Talk:Hiragana/Archive 1

Approximate years
It would be nice to have some approximate years when Hiragana was invented, when it was used in novels, when it came to be used for okurigana, etc.

It would also be nice to show a sample of how words today written in hiragana used to be written in kanji. &mdash; Hippietrail 09:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Someone should move the portion from the kana article which mentions the time hiragana was invented. From what I understand hiragana was originally developed for okurigana and kanji replacement, while katakana was originally developed for rubi (aka furigana). Also I found the following sentence in the hiragana article to have a severely high "duh" factor: The presence of hiragana among Chinese characters is usually sufficient to identify a text as Japanese. Why even mention it?
 * --69.212.98.38 09:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your understanding is incorrect. Hiragana was not developed for okurigana, and in fact, was not used primarily for that purpose until the postwar era when a lot of orthographic reforms were introduced (reduced kanji set, formalization of katakana/hiragana roles, rationalized kana spellings): look at some pre-war printed matter and you'll see that most okurigana was in katakana. Hiragana was simply a natural evolution from manyogana, which was developed for writing Japanese poetry. adamrice 14:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, now that I think of it, I might have made a mistake - I couldn't remember whether katakana was originally used for okurigana or furigana purposes, but it was definately one of the two, and I think okurigana would make more sense since it is more of a necessity. Hiragana was originally used to replace kanji for sure. By the way, Adamrice, you introduced the sentence "A small tsu &#x3063; indicates a glottal stop." but I believe this is either a misunderstanding of what a glottal stop is or what a small tsu is. With the exception of usage in modern literature such as manga which takes some liberties, the small tsu causes a gemination with the consonant that immediately follows it. --69.212.98.38 19:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not a linguist, so I cannot comment with authority on this stuff, but I must say that the article on gemination is very unsatisfying because it is explaining the vocal process in terms of the orthography, which is bass-ackwards. The article on glottal stops suggests to me that glottal stops really are what is happening in Japanese. If the "uh-oh" has a glottal stop, so does &#x3042;&#x3063;&#x305f;. I'll allow as how the location of the stop may move around in the mouth depending on the following sound, but that's some kind of stop, going by the definition given here in wikipedia. adamrice 19:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, there seems to be quite a lot of debate about this topic over at Talk:Japanese language. After googling, I also found other sites that say the small tsu is a glottal stop, however I have here a linguistics book &#26085;&#26412;&#35486;&#38899;&#22768;&#23398; (Nihongo Onseigaku) by &#22825;&#27836; &#23527; (AMANUMA Yasushi), et al. published by &#12367;&#12429;&#12375;&#12362;&#20986;&#29256; (Kuroshio shuppan). Of the three authors, one works for the Japanese minstry of education, while the other two are foreign language professors. According to this book, the small tsu is never a glottal stop, and it is not even a stop/plosive when followed by /s/ or /S/ (e.g. issh&#333;, assari) and as a native speaker I agree with the book. The small tsu is always supposed to precede a consonant, although nowadays some manga artists, for example, take artistic license to bend this rule. --69.212.98.38 23:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say this confusion is based on how close the concepts of gemination and glottal stop are in some languages. I think the Danish "stod" (spelling?) is an example. I bet there is also a relationship in sound change as a language proceeds through history. &mdash; Hippietrail 00:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This confusion over &#x3063; seems to be over the difference between phonemic and phonetic levels of description. At the phonemic level Japanese doesn't distinguish between the glottal stop and a geminate consonant. So /ipp&#331;/ and /i&#660;po&#331;/ are both understood as &#19968;&#26412;. So if we are describing Japanese phonemically we shouldn't make this distinction. (Just as a phonemic description of English shouldn't make the distinction between aspirated and unaspirated stops.) Only a phonetic description needs to make the distinction. Japanese language says "/&#660;/ assimilates to the following consonant, resulting in a geminate (double) consonant. It is thus normally realized as something other than a glottal stop." Gdr 23:29, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

in the pretty poem, i think the roomanji is wrong. why was a "ka" pronounced "ga", a "zo" pronounced "so", etc? --VTPPGLVR@aol.com

How about a shortcut link to the table?
When I'm browsing the Web, I sometimes need to pull up a quick kana chart. I want to use this page, but since the chart is so far down on it, it's a bit inconvenient. So I wonder if it's possible to have one of those "#" links that scrolls directly to the appropriate section -- in this case, to the hiragana chart. Just an idea. -- Jaxxim 20:29, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Headers have them automatically. Type the article name, then the "#" symbol, then the header. For example, Hiragana. Hope this is what you wanted. Fg2 20:58, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Actually, I was hoping for a link to the table entitled "Hepburn Romanization of Hiragana," which has hiragana with their romaji equivalents. But I guess I can keep using the other site I've been using. Thanks. -- Jaxxim 02:08, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Always wondered why the heburn table didn't have its own header, so gave it one. Heading name might want altering though. If no one objects loudly I'll do the same to Katakana later. -- Martin 13:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like a fine idea to me. Go for it! &#38929;&#24373;&#12387;&#12390;&#65281;   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Possible external link?
Hi. I have a site with a Flash hiragana writing tutor:

http://www.japanese-name-translation.com/site/hiragana_symbols.html#05

Would this be a useful external link for this page? (I am new to editing Wikipedia, so I thought I should run it by you guys and see what you thought.) If you think it is good, would someone add it?


 * Link added 18 Jan 2005
 * That link was actualy pretty useful!Gangstabrutha (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory oversimplification
From the article: Each hiragana represents one syllable (technically, one mora), and is either a vowel on its own (such as a &#12354;), a consonant followed by a vowel (such as ka &#12363;), or &#12435;, which sounds like the English "m" or "n".

This doesn't account for pairs like &#12365;&#12419;, where the second character is hiragana that represents neither a syllable nor a mora. Unless we're defining the pair as "one hiragana", which strikes me as a rather idiosyncratic usage. Given that the claim the quoted sentence is trying to make can be boiled down to "hiragana represent Japanese sounds", I'm not sure the sentence is particularly necessary at all. I don't have any constructive suggestions, though, so I'll leave it to whoever's maintaining this article to decide whether to change anything.
 * We all maintain this article--that's how wikipedia works. You (whoever you are--you can sign your posts by adding four tildes at the end, or clicking the next-to-last button in the icon bar above the editing field) make a reasonable point--the digraphs aren't a perfect fit. If you think of a better way to put it, by all means, put it in. adamrice 19:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Individual articles for hiragana
I noticed that the Spanish, Catalan, Chinese, and Japanese versions all have separate articles for the hiragana. Each article includes origin, strokes, comparisons with other characters, transcription, and representation in Braille, Morse code, etc. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to start equivalent articles for the English version. Bhumiya 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't object, but some articles existed, and were nominated for deletion, e.g. No (kana). It's still there, and some others too. My guess is that if you start with small stubs they will be nominated for deletion, so starting with at least a couple of substantive paragraphs might save you a lot of work. You may want to read Articles for deletion/Kana alphabet articles to see which articles exist etc. Fg2 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I created U (kana) as a test balloon, and filled it with all the information I could dig up. I'd say every kana is substantial enough to warrant an article. After all, every Latin character has an article, as does every Cyrillic and Greek character. This, along with the fact that corresponding articles exist in other languages, makes deletion a remote possibility. When I originally created the article, I labeled it う . User:Toothpaste moved it to its current name, and also added a handy little table. I'll follow her naming convention from here on out. Bhumiya 08:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to say I must agree. There is a lot of information you can put on those pages, especially to clear up some people's (including myself) confusion over where 'wi' and 'we' sprung up from. Germs 14:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sumomo
Can someone help with the hiragana at Sumomo? It would be great to have your expertise. Thanks! Badagnani 06:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I could help you.Englishfun

Conversion to Romaji
I have written a Javascript program that converts Hiragana to Romaji. I'm currently testing it at User:Ed Poor/monobook.js and your comments are welcome. --Uncle Ed 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No Kanji for -san suffix?
What about U+69d8? --KazKylheku 05:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's often used for -sama; I've never seen it used for -san, even in kanji-heavy texts. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 10:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

R/L and Character detail

 * I think it might be helpful to include an explanation of the R(L) phenomenon in the Japanese language. One of the common misconceptions is that Japanese lacks any distinguishable L sound, but this has more to do with the pronunciation of the RA,RI,RU,RE,RO line than anything else. The tongue is in a slightly different place in general when speaking, making the L sound somewhat like R. This convention was originaly a mistake when translating the language into a roman writing system and has since been adopted as official by the Japanese government. This is a problem because it leads the reader to believe that "dare", for instance is pronounced "da-ray" instead of "da-lay" (the correct pronunciation). I want your opinions on this before I ammend the article.


