# 注音/拼音: 播坡摩佛跺唾糯螺



## Skatinginbc

播 (ㄅㄛ <bo>) 我的國語發音 [pwɔ]  < 中古 *puɑ
破 (ㄆㄛ <po>) 我的國語發音 [pʰwɔ] < 中古 *pʰuɑ
摩 (ㄇㄛ <mo>) 我的國語發音 [mwɔ] < 中古 *muɑ
佛 (ㄈㄛ <fo>) 我的國語發音 [fwɔ] < 中古 *bʰĭuət

跺 (ㄉㄨㄛ <duo>) 我的國語發音 [tuɔ] < 中古 *tuɑ
唾 (ㄊㄨㄛ <tuo>) 我的國語發音 [tʰuɔ] < 中古 *tʰuɑ
糯 (ㄋㄨㄛ <nuo>) 我的國語發音 [nuɔ] < 中古 *nuɑ
螺 (ㄌㄨㄛ <luo>) 我的國語發音 [luɔ] < 中古 *lua

請問: 為什麼「播坡摩佛」注音裡沒有"ㄨ", 拼音裡沒有"u", 而其實際發音卻類似「跺唾糯螺」的ㄨㄛ(<uo>)?  它們的中古發音也沒顯出多大區別.  難道原因在於「播坡摩佛」裡的是輔音/w/, 而「跺唾糯螺」裡的是元音/u/?


----------



## YangMuye

Skatinginbc said:


> bʰĭuət


This sound sounds really funny...



Skatinginbc said:


> 難道原因在於「播坡摩佛」裡的是輔音/w/, 而「跺唾糯螺」裡的是元音/u


Both are consonants, I believe.


----------



## fyl

維基百科https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/注音符號有這麼一段話：
「實際讀作ㄅㄨㄛ、ㄆㄨㄛ、ㄇㄨㄛ。因為唇音ㄅㄆㄇ及後元音ㄛ已帶有合口音ㄨ的圓唇性質，故從簡，如：柏（ㄅㄛˊ）、婆（ㄆㄛˊ）、魔（ㄇㄛˊ）。拼音中大多採用與注音符號相同的方式。」
可能就是為了簡單吧。反正唇聲母後面沒有開合口對立。。

其實區分ㄛ、ㄜ我也挺不理解的，把「ㄛ」全部換成「ㄨㄜ」會更系統一點。音節中只要有ㄛ就是圓唇，只要有ㄜ就是扁唇，ㄛ/ㄨㄛ和ㄨㄜ的读音很接近，不知道弄兩個符號做什麼。。


----------



## Skatinginbc

/b/ ([p]), /p/ ([pʰ]), /m/, and /f/ in themselves are NOT necessarily rounded (合口圓唇), for instance, bi 逼, bei 北, ba 八, bai 掰, ban 班, bang 邦, ben 奔, mi 米, ma 媽, mei 美, mai 買, man 蠻, mang 忙, men 門, etc.

If 「後元音ㄛ已帶有合口音ㄨ的圓唇性質」 and 「為了簡單」, then why don't we simply have ㄉㄛ for 跺, ㄊㄛ for 唾, ㄋㄛ for 糯, ㄌㄛ for 螺, ㄍㄛ for 鍋, ㄎㄛ for 闊, ㄏㄛ for 貨, ㄓㄛ for 桌, ㄔㄛ for 綽, ㄕㄛ for 說, ㄖㄛ for 弱, ㄗㄛ for 作, ㄘㄛ for 搓, ㄙㄛ for 縮?  Why are they transcribed as -ㄨㄛ if ㄛ already contains the ㄨ sound?  The reason of  「從簡」 does not seem very convincing.


----------



## YangMuye

Perhaps they just wanted to create a system that is compatible with most dialects, where bo may become be.
There were even symbols for non-existing sounds like ㄪ, ㄫ and ㄬ.


----------



## Skatinginbc

> 圓唇性質: in Mandarin Chinese, the vowel /ɔ/ is pronounced [u̯ɔ] after labial consonants, an allophonic effect salient enough to be encoded in pinyin transliteration: alveolar /tu̯ɔ/ (Pinyin _duo_) 'many' vs. labial /pu̯ɔ/ (Pinyin _bo_) 'wave'.


If Pinyin <bo> represents /pu̯ɔ/ rather than /pʷɔ/, I would argue that in Mandarin Chinese, the rounded mid back vowel ㄛ (i.e, /ɔ/) is pronounced [u̯ɔ] in all cases (e.g., 跺, 唾, 糯, 螺, 鍋, 闊, 貨, 桌, 綽, 說, 弱, 作, 搓, 縮, not merely after labial consonants), perhaps except for /ɔŋ/, which is a fusion of ㄨㄥ (ㄨ /w/ + ㄥ /ɤŋ/ = /wɤŋ/ ==> 變音成/ɔŋ/), technically nothing to do with the rounded mid back vowel ㄛ.  And the 注音 system clearly suggests that 翁 ㄨㄥ rhymes with 東 ㄉㄨㄥ, 通 ㄊㄨㄥ, and 中 ㄓㄨㄥ, in agreement with the ancient rhyme books.  That is to say, the vowel in pinyin /weng/ and the one in pinyin /ong/ are fundamentally the same phoneme.

I think Pinyin <fo> or 注音 ㄈㄛ (佛) represents /fʷɔ/, which means that the labial consonant /f/ undertakes an anticipatory assimilation (from /f/ to /fʷ/), not that the labial consonant rounds the vowel (from /ɔ/ to /u̯ɔ/).  For me, the difference between 佛 (ㄈㄛ <fo>) and 多 (ㄉㄨㄛ <duo>) rests mainly in the requirement of rounding preparation: The <f> in 佛 is already rounded before any sound is made whereas it does not sound too far off if the <d> in 多 is not rounded.  In other words, anticipatory rounding is mandatory for 佛 but optional for 多.  And I think it applies to 播 (ㄅㄛ <bo>), 破 (ㄆㄛ <po>), and 摩 (ㄇㄛ <mo>) as well.


