[KS] Re: Fw: Next Step

[sangoak]

> Dear Professors Fouser and Walraven,
>
> It was interesting to see (A) Professor Fouser's most recent posting
> to the
> romanization debate and (B) Professor Walraven's comments on the
> former.

> As to (A), I would like to make two comments. In his #2, it is still
> safe to introduce an apostrophe only if there are possible homophone
> clashes. In his #3, instead of chh, how about ch' as the only relic
> apostrophe from the original MR. In addition, I have to mention that
> MOE '59 is still discussed as a candidate of one-to-one system among
> others.

As to (B), the acute accent can be easily chosen than the circumflex
accent as below based on Dr. Hoffmann's previous message.

                       (Mac/U.S. keyboard*)    (IBM/U.S.-Intern. k.)

ô (o-circumflex)         --> Alt+I, then O        --> Alt+0244
ó (o-acute)              --> Alt+E, then O        --> Ctrl+Alt+O
ò (o-grave)              --> Alt+`, then O        --> Alt+0242
ö (o-umlaut)             --> Alt+U, then O        --> Ctrl+Alt+P

û (u-circumflex)         --> Alt+I, then U        --> Alt+0251
ú (u-acute)              --> Alt+E, then U        --> Ctrl+Alt+U
ù (u-grave)              --> Alt+`, then U        --> Alt+0249
ü (u-umlaut)             --> Alt+U, then U        --> Ctrl+Alt+Y

Ô (capital O-circumflex) --> Shift+Alt+J          --> Alt+0212
Ó (capital O-acute)      --> Shift+Alt+H       --> Shift+Ctrl+Alt+O
Ò (capital O-grave)      --> Shift+Alt+L          --> Alt+0210
Ö (capital O-umlaut)    --> Alt+U, then Shift+O -> Shift+Ctrl+Alt+P

Û (capital U-circumflex) --> Alt+I, then Shift+U  --> Alt+0219
Ú (capital U-acute)      --> Alt+Shift+;       --> Shift+Ctrl+Alt+U
Ù (capital U-grave)      --> Alt+`, then Shift+U  --> Alt+0217
Ü (capital U-umlaut)    --> Alt+U, then Shift+U -> Shift+Ctrl+Alt+Y

*) The input method varies depending on the active keyboard driver.

On IBM/U.S.-Intern. keyboard for capital letters, circumflexes need 5
touches (Alt+0212 or Alt+0219),
whereas acutes need only single simultaneous touches (Shift+Ctrl+Alt
altogether at the same time
with 0 or U).
I am afraid that you, Professor Walraven, confuse the circumflex accent
^ on the upper key of 6 with those mentioned above (5 touches). We need
diacritical marks on the letter itself not in the next space like o^ or
u^.

With best wishes,

Sang-Oak Lee

*****

> Dear Friends,
>
> I am pleased to see an emerging consensus on the need for two systems
> of
> romanization.
>
> Regarding MR, the romanization workshop that I (and most recently
> Professor
> Ramsey) referred to had the following members: Robert Austerlitz,
> Chin-Wu
> Kim, Samuel Martin, Robert Ramsey, Ho-min Sohn, Seok Choong Song, and
> Edward
> Wagner.  None of these distinguished scholars were attempting to
> uproot the
> MR system.  Instead, their suggestions were aimed at bringing the
> system up
> to date.  They came up with a long list of recommendations, but the
> following relate to our discussion thus far:
>
> 1. "For typographical convenience we suggest that the diacritic
> (breve) be
> replaced by a dot over a given vowel; in typing, a single tick may be
> preferable.  Moreover, we would like to point out that omitting the
> diacritic altogether will cause virtually no confusion of major
> geographical
> names, names of institutions, or street names."
>
> 2. "We feel it is unnecessary to mark those cases in which the
> spellings,
> ae, oe, and ng represent different sounds, since here are virtually no
> cases
> of serious homophone clashes in common words."
>
> 3. "Although we regret the unfortunate choice of the apostrophe to
> mark the
> aspirate consonants, in the light of established usage, we see little
> likelihood of changing it.  Nevertheless, we invite consideration of
> substituting the letter h for the apostrophe: ph, th, kh, chh.  We
> recognize
> that the letter string chh is visually disconcerting, but this is a
> minor
> discomfort that can be tolerated."
>
> These are excellent suggestions that, had they been adopted earlier,
> would
> have saved printers and computer users much grief over the years.  It
> is
> interesting that #1 (the non-diacritic option) and #3 are similar to
> the
> current North Korean system mention in Professor Armstrong's post (I
> too
> would like information on this because I was not aware of these recent
>
> changes).  By "single tick," the authors were referring to an acute
> accent,
> which is the alternative that Professor Lee thought would be better
> than the
> circumflex.  Using the acute is fine with me.  We need to consider the
> issue
> of using no diacritic at more seriously because it would make the
> system
> easier and help lead in the direction of a single system for both
> Koreas.
>
> Though I strongly support two systems, I have not given the second
> one-to-one system much thought.  The Yale system is, as Professor
> Ramsey
> mentioned, in wide use in linguistics, so it should be given serious
> consideration.  This may be difficult politically, so perhaps
> Professor Lee
> could comment on this what sort of one-to-one system is being
> discussed.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Robert Fouser





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%