「はは」(母) and ハ行転呼


It occurred to me the other day that if ハ行転呼 had affected all applicable
environments without exception, 母 /haha/ (or I guess properly it was /ɸaɸa/,
right?)should have become /hawa/.

The [Japanese wiki page for
ハ行転呼](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8F%E8%A1%8C%E8%BB%A2%E5%91%BC) makes
note of this and kind of handwaves it away by saying it's thought the
relationship between 父/爺 and 母/婆 influenced 母 enough to keep its pronunciation
from undergoing ハ行転呼, but there's no citation and it kinda just sounds to me
like a "we have no clue" answer.

>
> 特殊な例として「はは」（母）のように一旦「はわ」に変化したのち、再び「はは」に戻ったものもある。これは「ちち」（父）、「ぢぢ」（爺）に対応する「はは」（母）、「ばば」（婆）の体系を維持しようとして引き起こされた変化と考えられる。

It does say 「一旦『はわ』に変化したのち」, so /haha/ (/ɸaɸa/?) did become /hawa/ before
changing (back?) to /haha/. Is this maybe a case of spelling pronunciation or
a conscious effort on (educated?) speakers' part to pronounce 母 in a
deliberate, different way? I'm thinking like how some English speakers
pronounce the "t" in _often_ both because of its spelling and relationship to
_oft_.

Since I couldn't find citations or sources, I guess my question is basically:
Did 母 undergo ハ行転呼 and then change (back) to /haha/? Or was it an exception to
the rule from the get-go?

(And now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if there are dialects that
pronounce it /hawa/, or if there were until relatively recently.)




> Did 母 undergo ハ行転呼 and then change (back) to /haha/?

Yes, it did become hawa (or rather ɸawa) before changing back. You may find
citations [here](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%AF%8D#Etymology_6).




> Did 母 undergo ハ行転呼 and then change (back) to /haha/?

Yes, it did become hawa (or rather ɸawa) before changing back. You may find
citations [here](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%AF%8D#Etymology_6).

