[KS] Chosun Ilbso Romanization Article
John H. T. Harvey
jharvey at nuri.net
Wed Nov 17 23:19:46 EST 1999
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BF31C7.9539A860
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A few comments on the November 18 Chosun Ilbo article on NAKL's =
romanization "proposal."
1. Horace Underwood calls our attention to a sentence in the Korean =
version which was omitted from the English translation, explaining that =
the change is from a system "for foreigners" to one "for Koreans." One =
can't help wondering why Koreans, with a beautiful alphabet like Hangul, =
need romanization for themselves. Surely they need it "for foreigners"? =
=20
1. The first of the "three main principles the new romanization =
will follow," namely that it is "to be written as pronounced in Korean: =
Does this refer to morphophonemic changes like "S(h)illa" for =
"S(h)in-ra"? This is not clear, although the article cites "Silla" =
later on. Does it refer to allophonic changes, like intervocalic =
voicing? Apparently not, since the initial stops and affricate will =
also be written with the same voiced Roman letters. Foreigners will =
have to learn that the initials and finals are unvoiced. Voiced =
initials do not sound too bad to Koreans, apparently (few Koreans object =
to "Busan"), but voiced finals sound both ugly and just plain wrong.
2. The second principle, "not to use any symbol other than the =
Roman alphabet," which clearly is aimed at the use of diacritics, like =
the current breve and apostrophe: I think the French, Germans, Spanish, =
and Italians would be surprised to hear that the accented letters they =
use are not in the Roman alphabet. And certainly no reader/writer of =
English would be shocked by the use of the apostrophe. =20
3. The third principle, "to write one sound with one letter": "Eo" =
and "eu" are certainly not single letters. (As a matter of fact, either =
can be read as two distinct Korean vowels.) I suspect the system also =
uses "ng" (also ambiguous unless you remember to hyphenate for "n" plus =
"g") and "ch."
4. "the abolition of the half-moon sign shows the different =
grammatical positions of Korean consonants": This is completely =
uninterpretable.
5. "they [the breve and the apostrophe] are unavailable on computer =
keyboards.": By the way, despite repeated claims to this effect, the =
apostrophe is still alive and well on the computer keyboard. Although =
vowels with the breve are available in the widely used TrueType fonts, =
it might be better to use the circumflex, which can be very simply added =
to vowels with keyboard shortcuts in MS Word and probably in other =
up-to-date word processors and is on the keyboard as the separate symbol =
^.
6. "Major city names are to change to the Korean pronunciation.": =
The writer apparently thinks that voiced Roman letters better capture =
the Korean pronunciation of the initial stops and affricate, despite the =
fact that they are not, in fact, voiced. This probably reflects the =
common Korean perception of the voiceless Roman letters as aspirated, =
which they are, but much more weakly than the distinctively aspirated =
Korean equivalents. =20
7. The writer misnames (and misromanizes) some of the names of the =
Hangul letters. Correct, in the new romanization, would be "Gi-yeog," =
"Di-geud," "Bi-eub." If the new system is one of transliteration, we =
would then have "Ji-euj," "Chi-euch(?)," "Ki-euk," "Ti-eut," and =
"Pi-eup." If it reflects morphophonemic changes, however, these would =
be "Ji-eud," "chi-eud(?)," "Ti-eud," and "Pi-eub." (It will be great =
fun to hear naive foreigners try to pronounce these!)
A few more comments, on the November 18 article in the Korea Herald.
1. "As for the evident confusion within the expatriate community, =
the government officials vow to 'educate' [sic] and promote the delicate =
working principles of the new system." Previously, the government =
failed to persuade the newspapers to use its 1984 system correctly, and =
failed completely (as far as I can tell) to have that system taught in =
the schools. (It is not, after all, rocket science.) So the expatriate =
community (not to mention tourists and visiting businessmen) have been =
exposed to a mishmash of the pre-1984 government system, the 1984 =
government system incompletely and inaccurately rendered, and completely =
unsystematic private romanizations of the names of individuals and =
organizations. (Compare the regular use of Pinyin by everybody in =
mainland China.) By the way, just what are those "delicate working =
principles"? If the new system is adopted, I propose that the =
following be prominently displayed in the arrivals hall at Gimpo: "'Eo" =
is NOT as in 'eon' and 'eu' is NOT as in 'Europe.' Listen hard for what =
they really represent."
2. "the use of the initial consonant, which varies depending on =
whether it becomes a voiceless or voiced sound": Well, you know what =
he's getting at!
3. "In the new converting principle, the principle of faithfully =
describing fortis [sic], the phenomenon of respecting the changing sound =
value in consonants said back-to-back, will be ignored and Korean words =
will be transliterally copies into the corresponding Roman alphabets =
[sic].": So, is it transliteration ("Sinra,"), or will it reflect =
morphophonemic changes ("Silla")?
