Talk:Kunrei-shiki romanization

Certain of the information presented on this page appears to be grossly inaccurate.

Certain of the information presented on this page appears to be grossly inaccurate. In particular the assertion that "Kunreisiki has been not only the Japanese domestic standard, but the world standard today" is not the case at all. The Japanese domestic standard and the world standard are both Hepburn. There are several other inconsistencies, and I also strongly suspect that user: 218.228.102.190 is in fact a sock puppet of user: Whisper to me, who is well known both for his bias towards kunreishiki and his near total lack of knowledge of the Japanese language and systems of romanization. Exploding Boy 15:51, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hepburn is the most common romanization system in use today, but NOT A STANDARD anywhere. You can mention that Hepburn is the de facto standard, but,

The Japanese domestic standard and the world standard are both Hepburn.

is clearly untrue. -Suika 05-29-2004 (user 218.228.102.190)

This is the stronger argument. I rarely work in Roman but the Kunreishiki system is widely used in academia, in ward office information circulars and even occasionally on street signs in Kyoto, as 3 examples. Hepburn is not an accepted standard in many walks of life in Japan, especially at a daily level. I would even argue it is a default informal compromise that enjoys no official status. Kurogane666 - 2014-06-04

I have edited the article with the facts (or an approximation thereof) and removed your disclaimer. -- Sekicho 16:55, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

To whoever rearranged my post and removed portions of it, please don't do that. A "standard," according to MerriamWebster, is "something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example." By that criterion Hepburn is certainly the standard romanization system both within Japan (Hepburn is seen everwhere while other romanizations are never seen) and without (Hepburn is the only romanization system taught outside Japan). To Sekicho, there are still factual problems with the article. I am replacing the factual accuracy message. Exploding Boy 00:56, May 29, 2004 (UTC)

If there are factual problems, why don't you correct them? Sekicho 00:57, May 29, 2004 (UTC)

All right, then let the sentence more precise, "Kunreisiki is the legally valid standard around the globe, and Hepburn is the de facto standard in English-speaking communities". You have to agree on this.

I removed your disclaimer because your insistence doesn't make sense. Suika 05-30-2004

Around the globe? No, I don't "have to" agree to it. I'll decide when to remove my factual accuracy dispute, not you. Exploding Boy 00:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be unreasonable.

Kunreisiki is the legally valid domestic and international standard. It is REQUIRED to use such as JIS or ISO related specifications, or files for the Japanese Library of Congress and so on. If you use Hepburn in a strict document, that will be simply returned.

Hepburn has been in general use because people don't know the difference of the systems, and don't care the accuracy. Japanese writing system is, after all, Kanzi-kana, not Rômazi.

Linguists around the grove use Nipponsiki or Kunreisiki. Japanese students around the grove use Nipponsiki/Kunreisiki-based system known as JSL. If you insist that Kunreisiki is not the standard, you'd better cite authorities. Suika 05-30-2004

I've just rewritten the first "usage" paragraph and tried to take out most of the fluff, any comments?

Exploding Boy, could you enumerate your exact disputes with the article as is? I just read it with a fine-toothed comb and it seems pretty much fine to me.

Suika, what does except in certain countries where its morphology closely matches local spelling and pronunciation mean? Which countries use Kunreisiki? Jpatokal 04:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

My first problem is that user 218.228.102.190, who has been signing as Suika, is, I strongly suspect, a sockpuppet of user Whisper to me; 218.228.102.190's only edits have been to this page, starting just after I corrected some of Whisper to me's usual nonsense. If they're not the same person, they have remarkably similar misapprehensions about romanization. Kunreishiki is neither the Japanese domestic nor the international standard. Foreign students of Japanese learn Hepburn or modified Hepburn. Japanese students learn Hepburn.

Be all that as it may, the changes to the article have removed most of the problem claims, but the following is still problematic:

    "For instance, the polite form of hanas-u ("to speak") becomes hanash-i-
    masu in Hepburn and hanas-i-masu in Kunreisiki: the s -> sh shift is 
    foreign to Japanese morphology, although it is reflected in 
    pronunciation."

Re-written as follows it would be ok, but would not be a very good example for this article:

    The polite form of the verb hana-su (to speak) becomes hana-shi-masu 
    in Hepburn and hana-si-masu in kunreishiki.   

