4357
Generally when you see romanization of Japanese it is in the Hepburn system;
however, I recently came across the Nihon-shiki system which seems to be
preferable. Why is it that the Hepburn system caught on as opposed to the
Nihon-shiki system?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-17T17:56:50.167
4312
2021-06-06T11:27:57.623
2012-01-18T17:12:36.880
question
rōmaji
Why is the Hepburn system of romanization generally used over the Nihon-shiki system?
You are looking at this from the perspective of someone with a reasonable
knowledge of Japanese, but romaji is wider in application than that. It is
often read by people who have no knowledge of the language, perhaps not even a
desire to learn it. In fact, those people may be the main readers of romaji.

The advantage of Hepburn over Nihon-shiki is largely that Hepburn is more
consistent and intuitive in how it maps letters to pronunciations,
particularly for English speakers. Someone with absolutely no knowledge of
Japanese will be able to produce a closer approximation to the Japanese
original when presented with Hepburn over Nihon-shiki, and it will take them
less time to become familiar with the system. There are fewer pronunciation
quirks.

For instance, take ち and つ.

In Nihon-shiki, this would be rendered "ti" and "tu". A person with no
knowledge of Nihon-shiki or kana may well think that these are pronounced in
the same way as "ta", "te", and "to". On the other hand, Hepburn is very
explicit in pointing out that ち and つ use a different consonant sound, with
its romanizations "chi" and "tsu".

Similarly, not many English speakers would think to produce anything like "sh"
or "ch" from the spelling "syatyô".
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-17T19:14:28.540
4319
2012-01-17T19:14:28.540
315
4312
answer
In answer to this question, I'll give my personal understanding, although I
can't fully substantiate it.

**The kunrei-siki**

Some consider Kunrei-siki to be a better system than Hepburn in representing
Japanese. That is because Kunrei-siki preserves the regularity of the syllabic
system more closely than Hepburn. This is noticeable in the さ row, the た row,
the は row, and those syllables using ゃ, ゅ, and ょ.

さ し す せ そ  
sa si su se so (kunrei-siki)  
sa _shi_ su se so (Hepburn)

た ち つ て と  
ta ti tu te to (kunrei-siki)  
ta _chi tsu_ te to (Hepburn)

は ひ ふ へ ほ  
ha hi hu he ho (kunrei-siki)  
ha hi _fu_ he ho (Hepburn)

じゃ じゅ じょ  
zya zyu zyo (kunrei-siki)  
_ja ju jo_ (Hepburn)

Hepburn obscures the regularity of the conjugation of 〜つ, kunrei-siki shows it
quite clearly. This becomes particularly apparent in verb conjugations like:

まつ まちます まてば  
matu matimasu mateba (kunrei-siki)  
ma _tsu_ ma _chi_ masu mateba (Hepburn)

People who prize the regularity of kunrei-siki transliteration feel it's a
more elegant system than Hepburn.

**Why Hepburn has largely supplanted kunrei-siki in most situations**

Hepburn is definitely the more popular system of romanisation (although you
might be surprised at how many Japanese mix systems in using romanisations). I
would suggest several reasons for the popularity of Hepburn.

First, the two systems are rather different in their target audience. Kunrei-
siki is a system that could be perceived as a _plausible writing system for
the Japanese language_. The days when people seriously suggested abandoning
characters and kana are probably long past, but if it came to writing Japanese
in romanisation, this would probably be the logical choice.

Hepburn has no such pretensions. It is a system of spelling Japanese _for the
benefit of non-speakers_ and nothing more. It is meant to be convenient for
foreigners to read, and it does that job well.

Given that Japanese does fine with characters and kana for most purposes, it
is probably quite natural that romanisation now largely serves as a script for
foreigners. There is little need for the Japanese to resort to _romaji_ in
their own language.

My understanding is that this also represents the historical situation. Before
World War II, use of kunrei-siki appears to have been more widespread. I
believe that this was because it was an era of Japanese nationalism (thus,
romanisation is for the Japanese, not for foreigners). (It was also a time
when ideas about script reform (reform of characters and kana) were still
around. People who proposed kunrei-siki did so because they felt it was a good
system for writing Japanese. I should point out that nationalism and ideas of
script reform didn't necessarily go together!)

After the war the situation changed completely. With the United States in
control of Japan, romanisation took on the role of showing foreigners how
Japanese was pronounced. The kunrei-siki system did not come off very well for
this purpose. Jack Seward in his popular book _Japanese in Action_ described
the ludicrous results of using kunrei-siki in post-war Japan, when the 第一ホテル,
written 'Dai-iti Hoteru', was inevitably mangled by American servicemen into
'Dai Itty Hotel' and eventually 'Dai Itty-Bitty Hotel'. (I'm quoting this
example from memory; I don't have the actual book with me).

That is probably a very practical reason why Hepburn and not kunrei-siki
became the most popular romanisation in Japan.

A third reason, I would suggest, is the fact that English has come to be
widely studied in Japan and is regarded as a kind of international standard. A
system of writing, like Hepburn, that follows English is thus probably
regarded as more 'international' and more prestigious by Japanese speakers. I
would even suspect that kunrei-siki is regarded as a little ださい by the
Japanese.

**The kunrei-siki (revisited)**

During the early 20th century, kunrei-siki could probably be described as a
better fit for the Japanese language. Those, after all, were the days when
words like 'team' and 'diesel' were imported into Japanese as チーム and ヂーゼル.

