<div dir="ltr">Yes.<div>That is what we need.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Junghee Lee</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Dennis Lee <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dennislee.edu@gmail.com" target="_blank">dennislee.edu@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Oh quick question for any Sinologists out there: Were there any parallels to the transition from Wade-Giles to pinyin? It seems like that was a far smoother process. I'm just curious.<br></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Dennis Lee <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dennislee.edu@gmail.com" target="_blank">dennislee.edu@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>For fun, we should all go Yale. We'll have "y"s and "e"s everywhere and make the linguists happy.<br><br></div>On a serious note, I actually learned the Yale Romanization system first from Gari Ledyard over e-mail almost 2 decades ago. It wasn't until I started my grad program at UCLA that I learned CCK (to follow James' suggestion). Now here I am in Korea trying to master a third one. Good times!<br><br></div><div>Best,<br></div>Dennis <br></div><div class="m_-7533601658189175668HOEnZb"><div class="m_-7533601658189175668h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Frank Hoffmann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hoffmann@koreanstudies.com" target="_blank">hoffmann@koreanstudies.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Two brief note regarding Hyoungbae Lee's last note:<br>
<br>
QUOTE:<br>
-----<br>
-3. Oneureun nalssiga jota (RR)<br>
-4. Oneul eun nalssi ga jota<br>
<span> (most probably, National Library of Korea version of RR)<br>
</span>-----<br>
<br>
That would be yet another bad "handling" of RR. The ONLY advantage of<br>
RR oder McC-R that I can see is that it can be machine generated by the<br>
simplest means, which makes a huge difference for e.g. cataloging<br>
books, but also -- more important! -- in industry, administration, and<br>
international relations. Once this kind of -- in my opinion obscure --<br>
stops are introduced as they exist in McC-R (just as obscure there),<br>
this advantage will be gone. The simple result will be just one more<br>
rule in existence to be disregarded by the majority of people.<br>
Why do I call this "obscure" -- apart from the just made technical<br>
argument? Because transcription systems should be there to emulate a<br>
language in another script known to the reader. What sense does it make<br>
to introduce new orthographic rules (about word divisions) in a<br>
transcription system (except for writing systems that don't know stops,<br>
such as classical Chinese).<br>
<span class="m_-7533601658189175668m_6079442901178329620HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Junghee Lee<br></div>Professor of Art History<br></div>School of Art and Design<br></div>Portland State University<br></div>P. O. Box 751<br></div>Portland, OR 97207-0751<br></div>U. S. A.<br></div><a href="mailto:leeju@pdx.edu" target="_blank">leeju@pdx.edu</a><br></div></div>
</div>