[KS] behind-the-scene stories of Romanization

[Stefan Ewing]

Dear KS list members:

I replied to Gari Ledyard that I would say no more on this subject, but as 
the originator (original instigator?) of this tread, I would like to say a 
deep and sincere _taedanhi kamsahamnida_ to Professor Lee for his comments.

I recalled reading in the KS archives that Professor Lee was the main 
advocate of an MR-based system in 1984, and that he supported an adaptation 
of the 2000 system to allow for transliteration in special circumstances, 
both of which he has borne out in his reply.  (It is interesting that he 
noted the irresolution of "sy-" to "sh-" in the 1984 system.)

The table that he provided is indeed enlightening, showing so succinctly 
comparitive strengths and weaknesses in various systems.  I know there is a 
strong argument that people should not be afraid of diacritics and that they 
can easily be supported with current technology--and I myself prefer to use 
diacritic-heavy McCune-Reischauer romanization--but an attempt to devise a 
coherent system that does not rely on them is at least laudable.

Regarding his prediction that "the future of using at least three systems: 
Yale in linguistics, MR in Koreanology (at a minimum of usage to decipher 
the previous writings) or more, NAKL in all others," that is indeed the 
current situation.  As I said in my last comment on this, rather than be 
vexed by a plurality of systems, perhaps we should acknowledge that each 
system suits its distinct purposes, and is a reflection of the inherent 
complexity of the Korean sound system.

Stefan Ewing

>From: <sangoak at snu.ac.kr>
>Reply-To: sangoak at snu.ac.kr,Korean Studies Discussion List 
><Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
>To: Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
>Subject: [KS] behind-the-scene stories of Romanization Date: Sun, 19 Jun 
>2005 20:30:40 +0900 (KST)
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear list members:
>
>
> 
>
>
>Here are some behind-the-scene stories of
>Romanization
>  although belated. Unlike
>the western hemisphere, we here in
>Korea
>  still wrap
>up the last chores of the spring semester till the end of June. I have read
>through the long thread of
>Romanization
>  at once only in this
>weekend and find some areas where I have to comment since I happen to be 
>the
>only one participant in two committees both in 1984 and 2000. I 
>hesitatingly
>reveal these stories which might help to understand the background of 
>recent
>development and resolve some misconceptions in the thread of
>Romanization
>.
>
>
> 
>
>
>1)
>First of all, I have been an advocate of MR system or equivalent. In 1984 I 
>was
>lucky enough to keep this position although I was the only one against two 
>other
>senior scholars who favored 1959 MoE system. (In the Blue House, Dr. Sohn,
>Presidential Aide in education strongly influenced the committee under the
>Academy of Science to
>internationalize
>[=take foreigners
>¡¯
>  favorite system]
>Romanization before the 1986 Asian
>Games.)
>
>
>After the decision to take almost all skeleton from MR system, Prof. Kim
>Wanjin, my mentor,
>in return
>  proposed
>a modification of
>¡®
>s
>¡¯
>  into
>¡®
>sh
>¡¯
>  before
>¡®
>i
>¡¯
>  (without mentioning the subsequent possible changes
>before
>¡®
>y
>¡¯
>). It could be a sort of saving his face in front of
>the former student but I do not think that it was a necessary modification.
>There was also another unnecessary, trivial modification of using
>hyphens.
>
>
> 
>
>
>2)
>Because of continuous appeal to critical weakness in MR system, that is,
>diacritical marks, the National Academy of the Korean Language (NAKL) 
>organized
>committees two times in 1997 and 1999. The first project was dismissed 
>without
>any result due to strong oppositions including an issue against the choice 
>of
>
>¡®
>e
>¡¯
>  for
>¤Ã
>.
>
>
>I
>was invited from the second series of ten meetings as one of three 
>scholars.
>Their opinions are diversified in the first several meetings but it was 
>very
>decisive that the government wanted to get rid of diacritics. Although I 
>again
>tried to save basic skeleton of MR system, NAKL was destined to change the 
>1984
>system very visibly. (In the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Mr. Oh who 
>became
>the Deputy Minister later was very eager to obtain some new achievement to 
>be
>promoted. I later heard this story which was unlucky to advocates of MR 
>system!
>However, I would like to point out that there was not any
>¡®
>nationalistic
>¡¯
>  intent to expel MR on purpose as Prof. McCann
>suspected.)
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>Fellow list members, however, please do not get angry
>with this silly story. I myself was quite upset but in the last tenth 
>meeting I
>proposed to include
>¡°
>rule 3.8: transliteration
>¡±
>  in the 2000 NAKL system. The following table is
>presented to understand the merit of my proposal which was a great salvage 
>out
>of otherwise another meaningless re-change from
>almost
>MR (1984) to
>quasi-
>MoE (2000).
>
>
> 
>
>
>                
>    
>|sound-graph cor.|
>¡¯
>pronounceability
>¡¯
> |no
>diacritics                    
> 
>  
>|_
>transliteration__
>|_transcription__|_computerization
>
>
>1954 Yale system |
>            
>
>O
>           
>
>|
>         
>
>X
>     
>  
>|
>      
> 
>O
>
>
>________________|________________|____________|_______________
>
>
>1959 MoE system |
>            
>
>O
>           
>
>|
>         
>
>X
>      
> 
>|
>       
>
>O
>
>
>________________|________________|____________|_______________
>
>
>1984 AoS [=MR]
>  
>|
>            
>
>X
>            
>
>|
>         
>
>O
>       
>
>|
>       
>
>X
>
>
>________________|________________|____________|_______________
>
>
>2000 NAKL system|
>            
>
>O
>           
>
>|
>          
>
>?
>       
>
>|
>       
>
>O
>
>
> 
>
>
>This table shows the evaluation of the NAKL system is not too bad,
>mainly because the provision of transliteration is included by me. I 
>realize
>this effect more clearly while I draw this
>tableau
>.
>
>
> 
>
>
>Originally I wanted to use the MR system instead of introducing a new
>system. I always believe the Yale system should be used for linguistic
>transliteration but it has its defect of awkward spelling even to the 
>Westerners
>to be used for ordinary purposes. If any new system would be invented like 
>the
>2000 NAKL, it must be the third one (besides Yale and MR) that makes the
>situation too crowded. That was my reason to oppose to the draft of the 
>2000
>NAKL system prepared by the ninth meeting.
>
>
>Along the meetings we had discussed how to write names on the passport.
>Unlike totalitarian China we decided to respect the individual writing of 
>their
>
>old
>  names as used so far especially
>for those who had published articles and books. (In line with this 
>treatment
>many companies like Samsung, Hyundai, & Daewoo may keep their brand 
>value in
>the capitalistic world.) We knew
>Korea
>  is not the same as
>China
>  also in
>her enforcing power to the world even in the case of introducing a new
>Romanization system. I easily predict the future of using at least three
>systems: Yale in linguistics, MR in Koreanology (
>at a minimum
>  of usage to decipher the
>previous writings) or more, NAKL in all others. I do not see any wrongdoing 
>in
>this situation since we are in the free world but un-unified country. Only 
>the
>problem is one has to be clever enough to shift from one system to another
>depending on the context.
>
>
> 
>
>
>Sang-Oak Lee
>
>
>Dep
>¡¯
>t of Korean
>
>
>Seoul National Univ.
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has 
to offer. 
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*.