要求. You may abbreviate 箇 as ヵ, ヶ, カ, or か. – Dono Mar 01 '12 at 10:12
  • I was using 課 as an arbitrary "k-sound" counter word to isolate the type of counter word as a factor and force the difference to be accounted solely by the change from 一 to 二十一. – Flaw Mar 01 '12 at 10:14
  • 1
    This is perhaps a good case study to show that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable. – Flaw Mar 01 '12 at 10:19
  • 1
    @Flaw: That much is already very well known :) – jogloran Mar 01 '12 at 10:31
0

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.