=20
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BF31C7.9539A860
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3> A few comments on the November 18 =
Chosun=20
Ilbo article on NAKL's ro</FONT><FONT size=3D3>manization =
"proposal."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3> 1. Horace Underwood calls =
our=20
attention to a sentence in the Korean version which was omitted from the =
English=20
translation, explaining that the change is from a system "for =
foreigners" to one=20
"for Koreans." One can't help wondering why Koreans, with a =
beautiful=20
alphabet like Hangul, need romanization for themselves. Surely =
they need=20
it "for foreigners"? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3> 1. The first of the "three =
main=20
principles the new romanization will follow," namely that it is "to be =
written=20
as pronounced in Korean: Does this refer to morphophonemic changes =
like=20
"S(h)illa" for "S(h)in-ra"? This is not clear, although the =
article=20
cites "Silla" later on. Does it refer to allophonic changes, like=20
intervocalic voicing? Apparently not, since the initial stops and=20
affricate will also be written with the same voiced Roman letters. =
Foreigners will have to learn that the initials and finals are=20
unvoiced. Voiced initials do not sound too bad to =
Koreans,=20
apparently (few Koreans object to "Busan"), but voiced finals sound =
both=20
ugly and just plain wrong.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 2. The second principle, "not to use any =
symbol=20
other than the Roman alphabet," which clearly is aimed at the use of =
diacritics,=20
like the current breve and apostrophe: I think the French, =
Germans,=20
Spanish, and Italians would be surprised to hear that the accented =
letters they=20
use are not in the Roman alphabet. And certainly no reader/writer =
of=20
English would be shocked by the use of the apostrophe. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 3. The third principle, "to write one =
sound with=20
one letter": "Eo" and "eu" are certainly not single letters. =
(As a=20
matter of fact, either can be read as two distinct Korean vowels.) =
I=20
suspect the system also uses "ng" (also ambiguous unless you remember to =
hyphenate for "n" plus "g") and "ch."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 4. "the abolition of the half-moon sign =
shows the=20
different grammatical positions of Korean consonants": This is =
completely=20
uninterpretable.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 5. "they [the breve and the apostrophe] =
are=20
unavailable on computer keyboards.": By the way, despite repeated =
claims=20
to this effect, the apostrophe is still alive and well on the computer=20
keyboard. Although vowels with the breve are available in the =
widely used=20
TrueType fonts, it might be better to use the circumflex, which can be =
very=20
simply added to vowels with keyboard shortcuts in MS Word and probably =
in other=20
up-to-date word processors and is on the keyboard as the separate symbol =
^.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 6. "Major city names are to change to the =
Korean=20
pronunciation.": The writer apparently thinks that voiced Roman =
letters=20
better capture the Korean pronunciation of the initial stops and =
affricate,=20
despite the fact that they are not, in fact, voiced. This probably =
reflects the common Korean perception of the voiceless Roman letters as=20
aspirated, which they are, but much more weakly than the distinctively =
aspirated=20
Korean equivalents. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 7. The writer misnames (and misromanizes) =
some of=20
the names of the Hangul letters. Correct, in the new romanization, =
would=20
be "Gi-yeog," "Di-geud," "Bi-eub." If the new system is one of =
transliteration,=20
we would then have "Ji-euj," "Chi-euch(?)," "Ki-euk," "Ti-eut," and =
"Pi-eup." If it reflects morphophonemic changes, however, these =
would be=20
"Ji-eud," "chi-eud(?)," "Ti-eud," and "Pi-eub." (It will be great =
fun to=20
hear naive foreigners try to pronounce these!)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> A few more comments, on the November 18 article =
in the=20
Korea Herald.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 1. "As for the evident =
confusion within the=20
expatriate community, the government officials vow to 'educate' [sic] =
and=20
promote the delicate working principles of the new system." =
Previously,=20
the government failed to persuade the newspapers to use its 1984 system=20
correctly, and failed completely (as far as I can tell) to =
have that system=20
taught in the schools. (It is not, after all, rocket =
science.) So=20
the expatriate community (not to mention tourists and visiting =
businessmen) have=20
been exposed to a mishmash of the pre-1984 government system, the 1984=20
government system incompletely and inaccurately rendered, =
and completely=20
unsystematic private romanizations of the names of individuals and=20
organizations. (Compare the regular use of Pinyin by everybody in =
mainland=20
China.) By the way, just what are those "delicate working=20
principles"? If the new system is adopted, I propose that =
the=20
following be prominently displayed in the arrivals hall at Gimpo: =
"'Eo" is=20
NOT as in 'eon' and 'eu' is NOT as in 'Europe.' Listen hard for =
what they=20
really represent."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 2. "the use of the initial consonant,=20
which varies depending on whether it becomes a voiceless or voiced=20
sound": Well, you know what he's getting at!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 3. "In the new converting principle, the =
principle=20
of faithfully describing fortis [sic], the phenomenon of respecting the =
changing=20
sound value in consonants said back-to-back, will be ignored =
and=20
Korean words will be transliterally copies into the corresponding Roman=20
alphabets [sic].": So, is it transliteration ("Sinra,"), or will =
it=20
reflect morphophonemic changes ("Silla")?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BF31C7.9539A860--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list