Japanese transliteration: ja-Latn-hepburn

CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 9 23:36:40 CEST 2009

Hi, I agree basically with what you are asking for; however my point was that, as with [pinyin], there seems to be some acceptable variation of this romanization--that is it does not have to refer to exactly one standard, so long as both are similar enough.  Is that right?

 Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org 
Wed Sep 9 14:18:17 CEST 2009 

> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

>> I still think that [pinyin] and [wadegile] can serve as precedents for 
>> how we treat [hepburn] !  But I'm not sure I see a consensus on this 
>> point.

> For Chinese, we differentiated (Hanyu) Pinyin from Wade-Giles with two 
> separate variants.  For Japanese, we are talking about differentiating 
> Hepburn from Kunrei-shiki from Nihon-shiki with three separate variants. 
> I don't think there is much debate over that.

> The question is whether the variant 'hepburn' for our purposes means 
> only Revised Hepburn, in which case we would need a fourth and fifth 
> variant under "ja-Latn" to denote Traditional and Modified Hepburn 
> respectively, or whether 'hepburn' means any variety of Hepburn, in 
> which case we would need three new variants under "ja-Latn-hepburn" to 
> distinguish between the three varieties.  This is the approach I prefer, 
> because it would still be possible to say "any old Hepburn," which I 
> think will be a common use case since the varieties are so similar.  Agreed although I am just getting familiar with Hepburn/different Japanese romanization schemes.> But 
this is where I think there may still be differences of opinion.

>> This is not an issue we dealt with when discussing 'pinyin' and 
>> 'wadegile'.  "zh-Latn-pinyin" explicitly means Chinese in Hanyu Pinyin, 
>> according to the registration form at 
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/pinyin,Yes, at:http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/pinyin >> while 
>> currently there is no way to tag Tongyong Pinyin.
Yes, however [pinyin] can also refer to a similar scheme used for the romanization of Tibetan:http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2008-October/008597.htmlBest, C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.com  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20090909/a3bd6c0a/attachment.htm 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list