The problem is that the s-sh shift is not foreign to Japanese morphology, as shown in the sa-gyou (sa-line) of the kana chart

    さ (pronounced as "sa")　し ("shi")　す ("su")　せ　("se")　そ ("so")

This is also reflected in the ta-gyou (ta, chi, tsu, te, to).

Exploding Boy 05:54, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

We're getting our fancy linguistic terms mixed up here... In Japanese, si/shi, ti/chi, and tu/tsu are single phonemes, and it's not possible to distinguish between them in hiragana. Phonologically, nothing happens when "hanasu" is conjugated into "hanashi" -- but phonetically, an English speaker hears a difference. This difference is reflected in Hepburn, but not Kunrei. Jpatokal 07:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Well any speaker would hear a difference, but at any rate, the major problems seem to have been dealt with and this is not a big enough problem to sustain the factual accuracy message. Exploding Boy 08:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

My first problem is that...I strongly suspect, a sockpuppet of user Whisper to me; ...they have remarkably similar misapprehensions about romanization.

I do not know WhisperToMe at all, and so do your personal displeasure. I had rewritten the Rômazi article in Wikipedia (ja) first, then rewrote the Nipponsiki and the Kunreisiki articles in Wikipedia (en). Anyway, whoever edited the article after you should not be the matter.

What does except in certain countries where its morphology closely matches local spelling and pronunciation mean? Which countries use Kunreisiki?

That is Sekicho's writing, and you've removed it anyway. Sekicho added many words and sentences in order to improve my bare writing. It was a good job. But I will substitute the last example for a simple conjugation table maybe next weekend. Suika 05-31-2004

I only know that a few European languages, such as Polish, use kunrei spellings instead of Hepburn spellings. That was the basis of said statement. -- Sekicho 22:26, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

As the "Monbusho" thing was lost in the rewrite Suika did, I've decided to add it back. WhisperToMe 03:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One more thing; should this article be written from a "Hepburn stance" as Hepburn is the standard on Wikipedia? (As in mention the romanization system as "Kunrei-shiki" throughout the article as opposed to "Kunrei-siki") WhisperToMe 03:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted your last edit. As I've told you before, kunreishiki is not the official romanization system used in Japanese public schools (whatever that means anyway). Hepburn is taught in all Japanese schools. Exploding Boy 03:37, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

So, how can we explain how it got the "Monbusho" name? One thing is that you and I must think of a way to explain "Monbusho" because Kunrei-shiki is known under that name.

In this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Kunrei-shiki&diff=3778531&oldid=3775404), this was removed and rewritten:

Although Kunreisiki is the standard romanization system for Japanese public schools, the government generally uses Hepburn for romanizing Japanese names and terms in English contexts, as well as some less language-specific contexts such as passports and road signs. This is because most romanized Japanese is directed at foreigners, most of whom are more comfortable with English morphology than Japanese morphology.

The mention of the "schools" became lost. WhisperToMe 03:38, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The explanation is wrong. Kunreishiki is not the standard romanization system in public schools; Hepburn is. Why do we have to keep rehashing the same old thing over and over and over and over again? We've discussed this at length already. ALL, not "most" romanized Japanese is directed at foreigners. Japanese people have no need to represent their language in Roman characters; they have three systems of their own already. Exploding Boy 03:51, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. If you are saying that Kunrei is NOT used in schools (Remember that both romanization systems can be used in tandem), how come that Kunrei-shiki became known as the "Monbusho system" in the first place? Are you saying it is not used anymore? There are instances when Japanese must be romanized yet it doesn't have to pertain to foreigners (e.g. e-mail addresses, which cannot be put in kanji) WhisperToMe 03:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have just uploaded a photo I just took of the romanization page of the New Horizon English Course text book for 1st year (beginning English) students in Japan. The book was published 2 years ago. The photograph is of page 113, and shows the romaji (ローマ字) study page, with a chart. At the top of the page, next to the word ローマ字, is written Hebonshiki (ヘボン式), the Japanese name for the Hepburn system. Exploding Boy 03:58, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Image removed as copyright violation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:08, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

