[KS] Spaces of Korean phrases in Library catalog

[Sunjoo Kim]

Dear Frank and list members,
I use M-R all the time for my own work as well as for teaching. I find MR 
system very complicated and I make mistakes all the time. My strategy to 
make sure that I do the right thing is to check Harvar'd on-line library 
catalog (then University of Washington's on-line library catalog, if 
necessary). Also following Korean studies glossary compiled by the Academy 
of Korean Studies is helpful. It gives both SK and MR systems with examples 
from actual publication, and not just romanization but also definition of 
terms. This glossary is a collection of glossaries from some major 
publications such as Ki-baik Lee's A New History of Korea, James Palais' 
Politics and Policy in Traditional Korea, Martina Deuchler's Confucian 
Transformation of Korea, and etc. I hope AKS continues to expand this very 
useful glossary project to include terms not yet included in the present 
collection.

http://www.aks.ac.kr/glossary/default.asp

Cheers,
Sun Joo Kim





----Original Message Follows----
From: Clark W Sorensen <sangok at u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Subject: Re: [KS] Spaces of Korean phrases in Library catalog
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT)

Frank,

The University of Washington Press's series on Korea uses only the 
McCune-Reischauer system. As manuscripts come in full of romanization errors 
regardless of the system the writer is purportedly using, as a practical 
matter, unless there is a bilingual editor who knows the MC system very well 
that vetts all manuscripts, the mixed results of the JAS and Journal of 
Korean Studies that you describe will be the inevitable result.

Clark Sorensen
University of Washington

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Frank Hoffmann wrote:

>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
>
>