----------



## YangMuye

Skatinginbc said:


> it does not sound too far off if the <d> in 多 is not rounded


That would sound extremely weird to me. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dwarf


----------



## Skatinginbc

Actually, "dwarf" is kind of close for me .  What makes it sound "weirdly" different from 多 is the voiced [d] (as opposed to Mandarin [t]), plus the retroflexion of vowel in anticipation of /r/.  If you substitute [d] with an unaspirated [t] and get rid of the /rf/, it would actually sound like 墮 (I pick 墮 because her English pronunciation sounds like a fourth tone).


----------



## fyl

Skatinginbc said:


> If Pinyin <bo> represents /pu̯ɔ/ rather than /pʷɔ/, I would argue that in Mandarin Chinese, the rounded mid back vowel ㄛ (i.e, /ɔ/) is pronounced [u̯ɔ] in all cases (e.g., 跺, 唾, 糯, 螺, 鍋, 闊, 貨, 桌, 綽, 說, 弱, 作, 搓, 縮, not merely after labial consonants)



This is actually what I was thinking... I believe many native speakers are not able to pronounce a single 'o' (including me before learning a little bit phonology). In Pinyin, 'o' (not considering 'ou', 'ao' and 'ong') can appear only as '-o' (after b,p,m,f,w) or '-uo' (after the other consonants), and '-o', '-uo' represent the same sound /uo/ to me.

(Actually, I pronounce this rhyme as 'ue'/ㄨㄜ instead of 'uo'/ㄨㄛ. That's why I wondered why there are two symbols ㄜ and ㄛ. To me, the sounds ㄨㄜ and ㄨㄛ are really really close, much closer than 'ueng' and 'ong'. And I think '-o'/'-uo' should rhyme with '-e', since 多 is 歌韻, 過 is 戈韻, etc. I think it is a very good idea to consider "ong" as "u+eng" (it looks very nice and systematic), but I don't see a reason why they didn't do this for "-uo/-o" and "-e".)

Personally, I think /fuo/ is closer to the "standard sound" than /fʷo/, maybe I'm wrong... And for the "actual sound", I think the most common sounds I have heard of are /fɤ/ (dialectal?, no roundness at all, I often pronounce this way), /fuɤ/ (with some 普通話 training), or /fuo/ (with very good training), I'm not sure if /fʷo/ or /fo/ exists. So I'm not sure if the reason that they designed 注音/拼音 this way was to reflect the standard/actual sound...


----------



## M Mira

fyl said:


> 維基百科https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/注音符號有這麼一段話：
> 「實際讀作ㄅㄨㄛ、ㄆㄨㄛ、ㄇㄨㄛ。因為唇音ㄅㄆㄇ及後元音ㄛ已帶有合口音ㄨ的圓唇性質，故從簡，如：柏（ㄅㄛˊ）、婆（ㄆㄛˊ）、魔（ㄇㄛˊ）。拼音中大多採用與注音符號相同的方式。」
> 可能就是為了簡單吧。反正唇聲母後面沒有開合口對立。。
> 
> 其實區分ㄛ、ㄜ我也挺不理解的，把「ㄛ」全部換成「ㄨㄜ」會更系統一點。音節中只要有ㄛ就是圓唇，只要有ㄜ就是扁唇，ㄛ/ㄨㄛ和ㄨㄜ的读音很接近，不知道弄兩個符號做什麼。。


見http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade–Giles#Vowel_o
ㄜe音是在十九世紀末從ㄛo分化出來的音，在威妥瑪時代還沒有，而剩下的ㄛo則轉成了ㄨㄛuo，所以ㄜ是以ㄛ為原型造出來的，而不是相反，而且既然ㄛ是古音，把它拆成兩個比較新的音的組合也不太對勁。


----------



## fyl

原來如此！多謝！


----------



## Skatinginbc

fyl said:


> I wondered why there are two symbols ㄜ and ㄛ...I think the most common sounds I have heard of are /fɤ/ (dialectal?, no roundness at all, I often pronounce this way), /fuɤ/ (with some 普通話 training), or /fuo/ (with very good training)


Your description reminds me of 山東口音 (山東濟南: 撥 ㄅㄜ /pɤ/, 婆 ㄆㄜ /pʰɤ/, 末 ㄇㄜ /mɤ/, 佛 ㄈㄜ /fɤ/, 多 ㄉㄨㄜ /tuɤ/, 脫 ㄊㄨㄜ /tʰuɤ/, 諾 ㄋㄨㄜ /nuɤ/, 羅 ㄌㄨㄜ /luɤ/).
Compare: 山西口音 (廣靈新绛: 婆 ㄆㄜ /pʰə/, 多 ㄉㄨㄜ /tuə/, 脫 ㄊㄨㄜ /tʰuə/, 諾 ㄋㄨㄜ /nuə/, 羅 ㄌㄨㄜ /luə/).


