User talk:Rar: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Transcription is phonetic by its definition. There's actually NO way to "follow transcription rules strictly" because even same language pair may have several different transcription systems each with their own advantages. Go check "si" vs. "shi". And Hepbur is, actually, very bad at being transcription of Japanese to English, so anyone who use it is, actually, ignoring transcription rules, not following them. I don't think that mentioning other systems than Hepburn is good either. Actually I have to remind you once again, that old discussions was about replacing Hepburn with wa-puro as much as possible, except for some case that are just in too wide use, because of some Hepburn built-in disatvantages and that idea was pretty much supported by everyone, who worked with japanese at that time. What good reasons you have to come now to replace it with something inferior, saying - "I don't care, I alone know better"? "Non-standard" is not good. Previous conventions ARE stadnard. Just other standard from Hepburn, it is just nobody cared to replace field description or document those when those conventions were reached - everyone who worked on japanese titles knew all this already. "More easily recognized" is not good either - even subbers, who introduce titles to fans seems to mostly use same rules. So what good you want to do with your changes that in part actually conflict even with technical limitations set by exp, like use of macron? --[[User:Rowaasr13|Rowaa[SR13]]] 23:54, 31 Jul 2005 (CEST) | Transcription is phonetic by its definition. There's actually NO way to "follow transcription rules strictly" because even same language pair may have several different transcription systems each with their own advantages. Go check "si" vs. "shi". And Hepbur is, actually, very bad at being transcription of Japanese to English, so anyone who use it is, actually, ignoring transcription rules, not following them. I don't think that removing mentioning other systems than Hepburn is good either. Actually I have to remind you once again, that old discussions was about replacing Hepburn with wa-puro as much as possible, except for some case that are just in too wide use, because of some Hepburn built-in disatvantages and that idea was pretty much supported by everyone, who worked with japanese at that time. What good reasons you have to come now to replace it with something inferior, saying - "I don't care, I alone know better"? "Non-standard" is not good. Previous conventions ARE stadnard. Just other standard from Hepburn, it is just nobody cared to replace field description or document those when those conventions were reached - everyone who worked on japanese titles knew all this already. "More easily recognized" is not good either - even subbers, who introduce titles to fans seems to mostly use same rules. So what good you want to do with your changes that in part actually conflict even with technical limitations set by exp, like use of macron? --[[User:Rowaasr13|Rowaa[SR13]]] 23:54, 31 Jul 2005 (CEST) |
Revision as of 21:54, 31 July 2005
Transcription is phonetic by its definition. There's actually NO way to "follow transcription rules strictly" because even same language pair may have several different transcription systems each with their own advantages. Go check "si" vs. "shi". And Hepbur is, actually, very bad at being transcription of Japanese to English, so anyone who use it is, actually, ignoring transcription rules, not following them. I don't think that removing mentioning other systems than Hepburn is good either. Actually I have to remind you once again, that old discussions was about replacing Hepburn with wa-puro as much as possible, except for some case that are just in too wide use, because of some Hepburn built-in disatvantages and that idea was pretty much supported by everyone, who worked with japanese at that time. What good reasons you have to come now to replace it with something inferior, saying - "I don't care, I alone know better"? "Non-standard" is not good. Previous conventions ARE stadnard. Just other standard from Hepburn, it is just nobody cared to replace field description or document those when those conventions were reached - everyone who worked on japanese titles knew all this already. "More easily recognized" is not good either - even subbers, who introduce titles to fans seems to mostly use same rules. So what good you want to do with your changes that in part actually conflict even with technical limitations set by exp, like use of macron? --Rowaa[SR13] 23:54, 31 Jul 2005 (CEST)