Betelgeuzah Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:Are you really suggesting they should shoehorn foreign pronunciation into their sentences? Why?

Like they shoehorn foreign words into their sentences? Like they shoehorn romaji and numerals to their sentences?

No, those two things aren't even remotely similar. Their pronunciation of loanwords is completely consistent with the pre-existing Japanese phonological system. There have been a few small changes and additions here and there like ジェ and ドゥ, but not many. When a loanword is adapted into Japanese, its pronunciation is still consistent with the phonetic characteristics of the language. The same goes for loanwords used in English, Chinese, Korean, and pretty much any other language.

Quote:All the languages you mentioned differ from Japanese in the way that they haven't created a whole new writing system based around writing foreign words in particular.

I think you should know what you're talking about before you go around dictating sweeping language reforms for other countries. They didn't create "a whole new writing system based around writing foreign words in particular." Katakana was extensively used for writing native Japanese words for close to 1000 years, and still is, to a lesser extent.

Quote:Yet even that system can't accomplish everything and thus romaji is used.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Betelgeuzah Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:Are you really suggesting they should shoehorn foreign pronunciation into their sentences? Why?

Like they shoehorn foreign words into their sentences? Like they shoehorn romaji and numerals to their sentences?

Ok, minor nitpick, romaji in normal japanese sentences is pretty rare. It's mostly limited to acronyms/initialisms and extremely simple words like "go" (i love when they put furigana on that, lol). As for numerals, they're no more shoehorned in than they are in english. You know they're not english or even european right? If you want a native european numeral system, think roman numerals.

Betelgeuzah Wrote:What you don't seem to understand is that it's not foreign pronunciation if it becomes a part of the language (and thus DOES NOT sound ridiculous any longer). Just like the shoehorned words that were not originally part of the language became as such.

Ok, but to switch to accurate english pronunciations would involve such a massive change to the language that it'd be hard to still call it japanese. You'd be increasing the number of basic sounds in the language by more than a factor of 2 (totally guessing, i forget the numbers, english has like 40-something consonants and vowels?) and adding support for closed syllables (to get rid of all the redundant vowels). Then you get crazy english words like "matchstick". Seriously, that's just cruel. Then do we insist they get the intonation and stress accent right too? You might as well just say they should stop speaking japanese and start speaking english.

Betelgeuzah Wrote:All the languages you mentioned differ from Japanese in the way that they haven't created a whole new writing system based around writing foreign words in particular. Yet even that system can't accomplish everything and thus romaji is used.

So バレる is a loan word? フラれた？ナンパ？キリン？マグロ？ザーザー？ポツポツ？

Katakana is used for a lot more than loan words and it certainly wasn't *created* for loan words. I'm not sure when and why exactly writing loan words in katakana started but you're making it sound more complex than it is. Am i brainwashed? I actually *like* japanese's writing system.

JimmySeal Wrote:No, those two things aren't even remotely similar. Their pronunciation of loanwords is completely consistent with the pre-existing Japanese phonological system. There have been a few small changes and additions here and there like ジェ and ドゥ, but not many. When a loanword is adapted into Japanese, its pronunciation is still consistent with the phonetic characteristics of the language. The same goes for loanwords used in English, Chinese, Korean, and pretty much any other language.

They have been shoehorned because Japanese have not created a proper Japanese word for them, simply thrown them into the katakana-mixer and see what happens. That's what loanwords are. Just because pronunciation is consistent doesn't mean they aren't shoehorned into the language.

Quote:I think you should know what you're talking about before you go around dictating sweeping language reforms for other countries. They didn't create "a whole new writing system based around writing foreign words in particular." Katakana was extensively used for writing native Japanese words for close to 1000 years, and still is, to a lesser extent.

Thanks for the irrelevant history lesson. It doesn't matter what their purpose was 1000 years ago, what matters is that they have largely lost their purpose today.

just think of katakana as capital letters, not omg a whole other alphabet!1!!1

I agree katakana words are shoehorned in especially when they just katakana-ize things rather than localising them a little however how is that any different than loanwords in english, things like long latin/greek based scientific terminology?

edit: why do I always forget question marks these days?

nadiatims Wrote:just think of katakana as capital letters, not omg a whole other alphabet!1!!1

I agree katakana words are shoehorned in especially when they just katakana-ize things rather than localising them a little however how is that any different than loanwords in english, things like long latin/greek based scientific terminology?

edit: why do I always forget question marks these days?

Well, at least English can manage with a one(two) set of characters unlike Japanese that has four yet only needs three. Except just because it's been used for 1000 years justifies it's existence for another 1000 years, right?

well there's your argument. Simpler to keep it as 3 rather than 4 as some are proposing.

Romaji only I agree could work, but that's a whole other thread.

Though my argument also includes the proposal to "shoehorn" more sounds into the language through borrowed words that are abundant in today's language. The change would be massive indeed but I don't get the talk about the language ceasing of being Japanese anymore just because the amount of possible sounds increases. Japanese has pitiful amount of them as-is, adding more won't hurt.

In the end shoehorned or not, it would be a part of the Japanese language.

Betelgeuzah Wrote:Well, at least English can manage with a one(two) set of characters unlike Japanese that has four yet only needs three. Except just because it's been used for 1000 years justifies it's existence for another 1000 years, right?

Don't go taking things out of context. The 1000 year comment was a response to your argument that katakana is un-Japanese and was contrived for the purpose of writing foreign words.

I don't even know how to respond to the insanity of the notion that "4 writing systems is too many so they should write words in their original spellings." Seriously? Replace an (arguably) incongruous system with something even more incongruous? Japanese people don't have trouble learning katakana. They've got 3000 kanji to deal with. Two sets of kana is not a problem.

Quote:Thanks for the irrelevant history lesson. It doesn't matter what their purpose was 1000 years ago, what matters is that they have largely lost their purpose today.

They have? How's that? They seem to be in use for a very distinct set of purposes every day.

So 4 different symbol sets is too many, to make it simpler we should get rid of one and write the words in a foreign spelling system that most Japanese people won't be able to read?

It's not really possible to introduce such a massive change to the language through the writing system. Changes to a writing system can only have very limited effects on the language -- certainly nothing to the extent of adding tens or hundreds of sounds to a language that doesn't have them.

yudantaiteki Wrote:So 4 different symbol sets is too many, to make it simpler we should get rid of one and write the words in a foreign spelling system that most Japanese people won't be able to read?

It's not really possible to introduce such a massive change to the language through the writing system. Changes to a writing system can only have very limited effects on the language -- certainly nothing to the extent of adding tens or hundreds of sounds to a language that doesn't have them.

Small steps. First get rid of katakana. Rest can come later or not, either way katakana is useless.

Quote:They have? How's that? They seem to be in use for a very distinct set of purposes every day.

Purposes so delicate that they simply can not be replaced by romaji and/or hiragana?

shall we also ditch capital letters in english?

if you ditch katakana, why write the loanwords in romaji?...why not use hiragana or kanji like in chinese?

The entire script could be replaced by romaji or hiragana, but you're not suggesting a replacement of katakana with romaji. You're suggesting replacing a loan word with the original word. Just replacing katakana with romaji wouldn't really do much except complicate things more. This isn't an issue of "small steps" -- script changes are an order of magnitude more simple than language changes.

And what about words from Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Korean, or other languages that don't use romaji? Should those all be written in their native scripts?

Betelgeuzah Wrote:either way katakana is useless.

Says the guy who doesn't know Japanese.

What is being said is that if it is necessary to distinguish foreign words from native words through a different writing system, it might as well be romaji because Japanese need to learn it anyway and it can do what katakana can.

Anyway, you're misinterpreting my points. First you make the writing system simpler, then you can think about whether to apply foreign spelling or not. Not "change spelling to make it simpler".

I am suggesting replacing katakana with romaji. I am also suggesting replacing a loan word with the original. They don't have to be done simultaneously.

Quote:Says the guy who doesn't know Japanese.

That statement is quite easy to prove wrong if it is false, but so far all I have heard are ambiguous statements like this. Why waste everyone's time?

nadiatims Wrote:shall we also ditch capital letters in english?

