Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

Defaultsort for names (and pseudonyms) of historical figures

For Matsuo Bashō I edited to {{DEFAULTSORT:Basho, Matsuo}} so that the poet's name should appear in categories under B for Basho, his pseudonym, rather than his family name, but my edit has replaced with {{DEFAULTSORT:Matsuo, Basho}}. Bashō (or Basho) is the name primarily used in academic journals and texts, and indeed the name by which the poet is generally known in literature at all levels, alongside the less-used alternative of familyname+pseudonym as in the article title. The same of course applies to Kobayashi Issa, Yosa Buson etc. etc.

I can't find anything in MOS:JP to address this issue directly, but it seems counter-intuitive to make Basho appear under M in any category. Opinions, clarification welcome. Thanks --Yumegusa (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yumegusa, and thanks for bringing this up. I made the edit to list the poet under Matsuo in categories, since we normally list under surname. However, there's no reason we have to do that, and I think we do different things for sumo wrestlers, kabuki actors and perhaps some others. This may be one of the cases we want to decide separately from the general principle of surname, given name. What do other editors think? Fg2 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a great many historical figures - Edo period artists in particular come to mind - who are far more well-known by their given name or art-name than their surname... I would want to see Hokusai and Harunobu under "H", not under K for Katsushika and S for Suzuki respectively. But then there comes the issue of lineages (schools of art) in which artists are more well-known by their given names, but where listing them by their surname, and thus, together, might be better. For example, even though Kuniyoshi, Kunisada, and Toyokuni are best known by those names, they are all of the Utagawa school, and it might be good to have them all listed together with one another, under "U". So, it's a bit vague.. I'm not quite sure what to do with these artists.

When it comes to Kabuki actors, however, I think that in just about every case the surname should be the sorting method. Lineages are very important in Kabuki - Ichikawa, Nakamura, Onoe, Bando, etc - and I don't think any kabuki actor is really known better by their given name; most anyone who knows who Danjuro and Tamasaburo are knows their family names. LordAmeth (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there could be a case made for listing by pseudonym in some cases. It would need to be limited to a name appearing in the title of the article, though, so people wouldn't be too confused. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How much are Chōonpu's used in Hiragana?

"All other long vowels are written without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee. Apostrophes and hyphens are not needed to distinguish i)(i from ii." doesn't make sense to me, as usually Chōonpu's aren't used in Hiragana, so why is this statement here? Usually "Ō" is written as "おう", but not usually "おー". わwaらraうu Smile! 03:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Sorry, meant Chōonpu, not Sokuon! わwaらraうu Smile! 03:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

I'm sorry, but your question doesn't make any sense. Please rephrase it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with chōonpu; rather, it has to do with the way that words are constructed. おう and　うう are extremely common sounds in the on-yomi of kanji - しょう、しゅう、ちゅう、こう、ちょう may be among the most common of all on readings; ああ、ええ、いい are not. So, while there is a need to distinguish, for example, Shimo|usa (下総；しも・うさ) from Shimō|sa (しもう・さ), there is no such need with something like 黄色い；　き・いろ・い or 紀伊国屋；　き・い・（の）・くに・や, where it is understood that there is no character that is ever read as kii| and so it must be ki|i; since it's understood, we leave it out.

This has nothing to do with macrons, either, which is why Nihonjoe rightfully says your question makes no sense. But it does attempt to address the reasons we use apostrophes or dashes where we do, and why we don't put macrons on aa, ii, or ee. I hope it helps answer your question. LordAmeth (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, if it was written completely in Hiragana, how would you know how to romanize something like "いい". Would it be "i-i" or "ī"? わwaらraうu Smile! 07:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is correct?

I had moved Kumi Koda's BUT/Aishō to But/Aishō, and as the reason for the move I listed WP:CAPS as the reason. But someone reverted it tell me to look at WP:ALBUMCAPS. Now after read the MoS, I was just wondering which one is the correct policy for deal with titles with capitalization, MOS:JAPAN or WP:ALBUMCAPS? (Moon) and (Sunrise) 00:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was having a similar dispute over at Kara no Kyōkai on some of the song titles, but eventually got tired of the other editor and left the article. There really needs to be clarification on this.--十八 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone should act as an ambassador to WP:ALBUMS and try to come up with a solution. I personally could care less which way we use plus I'm busy, so I'm out. But I'm sure one of us cares enough about resolving this issue to actually deal with it. --Eruhildo (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Albumcaps says "the capitalization utilized by that language" -- does that mean the style guide for the language? Fg2 (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this is annoying. They both contradict each other. I've seen it mostly un-capitalized, and I believe Mos-JP has more power over Album-caps. It was probably some fan who wanted it to remain the way it was. Album-caps should be re-written to state that it should follow the capitalization standards of MoS-X, X being the country name, or something like that. わwaらraうu Smile! 07:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS-JA trumps the recommendations of WikiProject Albums. The "But/Aishō" formatting is correct. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Glossary sections

The topic of adding glossary sections to articles using foreign terms has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Glossary needed with articles with non-English word usage?. Although the particular article being discussed is not Japan-related, the topic of glossaries for foreign terms is. Fg2 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest and greatest: template for example text

A new template, {{Xt}}, has been developed for formatting example text. Its documentation suggests, "Use this template to format style examples (for example, on the Manual of Style and its subpages), especially when using quotation marks or italics could be confusing." Fg2 (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

℃-ute vs. Cute?

Shouldn't the title of the band "℃-ute" be "Cute"? moocowsrule 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Or at least "C-ute"? Rules for using symbols probably apply for every possible article on Wikipedia. So ask on Wikipedia:Manual of Style talk page. --staka (T) 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a Japanese band, so I thought I'd bring it up on the Japan related Manual of Style, rather than the other one. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryokū vs. Ryokuu

Basically romanization of KANJIs should be done one by one.