1. This confirms that Hepburn is used when teaching English to students in Japan.

I believe (I do not know for sure) that Kunrei is seen in textbooks relating to the Japanese language. Again, I don't know exactly or for sure how it is used. One thing for certain is that Kunrei was made the official system of the school system (hence the Monbusho name), but as Hepburn has shown, the "official" system doesn't have to be, and is not in many cases, the de facto standard. (Which is why even though Kunrei is the "official" system of the Japanese government, that everything is in Hepburn!) WhisperToMe 04:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No modern Japanese language text for foreigners uses kunreishiki. They all use Hepburn. Texts used by Japanese students contain no romaji. None of the Japanese programs of which I'm aware (and I have a degree in Japanese) teaches any system other than Hepburn. Kunreishiki used to be taught to Japanese elementary school students, but this practice appears to be largely dying out since all Japanese students learn Hepburn starting in year one of junior high school. Non-Hepburn romanizations are marked wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is no legally recognized "official" romanization system within Japan. I could upload photos of any number of street signs, station and airport signs, building names and on and on and on, all of which use Hepburn, but it would be a waste of my time and the Wikipedia's bandwidth. As I've stated before, I have never seen any "official" romanization (street signs, place names, official documents) in Japan that was not Hepburn or modified Hepburn. Exploding Boy 04:19, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

No modern Japanese language text for foreigners uses kunreishiki. They all use Hepburn. Incorrect. While it does not use kunrei-siki, all of Eleanor Jorden's books use her JSL romanization scheme, which includes books published 1987 and many in the 90s and 2000s. This is based on the same Yale system used when teaching members of the US military.

So would this explanation work: "Kunrei-shiki is known as the Monbusho system as it was made the official romanization system of the Japanese school system. Despite this, the practice of actually using Kunrei in school is dying out. Hepburn is used when teaching the English language in Japan." ? WhisperToMe 04:22, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Still problematic. Hepburn is not "used when teaching English," though Japanese words and names used in English texts and classes are romanized using Hepburn. Many students don't learn kunrei-shiki at all any more, because they're not expected to even know the English alphabet until they reach the first year of junior high, as English is not an official part of the elementary school curriculum.

This would work: "Kunrei-shiki is also known as the Monbusho system because it used to be, and still occasionally is, taught to elementary school students. However, all students now learn the Hepburn system as part of the national curriculum, and kunrei-shiki is now rarely used in schools.

Exploding Boy 04:33, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

I added your phrase, plus a snippet on what "Monbusho" is. WhisperToMe 04:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please, have a look at ja:ローマ字. It could help resolve the dispute. A-giau 12:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good Job, Exploding Boy! I agree with you completely. --Rocky7 13:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Extended katakana

Does anyone here know how the extended katakana are romanized in Kunrei-shiki? The table is missing the extended katakana. WhisperToMe 05:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only the kana listed here are officially defined. Representations of the wackier extended katakana (フィ, ティ, ヴァ, スィ etc) are not standardized, although I've seen eg. フィ rendered "hwi" and ティ as "t'i". Jpatokal 16:13, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Nippon-no-Rômazi-Sya (NRS). http://www.geocities.jp/masa_nip/Bunko/Kakikata/tatuoka.html This is a well-established paper. NRS is a member of the Japanese Language Council. (Suika)

The page above romanizes eg. ティ as "ti" and ウォ as "wo", meaning that there is no one-to-one correspondance to the kana. This is, of course, one way of doing it but you cannot call this "standard". Jpatokal 02:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that is the first working paper said "the same phoneme (for instance, チ and ティ) should not be distinguished". When one-to-one correspondence is necessary, add an apostrophe between a consonant and a vowel.

you cannot call this "standard".