----------



## stephenlearner

Skatinginbc said:


> 播 (ㄅㄛ <bo>) 我的國語發音 [pwɔ]  < 中古 *puɑ
> 破 (ㄆㄛ <po>) 我的國語發音 [pʰwɔ] < 中古 *pʰuɑ
> 摩 (ㄇㄛ <mo>) 我的國語發音 [mwɔ] < 中古 *muɑ
> 佛 (ㄈㄛ <fo>) 我的國語發音 [fwɔ] < 中古 *bʰĭuət
> 
> 跺 (ㄉㄨㄛ <duo>) 我的國語發音 [tuɔ] < 中古 *tuɑ
> 唾 (ㄊㄨㄛ <tuo>) 我的國語發音 [tʰuɔ] < 中古 *tʰuɑ
> 糯 (ㄋㄨㄛ <nuo>) 我的國語發音 [nuɔ] < 中古 *nuɑ
> 螺 (ㄌㄨㄛ <luo>) 我的國語發音 [luɔ] < 中古 *lua



To me, all of them can be constructed as X + wo.
Are there two vowels [uɔ] in any one of these words? I don't think so. 
There is just one initial consonant, a [w] in between, and one final vowel. 

Then why bo, not buo? I have been told that is because [b/p] is a 唇音, and [w] is a 唇音 too. Repetition is not necessary.


----------



## fyl

Skatinginbc said:


> Your description reminds me of 山東口音 (山東濟南: 撥 ㄅㄜ /pɤ/, 婆 ㄆㄜ /pʰɤ/, 末 ㄇㄜ /mɤ/, 佛 ㄈㄜ /fɤ/, 多 ㄉㄨㄜ /tuɤ/, 脫 ㄊㄨㄜ /tʰuɤ/, 諾 ㄋㄨㄜ /nuɤ/, 羅 ㄌㄨㄜ /luɤ/).
> Compare: 山西口音 (廣靈新绛: 婆 ㄆㄜ /pʰə/, 多 ㄉㄨㄜ /tuə/, 脫 ㄊㄨㄜ /tʰuə/, 諾 ㄋㄨㄜ /nuə/, 羅 ㄌㄨㄜ /luə/).


嗯，我的母語和山東話確實很接近。其實東北說書的、天津說相聲的，只要年紀大點帶點口音的，也基本都是唸ㄜ，看來這麼讀的地方挺多的。


----------



## Skatinginbc

Skatinginbc said:


> 播 (ㄅㄛ <bo>) [pwɔ]; 破 (ㄆㄛ <po>) [pʰwɔ]; 摩 (ㄇㄛ <mo>) [mwɔ]; 佛 (ㄈㄛ <fo>) [fwɔ])


What I meant is: 播 [pʷɔ], 破 [pʰʷɔ], 摩 [mʷɔ], 佛 [fʷɔ].  The diacritic [ʷ] denotes simultaneous velarization and protruded lip rounding.  The "consonant + ʷ" is articulated as a single sound that serves as the initial of a syllable.


Skatinginbc said:


> 跺 (ㄉㄨㄛ <duo>) [tuɔ]; 唾 (ㄊㄨㄛ <tuo>) [tʰuɔ]; 糯 (ㄋㄨㄛ <nuo>) [nuɔ]; 螺 (ㄌㄨㄛ <luo>) [luɔ])


What I meant is: 跺 [twɔ], 唾 [tʰwɔ], 糯 [nwɔ], 螺 [lwɔ].  The [w] denotes a semivowel, vocalic but not syllabic, that is, a non-syllabic close back rounded vowel that serves as the medial of a syllable or does not form the nucleus of a syllable.  It is treated as an allophone of the high vowel /u/ (ㄨ).  According to Wikipedia, "[w] does not occur after labials (except for some speakers in _bo_, _po_, _mo_, _fo_)".  I take it as a reference to the semivowel [w], not to the labial rounding [ʷ].


stephenlearner said:


> There is just one initial consonant, a [w] in between, and one final vowel.


What do you mean by "a [w] in between"?  Do you mean it is pronounced _after_ the consonant?


stephenlearner said:


> I have been told that is because [b/p] is a 唇音, and [w] is a 唇音 too. Repetition is not necessary.


A labial consonant 唇音 involves one or both lips as the active articulator.  It is not identical to labialization 唇化, which refers to lip rounding. [w] is a labialized approximant 唇化音, not merely a labial approximant.  I don't see the redundancy.


fyl said:


> I'm not sure if /fʷo/ or /fo/ exists.


Listen to Alexshots' pronunciation of 佛光山 and 佛. I believe it's /fʷo/.


----------



## stephenlearner

Skatinginbc said:


> If 「後元音ㄛ已帶有合口音ㄨ的圓唇性質」 and 「為了簡單」, then why don't we simply have ㄉㄛ for 跺, ㄊㄛ for 唾, ㄋㄛ for 糯, ㄌㄛ for 螺, ㄍㄛ for 鍋, ㄎㄛ for 闊, ㄏㄛ for 貨, ㄓㄛ for 桌, ㄔㄛ for 綽, ㄕㄛ for 說, ㄖㄛ for 弱, ㄗㄛ for 作, ㄘㄛ for 搓, ㄙㄛ for 縮?  Why are they transcribed as -ㄨㄛ if ㄛ already contains the ㄨ sound?  The reason of  「從簡」 does not seem very convincing.



I have just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade–Giles#Vowel_o and found Wade-Giles system is more consistent in transcribing these sounds that we are discussing.  I think it is impossible to not 唇化 it when you pronounce the vowel in 波 脱. I also feel when we pronounce the English door, we 唇化 the vowel. But there is no [w] in its transcription. So actually we don't need to put a [w/u] in between in 波 or 脱 when we transcribe it. 


Skatinginbc said:


> What do you mean by "a [w] in between"? Do you mean it is pronounced _after_ the consonant?


Now I think there is a 唇化 between the initial consonant and the final vowel. This 唇化 comes from the vowel, not the initial consonant.


