Talk:Wāpuro rōmaji
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale. |
JIS X 4063 is viewable from http://www.jisc.go.jp/app/pager?%23jps.JPSH0020D:JPSO0010:/JPS/JPSO0020.jsp= (enter "X4063" in the topmost text box and click nearest button)
[edit] Criticism
On the other hand, the kana spelling おう is pronounced in two different ways: as 'ō' in the meaning 'king' (王), and as 'ou' in the meaning 'to chase' (追う). Being based on hiragana, wāpuro style writes both these words as 'ou', ignoring the difference in pronunciation. This criticism is equally valid for many other romanization schemes.
Err, no, it's not — Hepburn and Kunrei would both spell those two cases differently. Now Hepburn and Kunrei would both render おお and おう as "ō", while wapuro wouldn't, but that's a different issue... Jpatokal 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
ok, wapuro represents おう as "ou". hepburn and Kunrei both represent taht same kana string as "ō". I fail to see how any of these three represent that difference in pronunciation between 王 and 追う. In all three cases, the difference in pronunciation is not represented at all, so the criticism is equally valid, no? Either that, or the paragraph needs a serious amount of rewriting for clarity. Rhialto 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Table time!
| # | Kanji | Kana | Actual pronounciation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 追う | おう | o-u (two vowels, like ka-u and any other -u verb) |
| 2 | 王 | おう | ō (one long vowel, no u sound) |
| 3 | 大 | おお | ō (one long vowel, no u sound) |
- Wapuro distinguishes between 2 and 3, but not 1 and 2. Hepburn/Kunrei distinguish between 1 and 2, but not 2 and 3. Jpatokal 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
ok, I see your point now. Nonetheless, the article needs a re-write. The way the paragraph is written, it includes a criticism of waapuro without noting that Hepburn/Kunrei has a weakness that involves the same specific set of romanization decisions (wp:npov). Also, I have no idea what Tokoites or Osaknas are :) Rhialto 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