Uile ue'r at it, I propos getting rid of the letters C, Q, W, X, and Y, and silent Es. They'r usless. Uai ar peopl still forsing themselves to uz thes pointless letters long after thei'v seased to hav ani purpos?

It is quite disappointing that instead of coming out and saying why exactly romaji can't replace katakana people are being made fun of and ambiguous statements are the only proper response I get. I will change my stance as soon as you get to the point (which you could have done pages ago....).

Have you provided one good reason why katakana should be replaced with romaji? I haven't seen one. And could you give an example of one of these "ambiguous statements" you're talking about?

JimmySeal Wrote:Have you provided one good reason why katakana should be replaced with romaji? I haven't seen one. And could you give an example of one of these "ambiguous statements" you're talking about?

Because a) Japanese need to learn both anyway and b) it is unnecessary to have both around.

Ambiguous statements?

Quote:They seem to be in use for a very distinct set of purposes every day.

To this I asked for a response as to what said "purposes" are that romaji/hiragana can't replace.

Quote:Says the guy who doesn't know Japanese.

Ooh, here is some kind of implication that I am missing something fundamental, but of course it is not stated what exactly that could be.

Betelgeuzah Wrote:Because a) Japanese need to learn both anyway and b) it is unnecessary to have both around.

By that logic, hiragana and kanji are both unnecessary too. If they have to learn the English alphabet anyway, why not just write the whole language in a combination of romaji and European words? And while we're at it, we can get the Russians, Chinese, Koreans, and everyone else to do the same. They're all learning English too, after all. Once you're on that point, why should they even bother learning two or more languages? Everyone's learning English these days anyway, so why use anything else?

At what point do you define what is necessary and what isn't?

JimmySeal Wrote:By that logic, hiragana and kanji are both unnecessary too. If they have to learn the English alphabet anyway, why not just write the whole language in a combination of romaji and European words?

Yeah, maybe hiragana is? I haven't thought about that much. But kanji help to distinguish meanings when a word is pronunced similarly to other words which romaji can't do, so at least by my logic they are hardly unnecessary. Now can you finally tell me what is the similar characteristic about katakana that makes replacing them with romaji impossible?

If I remember correctly the government tried to romanize the language after WW2 but couldn't. So they seem to be open to the idea but its clear at least kanji has to stay.

Quote:And while we're at it, we can get the Russians, Chinese, Koreans, and everyone else to do the same. They're all learning English too, after all. Once you're on that point, why should they even bother learning two languages? Everyone's learning English these days anyway, so why use anything else?

At what point do you define what is necessary and what isn't?

Oranges and apples. The languages are still not similar.

Betelgeuzah Wrote:Oranges and apples. The languages are still not similar.

No, seriously. Give me a reason why Russia and Korea shouldn't switch their language to a romanized system if they're all learning English anyway.

Katakana is not only used to represent foreign words.

JimmySeal Wrote:

Betelgeuzah Wrote:Oranges and apples. The languages are still not similar.

No, seriously. Give me a reason why Russia and Korea shouldn't switch their language to a romanized system if they're all learning English anyway.

I am not familiar with neither language, though I can't see why they couldn't or shouldn't.

Quote:Katakana is not only used to represent foreign words.

So what? Romaji and/or hiragana can't bend to represent anything but foreign words?

Betelgeuzah Wrote:If I remember correctly the government tried to romanize the language after WW2 but couldn't. So they seem to be open to the idea but its clear at least kanji has to stay.

The American occupation authorities temporarily banned katakana because of its association with militarism in Imperial Japan. Of course it didn't work out so good because it's always a bad idea for foreigners to tell people how to formulate their own language.

kitakitsune Wrote:

Betelgeuzah Wrote:If I remember correctly the government tried to romanize the language after WW2 but couldn't. So they seem to be open to the idea but its clear at least kanji has to stay.

The American occupation authorities temporarily banned katakana because of its association with militarism in Imperial Japan. Of course it didn't work out so good because it's always a bad idea for foreigners to tell people how to formulate their own language.

I see. Well, STILL NOTHING as far as stating what makes katakana so precious compared to romaji is concerned. I do agree that it's not for Obama to decide.