----------



## Skatinginbc

stephenlearner said:


> when we pronounce the English door, we 唇化 the vowel. But there is no [w] in its transcription. So actually we don't need to put an [w/u] between in 波 or 脱 when we transcribe it.


Having no /w/ in the broad transcription for "door" implies that the /w/ is not phonemic.  Some people may pronounce "door" with a clear labialization, and some people may show only a slight labialization.  Either way is intelligible because /w/ is not phonemic.  By having /o/ for 撥婆末佛 and /uo/ for 多脫諾羅, the pinyin and the 注音 system strongly suggest that /w/ is NOT phonemic in 撥婆末佛 but mandatory in 多脫諾羅.  This analysis goes well with many of the 北方官話 (e.g., fyl's 母語, 山東話, etc.) where there is no /w/ in 撥婆末佛 but there is one in 多脫諾羅.


----------



## YangMuye

stephenlearner said:


> I also feel when we pronounce the English door, we 唇化 the vowel.


Really? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/toward

PS: this /twɔːd/ is not completely labialized, therefore sounds like 特沃 to me.
R is sometimes completely labialized (rawhide, ride), sometimes not (row).
I think most people can immediately pick up the difference between English /sw-/ and Mandarin /su-/. swan vs 算
I would argue that labialization of initial consonants is mandatory for many Mandarin speakers.



Skatinginbc said:


> According to Wikipedia, "[w] does not occur after labials (except for some speakers in _bo_, _po_, _mo_, _fo_)". I take it as a reference to the semivowel [w], not to the labial rounding [ʷ].


I don't think this is a reliable reference.
I don't recognize the difference between /bʷw, pʷw, mʷw, fʷw/ and /bʷ, pʷ, mʷ, fʷ/.
In a different language, there may be a difference because /w/ is normally a voiced semivowel, but in Mandarin, whether /w/ or /u/ is voiced or voiceless depends on the preceding consonant. We use the symbol to represent both.


----------



## stephenlearner

YangMuye said:


> I think most people can immediately pick up the difference between English /sw-/ and Mandarin /su-/. swan vs 算
> I would argue that labialization of initial consonants is mandatory for many Mandarin speakers.



的确如此。
英语的swan 辅音/s/ 不唇化, 发完/s/ 再发/w/，汉语的算, /s/要唇化。
这样的话，播、坡、摩、佛、跺、唾、糯、螺、国、阔、或、做、错、所、桌、戳、说、若，声母应该都是要唇化的。

困惑了，其实这些字的元音都要唇化的，比如，零声母的“我”，不是唇化的么？那到底是辅音的唇化还是元音的唇化？
无论是哪个唇化，辅音和元音之间都不存在一个半元音/w/。

问题：英语 qu- 的单词应该和汉语的这种情况一样，是/k/的唇化kʷ。然而，在音标里好像都是有[kw]，多出了一个半元音。为什么？



YangMuye said:


> Really? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/toward
> 
> PS: this /twɔːd/ is not completely labialized, therefore sounds like 特沃 to me.
> R is sometimes completely labialized (rawhide, ride), sometimes not (row).


对于 door来说，肯定有唇化，英式英语可能不明显，但是美式很明显。还不确定是/d/的唇化，还是后面元音的唇化。
沃要唇化。快速说话时，可以不唇化，但要说得清楚，或者教孩子，或者教外国人时，需要唇化的。
If row 不唇化，就变成了汉语的肉了，肯定要唇化。


----------



## YangMuye

stephenlearner said:


> 对于 door来说，肯定有唇化，英式英语可能不明显，但是美式很明显。还不确定是/d/的唇化，还是后面元音的唇化。


Actually, I think all consonants preceding rounded vowels are labialized to various extents, but not as much as /w/ and those consonants preceding /u/.
Oddly, some consonants are not much labialized before /w/, for instance, /s/ and /θ/.
/r/ is normally /rw/, but often just /r/ before /ou/, which I don't know why.



stephenlearner said:


> 困惑了，其实这些字的元音都要唇化的，比如，零声母的“我”，不是唇化的么？那到底是辅音的唇化还是元音的唇化？
> 无论是哪个唇化，辅音和元音之间都不存在一个半元音/w/。


Rounded vowels are already labialized.  /w/ is just a /u/ without length. <wo/uo> just sounds off to me without the glide <w>. Hear bo po mo fo
Do you raise the back of your tongue when pronouncing bo/po/mo/fo in Mandarin? That is the /w/.


----------



## Messquito

stephenlearner said:


> If row 不唇化，就变成了汉语的肉了，肯定要唇化。


同意，我的外國朋友跟我說他最常發錯的音就是肉
因為他認為[r]這個音就是要動到臉部的肌肉，尤其是嘴唇要圓形
這也是網路上教英文發音的影片裡老師會強調的動作，他們都會很清楚地把嘴巴噘起來




至於中文的「兒」音，基本上只有舌頭在動而已
我告訴他row很像是中文的肉音加上woah的音
他聽懂後就再也不會把讓發成ron/wrong，把辱發成ru(de)，把人發成(Aar)ron...
我的觀察是英語除了非Rhotic的音節尾r外，嘴巴都有噘起的現象，（這也許是有人完全不會發r，卻用w取代r的發音的原因吧）
例如說中文的人在發美式英文的字尾r時常常聽起來不標準，那是因為他們用中文的「二」來發，如果他們在發字尾r能用一下嘴巴的肌肉，聽起來就會比較標準


YangMuye said:


> /r/ is normally /rw/, but often just /r/ before /ou/, which I don't know why.


