[KS] Re: Road signs and more than we want to know

[Peter Mauro Schroepfer/Seo Banseok]

What is the difference between a linguist who hints that G. M. McCune and E.
O. Reischauer were two yangnoms who didn¡¯t know anything about urimal and
foreign types (including the Times and Herald) who spread equally unfounded
lies about the National Academy of the Korean Language? They look pretty
much the same to me.

I happened to go to a press conference of the Ministry of Culture and
Tourism on Tuesday at the Seoul Foreign Correspondents Club. (Two foreign
journalists showed up, the same number that were in attendance when the
Ministry of Culture and Tourism invited 250 foreign embassies and press
organizations to a explanitory meeting in I think April.)

One official from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism's Language Policy
Division who was sitting to the side when one of the two journalists asked
about the money issue had this to say:

The reason the "Additional Provisions" at the end of the document that is
the new system say that road signs are given until December 31, 2005 to be
changed is because the Ministry of Construction and Transportation asked for
this clause. Construction and Transportation says that the average life of
the average road sign is five years, and so with exception to areas
surrounding football stadiums that will be hosting World Cup events, most
newly Romanized signs will be changed when they need replacing anyway, much
like batteries. 

Same goes for the textbooks. Additional Provision #3 says that government
publications "such as textbooks" must follow the new system by February 28,
2002. Remember that Korean textbooks are printed on something close to
newspaper, are cheap, and unlike many countries are bought by the students.
Apparently most are printed every year, but the Ministry of Education asked
that regulations allow it to use a few that there are too many of until that
time. 

Imagine that! That's two additional ministries in on this "conspiracy" to
"impose" the new system on themselves, and while _trying_ to minimize the
cost, too! Someone said all other ministries were invited to meetings where
their opinions were asked as well, and that most came. So much for
"secrecy." 

Here's the biggest peice of misinformation of all: Contrary to popular
foreign belief, the idea to change the system did not originate with the
NAKL. According to the them, it was both the HaengjOng Swaesin WiwOnhoe (I
think this might now be the Kyuje KaehyOk WiwOnhoe, the Regulatory Reform
Committee) and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation that most
recently suggested this to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (maybe then
Culture and Sports) in 1995. I quite sure that the NAKL was more than happy
to oblige, but they were not a bunch of nationalist nutheads who were out to
get MR for lack of anything better to do. (They actually had plenty to do,
for example on their new three volume dictionary.)

The NAKL's dogribmun/jolla bug do/bij(=loan)/os(=clothes)  transliteration
proposal of 1997 was in reponse to this. Dr. Kim Sejung of the NAKL (and
member of this list) says that the outcry on the Korean-Studies List was
part of what encouraged the NAKL to drop that awful proposal. Even if it can
be argued that the views of foreigners were ignored during other stages of
this process, it simply wasn't true at this time. This List, for starters,
was observed closely.  It was at this time that those  questionaires were
circuclated. I alone received three, each at a different address and over a
period of several months. I know of at least four other foreigners who
received these questionaires as well, though none of them actually filled
them out and returned them. I hadn't even asked to participate: someone at
the NAKL was actively seeking out people who might care. On various
occasions the NAKL has been accused by some in the foreign community of
having circulated questionaries only to Koreans. This is at best
"innacurate." 

Things got quiet, as you might imagine, with the 1997 Presidential Election,
and it took new leadership (wOnjang) in early 1999 to get the project moving
again, and, acording to Mr. Kim Sejung, this time they began with two basic
principles: (1) go with pronunciation instead of han'geul spelling, and (2)
no diacriticals. This eventually led to what we see today.

Something else, something rather ironic, that I think many are also not
aware of is that the NAKL is getting a lot of flak from those many would
indeed agree are nationalist. Many of the so-called "vernacular dailies" are
mentioning this as well: that the NAKL is criticized by some for "selling
out" (my interpretation of "chinach'ige oegugin chungsim") to the foreigners
in going with a pronunciation based system. I once heard a particularily
amusing story about how the NAKL sometimes has to talk the more fanatical
nationalists out of interesting but ultimately bad ideas such as trying to
have tribes that still have no writing system to use han'geul before they
discover romaja. I'm all for this, of course, when intelligent life is
discovered on Mars.

Those on this list who know me well know that I could go on forever but I
think few care anymore so will spare people from these ramblings. I could
even make arguement as to why I think the new system is actually worth
giving a chance, whether we like it or not, but in the meantime I've been
rather alarmed (dare I say embarrassed, too) at the demonization of the NAKL
that has been taking place in some quarters, not because they're reasonable
people but out of principle. When it comes to recent discussion on this
list, I wonder if jokes about someone having a contract for road signs and
implying that this may have influenced the government's decision aren't more
appropriate for the Moogoonghwa List or at least highly unbecoming of the
nature of this one, being "intended for the higher education community" as
it is. 



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