[KS] Spaces of Korean phrases in Library catalog
Kirk Larsen
kwlarsen at gwu.edu
Mon Apr 9 14:35:15 EDT 2007
Hello all,
My two bits on Frank's query:
In my teaching (PowerPoint slides, lecture notes, lecture terms etc.) I am
only now beginning to move to a practice of listing both the Mc-R (my
default system) and the SK Romanization for key terms, names etc. This is
not least because Wikipedia generally seems to prefer using the SK system
and, like it or not, the students all seem to consult Wikipedia. No sense in
unnecessarily confusing them.
However, in actual publications, whether scholarly or policy oriented, I
still use Mc-R.
I agree that the practice of many publications to use both systems (or
neither) is undesirable and confusing, particularly for the neophyte or the
non-speaker of Korean.
Cheers,
Kirk W. Larsen
Korea Foundation Associate Professor of
History and International Affairs
Director International Affairs Program
1957 E Street 503H
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
(202) 994-5253
kwlarsen at gwu.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: koreanstudies-bounces at koreaweb.ws
[mailto:koreanstudies-bounces at koreaweb.ws] On Behalf Of Frank Hoffmann
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 11:14 AM
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Subject: Re: [KS] Spaces of Korean phrases in Library catalog
Hello All:
Wish you all a Happy Easter!
I have an add-on question, not exactly the thread's topic, but I
don't feel like opening a new one because it relates.
What is the present consent, years after the SK government's new
transcription system was introduced, about the usage of the two
systems, McCune-Reischauer and the SK system? This is *not* to
refresh all the arguments about the pros and cons, those have been
discussed here in depth long ago. I just wonder how active scholars
working in any area of Korean studies are handling the situation in
both, their classrooms and their own publications. For example, I see
that good scholarly journals such as JAS still lists McC-R as the
system to use without actually following that policy (some book
reviews, for example, are using the SK system, and some articles use
both or no system at all in the same article). The revived Journal of
Korean Studies showed the same mixup -- but not sure about any later
issues published after 2005 (have not seen these yet).
So, what is acceptable? Do you use both systems, depending on the
place of publication or the trace of money? And what do you tell your
students to use?
NOTE: My Easter wish ... if you reply, please let's cut out any
comments on the systems themselves.
Best,
Frank
--
--------------------------------------
Frank Hoffmann
http://koreaweb.ws
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20070409/c42b1023/attachment.html>
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list