[quote=“alidarbac”]
As to whether the KMT is implementing this in order to mollify their overlord masters in Zhongnanhai: if that’s the case, it’s certainly a unilateral move. No mainland official gives a rat’s ass about how Taiwan romanizes their place names.[/quote]
It probably was unilateral. Beijing doesn’t need to ask the Ma government to clean up signs of Taiwanese sovereignty, the Ma government is eager to please and thinks of these things itself. Of course, for Ovid tseng, it’s probably personal too. After all, he was fired by the Chen administration for dragging his heels on Tongyong.
Google News (China edition) shows that 56 news sources in China have picked this story up. There’s some interest over there.
You can have the same transliteration system but still be independent from each other, can’t you?
I personally have no problem with the Ma government bringing both sides closer together.
Instead of complaining about the KMT, the Taiwanese people should be thankful that for the past 60 years they were protected from Communism thanks to the KMT.
If you want true independence, fight for it. If you can’t, don’t complain.
I agree that there will probably be a lot of mistakes, but it’s good to hear the government making this kind of statement expressing a willingness to get rid of a useless system like Tongyong.
I welcome Hanyu Pinyin, but hope they don’t change all Rd.'s to Lu and Yangmingshan to Yangming Shan, etc. Just get rid of the Jh’s and Cyuan’s and cih’s and so own.
And pleaaase, change the names of government-run organizations/places like KenTing National Park and Sei-pa National Park.
Yep. When we were told about this yesterday, there was a mad scramble. They told us: the regulations and usage will be in published by the MOE in The New Book -another Bible!-, but you have to start using it right away. Oh yeah.
Anyway, I’ve got my not so secret weapon. Now, how do I thank a Forumosan who has made a remarkable contribution to my peace of mind?
Gotta love the TT: repeated references to Hanyu Pinyin as a China-developed system of China made by Chinese people in China, etc., while nary a mention that it is an international system used by the UN (you know, what organization we kinda wanted to participate in) and recognized worldwide as the standard for Chinese romanization.
Yes, but the reason it was recognized by the UN was because China developed it and pushed it. I doubt very seriously that the UN assembled a neutral panel of experts who considered all the possible choices and arrived at the decision that Hanyu Pinyin was the best. Both the UN and the ISO have made decisions about Hanyu Pinyin without consulting Taiwan because they exclude Taiwan from membership.
What if a small English-speaking country such as New Zealand were excluded from the UN and the ISO. And that somehow US spelling of English was recognized as the ‘international standard’. Would it really be reasonable to insist that New Zealand adopt US spelling on the grounds that the US spelling was the international standard?
What I found interesting was how in the TT article, Chen Hsuch-yu claimed that HYPY would make thinsg easier for foreigners. No mention of that at all in the mainstream Chinese press.
One would hope that both Chen and her boss Liu Chao-shiuan would set an example by changing the spelling of their own names in English to HYPY.
Woohoo! THIS is the main reason why I wanted the KMT (GMD now?) to come to power!!! (Along with putting the kibosh to the re-naming spree.)
Anyway, who cares if China developed it or not? How can a spelling system be communist?
Fact: It works well, better than any other romanization system.
Fact: It’s the international standard, recognized as such by the UN and ISO.
Fact: Students everywhere outside Taiwan learn it and no other phonetic system.
If Taiwan wants to “internationalize” and become an “Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Hub” ™, as it is forever saying it’s trying to do, then it needs to adopt Hanyu Pinyin.
A problem with the New Zealand analogy is that New Zealanders actually use their English spelling system as a communication tool, whereas romanization in Taiwan is solely for the benefit of foreigners. Another thing: New Zealand spelling is not that different from US spelling (color vs. colour; but glamour vs. glamour and motor vs. motor). For example, Z isn’t consistently replaced with Bx (as Zh is consistently replaced by the dreadful Jh in Tongyong), making it New Bxealand.