Hepburn extension shown in Wikipedia (En) is also not "standard". No official documentation around there. (Suika)

The Hepburn page says the extensions are not standard. But if you want to add a table of extended Kunrei as suggested by Rômazi-Sya, then please go ahead. Jpatokal 03:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Minnan

After seeing that the Min-nan Wikipedia uses Kunrei-shiki naming for Shintaro Ishihara, I wonder if Min-nan is a language where it is standard form to use Kunrei-shiki. WhisperToMe 23:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. Minnan is not officially a language (it's a "dialect" in Commiespeak), and they can't even standardize their own name (cf. Minnan, Southern Min, Ban-lam-gu, Hokkien, Fujianese, Teochew, Taiwanese, ...), much less renderings of Japanese. Jpatokal 02:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to the opening paragraph, these different names are used by different people. For instance, Bân-lâm-gú is the "native" name but other people call it "Min Nan". And the name is translated to "Southern Min" or "Southern Fujian". And "Hokkien" (meaning Fujianese) and "Teochew" are other names used, especially in Southeast Asia. But according to that article, the natives call it one name amongst each other. And "Taiwanese" appears to be a subdialect of that language. The language also has a different name in the Philippines. I'll have to look at more Min Nan links later.. I notified User:A-giau about the debate, as he knows the language. WhisperToMe 03:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, this is an off-topic response to Jpatokal's off-topic comment: the various names reflect the internal diversity (some dialects can be hard to understand between each other) and geographical spread (all over Southeast Asia, in the ethnic enclaves) of the Southern Min group and the lack of official standardization -- which is not to say Min Nan doesn't have prestigious dialects (e.g. Xiamen dialect; Tainan dialect). "Taiwanese" does not necessarily refer to a specific dialect; it may refer to the most dominant dialect on the island or it may serve as a convenient label for the set of dialects spoken there (most notable for the Japanese loanwords).

Now regarding Japanese rômazi: the Southern Min Wikipedia does try to stick to the Kunrei-shiki, because (1) it's an ISO 3602 recommendation and (2) its phonology is largely compatible with the Latin script we use for Southern Min (i.e. one can know nothing about Kunrei-shiki and still get a fairly good pronunciation just by happening to know the Min Nan script).

A-giau 06:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

>> not officially a language -- Language, here, is a relatively scientific term meaning system of speech. Language and dialect are differentiated, often, by politics rather than linguistics (a language is a dialect with an army, it is said), thus WhisperToMe was not wrong in using the word. Perhaps people could be more cognizant of this. ~ Dpr 19:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redoing the kana chart

I tried to import the design in the Hepburn article to the Kunrei article and to add the non-standard Extended Kunrei characters in. As there are some things I don't know, I'm putting this on the talk page so this can be corrected.

I'm not sure how "va, ve, vi" are handled, nor am I sure how "we" and "wi" are handled.

Features of Kunrei-shiki romanization

Particles

• When he へ is used as a particle it is written e, not he (as in Nippon-shiki).
• When ha は is used as a particle it is written wa, not ha.
• When wo を is used as a particle it is written o, not wo.

Long vowels

• Long vowels are indicated by a circumflex, for example long o is written ô.

Other

• Syllabic n ん is written as n before consonants but as n' before vowels and y.
• Geminate consonants are marked by doubling the consonant following the っ.
• The first letter in a sentence, and all proper nouns, are capitalized.
• ISO 3602 has the strict form, see Nihon-shiki.

Kunrei-shiki romanization charts

For hiragana

あ a	い i	う u	え e	お o	(ya)	(yu)	(yo)
か ka	き ki	く ku	け ke	こ ko	きゃ kya	きゅ kyu	きょ kyo
さ sa	し si	す su	せ se	そ so	しゃ sya	しゅ syu	しょ syo
た ta	ち ti	つ tu	て te	と to	ちゃ tya	ちゅ tyu	ちょ tyo
な na	に ni	ぬ nu	ね ne	の no	にゃ nya	にゅ nyu	にょ nyo
は ha	ひ hi	ふ hu	へ he	ほ ho	ひゃ hya	ひゅ hyu	ひょ hyo
ま ma	み mi	む mu	め me	も mo	みゃ mya	みゅ myu	みょ myo
や ya		ゆ yu		よ yo
ら ra	り ri	る ru	れ re	ろ ro	りゃ rya	りゅ ryu	りょ ryo
わ wa	ゐ wi		ゑ we	を wo
				ん n
が ga	ぎ gi	ぐ gu	げ ge	ご go	ぎゃ gya	ぎゅ gyu	ぎょ gyo
ざ za	じ zi	ず zu	ぜ ze	ぞ zo	じゃ zya	じゅ zyu	じょ zyo
だ da	ぢ zi	づ zu	で de	ど do
ば ba	び bi	ぶ bu	べ be	ぼ bo	びゃ bya	びゅ byu	びょ byo
ぱ pa	ぴ pi	ぷ pu	ぺ pe	ぽ po	ぴゃ pya	ぴゅ pyu	ぴょ pyo

The characters in red are obsolete in modern Japanese.

