Why do some loanword sounds get "contracted" when katakanized, but not others?


Not sure the best way to word this. Why is it that some sounds from a loanword
get combined down to a shorter or different sound while other do not? Here are
some examples:

## Shortened, but sound weird to me/many Japanese learners

>   * Pineapple → パイ ** _ナ_** ップル not パイン・アップル → The 'n' and 'a' sound combine
> to ナ instead of remaining separate
>   * Menu → メ ** _ニュ_** ー not メン・ユー → 'n' and 'y' combine to ニュ instead of
> remaining separate
>   * Double-"you" → ダブ ** _リュ_** ー not ダブル・ユー → 'r' and 'y' combine to リュ
> instead of remaining separate
>

## Separate, seemingly breaking the above patterns

>   * Time-out → タイムアウト not タイ ** _マウ_** ト → 'mau' becomes 'mu' + 'au'
> seemingly unnecessarily
>   * Backup → バックアップ not バッ ** _カ_** ップ → why not similar to the "pineapple"
> pattern?
>   * Piano → ピアノ not **_ピャ_** ノ → Similar to "menu" in my eyes
>

What gives?




When words are borrowed in speech, they're generally "repaired" to match the
phonology of the target language. In Japanese, that usually means picking the
nearest consonant and vowel sounds and adding epenthetic vowels to avoid
consonant clusters that aren't allowed (like /str/ → /sutor/), although other
methods of repair are occasionally used (e.g. deletion).

But this isn't an exact process. It depends on the pronunciation of the
original word (which may vary) and the way the word is perceived in the target
language (which may also vary). Sometimes more than one repair is possible,
and sometimes words are borrowed more than one way: consider _strike_ ストライク
and _strike_ ストライキ, or _Hepburn_ ヘボン and _Hepburn_ ヘプバーン, as in James Curtis
Hepburn and Audrey Hepburn.

And of course, there are further complications. Many words are borrowed via
writing rather than speech, and words have been borrowed at different points
in time, resulting in different pronunciations than you might expect. Most
speakers no longer say the /h/ in _white_ /hwaɪt/, but it was relatively
common back when ホワイト was borrowed.

* * *

Let's look at your examples.

In the case of _time-out_ and _backup_ , we can see that each word corresponds
rather transparently to a pair of words, _time out_ and _back up_. I suspect
that this correspondence influenced both words, whether they were borrowed via
speech or writing. What's more, both _time-out_ and _backup_ can be pronounced
like a pair of words in careful speech. Given that, the way they're borrowed
makes sense.

I think that _pineapple_ is less transparent (despite the spelling) and that
most speakers pronounce the /n/ as a syllable-initial consonant (following the
maximum onset principle), like "pie napple" rather than "pine apple".
Honestly, the reason this word in Japanese doesn't match my expectations as an
English speaker is the location of the pitch accent, not because it has ナ in
the middle.

A couple of your examples are implausible. _Menu_ simply doesn't sound like
メンユー, it sounds like メニュー. Try saying it both ways! And there is no separation
to "remain separate". _Piano_ doesn't sound like ピャノ. The vowels are fairly
distinct in English and I see no reason why a Japanese speaker would perceive
them as a glide or interpret the spelling as representing a glide.

But I'm not sure it's really possible to answer a question like this
rigorously. I see no reason why 'W' _double-you_ couldn't be ダブル・ユー as well,
but whoever borrowed it first must have perceived it the other way and ダブリュー
became more popular. For that matter, I don't see why _time-out_ couldn't have
been borrowed as タイマウト. It's not an exact science and I'm afraid there are no
absolute rules to explain it―all we can really do is try to find tendencies
and patterns.




When words are borrowed in speech, they're generally "repaired" to match the
phonology of the target language. In Japanese, that usually means picking the
nearest consonant and vowel sounds and adding epenthetic vowels to avoid
consonant clusters that aren't allowed (like /str/ → /sutor/), although other
methods of repair are occasionally used (e.g. deletion).

But this isn't an exact process. It depends on the pronunciation of the
original word (which may vary) and the way the word is perceived in the target
language (which may also vary). Sometimes more than one repair is possible,
and sometimes words are borrowed more than one way: consider _strike_ ストライク
and _strike_ ストライキ, or _Hepburn_ ヘボン and _Hepburn_ ヘプバーン, as in James Curtis
Hepburn and Audrey Hepburn.

And of course, there are further complications. Many words are borrowed via
writing rather than speech, and words have been borrowed at different points
in time, resulting in different pronunciations than you might expect. Most
speakers no longer say the /h/ in _white_ /hwaɪt/, but it was relatively
common back when ホワイト was borrowed.

* * *

Let's look at your examples.

In the case of _time-out_ and _backup_ , we can see that each word corresponds
rather transparently to a pair of words, _time out_ and _back up_. I suspect
that this correspondence influenced both words, whether they were borrowed via
speech or writing. What's more, both _time-out_ and _backup_ can be pronounced
like a pair of words in careful speech. Given that, the way they're borrowed
makes sense.

I think that _pineapple_ is less transparent (despite the spelling) and that
most speakers pronounce the /n/ as a syllable-initial consonant (following the
maximum onset principle), like "pie napple" rather than "pine apple".
Honestly, the reason this word in Japanese doesn't match my expectations as an
English speaker is the location of the pitch accent, not because it has ナ in
the middle.

A couple of your examples are implausible. _Menu_ simply doesn't sound like
メンユー, it sounds like メニュー. Try saying it both ways! And there is no separation
to "remain separate". _Piano_ doesn't sound like ピャノ. The vowels are fairly
distinct in English and I see no reason why a Japanese speaker would perceive
them as a glide or interpret the spelling as representing a glide.

But I'm not sure it's really possible to answer a question like this
rigorously. I see no reason why 'W' _double-you_ couldn't be ダブル・ユー as well,
but whoever borrowed it first must have perceived it the other way and ダブリュー
became more popular. For that matter, I don't see why _time-out_ couldn't have
been borrowed as タイマウト. It's not an exact science and I'm afraid there are no
absolute rules to explain it―all we can really do is try to find tendencies
and patterns.

