Posted under General
Aliasing utawarerumono -> utawareru_mono.
Reason: Proper romanization.
I know there are no set rules for spaces in Japanese, but if you took this title うたわれるもの and wrote it in kanji, you'd get something like 謳われる者. I don't think anyone here would advocate romanizing 流れる水 as "nagarerumizu" as opposed to "nagareru mizu".
Updated by 0xCCBA696
Soljashy said:
I know there are no set rules for spaces in Japanese, but if you took this title うたわれるもの and wrote it in kanji, you'd get something like 謳われる者.
We're writing utawarerumono together in exactly the same manner as we write bakemono, mamono, jamamono etc. and I really see no point in changing this especially because it's written in kana - what from my expierience strongly hints as "beware of possible subtext, better leave it together". Thus we don't ever think about romanizing もののけ姫 as mono_no_ke_hime, even if it would be written in kanji as 物の怪姫.
I don't think anyone here would advocate romanizing 流れる水 as "nagarerumizu" as opposed to "nagareru mizu".
That depends :)
Examples of what? All-hiragana titles? I'm sure there are more out there, but that's not the point.
I only used the kanji to demonstrate how this romanization deviates from the convention. The fact of the matter is that these are two separate concepts (the verb うたわれる and the noun もの) that would in any other case be written as separate words. I don't see how it being written in hiragana changes this.
Thank you for bringing up sensible counter-arguments, richie. I truly appreciate it.
richie said:
We're writing utawarerumono together in exactly the same manner as we write bakemono, mamono, jamamono etc.
These words all form single concepts, though. Also, the verb in bakemono is in its infinitive form to signify this.
richie said:
Thus we don't ever think about romanizing もののけ姫 as mono_no_ke_hime, even if it would be written in kanji as 物の怪姫.
Again, mononoke is a single concept.
While I see your point about the possibility of subtext, I don't see how the inclusion or omission of a space affects subtext.
But what does change the fact we have verb (passive) + noun here?
Besides, etymology:
wasurerumono->wasuremono
taberarerumono->tabemono
utawarerumono->?
Because utamono noun is already occupied and it (probably!) doesn't mean what we want, thus utawarerumono was used. Or maybe author's intention was to emphasize ancient feeling of this title? I don't know, these are possible subtexts I was talking about earlier. Either way, why we should change the way of its romanization? You'll write wasuremono together, while wasureru mono separately? This looks and feels artificial as hell, and for me you'd need some essential arguments for writing xxxxxmono separate, while leaving it together is default.
Updated
richie said:
Besides, etymology:
wasurerumono->wasuremono
taberarerumono->tabemono
utawarerumono->?
utawaremono
richie said:
Either way, why we should change the way of its romanization?
Because it's not adhering to standards. In all other tags where it occurs, verbs in this form are separated from the nouns that follow them using a space.
richie said:
You'll write wasuremono together, while wasureru mono separately?
Yes. "Wasuremono" becomes a single noun, whereas in "wasureru mono", "wasureru" is part of the preceding clause.
FeKa said:
Why the hell do you people want to change every fucking stupid thing?
I assure you, this is not part of some greater conspiracy to change all things. See it as part of a tag clean-up process. Haven't we always been trying to standardize our romanization scheme?
I assume FeKa meant the interest in standarizing things in such a way as to go against every other source ever outside of Danbooru (I'm still kinda baffled at Street Fighter's "Ryuu"). This trend seems to be more concerned with creating a danbooru-lexicon than recognizably referencing characters or copyrights. It's an admirable amount of work for an objective that I feel seems kind of a waste of time.
Because it's not adhering to standards. In all other tags where it occurs, verbs in this form are separated from the nouns that follow them using a space.
Which nouns?
Yes, I repeat: mono - in its "(some)thing" meaning - is special case. Desperately trying to apply overall standards when "mono" noun is used would lead us nowhere.
Yes. "Wasuremono" becomes a single noun, whereas in "wasureru mono", "wasureru" is part of the preceding clause.
But together, "wasureru mono", has the same meaning as "wasuremono" (except some subtext possibilities). And "wasuremono" evolved from "wasureru mono". Can there be any stronger indication how should we interpret that?
richie said:
Yes, I repeat: mono - in its "(some)thing" meaning - is special case. Desperately trying to apply overall standards when "mono" noun is used would lead us nowhere.
It's still a noun. Even if you insist on giving "mono (thing)" special treatment, it's hinted that the "mono" in うたわれるもの refers to a person/people (者) and not an object.
richie said:
But together, "wasureru mono", has the same meaning as "wasuremono" (except some subtext possibilities). And "wasuremono" evolved from "wasureru mono". Can there be any stronger indication how should we interpret that?
Even while "wasureru mono" might have evolved into "wasuremono" like the English "on to" has evolved into "onto", no such evolution has taken place between "utawareru" and "mono". I stand by my argument.
Why are we looking for excuses to keep it written as one word? Is it because people are so used to seeing "utawarerumono"?
Soljashy said:
It's still a noun. Even if you insist on giving "mono (thing)" special treatment, it's hinted that the "mono" in うたわれるもの refers to a person/people (者) and not an object.
Yeah, to be precise I should say both 者 and 物, I forgot about these different kanjis for animate (person) or non-animate (object).
Even while "wasureru mono" might have evolved into "wasuremono" like the English "on to" has evolved into "onto", no such evolution has taken place between "utawareru" and "mono".
First: it has - see utamono.
Second: this is how rules are born. We do something in one case, we do something in another similar one.
In this example: if we write wasurerumono together, we write utawarerumono too.
Why are we looking for excuses to keep it written as one word? Is it because people are so used to seeing "utawarerumono"?
I. am. not.
I've been always writing down -mono thingies together, since I can remember. Utawarerumono is only one of them, that's all.
There is no such thing as "proper romanization". I usually separate words by particles, and maybe some exceptions here and there.
You can see in other languages, like German, where they bundle two, three (four?) words together.
In this case, you can see the utawarerumono as a concept as well, a composite one. There is not need to write everything at the atom level.
"Utawareru_mono" is silly. うたわれるもの has a very unclear meaning at best, has been always written in kana, and there are almost all other *monos written together going against splitting it. Saying it's somehow correct when it hardly has any discernible meaning is a big stretch, and going against everyone else for no good reason is just silly. Sure, correctness over popularity, but let's not make up cases where we're different just to fuck with people.
