Why is the Hepburn system of romanization generally used over the Nihon-shiki system?


Generally when you see romanization of Japanese it is in the Hepburn system;
however, I recently came across the Nihon-shiki system which seems to be
preferable. Why is it that the Hepburn system caught on as opposed to the
Nihon-shiki system?




In answer to this question, I'll give my personal understanding, although I
can't fully substantiate it.

**The kunrei-siki**

Some consider Kunrei-siki to be a better system than Hepburn in representing
Japanese. That is because Kunrei-siki preserves the regularity of the syllabic
system more closely than Hepburn. This is noticeable in the さ row, the た row,
the は row, and those syllables using ゃ, ゅ, and ょ.

さ し す せ そ  
sa si su se so (kunrei-siki)  
sa _shi_ su se so (Hepburn)

た ち つ て と  
ta ti tu te to (kunrei-siki)  
ta _chi tsu_ te to (Hepburn)

は ひ ふ へ ほ  
ha hi hu he ho (kunrei-siki)  
ha hi _fu_ he ho (Hepburn)

じゃ じゅ じょ  
zya zyu zyo (kunrei-siki)  
_ja ju jo_ (Hepburn)

Hepburn obscures the regularity of the conjugation of 〜つ, kunrei-siki shows it
quite clearly. This becomes particularly apparent in verb conjugations like:

まつ まちます まてば  
matu matimasu mateba (kunrei-siki)  
ma _tsu_ ma _chi_ masu mateba (Hepburn)

People who prize the regularity of kunrei-siki transliteration feel it's a
more elegant system than Hepburn.

**Why Hepburn has largely supplanted kunrei-siki in most situations**

Hepburn is definitely the more popular system of romanisation (although you
might be surprised at how many Japanese mix systems in using romanisations). I
would suggest several reasons for the popularity of Hepburn.

First, the two systems are rather different in their target audience. Kunrei-
siki is a system that could be perceived as a _plausible writing system for
the Japanese language_. The days when people seriously suggested abandoning
characters and kana are probably long past, but if it came to writing Japanese
in romanisation, this would probably be the logical choice.

Hepburn has no such pretensions. It is a system of spelling Japanese _for the
benefit of non-speakers_ and nothing more. It is meant to be convenient for
foreigners to read, and it does that job well.

Given that Japanese does fine with characters and kana for most purposes, it
is probably quite natural that romanisation now largely serves as a script for
foreigners. There is little need for the Japanese to resort to _romaji_ in
their own language.

My understanding is that this also represents the historical situation. Before
World War II, use of kunrei-siki appears to have been more widespread. I
believe that this was because it was an era of Japanese nationalism (thus,
romanisation is for the Japanese, not for foreigners). (It was also a time
when ideas about script reform (reform of characters and kana) were still
around. People who proposed kunrei-siki did so because they felt it was a good
system for writing Japanese. I should point out that nationalism and ideas of
script reform didn't necessarily go together!)

After the war the situation changed completely. With the United States in
control of Japan, romanisation took on the role of showing foreigners how
Japanese was pronounced. The kunrei-siki system did not come off very well for
this purpose. Jack Seward in his popular book _Japanese in Action_ described
the ludicrous results of using kunrei-siki in post-war Japan, when the 第一ホテル,
written 'Dai-iti Hoteru', was inevitably mangled by American servicemen into
'Dai Itty Hotel' and eventually 'Dai Itty-Bitty Hotel'. (I'm quoting this
example from memory; I don't have the actual book with me).

That is probably a very practical reason why Hepburn and not kunrei-siki
became the most popular romanisation in Japan.

A third reason, I would suggest, is the fact that English has come to be
widely studied in Japan and is regarded as a kind of international standard. A
system of writing, like Hepburn, that follows English is thus probably
regarded as more 'international' and more prestigious by Japanese speakers. I
would even suspect that kunrei-siki is regarded as a little ださい by the
Japanese.

**The kunrei-siki (revisited)**

During the early 20th century, kunrei-siki could probably be described as a
better fit for the Japanese language. Those, after all, were the days when
words like 'team' and 'diesel' were imported into Japanese as チーム and ヂーゼル.

But the language has moved on since then, and the phonology of Japanese has
been penetrated by foreign sounds that didn't exist before. For instance, ヂーゼル
is now usually written and pronounced ディーゼル. In other words, the sound 'di'
has now entered Japanese where once there was only 'ji'. ティ (as in パーティー) and
トゥ (as in トゥトゥ) are now familiar to ordinary Japanese, alongside the old
native sounds ち and つ. Katakana struggles to accommodate these pronunciations,
coming up with devices like ティ, トォ, フィ, ヴィ etc. to represent them.

With these gradual changes in the sound system, it's now not quite so self-
evident that kunrei-siki was the ideal system for representing Japanese.
Unlike Hepburn, which can easily distinguish 'chi' and 'ti', kunrei-siki has
no obvious way of distinguishing these two sounds.




In answer to this question, I'll give my personal understanding, although I
can't fully substantiate it.

**The kunrei-siki**

Some consider Kunrei-siki to be a better system than Hepburn in representing
Japanese. That is because Kunrei-siki preserves the regularity of the syllabic
system more closely than Hepburn. This is noticeable in the さ row, the た row,
the は row, and those syllables using ゃ, ゅ, and ょ.

さ し す せ そ  
sa si su se so (kunrei-siki)  
sa _shi_ su se so (Hepburn)

た ち つ て と  
ta ti tu te to (kunrei-siki)  
ta _chi tsu_ te to (Hepburn)

は ひ ふ へ ほ  
ha hi hu he ho (kunrei-siki)  
ha hi _fu_ he ho (Hepburn)

じゃ じゅ じょ  
zya zyu zyo (kunrei-siki)  
_ja ju jo_ (Hepburn)

Hepburn obscures the regularity of the conjugation of 〜つ, kunrei-siki shows it
quite clearly. This becomes particularly apparent in verb conjugations like:

まつ まちます まてば  
matu matimasu mateba (kunrei-siki)  
ma _tsu_ ma _chi_ masu mateba (Hepburn)

People who prize the regularity of kunrei-siki transliteration feel it's a
more elegant system than Hepburn.

**Why Hepburn has largely supplanted kunrei-siki in most situations**

Hepburn is definitely the more popular system of romanisation (although you
might be surprised at how many Japanese mix systems in using romanisations). I
would suggest several reasons for the popularity of Hepburn.

First, the two systems are rather different in their target audience. Kunrei-
siki is a system that could be perceived as a _plausible writing system for
the Japanese language_. The days when people seriously suggested abandoning
characters and kana are probably long past, but if it came to writing Japanese
in romanisation, this would probably be the logical choice.

Hepburn has no such pretensions. It is a system of spelling Japanese _for the
benefit of non-speakers_ and nothing more. It is meant to be convenient for
foreigners to read, and it does that job well.

Given that Japanese does fine with characters and kana for most purposes, it
is probably quite natural that romanisation now largely serves as a script for
foreigners. There is little need for the Japanese to resort to _romaji_ in
their own language.

My understanding is that this also represents the historical situation. Before
World War II, use of kunrei-siki appears to have been more widespread. I
believe that this was because it was an era of Japanese nationalism (thus,
romanisation is for the Japanese, not for foreigners). (It was also a time
when ideas about script reform (reform of characters and kana) were still
around. People who proposed kunrei-siki did so because they felt it was a good
system for writing Japanese. I should point out that nationalism and ideas of
script reform didn't necessarily go together!)

After the war the situation changed completely. With the United States in
control of Japan, romanisation took on the role of showing foreigners how
Japanese was pronounced. The kunrei-siki system did not come off very well for
this purpose. Jack Seward in his popular book _Japanese in Action_ described
the ludicrous results of using kunrei-siki in post-war Japan, when the 第一ホテル,
written 'Dai-iti Hoteru', was inevitably mangled by American servicemen into
'Dai Itty Hotel' and eventually 'Dai Itty-Bitty Hotel'. (I'm quoting this
example from memory; I don't have the actual book with me).

That is probably a very practical reason why Hepburn and not kunrei-siki
became the most popular romanisation in Japan.

A third reason, I would suggest, is the fact that English has come to be
widely studied in Japan and is regarded as a kind of international standard. A
system of writing, like Hepburn, that follows English is thus probably
regarded as more 'international' and more prestigious by Japanese speakers. I
would even suspect that kunrei-siki is regarded as a little ださい by the
Japanese.

**The kunrei-siki (revisited)**

During the early 20th century, kunrei-siki could probably be described as a
better fit for the Japanese language. Those, after all, were the days when
words like 'team' and 'diesel' were imported into Japanese as チーム and ヂーゼル.

But the language has moved on since then, and the phonology of Japanese has
been penetrated by foreign sounds that didn't exist before. For instance, ヂーゼル
is now usually written and pronounced ディーゼル. In other words, the sound 'di'
has now entered Japanese where once there was only 'ji'. ティ (as in パーティー) and
トゥ (as in トゥトゥ) are now familiar to ordinary Japanese, alongside the old
native sounds ち and つ. Katakana struggles to accommodate these pronunciations,
coming up with devices like ティ, トォ, フィ, ヴィ etc. to represent them.

With these gradual changes in the sound system, it's now not quite so self-
evident that kunrei-siki was the ideal system for representing Japanese.
Unlike Hepburn, which can easily distinguish 'chi' and 'ti', kunrei-siki has
no obvious way of distinguishing these two sounds.