[quote=“Feiren”]Yes, but the reason it was recognized by the UN was because China developed it and pushed it. I doubt very seriously that the UN assembled a neutral panel of experts who considered all the possible choices and arrived at the decision that Hanyu Pinyin was the best. Both the UN and the ISO have made decisions about Hanyu Pinyin without consulting Taiwan because they exclude Taiwan from membership.
What if a small English-speaking country such as New Zealand were excluded from the UN and the ISO. And that somehow US spelling of English was recognized as the ‘international standard’. Would it really be reasonable to insist that New Zealand adopt US spelling on the grounds that the US spelling was the international standard?
What I found interesting was how in the TT article, Chen Hsuch-yu claimed that HYPY would make thinsg easier for foreigners. No mention of that at all in the mainstream Chinese press.
One would hope that both Chen and her boss Liu Chao-shiuan would set an example by changing the spelling of their own names in English to HYPY.[/quote]
I dunno, was there some kind of UN study? Or did they just assume that China’s standard for Chinese romanization was the best? Or was HYPY already so common and universal by that point that they decided it was a moot point? What are the other major contenders in terms of popularity? Wade-Giles? Yale? This is really Cranky Laowai’s area of expertise, not mine, but I’m pretty sure that Tongyong would be a joke no matter Taiwan’s UN membership status. The analogy between British and US spellings doesn’t seem appropriate considering the small amount of differences between the two as well as the fact that it’s not a romanization system for a non-alphabetical language. I can see how the TT felt that quote to be more applicable to its readers than the Chinese-language press would, though.
I’m sorry. I’m just not buying the politicization of HYPY. Romanization never should have become a tool for TI and Taiwan’s decision to finally accept a single standard should not be blown out of proportion. I’ve always felt Taiwan’s approach to romanization unnecessarily confused international residents and visitors simply so people who would struggle to romanize their own name could make a political statement.
I think the article in the Liberty Times (only read this because some other guy at the breakfast shop was hogging the Apple Daily) is a bit more interesting.
About 2/3rds of the article is devoted to Hakka, in particular how it’s being proposed to scrap using Tongyong to teach Hakka in favor of using 台灣客家語拼音系統. I don’t know the first thing about the current pedagogical practices for Hakka or Taiwanese instruction in Taiwan, but the article implies that Tongyong is already the widely accepted standard. If that’s really the case (considering the paper’s rather overt bias, it’s hard for me to gauge), I don’t think myself or any of the other proponents of using HP for romanizing Chinese have a problem with using Tongyong for Hakka instruction.
The article also claims that Tongyong can be used to express Chinese, Hakka, and Taiwanese. Has anyone here ever seen it used for Taiwanese or Hakka? Isn’t Taiwanese being taught using zhuyin?
On the other hand, the article makes a bunch of other bullshit claims, like how HP is bad because it’s from China but Tongyong is good because it’s only 15% different from HP (wouldn’t a better romanization system be 100% different?), how Tongyong is an expression of Taiwan’s national identity, blah blah blah.
That’s one of the ideas I’ve long ridiculed. Any romanization system can be adapted to accommodate the phonologies of other languages. This is not an “advantage” of Tongyong.
But, better than adapting a single system to cover a multitude of languages, it’s even more effective to create separate romanization systems suited to the idiosyncrasies of each language. And these have already been done. For example, POJ for Taiwanese. No need to re-invent the wheel.
I can’t say I’m fond of any of the Pinyin systems, they all seem to be wrong to me, as when I just read stuff straight off, it makes no sense at all, like Qizhang MRT station, wtf? KissHang? Shouldn’t it read something like ChiJong from what I understand it should be pronounced like? Or is that just a matter of someone picking a bad spelling for certain words in Pinyin? Not that the alternative spelling that I’ve seen on some of the stations there makes any more sense, but then again, I don’t speak Chinese so…
Now, how do I thank a Forumosan who has made a remarkable contribution to my peace of mind?
:discodance: :yay:
