[KS] Re: k/g, t/d, p/b, ch/j

[sangoak]

Let us share another letter from Prof. Peterson to me (Sang-Oak Lee).
For those who are not interested in linguistics and 'romanization', please skip
it.

My comment to Mark's letter:
According to a survey on romanizing Korean personal names and names of public
institutions conducted by the National Academy of the Korean Language in 1996,
public attitudes were as follows (cf. surveyed by Sang-Oak Lee 1998:66):

(1) in case of the family name:
(initial) "k" 167 vs. "g"  1  (final) "k" 57 vs. "g" 0
            t     1 vs.  d   1            none
            p   54 vs.  b   5           none
            s   33 vs. sh 20           none
           ch 182 vs.  j   16          none
aspirated: ch 72                      none
                 p   2                     none
(2) in case of the first name:
(initial) "k" 172 vs. "g" 21  (final) "k" 152 vs. "g" 1, "ck" 13
            t     1  vs. d  66            none
            p    8  vs. b  69            p   16  vs.  b  1
            s   33 vs. sh 20          none
           ch  46 vs.  j 186          none
aspirated: ch 82                     none
                 t  34                     none
                 p   9,   ph  2          none
(3) in case of the name of company, university, bank, and others:
(initial) "k" 126 vs. "g" 20  (final) "k" 50 vs. "g" 1, "ck" 6
            t   34  vs. d 154           none
            p  16  vs.  b  42            p   8  vs. b  2
            s 203 vs. sh 32           (neither "s" nor "sh" but) t   9
           ch  32 vs.   j  72            none
aspirated:  ch 36                      none
                 t   12                      none
                 p  12                      none
Note: Reversions favoring "d, b, & j" in (2) & (3)!  In case of (2),
they are affected/voiced by intervocalic positions when Koreans say
a personal name in the order of the family name and the first/own name.
To explain the case of (3), let us ask why to disappearing 'Daewoo'.

As to the phonetic question at the end of Mark's letter, I believe the space
from our glottis for bilabial "p, b" is the largest (not 'open' but
'largeness').
Otherwise what was said is right.
In other words, the order of space (strictly speaking, volume) is
p/b > t/d > ch/j > k/g.

SOL

Mark_Peterson at byu.edu wrote:

> Sangoak,
>         Again, I write you off line.  There is so much heat and not much
> light in this debate; I don't won't to clutter everyone's airwaves, but I
> so much appreciate your reasonable approach to airing this issue, and I'm
> interested in your survey.
>
>         As a non-linguist, but an interested user of the language, I've
> been following the debate with interest.  Whereas I teach the 1984 system
> with strictness (I call it the 1984 system because neither McCune nor
> Reischauer claim ownership of it).  The 1984 adoption made one improvement,
> the [sh] before [i], -- an improvement my stubborn-as-mules colleagues
> can't find their way to accept -- and calling it the Korean Government's
> official system declared in 1984 takes it away from the two "students" who
> first tried to standardize things in 1937.  It really is a simple system,
> once you make the choices they, and most of us make, that the writing help
> the reader come as close to the pronunciation as possible, and to do so in
> a systematic, and consistant fashion -- even though there are some admitted
> compromises for the sake of esthetics and economy.
>
>         So, my question for you is:  do you have survey material for t/d,
> p/b, ch/j, like you do for k/g.  I've often estimated and cited the 99% Kim
> over 1% Gim [Geem, Gheem] business.  But it's interesting to me, and
> harmful to my pro-1984 position, that Pak (Park) seems to be 95%, to 5%
> Bak, Bahk, etc.; and Chung, and Cho seem to be about 60:40 to Jung and Jo,
> maybe 70:30.  But with To and Tu; it's 10:90 in favor of Do, Doh, Tu, Tuh,
> etc.
>
>         The bit about the opening of the glottis for g was interesting.  Is
> it more open for t, semi -open for j, and almost like g for b?  If you
> understand what I mean?
>
> with best regards,
> Mark



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