The kana alphabets were (probably) borrowed from Pali, and syllables follow the structure (consonant + vowel) or (vowel). In other words, a consonant must not, grammatically, occur alone. I don’t know if Japanese still retains this as an explicit rule, but this is why you see the -u ending. It may or may not be pronounced, depending on which way flows better.
Many other languages with Pali / Sanskrit heritage have similar behaviour. However, Sanskrit itself and some modern languages have a dedicated character called a ‘viraama’, which says ‘this consonant has no following vowel’. For example, in the word ‘Padma’ (lotus), the d is followed by a virama. Other languages, like Japanese, use ‘u’ instead of a dedicated viraama. So different languages in east, southeast and south Asia might write and say it as Padma, Paduma or Padama, but all versions would be mutually intelligible.
The kana alphabets were (probably) borrowed from Pali, and syllables follow the structure (consonant + vowel) or (vowel). In other words, a consonant must not, grammatically, occur alone. I don’t know if Japanese still retains this as an explicit rule, but this is why you see the -u ending. It may or may not be pronounced, depending on which way flows better.
Many other languages with Pali / Sanskrit heritage have similar behaviour. However, Sanskrit itself and some modern languages have a dedicated character called a ‘viraama’, which says ‘this consonant has no following vowel’. For example, in the word ‘Padma’ (lotus), the d is followed by a virama. Other languages, like Japanese, use ‘u’ instead of a dedicated viraama. So different languages in east, southeast and south Asia might write and say it as Padma, Paduma or Padama, but all versions would be mutually intelligible.