Saitō Ryokū (斎藤緑雨)　should be moved to Saitō Ryokuu. ”緑雨” is not "Ryokū" but "RYoku u": "uu" in his name is not a long vowell "ū" but two short vowells "u+u".　See Talk:Saitō Ryokū.--miya (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to that principle—vowels that span multiple kanji are not indicated by macrons— but I can't see it in the MoS. Was it formerly there? Fg2 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was agreed on, but no one ever added anything. Also I note that it's more general than just spanning kanji: 湖 mizuumi should probably not have a macron either, unless I'm mispronouncing it. (I mentioned the term "morpheme boundary" last time, but that would admit okāsan and onēsan; judging strictly on aesthetic grounds, I have no problems with the former, but the latter still seems weird — and I doubt anyone would be happy with onīsan.)  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

湖 should be "Mizūmi". The "okaasan" "oniisan" "oneesan" is covered in the Manual of Style. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It would surprise me if 湖 were mizūmi. I would have guessed that the word came from mizu + umi, and that it was in Japanese before the arrival of the kanji. So I'd treat it as two words, despite being represented by a single character. Would that be incorrect? Fg2 (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fg2 is right. it's mizuumi. It is definitely a combination of mizu and umi. Maybe the original meaning is where there is a lot of fresh water like sea. Oda Mari (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not a long vowel. Saitō Ryokuu is correct. This is リョクウ rather than *リョクー. While the kanji may be a hint and it is sufficient in this case, there are exceptional cases. Romanization is based on the actual pronunciation. Some dictionaries such as 日本国語大辞典 and 新明解日本語アクセント辞典 list the pronunciation in addition to the spelling. Both of which contain entries for this case as well for verification if needed. Bendono (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "uu" is correct. I hadn't noticed that before. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, "uu". ¶ My agreement aside, is it this subtlety that Quasirandom misinterprets here (the consensus about macrons in romanji [sic] article names seems to be in flux) or is he referring to something else? (In the same discussion, also note Move to Yuko Ito if kept; we don't need untypeable diacriticals in the English Wikipedia by one Smerdis of Tlön [sic].) -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Body text rule apply for titles

All rules in the body text section applies for titles as well, correct? By titles I mean, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)" and such.. I don't think it states here. --staka (T) 22:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, yes. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Differencing "おお" from "おう"

The manual never really describes the difference between "おお" from "おう" (oo and ou). How are they to be romanized? Are they both to be romanized as "ō"? moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 00:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They are both romanized as "ō" unless the two parts are different kanji, which is rare. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Designated city naming

Back in 2006, there was a long discussion which resulted in most designated cities shedding their ", Prefecture" tails. Recently, the newest designated city was moved back to Hamamatsu, Shizuoka from its shortened name, which led me to search the MOS for our rules; but, either they were never added, or, they were deleted sometime in the last 2.5 years. So, should the "place names" section be updated to match the old consensus (and, Hamamatsu moved back?) or, is there a new consensus?? Neier (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Hamamatsu in the list of exceptions to the standard rule. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be added, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamamatsu became "designated" in 2007, after our discussion. Okayama, Okayama will gain that status this year; but, since the city and prefecture are the same name, there is no need to do the move. Neier (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese counters

How do you romanize Japanese words with counters (i.e. 三人, 10年)? Do you use a dash between the word and the counter, or just romanize it as one word? Or does the romanization depend on the counter you are using (if it's a common counter or not)? I really think MOS:JP should address this to solve any problems of articles with counters on their name (i.e. Morning Musume Tanjō 10 Nen Kinentai). Eugh jei ♥ Kaorin 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, they are one word. Or I take them as one word in a native speaker's sense. [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Oda Mari (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fruit

Any opinions on what the title of Shekwasha should be, perhaps after a glance at ja:シークヮーサー#表記? It seems to me that we're not at the ideal title now, but I don't really have a grasp on how we treat that type of thing. I remember a similar question about goya a long time ago, but all of that appears to have been excised from the Bitter melon article. Dekimasuよ! 12:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a topic that I am too familiar with, so I do not have any strong opinions either way. However, in academic papers and technical translations I have often used scientific names as they are most precise and also neutral. Also, WP:NC(flora) makes the same recommendation. Even if Shkwasha or some variation of that is somehow the common name, the recommendation is to redirect it to the scientific name. Thus I'd suggest Citrus depressa Hayata. I suggest taking it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants for a better response. Bendono (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The naming convention is good enough for me, so I've gone ahead and moved the page to Citrus depressa. I'll create a redirect from the longer title you mentioned. Dekimasuよ! 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Casing in romanization

What part of WP:MOS-JA supports this edit: [5]? It is a romanization, nothing more, and capitalizing certain words as if they are proper nouns makes little sense. Bendono (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Asuka is a proper noun, though, and should be capitalized. When it comes to other things, like capitalizing Kabuki or Karate by way of emphasizing it or denoting it as a foreign word, I am for the most part opposed to it, and have in fact spent some time lately decapitalizing instances of "Karate" all over Wikipedia. But I don't think special rules need apply within the romanization brackets that don't apply elsewhere; proper nouns should be capitalized, and Asuka is a proper noun. LordAmeth (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Asuka is a proper noun. And it is appropriately capitalized in the English text. However, that is not what I am referring to. I am asking about the romanization given in the {{Nihongo}} template. It makes little sense to apply any special grammatical or style guidelines such as casing there. If you do, then while 飛鳥 is a proper noun, then what about 飛鳥時代? Similar logic could be applied to capitalizing jidai as well. There are a number of other cases (no pun intended) as well. Rather than waste time on such issues, I would opt to always make it lower case and simply be done with it. Bendono (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"to always make it lower case and simply be done with it" may be a little too unsubtle. While I agree that when romanisation is used as a purely technical device it is inappropriate to apply style/grammar guidelines, consider the situation where the romanised text is the primary focus e.g. Bashō's bibliography. There may be other comparable scenarios that need separate consideration.--Yumegusa (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

