<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [KS] Romanization tendencies in the West</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I believe Mr. McCann was merely pointing out that we need to be mindful of what we mean when we simply say "Korea" or "Korean," and to distinguish when necessary or appropriate between North Korea and South Korea. Often the distinction is quite clear from context, as has been the case throughout most if not all of this thread of discussion. When it is not clear, however, we must be precise -- just as those who write about "North Korea" sometimes need to clarify whether they mean the geographical area, the population at large, the political-economic entity, or (as is so often the case) merely the Kim family regime which is calling the shots.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Ken Kaliher</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Seoul</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>William Brown wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> With all due respect, I think Mr. McCann is not right. Certainly the duely</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> elected government of Korea is entilted to represent "Korea" on an issue such</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> as what kind of romanization system that country should have. To suggest they</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> don't have such authority is highly prejudicial and disrepectful. To suggest</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> that the unlected despotic regime in Pyongyang has some kind of say in what</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> system the Republic of Korea uses makes no sense whatsoever.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The Korean governmental organisation that decided upon these new rules is no</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>more elected than is the regime in Pyongyang....</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>