For standard katakana

ア a	イ i	ウ u	エ e	オ o
カ ka	キ ki	ク ku	ケ ke	コ ko	キャ kya	キュ kyu	キョ kyo
サ sa	シ si	ス su	セ se	ソ so	シャ sya	シュ syu	ショ syo
タ ta	チ ti	ツ tu	テ te	ト to	チャ tya	チュ tyu	チョ tyo
ナ na	ニ ni	ヌ nu	ネ ne	ノ no	ニャ nya	ニュ nyu	ニョ nyo
ハ ha	ヒ hi	フ hu	ヘ he	ホ ho	ヒャ hya	ヒュ hyu	ヒョ hyo
マ ma	ミ mi	ム mu	メ me	モ mo	ミャ mya	ミュ myu	ミョ myo
ヤ ya		ユ yu		ヨ yo
ラ ra	リ ri	ル ru	レ re	ロ ro	リャ rya	リュ ryu	リョ ryo
ワ wa	ヰ wi		ヱ we	ヲ wo
				ン n
ガ ga	ギ gi	グ gu	ゲ ge	ゴ go	ギャ gya	ギュ gyu	ギョ gyo
ザ za	ジ zi	ズ zu	ゼ ze	ゾ zo	ジャ zya	ジュ zyu	ジョ zyo
ダ da	ヂ zi	ヅ zu	デ de	ド do
バ ba	ビ bi	ブ bu	ベ be	ボ bo	ビャ bya	ビュ byu	ビョ byo
パ pa	ピ pi	プ pu	ペ pe	ポ po	ピャ pya	ピュ pyu	ピョ pyo

The characters in red are obsolete in modern Japanese.

For extended katakana

These are used mainly to represent the sounds in words in other languages. Most of these are not formally standardized and some are very rarely used.

			イェ ye
	ウィ wi		ウェ we	ウォ wo
ヴァ va	ヴィ vi	ヴ vu	ヴェ ve	ヴォ vo
			シェ sye
			ジェ zye
			チェ tye
	ティ t'i or ti	トゥ tu
		テュ tyu
	ディ di	ドゥ du
		デュ dyu
ツァ twa	ツィ twi		ツェ twe	ツォ two
ファ hwa	フィ hwi		フェ hwe	フォ hwo
		フュ hwyu

(Also, フョ>hwyo)

WhisperToMe 00:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have been researching the various types of kana and romaji lately in an effort to create a spreadsheet as a handy reference offline. One of the gaps I have is Nihon-shiki and Kunrei transliterations of the extended katakana.

So today I decided to check on whether or not Nihon-shiki or Kunrei did convert those kana or ignored them. I just left the talk page of the article on Nihon-shiki where someone stated that extended katakana are undefined in Nihon-shiki. I was fine with that, but requested that mention of that fact be made somewhere in the article.

Then I came here and, while extended katakana are still undefined in Kunrei as well, WhisperToMe was granted permission to make a table anyway.

I will be looking forward to its completion, however, I have found two other tables on Wikipedia and neither are alike even given the differences in the articles for which they were created. In the interests of people who do research, I would like to make some suggestions for this table.

1. Since Kunrei has fairly consistent rules and established precedent for converting kana to roman type, this should not be a problem. All are treated the same for the w series, ウ + yoon = w*, so that ウァ = wa, ウィ = wi, ウゥ = wu, etc. The v series would be handled the same except that you would use, ヴ instead of ウ and ヴ alone is vu. None of the permitted exceptions of Kunrei apply to these kana. I hope this solves your question here.

2. Before you add another table, please fix the other tables so they both show all the same katakana. Adding the IPA transcriptions to each table would be a nice touch as well. Only the one in Transcription into Japanese has this.

3. Unless the obsolete kana are now being used as extended katakana they should not be used on a table for modern / extended katakana. Maybe put these on a separate table of obsolete kana?

