Another article:
以恢復原住民傳統姓名為宗旨的籐文化協會今天指出，最近推動復名時發現，身分證、戶籍謄本等戶政系統尚未全面進行版本更新，讓復名作業仍舊困難重重。
籐文化協會常務理事 Kaing Lipay （該映‧犁百，阿美族）下午表示，雖然新身分證為了配合原住民姓名已經在正面姓名欄位上作「放寬字數」、「並列羅馬拼音」的版更，但背面的父母欄、配偶欄卻未能配合放寬，且戶籍謄本上的姓名欄不但沒放寬字數，也不能加注羅馬拼音。
最奇怪的是，Kaing Lipay 說，現在羅馬拼音的名字在戶政系統上只能以「點」來區隔，這樣的方式未來在護照上將如何表現？護照上的名字以點區隔是其他國家所未見的，未來是否會有問題，希望有關單位能夠深入了解。
另外，Kaing Lipay 指出，原住民姓名欄位上有中文不得超過十五個字，英文不得超過二十個字母的限制，導致高雄縣三民鄉有一位男性民眾羅馬拼音長達二十字，其中無法再以加點的方式區隔，讓他非常苦惱，希望能再次復名。
但是，如果民眾因為行政作業疏失必須再次復名就會被計算為第二次改名，根據「姓名條例」規定一個人只能改名兩次，Kaing Lipay 說，這不是民眾的疏失，建議戶政單位能以「誤登」的方式處理，以免有損原住民復名的權益。
籐文化協會已接獲不少民眾反映，在進行恢復原住民傳統姓名作業時，依舊耗日費時，推究原因，Kaing Lipay 認為，戶政機關沒有一個「標準作業程序」，且缺乏全面配套措施，導致原住民復名困難重重。
Why on earth do reporters find it so hard to grasp that not everything written in an alphabet is “English”?
戶籍系統尚待更新 原住民復名作業困難重重, CNA, March 5, 2006
I work in an institution that’s trying to develop its Souteast Asian studies. A lecturer from Thailand saw a Vietnamese magazine and said something to the effect of “Oh I didn’t know Vietnamese people write in English”.
I pointed out that no, actually it was Vietnamese.
“But they use English alphabet.”
I tried to explain it wasn’t really the English alphabet but then the assumption was that the Vietnamese alphabet was a French imposition.
Similarly, often the major criteria in romanization (for international and/or domestic use) seems to be how English speakers will deal with it. I’m not sure if this is rudeness (non-English speakers don’t count?) or shortsightedness or just a profound misunderstanding of how the latin alphabet works.
From my point of view, the tense/lax distinction in Korean can be written k/g or k/kk or some other way (or be partially dependent on syllable structure) and it doesn’t matter, what really matters is consistency, and not have 38 ad hoc romanization schemes for dealing with personal names …
Have mercy on non-native English speakers! Not only must they disambiguate graphical nuance, but semantic distinctions as well. English’s ubiquity has obviously left no small impression on the world. I believe the Japanese, Korean, and Mandarin languages make reference to the more accurate term “Roman characters” in describing the western alphabet; this may not be the case in other languages, possibly leading to the confusion. But of course, Michael Farris is ultimately correct.
How might a romanization system not based on English phonology look?
This is one of the sticking points in the Church/TLPA/Taioanji vs. Tongyong controversy (for romanized Holo). In the Church system, ‘b’ and ‘p’ have same values as in the Romance languages. Tongyong, which was probably created by people whose only exposure to the Roman alphabet had been with English, assigns ‘b’ and ‘p’ the same values that they have in Mandarin Pinyin.
There are people in both camps who claim that their system is more English-friendly. I’m waiting for somebody to step up and say, Hell with English.
Yeah, Hell with English!