 * You're right that the sound transcribed by R is one that always confuses learners of the language, and it would definitely be worth having a note in the article explaining that it is not the same sound as an English R.
 * However, it's not an L sound either. It's clearer when written in IPA: the way I pronounce them, "da-ray" is  and "da-lay" is, but the Japanese だれ is.
 * There's an explanation in the article Japanese phonology, so perhaps the best thing is to add a note explaining that it's not an English R, along with a link to that article? &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Shame on me for oversimplifying. :) That's probably the best course of action. --Wolfrider 14:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, the hiragana characters are much too small and subtle differences are hard to see. For instance the difference between the B/P lines (the ten-ten versus the maru) is almost invisible. Should we enlarge the font or, even better in my opinion, include an actual hiragana table as an image? --Wolfrider 22:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * An image would be a very good idea, especially as not all users will have Japanese fonts on their computers. There may be one somewhere on Wikipedia already.  (There's Image:Nihongo_ichiran_01.png, which contains both hiragana and katakana -- but it doesn't have G, B, P, etc. at all, so it would hardly solve the problem!)  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I can get a hold of one from my Japanese language professor, although it would be quite large (a full page before scanning). I'll track it down and post it, see what you guys think. --Wolfrider 14:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding Furigana.jp to external links

 * There are a number of sites out there that do conversions of one kind or another, but none of them are that useful for practical, daily use. This tool can be used as a learning tool, but is targeted more toward people that use Japanese everyday as part of work or whatever. The default mode for both the web browsing and text conversion is "kana" which converts all kanji from the source text into hiragana... Please consider adding it to External links --ezln23 18:06, 02 February 2007 (JST)


 * Furigana.jp, Converts Japanese web pages or text into one of three formats for easier reading: furigana, kana or romaji

P+ sounds
These are shown as B sounds; the quotation marks are used instead of the degrees symbol. Any suggestions ? Oharrez 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Oharrez

Hiragana/katakana
From the article: "In modern times, the usage of hiragana has become mixed with katakana writing, hiragana is now relegated to special uses such as recently borrowed words (i.e., since the 19th century), names in transliteration, the names of animals, in telegrams, and for emphasis." I'm not completely sure, but shouldn't that read "…katakana is now relegated…"? -Shai-kun 21:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is ti (てぃ) in the hiragana chart?
It is only used in loan words that will always be written in katakana. If we are going to include it, we also need to include the other 39 loan word sounds (all of which are already in the katakana article where they belong). Mordrid52 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed てぃ for now. Unless someone knows of a Japanese word that contains the "ti" sound and would normally be written in hiragana, it doesn't really belong on the hiragana page. Mordrid52 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no native Japanese word I'm aware of with てぃ in it, but there are contexts where even recent loanwords are written in hiragana. Particular when targetting young audiences. Koorogi (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In my computer-based dictionary, several personal names appear to use the hiragana てぃ. These may be archaic, or the dictionary may be being a bit too liberal with alternative spellings of「てい」; but, if you're looking for a justification to put てぃ back into the article, I guess that's as good as any.  Some examples from the dictionary:
 * 樹茶 [きてぃ: KITEI]
 * 星美 [てぃっぷ: TEIPPU]
 * 青汀 [せてぃ: SETEI]
 * Neier (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiragana Song
Hi there,

"The Hiragana Song" is an international project that has resulted in a pop song that is intended to highlight the rudiments of Hiragana for an English-speaking audience (Canadian singer, American producer, writer in Asia, artist in UK). I'm not sure if the link would be appropriate for this topic, but some might find it helpful. I leave it to you. :^)

http://www.goodnightkiss.com/hiragana.html

Thanks, John Collins --206.191.54.2 16:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course! This is so kawaii! It's a pity nobody replied in two years. I'll add it to the links. &mdash; Sebastian 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Archaic Hiragana
Any plans to discuss about archaic hiragana forms, such as the shi derived from 志, where the hiragana looks like ゑ but instead of the top before the loop being "ろ", its resembles a "ち"? Or, what about the yori that looks like "ち" with only the right-half of the bar that doesn't go across? Or what about the ni derived from 尓 that looks like a "よ" but the vertical and the short horizontal for an upside down "L" and not a sideways "T"? Or what about ka derived from 可 that looks like a "す" but only the bar, loop and tail? Or what about ye derived from 江 that looks like a "た" but instead of a crossing horizontal bar, it is topped with a point like the one on ふ? Do anyone know of references that address these archaic hiragana forms? Or what about archaic variations, such as な where in lieu of a loop, it has side points like ふ? Or even し topped with an extra point like the one on ふ? (I would write something on this, but I don't have any references, so any addition would be unsupported). CJLippert (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Other than the yori, rest are Hentaigana.  The current article show many of these already. CJLippert (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Error
One of the characters is said in this article to be pronounced "zu". I have fixed this in the table (it is pronounced dzu), but I do not know enough about hiragana to edit the rest myself. (And I can't type them on my computer.) Will someone with acceptable knowledge of the topic please edit the "spelling rules" section to fix this error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.210.105 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, づ is pronounce exactly the same as ず. That section gives the Hepburn romanization of the kana, and while づ was onced romanized as dzu, it's considered obsolete in newer versions of Hepburn, and indeed most other romanization systems. Koorogi (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't believe you since my Japanese teacher is quite sure that you're just being stupid. I will believe you if a native japanese speaker confirms your point. Otherwise, I'll just believe you're just being stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.202.137 (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Believe me. I am a Japanese and we don't write 'dzu' for づ anymore. Oda Mari (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling other editors "stupid" is rude and inappropriate. Please be civil. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people. I'm over the Internet, when you're cruising, found this strange conversation. I can not speak English, so I'm using Google's translation and I have read it makes no sense. The first talk about the pronunciation of some characters must be assumed that some sort of book one to call, and then everyone silly. What I'm talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by さくらこ (talk • contribs) 04:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Google translation rarely results in anything coherent. It gives you, at best, a rough idea of what the original might be about. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * づ is not obsolete. No, I am not Japanese. The letter is used when the word starting with つ becomes voiced, so つ changes to づ. づ is pronounced exactly like ず ((d)zu - romanised as "zu") but the shape of the letter reminds of the original sound "tsu". To input the letter on the computer, use "du".--Atitarev (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. However, how best? —Preceding unsigned comment added by さくらこ (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your question? Ask in complete sentences, please. The spelling rules section already describes the usage of ぢ and づ. --Atitarev (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked him how best to. You can not read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by さくらこ (talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can read the letters in your question but this is not a standard English. Who do you ask (him) and what is your question? "How best" has no meaning. Ask your question in Japanese, I'll try to understand. 貴方の質問を日本語でも答えてください. その前の質問は意味がありません. 簡単の言葉で書いてください. --Atitarev (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

どのようにわたしは最高のですか. —Preceding unsigned comment added by さくらこ (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * あ、分かった. "At best" means "under the best conditions". Google translates words, the meaning of the whole sentence may be lost. By the way, please sign your posts. --Atitarev (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sokuon
Look, I use this table a lot, and with the extra 5 columns the thing's illegible. It's too crowded for easy reference. If you really think the things need to be here, make another table, or arrange it vertically.

