Talk:Hepburn romanization/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"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)

I am an outsider (native Japanse), and it is not my intention to meddle with MOS-JA discussion. but it may be interesting to you how the letter `w' is treated in EHS (Extened Hepburn System). It is the transliteration system of the full set of the Japanese KANA syllabary into Latin alphabet with every effort to stick to the English values as far as consonants are concerned. Vowels are Continental. The consonant of the WA column has only visual meaning except when the vowel is `a'. But in transcription of foreign words, it has phonetic value. To differentiate visual and phonetic values, the latter is transcribed in geminate letters of `ww'. This digraph consonant corresponds to ウ of ウィウェウォ. --Kmns tsw (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• I must confess I could not have found any means to accomodate シィ in EHS (Extended Hepburn System). I tried to make it a transliteration system of the full set, no the extended set of the Kana syllabary: e.g. SHI for シ, SI for スィ, CHI for チ, TI for ティ, ZHI for ジ, ZI for ズィ, JI for ヂ, DI for ディ, TSU for ツ, TU for トゥ, DZU for ヅ, DU for ドゥ, etc.--Kmns tsw (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Students of Japanese as a foreign language usually learn Hepburn

User:Hirasaram slapped a {{Fact}} 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The new Japan/Marc has discarded the notion of long vowels. You can call it a transliteration system now, though it needs preprocessing of Kana script. See "翻字式 or 表音式" or "Transliteration or Literation" at ja:ノート:ローマ字論#擴張ヘボン式. If you would like to know about EHS (Extended Hepburn System or 擴張ヘボン式), here is a sample at 戰友#歌詞について--Kmns tsw (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"wo"

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-

1. を is almost never used as anything but a particle
2. 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)

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)

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)

Long vowels and Modified Hepburn

Does MH use macrons or doubled vowel symbols to represent long vowel sounds? The article states both, in the 2nd and 3rd sections respectively. In this, I think it contradicts itself.

Shoot me if this is bleeding obvious, but....

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)

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)

More specifically, Wikipedia uses Revised Hepburn, but this should not be mentioned in the article. Bradford44 14:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Originally proposed by...?

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 [6] 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)

Hmm. On further poking around, it seems that no less an authority than Jim "WWWJDIC" Breem states that Hepburn is merely responsible for popularizing the system, not inventing it. I'm not quite sure how to reconcile this, but here's what I was going to write:

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)