Talk:Hepburn romanization/Archive 2

message: Maybe this isn't the best page, but not sure where else should I point this. In Hiragana and Katakana articles, pronunciation of kana is given using Hepburn. But in this article, Hepburn is defined using kana, so someone who doesn't know Japanese is at a complete loss as to how they are actually pronounced, except that it is "as an English speaker would pronounce it", which isn't very informative. Probably the best way to solve this is by giving IPA equivalents as well, preferably in Hiragana and Katakana articles, or here as well. Nikola 05:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. My college Japanese textbook devotes considerable space to pronunciation of the kana, and its author Eleanor Jorden chose not to use Hepburn at all. I've written a Javascript which converts Hiragana into Romaji, so I'm "involved" to some extent. --Uncle Ed 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think those romanization methods born around Resotration were intended to replace Japanese 漢字 and 仮名. They were primarily for native Japanese people. Any romanized syllable could be recognized by its Kana counterpart. But today this should be reversed. A Kana should be explained by its romanized counterpart. Here is my trial. an Extended Hepburn System.--Kmns tsw (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular definition 

message: Does anybody object to the addition of スィ and シィ to the extended katakana chart? Both are unofficially used for the English sound "si", often by the media.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended katakana

message: The romanisation for the ツィ　for Hepburn would be tshi instead of tsi. Considering シ is romanised similarly. Also, tshi = chi. So therefore the romanisation could also be chi, and a better way to represent that is チ. So the ツィ kana should be removed. --FlareNUKE 02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We use ツィ only for foreign word such as ツィオルコフスキー (Tsiolkovskiy).  From the principle of the romanisation of Hepburn -- to express Japanese word for ease for English speaking people -- It may be written in original spelling.--RedDragon 05:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KANA is a syllabic letter and must end with one of the five vowels of A, E, I, O or U. And when the vowel is not realized, the Kana of U vowel is to be used. So when ツ is represented as `tsu', it is quite natural to use the sequence of `tsi' to represent ツィ.--Kmns tsw (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsi kana? 

message: This article says that Hepburn romanization was "devized" by Hepburn for his dictionary. He doesn't claim that in the dictionary front-matter, and I read somewhere, I think it was in Christopher Seeley's book: "A History of Writing in Japan", that the system was devized by a Romaji Kai some time before Hepburn's dictionary was published and Hepburn used it (wisely.)
Any independent confirmation that JCH actually devised it? JimBreen 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to 武部良明's book, but I have found several references to a slightly different sequence. In his first edition dictionary (1867) Hepburn used the form of romanization then commonly used by Westerners in Japan. え was "ye", つ was "tdz" and words like 東京 came out as "Tokio". The Rōmajikai published its recommended romanization in 1885. and Hepburn adopted it for the third (1887) edition of the dictionary. So it's true to say that the Rōmajikai "defined modified Hepburn style", but it most likely wasn't of Hepburn's devizing. JimBreen 23:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Hepburn invent it? 

message: What is supposed to be transliterated is Kana script and long vowels are out of the question. Besides a true transliteration system should be able to differentiate ジ and ヂ or ズ and ヅ. Please read Talk:Romanization of Japanese#An Extended-Hepburn System Kmns tsw 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a transliteration system? 

message: The article states-
"When wo を is used as a particle it is written o."
I'm not saying this isn't referenced, I've seen something similar in many textbooks and dictionaries, but I don't know why it is always repeated. In my experience and knowledge of Japanese-
# を is almost never used as anything but a particle
# を is never pronounced "wo", even in isolation
I may not have the right level of academic Japanese to have seen or heard these, but then there should be a note saying that "wo" is an archaic or formal pronunciation (as it does for ゐ wi and ゑ we).
The table of kana also lists it as "wo", which I think is misleading. If this is how Hepburn presents it, why does it do so? --DrHacky 14:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To distinguish between を and お. Until the kana revisions of 1946 (that is, a good deal after Hepburn was invented), many words that are now spelled with お were written with を (eg. をとこ for otoko).  But because the を kana is still used for the particle, it's not obsolete, and thus different from ゐゑ. Jpatokal 17:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem of "wo" is one of the stumbling blocks of the traditional Hepburn system. I used the modifier "traditional" to mean "born as literational but applied as transliteratinal." If literational, there should be no need for differentiation between "wo" and "o". If transliterational, there should be roman counterparts to ヰ and ヱ as well as to ヲ. Please read an Extended Hepburn System. You can read about EHS or 擴張ヘボン式 in :ja:ノート:ローマ字論#擴張ヘボン式その後--Kmns tsw (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "wo" 

message: which variant is used by Wikipedia in its article titles (e.g. names of Japanese people or fictional characters) and shouldn't this information be in the article? 91.105.26.24 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses Hepburn, unless words and names are more familiar in other forms (Judo, Sumo, Tokyo etc.) but I'm not sure whether it's really relevant. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More specifically, Wikipedia uses Revised Hepburn, but this should not be mentioned in the article. Bradford44 14:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As for names, I could also mention Rampo Edogawa (Hepburn: Ranpo Edogawa), Yojimbo (Hepburn: Yōjinbō) and Leiji Matsumoto (Hepburn: Reiji Matsumoto). The differences are small, but they exist. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Wikipedia does allow exceptions for terms widely/commonly used in English (Tokyo, sumo), and for the most common, familiar, or well-known spellings of the titles of films and other forms of media (Usagi Yojimbo, Yojimbo, Rampo Edogawa). It also makes exceptions for individuals, companies, etc which themselves have formally chosen to represent their romanized name a particular way, such as in the case of Leiji Matsumoto. I can appreciate how this seems like a lot - why bother having rules if so many exceptions are allowed? - but in my humble opinion, it's the best, and most rational, system. LordAmeth 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoot me if this is bleeding obvious, but.... 

message: The article presently states that "The system was originally proposed by the Society for the Romanization of the Japanese Alphabet [1] (羅馬字会 Rōmajikai) in 1885", but Hepburn's first edition  dates back to 1867 and is already clearly identifiable as Hepburn.  The third edition does, however, note that he has realigned his method to match the Romajikai's ("Though somewhat against his own judgment, but with an earnest desire to further the cause of the Romajikwai, he has altered to some extent the method of transliteration which he had adopted in the previous edition of this work, so as to conform to that which has been adopted by this society. These alterations are few and are fully explained in the Introduction."), so I'll fiddle with the intro to note this more clearly. Jpatokal 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the first edition of the dictionary was published in 1867, Hepburn  later altered his system conform to that proposed by the Society for the Romanization of the Japanese Alphabet (羅馬字会 Rōmajikai) in 1885, and it is the third and final version of his dictionary, published in 1886, which is considered authoritative.
Comments? Jpatokal 10:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally proposed by...?