3 ms·

Both types of romanization are meaningful in different contexts. For English pronouncing the words such as "Shinjuku", "Fukushima", "Chichibu" are better, and a

Both types of romanization are meaningful in different contexts. For English pronouncing the words such as "Shinjuku", "Fukushima", "Chichibu" are better, and are better for writing Japanese names in English text in general. However, the other system, with "Sinzyuku", "Hukusima", etc is directly according to the kana by the grid order, so its use is if you need to directly correspond to such a thing.

tkgally 3y ago
Good point. And "Sinzyuku" and "Hukusima" not only correspond more closely to the kana; they also match most native Japanese speakers’ mental representations of the sounds. For example, most Japanese speakers perceive the し syllable as consisting of a single consonant phoneme followed by a single vowel phoneme, so si makes more intuitive sense to them than shi. And they perceive the consonants in は and ふ as being the same, so transcribing those kana as ha and hu seems more natural than ha and fu. (This doesn’t apply to zyu for じゅ, however; ju is better.) When I was teaching English academic writing at a Japanese university fifteen years ago, I was struck at how inconsistently the students wrote Japanese names and terms in English. They had been exposed to multiple romanization methods, and most of them couldn’t stick to just one system. I ended up writing a set of detailed guidelines for them [1, 2]. An excellent source for even more information about the intricacies of writing Japanese in English is the Japan Style Sheet [3]. [1] https://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/UT-Komaba-Romanization-of-Japanese-v1.pdf https://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/UT-Komaba-Romanization-o... [2] https://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/UT-Komaba-Nihongo-no-romaji-hyoki-v1.pdf https://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/UT-Komaba-Nihongo-no-rom... [3] https://japanstylesheet.com/download-jss/ https://japanstylesheet.com/download-jss/
- MiguelX413 3y ago
  ⟨sh⟩ /ɕ/ is one consonant phoneme.
- jinushaun 3y ago
  I have to disagree here. Hepburn is superior unless your goal is transliteration from Roman characters to kana. From the article (which also argues against kunrei) > Romanized Japanese is essentially an auxiliary device — a reading aid, if you will — and not the real thing. Romanization is for foreigners. Japanese people would read the original kana/kanji anyway Korean went through a similar reform and I also disagree with it. Favoring transliteration (linguists and academics) over the actual sounds (everyday people) is harmful for communication.
  - color_me_not 3y ago
    > Romanization is for foreigners. Japanese people would read the original kana/kanji anyway Assuming it is only used for reading purpose. It is actually also useful for typing in Japanese with a keyboard without kanas, though it is still mostly relevant for foreigners. Side note: I personally like input systems that support both romanizations simultaneously, since there are shorter combinations in each one. For instance, "si" saves one letter compared to "shi", and "ju" is also easier to type compared to "zyu".
lifthrasiir 3y ago
Korean Revised Romanization [1] also went forward with a similar logic two decades ago. It slightly prefers simpler rules for native speakers over the phonological accuracy, and it was a reasonable choice in my opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Romanization_of_Korean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Romanization_of_Korean

tkgally 3y ago

Good point. And "Sinzyuku" and "Hukusima" not only correspond more closely to the kana; they also match most native Japanese speakers’ mental representations of the sounds. For example, most Japanese speakers perceive the し syllable as consisting of a single consonant phoneme followed by a single vowel phoneme, so si makes more intuitive sense to them than shi. And they perceive the consonants in は and ふ as being the same, so transcribing those kana as ha and hu seems more natural than ha and fu. (This doesn’t apply to zyu for じゅ, however; ju is better.) When I was teaching English academic writing at a Japanese university fifteen years ago, I was struck at how inconsistently the students wrote Japanese names and terms in English. They had been exposed to multiple romanization methods, and most of them couldn’t stick to just one system. I ended up writing a set of detailed guidelines for them [1, 2]. An excellent source for even more information about the intricacies of writing Japanese in English is the Japan Style Sheet [3]. [1] https://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/UT-Komaba-Romanization-of-Japanese-v1.pdf https://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/UT-Komaba-Romanization-o... [2] https://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/UT-Komaba-Nihongo-no-romaji-hyoki-v1.pdf https://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/UT-Komaba-Nihongo-no-rom... [3] https://japanstylesheet.com/download-jss/ https://japanstylesheet.com/download-jss/

MiguelX413 3y ago
⟨sh⟩ /ɕ/ is one consonant phoneme.
jinushaun 3y ago
I have to disagree here. Hepburn is superior unless your goal is transliteration from Roman characters to kana. From the article (which also argues against kunrei) > Romanized Japanese is essentially an auxiliary device — a reading aid, if you will — and not the real thing. Romanization is for foreigners. Japanese people would read the original kana/kanji anyway Korean went through a similar reform and I also disagree with it. Favoring transliteration (linguists and academics) over the actual sounds (everyday people) is harmful for communication.
- color_me_not 3y ago
  > Romanization is for foreigners. Japanese people would read the original kana/kanji anyway Assuming it is only used for reading purpose. It is actually also useful for typing in Japanese with a keyboard without kanas, though it is still mostly relevant for foreigners. Side note: I personally like input systems that support both romanizations simultaneously, since there are shorter combinations in each one. For instance, "si" saves one letter compared to "shi", and "ju" is also easier to type compared to "zyu".

lifthrasiir 3y ago

Korean Revised Romanization [1] also went forward with a similar logic two decades ago. It slightly prefers simpler rules for native speakers over the phonological accuracy, and it was a reasonable choice in my opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Romanization_of_Korean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Romanization_of_Korean