4. In the katakana article reference to the extended set is given as a link to the Transcription into Japanese article. While the Hepburn article has its own table. You could save time and just make one table for the extended katakana set and enter links from the various other articles to that. Either put the table in the katakana article or the Transcription into Japanese article (showing conversion to the romaji systems that support extended katakana). Or use one template and put a table in each article, making adjustments as needed. Considering that the extended katakana for some mora have hiragana equivalents (for example, the kw and gw series) it may be best to put the extended kana set in the Transcription into Japanese article.

5. I just noticed this a little while ago. How can くゎ kwa and ぐゎ gwa be permitted exceptions? They are not on the main table, probably because in these forms they are obsolete and have been replaced with modern equivalents that do not affect their pronunciation for use with dialects and foreign words (). See suggestion 3 in regards to obsolete kana. So there is the main table, extended set, obsolete kana and the permitted exceptions table for Kunrei-shiki. Four tables in all, three of which could be templated/linked.

Rod Lockwood (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

References

POV

This passage is problematic: "Kunrei-shiki is sometimes known as the Monbushō system in English, because it was until relatively recently taught in the Monbushō-approved elementary school curriculum." (my italics). So far I have seen no proof that Monbusho actually abandoned kunrei. Please present actual fact, such as official policy documents issued by the ministry. -Himasaram 16:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is dispute regarding fact, not point of view. Removing POV template. — Gwalla | Talk 22:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length already. Exploding Boy 22:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I added a Disputed template instead. And yes, it has been discussed before, but needs to be discussed further. Until there are proof of the opposite, the article should say that learning kunrei-shiki is part of the Monbusho curriculum. -Himasaram 09:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It isn't. Where are you getting the idea it still is? Did you actually read the long discussion on the subject? Why must we keep repeating ourselves? Exploding Boy 20:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Of course I read it. And the only proof you've published so far, is a removed photo of a page of a textbook. You haven't even proved that that book actually is used in shools following the Monbusho curriculum. The rest are just your opinions, Exploding Boy. -Himasaram 21:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As this discussion hasn't advanced for a month and Himasaram appears to be in a minority of one, I'll remove the dispute tag. Jpatokal 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Oh My Goodness! I guarantee what Exploding Boy has editted in Kunrei-shiki and insisted here are all based on the more truly truths. Though you may not believe, I'm not his sockpuppet. I am a Japanese-native speaker and have learned Japanese romanization systems as well as him, therefore, it seems to me that he is one of pure Japanese Wikipedians as well as me. --Rocky7 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Monbusho standard

I read the above discussion with some amazement. The Kunrei shiki system is the one used in Japanese elementary schools. This could be checked rather easily by anyone who lives in Japan. User:Exploding Boy strikes again. --DannyWilde 15:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Having taught at several elementary schools in Japan I can state with certainty that it is not. Hepburn is the system taught. And please keep your personal statements to yourself; you're not the only one who knows something about Japan. We spent a long time discussing this; you cannot come along and single-handedly revert what consensus has created. Exploding Boy 15:11, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that detail, but I'm still not convinced. I've just spent a few minutes leafing through a collection of elementary school textbooks, without finding anything yet. As far as I know kunrei shiki is taught in elementary schools in Japan -- that was certainly what I noticed at my son's school, but I can't find it in his textbooks yet. He actually hasn't done it at school, but everything I've seen indicates Kunrei. There was a romaji chart in one of his first year books in kunrei, and all the kumon books use it. Anyway, the boy's sleeping now so I can't search too hard. But since you're so adamant, I'll find evidence one way or the other. Please don't make any destructive revert edits. --DannyWilde 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Destructive revert edits? (Removed. Please see your talk page). Exploding Boy 15:37, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

My meaning here is that, since I edited lots of minor points in the article, such as paragraphing and categories, if you want to restore the original version of the text, I'd be glad if you didn't do it by a simple revert which would also destroy all the other edits I'd made. In fact that is what you did, which is a step in the right direction. --DannyWilde 15:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe Kunrei system is taught in Japanese elementary schools too. I learned Kunrei system from school. Most educated Japanese people believe that Kunrei is more "formal". Even some cultural products continue to use Kunrei, for example the Koreeda film "Maborosi" (as opposed to Maboroshi). --kokoko

