From: jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen)
Subject: Hepburn & kunrei romanization
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:54:02 GMT


Rafael Santos asked for some information about the types of 
romanization. I am posting an article by James Unger which he
posted about two years ago on this group. Without agreeing
with all the points James make (I rarely do), I think his
article is a good summary of the histories and differences
of the systems.

====================================================================

The following is an article I published in the Japan Association of
Translators Bulletin 11 (February 1986).  I hope it helps clarify the
status of kunrei-siki roomazi.

                          SOME NOTES ON ROOMAZI

     The system of romanization set forth in 1885 by the Roomazi Kai and named 
after James Curtis Hepburn, who later adopted it in the third edition of his 
Japanese-English dictionary, has, contrary to popular belief, no official 
standing in Japanese law.  MacArthur decreed its use on road signs and such on 
3 September 1945, almost certainly because he mistakenly believed that the 
Kunrei system (so called because it was promulgated by Cabinet Order [kunrei] 
No. 3 of 21 September 1937) was tainted by militarism.  Although Cabinet 
Instruction No. 1 of 9 December 1954 made Kunrei romanization the official 
system a second time, the National Railways and Gaimusyoo persist in using 
Hepburn (they are protected from litigation because an "instruction" is not a 
"law"), and have cowed some quasi-official private enterprises, such as the 
JTB, into following suit.  Nonetheless, the only officially sanctioned 
romanization is the Kunrei system.  Even translators who wish to stick with 
Hepburn should therefore be familiar with its use and rationale.  

     Kunrei romanization is a slightly modified version of the Nippon-siki 
romanization proposed in 1885 (the same year as Hepburn) by Tanakadate Aikitu.  
The chart near the front of the unabridged Kenkyuusya Wa-ei Ziten shows the 
differences among all three systems.  The Navy and Army adopted Nippon-siki 
romanization in 1927 and 1928 respectively, and it was probably this which set 
MacArthur against the Kunrei system nearly two decades later.

     Kunrei romanization is more appropriate for the representation of 
Japanese in Latin letters than Hepburn because it more accurately reflects the 
morphophonemic structure of Yamato-kotoba and kango, which comprise the two 
most important strata of the Japanese lexicon.  For example, in Kunrei, verbs 
forms such mati, matu, matoo and osi, osu, osoo follow the same pattern as 
yomi, yomu, yomoo and so on; rendaku compounds such as makizyaku < maki+syaku 
and roppun < roku+hun are parallel with midarezaku < midare+saku and roppon < 
roku+hon; etc.  When one takes gairaigo into consideration, Hepburn 
romanization appears to have the redeeming advantage of providing an easy way 
to handle certain innovative moras (onsetu).  Kunrei sye, tye, zye for Hepburn 
she, che, je are easy enough, but Hepburn si, ti, tu, etc. require special 
treatment in Kunrei (e.g. s'i, t'i, t'u, etc.).  However, when one considers 
relative mora frequencies, the Kunrei system still wins out.  In a computer 
application, for example, a byte is saved for every Kunrei si, ti, and tu over 
Hepburn, which more than compensates for the bytes lost in zya, zyu, zyo, and 
the occasional innovative mora.  

     Some people believe that it is easier for readers to approximate the 
sound of Japanese words written in Hepburn than in Kunrei romanization.  This 
is false.  Readers who have never heard Japanese are as likely to mispronounce 
a word transcribed in Hepburn as in Kunrei.  Hepburn and Kunrei forms are 
identical except for a handful of moras, and Kunrei forms such as zi, ti, tu, 
and hu, though unusual by English standards, are well-justified phonemic 
representations in terms of Czech, Danish, Dutch, Hungarian, Norwegian, 
Polish, Serbo-Croation, or Swedish orthography.  Conversely, forms such as 
cha, jo, hi, and zu (the last two occur in both systems) are baffling or 
misleading to people who know, for example, only French, German, Italian, or 
Spanish.  Thus, the spelling rules of other languages are, at best, a guide; 
the only rational basis for assigning Japanese allophones to Latin letters is 
the structure of the Japanese sound system itself.  No apologies need to be 
made to the English-speaking world, except perhaps for the harm which Hepburn 
romanization does Japanese students of English by giving them the false 
impression that the Japanese sounds written f-, sh-, ch- etc. are phonetically 
identical to the corresponding English sounds.

     Many Japanese scientists use Kunrei romanization (Tamaru Takuroo's 
Nippon-siki physics text was widely used for many years), but translators, 
particularly in the humanities, seem to prefer Hepburn.  Certainly, there is 
something to be said for precedent; however, as the switchover from Wade-Giles 
to pinyin for Mandarin shows, precedent is not everything.  According to 
Ootuka Haruo, former head of Japan's delegation to the International Standards 
Organization (personal communication), the ISO is putting the finishing 
touches on the preamble to its public announcement of a Kunrei romanization 
standard.  (This article is largely based on the submission of the Japanese 
delegation, prepared by Saeki Koosuke and Yamada Hisao, to ISO/TC46 SC2 at its 
Paris meeting of November 1977.)  Technical translators especially should take 
note of this development.

           -- J. Marshall Unger
              Dept. of E. Asian Lang. & Lit. (Chair)
              U. of Hawaii


-- 
Jim Breen                           JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. 
PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 
(fax) +61 3 573 2345  AARNet/Internet:jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au  
Newsgroups: sci.lang.japan