This week we reluctantly decided that the [Taipei Times] copy desk would have to learn Tongyong Pinyin for Taiwanese location names. This was not a popular move by any means. After all, those of us who are long-time residents in Taiwan already know Hanyu, the government’s old bastardized Wade Giles and Yale, as well as the obviously non-Roman Mandarin Phonetic Alphabet or Zhuyinfuhao. Memorizing another system is not exactly anyone’s first priority. Those new to the country barely know even one Romanization system and now find it a job requirement to learn three.
When Tongyong was announced in 2002 we had hoped to be able to just ignore it. After all, we reasoned, nobody gives a damn about Romanization except foreigners, and they don’t vote.[/quote]
Stupid. They say they want to romanise using Tongyong so that their romanisation will be the one that most foreigners are used to. That’s absolute bullshit. AFAIK about half the foreigners in Taiwan live in Taipei. Taipei uses Hanyu Pinyin, and it’s the only place in Taiwan I kow where romanisation is consistent. Ask Muzhaman. He went round the whole country for Lonely Planet and had to take note of this. Most places are still using Wade Giles or MPS2. And of course, any foreigner who studies Chinese and learns a romanisation system is going to learn HP. That’s prbably 1/4 to 1/2.
Nope. They’re bullshitting. They’re doing it for ideological reasons. If you’ve followed any previous Taipei Times debates ont his issue, you’ll know that like the MOE and pan-green local governments, they stupidly follow the ridiculous line that using Hanyu Pinyin will somehow make Taiwan part of China.
Anyone who is truly pro-Taiwan, wouldn’t give a shit what China thinks, and will realise that for Taiwan to survive it has to internationalise, which means adopting international standards. There is only one international standard for romanisation of Chinese, and it’s Hanyu Pinyin. To use anything else is idiocy. But rather than try and bring Taiwan into the international community, the Taipei Times’ line is (wait for it … this is the money quote):
Morons.
Brian
PS: This quote shows just how little the Taipei Times understands about what romanisation is:
Much of what is reported as fact in the editorial is simply wrong. But I am glad the the Taipei Times is willing to take another look at the issue.
I’ll be writing a letter to the paper to help clear up some of the editorial’s misunderstandings and offer some recommendations. In the meanwhile, if anyone at that paper would like to discuss the issue, I’d be happy to oblige – here in this forum or in person (PM me or contact me through the e-mail address at my website, www.pinyin.info). Actually, I hate writing letters and would rather discuss the matter directly with concerned TT staff members. But whatever.
If they really want to make this a nationalistic issue, I wonder why they don’t simply decide to romanize the TAIWANESE pronounciation of the Chinese characters. That might even be useful.
As the person who wrote the editorial concerned I am surprised at how badly almost everyone seems to have read it. What the editorial explicitly says is NOT that the TT is going to use Tongyong for Taiwan place names from now on.
What it does say is that there are now three systems in use in Taiwan and unfortunately we have to LEARN all of them and USE all of them if we want to try to refer to places using the Romanized form that will allow people to know when the heck they have got there we have to use all three, certainly now that Taipei County has Tongyongized with a vengeance. The editorial makes it quite plain that it is not our policy to set a standard. it is our policy to try to follow local usage as faithfully as possible. If this means using three systems then that is what we have to do, but the fact that we have to do it shows what a mess it is.
As for the poster who accuses me of making this decision for political reasons, all I can say is come to the office and say that to me. If it was a political decision I would have the balls to say so outright. Next time you accuse me of cowardice you had better bring your friends.
All I am trying to do - as the guy who makes the policy at the TT
Where, anywhere, in the entire editorial does it say that? Quote the exact sentence or be branded a total tosser. You didn’t quote it in the letter you sent to the paper, which I am thinking of running just to show people how stupid you are. I’ll add a nice editor’s note asking you next time to take the trouble to understand what we said. Then again, why waste the space on your opinion, since it has nothing to do with anything we actually said.
Which is why we all have to learn three systems at the TT, as I said, and you ignored.
