<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>English is not a roman language. It belongs to the indoeuropean family of languages, formed by roman languages (Spanish, French, Catalan, Gallego, Italian, Portoghese and so on), celtic languages, slavic languages and germanic languages (where English belongs, together with German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish and so on). All those branches of indoeuropean have different prononciation. Romanisation is the use of the roman characters. </P>
<P>It sounds odd by the same definition, that the standarised system of romanisation would be the phonetic transcription of hangul alphabet on roman letters only for writing but with a germanic prononciation and spelling. The pretended romanistion would only serve the interests of English speakers as it is conceived more as a way of reading than a way of writing.</P>
<P>English is not the most spoken language in the world nor the means of communication of most people around the world. Chinese is the most spoken language in terms of number of speakers. Spanish is the language spoken in most countries. English is the official language of many countries, however, many speakers of English around the world, whose countries have English as an official language are not allowed to, for instance, teach English as a foreign language.</P>
<P>Spanish has its own romanisation system of Korean, so does Italian too. They are meant to be tools for learning the language on the first stages. It is not possible to create a standarised system of romanisation as a way for oral communication, even English has diffierent accents and it would be difficult to agree on a common form of spelling. Korean language does not fully fit the English prononciation (that is why you find for example the surname "Pak=Park" or "Lee=Rhee" to fit the different accents of the readers and writers). </P>
<P>Standarisation as you conceive it would be only possible in a homogeneous English-speaking world, but believe it or not, this world is still very diversified and I personally wish to keep it that way. I would suggest to agree on developing a common form of transcription only for names and surnames. This system should be very basic and easy to use, composed of sylabs no longer of three characters each, keeping that way the structure of original hangul. It should be conceived only as a system of written communication in order to avoid misconceptions and allow the understanding of all non-Korean speakers.</P>
<P><BR><BR> </P><BR><BR><BR>>From: Anne Hilton <annehilton@gmail.com><BR>>Reply-To: Anne Hilton <annehilton@gmail.com><BR>>To: susanaluengo@hotmail.com<BR>>Subject: Re: [KS] Romanization systems<BR>>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 07:12:27 +0900<BR>><BR>>Although the romanization systems have flaws, I do believe they are<BR>>necessary.<BR>>Like it or not, English has become something of a lingua franca in the<BR>>world, so most non-Korean speakers from all over the world have that<BR>>language in common or another Western language with similar roots.<BR>>Like it or not, there are non-Koreans in Korea who do not know Hangeul,<BR>>whether they're lazy or are just passing through the country, and the<BR>>romanization system provides a standardized method for reading Korean words.<BR>>While the romanization system is flawed and leads to
ridiculously long words<BR>>that no one wants to try to pronounce, knowledge of the romanization system<BR>>in addition to Hangeul makes the system much more usable, so the<BR>>romanization is really only as beneficial as the reader (of the romanized<BR>>words) puts in effort.<BR>>A standardized system is crucial due to otherwise resulting confusion. (e.g.<BR>>the city I live in has three different spellings, and a nearby city has two<BR>>different spellings--two of these spellings of these respective cities<BR>>overlap with one another, so a standardized romanization system is crucial<BR>>for non-Hangeul readers to differentiate between the two.)<BR>>Like it or not, every language in the world with a non-Roman alphabet has<BR>>some sort of Romanization method to enable non-speakers of that language to<BR>>learn it or pronounce it more
easily.<BR>>Even Korean students of Chinese use the romanization of Chinese when first<BR>>learning the language to make the learning of the words easier.<BR>>Like it or not, "Roman alphabet" and "romanization" has become the standard<BR>>term of usage because the Roman alphabet is what we are using to write with<BR>>right now. The Roman alphabet was used as a basis for nearly all Western<BR>>languages, so the use of the term "Romanize" rather than "Anglicize" simply<BR>>means write in the Roman alphabet, implying that a "romanized" word can be<BR>>used in ANY language using the Roman (or slightly evolved almost Roman)<BR>>alphabet. I.e. the use of Romanization keeps the romanized word from being<BR>>strictly isolated as an Anglicized word and gives it the potential to be<BR>>used with dozens of other languages.<BR>>The romanization of Korean words
allows something that is also beneficial<BR>>for the language and learning of it: the Hangeulization of Romanized words;<BR>>Through communication one needs to do this at times, and a standardized<BR>>romanization system allows a person to hangeulize the words without a second<BR>>thought.<BR>>In an ideal world, everyone in Korea or interested in Korea would learn to<BR>>read and write Hangeul, but as this is certainly no perfect world, that does<BR>>not occur, in which case a standardized romanization system is necessary.<BR>><BR>>On 5/29/05, Susana Luengo <susanaluengo@hotmail.com> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > I am wondering why is it called "romanisaition" system. If it was such a<BR>> > system it would have to adhere to the Latin, origin of all the roman<BR>> > languages, and not to the English. Personally i find this system:<BR>>
><BR>> > -Very confusing as it ends up with unprononciable, far too long words<BR>> > (have a look to most of the "romanised" names of tube stations in Seoul)<BR>> ><BR>> > -Colonialistic, is has been created for the English speakers of United<BR>> > States, being of little help for the rest of the world<BR>> ><BR>> > -I would suggest to learn and use the Korean alphabet, it is plain, clear<BR>> > and systematic, did anyone try to learn it?<BR>> ><BR>> ><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>> > ><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 MSN(r) Premium right now and get<BR>> > >the first two months
FREE*.<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>--<BR>>Anne Hilton<BR>>Fulbright ETA<BR>>Miho Middle School<BR>>300 Wolgok-ri, Gangnae-myeon<BR>>Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do<BR>>363-892<BR>>South Korea<BR>><BR>>+82 (0)16-263-9665<BR>><BR>>(363-892<BR>>ÃæºÏ û¿ø±º °³»¸é ¿ù°î¸® 300-1<BR>>Çѱ¹±³¿ø´ëÇб³ºÎ¼³¹ÌÈ£ÁßÇб³<BR>>Anne Hilton)<BR></DIV></div></html>