Talk:Transcription of the Japanese language in Esperanto

Concerns with ĥ
I'm kind of opposed to using ĥ for hi. I understand that it is not a /h/, and it's a palatal fricative, but "ĥ" is intended to represent the velar fricative. There is no specific orthography in Esperanto allowing for a palatal fricative. Looking through the Esperanto phonology page, it doesn't appear that [ç] is considered an acceptable, or even common allophone for /x/. The mapping of the bilabial fricative to "f" for example demonstrates a requirement for some phonemes to be represented with not entirely accurate transcriptions. In general, when taught Japanese, I learned that /hi/ was acceptable for /çi/ anyways, and both Hepburn and Kunrei use "h". But at the same time, yes, there's a distinction made that can be conveniently mapped onto letters available in Esperanto, but then you fail to use "ĥ" for (Hepburn) "hya", "hyu", "hyo" as well. A quick look at Japanese phonology confirms that is the correct allophone for the pronunciation of those syllables.

For consistency, (Hepburn) "hi", "hya", "hyu", and "hyo" should all have the same onset consonant character, similar to "ŝa", "ŝi", "ŝu", "ŝo". This could even allow for not needing to indicate the "j", So, "ha" "ĥi", "fu", "he", "ho", "ĥa", "ĥu", "ĥo". Parallel to the ŝ. But the pronunciation is [çja], [çju], [çjo], but then so is [ʃʲja], [ʃʲju], [ʃʲjo]… so… I dunno. Rambling now. --Puellanivis (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Germination
I think "tc", "tĉ" and "ŝŝ" would work to better express the germination process, as it would best be approximated in Esperanto. Because it would not /*ni.s.ʃʲi/, but /*ni.ʃ.ʃʲi/, meanwhile the other two are affricates, instead of just a fricative, so they end up /*ni.t.tsi/, and /*ni.t.tʃʲi/. Yes, this is a mix of Hepburn and Kunrei, but Kunrei is the Japanese way to write Japanese in romaaji, so mimicking their way doesn't make as much sense, because it's "ti" and "tti", and "tu", and "ttu", and you're expected to know that these are not pronounced as just plain /t/. (It expects prior exposure, and knowledge of Japanese phonology.) Hepburn meanwhile must use "tsu", "chi" and "shi", digraphs for each, so it makes sense to simply double the first character of the digraph. But in Esperanto, we've got monographs for the sounds, so let's match it up closest to what it should be pronounced as? I mean, Hepburn is solving a specific transcription, and Kunrei is a specific transliteration, copying into Esperanto should target Esperanto speakers. :) --Puellanivis (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)