/r/在/ou/前有圓唇化，如果把J.K.*Row*ling發成J.K.*肉*玲聽起來就很怪
這也就是為什麼中文會翻成*羅*琳
row /ɻʷoʊ/
肉 /ɻoʊ̯/
比較一下


----------



## Skatinginbc

YangMuye said:


> /bʷw, pʷw, mʷw, fʷw/ and /bʷ, pʷ, mʷ, fʷ/.


All of the "X + uo" words can be pronounced as "Xʷwɔ".  It is the common ground for all cases and I have no problem with it, so let's temporarily leave it aside.  What I have been trying to say is: It is perfectly fine to say 播 [pʷɔ], 坡 [pʰʷɔ], 摸 [mʷɔ], 佛 [fʷɔ], without the approximant /w/.  This opinion is strongly supported by Forvo's audio data. Those speakers seem to have come from the Beijing region based on Forvo's map that shows the speakers' locations.  On the other hand, 多 [tʷɔ], 唾 [tʰʷɔ], 挪 [nʷɔ], 洛 [lʷɔ] would sound heavily accented, not because of their labialized initials, but due to lack of a clear approximant /w/, The approximant can be heard from Forvo's data: 多 [twɔ], 唾 [tʰwɔ], 挪 [nwɔ], 洛 [lwɔ].


YangMuye said:


> Do you raise the back of your tongue when pronouncing bo/po/mo/fo in Mandarin? That is the /w/.


That's velarization.  The /w/ you mentioned could very well be [ʷ], which denotes simultaneous velarization and protruded lip rounding.


YangMuye said:


> I would argue that labialization of initial consonants is mandatory for many Mandarin speakers.


To me, there are three sets:
1. Non-Sibilance, non-Labial: ㄉㄨㄛ (跺), ㄊㄨㄛ (唾), ㄋㄨㄛ (糯), ㄌㄨㄛ (螺), ㄍㄨㄛ (鍋), ㄎㄨㄛ (闊), ㄏㄨㄛ (貨), ㄖㄨㄛ (弱) ==> Labialization of the initial is preferred, but not mandatory.
2. Sibilance: ㄓㄨㄛ (桌), ㄔㄨㄛ (綽), ㄕㄨㄛ (說), ㄗㄨㄛ (作), ㄘㄨㄛ (搓), ㄙㄨㄛ (縮): Labialization of the initial is mandatory.
Both (1) and (2) demand the medial /w/.

3. Labial: ㄅㄛ (播), ㄆㄛ (破), ㄇㄛ (摩), ㄈㄛ (佛) ==> Labialization of the initial is mandatory, while the medal /w/ is optional.


----------



## YangMuye

stephenlearner said:


> If row 不唇化，就变成了汉语的肉了，肯定要唇化。


My fault. I listened to the record, it's indeed /rwou/. I've been wrong for years.



Skatinginbc said:


> It is perfectly fine to say 播 [pʷɔ], 坡 [pʰʷɔ], 摸 [mʷɔ], 佛 [fʷɔ], without the approximant /w/.


/po/ and /mo/ have /w/. /fo/ does not. I'm not sure about /bo/, but it sounds like it does not contain /w/.
I find I can accept the highly rounded /o/ as a sloppy variant of /wo/, but not the more open /ɔ/. This is not limited to b/p/m/f. For instance, 多多关照, 咄咄怪事, 多多益善, etc

I guess this is because /o/ is a high vowel in nature and closely resembles /u/, and the transition between /b/ to /o/ is so fast that it is barely noticeable.
But I would still argue that /bo/ is /buo/ in nature. This becomes especially clear when you try to articulate the sound, as in 跛, third tone is often twice longer. If I did not hear the /w/, I would think he is saying 饱.

This sound was produced by the same speaker of the 播 above. You can check out all his pronunciations for words beginning with /bo/. You may notice the /o/ in 薄(forth tone)荷 is much shorter, but is still /uo/. PS: Comparing with his other records, the 播 sounds as if he was starved.

If you are still not convinced, I can only cite 王力's work. (I copied this from Internet, but what I remember reading is another one, which I can't find right now.)


			
				王力《漢語音韻學》頁473 said:
			
		

> 其實國語中壓根兒就沒有o這韻母，「窩、鍋、闊、火、波、坡、摩、佛、多、駝、挪、羅、左、錯、所、卓、戳、說、若」都是uo，但因「波、坡、摩、佛」四音的聲ㄅ、ㄆ、ㄇ、ㄈ是兩唇音，大可把下面的圓唇元音ㄨ略去，所以這四音不拼作buo、puo、muo、fuo，而省作bo、po、mo、fo；至於其他各音，則須用uo拼。


----------



## stephenlearner

可能我的听力已经蜕化了，听不出*播*、*多*之间的差别。我觉得是差不多的。

我觉得在我们认真发音的情况下，声母都要唇化的。但这个声母的唇化应该是受元音的影响。这个元音若是认真发，就要圆唇；它若圆唇，就会影响辅音。所以在我们发声母的时候，脑子里已经发出了圆唇的指令。如此发音都可写作：Xʷɔ

但实际生活中，我们说话很快，自然省略了圆唇。元音不圆唇，自然不对辅音产生影响，所以辅音也不圆唇。这个不圆唇的元音很可能不是那个标准的/ɔ/，而是另外某个音，可能是[ə]，也可能是[ɤ]。元音不是圆唇的，辅音也不发生唇化，肯定走样很大，所以我们在快速说话时就在它们两者之间加一个半元音/w/。如此发音都可写作：Xwɤ 或 Xwə

个人不成熟的看法，还请指点。

补充：



stephenlearner said:


> 的确如此。
> 英语的swan 辅音/s/ 不唇化, 发完/s/ 再发/w/，汉语的算, /s/要唇化。


又想了想。
发现我总是想了又想，改了又改。
其实，在我们快速说“算”的时候，实际上是先发/s/，后发/w/，而非/s/的唇化。
但为何还是与swan有差别呢？一个是汉语算有声调，二是算的/w/不响亮，而/w/在swan中是很清楚的，三是算的/s/送气不足，而swan的/s/送气很足，四是我觉得算的元音和swan的元音不同。
算的元音可能要比swan的元音高一些。


----------



## Skatinginbc

YangMuye said:


> This becomes especially clear when you try to articulate the sound, as in 跛, third tone is often twice longer. It is recorded by the same speaker of 播. If I did not hear the /w/, I would think he is saying 饱.