But first, show me one other source that thinks sokuon require their own set of columns in a table of hiragana. I've never seen one, and I can't find one. There's no reason to do it differently here, especially when it makes everything else harder to read. Or don't you give a flying fuck about people who like to use this information? 192.91.173.36 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what about yoon? Why only sokuon? Oda Mari (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Man, I think opposite of you! I'm having japanese class and it's hard to have so much words to learn even when they look equal but are different. I did for myself an aphalbet with both vowels, yoon and sokuon to be easy for me and I thought it'd be useful for other people too. Because you can see sokuon easily and in many words in both hiragana and katakana. Is not me who is thinking only about myself here ;). Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not insult other editors. Civility must be maintained at all times. Thank you. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of "Hiragana"
The Katakana page gave 3 ways to spell "Katakana"-in kanji,katakana,and hiragana(片仮名, カタカナ or かたかな). But the hiragana page only gave the kanji and hiragana way of spelling it (平仮名 or ひらがな),so i thought i'd add in the katakana spelling if it makes sense.--Gangstabrutha (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It kind of does make sense because Hiragana is used for Japanese word and particles whether or not they have a Kanji for them while Katakana is really only used for foreign words.

Why is there no IPA in the chart?
Why doesn't the chart have hiragana, romanji then IPA? That seems to make a lot of sense to me... Porco-esphino (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The chart's been done wrong now, it should use brackets, not slashes, for such a narrow transcription. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.204.195 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

External Link?
Would http://www.kanaquest.com/ be an adequate external link to use on this page? Eugeniu B (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We have links to three different kana-teaching sites, which is already excessively redundant. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The link http://www.solosequenosenada.com/gramatica/japanese/Learn_Hiragana.php is the most direct page to learn Hiragana, in the others old links are needed "user registration" and other tricks for get emails. Kuronokoneko (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So http://www.kanaquest.com/ would be a good link to add? I'm going to add it seeing that I seriously don't see why it shouldn't be added. Eugeniu B (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not the two links? the first is for learn basic Hiragana and the second link for avanced users. Both are very good links. Kuronokoneko (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What other link are you talking about? Eugeniu B (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I vote for add two links: Link for novice Hiragana level http://www.solosequenosenada.com/gramatica/japanese/Learn_Hiragana.php and link for advanced Hiragana level http://www.kanaquest.com/ Kuronokoneko (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't http://www.solosequenosenada.com/gramatica/japanese/Learn_Hiragana.php already on there? Or did you just add it. Either way, the external links look decent now.Eugeniu B (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.solosequenosenada.com/gramatica/japanese/Learn_Hiragana.php is a direct link to "learn Hiragana alphabet" page, in other way http://www.kanaquest.com/ is a nice web site, but isn't possible link directly from Wikipedia to the "HiraKQ" course. Kuronokoneko (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Real Kana
Hi everyone,

My "Real Kana" external link has been present here since 2005. It's the most popular site on del.icio.us tagged with the "hiragana" keyword. The average visitor from Wikipedia stays on the site for 7 minutes. I am hoping that the link's restoration will be considered.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.17.244 (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to put the link back. It's a good site, very helpful. Tech408 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Parent systems
Please see Talk:Japanese_writing_system for edits to the development tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.192.231.198 (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Table and wording
An anonymous IP and a new editor are fighting over the presentation of the table of hiragana and other information in this article. I have protected the article so no one can edit it until this dispute is settled. Please discuss the reasoning behind your edits here and, allow others to comment, and then we will come to a consensus on how the information should be presented. Thank you for your cooperation. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to the table for a bunch of reasons:


 * ("You" will refer to the creator.)


 * 1. The order by A I U E O as column is much more common in western literature.
 * 2. The logical order from left to right is not given! Even if this Table style is common for a Japanese person so is writing from right to left for them (more or less today). You can not impose your will on the way other people look at a chart just because you like to give it a Japanese feeling!
 * 3. The font-size is much to big. If a table does not fit the screen only due to the font something is wrong! The Kana are click-able so there is no need for this size. If you click them you even have a stroke order.
 * 4. No English row and column headlines are given for orientation!
 * 5. The stacked writing style of a table entry is much to space consuming. ALL screens have more space to the sides. Use it !
 * 6. The background colors had a meaning that effectively achieved what this table tries to do in spacy sub-tables (stacked on top!).


 * To make it short: This fancy looking style has no improvement at all (other than the new Kana linked) when it comes to getting information. And that's what Wikipedia is first above all about. To get information fast and easy to understand !
 * If you have two tables, the first fits your and most modern screens the other one needs to be scrolled 3 times you want to choose th one that eats up space for a (small) look improvement ? The font-size was a perfectly normal Japanese one!


 * You archived nothing of the sort and instead of discussing it fist you make a bunch of edits after it so you can claim it is "not revertible" !
 * I request that you change no other tables as long as enough people have voiced their opinion !


 * The tables to compare:
 * []
 * []

79.192.239.160 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite the tone, I think IP 79.192.239.160 mostly has the right of this. We're the English Wikipedia, and presenting information in right-to-left columns is bound to be confusing to English speakers. I also think it's a good idea to avoid wasting vertical space. Having said that, a common issue with combined Latin/CJK typography is that the CJK glyphs can be too small for legibility at "the same" font size, especially for readers (such as most English speakers) unfamiliar with such writing systems. I'd like to see the hiragana bumped up one relative font size to avoid this, but otherwise I think the older version is better - with no offense meant to Dngnta for their bold experiment. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes you are right. I was a little personal there. Actually I wrote at "Talk to Nihonjoe" that in fact I think it was hard work. My problem is that for such an edit I at least expected that we have a talk page here. Then I got reverted with in my opinion inefficient consideration about my claim (and no discussion) so that I kinda was angry while writing ... :( I have nothing personal against any of you people ! And in my opinion (the english) Wikipedia is a fine looking piece of community work. In fact that's why I write here. So I am very sorry and I really don't want to stop your working eagerness Dngnta ! My direct choice of words is also linked to my limited set of words (that of-course is no excuse for the hard ones). Btw: I have to agree, I'd like to see the hiragana relative font size a little bigger as well (and I think that would actualy closer to the jap. wiki std.). Sorry again - very wrong choice of words (kinda had a hard day and it's late here ;)) 79.192.239.79 (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't take this comment as rude, but it's difficult to hold a conversation with you when you keep IP-hopping. I strongly encourage you to create an account as it offers a number of useful benefits, including more anonymity since your IP address isn't revealed to everyone. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My tuppence ha'penny: I prefer the old table too, although it wasn't perfect.
 * 1. The order by A I U E O as column is much more common in western literature.
 * 2. The logical order from left to right is not given! Even if this Table style is common for a Japanese person so is writing from right to left for them (more or less today). You can not impose your will on the way other people look at a chart just because you like to give it a Japanese feeling!
 * I also think left to right is better, although I think it makes more sense for the あ　い　う　え　お line to be vertical (down) rather than across. It's more important to understand the vowel line as a group than by the leading consonant, which is why the horizontal lines in most tables read あーかーさーたーなー　etc.　as the top line.
 * 3. The font-size is much to big. If a table does not fit the screen only due to the font something is wrong! The Kana are click-able so there is no need for this size. If you click them you even have a stroke order.
 * Agree. The current size is not as elegant.
 * 4. No English row and column headlines are given for orientation!
 * Agree.
 * 5. The stacked writing style of a table entry is much to space consuming. ALL screens have more space to the sides. Use it !
 * 6. The background colors had a meaning that effectively achieved what this table tries to do in spacy sub-tables (stacked on top!).
 * Agree. I'd like the old table back, with the only change that the horizontal and vertical are swtiched.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are elements I like of both. I'm more comfortable with the 'new' orientiation, but understand that for English WP the 'old' one might be better. And the new font size is too big, but not by much: remember, many people reading this won't know the forms of the kana, and a large font size is necessary for them to see the details. Also, this is a phonetic IPA transcription, so the old use of slashes was simply wrong. (ん does not stand for 6 distinct phonemes in Japanese. It's arguable that it even stands for one.) Also, I think the new table is an improvement in dropping the diacritics from and : Since う is neither  nor, it wasn't operating at that level of precision. (I don't know if is an improvement or not, since that diacritic is not official in this role, but at least it makes clear what the う is not, and is cleaner looking than technically correct  or ). On a similar note, for the ら-gyo is IMO not appropriate, as it is not lateral. But then it is not either. At WP:IPA for Japanese, we settled on, and that is what most Japanese transcriptions on WP-en use, so I think we should go with that here as well. kwami (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. About horizontal vs. vertical spacing, the standard resolution nowadays is 1024x768 (see http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp). At a comfortable point size for me, both tables fit nicely on the screen at 1024x768. But we do have the Wikipedia panel to the left. Also some users with impaired vision will want larger (maybe quite large) point sizes. So I vote for not being greedy horizontally, even if it looks nice at your preferred resolution. Vertical space is unlimited, so use that.
 * 2. I like the background colors in the new table a lot. In fact I would like to see a third color for the dakuten and handakuten.
 * 3. About left to right, I personally think Japanese is easiest to read from the top right down, like in newspapers and the old table. But Japanese on the web is universally written horizontally left to right. So this table should start with あいうえお on the top line and continue with かきくけこ on the second line. That's the arrangement in the hiragana table in the Japanese Wikipedia, and I agree with that.
 * 4. I like the large hiragana in the old table. At my comfortable point size, I have trouble seeing the difference between ば and ぱ.
 * 5. I also like the old table's vertical arrangement within each cell, with the hiragana and pronunciations on one line each. Reading across, あいうえお is easier to read than あa/a/ いi/i/ うu/ɯ/ えe /e/ おo /o/.
 * 6. To conclude, overall I vote for the new table. But would like to see it modified to use a larger point size for the hiragana and the inside-the-cell vertical arrangement of the old table. It will take a bit more space vertically, but I think it will be easier to read and probably more user friendly. -- Margin1522 (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello everybody! I admit I went ahead and made major changes without consulting anyone, but hey, they told me to be bold, so I was.

