<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>I am wondering why is it called "romanisaition" system. If it was such a system it would have to adhere to the Latin, origin of all the roman languages, and not to the English. Personally i find this system:</P>
<P>-Very confusing as it ends up with unprononciable, far too long words (have a look to most of the "romanised" names of tube stations in Seoul)</P>
<P>-Colonialistic, is has been created for the English speakers of United States, being of little help for the rest of the world</P>
<P>-I would suggest to learn and use the Korean alphabet, it is plain, clear and systematic, did anyone try to learn it?<BR><BR></P><BR><BR><BR>>From: "Stefan Ewing" <sa_ewing@hotmail.com><BR>>Reply-To: Korean Studies Discussion List <Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws><BR>>To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<BR>>Subject: RE: [KS] Romanization systems<BR>>Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 08:35:08 -0700<BR>><BR>>Hi, everyone:<BR>><BR>>In the absence of responses, I'll ask some specific questions that <BR>>are still up in the air. I would appreciate any and all replies <BR>>that this esteemed crowd can provide.<BR>><BR>>1. As I recall reading in McCune and Reischauer's 1939 RASKB paper, <BR>>"s" is only to be written as "sh" before "wi." Thus, "si," for <BR>>example, should *not* be written as "shi." The 1984 South
Korean <BR>>romanization--which is based on McCune-Reischauer--does however <BR>>advise that not only "s" but also "ks," "ls," "ps," and "ss" should <BR>>take an "h" before *both* "wi" *and* "i." (This rule apparently <BR>>does not extend to "ya," "yae," "yo-breve," "ye," "yo," or "yu"; <BR>>thus, "syop'ing" (shopping) should evidently be written as such and <BR>>not as "shop'ing.")<BR>><BR>>As a result of the 1984 system's influence, it appears that some <BR>>believe M-R also advises writing "si" as "shi." Is it possible that <BR>>the system has "officially" changed since 1939, or is this practice <BR>>due to a misconception?<BR>><BR>>2. Samuel E. Martin's _Reference Grammar of Korean_ states that <BR>>"wu" should be written as "u" after "m," "p," "pp," or "ph." I can <BR>>see the rule in front of
me in the book with my own eyes, but can <BR>>anyone confirm that this practice is adhered to? (I <BR>>suspect--without anything to back me up--that this practice is <BR>>somehow related to something M & R wrote in their 1939 paper, which <BR>>mentions that around the time of the formation of the _Hangul <BR>>Match'umbop_, there was a shift in Hangul orthography from, for <BR>>example "p u-breve" to "p u.")<BR>><BR>>Also, the same book states quite clearly what "wi" and "yu" should <BR>>be written as such. In a recent paper by the UNGEGN Working Group <BR>>on Romanization Systems (a UN committee), however, these are written <BR>>as "wuy" and "ywu" respectively. Has the Yale system in fact <BR>>changed, or would this have been a case of someone's not reading the <BR>>rules very carefully, and assuming that these
two vowels or vowel <BR>>combinations should follow the same pattern as analogous vowels or <BR>>vowel combinations (e.g., "ay," "ya")?<BR>><BR>>3. Improbably, the 2000 Revised Romanization of Korean makes <BR>>absolutely no provision for the treatment of kyoppatch'im: the <BR>>non-twinned double consonants ("ks," "nj," "nh," "lg," ..., "lh," <BR>>"ps") that appear at the ends of some syllables. Thus, I have only <BR>>been able to make educated guesses on what the spelling of these <BR>>should be in the medial and final positions in Revised Romanization, <BR>>using the Revised Romanization transcription rules for other letters <BR>>and McCune-Reischauer's rules for kyoppatch'im (and also following <BR>>the Korean "final consonant rule" (patch'im kyuch'ik)). I have put <BR>>in a question to the National Academy of the
Korean Language (they <BR>>usually reply within a couple of days). In the meantime, can anyone <BR>>provide any insight on this matter? (I have downloaded a program I <BR>>found for converting Hangul to Revised Romanization, so I'll see if <BR>>that answers my question.)<BR>><BR>>Eagerly awaiting your replies,<BR>>Stefan Ewing<BR>><BR>>>From: "Stefan Ewing" <sa_ewing@hotmail.com><BR>>>Reply-To: Korean Studies Discussion List <BR>>><Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws><BR>>>To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<BR>>>Subject: [KS] Romanization systems<BR>>>Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:49:56 -0700<BR>>><BR>>>*** To the moderator: Sorry, I forgot to include a URL for the <BR>>>article! ***<BR>>><BR>>>Hi, everyone:<BR>>><BR>>>First of all, to set everyone at ease, this is *not* a
request to <BR>>>discuss the comparative advantages or disadvantages of various <BR>>>romanization systems.<BR>>><BR>>>I have spent many years working with two of the most widely used <BR>>>Korean romanization systems (McCune-Reischauer and the 2000 Revised <BR>>>Romanization of Korean) and have a love-hate relationship with a <BR>>>third system (Yale Romanization). I have read a fair amount of <BR>>>original source material on these and other systems (M's & R's 1939 <BR>>>RASKB paper; the South Korean 1984 and 2000 Romanization of Korean <BR>>>documents; and Samuel E. Martin's discussion of the Yale system in <BR>>>his _Reference Grammar of Korean_), and have also pored over the <BR>>>summer 1997 issue of Sae Kugo Saenghwal (the National Academy of <BR>>>the Korean Language's quarterly journal),
which deals extensively <BR>>>with these matters.<BR>>><BR>>>After working with and digesting material on all three systems for <BR>>>quite a while, I decided to write up what I had learned--in such a <BR>>>manner that it is accessible to both lay and (hopefully) academic <BR>>>readers--and publish it online. The result is an article that <BR>>>briefly summarizes the key characteristics and differences of the <BR>>>the three abovementioned romanization systems, touches on how they <BR>>>handle quirks of Korean orthography and pronunciation (though the <BR>>>latter not in the Yale system, of course, except for the saissori <BR>>>"q"), and includes a table showing all Hangul consonants, vowels, <BR>>>digraphs, and trigraphs rendered in the three systems, broken down <BR>>>into initial, medial, and
final positions where appropriate.<BR>>><BR>>>I humbly request your comments and constructive criticism on the <BR>>>article. I have the wildly unrealistic hope that this article may <BR>>>be used in the future as a reliable, quick, online reference to <BR>>>three of the most widely used Korean romanization systems. I'm <BR>>>sure errors or omissions have crept in--and I haven't even begun to <BR>>>tackle the way in which McCune-Reischauer and the Revised system <BR>>>handle consonantal sound changes--but I would be glad to read <BR>>>anything that any of you can point out or suggest. The article is <BR>>>at <BR>>>http://21cseonbi.blogspot.com/2005/05/comparing-romanizations.html <BR>>>(yes, it's a weblog).<BR>>><BR>>>Stefan
Ewing<BR>><BR>>_________________________________________________________________<BR>>Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and <BR>>outbound e-mail and attachments. <BR>>http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines <BR>> Start enjoying all the benefits of MSNŽ Premium right now and get <BR>>the first two months FREE*.<BR>><BR>><BR></DIV></div></html>