I cannot help chuckling when reading all of this back and forth on the
romanization of Hangul. Just today, as I was walking through a city in
northern Gyeonggido (°æ±âµµ), I saw the same subway station romanized four
different ways on road signs at various locations. If Korean government organizations
cannot uniformly romanize one entity in a city, you will probably be
hard pressed to find it elsewhere. It is better in Seoul, but lapses
are not uncommon. Luckily, I can read the original! <br>
<br>Jeremy M. Kritt<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:07 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Send Koreanstudies mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://koreaweb.ws/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws" target="_blank">http://koreaweb.ws/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:koreanstudies-owner@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies-owner@koreaweb.ws</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Koreanstudies digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
<<------------ KoreanStudies mailing list DIGEST ------------>><br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Romanisation (Brother Anthony)<br>
2. Re: Romanisation (Frank Hoffmann)<br>
3. Re: Romanisation (Kirk Larsen)<br>
4. Re: Romanisation (Walraven, B.C.A.)<br>
5. Re: Romanisation (<a href="mailto:gkl1@columbia.edu">gkl1@columbia.edu</a>)<br>
6. Re: Romanisation (don kirk)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:38:40 +0900 (KST)<br>
From: Brother Anthony <<a href="mailto:ansonjae@sogang.ac.kr">ansonjae@sogang.ac.kr</a>><br>
Subject: [KS] Romanisation<br>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <<a href="mailto:koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a>><br>
Message-ID: <24551351.1240666720430.JavaMail.root@mail><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR<br>
<br>
Romanization rears its head again! Like Werner, I have no problems with the current official Korean system, since no matter what you do, the result is a set of conventions, the exact pronunciation of which will have to be learned (e.g. 'u' tastes different in French and German and English) and that includes 'eo' (which I deplore but cannot find a convincing substitute for). It seems clear to me that nobody will ever get the 'ordinary Korean' to use letters with diacritics, it goes too deeply against the grain. But since no ordinary Korean is ever taught to use the official system, it is not surprising that there are as many variants as before.<br>
<br>
Just to warn against a false sense of security, I should report that I was phoned some weeks back by an official saying that the Government was aware of widespread dissatisfaction with the current system and asking would I be prepared to attend a consultation on a possible reform? I said yes, so have heard nothing more but we all know that in Korea, Nothing is Ever Settled Once and for All.<br>
<br>
Brother Anthony<br>
Sogang University, Seoul<br>
<a href="http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/" target="_blank">http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:11:56 -0700<br>
From: Frank Hoffmann <<a href="mailto:hoffmann@koreaweb.ws">hoffmann@koreaweb.ws</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation<br>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <<a href="mailto:koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a>><br>
Message-ID: <p06240602c618bf029c8d@[192.168.0.2]><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"<br>
<br>
Dear All:<br>
<br>
I am not too sure that it will really be<br>
necessary to deprive Werner of his academic title<br>
and to bluntly indicate that he (as a linguist<br>
and a specialist in middle Korean and retired<br>
head of a Korean Studies department) "cannot<br>
possibly have been famiiliar [sic] with the great<br>
inadequacies/inaccuracies of the Wade-Giles"<br>
(Will Pore). But then, if it helps a good cause,<br>
why not go with Lenin.<br>
<br>
My own point is: Is there any point to this<br>
discussion now? Has anything changed since 2000?<br>
If so, what?<br>
<br>
- Technical / software issues: no change, all<br>
three, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux operating<br>
systems had already introduced Unicode fonts at<br>
that time that include all the necessary fonts<br>
for transcription of Korean according to<br>
McCune-Reischauer (and Hepburn for Japanese). You<br>
can also see here in our mailing list that some<br>
people use these in postings (if they have a<br>
newer email program). There are very simple<br>
shortcuts to type these characters. On a Mac with<br>
U.S. English keyboard, for example, you type ALT<br>
+ b, then o to get the br?ve-o -- not sure what<br>
the key combinations are under Windows.<br>
<br>
- Quality of both transcription (resp.<br>
transliteration) systems: obviously no changes<br>
since 2000, there were no revisions, or were<br>
there?<br>
<br>
- Institutions using either system: obviously<br>