First, about the orientation, I would argue that the new orientation is more common also in Western sources (such as Japanese textbooks). For Japanese learners this is undoubtedly the more familiar orientation. For people who don't know anything about the language, and basically just hunt & pick the character they are looking for, it should not make much difference. And besides, the order in which way it is to be read aloud is indicated above the table.

I see the orientation is pointed out as problematic because it makes the table take a lot of space vertically. What if I added the dakuon (voiced syllables) to the left of the basic characters, such as:

pa ba da za ga n wa ra ya ma ha na ta sa ka a

At the current font size, each cell has to be around 50 pixels wide (more for n), and with 16 columns that gives 800 pixels as the width in this case. The Wikipedia sidebar is less than 200 pixels wide, so the table in this orientation would fit horizontally on a 1024x768 screen just fine. Are we fair to assume people with smaller resolutions would not be inconvenienced too much by this? I'm willing to invest the effort to make this change.

Another option is to make the hiragana syllables smaller, but given that this page is about hiragana and primarily hiragana, I feel that they should be emphasized over the Hepburn romanization and IPA spelling guide (whose details such as the exact diacritics for the vowels should really be found in Japanese phonology anyway).

In the individual cells, having the hiragana-romanization-IPA descriptions stacked vertically also makes it clearer to the reader how the romanization compares to the actual pronounciation. Ie. there are letters that are the same (e vs ) and some that are way out there (fu and ). If they were written end to end, comparison would not be so easy in my opinion.

I left the table coloring out of the new one because it makes the table unnecessarily "busy" and distracting to the eyes. Simple is good. I also disagree about having the column headings in there - what is a vowel, or a consonant+vowel cluster, or a yōon is already explained in writing. IMHO column headings that restate the obvious ("this is a vowel row, this is a k row, this is a s row") are well into the territory of the unnecessary.

To kwami: I apologize, I wasn't aware of previous consensus on this. Japanese sources indicate that 'r' is or  depending on the speaker, but mostly preferring. My gut feeling also says it's much closer to except in lazy and/or slurred speech, but I understand gut feelings are not worth much. In any case, it should rather be explained in detail in the Japanese phonology article, not here. (And I didn't even get to n+r.. ;-)

Anyhow, I'm willing to work on this to satisfy everybody. Dngnta (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My two sen: I like the new table better, but it should be ordered left-to-right, since the primary audience here is English speakers. I do not find the font size excessive (although it could be cut down a notch)  The coloration of the previous table was not necessary and its use of あいうえお as headers was misleading, since it gives the incorrect impression that the forms of the other characters somehow modify them. Jpatokal (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit break
To me changing the order is as preposterous as demanding that the vowels come in the a-e-i-o-u order because that's what English speakers are used to. Is this article not about the *Japanese* writing system? Even given that Japanese is today often written left-to-right, in practice the hiragana table is always presented in this order.

FWIW, here's the table with the modification I mentioned earlier. It fits pretty nicely in 1024x768. There's still a problem where きゃ etc. get word wrapped if you don't have a wide enough browser. I don't know why, I have specified width=50 in all rows..


 * Edit: Nevermind, classing the table as "nowraplinks" fixed it.

Dngnta (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This latest version looks much nicer - well done. However, although I'm a student of Japanese (taking level 2 this year), even I get a little thrown when hiragana are in a right-to-left table (such as on a computer screen). Both directions occur in Japanese (cash machines for example when making transfers a kana touch screen appears; touch screen cell phones start with あ in the top left), so I think it's a good idea to have it left to right. it's not at all un-Japanese but it's friendlier to non-Japanese.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be true for cellphone pads and other examples, but in my experience, when it comes to displaying the kana for this purpose - i.e. the purpose of showing what they are, so others can learn about them, etc. - I've always, always seen it in this format, right-to-left, with each consonant a new column. LordAmeth (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do like the above version better than your original version. However, I do think it's important to use an ordering relevant to English speakers in the English Wikipedia, means starting with the vowels (specifically あ) at the upper left, one way or the other. A couple of random points: Since we list ゐ and ゑ, is it worth listing ゟ yori? Also, would it be better to use inline CSS instead of font tags? — Gavia immer (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Like this?
 * {| class="IPA wikitable nowraplinks"


