I was going to delete my message but it was too late since you posted after it. Anyway, I thought I keep it anyway since you ignored the other messages explaining the katakana. Why the heck would the katakana for Rondo be used for Ronde when there katakana for Ronde? Have you even looked up the katakana for Senko no Ronde? Sheesh!Recap wrote:Psst. Read the whole thread. Thanks.BrianC wrote:ロンド is the katakana for Rondo, not Ronde. It has the Japanese characters "ro", "n", and "do". There is a different character for de, btw.
The title of that PCECD Castlevania game
-
E. Randy Dupre
- Posts: 954
- Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:26 pm
I'm not going to comment on your (as I predicted) moronic post. But I couldn't resist tangling you in your own logic on one point. If you think all etymologically foreign (i.e. non-Japonic) words need to be written in Roman letters in their original source language, and this is what you are claiming, well, then you cannot write Akumajou as Akumajou, since this is a compound of morphemes borrowed from Chinese. So, under your bizarre guidelines we must use the modern Chinese Pinyin equivalent for Akumajou, which is e4mo2cheng2 (tones are indicated by a number after the syllable: 4 is a falling tone, 2 is a rising tone). But, like writing Rondo as Ronde, this is a translation, not a transliteration.Recap wrote: Using the original (and correct) form for a word written in katakana instead of its straight wapuro form still "transfers from one writing system (or script) to another directly" (in this this case, to the French "writing system" since the word is originally French), but more importantly, is the convention everybody uses to "transliterate" Japanese game titles into Roman letters, hence you will always see "Akumajou Dracula" instead of "Akumajou Dorakyura" or "Dracula: Castle of Demons", no matter how "illogical" this "action" looks to to you. And that's just the closest example.
So there you have, the discussion about "where the word came from or what it's supposed to be meaning" is "relevant" if we want an proper transliteration.
You have proven once and for all you still do not understand the difference between translation and transliteration.
-
Shatterhand
- Posts: 4043
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:01 am
- Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
- Contact: