Forum - View topic

Series Titles

For romaji titles, the language is "Japanese". But if the original title contains katakana approximations of english words, those words should be translated to english instead of romaji. For example, グラビテーション should be translated to "Gravitation" (the intended meaning), not "Gurabiteeshon" (the exact romaji).

1) Being an English publication, shouldn't priority be given to English titles as opposed to Romaji titles? I do realize that some titles are just not translatable.

2) A mix of Romaji/English in the titles - An example will be the recently added Seikimatsu Occult Gakuin. Wouldn't End Of The Century Occult Academy or Seikimatsu Okaruto Gakuin be more appropriate?

Why follow a standard that is not native to the English language?

With the majority of the target audience being in their teens (I would assume), and these are certainly not natural to the English-speaking populations, the usage will require a study of such characters. Which I'd think the majority would not hazard to do.

eaglestorm wrote:

Why follow a standard that is not native to the English language?

Because this is a website about Japanese animation. Period.

That may be so BUT this site is an English publication intended for English-speaking audiences. That convention may be relevant if the site contents are targeted towards a more advanced form of literary materials, where the audiences will be more liable to have knowledge of such. Of which, anime certainly isn't.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not belittling a form of entertainment, of which I am a fan of. I'm just stating my opinion of adhering to a standard/convention which may not be optimal.

From the tone of your reply, it seems you're not willing to have an open discussion where the opinions are not in line with the site's present structure. So, I won't pursue the matter any further.

Or are you saying en.wikipedia.org is not aimed at an English audience?

Like Dan said, it is more likely for someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the romanization of Japanese to pronounce ō like "hole," which would be far better than ou in "cloud." Macron ō is also used in most English dictionaries for long vowel of o, so I'd say most native English speakers are familiar with that symbol.

What I really can't stand is romanisation schemes that use "oo" for all long "o"s - I have a Japanese learning book that does that and it really annoys

...Not to mention that Revised Hepburn is the most common, authoritative, and english-like way of romanizing Japanese. It was created by an American so it's as "native" as it gets. And if it's good enough for wikipedia I don't see why we shouldn't use it. Or are you saying en.wikipedia.org is not aimed at an English audience?

As far as I know you are the first to complain the macron letter ō. Like Dan said, it is more likely for someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the romanization of Japanese to pronounce ō like "hole," which would be far better than ou in "cloud." Macron ō is also used in most English dictionaries for long vowel of o, so I'd say most native English speakers are familiar with that symbol.

First, I'm afraid that unless you could present VERY good reasonings, I see no need to change the current system that works quite well. Second, I'm afraid that your reasonings were quite weak. Third, I'm afraid that your are not the person who evaluates whether your reasonings are weak or strong.

I'm a native United States citizen (I specify, since Canadians say they are Americans too), and while I don't know what current curricula are like, I learned about macrons (and breves) in about the second grade—certainly in early elementary school. (I am another Encyclopedia contributor who prefers macrons over other methods of indicating double length vowels in Japanese.)

When I started the thread, it was because I was puzzled by the aforementioned issues and seek clarifications.

I do think most of you are missing my point. Citing Revised Hepburn, who created it, the Wiki or the dictionary is completely irrelevant.