 * valign=top align=center width=50| あ a  [ a ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| か ka  [ ka ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| さ sa  [ sa ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| た ta  [ ta ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| な na  [ na ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| は ha  [ ha ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| ま ma  [ ma ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| や ya  [ ja ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| ら ra  [ ɾa ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| わ wa  [ ɰ͡βa ]
 * valign=top align=center width=55 rowspan=2| ん n  [ n ]  [ m ]   [ ŋ ]  [ ɴ ]   [ ũ͍ ]  [ ĩ ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| が ga  [ ɡa ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| ざ za  [ za ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| だ da  [ da ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| ば ba  [ ba ]
 * valign=top align=center width=50| ぱ pa  [ pa ]
 * valign=top align=center| い i  [ i ]
 * valign=top align=center| き ki  [ ki ]
 * valign=top align=center| し shi  [ ɕi ]
 * valign=top align=center| ち chi  [ t͡ɕi ]
 * valign=top align=center| に ni  [ nʲi ]
 * valign=top align=center| ひ hi  [ çi ]
 * valign=top align=center| み mi  [ mi ]
 * valign=top align=center| り ri  [ ɾi ]
 * valign=top align=center| ゐ| ゐ   wi  [  i  ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぎ gi  [ ɡi ]
 * valign=top align=center| じ ji  [ d͡ʑi ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぢ ji  [ d͡ʑi ]
 * valign=top align=center| び bi  [ bi ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぴ pi  [ pi ]
 * valign=top align=center| う u  [ u͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| く ku  [ ku͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| す su  [ su͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| つ tsu  [ t͡su͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぬ nu  [ nu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ふ fu  [ ɸu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| む mu  [ mu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ゆ yu  [ ju͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| る ru  [ ɾu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ゔ| ゔ   vu  [  v  u͍  ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぐ gu  [ ɡu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ず zu  [ zu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| づ zu  [ zu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぶ bu  [ bu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぷ pu  [ pu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| え e  [ e ]
 * valign=top align=center| け ke  [ ke ]
 * valign=top align=center| せ se  [ se ]
 * valign=top align=center| て te  [ te ]
 * valign=top align=center| ね ne  [ ne ]
 * valign=top align=center| へ he  [ he ]
 * valign=top align=center| め me  [ me ]
 * valign=top align=center| れ re  [ ɾe ]
 * valign=top align=center| ゑ| ゑ   we  [  e  ]
 * valign=top align=center| げ ge  [ ɡe ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぜ ze  [ ze ]
 * valign=top align=center| で de  [ de ]
 * valign=top align=center| べ be  [ be ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぺ pe  [ pe ]
 * valign=top align=center| お o  [ o ]
 * valign=top align=center| こ ko  [ ko ]
 * valign=top align=center| そ so  [ so ]
 * valign=top align=center| と to  [ to ]
 * valign=top align=center| の no  [ no ]
 * valign=top align=center| ほ ho  [ ho ]
 * valign=top align=center| も mo  [ mo ]
 * valign=top align=center| よ yo  [ jo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ろ ro  [ ɾo ]
 * valign=top align=center| を wo  [ o ]
 * valign=top align=center| ご go  [ ɡo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぞ zo  [ zo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ど do  [ do ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぼ bo  [ bo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぽ po  [ po ]
 * height=30 colspan=16|
 * valign=top align=center| きゃ kya  [ kʲa ]
 * valign=top align=center| しゃ sha  [ ɕa ]
 * valign=top align=center| ちゃ cha  [ t͡ɕa ]
 * valign=top align=center| にゃ nya  [ ɲa ]
 * valign=top align=center| ひゃ hya  [ çʲa ]
 * valign=top align=center| みゃ mya  [ mʲa ]
 * valign=top align=center| りゃ rya  [ ɾʲa ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぎゃ gya  [ ɡʲa ]
 * valign=top align=center| じゃ ja  [ d͡ʑa ]
 * valign=top align=center|  ぢゃ   ja  [  d͡ʑ  a  ]
 * valign=top align=center| びゃ bya  [ bʲa ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぴゃ pya  [ pʲa ]
 * valign=top align=center| きゅ kyu  [ kʲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| しゅ shu  [ ɕu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ちゅ chu  [ t͡ɕu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| にゅ nyu  [ ɲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ひゅ hyu  [ çʲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| みゅ myu  [ mʲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| りゅ ryu  [ ɾʲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぎゅ gyu  [ ɡʲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| じゅ ju  [ d͡ʑu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center|  ぢゅ   ju  [  d͡ʑ  u͍  ]
 * valign=top align=center| びゅ byu  [ bʲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぴゅ pyu  [ pʲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| きょ kyo  [ kʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| しょ sho  [ ɕo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ちょ cho  [ t͡ɕo ]
 * valign=top align=center| にょ nyo  [ ɲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ひょ hyo  [ çʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| みょ myo  [ mʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| りょ ryo  [ ɾʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぎょ gyo  [ ɡʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| じょ jo  [ d͡ʑo ]
 * valign=top align=center|  ぢょ   jo  [  d͡ʑ  o  ]
 * valign=top align=center| びょ byo  [ bʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぴょ pyo  [ pʲo ]
 * }
 * ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * valign=top align=center| ぎゅ gyu  [ ɡʲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| じゅ ju  [ d͡ʑu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center|  ぢゅ   ju  [  d͡ʑ  u͍  ]
 * valign=top align=center| びゅ byu  [ bʲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぴゅ pyu  [ pʲu͍ ]
 * valign=top align=center| きょ kyo  [ kʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| しょ sho  [ ɕo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ちょ cho  [ t͡ɕo ]
 * valign=top align=center| にょ nyo  [ ɲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ひょ hyo  [ çʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| みょ myo  [ mʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| りょ ryo  [ ɾʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぎょ gyo  [ ɡʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| じょ jo  [ d͡ʑo ]
 * valign=top align=center|  ぢょ   jo  [  d͡ʑ  o  ]
 * valign=top align=center| びょ byo  [ bʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぴょ pyo  [ pʲo ]
 * }
 * ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * valign=top align=center| じょ jo  [ d͡ʑo ]
 * valign=top align=center|  ぢょ   jo  [  d͡ʑ  o  ]
 * valign=top align=center| びょ byo  [ bʲo ]
 * valign=top align=center| ぴょ pyo  [ pʲo ]
 * }
 * ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I mean. I think a version like that would be an improvement to the article, and I definitely think it's an improvement over other versions of the table. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * After a good night's sleep, I'm willing to accept this ordering as an interim solution. I will continue to look for references to the order I initially campaigned for, but that will come later as there are other articles I need to focus on next. So as far as I'm concerned, the page can be unprotected and the table proposed by Nihonjoe can be inserted in there. Dngnta (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at a sample of hiragana charts on google images, both Japanese and non Japanese sources. There are two clear patterns - and this table doesn't follow either of them. Either (A) あ is in the top left, in which case あ い う え お is the top row, or (B) あ is top right and あ い う え お is the rightmost column. I'd like then to vote for version (A) because it is less confusing for non-Japanese (or like me poor Japanese) readers. Now I can cope with the other version, but I know which I would find easier to follow were I a beginner again.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically there are two ways to write Japanese — right-to-left 縦書き (tate-gaki) and left-to-right 横書き (yoko-gaki). (A) is 横書き and (B) is 縦書き. As LordAmeth and Dngnta pointed out, there are countless examples of (B) because that's the way Japanese kids learn to write. Although if you look closely, most of those meant to be used in a 縦書き context. The hybrid left-to-right 縦書き version that Nihonjoe made is interesting and I can see why English speakers might find it easier to follow. When I showed it to my Japanese wife, that's what she said — foreigners would like it. But it's not really a proper Japanese style, so for now I would suggest going with the new and improved version by Dngnta (the one just above, which looks nice). Meanwhile, I still like the new colored (A) version, because it's even easier for non-Japanese and because 横書き is so much more common on the web. I'm still hoping that we can improve that new chart and return to discuss it later. -- Margin1522 (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal order of preference: (B) by far, with Nihonjoe's version somewhat acceptable as an interim solution (it's at least closer to what I'm aiming for than A) and (A) not very acceptable at all. Dngnta (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I prefer the あいうえお top row and I disagree with the argument that right-to-left order is more common. I have looked into some books I had at my reach here and neither "Random House" nor "Genki" (by The Japan Times) or "A guide to Remembering Japanese Characters" use a right-to-left order for their kana table (they have an あいうえお top row). Google picture search shows a slight preference of top-down as well I guess (depends on word searched and input method). But I agree that the table put into column AIUEO order would again break out of the screen unless the font is made smaller ... Which I still would prefer if it helps the table to fit. Never the less Nihonjoes version looks OK.
 * I would like to see a margin added to the top and bottom of each entry because it currently does not look that nice. However that would also mean that one would have to reduce the font by one...Moooitic (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

First row as a-i-u-e-o
To me it is pretty obvious why the right-to-left table is not a good idea for an English wiki. If you read the Japanese (right-to-left) table as a Japanese person you will read "a i u e o" top-down then move your eyes left and up and read "ka ki ku ke ko" top down. For a western person this would translate into a first row left-to-right "a i u e o" then move your eyes down and left and read "ka ki ku ke ko".

Since we don't know the intention of the user who reads this page we should try to make it as easy for him as possible. As said before, in my opinion literature agrees with me. And as far as I can count the majority of users here did as well.

I took the time of "revamping" the old table to make it more comparable. Feel free to add and change what ever you like. I did also use CSS only and a 1.5em font as requested sooner. Sadly the table is a little to big for the screen due to the font-size and spacing but the major table is fitting.

The thickness in the upper table comes from the odd factor size=5 (which is not a good choice) and could be achieved in the lower table as well through various ways (best would be css bold). The size is in percent but could be "fixed".


