<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Dear colleagues,<BR> <BR>1) Frank wrote:<BR> <BR>> The basic question is:<br>> Should one pay consideration to the different semantics of character <br>> variations (Korea, mainland China, Japan) beyond the correct <br>> representation of the transcribed pronunciation in each language -- or <br>> is a "representation" of Chinese characters only acceptable when we do <br>> so 1:1 (mirroring the actual variations used in that culture and/or <br>> text)?<BR>"The argument given by Andrew Logie's struck me as especially sensible <br>and convincing: <br>>> traditional, Simplified and Japanese kanji are now - synchronically <br>speaking - independent scripts used to represent different languages <<<br>He thus sees Chinese characters within each LANGUAGE rather than <br>understanding the characters as just a script system. "<BR>Both very sensible , indeed. Any deviation from that should only be done considering policies, being them political or publishing house/periodical ones.<BR> <BR>2) "rather > than Quan)? If we 'push' that a little, we then get sentences like: "In <br>> 1990 Mr. Kwŏn 权 xx visited his his nephew Mr. Kwŏn 權 yy in Seoul." <BR> Mr. Kwŏn 权<BR> Mr. Kwŏn 權<BR>Mr. Quan 权<br> Mr. Quan 權<BR>Mr. Gweon<BR>Mr. Gwon aso... --- Look at the namecards. If you dont have them, look where this is printed...<BR> <BR>Greetings to everyone<BR>Werner<br> <BR><div>> Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 13:46:06 -0700<br>> From: hoffmann@koreanstudies.com<br>> To: koreanstudies@koreanstudies.com<br>> Subject: Re: [KS] formal question (which version of Chinese characters?)<br>> <br>> My own SUMMARY from this discourse:<br>> <br>> <br>> Yeon-ju Bae wrote:<br>> <br>> > Drawing on the example that has been used, 民俗, 民間, and 傳承 seem <br>> > to have completely different meaning/nuance in Korean, i.e., 'folk', <br>> > 'among laity', and 'transmission' (at least<br>> > according to my first impression of hearing the words).<br>> > So I guess the inscription of Sino-Korean forms might not necessarily <br>> > render the effect of translation, as someone else has already mentioned.<br>> <br>> <br>> Exactly that was the very starting point of my question -- it should <br>> not be the result. We certainly are all aware that these terms do in <br>> daily language mean very different, unrelated things *in Korea* -- <br>> which is why it was chosen as an example. But this was NOT a question <br>> related to publishing IN KOREAN language (in KOREA)! That would be a <br>> completely different issue, and this should not be mixed up.<br>> <br>> The basic question is:<br>> Should one pay consideration to the different semantics of character <br>> variations (Korea, mainland China, Japan) beyond the correct <br>> representation of the transcribed pronunciation in each language -- or <br>> is a "representation" of Chinese characters only acceptable when we do <br>> so 1:1 (mirroring the actual variations used in that culture and/or <br>> text)?<br>> <br>> The argument given by Andrew Logie's struck me as especially sensible <br>> and convincing: <br>> >> traditional, Simplified and Japanese kanji are now - synchronically <br>> speaking - independent scripts used to represent different languages <<<br>> He thus sees Chinese characters within each LANGUAGE rather than <br>> understanding the characters as just a script system. <br>> <br>> To me this is plausible enough in order to now use each local variant <br>> of characters for terminology and for bibliographic references. What I <br>> am personally left with is the question about personal names though <br>> (more so than institutional names). Would it really be the best to, <br>> using another example, write the simplified version of the family name <br>> Kwŏn 權, which is 权, when we refer to some Chinese Korean person <br>> living in Jilin, China (while keeping the pronunciation at Kwŏn rather <br>> than Quan)? If we 'push' that a little, we then get sentences like: "In <br>> 1990 Mr. Kwŏn 权 xx visited his his nephew Mr. Kwŏn 權 yy in Seoul." <br>> Even without such rather seldom cases, my 'gut feeling' tells me we do <br>> not need that in case of personal names, simply because these are not <br>> related to cultural semantics. Am I not thinking this through? Any <br>> comments?<br>> <br>> <br>> Best,<br>> Frank<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> --------------------------------------<br>> Frank Hoffmann<br>> http://koreanstudies.com<br></div> </div></body>
</html>