5 ms·

The choice of `ch` is clearly inspired by English, but the other common alternatives (Nihonshiki, Kunreishiki) are not self-consistent in that they paper over d

by amake 6y ago

The choice of `ch` is clearly inspired by English, but the other common alternatives (Nihonshiki, Kunreishiki) are not self-consistent in that they paper over differences in pronunciation. To be consistent you need to represent ち as something other than `ti`, so then why not `chi`? At this point anything other than Hepburn and Nihonshiki/Kunreishiki is a non-starter due to lack of familiarity, so I would be happy if everyone would just get on board with Hepburn.

lmm 6y ago
> To be consistent you need to represent ち as something other than `ti` Why? What else would you be representing as 'ti'? たちつてと is the related line (e.g. verbs ending in ち become て when you put them in potential form) so romanising them as ta/ti/tu/te/to makes sense.
- amake 6y ago
  I’ve written about it here: https://twitter.com/amadlonkay/status/1260924102161821698?s=21 https://twitter.com/amadlonkay/status/1260924102161821698?s=...
  - lmm 6y ago
    Using the Latin alphabet in no way means "buying into the idea that each letter has a particular pronunciation." This is very obvious if you speak Irish, but even in English there are phonemes that are written as digraphs (most obviously th but also ch and sh - which is why Hepburn seems non-awful to people whose native language is English) - no Latin orthography that's in live use as a spoken language is, or could be, "consistent" in your sense. The 50音表 regularity is real and meaningful (e.g. it shows up in verb inflections); any representation that lacks it is necessarily less faithful to the native experience. Whereas the letter-sound correspondence in Hepburn is not consistent in the first place ("chi" for ち is ridiculous to anyone who speaks a non-English language), so the idea that Nihonshiki is somehow less consistent is simply wrong.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  It makes sense if you're aiming for a faithful transliteration of the original syllables, which is what Nihonshiki does. However, if you want a phonemic transcription that can be read by non-native speakers, then it makes sense to do what Hepburn does and accurately represent the sounds (not the writing) of the language, where the consonant in ち is not the same as the one in た.
  - lmm 6y ago
    > if you want a phonemic transcription that can be read by non-native speakers, then it makes sense to do what Hepburn does and accurately represent the sounds (not the writing) of the language When you say "non-native speakers" you mean "monoglot English speakers". Hepburn represents the sounds in a way that corresponds to English peculiarities; it's easier to read for English speakers and English speakers only (speakers of non-English languages with Latin orthographies find Nihonshiki easier). It makes sense for teaching materials aimed specifically at an English-speaking audience, but not on e.g. signs aimed at international tourists.
    - howlgarnish 6y ago
      In what non-English language is "Cyasyu" easier to read than "Chashu"? FWIW, I'm a native speaker of a non-English language with a Latin orthography, and while the language doesn't use the English digraphs "ch" or "sh", those are still widely understood and found in loanwords etc.
      - lmm 6y ago
        > In what non-English language is "Cyasyu" easier to read than "Chashu"? I was going by my experience of Irish and German, where "ch" has a specific pronunciation that is quite different from that Japanese sound. Having found https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pronunciation_of_CH_in_Europe.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pronunciation_of_CH_... I guess I was generalising too much myself :).

by amake 6y ago

lmm 6y ago

> To be consistent you need to represent ち as something other than `ti` Why? What else would you be representing as 'ti'? たちつてと is the related line (e.g. verbs ending in ち become て when you put them in potential form) so romanising them as ta/ti/tu/te/to makes sense.

amake 6y ago
I’ve written about it here: https://twitter.com/amadlonkay/status/1260924102161821698?s=21 https://twitter.com/amadlonkay/status/1260924102161821698?s=...
- lmm 6y ago
  Using the Latin alphabet in no way means "buying into the idea that each letter has a particular pronunciation." This is very obvious if you speak Irish, but even in English there are phonemes that are written as digraphs (most obviously th but also ch and sh - which is why Hepburn seems non-awful to people whose native language is English) - no Latin orthography that's in live use as a spoken language is, or could be, "consistent" in your sense. The 50音表 regularity is real and meaningful (e.g. it shows up in verb inflections); any representation that lacks it is necessarily less faithful to the native experience. Whereas the letter-sound correspondence in Hepburn is not consistent in the first place ("chi" for ち is ridiculous to anyone who speaks a non-English language), so the idea that Nihonshiki is somehow less consistent is simply wrong.
howlgarnish 6y ago
It makes sense if you're aiming for a faithful transliteration of the original syllables, which is what Nihonshiki does. However, if you want a phonemic transcription that can be read by non-native speakers, then it makes sense to do what Hepburn does and accurately represent the sounds (not the writing) of the language, where the consonant in ち is not the same as the one in た.
- lmm 6y ago
  > if you want a phonemic transcription that can be read by non-native speakers, then it makes sense to do what Hepburn does and accurately represent the sounds (not the writing) of the language When you say "non-native speakers" you mean "monoglot English speakers". Hepburn represents the sounds in a way that corresponds to English peculiarities; it's easier to read for English speakers and English speakers only (speakers of non-English languages with Latin orthographies find Nihonshiki easier). It makes sense for teaching materials aimed specifically at an English-speaking audience, but not on e.g. signs aimed at international tourists.
  - howlgarnish 6y ago
    In what non-English language is "Cyasyu" easier to read than "Chashu"? FWIW, I'm a native speaker of a non-English language with a Latin orthography, and while the language doesn't use the English digraphs "ch" or "sh", those are still widely understood and found in loanwords etc.
    - lmm 6y ago
      > In what non-English language is "Cyasyu" easier to read than "Chashu"? I was going by my experience of Irish and German, where "ch" has a specific pronunciation that is quite different from that Japanese sound. Having found https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pronunciation_of_CH_in_Europe.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pronunciation_of_CH_... I guess I was generalising too much myself :).