"Rules for that language" is very vague. Many languages, like Russian, don't have one accepted standard. Might I suggest?
- For Russian, a good romanisation scheme would be BGN/PCGN. It doesn't require special characters.
- With Mandarin, Hanyu Pinyin is the accepted standard, of course.
- For Cantonese, I think that Jyutping would make a good standard romanisation. It's outmoding Yale on the internet. It also does not require accent marks.
I can go on, really, but I think that other languages besides Japanese should have some sort of "accepted" romanisation scheme here, for consistency's sake. 18.104.22.168 04:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
- I agree. The only reason that these standards do not exist here is that nobody has suggested a standard yet.
- - teknomunk (talk,E,歌) 06:40, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
- I reformatted the page, adding a little more text and including the rules for Japanese from a subpage (for which a talk page already existed anyway). This makes it easier to add more languages, and creates a separate discussion page for each language. --Mischko <img src="/images/3/31/Talkicon.png" alt="Talk to me" /> <img src="/images/1/1e/EsperanzaIcon.png" alt="Esperanza Member" /> 09:29, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Stubs and PolicyEdit
Policy pages should not be stubs at all. I suggest making this a guideline until it's no longer a stub. Thunderhead 01:15, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
- I marked it stub because there is only one language yet. But the rules for that language (Japanese) seem quite complete, and since there is currently a big ongoing project to romanize Japanese lyrics, I see no objection to make them policy yet. The stub tag is more to encourage people to suggest rules for their own language. --Mischko <img src="/images/3/31/Talkicon.png" alt="Talk to me" /> <img src="/images/1/1e/EsperanzaIcon.png" alt="Esperanza Member" /> 03:34, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Heard or written Edit
Should I transliterate [russian] words as it heard or as it written? Трамвай Ядерный 06:53, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
Japanese を particle Edit
As a particle, should を be romanized as wo or o? --Geopgeop 09:28, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
About Romanization rules for Japanese Edit
I found some of the rules here a bit inconsistent and in one case, misleading, so I would have a series of proposals, in order of how they appear on the help page.
- This is a minor thing, but wouldn't lines starting with a capital letter be more visually pleasing? A mass of lowercase letters are just as hard on the eyes as a mass of uppercase letters. This wouldn't necessarily bring the assumption that every line is its own sentence since punctuation is missing (except in really specific cases where the original lyrics has some sort of punctuation like exclamation marks), so it wouldn't really mess with how people perceive the lyrics.
- Current rules for particles, double consonants, and the romanization of ん are inconsistent. In case of particles, wo is traditional Hepburn, and so is rendering the syllabic n as m before labial consonants, but putting an apostrophe between n and vowels or y is modified Hepburn. In the meantime, the current rule for double consonants that doesn't list exceptions is practically not Hepburn. Either go with one or the other, and since traditional Hepburn was made in 1886, I would definitely recommend we go with modified, from 1954. You can read up on the similarities and differences on the very extensive Wikipedia page it has:  (As a personal note I would like to add that I absolutely abhor some of the butchery Hepburn does with Japanese, such as こっち being kotchi, but if anyone here expects anyone else to be consistent, it certainly has to start with consistent policies.)
- As for "contractions", that rule is entirely made-up, has nothing to do with romanization, and is generally a misunderstanding of how Japanese works. It assumes that the difference between 走っている (hashitteiru) and 走ってる(hashitteru) is the same as between "it is"->"it's", whereas it is more along the lines of "going to"->"gonna", and even that might be stretching it. All in all, this "rule" should be deleted.
- We should add that English or other foreign but not Japanese words written in katakana should still be romanized properly instead of using the intended foreign word. For example, "ライフ" would be "RAIFU" and not "life".
- Latest accepted romanizations for obsolete kana should be added to the kana table just in case. Japanese artists are notorious for using uncommon... things in lyrics simply for the sake of being, I'm not even sure, maybe edgy? So having them there would certainly not hurt.
I think this is pretty much it. If I notice a possible rule missing I will post it here later for discussion, but for the time being, I would like to see others' input on these proposals. --SpecB (talk) 19:36, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
Romanisation for Southern Min (Hokkien) Edit
For Southern Min/Hokkien there are multiple Romanisation schemes, some of which are used as a writing system in their own right, not just for transliteration. I suggest using one of these three:
- Pe̍h-oē-jī (白話字, POJ) was originally developed by Protestant missionaries in Ē-mn̂g (Xiamen) and Taiwan in the 19th and early 20th century. Today it is used either as its own writing system or in mixed script with characters. Its main area of use is Taiwan but to a lesser extent also in South-East Asian Hokkien-speaking communities. It is also used in by the Maryknoll Institute Maryknoll Language Institute which, to my knowledge, offers the most comprehensive and systematic Hokkien courses for foreigners there are (at least in Taiwan, but my guess is also beyond that). Its biggest disadvantage is probably the fact that there is no standard rule set as many missionaries made small adjustments as they saw fit, some of which caught on with the community while others didn’t.
- Tâi-uân Bân-lâm-gí Lô-má-jī Phing-im Hong-àn (臺灣閩南語羅馬字拼音方案, Tâi-lô) is the system officially promoted by the RoC government on Taiwan since 2006. As far as I know, it has no history of being used as a full-fledged writing system, only for transliteration, similar to Pinyin for Mandarin in the PRC. Authography-wise, it is extremely similar to POJ, on which it is based, so similar indeed that anybody who can read one will have no problem reading the other. The problem with this script is that the Hokkien community tends to distrust everything the government does concerning Hokkien due to the RoC government’s history of repression of local languages. Consequently, it is not all that widely used in RoC-sceptic circles of the Taiwanese Hokkien community (which is a considerable part if not the majority).
- Bbánlám Pìngyīm (閩南拼音, BP) was developed at the University of Xiamen and used in their publications – to my knowledge the only PRC-based romanisation system (though it is not promoted by the government in any way). It is basically Hanyu Pinyin with a few modifications. In theory that could make it easier to learn for people who already know Mandarin Pinyin. However I think that these very similarities can also be a disadvantage when the same letter/tone marker is used for different pronunciations than in Mandarin (the tone markers in particular are used for the same tone categories as in Mandarin so that, for example, the tone marker of ggǐ 语 matches that of it’s Mandarin equivalent in Pinyin yǔ. However the actual pronunciations of the tones differ widely, which can cause great confusion). Moreover, it is to my knowledge not used by anybody besides the University of Xiamen.
In my opinion, the best choice would be POJ (due to being the most wide-spread system and the only one which is used across borders) or maybe Tâi-lô (gambling on it surpassing POJ in Taiwan in the near future due to government promotion). The latter in my opinion has a few features which make it superior to POJ in terms of being more systematic (also from a linguistic point of view) and having more easily recognisable letters, but it is not widely used and I don’t see that situation changing in the foreseeable future. This is even more the case with BP.
Unless somebody has objections, I will start adding a few Hokkien songs with POJ romanisation (in the variant used by the Maryknoll Institute) as soon as I have time.