Talk:Hepburn romanization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

Archives:

• Talk:Hepburn romanization/10-Feb-2007 archived by Rhialto

Contents 1 "Wi" and "we" 2 Circular definition 3 Extended katakana 4 Tsi kana? 5 Students of Japanese as a foreign language usually learn Hepburn 6 RedDragon's edits 7 Did Hepburn invent it? 8 Where did you define revised Hepburn? 9 Is this a transliteration system?

[edit] "Wi" and "we"

Shouldn't the hepburn romanizations for ゐ and ゑ reflect the pronunciation of those characters during the 11-20 centuries period, which were i and e/ye? Just wondering that oh maybe a millennium is relevant and that hepburn is supposed to represent pronunciation.

Wikipedia doesn't propose improvements, it documents. And this isn't exactly a major problem. Jpatokal 08:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not always have flawless documentation. And that's why we need fact checking when something doesn't sound right.

Could you help me find some sources that shows why the two characters should (or "Wikipedia should") be documented as wi + we instead of something else for this article? If this doesn't interest you, it really isn't a major problem for you or me if you don't reply.

Here's a link to BS4812 (a British standard for Hepburn), which uses "wi" and "we". It's cross-referenced to ANSI, with incompatible parts visible but struck out, and references the Library of Congress standard. Jpatokal 07:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also find it unusual, the kana were generally used as alternatves to the i and e kana, and that is the proper pronounciation. It also creates conflict with the ウィ and ウェ, as they are also romanised similarly and relfect the actual pronounciation of a "W" sound. --FlareNUKE 03:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circular definition

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)

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)

See our article on Japanese phonology. Gdr 21:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extended katakana

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)

• I suppose. --FlareNUKE 05:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsi kana?

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)

I think you're confusing ツ and シ。201.239.182.69 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Students of Japanese as a foreign language usually learn Hepburn

User:Hirasaram slapped a ^{[citation needed]} tag on the statement "Students of Japanese as a foreign language usually learn Hepburn". I'm not sure how we're supposed to get a "citation" for this, but every Japanese-for-English-speaking-foreigners textbook I've seen and owned uses Hepburn. Jpatokal 09:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. It's an unverifiable fact and should therefore not be in an encyclopedic article. --Himasaram 14:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It's a completely verifiable fact to the point of being obvious — which is why you can't find a reference to an scholarly review in the Journal of Romanization Studies confirming this.

As it stands, the article doesn't have a single reference, and I dare say there are plenty of much more disputable facts in there... Jpatokal 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RedDragon's edits

RedDragon, I appreciate your effort, but please realize that the topic of this article is Hepburn romanization, only, and the main audience of this article is English-speakers, not native Japanese. Essay-type commentary like [1] is not relevant or appropriate here. Jpatokal 09:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to notice that 'hyōjun-shiki' is not used in Japan. Even Hepburn system supporters do not use 'hyōjun-shiki'. --RedDragon 10:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jpatoka, it certainly is relevant if the term is not actually used. We should not say that something is sometimes used if it is not.

RedDragon, the reason we are not convinced it isn't used is that it does seem to be used by some people, since according to Google there are many thousands of pages on the internet that use it, and the term is defined in dictionaries like 大辞林.

Is it perhaps the case that it used to be called "hyōjun-shiki", but that term is no longer used in Japan? If so, then perhaps we ought to change "is sometimes called" to "was formerly called", or even to remove the term from the introduction and move it to a section on the history of the system. We just need the facts, so if you can help us to find them, please do so! — Haeleth Talk 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote, hyōjun-shiki is historical term. Google has 30 hits for "標準式ローマ字". And they are almost historical discriptions. I myself did not know hyōjun-shiki before. [[2]] For "ヘボン式 ローマ字" 41,600 hits. [[3]] So we have no entry or redirect for "標準式ローマ字" in Japanese Wiki. I recommend you to refer abandaned or historical name for "hyōjun-shiki rōmaji". When you use Google.co.jp, it is recommended to set word in " ". I you specify 標準式ローマ字 without " "s, Google separates word into "標準", "式", and "ローマ字". So almost all are garbage. --RedDragon 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Hepburn invent it?

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)

TAKEBE Yoshiaki 武部良明Nihongo no Hyōki『日本語の表記』1979 said

>After 2nd edition of Hepburn's Dictionary was published, Rōmajikai (羅馬字会) defined modified Hepburn style in 1885. In 3rd edition of Hepburn's Dictionary he adopted this style.

So Rōmajikai modified Hepburn style.--RedDragon 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thanks to RedDragon for that addition to my amendment.JimBreen 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where did you define revised Hepburn?

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs defines Hepburn style [4]. In this style "n" is replaced by "m" before "m", "p", and "b". And station names of JR are like Shimbashi not Shinbashi according to Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport requires. We think "Shinbashi" is in Kunrei-shiki. Only road signs use "Shinbashi". --RedDragon 08:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Gaimusho's style is "passport Hepburn". MILT can say whatever it likes, but JR's "Shinbashi" is revised Hepburn. (Kunrei would be "Sinbasi".)

Anyway, like the article says, the Library of Congress is the standard for revised Hepburn. See eg. [5]. Jpatokal 07:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

JR uses Shimbashi for station name. All JR use this type of Hepburn. At least, "Revise Hepburn" is not most used in Japan.--RedDragon 08:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected (and surprised). Tokyo Metro also seems to use "Shimbashi". Jpatokal 05:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Library of Congress have books below also.

1. Nampo Doho Engokai
2. Gumma Bundanren sōsho
3. Semba

They should be written as,

1. Nanpo Doho Engokai
2. Gunma Bundanren sōsho
3. Senba

--RedDragon 13:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a transliteration system?

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)