Text in D article (4th revision) [OT] ha vs wa

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
>> Unless my Japanese mentor was playing a prank on me (which is 
>> /entirely/ possible) its actually a quirk thing.  While it is written 
>> "kon'ityi-ha" it is indeed pronouned "kon'nityi-wa", as the 'ha' kana 
>> is written for the particle 'wa' for some long-forgotten reason.  
>> (Kind of like the archaic 'wo' kana is still used for the 'o' prefix, 
>> as in "(w)o-genki desu-ka".)
> 
> kon'ity-ha?
> Wow, what kind of romanization system is that? Now /that/ is a prank ..

Its the Kunreisiki 「訓令式」.  I prefer it, personally, because it stays a bit closer to 
the way it would be written in hiragana/katakana.  (Like using "si" rather than "shi", 
because that's the only way it is pronounced, or using "tya" rather than "cha" because it 
would be written 「ちゃ」 in the kata.)
Weblink: http://www.halcat.com/roomazi/doc/iso3602.html

That said, though... I actually did make a mistake.  *sigh*  It should've just been "ti" 
rather than "tyi" at the end.  That's what I get for responding on the way to bed, though.

And I think you're right about it meaning basically "its morning" or "its a day", or some 
such.  I never really asked, but looking at the kanji its written with, it seems to be a 
really awkward way of saying "good weather" or some such... ah hell.  :)

> I think what you said about the ha/wa is correct thu. From what I've 
> gathered, the particle used to be pronounced "ha" but its pronunciation 
> has changed over the centuries, while the spelling for it didn't.

That could well be.  Would make a little more sense than it just is, and that's that.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls