Talk:Kōchi, Hiroshima

Romanization of this town name

I'm inclined to believe that the town name is derived from 'ko' and 'uchi' rather than 'kō' and 'chi' (though both are technically possible). ‘Kouchi’ (河内) is a term you can find in a Japanese dictionary; mine lists it as “「かわうち」の音変化”. Because Ko-uchi has nothing to do with the Kawa-chi region, I don't think a 河 -> 'kō' is warranted in this case.

Anyone with evidence to the contrary should bring it up. -BRPXQZME (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

こうち is certainly an 音便 of かわうち, but I disagree with the idea that just because you can assign こ to one kanji and うち to the other that the notation should change. The romanization should follow the pronunciation, which is kōchi. This is based on my experience with several places named 河内（こうち） in Ehime. Do you have some reason to believe that this 河内 is pronounced with a distinct こ and うち? -Amake (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Romanization doesn't necessarily follow pronunciation (though it usually does). We've established that in names such as this that you romanize the kanji individually, so Kouchi is correct. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First, before I forget, let me apologize for re-moving this. I didn't notice the discussion. Second, could you point me to where this has been established? I have to say I don't agree with it at all, and I'm unaware of any specific rules for this in, say, the Hepburn Romanization standard. -Amake (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was discussed (and agreed on by those participating) here. This is just an example of something everyone has been doing for a while, but which never got specifically codified in MOS-JA. That's something which needs to be addressed once several good examples can be found (already have Kakinouchi and now Kouchi). If you want to carry the discussion further, I recommend taking it to WT:MOS-JA. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing like "Kakinouchi", as this is not a "o" sound followed by a "u" sound, but actually a long "o" sound, a deformation from the original "kawauchi", like Amake correctly pointed out (by the way, a long belated thank you for once again correcting that, Amake). I don't know if I should be surprised that Nihonjoe so quickly forgot about this discussion and the explanations that were given at the time... Erigu (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that romanization should follow orthography; after seeing the discussion, I really don’t see why it shouldn’t.

Now, just to make things clear: it is pronounced kōchi for the purposes of speech, but to use a macron here (IMHO, and clearly a view I share with Nihonjoe) implies that the u is related to the ko, which it is not, orthographically speaking (while kawa -> ko isn’t all that common to my knowledge, it has also occurred for 山川町, among various places, I’m sure).

But hell if I noticed the discussion; that’s why I started a section here, just to make sure we’re not all on different pages!

P.S.: Shimousa Province is another o-u split like this. This one is most likely pronounced Shimōsa by all but the most hypercorrect, but it is definitely Shimo + Usa, and (once again, IMO) should never be “Shimosa”, and therefore should not have the macron. -BRPXQZME (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"総" is actually read "fusa", not "usa". "Shimōsa" is correct. Not "Shimousa" (not in Hepburn, anyway). Like for this very article, this isn't a "o-u split". Erigu (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kōchi, Hiroshima. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004221718/http://www.city.higashihiroshima.hiroshima.jp/eng/ to http://www.city.higashihiroshima.hiroshima.jp/eng/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)