South Korean institutions are not using<br>
McCune-Reischauer anymore. How about outside<br>
Korea? As far as I can see most museums with<br>
Korean collections have long changed to the new<br>
SK government system -- e.g. the British Museum,<br>
the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, Berlin<br>
Dahlem East Asian Art Museum, and others. The<br>
reason for this change is most obvious: they all<br>
get funding from South Korea, for exhibitions,<br>
for example. Academia like almost everything else<br>
follows the money, isn't it? The big libraries,<br>
on the other hand, such as the Library of<br>
Congress or Harvard U Library, are still using<br>
McCune-Reischauer. Many leading libraries with<br>
Korean collections now also list Korean books in<br>
Korean script (see e.g. HOLLIS<br>
<a href="http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.eresource:hollisct" target="_blank">http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.eresource:hollisct</a>).<br>
<br>
Are there any librarians on this list? Are there<br>
any plans to either shift to the new government<br>
system OR to have both transcriptions displayed<br>
for each record? (Technically, that should be no<br>
problem.)<br>
Government institutions? How about these? As far<br>
as I see they have changed to the new system, for<br>
practical reasons. "Kwangju" can't be found on<br>
any new map anymore.<br>
<br>
In short, as far as I see the mess is now bigger<br>
than it was around 2000 -- as it could well be<br>
predicted then, but there are no basic changes.<br>
<br>
Is the general Korean public really using the new<br>
system? To me it seems most people follow their<br>
nose and not any system. Personal names, for<br>
example, probably the most essential case in<br>
point, show up in all varieties:<br>
Sol Kyung-gu<br>
Sol Kyung-Gu<br>
Sol Kyunggu<br>
<br>
And, same question as in 2000: How long will<br>
South Korea use this system? 10 years, 20 years?<br>
I am in good health, I go with McCune-Reischauer.<br>
<br>
<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
--------------------------------------<br>
Frank Hoffmann<br>
<a href="http://koreaweb.ws" target="_blank">http://koreaweb.ws</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:10:56 -0600<br>
From: Kirk Larsen <<a href="mailto:kwlarsen67@gmail.com">kwlarsen67@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation<br>
To: Brother Anthony <<a href="mailto:ansonjae@sogang.ac.kr">ansonjae@sogang.ac.kr</a>>, Korean Studies<br>
Discussion List <<a href="mailto:koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a>><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:a7e564fd0904251110l12dc989ds55fac15cd2aa9309@mail.gmail.com">a7e564fd0904251110l12dc989ds55fac15cd2aa9309@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
It probably is worth noting that the almighty Wikipedia (the first and often<br>
only source that all too many of my students consult) uses the RR system<br>
(although entries often also list Mc-R romanization for some terms as well).<br>
This fact alone may contribute more to the propagation and standardization<br>
of the RR system's use than any debate among scholars.<br>
<br>
I do, however, have one concern about wholesale adoption of the RR system:<br>
is it appropriate to use this system when writing about North Korea?<br>
Choosing the ROK-devised RR system to write about the DPRK (which has<br>
developed its own system of romanization) seems to me to make a political<br>
statement (albeit unintended in many cases) about the "true" Korea, the true<br>
source of authority on Korea etc.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Kirk Larsen<br>
<br>
2009/4/25 Brother Anthony <<a href="mailto:ansonjae@sogang.ac.kr">ansonjae@sogang.ac.kr</a>><br>
<br>
> Romanization rears its head again! Like Werner, I have no problems with the<br>
> current official Korean system, since no matter what you do, the result is a<br>
> set of conventions, the exact pronunciation of which will have to be learned<br>
> (e.g. 'u' tastes different in French and German and English) and that<br>
> includes 'eo' (which I deplore but cannot find a convincing substitute for).<br>
> It seems clear to me that nobody will ever get the 'ordinary Korean' to use<br>
> letters with diacritics, it goes too deeply against the grain. But since no<br>
> ordinary Korean is ever taught to use the official system, it is not<br>
> surprising that there are as many variants as before.<br>
><br>
> Just to warn against a false sense of security, I should report that I was<br>
> phoned some weeks back by an official saying that the Government was aware<br>
> of widespread dissatisfaction with the current system and asking would I be<br>
> prepared to attend a consultation on a possible reform? I said yes, so have<br>
> heard nothing more but we all know that in Korea, Nothing is Ever Settled<br>
> Once and for All.<br>
><br>
> Brother Anthony<br>
> Sogang University, Seoul<br>
