Jump to content

Talk:Hepburn romanization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hepburn romanization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

Can we get dates on the first and second versions of the dictionary?72.12.220.26 (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues - WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc

[edit]

Fellow Editors, I have reviewed the discussion at "ゐ/ヰ and ゑ/ヱ" above, and the further discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles/Archive_24#ゐ/ヰ and ゑ/ヱ, and consider, based on these discussion, that the current information is the result of WP:OR &/or WP:SYNTHesis on the part of previous editors.
Hepburn romanization, which is the subject of this article, and should be the basis of the information in the tables, clearly romanizes these kana as: 1st edition: ゐ/ヰ i, ゑ/ヱ ye; 3rd & later editions: ゐ/ヰ i, ゑ/ヱ e; "modified Hepburn" (per ALA-LC):ゐ/ヰ i, ゑ/ヱ e. See: [1], [2] & [3].
Unless there are solid, policy-based, objections, I will amend the tables accordingly in the next day or so.
Additionally, none of these sources support the content of the extended Katakana table; which is, in part, sourced to a document on representing foreign words in katakana. I would suggest that the representations are not transitive, and that this is WP:SYNTHesis. I will be likewise removing this information.
And there are inclusions at Variants of Hepburn romanization which are verifiably alternatives to Hepburn, not variants. Likewise, absent policy based objections, I will be removing these inclusions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hepburn romanization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hepburn romanization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hepburn romanization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "halcat.com" references appear to have been moved to new urls; including a new webhosting company. I will look to update these over the next day or so. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hepburn romanization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double o's

[edit]

For long (double) o sounds, the page currently reads, "The combination o + o is written oo if they are in two adjacent syllables." Is that supposed to mean two adjacent kanji? The idea of adjacent syllables (technically morae, I guess) doesn't make sense because all long vowels are adjacent morae. The example here also uses two adjacent kanji. Sandtalon (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source for combination of katakana vowels

[edit]

The article says the following:

The combinations of two vowels within loanwords are written separately:
  • バレエ: ba + re + e = baree – ballet

This kind of surprises me because I always believed レエ and レー were romanized the same. Hence both ケーキ and とうきょう both getting macrons (kēki, tōkyō). According to this rule, there's an exception that only goes for katakana: if double vowels are used, without a vowel marker, then no macron is added. Hence バレエ is baree, not barē.

Is there a source for this? I can't find it in other sources, like this pdf by the Tokyo University. I can't find where this rule came from. ----msikma; user, talk 20:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

WHy do you always link Hepburn instead of Romanization of Japan, it is a much better idea to show all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.204.92 (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hepburn romanization of already-English words and numerals

[edit]

Hello everybody.

I often see on Wikipedia the Hepburn romanization of Japanese titles, where Roman or Arabic numerals are "re-romanized". Is that the correct way? Two examples:

  • Dragon Quest III original title is ドラゴンクエストIII and Wikipedia's romanization renders the Roman numeral III as "Surī", that is English "three" written phonetically.
  • Megaman 6 original title is ロックマン6 and Wikipedia's romanization renders the numeral 6 as "Shikkusu", that is English "six" written phonetically.

Numerals should stay numerals, or is this the correct way of using Hepburn romanization? Thank you in advance for the answer. --Abacos (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abacos: I suspect that the romanizations of the titles are romanizing the Japanese as pronounced, rather than as spelled. This is not uncommon -- neither for numerals to be pronounced in Japanese as the borrowed English term, nor for that katakana-ized pronunciation to then be romanized as-is when the title is translated into English. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eirikr: I am pretty sure that the Japanese would pronounce the numerals in Japanese, instead of translating it in English. If I may propose a similarity (I cannot count in Japanese), it would be as if the French Wikipedia writes how an American would translate and pronounce in French the numerals in the titles of American movies ("Robocop deux"/dö:, "Rocky trois"/true-uh). --Abacos (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abacos: "Dragon Quest" is English (after a fashion), and any numbers following an English title are often rendered as katakanized English -- notably, everyone going through pubic school in Japan (and most private schools as well) has to go through multiple years of English classes, so just about everyone in Japan has at least some passing knowledge of English. Further research reveals that this katakanization of numbers appears to be the case for the various "Dragon Quest" titles. For instance, see also ja:ドラゴンクエストIII そして伝説へ…, where the title is rendered phonetically as ドラゴンクエストスリー そしてでんせつへ (emphasis mine: Doragon Kuesuto Surī: Soshite Densetsu E). Likewise for the preceding title ja:ドラゴンクエストII 悪霊の神々, phonetically spelled out as ドラゴンクエストツー あくりょうのかみがみ (Doragon Kuesuto Tsū: Akuryō no Kamigami). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passport romanization

[edit]

Why is non-Hepburn Romanization option for passports categorized as mandated variant? It's neither mandated or a variant. --Saledomo (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good for romance?

[edit]

This article stresses this selling point, twice, that Hepburn is good for those «who only speak English or a Romance language», yet I’m at loss about the latter: Why specifically a Romance language, as opposed to other Germanic languages, if anything? The grapheme "sh", for one, is unique in European languages, shared only by Albanian (which is neither Romance nor Germanic). This statement should be removed, if the quoted source doesn’t support it, or expanded, if it does; for now, I’ll add {{clarify}}. Tuvalkin (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a source for Passport Romanization using oo/ou/oh

[edit]

Now, I'm not doubting the article here-- from personal experience I KNOW the passport authority allows oo/ou/oh forms for long vowels on passports... but none of the linked sources specify this, and I'm in a position where I actually need a source to cite. So far my attempts to find such a source have failed, and I'm starting to wonder if this is a defacto thing that happens in practice but isn't actually written down anywhere? Surely someone has written about this in a reliable source somewhere? Fieari (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously looked for a source on this and found this link to be helpful: https://www.pref.kanagawa.jp/osirase/02/2315/hihepburn.html Santer (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I also got some help elsewhere and was pointed to: https://www.ezairyu.mofa.go.jp/passport/hebon.html
From reading these two documents, it seems "passport-shiki" allows the use of non-hepburn romanizations as an exception to the rule if there is a strong reason for it... by my reading, it seems that the acceptable reason is "I or someone in my family has previously used this other romanization system for their passport, and I want my passport to match my family's". It's basically a grandfathering, not an endorsement of non-heburn... but then again, my Japanese level is lower-intermediate level, so it's possible I'm misreading this. Should the article be modified to clarify this? And which of these (or both) do you think should be cited? Fieari (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hepburn_romanization&oldid=1214486008"