None of those are in the Nihongo template and do not act merely as a romanization but as real titles. So really outside the scope of this topic. Bendono (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't feel that any special rules need to apply to things specifically within that template vs outside of it. Even in that particular spot, it serves not solely as a pronunciation guide, not solely as romanization, serving a purely linguistic purpose, but also serves to provide an alternate title or name for the subject of the article, and thus should reflect a standard of capitalization. Whether we write Asukajidai, Asuka jidai, Asuka Jidai etc is of course a matter of debate; there can be no single definitive answer about whether or not jidai ought to be capitalized. But, again, for proper nouns such as Asuka, Tōkyō, etc, I see no reason to make them lowercase, ever, no matter what template they're in, no matter what context. That's my two cents. LordAmeth (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As LordAmeth wrote, that edit (and all the others I made in that series) were because the romanization should follow the same capitalization rules as for the English words. WP:MOS-JA talks about it in the Capitalization section. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Searching the archives

I've added a search field in the archive box to allow searching of just the archives of this page. Enjoy! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks x 2! This and the one at WikiProject:Japan will save a lot of work searching. Fg2 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking dates

Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological items has just been updated with the results of a major poll on whether or not to link dates. Fg2 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Need some help on the Rampo Edogawa article.

Rampo Edogawa has been changed to Edogawa Rampo near the end of last month. I don't know why it keeps getting changed back and forth between either one of these names, but I have now changed the name back to "Rampo Edogawa", with a note about its romanization. Is this change acceptable? Thank you in advance. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The change is correct. Oda Mari (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article names for mountains

There's a near-consensus discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Mount O on how to name Japanese mountains -- please chip in! Jpatokal (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the discussion there and not here, where is belongs? Bendono (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you go read the discussion, you'll see it initially was just a quick question of how to name a specific article. As more people frequent that talk page, it only makes sense that someone would ask a question there first. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from WT:JA

Moved here for convenience.

A new article describes Mount O (御岳 O-take). In contrast, we already had Mount Ontake (御嶽山 Ontake-san), rather than Mount On. Is "Mount O" the best name for the article on 御岳? Is "Mount Ontake" the best name for the article on 御嶽山? Fg2 (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

When I search "御岳山", I get Mitakesan... And the article says it's in Kagoshima, but also says it's a Hokkaido stub... there's something very wrong with this article. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on which 御岳, 御嶽, or 御岳山 it is. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is how to deal with the tautological mountain names of xxx岳/嶽 with 山 and the names with xxx岳/嶽 without 山, isn't it?　BTW, the precise name of the volcano in Sakurajima peninsula is Ontake/御岳 too, even Japanese usually call it Sakurajima. There are many mountains of these kinds. See the ja links above. The matter makes me headache. I'm not sure...but both of the names might be best. Oda Mari (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Although ja:御岳 calls it On-take, it seems from short search that 御岳 on Nakanoshima (Kagoshima) is called in three ways in Japanese: O-take, O-dake and On-take. --Sushiya (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This local site says it's Otake. Oda Mari (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And this page by Kagoshima prefecture calles it おんたけ (Ontake). The name of the article should be, as long as the style is concerned, in the same way as the other Ontake, like "Mount XXXXtake (Kagoshima)". "On", "O" or "Mi" is an honorific prefix added to take, so the name really means "The Mountain". There are alikes in Japan, for example 江の川, whose name is "The River - River". --Mantokun (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

国土地理院 also says it's Ontake. (Click Kagoshima in the map.) Then the volcano name of Nakanoshima is Ontake? Oda Mari (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Incredible... Each island in the Tokara islands has its own peak named 御岳 and they're all called differently.... At any rate, the article name for the one in question be named "Ontake" after GSI preference on WP, I suppose. --Mantokun (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone should build a WP:SETINDEX/{{SIA}} and WP:CJKV dab page for it then. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If Japanese name is Ontake, article title should be "Mount On" in accordance with the naming convention inferred from the examples of Mount Tsurugi (Toyama) (Tsurugi-dake), Mount Yake (Yake-dake), Mount Yari (Yari-ga-take), etc. --Sushiya (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And what is wrong with Otake or Ontake? If we consider -take, -dake as part of the proper noun which forms the name, the controvery and confusion can be reduced. As with Ōshima, we do not have "Ō Island". For Shimbashi, we do not have "Shin Bridge". For Yamashiro Province, we do not have "Mount Shiro Province". In naming of mountain articles in German (Matterhorn, not "Matter Peak") and French (Mont Blanc), not "Mount Blanc" or "Blanc Mountain"), we have many similar examples. Given the variety of methods by which the Japanese name is transliterated depending on English-language source, would it not be better to stay with the original name as the article title? --MChew (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course exceptions are allowed if you have some ground to break the de facto (or documented? I'm not sure) naming convention. We already have exceptional forms like Asahidake, Kurumayama, Daisen (mountain) and Pinneshiri. --Sushiya (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, we have had this discussion repeatedly. MChew has always taken the stance that we should not translate these parts of the proper nouns. I have over time taken the opposite end of the argument. For example, we translate Kaikyō in Tsushima Strait. So with Otake I made it Mount O. The past discussions have run along the line that we translate these nominal parts. There different people have created different exceptions, like the well-known English name is not translated, or if the name ends up being too short, with no clear-cut definition of what too short is. I choose a methodology that leaves as few exceptions as possible, just so I do not have to think too much. Do I apply it universally? No, otherwise I would have made Nakanoshima into Naka Island. Sometimes it is hard with names like Furanonishidake. See past discussions here and here.

As for the reading, I based the reading on the Quarternary Volcanoes of Japan article for GSI. There they give it the reading 'O'.imars (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are looking for a method with the least exception, the only way I can think of is to stick strictly to local names. However, let's put that aside a moment because there's a reasonably stated guideline here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).