> <a href="http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/" target="_blank">http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Kirk W. Larsen<br>
Department of History<br>
2151 JFSB<br>
BYU<br>
Provo, UT 84602-6707<br>
(801) 422-3445<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/attachments/20090425/6f6efe02/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/attachments/20090425/6f6efe02/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:16:57 +0200<br>
From: "Walraven, B.C.A." <<a href="mailto:B.C.A.Walraven@hum.leidenuniv.nl">B.C.A.Walraven@hum.leidenuniv.nl</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation<br>
To: "Brother Anthony" <<a href="mailto:ansonjae@sogang.ac.kr">ansonjae@sogang.ac.kr</a>>, "Korean Studies<br>
Discussion List" <<a href="mailto:koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a>><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:0A434A40F2F82E44B4D000CA0C3E54A1175CA1@VUWVXC01.VUW.leidenuniv.nl">0A434A40F2F82E44B4D000CA0C3E54A1175CA1@VUWVXC01.VUW.leidenuniv.nl</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"<br>
<br>
The use of diacritics in McC-R. has been given as the major argument for<br>
switching to the current official system, because the diacritics were<br>
judged unsuitable to the digital age. Note that English is about the<br>
only European language that does without diacritics and that none of the<br>
countries that use diacritics has even considered giving them up for<br>
this reason, and still no great harm seems to have befallen them.<br>
<br>
Brother Anthony is right that every system is up to a point a matter of<br>
convention, but the new system is remarkably unsystematic because of the<br>
many compromises that were made in its development. And most people<br>
don't fully know how to apply it.<br>
<br>
Boudewijn Walraven<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:koreanstudies-bounces@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies-bounces@koreaweb.ws</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:koreanstudies-bounces@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies-bounces@koreaweb.ws</a>] On Behalf Of Brother Anthony<br>
Sent: zaterdag 25 april 2009 15:39<br>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List<br>
Subject: [KS] Romanisation<br>
<br>
Romanization rears its head again! Like Werner, I have no problems with<br>
the current official Korean system, since no matter what you do, the<br>
result is a set of conventions, the exact pronunciation of which will<br>
have to be learned (e.g. 'u' tastes different in French and German and<br>
English) and that includes 'eo' (which I deplore but cannot find a<br>
convincing substitute for). It seems clear to me that nobody will ever<br>
get the 'ordinary Korean' to use letters with diacritics, it goes too<br>
deeply against the grain. But since no ordinary Korean is ever taught to<br>
use the official system, it is not surprising that there are as many<br>
variants as before.<br>
<br>
Just to warn against a false sense of security, I should report that I<br>
was phoned some weeks back by an official saying that the Government was<br>
aware of widespread dissatisfaction with the current system and asking<br>
would I be prepared to attend a consultation on a possible reform? I<br>
said yes, so have heard nothing more but we all know that in Korea,<br>
Nothing is Ever Settled Once and for All.<br>
<br>
Brother Anthony<br>
Sogang University, Seoul<br>
<a href="http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/" target="_blank">http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:38:17 -0400<br>
From: <a href="mailto:gkl1@columbia.edu">gkl1@columbia.edu</a><br>
Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation<br>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <<a href="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a>><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:20090425213817.lmaqtba3kk0cgws0@cubmail.cc.columbia.edu">20090425213817.lmaqtba3kk0cgws0@cubmail.cc.columbia.edu</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";<br>
format="flowed"<br>
<br>
It never fails. This list limps along week after week without any<br>
meaningful Korean Studies discussion while living (if you can call it<br>
that) on notices about conferences, lectures, and positions available.<br>
Then somebody pops out of the void with an opinion on romanization and<br>
boom, we actually have a discussion germane to Korean Studies!<br>
Romanization seems always to get the juices roiling. While I wish this<br>
topic were more interesting, it is good to see old friends sounding<br>
off again.<br>
<br>
I can understand views like those of Werner Sasse (of course he<br>
knows what Wade-Giles is all about!!), Eugene Park, Charles Muller,<br>
and Brother Anthony, to the effect that the South Korean system is<br>
taking over the internet and the museums (most recently the<br>
Metropolitan in New York) while Koreans are as allergic as ever to<br>
diacritics. They all have their individual quibbles with that system<br>
