0

Which is grammatically correct? matcha or maccha?

In my opinion, according to its hiragana representation, it should be written as maccha rather than matcha.

Is there any rule about romaji writing convention I missed here?

closed as unclear what you're asking by oldergod, virmaior, blutorange, Earthliŋ, senshin Apr 21 '15 at 18:34

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • There is many possible transcriptions. I prefer Mattya ! – oldergod Apr 21 '15 at 5:31
  • 4
    This is not about grammar, but romaji orthography. Then the question would be "which is orthographically correct?", to which I would answer "in what system?" – basaundi Apr 21 '15 at 7:14
  • Right now, this is basically based upon a false premise, that there were a widely accepted "correct romaji spelling". As pointed out by Ore, "correct" needs to be defined - for what purpose, or in what system, or by whom or for whom etc. – blutorange Apr 21 '15 at 9:28
  • You might be interested in the brief note on the matcha Wikipedia page. – Eric Apr 21 '15 at 15:50
1

Short answer: matcha is correct. I don't know about maccha being represented by any official romanization system, though this is actually the way that the word would be entered in most Japanese input systems, a so-called Wāpuro rōmaji or kana spelling.

Long answer: There are different romanization systems, for instance Hepburn romanization, which would lead to matcha, or the Kunrei-shiki system or the Nihon-shiki system, which both lead to mattya. It really depends on which romanization system you want to follow. Also be aware that there are variants of the romanization systems that make additions to the romanization styles.

The way romanization of the geminate consonants following the sokuon っ is the rule that you have to look out for in the romanization system of your choice.

For a good list of romanization systems, see this wikipedia page. Note that there are standardizations for the Wāpuro rōmaji, such as JIS X 4063:2000, but these are by definition methods of input and explicitly not methods of romanization.

  • Kunrei-siki and nihon-siki actually both romanise it as mattya – oals Apr 21 '15 at 7:18
  • You are correct, I misread the rules of those two system, I'll edit my answer. – Haf Apr 21 '15 at 7:27
  • The 'maccha' version is what you have to enter in most Japanese input systems (written in Japan); as far as I know, no Japanese entry system written in Japan accepts any standard romanisation as input, though there is no technical reason why they should not. (At least the system I wrote in England decades ago, and Jim Breen's system written in Australia do accept standard romanisation!) – Brian Chandler Apr 21 '15 at 14:27
  • Thank you for your input, Brian, I made some additions to my answer based on your comment and took the opportunity to add some formatting and remove my personal opinion from the answer. :) – Haf Apr 21 '15 at 14:57
  • @BrianChandler I thought they all accept nihon-siki aka ISO 3602 Strict? (Apart from the long vowels -- âîûêô --, which is understandable.) – oals Apr 21 '15 at 19:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.