User:Exploding Boy said there was a change recently. I thought that it was the Kunrei system at elementary schools too, but he claims he checked it with some people. I haven't checked it yet, I would like to get some evidence either way. --DannyWilde 22:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

System taught in Japanese elementary schools

I have verified that the Kunrei system is the system taught in Japanese elementary schools. This is according to a Kumon publication published in 2004. For those who don't know, Kumon is a major publisher of educational materials for Japanese children, and is extremely unlikely to be misinformed on this matter. See the photos on the right. For those who can't read the Japanese caption, please let me know and I'll translate it. I hope this discussion will be ended now with good grace. Thanks to all contributors to the article and the discussion. --DannyWilde 06:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I commend your efforts, but I'm afraid you have verified that kunrei is a system taught to Japanese schoolchildren, while the dispute is whether kunrei is the Monbusho-approved system. The only ways to get to a final resolution on this are to a) dig up the official Monbusho curricula stating that kunrei is the One True Romaji (proof by fiat), or b) find a Monbusho-approved schoolbook that uses Hepburn (disproof by counterexample). Kumon is a juku, meaning it exists outside the formal school system (albeit aimed at helping students succeed in it), and I don't think its materials have the Monbusho seal of approval. Jpatokal 09:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the caption on the Kumon poster? The poster, published in 2004, clearly states that the Kunrei system is taught in elementary schools. Whether that poster is approved by Monbusho has nothing to do with the issue. Kumon is hardly likely to make a mistake about this. By the way, one of the two photos is a Kumon one, the other one is published by another company. --DannyWilde 02:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it says () no naka wa shougakkou de tsukau(?) kakikata desu, or as you say, the "Kunrei system is taught in elementary schools". What is being disputed, and what is still disputed, is whether Kunrei is the only system taught in schools. Jpatokal 08:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the photo is more blurred than I'd imagined. It says "narau" 習う. My photographic skills are in need of improvement I'm afraid. --DannyWilde 13:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jpatokal. Even if kunrei is being taught in some schools, Hepburn is being taught in others. Perhaps it's a regional thing? Perhaps one or the other is being taught as an adjunct? (The latter seems unlikely). We still need more information. Exploding Boy 17:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Practically, Hepburn-shiki Romanization has been taught and Kunrei-shiki Romanization has been ignored, though Kunrei-shiki has been taught first and Hepburn-shiki second. --Rocky7 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Analyze the ambiguity of Japanese government correctly.

I am very astonished with the current context of Kunrei-shiki Rōmaji and this discussion page, because, in fact, Japanese people have been taught both Kunrei-shiki and Hepburn-shiki, and almost all of Japanese people have adopted Hepburn-shiki mainly, because they themselves(including the bureaucrats of Japanese government) have to feel that some regulations of the current Kunrei-shiki are apparently wrong. The current Kunrei-shiki(since 1954) seems to reflect the arrogant way of thinking of both ultra-right wingers and ultar-left wingers who aren't going to communicate with the Westerners friendly. As a result of such a crazily dynamic politics, the current Kunrei-shiki was born in 1954. 1954 is one of such a confused period for the Japanese government. And such a reckless ultar-right wingers are still alive and well, extending its power, unfortunately. Moreover, many extra-regulations in the current Kunrei-shiki(1954) are evidently worse than ones of the past Kunrei-shiki(1937). This means that the pre-war government of Japan is so much wiser than all of the post-war one. After noticing it, I have very mixed feelings. Anyway, the true facts about Japanese Romanization are too complicated and too unknown to discuss here. Therefore, I'd like to offer the necessary facts of Japanese ordinary people and Japanese government directly into the article with the references in the first place. Any Japanese Wikipedian who read this talk page, would have to feel it is no use to discuss here, because some of you have been superficially deceived by the tricky compromise made by the Japanese government, though any Japanese can't be cheated by such a piutiful excuse. If you want to know and talk about the truths of Japanese Romanization systems, you should live in Japan at least for a few years and realize the complicated truths. So, forgive me for omitting some procedures. Thank you. -- Rocky7 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had to revert your edits to the article, because they're not WP:NPOV and in rather poor English to boot (sorry). Please discuss changes here first. Jpatokal 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Jpatokal means. I think, one can't object to anything Rocky7 said here. And obviously Jpatokal has never discussed anything meaningful and been against Wikipedia's policies of free-editting and WP:NPOV. You should not stick to your own opinion, ignoring the facts about Japanese words. You should discuss here first before reverting. SeraphGood 10:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit you are proposing is the following (bolding mine):