Although some changes were made to the guideline over time since 2008, the basics as to how to treat non-english names have not changed largely, with its essence excerpted as follows:

• The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. (August 2008 - further elaborated but, in essence, still the same today)
• If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. (April 2008 -)

I may have overlooked a J-specific rule in which case I would like to be pointed to it, but otherwise, the above seems to be where we should fall back upon as reference.

Then, 御岳 is "Ontake" or "Otake", unless there's a clear explanation provided as to why it should be named otherwise. (Note: How the name is called locally is yet another issue and has to be treated apart from whether the article should be named with an English name or not.) A reason why people tend not to be too irritated by kaikyō being translated into English as "straits" is likely because such is a relatively newer notion, or term, that have only become prominent in modern times, or earliest in pre-modern times beyond the 17th century. In other words, it is a term too new for people to look at the term as an inseparable, integral part of a name; names of moutains and rivers, are often much older to be allowed to de-composed. I have already stated in my previous post that "御" in the case of "御岳" is a prefix. Regardless of how it is pronounced, its meaning is "THE mountain". There was not a mountain called "O" or "On"; if there was not THE mountain there was nothing, thus calling it "Mount O" is just nonsense. Nevertheless, if there is a proof that it became to be called "Mount O" or "Mount On" in English, then let's just take it.

Examples as Mount Tsurugi, Mount Yake or Mount Yari are some of those whose naming is yet subject to review than being referred to as any sort of "standard" naming examples.

I have included a list of search results here related to this matter on my User page (just because it is so lengthy but I am ready to copy it over here if a portal admin so requests). --Mantokun (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I conceede that Mantokun has raised some good points. I am rethinking my position. One question though, how do we interpret widely accepted in English in the guideline? imars (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tsushima Straits is quite okay under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), as it is an internationally recognized name of an international waterway. Likewise Mount Fuji is the commonly used name for that mountain. However, very few Japanese geographic names are not widely known outside of Japan. --MChew (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Mount O" sounds bizarre and is not the most commonly used form. I would suggest the same compromise that we have for shrines and temples: translate -san into "Mount", but keep -yama, -dake as is. Jpatokal (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia has one article on Oyama (小山), one on Oyama (雄山) (with the disambiguation page listing one more), and two articles on Ōyama. There's a disambiguation page for two mountains named 御山, which might be Oyama or Miyama. So there could be lots of Oyamas and Ōyamas. But that's a matter for disambiguation (e.g. Ōyama (X Prefecture)) and not naming the mountain. I prefer Oyama to Mount O. Fg2 (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds good to me too. Dekimasuよ! 14:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In Jpatokal's proposal, the -dake part sounds reasonable, but I don't agree to the -yama part, assuming titles like Mount Asama, Mount Kumotori etc. Unlike -dake, -yama is merely an alternative reading of the kanji 山 so that distinctive treatment based on Japanese readings would cause confusion. --Sushiya (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. Do we need to qualify by syllable count instead then? Monosyllabic names (excluding suffix) retain the Japanese form (Oyama, Ondake, Gassan), longer ones are English (Mount Fuji, Mount Asama, Mount Haguro)...? Jpatokal (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A modified version of Jpatokal's original proposal sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, (although I understand Sushiya's concerns) and it would still leave us with "Mount Ga" instead of Gassan. On the other hand, going purely by syllable count would leave us with "Mount Yatsu", or even worse, "Mount Yatsuga", instead of Yatsugatake. Perhaps keeping -yama, -dake, -san and monosyllabic -yama names "as is", and changing multisyllabic -yama to "Mount" would work? I would not object as much to "Mount Asama" as I would to a "Mount Ga". I believe that Sushiya's point is that the final kanji 山 could be read as either -san, or -yama, depending on the mountain. Perhaps those cases could be addressed case-by-case depending on the prevalent local name?--MChew (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think MChew's version is the best yet. Draft for MOS-J: Jpatokal (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Use the Japanese name for all mountains suffixed with -dake/take (岳), and monosyllabic names suffixed with -san or -yama (山). For longer -san/yama names, use the form "Mount X" without the Japanese suffix. If there are multiple mountains with the same name, disambiguate by prefecture.

Examples: Ondake, Yatsugatake, Gassan, Oyama but Mount Fuji, Mount Asama, Mount Tsurugi (Tokushima)

I strongly disagree that there is any consensus on this issue. Yatsugatake is a redirect, Gassan does not even refer to the mountain, Oyama is a disambiguation page. Why is -yama translated and -dake not? What is the reasoning for that? Either translate both or neither? imars (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is only a proposal — I'm not claiming that there is consensus nor that current names match this. (FWIW, you'll find 月山 at Mount Gassan.)