while stating their various reasons (all of them perfectly sensible)<br>
for throwing in the McC-R towel and going with the flow.<br>
<br>
My own position has been that McC-R is the superior system and<br>
has the most academic legitimacy as well as a distinguished history<br>
now 70 years long. For the most part, American and European print<br>
journals have stuck with McC-R. But we all know what is happening to<br>
print, and it wouldn't be surprising to see more people yielding to<br>
this different kind of "Korean wave." Whatever happens I will continue<br>
to use McC-R (or when necessary, the Yale system and especially its<br>
Middle Korean variant), simply because of the quality of these systems<br>
and the manifest lack of same in the Korean system.<br>
<br>
But like Charles, I've never criticized anyone for following their<br>
particular choice. From the moment I saw that the South Korean<br>
government's system was going to go into effect, my attitude was<br>
laissez-faire, including with my students (so long as they used the<br>
chosen system correctly, and especially that they decided upon a<br>
principled position on hyphens or not and took care to use intelligent<br>
word division--avoiding monstrosities like<br>
"Hunminjeongeum" or "HunminchOngUm"). And I have to say that on<br>
several occasions when I have submitted materials for Korean<br>
publication and used McC-R exclusively, the people in Korea have given<br>
me the same respect. In fact, given the bitterness that sometimes<br>
broke through in the debates prior to full Korean government<br>
acceptance, it is to the credit of all that in general we haven't gone<br>
to war on this issue. Frankly, I see no problem with two systems so<br>
long as nobody tries to tell me not to use the one I prefer. We've<br>
lived with this situation for a decade now, and the sky has not<br>
fallen. If another generation drives one or the other out of existence<br>
in a natural, laissez-faire manner, so be it. Or if we are forever to<br>
be stuck with two systems, I can live with that. But I do believe<br>
sincerely that the South Korean system is poorly imagined and<br>
seriously distorts, for an average foreigner, the pronunciation of<br>
Korean words.<br>
<br>
Gari Ledyard<br>
<br>
Quoting Charles Muller <<a href="mailto:cmuller-lst@jj.em-net.ne.jp">cmuller-lst@jj.em-net.ne.jp</a>>:<br>
<br>
> Werner Sasse wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Sorry, to raise the question of romanisation again...<br>
>> [...]<br>
>> However, I have started to stop using McR, and now would advocate<br>
>> we follow the current system. The only reason is that it actually<br>
>> seems to become the standard through continuous use, no matter<br>
>> how ridiculous it makes Korean look like.<br>
><br>
> I also hesitated to rejoin this fray, for obvious reasons, but would<br>
> like to thank Werner for putting some weight behind the matter of<br>
> _practicality_, which has been the main force behind my own usage of<br>
> the new system, going back as far as two years before its official<br>
> release.<br>
><br>
> My own decision to adopt the Revised Romanization system had to do<br>
> mainly with the fact that I was trying to develop web resources for<br>
> Korean and East Asian studies, and the decision between doing this with<br>
> a breve-less system that would become a national standard (both<br>
> culturally and technically), or adhering to M-R (which would clearly be<br>
> out of the picture in terms of Korea-generated resources), was a<br>
> no-brainer. After adopting RR for my developing my web resources, it<br>
> just didn't make any sense to use a different system for the rest of my<br>
> work.<br>
><br>
> Now, more than a decade later, web resources are the first step taken in<br>
> the process of research by the vast majority of younger scholars, as<br>
> well as many middle-age and older colleagues. All web resources (and<br>
> other forms of computer-based tools, including web translators, most<br>
> Wikis, etc.) are built upon the KSC standard which has the RR system<br>
> built-in. That means that when you look something up, or have it<br>
> translated by machine, in almost every case you are going to have it<br>
> presented in the RR system (I have already heard complaints of<br>
> frustration from instructors who try to introduce M-R in their courses,<br>
> while their students see only RR on the web).<br>
><br>
> So even disparaging remarks by senior scholars that have the apparent<br>
> aim of diminishing the view of the value of works published with the new<br>
> system will not, I think, be able to stem the tide of change.<br>
><br>
> Despite my long leanings toward the new system, I have never, publicly<br>
> or privately, criticized the work of any colleague based on the fact<br>
> that she or he continued to adhere to M-R. So please do allow those of<br>
> us who choose to use the new system to make our own decision (even if<br>
> it is not yet recognized by the LOC), and try to pay attention to the<br>
