64596
In Japanese, there are some sound differences that clearly distinguish words
from one another, such as falling on a different 行 or 段 on the 五十音 ([傘]{かさ}
vs. [風]{かぜ} or [友]{とも} vs その); while other sound differences make no
difference as all (English 'l' vs. English 'r', vanishing `<u>` sounds, ヱビス
vs. エビス).

Where on this spectrum does voicedness (e.g. さ vs. ざ) fall?

(I am aware that words are spelled one way or the other, but then you get
situations like [出島]{でじま} vs. [広島]{ひろしま} where the 島 is _clearly_ the same
word, or the somewhat more extreme [仲田]{なかた} vs [仲田]{なかだ}.)
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-27T17:57:58.207
64595
2018-12-27T21:18:12.463
2018-12-27T18:36:43.230
519
519
question
nuances pronunciation
Do words differing only in the voicedness of consonants act as functionally homophonous?
No, Japanese is full of voiced-unvoiced minimal pairs. There are minimal pairs
even when the constituent morphemes are the same:

  * 山川（やまかわ） mountains and rivers (dvandva compound)
  * 山川（やまがわ） mountain rivers (modifier-head compound)

Dvandva compounds typically don't trigger rendaku, so the former is unvoiced.
You can find plenty of other minimal pairs showing contrasts in voicedness,
for example:

  * 蚊（か） mosquito
  * 蛾（が） moth

And so on. The important point is that native speakers hear these as clearly
contrasting words, so it's a fundamental distinction in Japanese phonology.
They are not homophonous in any sense.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-27T18:23:51.637
64596
2018-12-27T19:20:13.027
2018-12-27T19:20:13.027
64595
answer
This is coming from a purely linguistic point of view, but since there are
minimal pairs between voiced and unvoiced sounds in Japanese, where words
_only_ differ by one consonant being voiced and one being unvoiced, MEANS that
they are different phonemes. That is the linguistic definition of two sounds
being different phonemes.

The fact that some _kanji_ can be read with both a voiced and unvoiced variant
due to rendaku does not change this, especially since the reading with rendaku
and the reading without have different meanings, hence they are minimal pairs.

The fact that some words are homophones also has nothing to do with this.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-27T21:18:12.463
64600
2018-12-27T21:18:12.463
29860
64595
answer