Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > On 7/16/06, gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> i think we do not need to discuss japanese at all. after all, there's no >> transliteration for kanji. so it's imho pointless to argue about >> kana-transliteration, when you cannot transliterate kanji. > > If you mean that you cannot easily deduce whether the kanji for moon 月 > should be transliterated according to the reading 'tsuki' or 'getsu', > then yes, you are correct. But you *can* transliterate them according > to their on or kun reading. >
yes, you are correct on that. but on the other hand, what's the meaning in doing a plain on/kun reading-based transliteration? :-) and also, some kanjis have a lot of on/kun readings... which one will you use? at least for me it seems that a transliteration scheme should at least keep the words readable. now take a japanese word with 2 kanjis. how would you propose to transliterate it to still keep the meaning? gabor --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