> content of the work, rather than the romanization system used to render<br>
> it.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Chuck<br>
><br>
> -------------------<br>
><br>
> A. Charles Muller<br>
><br>
> University of Tokyo<br>
> Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Faculty of Letters<br>
> Center for Evolving Humanities<br>
> Akamon kenky? t? #722<br>
> 7-3-1 Hong?, Bunky?-ku<br>
> Tokyo 113-0033, Japan<br>
><br>
> Web Site: Resources for East Asian Language and Thought<br>
> <a href="http://www.acmuller.net" target="_blank">http://www.acmuller.net</a><br>
><br>
> <acmuller[at]<a href="http://jj.em-net.ne.jp" target="_blank">jj.em-net.ne.jp</a>><br>
><br>
> Mobile Phone: 090-9310-1787<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:36:47 -0700 (PDT)<br>
From: don kirk <<a href="mailto:kirkdon@yahoo.com">kirkdon@yahoo.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation<br>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <<a href="mailto:koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a>><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:843075.19852.qm@web51610.mail.re2.yahoo.com">843075.19852.qm@web51610.mail.re2.yahoo.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
It's interesting to see so many distinguished scholars on Korea -- I'm not saying "Korean scholars" since that wd imply they're Korean, which few of these learned commentators are. If they were, they'd be sensitive to the reality that nobody outside the groves of academe understands, knows or wants to understand or has any reason to understand or ever will understand "diacritics," either the word itself or what they're all about. So that helps explain a system bereft of your beloved diacritics. Still, to people who write about Korea, it's really difficult getting used to the changes in place names. Luckily, though, the new system no longer uses the spelling, "Choi," which baseball announcers invariably pronounced Choy for a Korean player whose name was really more like Choe or Jae or Jae -- or anything but Choy. (Luckily his career in major league baseball was short-lived, and I believe he's now playing for Kwangju, sorry,Gwangju.)<br>
The sooner academics lose their love for diacritics, the better off we'll all be -- as the revised transliteration seems to recognize.<br>
Donald Kirk<br>
<br>
--- On Sat, 4/25/09, <a href="mailto:gkl1@columbia.edu">gkl1@columbia.edu</a> <<a href="mailto:gkl1@columbia.edu">gkl1@columbia.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:gkl1@columbia.edu">gkl1@columbia.edu</a> <<a href="mailto:gkl1@columbia.edu">gkl1@columbia.edu</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation<br>
To: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <<a href="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a>><br>
Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 9:38 PM<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br>
<br>
? ? ? It never fails. This list limps along week after week without any<br>
meaningful Korean Studies discussion while living (if you can call it<br>
that) on notices about conferences, lectures, and positions available.<br>
Then somebody pops out of the void with an opinion on romanization and<br>
boom, we actually have a discussion germane to Korean Studies!<br>
Romanization seems always to get the juices roiling. While I wish this<br>
topic were more interesting, it is good to see old friends sounding<br>
off again.<br>
<br>
? ? ? I can understand views like those of Werner Sasse (of course he<br>
knows what Wade-Giles is all about!!), Eugene Park, Charles Muller,<br>
and Brother Anthony, to the effect that the South Korean system is<br>
taking over the internet and the museums (most recently the<br>
Metropolitan in New York) while Koreans are as allergic as ever to<br>
diacritics. They all have their individual quibbles with that system<br>
while stating their various reasons (all of them perfectly sensible)<br>
for throwing in the McC-R towel and going with the flow.<br>
<br>
? ? ? My own position has been that McC-R is the superior system and<br>
has the most academic legitimacy as well as a distinguished history<br>
now 70 years long. For the most part, American and European print<br>
journals have stuck with McC-R. But we all know what is happening to<br>
print, and it wouldn't be surprising to see more people yielding to<br>
this different kind of "Korean wave." Whatever happens I will continue<br>
to use McC-R (or when necessary, the Yale system and especially its<br>
Middle Korean variant), simply because of the quality of these systems<br>
and the manifest lack of same in the Korean system.<br>
<br>
? ? ? But like Charles, I've never criticized anyone for following their<br>
particular choice. From the moment I saw that the South Korean<br>
government's system was going to go into effect, my attitude was<br>
laissez-faire, including with my students (so long as they used the<br>
chosen system correctly, and especially that they decided upon a<br>
