3 ms·

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 transc

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 :).

3 ms·

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 transc

by howlgarnish 6y ago

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 :).