Thread:Unok/@comment-5494183-20190504184959/@comment-3544775-20190504214319

Hi, yeah, I understand what you meant. And it usually makes sense as some kanji sometimes have multiple reading and the hiragana there helps how to be read and usually only that reading is written. In our case it's katakana and katakana is usually used to write foreign words/names. So it basically says of how it should be translated and not really of how the kanji should be read. Another take could be that the author thinks of the attacks in english and gives the kanji for the non-english understanding japanese readers, so they know what the attack would mean.

Because of that, I'm really torn between: I do support that the meant reading there is enough; but at the same time it's a transcription of the english word and not the actual/normal reading of the kanji. So I'm fine with both scenarios, but if I keep thinking I may support more what you meant as if I'm japanese reader I would read just the katakana and if I don't understand what that english word meant, then I would read the kanji. And in that aspect, just leaving the katakana reading is fine.