I'm not sure what you heard is /w/.  The degree of roundness and lip protrusion for /w/ or /ʷ/ is greater than that for /ɔ/, so there is definitely a change of the mouth position: from tight to loose, from pursed to open.  This change of position can sound like a /w/.  The question rests in how fast the change occurs.  If it is /pʷ/, the change will be fleeting, as soon as the initial consonant is ended.  If it is /pw/, the change will take longer, as it will first change from the initial to the medial, then from the medial to the nucleus.  Listen to this 簸 pronounced with the medial /w/.  At what point of the third tone pitch contour can you still hear the /w/ sound?  Remember that pitch point, and compare it with 跛, which I believe is a /pʷɔ/.  Can you hear the difference now?


YangMuye said:


> check out all his pronunciations for words beginning with /bo/.


I listened to the audio, and I think most of his "bo" are /pʷɔ/.  His 簸箩 /pʷɔ lwɔ/ illustrates the difference between /ʷɔ/ and /wɔ/.  Compare his pronunciation for these two characters.  For each character, pay special attention to the timing of the w-like sound (When does it end?) and, alternatively, to the timing when he stops making a change in the place of articulation (Of course, pitch or tone changes do not count).


----------



## YangMuye

Actually the 跛 sounds like /ɔɒ/ to me, whereas 簸 is /uɔ/. But the exact degree of roundness and protrusion is not important, because /w/ is not a vowel. What matters here is that there is an audible glide so that the vowel is a rising *diphthong*.
You can let your Mainlander friends hear Cantonese bo po mo fo, and see if they can constantly hear <(u)o>.

If people are fine with /bo, po, mo, fo/, why would there be so many Chinese teachers who feel frustrated because foreign and southern students don't insert /w/ when pronouncing them? I never heard people complain that foreigners pronounce <d> as voiced consonants. Because voiced /d/ is perfectly acceptable.

I found another reference: http://shang-you-ge.blogspot.com/2013/03/blog-post_15.html


> 民國10年（1921年）2月國語統一籌備會訂正、教育部公布之《教改國音字典》附〈修正《國音字典》之說明〉一文，云：
> 又如唇音各聲母與韻母拼合，*原案根據韻書，有用開口呼之韻母者，有用合口呼之韻母者，*如「剝」「駁」音「ㄅㄛ」，「撥」「鉢」音「ㄅㄨㄛ」；「煩」「繁」音「ㄈㄨㄢ」，「凡」「帆」音「ㄈㄢ」之類；編《字典》時，*因唇音聲母本已合口，*故遇原案中唇音與合口呼韻母拼合之字，除「ㄨ」韻以外*一律改用開口呼韻母。*


The reason: for simplicity.


----------



## Skatinginbc

YangMuye said:


> Actually the 跛 sounds like /ɔɒ/ to me


Don't forget the third tone (214) is a confounding factor.  The mouth tends to further slightly open up during the pitch contour 14 (rising) if it is already "open" (e.g., ɔ, an open vowel) during the pitch contour 21 (falling).  This phenomenon can be illustrated by the pronunciation of 打 /da/ (not a diphthong) by Forvo's speaker "witenglish" from Beijing.


YangMuye said:


> But the exact degree of roundness and protrusion is not important, because /w/ is not a vowel. What matters here is that there is an audible glide so that the vowel is a rising diphthong


Why not important?  If one hears an /ɔ/, he should not call it a /w/.  Likewise, if one hears a /j/ (a glide), he should not call it a /w/, either.


YangMuye said:


> If people are fine with /bo, po, mo, fo/, why would there be so many Chinese teachers who feel frustrated because foreign and southern students don't insert /w/ when pronouncing them?


I will not accept /bo/, /po/, /mo/, /fo/, but I have no problem with /bʷo/, /pʷo/, /mʷo/, and /fʷo/.  There is a clear difference between them.

The following quotations come from the reference kindly provided by Yangmuye in Post #27: http://shang-you-ge.blogspot.com/2013/03/blog-post_15.html


> 他們參考的韻書應是《御定音韻闡微》，《音韻闡微》記錄的是十八世紀前期北方官話的讀書音系統：「剝」、「駁」例屬開口呼（無介母


It shows that in 北方官話 the medial /w/ was indeed absent in some of those words (e.g.,剝, 駁). And I believe it is still absent for some Beijing speakers on Forvo.


> 依記清初北方官話時音的韻書《諧聲韻學》、《拙菴韻悟》，記清代後期北方官話的巴拉第《漢俄合璧韻編》、狄考文《官話類編》，以及二十世紀前期董同龢《漢語音韻學》所述國語音系， 清代以來的北方官話音，唇音聲母字中屬合口呼者反而是少數。今日國語的唇音聲母字，除ㄨ單韻、ㄛ單韻明顯屬合口呼外，再無其他合口呼的字音，而唇音聲母的 那種圓唇成分，也很少聽到。


It proves that labials do not automatically entail roundedness.  Rounding of a labial is conditioned by the rounded vowel (/u/ ㄨ單韻, /o/ ㄛ單韻) that follows.


