linkdude20002001 wrote:They may be non-standard, but they certainly have a "system" behind them (and they certainly aren't archaic). If they're allowed on passports, then you can't say they're wrong. The government wouldn't allow those romanizations if they were wrong.
What "system" is that? Hepburn, Kunrei? I'm really not finding it. Besides, the Japanese government has only authorized that romanization on
passports for
people names. It would be incorrect to use it anywhere else.
linkdude20002001 wrote:
That's a list of words that use "ou" to make an "ow" sound. That's not a good comparison. We need a list of ALL words with "ou" in them. So far I've not come across a non-Japanese-knowing person who would see "Gokou" and say GOH-KOH. Your argument isn't very good if you can only pretend you're a non-Japanese-knowing person. You need the minds of actual normal people.
You only know of two people that pronounce "GOKOU" as "Gokuu". I think
you're arguement isn't very good. I'm giving you hard facts here; 148 English words that have "ou" in them, are pronounced as "ow". "House" and "out", two
extremely common English words are pronounced this way. It's hard not to deny that "GOKOU" has a very high chance of being pronounced "Gokow". Don't believe me? Look at
ShiningMoon's response.
Olivier Hague wrote:
And again, no, not necessarily. Examples were given on the first page. Come on.
Yes, by definition, they
were romanizations. Whether they were correct or not, is a different story.
Olivier Hague wrote:
Excuse me, but who are you to tell what's "correct" or "incorrect", here?
I said they were incorrect because they do not conform to the standards of a particular romanization system.