But the language has moved on since then, and the phonology of Japanese has
been penetrated by foreign sounds that didn't exist before. For instance, ヂーゼル
is now usually written and pronounced ディーゼル. In other words, the sound 'di'
has now entered Japanese where once there was only 'ji'. ティ (as in パーティー) and
トゥ (as in トゥトゥ) are now familiar to ordinary Japanese, alongside the old
native sounds ち and つ. Katakana struggles to accommodate these pronunciations,
coming up with devices like ティ, トォ, フィ, ヴィ etc. to represent them.

With these gradual changes in the sound system, it's now not quite so self-
evident that kunrei-siki was the ideal system for representing Japanese.
Unlike Hepburn, which can easily distinguish 'chi' and 'ti', kunrei-siki has
no obvious way of distinguishing these two sounds.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2012-01-20T14:18:32.597
4357
2021-06-06T11:27:57.623
2021-06-06T11:27:57.623
27424
1038
4312
answer
Neither is superior than the other. They represent different stages of the
phonological derivation. Any natural spoken language has a set of phonological
rules. In case of Japanese, the rules include those that change /s/ into [sh],
/t/ into [ch] or [ts], /p/ into [h], /h/ into [f], /h/ into [w], or delete /w/
under respective conditions. If you are interested in describing the
inflection of a Japanese word, it is more convenient to describe the
_underlying representation_ :

> kaw-anai  
>  kaw-u  
>  kaw-(i)-mas-u  
>  kaw-e
>
> tat-anai  
>  tat-u  
>  tat-(i)-mas-u  
>  tat-e

This is close to the Japanese method (nihon-shiki), but has some differences:
for example, wu, wi, we would be described u, i, e in Japanese method. In this
respect, the Japanese method is actually less consistent/precise than the
Hepburn system (described below), contrary to what you wrote.

Within the derivation, these forms undergo phonological rules, which change
them to their _surface representation_ :

> kawanai  
>  kau  
>  kaimasu  
>  kae
>
> tatanai  
>  tatsu  
>  tachimasu  
>  tate

This is the form that is pronounced, and if one wants to transcribe the
pronunciation, describing as above would be convenient. This is close to the
Hepburn system.

Depending on your needs, you should chose the appropriate one. In the majority
of cases when romanization is used, the pronunciation matters, and Hepburn
system would be convenient.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-20T05:25:04.837
5920
2018-02-21T01:03:36.057
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
4312
answer
I'm going to give a very simple answer: _convention_.

Korean and Chinese had systems like Hepburn, based on foreign phonology, but
South Korea and China more or less decreed that a system based on native
phonology rather than English approximation was to be used, and it worked in
that case.

The Japanese government is softly pushing _Kunrei_ , but not putting it's foot
down in the same way the Chinese -, and Korean governments did and demanded
it, so it never happened — most likely, if they had been just as aggressive
with demanding it diplomatically as the Chinese government was, we would be
using _Kunrei_ now everywhere; I don't really believe it has much to do with
what is "best". _Pīnyīn_ has _x_ , _q_ , _j_ and a variety of consonants
that in no way indicate the pronunciation to English speakers, and it must be
learned, but it's still used everywhere, because it doesn't really matter: the
truth of the matter is that English speakers will, with no prior knowledge of
Japanese, probably when reading out Hepburn still sound largely
unintelligible, put the stress wrong, pronounce the vowels wrongly, and might
read the "y" in things like "kyo" as a vowel, which is how "Tokyo" is
generally pronounced in English. What matters is that it creates something
that can be recognized. "毛泽东" is not something easily recognizable for those
unaccustomed to Han-characters, but "Máo Zédōng" is, even if the tones be
completely ignored, even if the _z_ be mispronounced like an English /z/, even
if it would be completely unintelligible to a speaker of Mandarin when read
out loud.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-06T04:21:47.773
73753
2020-01-06T04:21:47.773
35937
4312
answer
It's not. Kunrei-siki (the updated version of Nihon-siki) is still widely used
in Japan, as are non-standard romanisations and mixtures of different systems.
They're taught in Japanese education systems and used by companies and
government institutions, you'll see them on signs a lot. It was designed in
Japan to make logical sense for people already familiar with hiragana.

(Revised) Hepburn romanisation is more widely used for international media,
being almost completely the dominant system for learning Japanese and official
transliterations intended for foreign readers. They reason for this is that it
leads to more faithful pronunciations by English speakers and other western
readers (learning hiragana and Japanese phonetics is still recommended). It
was designed by an American for this purpose and is based on how latin
characters are read in English or Italian.

"si", "tu" and "ti" are the same as "shi", "tsu", and "chi" for Japanese
readers (some even prefer other systems) but English speakers will pronounce
them differently. For example, if you tell a tourist to meet you at
"Shimbashi", it will be more difficult for them to find it written on a map as
"Shinbasi". It's to aid newcomers to Japan who cannot read Japanese. For this
reason, Hepburn has become the dominant romanisation.

Hepburn is preferable for foreign readers and is more intuitive for them.
Other systems were designed with Japanese readers in mind (although studying
latin alphabet and English is common so this is no longer as important).
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-07T02:45:10.683
73775
2020-01-07T02:51:54.237
2020-01-07T02:51:54.237
14608
14608
4312
answer