> 因唇音聲母本已合口


It refers to /pʷ/, /pʰʷ/, /mʷ/, and /fʷ/.  Their rounding is a result of anticipatory assimilation, not because labials automatically entail roundedness.


> 語言學家高本漢解釋《廣韻》唇音聲母字的反切往往開、合相混，是因為唇音聲母常帶有w的圓唇成分。


It means: As long as the labials are rounded, it will not influence intelligibility no matter if there is an approximant /w/ or not.  People can hardly tell "the difference between /bʷw, pʷw, mʷw, fʷw/ and /bʷ, pʷ, mʷ, fʷ/" (see #18 by YangMuye), and so /w/ is NOT phonemic in those cases.  It is thus not necessary to include /w/ in broad transcription for those words.


> 民國10年（1921年）2月國語統一籌備會訂正、教育部公布之《教改國音字典》附〈修正《國音字典》之說明〉一文，云：...編《字典》時，因唇音聲母本已合口，故遇原案中唇音與合口呼韻母拼合之字，除「ㄨ」韻以外一律改用開口呼韻母。


According to 维基百科: "由於《國音字典》語音標準與北京語音標準產生的矛盾，1920年爆發了京國之爭。南京高師英文科主任張士一於1920年發表《國語統一問題》，認為注音字母連同國音都要做根本的改造，不承認“國音”，主張以北京音為國音標準，響應者眾。全國教育會聯合會和江蘇全省師範附屬小學聯合會相繼做出了定北京語音為標準音的決議，並開始在學校推廣." So, at the time when the Ministry of Education made a revision for the dictionary (編《字典》時) in 1921 to reflect the public demand of 以北京音為國音標準, the labials were pronounced with a rounded position (因唇音聲母本已合口)--Obviously, it refers to the Beijing accent at that time, not the 老國音, which "沒完全依照北京音的特點，還顧及南方各地語音，由此能和中古音形成更爲嚴整的對應關係."    


> 編《字典》時，因唇音聲母本已合口，故遇原案中唇音與合口呼韻母拼合之字，除「ㄨ」韻以外一律改用開口呼韻母。


This is my interpretation: Because the labials were rounded in those cases and the medial /w/ was not phonemic (韻母是否合口無關緊要) in Beijing Mandarin then, the Ministry of Education decided to delete /w/ from the phonetic transcription of those cases (to reflect the Beijing accent).  


YangMuye said:


> The reason: for simplicity


Well, the same passage can be interpreted as:  /w/ is *not phonemic *in those cases (韻母是否合口無關緊要).


----------



## stephenlearner

Skatinginbc said:


> All of the "X + uo" words can be pronounced as "Xʷwɔ".
> 
> To me, there are three sets:
> 1. Non-Sibilance, non-Labial: ㄉㄨㄛ (跺), ㄊㄨㄛ (唾), ㄋㄨㄛ (糯), ㄌㄨㄛ (螺), ㄍㄨㄛ (鍋), ㄎㄨㄛ (闊), ㄏㄨㄛ (貨), ㄖㄨㄛ (弱) ==> Labialization of the initial is preferred, but not mandatory.
> 2. Sibilance: ㄓㄨㄛ (桌), ㄔㄨㄛ (綽), ㄕㄨㄛ (說), ㄖㄨㄛ (弱), ㄗㄨㄛ (作), ㄘㄨㄛ (搓), ㄙㄨㄛ (縮): Labialization of the initial is mandatory.
> Both (1) and (2) demand the medial /w/.
> 
> 3. Labial: ㄅㄛ (播), ㄆㄛ (破), ㄇㄛ (摩), ㄈㄛ (佛) ==> Labialization of the initial is mandatory, while the medal /w/ is optional.



I still can't feel their differences. To me, 1, 2, and 3 either =Xʷɔ or =Xwɔ/Xwɤ



Skatinginbc said:


> People can hardly tell "the difference between /bʷw, pʷw, mʷw, fʷw/ and /bʷ, pʷ, mʷ, fʷ/" (see #18 by YangMuye), and so /w/ is NOT phonemic in those cases.  It is thus not necessary to include /w/ in broad transcription for those words.
> 
> Well, the same passage can be interpreted as:  /w/ is *not phonemic *in those cases (韻母是否合口無關緊要) and thus it is not needed.


Can people tell the difference between dʷw, tʷw, nʷw, lʷw/ and /dʷ, tʷ, nʷ, lʷ ? I strongly doubt it. 



stephenlearner said:


> 其实，在我们快速说“算”的时候，实际上是先发/s/，后发/w/，而非/s/的唇化。
> 但为何还是与swan有差别呢？一个是汉语算有声调，二是算的/w/不响亮，而/w/在swan中是很清楚的，三是算的/s/送气不足，而swan的/s/送气很足，四是我觉得算的元音和swan的元音不同。
> 算的元音可能要比swan的元音高一些。


我要纠正自己的看法。第一和第二应该是对的，但第三和第四是错的。我觉得我们说算的时候，拉一下长音，算--，就很接近swan了。为何算不像swan，很大原因是算结束得太快。而swan 中元音向尾音n的滑行是悠长的。


----------



## Skatinginbc

stephenlearner said:


> Can people tell the difference between dʷw, tʷw, nʷw, lʷw/ and /dʷ, tʷ, nʷ, lʷ ? I strongly doubt it.


I don't know about other people, but for me, /dʷo/, /tʷo/, /nʷo/, /lʷo/ sound like from someone with a strong accent so much so that I cannot tell whether /dʷo shi/ is intended to mean 多事 or 都是.  It causes difficulty in comprehension.