Yeah, that “ideology” being trying to call places the same names in the newspaper as they are called in those places these days, as the editorial points out. This isn’t ideology, it’s accuracy. And our point is that we can’t be accurate, whatever we do, that that is not our fault and that the whole thing is a mess.
[quote]PS: This quote shows just how little the Taipei Times understands about what romanisation is:
That is what is known in the trade as an ironic endnote. It
Now let’s see: we said (or, if you want, I said since I am the Monday editorialist)
The pinyin system is a mess;
When they introduced Tongyong we just hoped it would go away (hardly the ringing endorsement of the system we seem to be accused of making);
Unfortunately it hasn’t gone away. Taipei County in particular has become Tongyong land;
Which means we now, with bitter resentment have to learn Tongyong to be able to know how to correctly “spell” Taipei County place names.
This makes for three systems in use where there should be only one.
You don’t, I take it, disagree with any of this.
But you do think we should have “taken a stand.” Good heavens, haven’t I said often enough that our job is descriptive, not prescriptive? We did say there should be only one system in use. And blamed the government for not enforcing a standard.
We also said that we did not care that that system should be the piss-poorly designed Hanyu. You like Hanyu, I don’t (actually I prefer Yale). You tell me that China and everyone else uses Hanyu, I think that is interesting but hardly a conclusive argument. If, for example, we made Taiyu the national tongue (and right now I suppose I have to defend myself by saying I am not advocating this) then we would be using a totally different system of Romanization and people coming here would just have to learn it from scratch. As, for example, people have to learn how to use Romanized Thai. I see no reason why Taiwan has to use a mainland system, any more than I see why the British should use US spelling.
What certainly is necessary is to choose a system and rigorously enforce it
[quote=“lol”]haven’t I said often enough that our job is descriptive, not prescriptive?[/quote]Could have fooled me, translating “國民堂” as “Chinese National Party” anyone ?
[quote=“TT”]We didn’t reckon, however, with the fundamentalist zeal of Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), whose desire to make Taipei look as much like a city in China as possible spurred him to raise a finger to the yet to be implemented Tongyong and adopt Hanyu within Taipei City… hence ZhongXiao, not Zhongxiao, for example – we admit that implementation has been refreshingly consistent throughout Ma’s would-be “Taipei Special Administrative Region.”[/quote]You are Hobart and I claim my ten Pounds. So any one who uses Hanyu Pinyin is a raving commie ? Now who doesn’t understand Taiwanese politics ?
[quote=“lol”]that is I and the guys who work with me and have an opinion about this kind of thing
Oooh, BFM - you’re setting yourself up for a nasty fall here - the Chinese National Party is in fact the correct translation for the Zhongguo Guomindang - the formal name for the KMT.
Oooh, BFM - you’re setting yourself up for a nasty fall here - the Chinese National Party is in fact the correct translation for the Zhongguo Guomindang - the formal name for the KMT. :p[/quote]I know that, it says that in big fecking shiny characters on their building and everything so it is correct to call them that, What I mean is when the TT quotes someone referring to the KMT: “The KMT (Chinese Nationalist Party) said blah…” did they say “中國國民堂” in chinese ? I am guessing most people just say “國民堂”, no ? I am suggesting that the TT added the word “Chinese” when it was not in the original quote for effect.
The worse this problem gets, the happier I am with my investment of time to learn to read and write Chinese (BFM you can post all the wanker smilies you like ). I do feel sorry for the poor bastard who gets off the plane and then tries to navigate his own way around by the signs and maps, no two of which seem to be the same.
While I agree that in theory having one system would make life much simpler for visitors, place names that have been romanized in one way for enternity (like Kaohsiung for example) should not be arbitrarily chopped and changed for the benefit of the purists. How many foreign visitors would have seen it romanized as Gaoxiong (or whatever the f*** it is) before coming here? Using Hanyu Pinyin or Tongyong across the board might seem like an improvement from the standpoint of simplicity, but would it really make it easier on the visitor? I think exceptions have to made for place names that been romanized in a certain system for a very long time and whose use is very widespread.
