<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [KS] The Mystery of the Breve</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'>A curiosity ... <BR>
<BR>
Maybe English language Romanization of Hangul is not as accurate / clear as say, French. In fact when we read Romanized Hangul, we aren’t reading English, rather manufacturing the sound of Korean into the rules of some other visual system. I say this because when I saw the Hangul for “Seoul”, I realized that it appeals to my understanding of — and capacity to clearly replicate sound in — French. <BR>
<BR>
Not being a linguistic, but, rather, linguistically curious, it seems that the transliteration debate needs to have some new alternatives.<BR>
<BR>
Lauren<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>-- <BR>
Lauren W. Deutsch<BR>
835 S. Lucerne Blvd., #103<BR>
Los Angeles CA 90005<BR>
Tel 323 930-2587 Cell 323 775-7454<BR>
E lwdeutsch@earthlink.net<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"><B>From: </B>Otfried Cheong <otfried@airpost.net><BR>
<B>Reply-To: </B>Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:33:36 +0200<BR>
<B>To: </B>Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Re: [KS] The Mystery of the Breve<BR>
<BR>
Frank Hoffmann wrote:<BR>
> Regarding replacements or left-out of brèves, both has been practiced <BR>
> heavily on this list when using older email software -- leaving them out <BR>
> as well as replacing them by ô, û (included in the ASCII set). <BR>
<BR>
Neither of which fulfils the requirements we discussed: no diacritics, <BR>
but no major loss of information either. The circumflexes _are_ <BR>
diacritics, and _not_ included in the ASCII set (which is a 7-bit <BR>
character set).<BR>
<BR>
The issue is not a particular character set - as I think I have <BR>
demonstrated, there are numerous occasions where you simply must be able <BR>
to restrict yourself to the letters A-Z (capitals only!).<BR>
<BR>
> And I have not seen anyone in Korean Studies who, <BR>
> as you claimed, would have made the argument that replacing brèves with <BR>
> circumflexes would be an unforgivable sin.<BR>
<BR>
I certainly did not claim this - what I said is that many on this list <BR>
considered replacing the breves by the _digraphs_ 'eo' and 'eu' an <BR>
unforgivable sin.<BR>
<BR>
> NORTH Korea: this is an entirely different topic, of course. You wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
>>> As I said earlier, I would have suggested to simply allow<BR>
>>> "eo" and "eu" (...), and to replace the apostrophe by 'h'.<BR>
>>> (...) Is that true? I've never seen the spelling Phyo˜ngyang<BR>
>>> anywhere.<BR>
> <BR>
> (1) As you already pointed out yourself, "eo" and "eu" are used instead <BR>
> of o and u + brève. "Phyo˜ngyang" is therefore no valid example.<BR>
> <BR>
> (2) The "h" is indeed used to replace the apostrophe in McC-R for an <BR>
> aspirated t' or p'. For example "thongil" instead of "t'ongil."<BR>
<BR>
This raises an interesting question: North Korea uses a modified <BR>
version of McC-R that does not need diacritics at all (except for <BR>
hyphens to separate syllables, if necessary). But apparently the North <BR>
Korean system was not considered as a contender for the new South Korean <BR>
romanization - as far as I can remember, this was not even suggested at <BR>
the time. Why?<BR>
<BR>
Unification with the Northern system would be the only good reason for <BR>
South Korea to change its official romanization again. But of course <BR>
that's a hairy issue unless you can work out the differences in Hangul <BR>
spelling in the two Koreas.<BR>
<BR>
Best wishes,<BR>
Otfried<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>