Was "乎" the man'yōgana spelling of the accusative/object particle "を"?


[In the English Wiktionary entry for
"を"](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%82%92#Particle) there is a quote or
example sentence using the character "乎" with no explanation seemingly where
the particle "を" would normally occur.

Now I couldn't find anything in either the entry for "乎" or "を" about them
being historically connected via
[_man'yōgana_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27y%C5%8Dgana), and Google
searches failed to turn up anything conclusive either.

In fact I don't know much about _man'yōgana_ at all so could it be that any
character with the right reading could be used for "を"?




Yes, it was one form. From
[here](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%92#.E5.A5.88.E8.89.AF.E6.99.82.E4.BB.A3):

> 奈良時代には、「オ」は [o] 、「ヲ」は [wo]
> と発音されており明確な区別があった。借字（万葉仮名）では、オには意・憶・於・應（応）・隱（隠）・乙などの字が用いられる一方、「ヲ」には乎・呼・袁・遠・鳥・鳴・怨・越・少・小・尾・麻・男・緒・雄などが用いられていた

**Translation**

In the Nara period, オ was pronounced as "o" and ヲ was pronounced as "wo", and
were clearly distinguished. [借字]{しゃくじ}(Manyogana) used 意・憶・於・應（応）・隱（隠）・乙, etc.
for オ and 乎・呼・袁・遠・鳥・鳴・怨・越・少・小・尾・麻・男・緒・雄 for ヲ.




Yes, it was one form. From
[here](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%92#.E5.A5.88.E8.89.AF.E6.99.82.E4.BB.A3):

> 奈良時代には、「オ」は [o] 、「ヲ」は [wo]
> と発音されており明確な区別があった。借字（万葉仮名）では、オには意・憶・於・應（応）・隱（隠）・乙などの字が用いられる一方、「ヲ」には乎・呼・袁・遠・鳥・鳴・怨・越・少・小・尾・麻・男・緒・雄などが用いられていた

**Translation**

In the Nara period, オ was pronounced as "o" and ヲ was pronounced as "wo", and
were clearly distinguished. [借字]{しゃくじ}(Manyogana) used 意・憶・於・應（応）・隱（隠）・乙, etc.
for オ and 乎・呼・袁・遠・鳥・鳴・怨・越・少・小・尾・麻・男・緒・雄 for ヲ.

