Another letter to the Taipei Times today, this one from a Tongyongista. A response to the letter states, “The Taipei Times has made its policy on romanization clear in its editorials on countless occassions.”
I still await a response by the Taipei Times to my extensive comments earlier in this thread.
That was a strange letter, which seemed to be saying ‘foreigners should stay out of romanisation discussions - leave it to the Taiwanese’. But what piqued my curiosity was the last line “let us Taiwanese who don’t have second passports deal with the consequences of our opinions and decisions” - Robin Winklet.
Another ‘Taiwanese foreigner’ ala Poagao and Satellite TV?
Brian
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]That was a strange letter, which seemed to be saying ‘foreigners should stay out of romanisation discussions - leave it to the Taiwanese’. But what piqued my curiosity was the last line “let us Taiwanese who don’t have second passports deal with the consequences of our opinions and decisions” - Robin Winklet.
Another ‘Taiwanese foreigner’ ala Poagao and Satellite TV?[/quote]That’s quite an attitude for someone who’s only had citizenship for 2 years. I wonder if he was looking down on non-ROC passport holders so much 3 years ago ?
Ah, I wonder if he’s one of the Pingdong Winklets 
I have seen that the mainland has used pinyin for other dialects like Chaozhou or Hakka. Some letters need to be ‘added’ (like “v”), but otherwise the system is consistant and interchangeable. The idea being, of course, that you won’t need to learn an entirely new romanization system to read this dialect.
Well that’s where Tongyong could theoretically be good for Taiwan, if it’s aimed at the Taiwanese and is for the Taiwanese: using one spelling system, with as consistant a set of principles as possible, to read as many languages on the island as possible. And I think you could do it fairly easily actually, there would be 1-1 mapping problems but the system could still work out pretty well in theory.
Up until now, I agree though that 1) no adequate Tongyong system for all these languages has been presented and 2) It’s becoming clear the romanization system would be at LEAST as aimed at foreigners as at the Taiwanese themselves and 3) given these facts, it makes more sense for Taiwan to use Pinyin for Mandarin and Church Romanizatin/Peh-oe-ji 白話字 for Taiwanese and Hakka.
I think the most important thing though is just to have and use a standard.
EDIT: edited.
Just curious: Why should the TT respond to your comments in Forumosa? What exactly is their obligation in this instance? I’ve never heard of newspapers being obliged to defend editorial policy in online fora before.
[quote=“Big Fluffy Matthew”][quote=“Bu Lai En”]That was a strange letter, which seemed to be saying ‘foreigners should stay out of romanisation discussions - leave it to the Taiwanese’. But what piqued my curiosity was the last line “let us Taiwanese who don’t have second passports deal with the consequences of our opinions and decisions” - Robin Winklet.
Another ‘Taiwanese foreigner’ ala Poagao and Satellite TV?[/quote]That’s quite an attitude for someone who’s only had citizenship for 2 years. I wonder if he was looking down on non-ROC passport holders so much 3 years ago ?[/quote]
Mr. Winkler most certainly does not speak for this “Taiwanese who doesn’t have a second passport.” Unfortunately the Times doesn’t seem to be as receptive to my letters.
What I meant wasn’t that I expected the TT to respond in print to this particular thread (though that would be welcome) but that Lol, who [ul][li]speaks for the TT,[/li]
[li]wrote the editorial that got this started, and[/li]
[li]has posted in this particular thread several times[/li][/ul]has not responded in any way (here, through PM, or in the TT) to my comments on the matter despite having had his attention directed their way by more than one person.
The editorial’s comment that “suggestions are welcome” seems not to have been made in all sincerity. Rather, the TT has made no acknowledgment of the many errors in the editorial but has instead said the paper has been and remains consistent in its approach, which is simply wrong.
One who got to skip the normal military service, if what I’ve heard is correct. This might also explain the “volunteer translation work” mentioned in his letter.
[quote=“cranky laowai”]What I meant wasn’t that I expected the TT to respond in print to this particular thread (though that would be welcome) but that Lol, who [ul][li]speaks for the TT,[/li]
[li]wrote the editorial that got this started, and[/li]
[li]has posted in this particular thread several times[/li][/ul]has not responded in any way (here, through PM, or in the TT) to my comments on the matter despite having had his attention directed their way by more than one person.
[/quote]
Call him. Voice to voice. Speak to him and get his answer. He is surely a busy person, and cannot write to everybody about everything that comes his way. But why not call him on the phone and ask to speak with him? A good way to get your answers, no? Did you try that yet?
Having looked back over earlier threads, the impression I get is that lol did make an attempt
One who got to skip the normal military service, if what I’ve heard is correct. This might also explain the “volunteer translation work” mentioned in his letter.[/quote]
I was under the impression that Mr. Winkler was well past the draft age and therefore exempt from national service.
If you read the thread carefully, you will see that his meaning was misunderstood, because he did not actually write what he meant (at least not clearly).
Brian