[KS] Re: Transcription of Korean Currency

[sangoak at snu.ac.kr]

REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

Dear list,

I mentioned some points in [[[   ]]] on the following original message for
your correct information.

Note that I am not an advocate to the new system but simply want to avoid
misunderstanding.

Note also that it is not very academic or pedantic, so please spare your time
to read this necessary information to build up your correct criticism or
understanding.

Best,

Sang-Oak Lee


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jdh95 at hitel.net>
To: <korean-studies at iic.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: Transcription of Korean Currency


> Rudiger Frank wrote:
> > even though I have read the new romanization scheme of the MOCT as of July
> > 2000, I could not find the answer to my question and so refer to your
> > expertise:
> > 
> > How is the Korean currency to be transcribed according to the new
> > provisions? Would it be "Weon" or was "Won" chosen as one of the exemptions
> > from the rule?
> 
> The MoCT rules that I saw stated that words [[[See below in (1).]]] with a generally-accepted
> spelling will continue to be spelled that way (e.g., "kimchi" would not
> become "gimchi" [[[See (2).]]]). I would think that the "won" would be one of those words [[[See (3).]]].
[[[(1) Not all the 'words' but only those specified as 'personal names and
those of companies', 
i. e. very limited. So even 'kimchi, taekwondo' and all place names were
excluded originally when they publicized <the Romanization of Korean> on July
7, 2000. 

Cf. Section 3. Special Provisions for Romanization, Article  (7) Proper names
such as personal names and those of companies may continue to be written as
they have been previously.

(2) However, when they published <Romanization Reference for Korean Place
Names and Cultural Terms> as a monograph (417 pages) on July 20, they added an
exception on page x (12) to allow 'kimchi, taekwondo' in addition to the
normative form 'gimchi, taegwondo' and provided their condition that they may
be used only in necessary cases of  brand names or international relation.
MoCT could not but publish this thick book of usage mainly because they
excluded place names and cultural terms from 'general acceptance'.

(3) The Korean currency should always be transcribed as 'won' according to
Section 2. Summary of the Romanization System 1) Vowels are transcribed as
follows:
diphthongs 
      ã…‘ ã…• ã…› ã…  ã…’ ã…– ã…˜ ã…™ ㅝ ã…ž ã…¢ 
      ya yeo yo yu yae ye wa wae wo we ui 

Needless to say, they also excluded the Korean currency name from 'general
acceptance' but the result remains incidentally the same as before.]]]

> This obviously would beg the question: what constitutes general acceptance?
> The American Heritage Dictionary lists Cheju, Chongjin (NK), Chonju, Hungnam
> (NK), Inchon, Kwangju, Pusan, Sinuiju, Taejon, Taegu, and Wonsan, all of
> which would have new spellings according to MoCT, going against the general
> acceptance principle. [[[All place names including Kimpo are doomed to be changed. 

In fact, the government already spent great sum of money to change our road
signs.]]]

> I would submit that, if your question is regarding some academic paper, that
> you forgo the MoCT system altogether. After Dr Lew Young-ick of Yonsei
> University spent a good portion of a recent lecture criticizing the "new"
> system, I informally talked to a few professors who stated they would
> continue to use McCune-Reischauer as they always had, because (a) they are
> confident the Korean government will eventually see the folly here, and (b)
> the MoCT does not control world academia related to Korea. [[[It will be a great battle 
or game of the coming years in the rest of my lifetime. (Guess how old I am.)
I am quite curious about its perspective. Linguistic reformism vs conservatism
had shown a typical conclusion so far but who knows that this 'mighty'
government can achieve the unification soon!]]]
> 
> K U S H I B O