 * This just doesn't look good to my eyes. The "vowels, yoon" column headings are superfluous, darkening the vowels makes it look like they're column headings for the rest of the characters and there's not enough separation between the left and right sides (basic characters and yoon), causing the casual reader to read the table as a, i, u, e, o, ya, yu, yo, ka, ki, etc. Having ya, yu, yo appear twice in the table is confusing, and moreso when they are treated once as column headings (without IPA description) and once as proper characters. Contrasting vowels and the y-row is misleading because the basic characters (ka, sa, etc.) are *not* modifications of the vowels, whereas yoon do in fact utilize the y-row syllables.
 * I still insist that the top-down, right-to-left ordering is perfectly understandable to the casual reader as long as it is accompanied by an explanation, like in Gojūon.
 * I think you're underestimating our readers if you think they will not be able to follow instructions like "start from top right, go down and then proceed left". In my opinion we can have best of the both worlds: 1) conformance to the traditional Japanese ordering 2) easy to read in the correct order thanks to the instructions. Dngnta (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Dngnta makes a valid point about the yoōn section. For the sake of completeness, here is a left-to-right table with the yoōn at the bottom, like in his table. If anyone is interested, I would be willing to work this up so that it looks as nice as the table by user 79.192.224.236. But before I do that, could someone tell me if it is possible to embed a CSS rule in a wiki page so that it applies to the entire page? For example, embedding a rule like big{font-size:1.5em} would allow you to simply write あ and get the specified size, instead of having to use a span and specify it every single time. Thanks. -- Margin1522 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of changing my table for you. I am not that big of a fan of inner table heads but since it's a personal view I changed it anyway.
 * You also proposed that the yōon place should be changing. I am against that for the simple reason that even if we don't write "ya yu yo" as a top column it still would be easier to see the periodicity and combination in the table I proposed. Nevertheless I am willing to accept your table view if users like it more. But all table so far had this view and I know of no table looking like yours ^^ Dngnta's table does not have the same ordering like yours - he has the same ordering like mine turend 90 degrees clockwise (as japanese would read it) ;) I think he just requested space between the yoon and gojūon.


 * I would also like to answer Dngnta comments:
 * First of all I did change the table according to what you requested.
 * Secondly I thank you for providing the new linguistic links and the more modern css. However I would like you to give up on the ordering for the following 3 reasons: 1) You where already told by a user that the "traditional" Japanese ordering is not only right-to-left but also the table we used before, especially for "learners" (children). Since Wikipedia is a source of information and not a "traditions club" AND since without an argument English users could understand und use the "top row aiueo" table without explanations there is no valid claim not even the "traditional" one. 2) English Literature was presented to you using the "top row aiueo" table. So it is quite common. At least as common as the right-to-left proposal. Also note a user told you he had problems using the table even while learning - I can second that. 3) Wikipedia has a good ruling regarding changes that do not improve older content and as shown in 1) and 2) the validity of your claim largely comes from Personal opinion. You should please try to focus on what is easier to use and understand for the user and not "what gives him more of a traditional Japanese feeling" if he really learns Japanese he will get the feeling sooner or later. But not in his 10 minute stay here where he has to read instructions how to read a table. And I say that as a person working and studying in a field that almost only has to do with these questions. Regards 79.192.196.56 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not going to argue that my arrangement is the best -- it has a lot of empty space (even more now that I put in the rows that I forgot before). I'd be happy with any of the current suggestions. -- Margin1522 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the IP user. I was not shown any conclusive proof that the "westernized" order is any more prevalent. All I saw was a Google Image search URL for ひらがな, which is not conclusive of anything. For Japanese learners (children), I can say that *all* the 国語 textbooks I've seen have it in the Japanese order, but I cannot give you Internet-verifiable sources because Japanese publishers just don't put those books' contents online.
 * I disagree about the "traditions club" description. What I meant was that the top-down RTL order is established convention, and closer to how the table is usually presented in Japanese. A vocal user or two, who are most likely just used to and deeply attached to the old order (and therefore find the new order difficult; ie. not because it is inherently difficult but simply because it is different), is a really flimsy reason on which to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am very much of the opinion that the casual reader can make sense of the top-down RTL ordered table.
 * I take offense at your assessment that my changes were not an improvement over the older content. That is your personal opinion, not fact.
 * And finally, I also work in the field but 肩書き does not matter here, so it's pointless to argue from a position of authority. I still do hope we can work this out. Dngnta (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's pointless to search in Japanese for a Kana table. That's not what a english user does who seeks informations. Someone who writes in Japanese is a person who most likely has his own Kana table! Try "Hiragana", "Kana table", "Japanese characters", "Japanese alphabet" or something like it! You will see what I mean. (But I really don't want to discuss how we should compare google results.)


 * You said "because Japanese publishers just don't put those books' contents online". Again I argue that a casual user does not read Japanese books. If he would read a book about Japanese it would be one in his own language with a familiar look to give him a good start. And again I argue that western books use the old table (top row aiueo) more often. Simple because it works well in the western world! Also "Genki" is a very prominent study book and is made by The Japan Times (!) using an top-row aiueo table. "Random House" is a known dictionary as well.


 * About the improvement: Your table had new information's now included in the revamped version. However turning it 90 degrees is not an improvement. It's a thing that first needs to be discussed and than agreed upon after a relatively long time and some voices. If you want to do this lets post both tables here. Meanwhile the table that was here for I dunno how long (years ?) can stay as it was until you get a majority and some time has passed. It's a change you made because you like it better. It's like writing something about color and "btw. changing the article name to colour". At best it is setting the focus at a different target group one that in my oppinion is more able to ajust to a top row aiueo view than the casual user to right-to-left.


 * Now you changed "traditional" to "established convention" knowing that a top-row "aiueo" table is "established" as well (if it's in come convention paper I don't know but I am pretty sure it is). Still this point however you like to call it is the only point you made so far - and as I described in great length and can also say in short again:
 * "Why would an established right-to-left table be good for a user surfing here for information he normally reads left-to-right and up-to-down if has got another table who is established as well and does also fit his reading style?"


 * Normally I would be seen as a conservative person who likes traditional thinks. However the whole argument does not make sens if you think about whats written all over Wikipedia. For example read the intro of Make_technical_articles_accessible (something that is important for linguistics as well) which is a B-Class criteria for articles.


 * BTW: Maybe another good point against these sizy tables in that netbooks and mobile devices would have a hard time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.192.196.56 (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The left-to-right, horizontal a-e-i-o-u / ka-ke-ki-ko-ku order is nearly universal in English-language sources. Even though I prefer a vertical layout myself, we need to gear this article to readers who don't know Japanese. That means a horizontal layout. One example among many is Daniels & Bright, which is targeted to a fairly sophisticated audience, but does not presuppose any knowledge of Japanese, and has a table very much like the one at the top of this section. (The only difference being that the dakuten are interspersed with the plain kana, ga just below ka, etc., rather than segregated at the end.) Although the yoon cells follow our table, I think it might be a problem with mobile devices, and others have already objected.

