Japanese transliteration: ja-Latn-hepburn
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
> 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...
More information about the Ietf-languages