And there's a good reason to treat -dake/take separately: unlike -san/yama, it often takes the particle ga, and unlike -san/yama, it's also used to mean "peak" as well as "mountain". This is impossible to smoothly translate into English, and makes shoehorning such names into "Mount X" format awkward at best: for example, 八ヶ岳 is actually "Eight Peaks", as opposed to a single "Mount Yatsu" (or, worse yet, "Mount Yatsuga"). Jpatokal (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yatsugatake is perhaps a bad example, as it does not really represent a single mountain, but rather a mountain range. You see the same thing repeated again and again: 八甲田山 should not be Mount Hakkōda, but Hakkōda Mountains. Nor should 大雪山 be Mount Daisetsu, but Daisetsuzan Volcanic Group. I see nothing wrong with 松田岳 Mount Matsuda, 比布岳 Mount Pippu, or 石狩岳 Mount Ishikari so long as Mount Asama, Mount Fuji, and Mount Kumotori are acceptable. imars (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. So, what do you propose instead? Treat -dake/take just like -san/yama, and add a specific exception for the case where -san/dake/take represents multiple mountains? Jpatokal (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, Mount Warusawa is not actually a mountain as implied by the article title, but simply is one of three named protuberances on ja:荒川岳. imars illustates the danger of simply translating -san/-yama as Mount, as it could be a single mountain, or an entire range. Likewise -dake/-take can be a mountain, or it could be a single peak on a mountain. Which brings me back to my original position that -dake/-take, -sam/-yama should be considered intregal parts of a proper name, and not divided out. If it helps drive a compromise, I do not see a problem with the redundant Mount XXXdake or Mount XXXsan, if imars is adamant that the use of the word "Mount" is essential to the understanding of non-Japanese speaking readers. I would prefer a redundant "Mount Ontake", which preserves the native form proper name over a truncated version. --MChew (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to weaken my position on forcing Mount. I clearly see the error in Mount O. If we continue down the path of adding Mount, then it should be consistent no matter if it is -yama, -san, -zan, -dake, -take, -mine, -hō or whatever. Mantokun raised the point that we have a general standard to use the widely-accepted English name. Mount Fuji is clear. If none exists then use the local name. I am writing a lot of articles about relatively obscure mountains as far as the English-speaking world goes. Let's take an example: 幌尻岳 Mount Poroshiri, the tallest mountain in the Hidaka range of Hokkaido. Literally this is Big Mountain Mountain. Poroshiri is big mountain in Ainu. Dake we already know. A quick Google search gives Mount Poroshiri 201, Mount Poroshiridake 0, Mt. Poroshiridake 4, Poroshiridake -Mt. -Mount 126, 幌尻岳 36,900. Is this enough of a sampling to determine if there is a widely accepted English name? If it is, Mount Poroshiri seems to come out slightly ahead of Poroshiridake, but this is hardly a scientific count. By excluding Mt. and Mount from the Poroshiridake search I may have influenced the result. imars (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose redundant "Mounts", we don't do this for any other articles and we don't need to start doing it now. So either "Mount X" or "X-san", but not "Mount X-san". Jpatokal (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly true: Mount Kabutoyama, Mount Nakayama, Mount Nishigatake, Mount Miyama, Mount Bunagatake, and Mount Hinokizuka Okumine. OK, I could only find 5 out of a few hundred. ;-) imars (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to correct my wording: we don't need to start enshrining such naming in policy. And, interestingly enough, none of the examples you note have -san as an ending. (I'll add one for you though: Mount Gassan.) Jpatokal (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to my question, Encyclopedia Britannica writes Mount Poroshiri. So it looks to me like they tend to translate these endings. Additionally all the river articles in List of rivers of Japan translate -k/gawa 川, X River, with the exception of Kinokawa River and Mukogawa River, which choose the redundant X-gawa River. Lakes are also mostly translated. imars (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we should mostly follow suit, but there are some names for which this would be absurd ("Mount On", "Mount Mi", "Mount Gas"), so the question remains where to draw the line. Jpatokal (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Mount Gas" is absurd, as it doesn't represent the Japanese name (although it is what you get by separating "san" from "Gassan," it invites interpreting the name as gasu). And short names like "Mount On" and "Mount Mi," especially those with name components that seem to modify "Mount" rather than to be independent names followed by san, are the sort of thing that prompted me to ask this question in the first place. But it's not necessarily shortness; I can see the thinking behind Mount Tate (which looks like the one-syllable English name Tate) even if it was alarming the first time I encountered the article. Still, I think this is getting close to a good solution. Fg2 (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the "romanization" section of the manual?

This isn't the first time I bring some of this up, but I hope I'll get a bit more feedback this time around...

(and I hope you'll forgive my poor English skills, too)

Like the title says, I'm not too sure about some aspects of the "romanization" section of the manual...

For one thing, it starts off by saying that "revised Hepburn romanization (described below) should be used in all cases". But the "description below" obviously is a very summarized one, and even the article this sentence links to doesn't appear to offer (or link to) any exhaustive description of this "revised Hepburn romanization". I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia, but... wouldn't a source be nice, here?

Especially considering the same manual also advises the use of "modified Hepburn" in several instances. There's apparently some general confusion regarding those two variants, as amusingly noted in the Hepburn romanization article (emphasis mine):

1. The second is revised Hepburn, a revised version of traditional Hepburn, in which the rendering of syllabic n as m before certain consonants is no longer used. This is used by the Library of Congress. (Revised Hepburn may be referred to as modified Hepburn.)
2. The third is modified Hepburn, which builds on revised Hepburn to further modify traditional Hepburn. This version is consistent in its treatment of long vowels (always doubling the vowel) and syllabic n (always n-bar). It has been adopted by some major dictionaries (e.g. the Pocket Kenkyusha Japanese Dictionary published by Oxford University Press), but is still mainly the preserve of linguists. (The term modified Hepburn may also be used to refer to revised Hepburn.)

... Well, that's obviously very convenient.

So what is it we're supposed to be using anyway? Revised? Modified? Where do you go when the short description provided by the manual doesn't suffice?

The article says at one point that "in 1972, a revised version of Hepburn was codified as ANSI standard Z39.11-1972". So I looked around and found this. It's only a summary, apparently, but it's a lot more detailed than the one provided by the manual, so I guess that's always something.

According to the Hepburn romanization article, in "modified Hepburn", long vowels are always indicated by doubling the vowel. ANSI Z39.11-1972 disagrees and says macrons are the future of mankind, so it would appear it really is "revised Hepburn" indeed, not a mislabeled modified Hepburn.

Now, the manual also advocates the usage of macrons, which, at first glance, seems to indicate that it's really referring to revised Hepburn / ANSI Z39.11-1972 when it comes to romanization. But it says that only long "u" and "o" sounds should be written with macrons, and "all other long vowels are written without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee." That actually goes against ANSI Z39.11-1972, which states that long "a" and "e" sounds should also be written with macrons. So this is getting confusing already. Why does the manual say that "aa" and "ee" should be used? Based on what? Is there another (apparently slightly different) revised Hepburn out there? And if so... source?

