Talk:Imatto-canna

Would someone please move this page to the name imattokana to follow the wiki naming prefernce for Hepburn transliteration. I've tried to do it, but it keeps telling me I'm not logged in, even though I clearly am.


 * Done. Gareth Hughes 17:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This article started at Imattocanna. I was asked to move it to Imattokana, so there it went. Now, I find it has moved along to Imatto-canna. I wonder whether this is really the best possible transliteration. Despite its failings, the Hepburn system is some kind of standard, and is used for most other articles. Gareth Hughes 13:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I moved this article to Imatto-canna, but it has moved to Imattokana again. Since Imatto-canna doesn't exist, nor does Imattokana or Jamatto-canna, we should use the former, following the original text of Engelbert Kaempfer.  He probably wanted to write what would have been written "Yamato-gana" in Hepburn.  Imattokana is a mongrel of the wrong non-Hepburn imatto (or jamatto) and the correct kana.  I'll move this article to Imatto-canna again, or to Jamatto-canna.  Moving it to Yamato-gana or something like that must be avoided, because the Japanese word yamato-gana means kana, both hiragana and katakana. - TAKASUGI Shinji 04:38, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

"non-existent"?
Is it fair to say that this is a "nonexistent" Japanese syllabary, and to generally represent Kaempfer as having made a blunder? In this article "Imatto-canna" are equated with hentaigana, and the hentaigana article is very clear that such characters did exist, and were distinct from what it calls "standard" hiragana. So it seems to me, based on this information, that Kaempfer was, at that time, probably correct to identify three syllabaries. 86.161.61.185 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yamato-kana
Please move it to Yamato-kana, which was spelled by Kaempfer as "Jamatto-canna" following the German writing traditions of his time. The double consonants tt and nn indicate that the previous vowel is a short vowel. 61.203.208.95 (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is that in sources, or an "original synthesis"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)