Re: Is "wa" a punctuation mark?

On 09/05/2009 12:45 PM, Sean wrote:

The Wanderer wrote:

On 09/05/2009 11:38 AM, Sean wrote:

"Working it out from context" is what language is all about. How
the hell are people going to know that your "ha" is pronounced
"wa" without working it out from context? It's even worse!

The pronunciation is not relevant to the meaning, which is what's
important when reading and writing. If you want to read it aloud,
then yes, you need to work out the pronunciation from the context -
but at least you know, unambiguously, what kana you're trying to
pronounce, and what it means. Working out the pronunciation from
the meaning and the context is less difficult than working out the
meaning from the pronunciation and the context.

Whaaaaaa? Are you saying that the learner should be reading romanized
Japanese without any internal pronunciation? Are you reading this sentence without any internal pronunciation at some level?

No, not really.

When you are speaking Japanese, are you "pronouncing kana"? Of course
not. You seem to be speaking from the linguistically naive position
that a language is its written form, or that the written form is
somehow the basis.

I don't think I am, no. I think I'm simply focusing on the written
language because that's what is relevant to romaji vs. kana.

When someone is reading, it doesn't matter whether they internally
pronounce the は as "ha" or as "wa", so long as they know what it means.
If it is written as "wa", it will be harder for them to tell what it
means - or, if it is not harder, then they will essentially be learning
to treat "wa" as the topic-marker particle, which is not correct. On the
other hand, if it's written as "ha", they can correctly recognize it as
the topic-marker particle and understand the meaning - and until the
point where they read it aloud is reached, it makes no difference what
their internal pronunciation is.

There's probably more, but without refamiliarizing myself with
the formal definition of Hepburn, I couldn't be sure that I
wasn't just railing against the things I dislike in most
romanization schemes instead of things I dislike in Hepburn
specifically. (Though I do seem to remember that Hepburn is the
single worst offender I've yet found and has almost all of the
problems... and yes, as it happens "things I dislike" does
pretty much equate to "things which are ambiguous" in terms of
romanization schemes; the only other thing I've found to
dislike about them is apparently-voluntary mismatches between
how it's written and how it's pronounced, and that's much less
of an issue.)

You don't want to "work things out from context," yet you are
proposing a scheme that is at least as if not more ambiguous than
Hepburn. Watashi ha .... How do I know that the "ha" is
pronounced "wa"? Please, explain to me how I know that? Explain
how there isn't "ambiguity" there?

For an alternate response, more along the lines of the part you didn't
reply to below:

Exactly the same way you would know that は was pronounced "wa" in the
same context.

Please explain to me why you need to know that when reading.

Most of the arguments back and forth here have been concerned with
learners. Learners are learning a language. A language is a thing
that is spoken. The writing system represents that.

True.

Also, please explain to me why it is more important to be able to
figure out the pronunciation than it is to be able to figure out
the meaning.

Gee, when people speak to me I always understand the meaning because
of the sounds they are uttering.

But we're not talking about when people are speaking - we're talking
about when people are reading and writing.

This also doesn't answer the question.

You seem to be completely separating the spoken and the written, and
treating written language as some utterly abstracted system of visual
symbols without connection to the spoken language.

Nonsense. Of course there's a connection. It just doesn't have the
effect you seem to think it does.

Of course you know that writing is a relatively new thing to us
humans, and is just an "add on" when it comes to language. Now,
someone whose Japanese is at a level where they would be flummoxed by
the "wa" in "Tanaka wa Nihonjin desu" is going to be at least equally
flummoxed by "Tanaka ha Nihonzin desu."

Not necessarily. There's a range of skill there, albeit not necessarily
a very broad one.

It's easier to parse the misleadingly-written "wa" in that case than it
is in some others, because of the spaces around it. Those aren't always
present. When parsing romaji without spaces - something I've needed to
do on multiple occasions, because the romaji was taken down as an exact
"don't attempt to parse this, just transcribe it" copy of the original
Japanese, and/or was machine-converted from a kana/kanji original - the
additional information provided by the "ha" instead of the "wa" is
somewhere in the range from useful to essential.

It's entirely possible that there is ambiguity in the pronunciation
- but if so, there is the exact same ambiguity in the kana as there
is in the one-to-one romaji. You would have to figure out from
context that は is pronounced "wa"; why should you not have to
figure out from context that "ha" is pronounced "wa"?

I never said that the one-to-one romanization scheme was completely
unambiguous in all aspects. I said (or would have said) that it unambiguously represents the kana. If there's ambiguity in the kana
- which there is - then there will be the exact same ambiguity in
the corresponding romaji, and that's precisely the way it should
be.

These last two paragraphs (the latter more than the former) were the
main point of my response, and indeed I think they sum up the main point
of my entire argument; is there any particular reason you didn't reply
to them?

(Also, is there any particular reason you haven't been snipping out
these sections that you haven't been replying to?)

--
The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Latin pronunciation puzzle
    ... > I think the realistic approach is that the pronunciation of scientific names ... >> justified by the Middle English burw, ... > language it belongs to and to append the Latin ... would pronounce the name attenboroughi: ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Pronunciation of personal names...
    ... language misuse. ... I have given up trying to pronounce correctly many ... or even gramatic rules of pronunciation. ... Names are subject to the whims of the owners. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: I prove JTEM just doesnt understand
    ... ancient Egyptian is misconstrued by recent movies ... know the pronunciation, ... someone not familiar with language and the study of language could ask: ... Any 10 speakers will pronounce the same words of their ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Language
    ... pronounce even common words in very different ways. ... Any change in pronunciation starts with a single person. ... The details of language are among them. ... even common words changes, drifting in unpredictable ways. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The guy who yelled "liar" at Obama
    ... to doctors? ... Humans have a language with which can than ... out how to pronounce "Geoff". ... farther and further interchangeably. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading