Okinoerabu dialects are classified into two groups:
Eastern Okinoerabu
Western Okinoerabu
The linguistic boundary between Eastern and Western Okinoerabu roughly corresponds to the administrative boundary between Wadomari (east) and China (west). In addition, the eastern community of Kunigami (part of Eastern Okinoerabu and not to be confused with Northern Okinawa) is known for sporadically retaining a centralized vowel, which is a characteristic of Northern Amami. For example, [nɨː] ("root", Standard Japanese /ne/) is contrasted with [niː] ("loads", Standard Japanese /ni/). The northwestern community of Tamina (part of Western Okinoerabu) has a distinctive accentual system.
Uwano (1998:131-133)[2] gives the following list of Okinoerabu dialects:
Kunigami
Kunigami
Nishibaru
Wadomari
Degi
Kibiru
Uetedechina
Wadomari
Azefu
Wa
Ōjiro
Tamajiro
Ōjiro
Furusato
Neori
Sena
Uchijiro
Uchijiro
Goran
Nagamine
Taniyama
Shimohirakawa
Amata
Yaja
Saozu
Gushiken
Kamihirakawa
Shimohirakawa
Ashikiyora
Kamishiro
Shinjō
Kamishiro (also part of China)
China
Kuronuki
Serikaku
China
Yakomo
Shimajiri
Ōtsukan
Tokudoki
Sumiyoshi
Masana
Tamina
Takahashi Takayo (b. 1967), a cultural anthropologist from the island, stated that the language of each community or the island as a whole was called shimamuni. Each language variety within the island had distinctive characteristics. The language of the community of Kunigami on the island, for example, was referred to as Kunigami-bushi. It retained mutually intelligibility with the languages of the island's other communities. It is said that Okinoerabu was mutually unintelligible with neighboring Yoron and Tokunoshima.[3]
Eastern Okinoerabu
The following is the phonology of the Wadomari dialect (part of Eastern Okinoerabu), which is based on Hirayama et al. (1986).[4]
As with most Ryukyuan languages to the north of Central Okinawan, stops are described as "plain" C’ and "glottalized" C‘. Phonetically, the two series are lightly aspirated [Cʰ] and tenuis[C˭], respectively.[5]
The zero onset /'/ may be added. It contrasts with glottal /h/ and /ʔ/. A minimal pair is /ʔiː/[ʔiː] ("stomach"), /hiː/[çiː] ("day") and /'iː/[iː] ("soft rush").
"Tense" /k˭/, /t˭/ and /t͡ʃ˭/ are in process of merging into "plain" /kʰ/, /tʰ/ and /t͡ʃʰ/, respectively.
/h/ is [ç] before /i/ and /j/, and [ɸ] before /u/ and /w/.
/pʰ/ is new and infrequent.
/si/ and /t͡ʃʰu/ are realized as [ʃi] and [t͡sʰu], respectively.
/dz/ is [d͡ʒ] before /i/ and /j/, and [d͡z] elsewhere.
[ʃa], [ʃu] and [ʃo] are phonemically analyzed as /sja/, /sju/ and /sjo/, respectively.
[t͡ʃʰa], [t͡ʃʰu] and [t͡ʃʰo] are phonemically analyzed as /t͡ʃʰja/, /t͡ʃʰju/ and /t͡ʃʰjo/, respectively.
[t͡ʃa], [t͡ʃu] and [t͡ʃo] are phonemically analyzed as /t͡ʃ˭ja/, /t͡ʃ˭ju/ and /t͡ʃ˭jo/, respectively.
Vowels
Eastern Okinoerabu has /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/ and /u/, long and short.
Eastern Okinoerabu /e/ and /o/ are of secondary origin and mostly correspond to Standard Japanese diphthongs.
Standard Japanese /t͡ʃu/, /su/ and /zu/ correspond to /t͡ʃʰi/[t͡ʃʰi], /si/[ʃi] and /dzi/[dʒi].
Standard Japanese /k/ corresponds to /h/ by default. Japanese /ki/ and /ku/ are usually /kʰ/ in Eastern Okinoerabu, but some words have /t͡ʃʰi/ for Standard Japanese /ki/. Reflexes in /k˭/ is occasionally found as well.
Historical /r/ is dropped when it appears between any vowel and /i/.
/kʰ/ and /g/ palatalized before /i/. Standard Japanese /ki/ and /gi/ correspond to Eastern Okinoerabu /t͡ʃʰi/ and /dzi/.
Standard Japanese /ke/ corresponds to /hi/ in the word-initial position and to /kʰi/ elsewhere.
The fusion of consecutive morae resulted in the glottalized and 'tense' consonants in Eastern Okinoerabu.
Western Okinoerabu
The following is the phonology of the China dialect (part of Western Okinoerabu), which is based on Hirayama et al. (1986).[4]
Uwano, Zendō (1998). "Okinoerabu Sho-hōgen no Taigen no Akusento Shiryō [Examples of Nouns in the Okierabu-Island Dialects with Particular Reference to Prosodemes]". Ajia Afurika Bunpō Kenkyū. 27: 131–262.
Samuel E. Martin (1970) "Shodon: A Dialect of the Northern Ryukyus", in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 90, no. 1 (Jan–Mar), pp. 97–139.