Also, if we're going to transcribe wa as, then we should transcribe u as. kwami (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some difficulties accepting as the primary pronounciation for 'r'. The 'd' element in it is far too pronounced for casual speech. I'm not saying that it doesn't occur at all, but it is far from the most common pronounciation. I propose that  is made the primary pronounciation, with  and  described in detail in the Japanese phonology article.
 * I do agree that is a bit too verbose for a casual pronounciation guide, but IMHO  alone is not accurate enough. Is it possible to use the ExtIPA spread-lip notation for w, such as, or is that limited to vowels? The article for voiced labio-velar approximants gives another alternative with the under-rounding diacritic, like so:.
 * As for the order of the hiragana table, I've resigned, but may I still propose some minor adjustments: ぢ and づ should not be grayed out, because they do occur in perfectly normal text even today. On the other hand, くゎ and ぐゎ are completely obscure today, and should really go into historical kana usage rather than clutter up the table in this article. Finally, ゐ and ゑ should be grayed out but still included in the table because they are officially not used, but still commonly used in proper nouns (よゐこ etc.) Dngnta (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should try to keep the phonetics for this page as simple as possible. As the English wiki we can only reasonably assume familiarity with the IPA necessary to describe English; although we can hyperlink all the sounds, it's not a very approachable way of doing things. So I think we should stick to rough IPA approximates for the sounds (that is, mainly using sounds that are also present in English, with the exceptions of the Japanese r/l and ん which are the only sounds that are genuinely problematic/unusual for English speakers, but this should come with a note that the IPA used is approximate, and that the real stuff can be encountered on the Japanese phonetics page. I know this is a compromise, but I'd rather people got something out of the page than felt intimidated by it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there are other sounds that are not encountered in English, such as, and  at the very least, which pretty much cannot be approximated with English sounds, but besides them there are some acceptable approximations ( to  (maybe with the spread lip diacritic),  to  and leaving the vowel specifics out (ie.  instead of the over-verbose descriptions ).
 * I just noticed that the article on Japanese phonology actually uses (the spread-lip diacritic), so I think all the casual pronounciation guides for 'w' should be unified under that.  along with the over-verbose descriptions of vowels can go into the Japanese phonology article. Dngnta (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, with a clear head (new father was very dopey last night) I take back what I said - the best thing to do of course is leave the IPA accurate along with romaji approximations, but somehow mark or note the tricky consonants - r/l, ん and ふ (which I had dopily forgotten) as being poorly represented by romaji. (Although phonologists distinguish and, and  and, these are subtle enough distinctions for the romaji to serve perfectly well as an initial guide alongside the correct IPA.) My main concern was for the problematically different sounds to be made clear for English speakers.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Colored background
After looking over the various tables including the original, I really liked the color coding in the old table which makes it easier to read. The only thing I didn't like about the original color coding was that the vowel's boxes were a bit dark making them seem like headers like Jpatokal described, but otherwise the color was great. I based the table below on the one currently on the page. The colors could be tweaked for added contrast. Sifaka  talk  01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also prefer the colored background. Jpatokal said above that "The coloration of the previous table was not necessary". Of course we don't want the coloration to be necessary, or else it would not work for color blind people. But if it helps some people without harming anyone else, why not implement it? &mdash; Sebastian 03:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. (Most colourblind people would be assisted by it as well)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Romanization
I don’t think Hepburn (or any) romanization and pronunciation information belongs into the table (cells). There are separate articles for them. If, nevertheless, either is deemed necessary it should not be the romanization. If one changes the vowel order from aiueo âûô to aeiou âôû or aâeioôuû, one should also change the consonant order from kstnhmyrwC gzdbpv to bdghkmnCprstvwyz. One shouldn’t do either, probably. In the English WP rightwards-downwards and not downwards-leftwards should be used, but whether vowels make the rows or columns is a purely visual decision. — Christoph Päper 22:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the argument about hte alphabetical ordering and the preference for rightwards-downwards. But I don't agree that it's a purely visual decision whether vowels make rows or columns. In English, people usually read rightward first, and then downwards. Kana is commonly recited as a-i-u-e-o-ka-ki-ku-ke-ko-..., rather than as a-ka-sa-...-i-ki-shi-.... &mdash; Sebastian 23:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you want to cut the romanization especially Hepburn in an English article ! It is an essential way of expressing sound changes in an easy manner. Cutting the information out leaves the user with a table of useless glyphs; the current version on the other hand is unacceptable because it suggests wrong informations (like z + i = zi not "ji") and makes the Katakana table unportable due to a lot more "wrongness" that would emerge there ! I have never seen a kana table without any alphabet letters in a book for an English reader nor have I seen one that looks like yours. English books use Hepburn or similar ! BTW: I disagree with your pronunciation information statement (IPA as well). Kana exists for the purpose of writing down sounds. That means an English reader should have those informations presented to him as soon and direct as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moooitic (talk • contribs) 5 September 2009
 * This article is about the hiragana script (or the hiragana variant of the kana script if you prefer), not about the Japanese writing system (which includes spelling and orthography rules). The script has been used with (maybe only slightly) different pronunciations throughout times and places and probably will be used in more, therefore you should not give the contemporary Japanese reading in any romanization, which would imply yet another slightly different pronunciation for English speaker-readers.
 * I know that it is harder to make this distinction between script and writing system when the script is basically used with just one language, but it is necessary for an encyclopaedia to do nevertheless. — Christoph Päper 21:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong here I understand what you want to do and express; however I do not think that you can accurately explain a syllabary script to a speaker who has another language without some form of transcription. And I don't think a IPA transcription alone will do. Hepburn is used for that when it comes to a non linguist. Your idea of getting rid of all transcription because of a possible sound/writing evolution (differences) is nether practical nor based on any current development in the two language standards (And Hepburn is always used with a word reference). Aside from that countless words in this article alone are transcribed using Hepburn so why should the glyphs not be ? I have seen countless discussions against romanization in my live and not one of them I found useful (especially from a user perspective). If it comes hard to hard I would argue that even JIS (a.o.) defines a transcription and that since it is a standard it wll not change and we should use it ... but Hepburn is a de-facto standard as well so it would be pointless to feel the need... You can not do anything good for a common English user by getting rid of Hepburn. I know that basically あ should not have a sound attached but the moment you try to explain it properly you need one and you will not find a sound script (that is - no pictographs) explained without it because it would have no meaning standing alone as a pure glyph set. I just want to see the user happy ... Greets Moooitic (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC) BTW: Change katakana accordingly please if you really can not change your opinion here (IPA would be needed there to ...). And PLEASE don't use underscores :( They create a terrible asymmetric style (studies have shown that underscores are not easy to digest). I read you later and hope you can rethink your position. Greets Moooitic (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What you do need are identifiers in the script the reader is accustomed to, i.e. roman letters, but those would have to be unambiguous which Hepburn transcriptions are not. As kana are traditionally grouped in a table by (approximate) initial consonant and final vowel ISO 3602 Strict (Nihon-shiki) would seem like a more reasonable choice. The combination of row and column headers already yields those identifiers, so we do not have to repeat them inside the cells. I don’t like the underscore much either, so if you want you can change it to a hyphen (-), dash (–), three dots (…) or some other placeholder.
 * IPA is about as harmful as any other transcription – maybe more so, because it tends to be used too precisely, especially in articles about writing systems. So it doesn’t belong into the table either, but I didn’t want to change too much at once.
 * That Hepburn is used for transcription of Japanese words is a totally different issue than the identification of kana syllabograms, because words are language, glyphs by themselves are mere graphic signs. Unlike most books you probably have in mind this article is not (at least not primarily or only) intended for people wanting to learn (or teach) Japanese, but for people interested in the hiragana script. They can then read on in Japanese writing system if they want learn about how it is used in practice.
 * I don’t know the first thing about the Okinawan dialect/language and conventions about writing it down, but I’m confident words formed of hiragana glyphs are pronounced differently there, perhaps that much that Hepburn wouldn’t be an adequate roman transcription for English readers. — Christoph Päper 18:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say I find the whole argument somewhat flawed. A table using aiueo-kst... rows and columns is nothing more than an implicit romanization after ISO3602 and some Jap. standards without the irregularities of Hepburn which to me suggest that you may want to express some form of preference here. Now I do not want to get into an deep linguistic war here but mapping し/シ to "si" is romanization as well ...
 * Cutting out Romanization all together is not helping either nor is it done in any script article I know of nether here nor anywhere else. The only other way to give Kana a meaning would be "by hearing" and "by written word reference" and both ways are more a way of studying than an encyclopedian (quick) view. Especially if you want to display the article not as a learning tool you need a reference point for the script to a native writing system (Hepburn would be standard for that).
 * Also as I said before if you go that far to cut romanization why for example would a specific order of kana (in the table) be necessary ? All this article would than be is some 50 glyphs in a line that look strange. Not even unicode or the history need to be in this article - hack lets just give every section it's own article! I mean where do you draw the line? For an English reader the first thought about "Hiragana" would probably in romanji so having no reference to that in the main article is just not helpful. And I still don't understand why cutting out sound informations of standard Japanese kana in an article about standard Japanese kana for an English reader in Hepburn would be anything else but good ? All 3 Kana scripts exsist to write down sound that represent Japanese words! Especially for the removal of IPA I have no understanding (since it is language independent). Japanese might have - like all languages local differences. This does not mean that if you talk about "Japanese" or "Kana" you consider local differences; that you would express elsewhere (deeper article, new section).
 * Btw have you ever clicked on a kana ? Did you see all the romanization ? By your view if Hiragana has no romanji nether should they. Since by that logic stroak order would not be part of the "script" (not nessesary to do it that way nor regionaly equal) what exactly would be printed there ? And where would the information go ? The problem is that Japanese_writing_system is not very good! And unless it's comparable to Arabic_alphabet or Hangul which as you like contains all information I am strictly against getting rid of Hepburn. The Japanese writing system article is split up into these smaller articles and unless thats changed they need to host the necessary informations for an English reader.
 * I would also request that you get some votes for your changes or otherwise restore it for the time being. It was a long time like that and so in probably a better choice for the time being (I knew for example kwami would participate like he did because he does work on this article for some time now - if you write to others who frequently change here you will most likely see that your view is not shared that much - no offense nothing personal !). Greets Moooitic (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I’m not saying that WP does a good job at distinguishing script and writing system (and language) elsewhere. Often they are dealt with in the same article. The Japanese situation is complex, important and studied enough to deserve detailing articles. The case that te article Japanese writing system is not as good as it should be does not justify watering down other articles.
 * You’re right that the traditional table kind of implies a romanization (i.e. strict ISO). That’s what I meant with identifiers, where o for instance is not ambiguous. You could use a different scheme, but this is what we already have and can use. Kana is a special case of a syllabary in this regard, because usually only synthetic or “featural” syllabaries have alignments like that, see Canadian Aboriginal syllabics for example. However, although it (often) operates on the constituent graphic signs you would only call it “romanization” when it is used for words (or morphologic parts thereof), so you can identify the sign を by wo and transcribe (i.e. romanize) the particle を as o. Hepburn is for the latter (it becomes ambiguous if you want to cover diacritics).
 * One could argue that digraphs don’t belong into a script article, but into one on a writing system (or one of its own). Compare to the roman script where there is a plethora of digraphs which are very language and orthography dependent. One could say similar things about the diacritic marks, (han)dakuten. One could also argue for an article on “kanazation”, the equivalent of romanization, which would primarily deal with katakana extensions (probably arranged differently in a table), otherwise it should be a section in Japanese writing system. Of course one could also argue for calligraphic information to be moved elsewhere, but as we are dealing with the graphic signs in this article their usual graphic production has some right to be featured here.
 * Am I right to assume you are a native speaker of Japanese but not a linguist? A (contemporary) linguist wouldn’t say that “scripts exsist to write down sound”, nor narrow it down even further like you did.
 * I’m certainly not going to try to hold votes on issues that should be solvable by consensus – which of course is not the same thing as compromise. — Christoph Päper 09:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No I didn't say "scripts exist" I said "all 3 Kana scripts" and "non pictographic scripts" and I still consider it to be accurate (for the number of words used). If not please explain why. (And I mean that without Irony.) I do linguistics as a "side dish" at my university but I do not consider this so much a linguistic problem but more of a presentational one.
 * Actually I did overplay a little because I suspected you have the goal of getting rid of Hepburn for the sake of a more "regular" table/view (And I somewhat still do). But the real problem I see is one that I named as well. I do not like the Japanese writing system article nor do I consider it or the Hepburn romanization article useful. When something is done here I always want to keep in mind what the user would seek and what would help him most. The main problem is that if you look at other articles about (scripts or) writing systems (as said Hangul for example) you will see that the moment the script is explained a romanization is given. In the case of Hangul it's not a very "direct" one for an English audience but it is the most common one. The same goes for Hepburn and Kana scripts. That means that for a non pictographic script people seem to have the need to express some kind of "sound" value for it. Now if you would put this Hiragana snipped of an article into the writig system one, then compared to Hangul this would still mean that you end up with the same table (probably Katakana mixed in as well). So I do not quit get, even before a possible merge, what the benefit of getting rid of the sound information right here would be good for. Nor do I get why you would not first want to change the writing system article and add information instead of removing them here. See the problem I see is that removing Hepburn here leads to it being found in some nice sub articles that basically should not exist in the first place (and btw are very redundant - which I am very much against) but not in a way the user would really find it. For example Japanese_writing_system -> Romanized_Japanese -> Hepburn_romanization is not a very prominent way. But if the user klicks on Hiragana he will not see ANY sound information. To me thats plain wrong even though since message one I do see your point, I can not consider sound informations to be negligible for a main Writing systems part. Maybe that comes from my initial question (or it comes from the fact that the main article doesn't cover it - which when it does would create redundancy and and lead to me questioning the then shortened Hiragana article)! Maybe I will fully agree with you point of view after you explained it to me. However the moment I do, I would still argue that a Hiragana article would be worthless then and should be merged because of the huge redundancy it would create. I also would argue that how to write a glyph (as discussed) is not part of the script, nether is it's unicode (because there are a lot of other encodings) and as I said this article would end up being a section ready to be merged.
 * On a funny note if we want to be strict I would not consider digraphs as part of the script :D I have never heard that he Japanese do so and no encoding attempts where made for that. See Japanese Hiragana. I would much appreciated if you could give me an outline or a greater goal you have in mind for this article and for the whole situation. And probably help me to understand why you consider the order in which you write a more appropriate information as the sound produced. Clearly the sound in a much more essential and less later attached information and probably one that changed far more often. As I said this has much to do with me holding it to be true that the main goal hear was and is sound. Nevertheless I would like a road map to see your bigger picture :) Greets Moooitic (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC) BTW: I didn't touch the table ;)