principled position on hyphens or not and took care to use intelligent<br>
word division--avoiding monstrosities like<br>
"Hunminjeongeum" or "HunminchOngUm"). And I have to say that on<br>
several occasions when I have submitted materials for Korean<br>
publication and used McC-R exclusively, the people in Korea have given<br>
me the same respect. In fact, given the bitterness that sometimes<br>
broke through in the debates prior to full Korean government<br>
acceptance, it is to the credit of all that in general we haven't gone<br>
to war on this issue. Frankly, I see no problem with two systems so<br>
long as nobody tries to tell me not to use the one I prefer. We've<br>
lived with this situation for a decade now, and the sky has not<br>
fallen. If another generation drives one or the other out of existence<br>
in a natural, laissez-faire manner, so be it. Or if we are forever to<br>
be stuck with two systems, I can live with that. But I do believe<br>
sincerely that the South Korean system is poorly imagined and<br>
seriously distorts, for an average foreigner, the pronunciation of<br>
Korean words.<br>
<br>
Gari Ledyard<br>
<br>
Quoting Charles Muller <<a href="mailto:cmuller-lst@jj.em-net.ne.jp">cmuller-lst@jj.em-net.ne.jp</a>>:<br>
<br>
> Werner Sasse wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Sorry, to raise the question of romanisation again...<br>
>> [...]<br>
>> However, I have started to stop using McR, and now would advocate<br>
>> we follow the current system. The only reason is that it actually<br>
>> seems to become the standard through continuous use, no matter<br>
>> how ridiculous it makes Korean look like.<br>
><br>
> I also hesitated to rejoin this fray, for obvious reasons, but would<br>
> like to thank Werner for putting some weight behind the matter of<br>
> _practicality_, which has been the main force behind my own usage of<br>
> the new system, going back as far as two years before its official<br>
> release.<br>
><br>
> My own decision to adopt the Revised Romanization system had to do<br>
> mainly with the fact that I was trying to develop web resources for<br>
> Korean and East Asian studies, and the decision between doing this with<br>
> a breve-less system that would become a national standard (both<br>
> culturally and technically), or adhering to M-R (which would clearly be<br>
> out of the picture in terms of Korea-generated resources), was a<br>
> no-brainer. After adopting RR for my developing my web resources, it<br>
> just didn't make any sense to use a different system for the rest of my<br>
> work.<br>
><br>
> Now, more than a decade later, web resources are the first step taken in<br>
> the process of research by the vast majority of younger scholars, as<br>
> well as many middle-age and older colleagues. All web resources (and<br>
> other forms of computer-based tools, including web translators, most<br>
> Wikis, etc.) are built upon the KSC standard which has the RR system<br>
> built-in. That means that when you look something up, or have it<br>
> translated by machine, in almost every case you are going to have it<br>
> presented in the RR system (I have already heard complaints of<br>
> frustration from instructors who try to introduce M-R in their courses,<br>
> while their students see only RR on the web).<br>
><br>
> So even disparaging remarks by senior scholars that have the apparent<br>
> aim of diminishing the view of the value of works published with the new<br>
> system will not, I think, be able to stem the tide of change.<br>
><br>
> Despite my long leanings toward the new system, I have never, publicly<br>
> or privately, criticized the work of any colleague based on the fact<br>
> that she or he continued to adhere to M-R. So please do allow those of<br>
> us who choose to use the new system to make our own decision (even if<br>
> it is not yet recognized by the LOC), and try to pay attention to the<br>
> content of the work, rather than the romanization system used to render<br>
> it.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Chuck<br>
><br>
> -------------------<br>
><br>
> A. Charles Muller<br>
><br>
> University of Tokyo<br>
> Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Faculty of Letters<br>
> Center for Evolving Humanities<br>
> Akamon kenky? t? #722<br>
> 7-3-1 Hong?, Bunky?-ku<br>
> Tokyo 113-0033, Japan<br>
><br>
> Web Site: Resources for East Asian Language and Thought<br>
> <a href="http://www.acmuller.net" target="_blank">http://www.acmuller.net</a><br>
><br>
> <acmuller[at]<a href="http://jj.em-net.ne.jp" target="_blank">jj.em-net.ne.jp</a>><br>
><br>
> Mobile Phone: 090-9310-1787<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/attachments/20090426/dacdec7b/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/attachments/20090426/dacdec7b/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
End of Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 70, Issue 26<br>
*********************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>