Today, the main users of Kunrei-shiki are linguists studying Japanese. Native speakers of Japanese (especially within Japan) and pro-Japanese foreigners have adopted Hepburn-shiki since nineteenth century, because it reflects the most accurate pronunciations of Japanese words. The advantage of Kunrei-shiki is only that it is better able to illustrate Japanese grammar.

My objections are as follows:

• "Main users of Kunrei-shiki" -- this is a bold claim and requires a source. There's plenty of counterevidence, just try googling for eg "kaisya" and see how many linguists you can find in the results.
• "Accurate pronunciation" is POV. Hepburn is more accurate if you're an English speaker and expect your romaji to follow English rules; most Japanese are more comfortable with Kunrei.
• The current article states that Kunrei's main advantage is illustrating grammar. By claiming that it's the only one, you're ignoring its higher regularity and conformance to kana patterns. Jpatokal 10:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Project Assessment

Though shorter than the Hepburn article, this one does appear to include all the necessary information about the system itself (e.g. phoneme charts); it includes detailed, well-written, and unbiased descriptions of the system's origin, its official status, the difficulties it presents to native English speakers, and the fact that Hepburn is thus the de facto standard in many parts of the world. Thus, B class is warranted IMHO. LordAmeth 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy claim about "choosing" systems

I removed this sentence from the end of the lead: "Today, Japanese commonly choose between Kunrei-shiki and Hepburn depending on the given situation."

This is plainly not true, in any literal sense. Of course, you will find bits of Hepburn and bits of Kunrei-shiki written here and there, and you will also find (a preponderance of) "Waapuro input" pseudo-romanisation (jyo, ssyi, cchi, etc etc) which is not part of any system. My impression is that around 0.001% of the population actually knows sufficiently what "Hepburn" and "Kunreishiki" are to be able to make such a "choice". This could be replaced by a sentence about how chaotic romanisation actually is, but I'm not sure how to make that a brief comment in the lead. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

English Pronunciation of "Tokyo"

The English pronunciation of "Tokyo" as /ˈtoʊkiːoʊ/ isn't "wrong", it's just different from the Japanese pronunciation of Japanese pronunciation: [to:kjo:]. While I understand that this does probably come from a misreading of Hepburn romaji or some other Romanization of Japanese, Tokyo is now a seperate word from its Japanese language etymon tōkyō and the accepted English-language exonym for Tokyo. The article should give a better example. Categorizing the English word "Tokyo" as a mispronunciation of Japanese is only historically true. -preceding undated comment added on 18:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Japan is switching its official romanization from Kunrei to Hepburn?

Will this stick?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/03/02/japan/society/japan-romanization-rules-revise/

Alphapeta (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking if this source is acceptable for use in this article? Then, yes. If this is a general question about kunreishiki, please see WP:NOTFORUM. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Possibly dubious claim in the article?

It must be noted, however, that words written with Hepburn system are often pronounced incorrectly as well; for example, while English has the [i] sound of Japanese, in English it is rarely written as 'i', which creates the impression that 'i' is supposed to represent [ɪ] — thus [çiɾa̠ɡa̠na̠] became [hɪɹəɡænə] in English instead of [hiɹəɡænə].

Is there a source for the relevance of this? As far as I understand it, vowel length is phonemic in Japanese but the difference between [i] and [ɪ] is not. So Japanese people may prefer the pronunciation with [ɪ] over the pronunciation with [i] since most dialects of English pronounce /i/ as a long vowel ('hiiragana'). I don't know whether they actually do prefer this, but it seems to me that this statement should be clearly sourced, or else removed if a source isn't available. Stockhausenfan (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it'd be just fine to remove it. (Love your editor handle, by the way!) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Great, I will remove this from the article then unless someone else objects. (And thanks, yes great composer indeed!) Stockhausenfan (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)