[quote=“Lol”]Now let’s see: we said (or, if you want, I said since I am the Monday editorialist)
The pinyin system is a mess;
When they introduced Tongyong we just hoped it would go away (hardly the ringing endorsement of the system we seem to be accused of making);
Unfortunately it hasn’t gone away. Taipei County in particular has become Tongyong land;
Which means we now, with bitter resentment have to learn Tongyong to be able to know how to correctly “spell” Taipei County place names.
This makes for three systems in use where there should be only one.
You don’t, I take it, disagree with any of this.[/quote]
I wish you had used the phrase “bitter resentment” in your article.
Of course we should tell them what system to use. It’s a system for our use. If Taiwan didn’t “live in the world” as you say, then there would be no need for romanization at all. As you pointed out, Taiwan already uses Zhuyinfuhao as a phonetic system for learning Mandarin. There is no need for a romanization system in a Taiwan unless you take into account the international community. It is here that I wish you would take a stand. Rather than just say “we need a system”, do a little research and tell us what that system should be. Find out if Tongyong lives up to its hype. Ask pointed questions of Yu Boquan, the founder of the system. An academically-minded person like Cranky Laowai would be able to point you and your reporters in the right direction.
Now you tell me that this means you will be using Tongyong Pinyin in addition to other systems already in use, but before you accuse me of stupidity, please look at the sentence again and ask yourself whether the meaning is clear. I interpreted that sentence to mean that you would be using Tongyong for all systems, and I think that was a fair assumption to make. I doubt I was the only one to think so.
But it doesn’t say that does it?
Anyway, your meaning wasn’t clear, and I misunderstood it, but what you mean is that you’re actually going to be using whatever system is in local use for place names right? So does that mean Taipei City place names will be romanised with Hanyu Pinyin? Did the new policy start yesterday with the editorial? Becasue I noticed 士林 was still romanised ‘Shihlin’. If you are really using the system used in that area, it should be ‘Shilin’.
Yep that was me again. Settle down. I wasn’t accusing you of cowardice. I have read the TT since it began, and have followed the editorial policy on romanisation, and you have had editorials in the past that champion Tongyong over HP for ideological reasons. But it’s hard for me to know whether you really have a single editorial policy or not. I remember you saying there’s a number of you that write the editorials, and how was Ito know which editor was writing this editorial, whether it was the same one (ones) who had previuosly attacked HP for ideological reasons, and who had made the latest decision.
[quote]All I am trying to do - as the guy who makes the policy at the TT
It seems to me that there has been no systematic effort by anybody, especially not from the government, to canvass the opinions of either linguists or end-users (various kinds of foreigners, presumably) on the romanization issue. No objective voices, in other words. Perhaps that would make an entertaining newspaper article. (Lol?)
The X is not counterintuitive if you are a speaker of Portuguese, Catalan, Basque, Maltese or Greek.
The Q is not counterintuitive if you are a speaker of Albanian.[/quote]
All the same, Juba, you’ll never catch me writing Xindian or Xiao anything. It’s Hsintien, even better Shindien, and Shiao Everything. What’s with these x’s and q’s? Counterintuitive they are.
Puzi City is wrong. The highway sign says PUTZ, as does the PUTZ GENERAL HOSPITAL FOR FORESKIN SURGERY. Nobody lives in any place called Puzi. Where the eff is that?
Though I don’t know about many other languages, I don’t think,the X and Zh are not counterintuitive for Russian speakers. But there are always going to be some languages that see Hanyu Pinyin as intuitive and some that see it as counterintuitive. It would be impossible to come up with something using this alphabet that would be intuitive for every, or even most foreign languages. In any case, learning the sounds for two or three letters can’t be that unreasonable a burden for anyone, can it?
). I do feel sorry for the poor bastard who gets off the plane and then tries to navigate his own way around by the signs and maps, no two of which seem to be the same.