[KS] The Romanization Discussion
Stefan Ewing
sa_ewing at hotmail.com
Sun Jul 3 15:42:09 EDT 2005
Dear KS list members:
My apologies for not replying sooner. We have now successfully moved to our
new home, all the boxes are unpacked, and I can now once again devote my
attention to indulgences such as this discussion list.
My sincerest apologies to Dr. Ledyard for any misunderstanding I may have
caused. I certainly did not feel in any way personally snubbed by him, and
did not stop writing on the subject because of him. Early on in my
participation here, a sympathetic commenter pointed out off-list that
romanization is a subject that many participants are understandably tired of
discussing. It was right and politic of Dr. Ledyard to throw a nod to such
participants in one or two of his earlier posts. His comments gave me an
"out," and I was referring in my last post to the the sentiments he was
sensibly respecting, not to his own views on the subject _per se_.
I do thank Messrs./Drs. Lee, Ledyard, Ramsey, King, Driscoll, et al. for
their fascinating comments. The anecdotes in particular--regarding the
history of Yale Romanization; Rhee Syngman's failed attempts at Hangul
orthographic reform; and the personal factors at play in the development of
the 2000 Revised Romanization of Korean--have been quite intriguing. I do
at least hope that many subscribers who are otherwise uninterested in the
topic of romanization have enjoyed reading these anecdotes as much as I
have.
Yours sincerely,
Stefan Ewing
>From: gkl1 at columbia.edu
>Reply-To: Korean Studies Discussion List <Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
>To: Korean Studies Discussion List <Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
>Subject: Re: [KS] The Romanization Discussion
>Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:54:06 -0400
>
>As a long-time list veteran who has been through many discussions on
>romanization that ended nowhere, I expressed myself tired of the subject in
>a posting a few weeks ago. Stefan Ewing, who obviously has a genuine,
>sincere, and informed interest in this topic, seems to have taken my
>message as a damper, and may have stopped talking about it before he really
>wanted to. I'm grateful for Mr McGuire giving him an opportunity to get
>into it again. I deeply regret it if something that I wrote has dissuaded
>anybody from saying anything they want to say on this list. I have no wish
>to do so, ever.
>I was surprised that Sang Oak's message-- which really was a very
>significant comment on the subject, elicited no responses. As a friend of
>Sang Oak and one familiar with his many efforts to
>encourage the official Korean romanization discussions of 1999 to move in
>open and flexible directions, when his own position between his Korean
>colleagues and his foreign friends made things somewhat tight for him, I
>have always thought he deserved and deserves the gratitude of all of us.
>His conclusion that Korea needs three romanization systems is a pragmatic
>and sensible recognition of reality, and I am sure that that is the way it
>will play out in the future. Here's to you, Sang Oak! And let no one
>hesitate to talk about what they want to talk about, no matter what some
>old crank
might think!
Gari Ledyard
_________________________________________________________________
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen
Technology
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list