Someone invited me to comment. I think romanization is important to include, because otherwise many readers will be unable to locate or identify the kana, and I personally like seeing the IPA in lists of letters. As for the valid objection that the pronunciations are not sufficient for diachronic coverage, what if we were to account for that? So は could be *pa &rarr; [ha] or *ɸa &rarr; [ha], ゑ could be *we &rarr; [e], etc. For romanization, we could give both primary systems where they differ: ぢ di/ji. We wouldn't necessarily need to do both: maybe ぢ di/ji [d͡ʑi] or ぢ ji, *di &rarr; [d͡ʑi]. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Much as I love IPA myself, I have to disagree. This is the article about hiragana, not about Japanese phonology. made the point below that instructions on how to write hiragana do not need to be prominent here, and what goes for writing goes for pronunciation, as well. Let's keep it simple. &mdash; Sebastian 00:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but we need something. We can't have this just in kana and expect readers to follow it. kwami (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please relax. We do not need something. Wikipedia has thousands of tables where users have to be able to combine a column heading with a row heading; that is certainly doable. Of course, it might be nicer to include some form of romanization in each cell; at least that seems to be the agreement of the majority. My point is only to take this a bit more lightly, and to keep things simple, rather than trying to find the "perfect" romanization for an article that is not about pronunciation. &mdash; Sebastian 07:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Rules
This section states: "With a few exceptions for sentence particles は, を, and へ (pronounced as wa, o, and e), and a few other arbitrary rules, Japanese is spelled as it sounds." This is true for kana only. It certainly can't be said for kanji, as the phonetic information they contain is unreliable in the original Chinese, let alone with Japanese pronunciations (which also include native 'kun' readings). I suugest replacing "Japanese is spelled as it sounds." with "hiragana faithfully represent the sounds of the language." Jacob Newton (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody has commented, so I guess I will. I doubt that kanji are relevant when talking about ways to represent pronunciation. But even for kana, "spelled" sounds a bit strange. Your suggestion sounds fine to me, why don't you go ahead and do it? BTW, how about dropping を from that list? I suppose it's there because the pronunciation in the chart is "wo". But what is the basis for that? Is it according to some authority? I'm no phonology expert so I'm not going to do it, but AFAIK "o" is the standard modern pronunciation. Couldn't we change the chart pronunciation to "o" and drop it from the list of exceptions? -- Margin1522 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The IPA pronunciation is "o", it's just conventionally romanized "wo" to distinguish it from お. Jpatokal (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)