When I brought this up a while ago, I was told that maybe the manual says to write "aa" because more often than not, "ああ" won't really be a long "a" sound, but rather two juxtaposed "あ" (and I'm guessing the same could be said about "ee"). Now, long "a" sounds certainly aren't common, and I guess there indeed is a good chance most "ああ" you'll find will simply be two juxtaposed "あ"... but that's still a rather unfortunate way to put things, for a manual, don't you think? After all, we are talking about long vowels, here, no matter how rare some of them may be.

Then, there is the matter of those two points:

1. For transliterations from kanji and kana, long o and u are written with macrons as ō and ū respectively. If you have difficulty typing these characters with your IME, you can click on the special characters below the Wikipedia edit box, or see Help:Macrons for instructions on setting up your computer to input them directly from the keyboard. You can also enter the HTML entity ō for ō, and ū for ū. All other long vowels are written without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee. Apostrophes and hyphens are not needed to distinguish i)(i from ii.
2. For transliterations from katakana, use the English spelling if available (i.e., Thunderbird (サンダーバード Sandābādo) instead of Sandābādo). If an English spelling is not available, but a spelling from another language of origin exists, use it (i.e., Homard (ja:オマール Omāru) rather than Omāru, and Zha cai (ja:ザーサイ Zāsai) rather than Zāsai). Otherwise, macrons should be used for all long vowels indicated with ー, including "a", "e", and "i".

Right now, the manual makes a distinction between "transliterations from kanji and kana" and "transliterations from katakana". Naturally, katakana are kana, so this is some unfortunate wording right here. From what I can tell, the intent was actually to distinguish words of Japanese origin and words of foreign (well, "non-Japanese") origin. If that is indeed the intent, and considering words of Japanese origin can be written in katakana (... and words of foreign origin are sometimes written in hiragana... there are some jokers out there), I think it would make a lot more sense to... well, explicitely have the first point be about "transliterations of words of Japanese origin" (a case could be made for "transliterations of words of Japanese or Chinese origin", but that would only concern on'yomi and thus might muddle the issue quite a bit), and the second one be about "transliterations of words of foreign origin".

Finally, am I the only one a bit perplexed by the way the second point is worded? "If an English spelling is not available, but a spelling from another language of origin exists [...]"? Yes, if we're talking about a word of non-Japanese origin that is not (amazingly enough!) of English origin either, it's a pretty safe bet that it won't have an English spelling and we'll have to try and look elsewhere... I'm thinking a slightly less anglocentric take would probably be more logical in this context (and perhaps even be shorter in the end).

Soooo... what do you think? Is it just me, or is there some room for improvement here? Erigu (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, so of course it's going to be more anglocentric. However, I fail to see how the MOS-JA telling you to use the spelling from another language is "anglocentric". There are plenty of words not of English origin which have English spellings, and some which may even be different than the original language spelling (Brazil/Brasil springs to mind, and I'm sure there are plenty of others). As this is the English language WIkipedia, English language spellings are preferred if they exist; otherwise, use the spelling of the language of origin. In cases, such as with Japanese, where the language of origin does not use Latin letters, then the appropriate romanization scheme should be used. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, so of course it's going to be more anglocentric.

In this particular context, anglocentrism makes no sense. Words of foreign (non-Japanese) origin may be of any origin, and it makes no sense to make a distinction between those of English origin and those of other origins if, in the end, the exact same principle should be applied anyway: you're supposed to use the spelling of the original language.

There are plenty of words not of English origin which have English spellings, and some which may even be different than the original language spelling (Brazil/Brasil springs to mind, and I'm sure there are plenty of others).

I wouldn't say "Brazil" is the English spelling of "Brasil". "Brasil" is the Portuguese name, and "Brazil" is the English one. They just happen to be very similar. Or would you say "Londres" is the French spelling of "London", by the same logic?

And I believe Japanese dictionaries specify the origin of gairaigo (which would tell us which spelling to use). My dictionary, for example, says that "burajiru" comes from the English "Brazil". So "Brazil" it would be.

In cases, such as with Japanese, where the language of origin does not use Latin letters, then the appropriate romanization scheme should be used.

And that's a precision that should probably be added to the manual, actually. While it does provide an example from Chinese, it doesn't explain why the alphabet spelling "Zha cai" is used. Erigu (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Romanization of "ou" in words of foreign origin

I've recently been arguing with others about the romanization of "ソウル" (from the English word "soul").

My opponents argue (well, argued, as somebody decided the discussion was over) that "ソウル" should be romanized as "sōru". I'd personally use "souru".

Are you referring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Katakana question? There was no such "decision", it was agreed that the correct spelling depends on the pronunciation. Jpatokal (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to this. But I guess I should have expected the announcement of this new Pocket Monsters game would generate similar discussions. Erigu (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My opponents' argument seems to be (feel free to barge in if I get something wrong) that we should simply follow policy, i.e. check the manual of style. And the manual of style says this:

1. For transliterations from kanji and kana, long o and u are written with macrons as ō and ū respectively. If you have difficulty typing these characters with your IME, you can click on the special characters below the Wikipedia edit box, or see Help:Macrons for instructions on setting up your computer to input them directly from the keyboard. You can also enter the HTML entity ō for ō, and ū for ū. All other long vowels are written without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee. Apostrophes and hyphens are not needed to distinguish i)(i from ii.
2. For transliterations from katakana, use the English spelling if available (i.e., Thunderbird (サンダーバード Sandābādo) instead of Sandābādo). If an English spelling is not available, but a spelling from another language of origin exists, use it (i.e., Homard (ja:オマール Omāru) rather than Omāru, and Zha cai (ja:ザーサイ Zāsai) rather than Zāsai). Otherwise, macrons should be used for all long vowels indicated with ー, including "a", "e", and "i".

According to the first point, long "o" sounds should be written with macrons, and the second point (about "words in katakana", but like I explained in that other section I created just above, I suspect it's really about "words of foreign origin") doesn't say anything about that one way or the other. And this would mean we should just apply what's said in the first point, as there is (apparently) no reason for an exception to be made.

