Twice by now online I’ve seen the palatalised consonants of Japanese described as consisting of a consonant followed by [j]. Similarly, they described the archaïc labialised consonants as consisting of a consonant followed by [w].
That is wrong, isn’t it? I am perfectly aware that the aforementioned consonants can be described PHONEMICALLY as /Cj/ & /Cw/, but saying that they’re consonants followed by [j] & [w] is incorrect, as phonetically they’re [Cʲ] & [Cᵝ], not [Cj] & [Cw].
I wished I could link the articles, but it’s a while ago and I couldn’t find them within five or so minutes so I gave up. I think one of them was on the English Wikipedia somewhere. Also they were worded very similarly I believe, so I imagine one may be the source for the other, or they share a common source.
Edit: I found a Wikipedia article specifically stating that post-consonantal /j/ & /w/ is [j] & [w].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C5%8Don
On the [w], I reckon they might maybe be correct? At least the moræ kwa & gwa are narrowly described as actually being [kwa] & [gwa], opposed to [kʷa] & [gʷa]. However, they pretty quickly seem to contradict themselves, saying “labialised”, implying /w/ is labialisation, and not an independent labial phone of some kind.
by CharmingSkirt95