> My native language is Irish and I disagree. If you think English pronunciation rules are odd or inconsistent, then Irish will make you cry out in pain, as dialects from less than a hundred miles away can sound wildly different.
Irish pronunciation may be local, but the orthography is very consistent. I actually felt there was a lot in common between Kunreisiki and Irish - at first blush it's very confusing for a native English speaker, but once you get over that initial reflex and read it according to its own rules it all makes sense.
> I don't use Romaji much but I learned the Japanese syllabary ~35 years ago so translating Hepburn to correct pronunciation doesn't involve any conscious thought on my part.
Right, but doing that will paper over the issues with any romanisation system. What do you find worse about Kunreisiki?
I don't have a strong opinion on Kunreisiki; when I first came across it I thought 'this looks needlessly complicated' and just assumed it was old and outmoded so basically I've always ignored it. My first introduction to Japanese was from a friend who taught me the pronunciation and hiragana at the same time, so I got used to the sounds well before encountering Romaji. I only learned about the history of Romanization and took a more rigorous interest in the language years later.
Irish pronunciation may be local, but the orthography is very consistent. I actually felt there was a lot in common between Kunreisiki and Irish - at first blush it's very confusing for a native English speaker, but once you get over that initial reflex and read it according to its own rules it all makes sense.
> I don't use Romaji much but I learned the Japanese syllabary ~35 years ago so translating Hepburn to correct pronunciation doesn't involve any conscious thought on my part.
Right, but doing that will paper over the issues with any romanisation system. What do you find worse about Kunreisiki?