I disagree (obviously enough) and here's my reasoning:

Are we even dealing with a long "o" sound, here? Maybe most Japanese people would pronounce it like a long "o" sound, but then again the same would probably pronounce "ヴァ" like "ba", and both kana and revised Hepburn romaji make the distinction, here...

So should "so / u" in a word of foreign origin really be considered a ("true") long "so" sound (and romanized as such)?

To me, the "u" being used to indicate a long "o" sound is something that's only relevant to the actual Japanese language, by which I mean "words of Japanese origin" (on'yomi included, naturally).

Not only that, but "ou" isn't necessarily a long "o" sound either, in words of Japanese origin. There are quite a few examples of words or names that contain "ou" that are really juxtaposed "o / u". In fact, I'd argue that "ou" standing for a long "o" sound or "ei" standing for a long "e" sound are actually irregularities, not "the rule". Extremely common irregularities (born from centuries of evolving pronunciations and kana orthographies), obviously, but irregularities all the same. Normally, "u" stands for "u" and "i" stands for "i".

So when I'm told that there is no apparent reason to make an "exception" for "ソウル" (a word that isn't even of Japanese origin in the first place), that doesn't make sense to me.

I think that, when dealing with words of foreign origin, juxtaposition should be assumed (after all, for the long vowels, we have the chōonpu... that's pretty much the whole purpose of the thing). I see very little reason to bring up irregularities that are intimately tied to the long evolution of (the actual) Japanese language, here. And even less to see those irregularities as "the rule".

"Ball" is generally rendered as "ボール" in kana, whereas "bowl" ends up as "ボウル". Why? If it's all the same anyway, why the (extremely) common distinction? I think there's information, here, and very little reason (if at all) to lose it by transliterating both words as "bōru".

But I was told I wasn't making any sense... What do you think?

(obviously, the whole matter could be resolved pretty quickly if somebody knew of an exhaustive description of the revised Hepburn romanization that would address this particular matter, but...?) Erigu (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I only briefly skimmed your rather long comment, but the word ソウル, meaning "soul", is transliterated as souru, not *sōru. The reason being because the /o/ here is short, not long. While vowel + u is often realized as a long vowel, that is not the case here, which is two short vowels /o/ and /u/. Although Japanese spelling is often quite rational and transparent, there are a few rough spots that need special care. This is a fairly common word, but in difficult or uncertain situations, there are dictionaries (such as 日本国語大辞典) that, in addition to the spelling, will also give the pronunciation as well. Regards, Bendono (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply (and sorry about the length of my initial comment).

So it would appear we agree about "ソウル" being transliterated as "souru". Right now, several articles (Soul Edge, Soulcalibur, The SoulTaker, Bleach (manga), Soul Eater (manga), Persona: Trinity Soul, Dragon Soul and possibly more) transliterate that word as "sōru", and my attempts to change the spelling to "souru" were reverted by an admin who pointed me to the manual of style, and explained the spelling "sōru" was dictated by Wikipedia policy and there was nothing I could do to change that. Nihonjoe joined the discussion and agreed with him.

I don't know. Erigu (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Whack 'em with a trout and point them to this discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused by the information Oda Mari provided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Katakana question. She mentioned that Rubber Soul is ソウル whereas rubber sole is ソール. I have no reason to doubt this. Do Japanese people pronounce them differently? If they do, it makes it easier to believe that pronunciation causes the difference. But if they pronounce them the same (as I do, being a native speaker of English), I still wonder about the cause of this difference. Not that we need an explanation to make a rule; I simply wonder. Fg2 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How to convert English into kana is one question, but this is about the reverse: how to convert to kana into romaji. I think it's pretty self-evident that ソウル is meant to be pronounced "souru", because if not, it would be ソール. Jpatokal (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At least I pronounce them differently. Oda Mari (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I pronounce them the same in English and differently in Japanese. That seems to be consistent with my experience as well as dictionary references. Bendono (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "ソウル" and "ソール" would be pronounced differently at all in Japanese, when the words they represent (generally) in English ("soul" and "sole") are homophones. Just because the two words have been written differently does not mean that they are pronounced differently. The word "Soul" in Japanese has for the longest time been written as "ソウル" for whatever reason, and even if you separate the "so" and the "u" you are still producing a long o sound.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "ソウル" and "ソール" would be pronounced differently at all in Japanese, when the words they represent (generally) in English ("soul" and "sole") are homophones.

Then again, "コンピュータ" and "コンピューター" represent the same English word ("computer"), and it seems obvious to me that you would pronounce them differently in Japanese.

As for "ソウル" and "ソール", one might wonder what came first: the kana spelling or the Japanese pronunciation? Maybe (that's really just a theory formulated on the spot) the two words were spelled differently in kana (to avoid any confusion?), and the pronunciation difference (in Japanese) mentioned by other users above was actually caused by that spelling difference.

Just because the two words have been written differently does not mean that they are pronounced differently.

But I could also argue that just because two words are written differently in kana and pronounced the same in Japanese, that doesn't necessarily mean they're to be transliterated the same according to revised Hepburn. Just above, I mentioned "ヴァ" being pronounced by most like "ba" but transliterated as "va". Erigu (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The vu kana is completely different. For many many years, there was no way to transliterate the foreign V sound in Japanese. The B kana were used for a long time until someone decided to make "ヴ" which is transliterated as "vu". Not everyone uses this and it's still difficult in the Japanese phonemic system to add a new sound after several thousand years without that sound existing which is why "ヴァ" is transliterated as "va" but consistently pronounced as "ba". Again, you are not convincing me of anything. "ソウル" and "ソール" are homophonous. You have yet to convince me otherwise. And I do not want to see my response picked apart as you usually do. I want a straight linear response.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And the same goes for "ボール" and "ボウル" in Japanese, even though the same does not hold true for English. And the only difference between "コンピュータ" and "コンピューター" is that you pronounce the end of the latter with a long a. The choice between the two is just a stylistic choice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For your first point, I could argue back that, just like it's difficult for Japanese people to adapt to a new sound, it might not be that surprising to see them pronounce "ou" as a long "o" sound simply by habit... But I could also point out that we have a bunch of examples, in words of Japanese origin, of "ei" that are pronounced by some exactly like "ē". Different kana spelling, same pronunciation, different revised Hepburn romanization.

My point being that I don't think you can argue there's a rule of thumb that says that, regardless of the Japanese spelling, "if it's pronounced the same, it should be transliterated the same in romaji".

As for your second point, yes, the only difference between "コンピュータ" and "コンピューター" is that you pronounce the end of the latter with a long "a". So? My point was that there was a pronunciation difference despite both words being based on the exact same English word (and I'm glad to see we do agree about that). So your arguing that "ソウル" and "ソール" should logically be pronounced the same simply because they're based on English homophones... Well, it's doesn't quite add up.

(I "pick apart" your responses in order to address each point individually, and I'm not sure what's so wrong with that. Unless you're implying I'm twisting your words, in which case I'd really like you to explain when/where/how exactly.) Erigu (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that the two words should be pronounced the same just because the words are homophonous in English. I'm saying the two words should be pronounced the same because they are homophonous in the modern Japanese phonetic system. I don't know why the Hepburn system choses to use "ei" and "ee" instead of "ē" but "oo" and "ou" become "ō" and "uu" becomes "ū", but the homophonous nature of "ou" and "oo" and "o-" to be "ō" is pretty much set into the Japanese phonemic system. And I cannot find one instance other than the anecdotal instances here, where "ソウル" and "ソール" are pronounced differently. I am currently trying to find a native speaker to get his or her opinion on the matter, rather than those of us who have learned it in an English speaking culture.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that the two words should be pronounced the same just because the words are homophonous in English. I'm saying the two words should be pronounced the same because they are homophonous in the modern Japanese phonetic system.

If your point was just that the two words should be pronounced the same in Japanese because they're homophonous in Japanese (tautology alert! ^^;), why bring up the fact they're homophones in English at all?

And you've been saying that they're homophonous in Japanese from the beginning, but I'm still not sure about that. Apparently, some outright disagree.

And again, the thing about "ou" standing for a long "o" sound is (often) true in words of Japanese origin, but you have yet to prove it's (always?) true for words of foreign origin. I explained above why I don't think it makes sense to bring up "ou" -> long "o" sound in this particular context. Erigu (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the words be homophonous if they're not Japanese in origin? If the phoneme is the same in native words, why do you believe the phoneme wouldn't be the same in gairaigo? Just because of the difference in how the word is written? I have other studiers of Japanese and native speakers who are telling me that the words are homophonous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If the phoneme is the same in native words, why do you believe the phoneme wouldn't be the same in gairaigo?

I explained all that in my initial post. Erigu (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Give me the Cliff's Notes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on, it's not that long... And considering we've been debating this for a while, I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to actually read my reasoning eventually... Erigu (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)コンピュータ vs コンピューター is a different kind of matter. it's a matter of notation, not of pronunciation. It is said that コンピュータ is started to be used by scientists especially when they type the word, using word processor/computer just because it's too much of a bother. So please put the matter aside. "ソウル" and "ソール" are not homophones in Japanese. As a native speaker, I totally agree with User:Erigu. Oda Mari (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's strange because I've spoken with other native speakers who pronounce the two the same way so they are homophones.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

コンピュータ vs コンピューター is a different kind of matter. it's a matter of notation, not of pronunciation.

I'd say it's both... Those two spellings aren't pronounced the same, right?

But if your point is that the "コンピュータ"/"コンピューター" difference (and the reason behind that difference) has nothing to do with the "ソウル"/"ソール" difference... Sure, I agree. I only brought the "コンピュータ"/"コンピューター" thing up in response to Ryulong's argument that "ソウル" and "ソール" had to be homophones in Japanese because "soul" and "sole" are homophones in English. It wasn't my intention to claim that both cases were extremely similar or anything like that. Erigu (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To Ryulong. Ask the native speaker how does s/he pronounce Seoul/ソウル. Thank you.
To Erigu. As for "コンピュータ"/"コンピューター" , the pronunciation is the same. Oda Mari (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?? 0_o;

Well, I guess you learn something new every day... Erigu (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was looking around for more about this "コンピュータ"/"コンピューター" thing (I'm still flabbergasted, sorry), and I happened to stumble upon this.

This part seems quite relevant to the debate at hand:

長音は，原則として長音符号「ー」を用いて書く。

〔例〕エネルギー　オーバーコート　グループ　ゲーム　ショー　テーブル　パーティー　ウェールズ（地） ポーランド（地） ローマ（地） ゲーテ（人）　ニュートン（人）

注１　長音符号の代わりに母音字を添えて書く慣用もある。

〔例〕バレエ（舞踊） ミイラ

注２　「エー」「オー」と書かず，「エイ」「オウ」と書くような慣用のある場合は，それによる。

〔例〕エイト　ペイント　レイアウト　スペイン（地） ケインズ（人） サラダボウル　ボウリング（球技）

注３　英語の語末の-er，-or，-arなどに当たるものは，原則としてア列の長音とし長音符号「一」を用いて書き表す。ただし，慣用に応じて「一」を省くことができる。

〔例〕エレベーター　ギター　コンピューター　マフラー　エレベータ　コンピュータ　スリッパ

(I have to admit I hadn't thought of "バレエ" and "ミイラ"...)

So according to the second note, it is a long "e" sound, in "スペイン"? I'm... surprised (but I'm thinking I won't be alone in this). "ボウル" is listed, too.

While it doesn't say that "エイ" and "オウ" necessarily stand for long "e" and "o" sounds in words of foreign origins, it does call them long vowels in at least some cases... Huh. Erigu (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)