<div dir="ltr"><div>[Chuck] So I've been writing in RR since 1998 or so, and now my dictionaries contain almost 100,000 entries in<br> total, where RR is used for the Korean.------ [Sang-Oak] The six-member committee met about 10 times only in 1999 and announced its result in 2000.</div>
<div>I don't know who you met around that time and in 1998 the outline of 2000 RR was not formulated.</div><div> </div><div> [Chuck] This would be especially problematic in area of lexicography, as it would create chaos. ------ [Sang-Oak] I also noticed that chaotic problem in mass data processing in general </div>
<div>since I had done many quantitative linguistics. That was why I insisted to insert (8) to allow final p/t/k > b/d/g. (This was my last-minute contribution and revision to the draft of RR </div><div>although I was reluctant to accept eo and eu and nullify some good points in MR.)</div>
<div> </div><div>I think you can still use 'I' instead of 'Lee' in line with (8) in your dictionary and lexicographical data. Please give me an access address of your dictionary.</div><div>I will be away to China for 5 days from now on. </div>
<div> </div><div>Sang-Oak Lee</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/7/15 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:koreanstudies-request@koreanstudies.com" target="_blank">koreanstudies-request@koreanstudies.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send Koreanstudies mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:koreanstudies@koreanstudies.com">koreanstudies@koreanstudies.com</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://koreanstudies.com/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com" target="_blank">http://koreanstudies.com/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com</a><br>
<br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:koreanstudies-request@koreanstudies.com">koreanstudies-request@koreanstudies.com</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:koreanstudies-owner@koreanstudies.com">koreanstudies-owner@koreanstudies.com</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. RR romanization (Charles Muller)<br>
2. Re: RR romanization (Charles Muller)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:28:58 +0900<br>
From: Charles Muller <<a href="mailto:acmuller@l.u-tokyo.ac.jp">acmuller@l.u-tokyo.ac.jp</a>><br>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <<a href="mailto:koreanstudies@koreanstudies.com">koreanstudies@koreanstudies.com</a>><br>
Subject: [KS] RR romanization<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:51E21AFA.6060907@l.u-tokyo.ac.jp">51E21AFA.6060907@l.u-tokyo.ac.jp</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed<br>
<br>
On 2013/07/13 17:06, Sangoak Lee wrote:<br>
<br>
> "Yi Songgye", should be rendered in RR as "I Seonggye".---No.<br>
> According to RR 3(4)? Romanization of family names will be determined<br>
> separately, its correct appllication is still "(Not decided but later)<br>
> Seonggye."<br>
<br>
This begins to soundlike the establishment of two standards: one for<br>
family names, and one for the rest of the language. Surely, this cannot<br>
be the case. I don't see how RR could possibly say that ? would be<br>
romanized as "i" in all cases except for family names. This would be<br>
especially problematic in area of lexicography, as it would create<br>
chaos. I would certainly argue strongly against the creation of such a<br>
policy.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------<br>
A. Charles Muller<br>
<br>
Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology<br>
Faculty of Letters<br>
University of Tokyo<br>
7-3-1 Hong?, Bunky?-ku<br>
Tokyo 113-8654, Japan<br>
<br>
Office Phone: 03-5841-3735<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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:55:20 +0900<br>
From: Charles Muller <<a href="mailto:acmuller@l.u-tokyo.ac.jp">acmuller@l.u-tokyo.ac.jp</a>><br>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <<a href="mailto:koreanstudies@koreanstudies.com">koreanstudies@koreanstudies.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [KS] RR romanization<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:51E22128.4070704@l.u-tokyo.ac.jp">51E22128.4070704@l.u-tokyo.ac.jp</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed<br>
<br>
On 2013/07/14 12:28, Charles Muller wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 2013/07/13 17:06, Sangoak Lee wrote:<br>
><br>
>> "Yi Songgye", should be rendered in RR as "I Seonggye".---No.<br>
>> According to RR 3(4)? Romanization of family names will be determined<br>
>> separately, its correct appllication is still "(Not decided but later)<br>
>> Seonggye."<br>
><br>
> This begins to sound like the establishment of two standards: one for<br>
> family names, and one for the rest of the language. Surely, this cannot<br>
> be the case. I don't see how RR could possibly say that ? would be<br>
> romanized as "i" in all cases except for family names. This would be<br>
> especially problematic in area of lexicography, as it would create<br>
> chaos. I would certainly argue strongly against the creation of such a<br>
> policy.<br>
<br>
Furthermore, it is hard to imagine any kind of sound principle upon<br>
which such a decision could be based, without either (1) undermining the<br>
basic principles and rationales informing RR itself, or (2) appealing to<br>
subjectivity and emotionalism.<br>
<br>
(1) For example: A decision to retain Yi because it was used for a long<br>
time in MR: in that case, why bother using RR for anything at all? Why<br>
not just retain MR for all other cases? Or,<br>
<br>
(2) Using *Yi* because *I* "looks ugly"-- a commonly-seen argument<br>
against the usage of new romanization forms in various languages that<br>
cannot stand up to any scientific form of academic scrutiny. Let's face<br>
it, such a response indicates nothing more than an emotional expression<br>
of conditioned habit. (Which, to my mind, is actually 90% of what all<br>
arguments over romanization boil down to).<br>
<br>
Having stated that, I should make my own reasons for my own perspective<br>
and high level of interest (and emotional attachment!) in this matter clear.<br>
<br>
During the late 90's, when the scholars who were working on RR (then<br>
known as the Ministry of Education System) were in the midst of<br>
finalizing its principles, my online dictionaries were beginning to come<br>
to the attention of many academics around the world. I had occasion to<br>
meet some of these committee members at conferences during this period,<br>
and they strongly encouraged me to support it in my dictionaries.<br>
<br>
I did so, and also adopted RR in my academic writing, perhaps becoming<br>
the first Western scholar to do so. So I've been writing in RR since<br>
1998 or so, and now my dictionaries contain almost 100,000 entries in<br>
total, where RR is used for the Korean. So obviously, I have a lot<br>
invested in it, and I'm very concerned about its future. I'm most<br>
concerned when I see arguments made for removal or destabilization of RR<br>
that have no sound principle behind them, and seem to be to be primarily<br>
based on foreign pressure, habit, or emotionalisms.<br>
<br>
Thus, I don't see why the Korean government can't simply stick to the<br>
orthographic principles it has established when it comes to orthography,<br>
and when it comes to surnames and personal names, just acknowledge the<br>
fact that people are going to do whatever they like, no matter how they<br>
try to legislate it.<br>
<br>
I'll be very interested to see what comes out of this.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------<br>
A. Charles Muller<br>
<br>
Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology<br>
Faculty of Letters<br>
University of Tokyo<br>
7-3-1 Hong?, Bunky?-ku<br>
Tokyo 113-8654, Japan<br>
<br>
Office Phone: 03-5841-3735<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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
End of Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 121, Issue 26<br>
**********************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>ÀÌ»ó¾ï Sang-Oak Lee/<a href="http://www.sangoak.com">www.sangoak.com</a><br>Prof. Emeritus, Dep't of Korean<br>College of Humanities, Seoul Nat'l Univ.<br>Seoul 151-745, Korea<br>
</div>