----------



## stephenlearner

Skatinginbc said:


> I don't know about other people, but for me, /dʷo/, /tʷo/, /nʷo/, /lʷo/ sound like from someone with a strong accent so much so that I cannot tell whether /dʷo shi/ is intended to mean 多事 or 都是.  It causes difficulty in comprehension.


I think there is a big gap between 多 and 都. If I make 多 sound like 都, I should change the vowel, maybe by making it a little lower. This* labialized *都 is very unnatural.  If I make 都 sound like 多, I still need to alter the vowel by making it a little higher. Besides, I must labialize the /t/ in 都 or put a semivowel */w/ *in between, otherwise, I would make a 多 which is too far from the normal 多.


----------



## Skatinginbc

/dʷo/ ==> speaking with an accent.
/do/ ==> 都 in Taiwanese.
/dʷo shi/ ==> Since this person speaks with a strong accent, I don't know whether /dʷo/ is a result of language transfer or has suffered from linguistic interference (e.g., from 都 in Taiwanese 都市).


----------



## stephenlearner

YangMuye said:


> 民國10年（1921年）2月國語統一籌備會訂正、教育部公布之《教改國音字典》附〈修正《國音字典》之說明〉一文，云：
> 又如唇音各聲母與韻母拼合，*原案根據韻書，有用開口呼之韻母者，有用合口呼之韻母者，*如「剝」「駁」音「ㄅㄛ」，「撥」「鉢」音「ㄅㄨㄛ」；「煩」「繁」音「ㄈㄨㄢ」，「凡」「帆」音「ㄈㄢ」之類；編《字典》時，*因唇音聲母本已合口，*故遇原案中唇音與合口呼韻母拼合之字，除「ㄨ」韻以外*一律改用開口呼韻母。*



*因唇音聲母本已合口*
言外之意是多、脱、诺、罗、果、阔....的声母没有合口，所以韵母要保留[w/u]？
但正如Skatinginbc 所言，


Skatinginbc said:


> 因唇音聲母本已合口
> It refers to /pʷ/, /pʰʷ/, /mʷ/, and /fʷ/.  Their rounding is a result of anticipatory assimilation, not because labials automatically entail roundedness.





Skatinginbc said:


> 依記清初北方官話時音的韻書《諧聲韻學》、《拙菴韻悟》，記清代後期北方官話的巴拉第《漢俄合璧韻編》、狄考文《官話類編》，以及二十世紀前期董同龢《漢語音韻學》所述國語音系， 清代以來的北方官話音，*唇音聲母字中屬合口呼者反而是少數*。今日國語的唇音聲母字，除ㄨ單韻、ㄛ單韻明顯屬合口呼外，再無其他合口呼的字音，而唇音聲母的 那種圓唇成分，也很少聽到。


这里又说"唇音声母字中属合口呼者反而是少数"，跟上文引文提到的"唇音声母本已合口"相矛盾。


----------



## Skatinginbc

stephenlearner said:


> 这里又说"唇音声母字中属合口呼者反而是少数"，跟上文引文提到的"唇音声母本已合口"相矛盾。


這樣解釋就不矛盾了:
"唇音声母字中属合口呼者反而是少数" refers to all linguistic environments, i.e., bi, bie, bei, ben, ba, bai, bao, ban, bang, bu, and bo.  /bu/ and /bo/ are rounded; the rest are not. ==>  2/11, so they are 少数.
唇音声母本已合口 refers to specific environments (e.g., bu and bo.


stephenlearner said:


> 言外之意是多、脱、诺、罗、果、阔....的声母没有合口，所以韵母要保留[w/u]？


對我而言, 其言外之意是:
唇音聲母本已合口 (Xʷ), 韻母合不合口没關係 (/w/ is not phonemic).
非唇音声母不盡然是「本已合口」 (not always Xʷ), 韻母合不合口有關係 (/w/ is phonemic).


Skatinginbc said:


> To me, there are three sets:
> 1. Non-Sibilance, non-Labial, 2. Sibilance, 3. Labial


Now I believe only two sets:
1. Labial: mandatory rounding of the initial, optional medial /w/.
2. Non-Labial: optional rounding of the initial, mandatory medial /w/.
Although labializaton of the sibilance is strongly preferred, the absence of it does not necessarily imply speaking with an accent.  It just sounds "very lazy".  That's all.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Is there any English word that contains "labial + /w/"?  Is there any native word (excluding loans) in Korean or Vietnamese that contains "labial + /w/"? It is not uncommon that a language would disallow a labiovelar glide /w/ after a labial consonant.

Some examples of Mandarin CwV- syllables:
Dental: 堆 ㄉㄨㄟ, 端 ㄉㄨㄢ, 蹲 ㄉㄨㄣ
Retroflex: 追 ㄓㄨㄟ, 專 ㄓㄨㄢ, 諄 ㄓㄨㄣ
Velar: 虧 ㄎㄨㄟ, 寬 ㄎㄨㄢ, 困 ㄎㄨㄣ
Labial: *ㄅㄨㄟ , *ㄅㄨㄢ  , *ㄅㄨㄣ 

In 北方官話 (e.g., 山東話, 東北話), three seems to be a constraint of "No labiovelar glide after a labial" (i.e., [w] does not occur after labials), under which Xʷo is the optimal output candidate for the input Xuo (Note: X represents a labial consonant).

So, from the perspective of the Optimality Theory, the surface realizations of the input /buo/ result from the interaction between the two conflicting constraints: (1) /o/ must follow [w], and (2) [w] does not occur after labials.  Speakers from a different dialect may have different rankings of the constraint sets.  Differences in context (e.g., teaching Mandarin vs. talking to family members) may change the rankings as well.


----------

