[KS] Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 70, Issue 26

[Jeremy M. Kritt]

I cannot help chuckling when reading all of this back and forth on the
romanization of Hangul. Just today, as I was walking through a city in
northern Gyeonggido (경기도), I saw the same subway station romanized four
different ways on road signs at various locations. If Korean government
organizations cannot uniformly romanize one entity in a city, you will
probably be hard pressed to find it elsewhere. It is better in Seoul, but
lapses are not uncommon. Luckily, I can read the original!

Jeremy M. Kritt

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:07 PM, <koreanstudies-request at koreaweb.ws> wrote:

> Send Koreanstudies mailing list submissions to
>        koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://koreaweb.ws/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        koreanstudies-request at koreaweb.ws
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        koreanstudies-owner at koreaweb.ws
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Koreanstudies digest..."
>
>
> <<------------ KoreanStudies mailing list DIGEST ------------>>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Romanisation (Brother Anthony)
>   2. Re: Romanisation (Frank Hoffmann)
>   3. Re: Romanisation (Kirk Larsen)
>   4. Re: Romanisation (Walraven, B.C.A.)
>   5. Re: Romanisation (gkl1 at columbia.edu)
>   6. Re: Romanisation (don kirk)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:38:40 +0900 (KST)
> From: Brother Anthony <ansonjae at sogang.ac.kr>
> Subject: [KS] Romanisation
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Message-ID: <24551351.1240666720430.JavaMail.root at mail>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR
>
> Romanization rears its head again! Like Werner, I have no problems with the
> current official Korean system, since no matter what you do, the result is a
> set of conventions, the exact pronunciation of which will have to be learned
> (e.g. 'u' tastes different in French and German and English) and that
> includes 'eo' (which I deplore but cannot find a convincing substitute for).
> It seems clear to me that nobody will ever get the 'ordinary Korean' to use
> letters with diacritics, it goes too deeply against the grain. But since no
> ordinary Korean is ever taught to use the official system, it is not
> surprising that there are as many variants as before.
>
> Just to warn against a false sense of security, I should report that I was
> phoned some weeks back by an official saying that the Government was aware
> of widespread dissatisfaction with the current system and asking would I be
> prepared to attend a consultation on a possible reform? I said yes, so have
> heard nothing more but we all know that in Korea, Nothing is Ever Settled
> Once and for All.
>
> Brother Anthony
> Sogang University, Seoul
> http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:11:56 -0700
> From: Frank Hoffmann <hoffmann at koreaweb.ws>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Message-ID: <p06240602c618bf029c8d@[192.168.0.2]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
>
> Dear All:
>
> I am not too sure that it will really be
> necessary to deprive Werner of his academic title
> and to bluntly indicate that he (as a linguist
> and a specialist in middle Korean and retired
> head of a Korean Studies department) "cannot
> possibly have been famiiliar [sic] with the great
> inadequacies/inaccuracies of the Wade-Giles"
> (Will Pore). But then, if it helps a good cause,
> why not go with Lenin.
>
> My own point is: Is there any point to this
> discussion now? Has anything changed since 2000?
> If so, what?
>
>   - Technical / software issues:  no change, all
> three, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux operating
> systems had already introduced Unicode fonts at
> that time that include all the necessary fonts
> for transcription of Korean according to
> McCune-Reischauer (and Hepburn for Japanese). You
> can also see here in our mailing list that some
> people use these in postings (if they have a
> newer email program). There are very simple
> shortcuts to type these characters. On a Mac with
> U.S. English keyboard, for example, you type  ALT
> + b, then o  to get the br?ve-o -- not sure what
> the key combinations are under Windows.
>
>   - Quality of both transcription (resp.
> transliteration) systems: obviously no changes
> since 2000, there were no revisions, or were
> there?
>
>   - Institutions using either system: obviously
> South Korean institutions are not using
> McCune-Reischauer anymore. How about outside
> Korea? As far as I can see most museums with
> Korean collections have long changed to the new
> SK government system -- e.g. the British Museum,
> the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, Berlin
> Dahlem East Asian Art Museum, and others. The
> reason for this change is most obvious: they all
> get funding from South Korea, for exhibitions,
> for example. Academia like almost everything else
> follows the money, isn't it? The big libraries,
> on the other hand, such as the Library of
> Congress or Harvard U Library, are still using
> McCune-Reischauer. Many leading libraries with
> Korean collections now also list Korean books in
> Korean script (see e.g. HOLLIS
> http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.eresource:hollisct).
>
> Are there any librarians on this list? Are there
> any plans to either shift to the new government
> system OR to have both transcriptions displayed
> for each record? (Technically, that should be no
> problem.)
> Government institutions? How about these? As far
> as I see they have changed to the new system, for
> practical reasons. "Kwangju" can't be found on
> any new map anymore.
>
> In short, as far as I see the mess is now bigger
> than it was around 2000 -- as it could well be
> predicted then, but there are no basic changes.
>
> Is the general Korean public really using the new
> system? To me it seems most people follow their
> nose and not any system. Personal names, for
> example, probably the most essential case in
> point, show up in all varieties:
>   Sol Kyung-gu
>   Sol Kyung-Gu
>   Sol Kyunggu
>
> And, same question as in 2000: How long will
> South Korea use this system? 10 years, 20 years?
> I am in good health, I go with McCune-Reischauer.
>
>
> Frank
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------
> Frank Hoffmann
> http://koreaweb.ws
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:10:56 -0600
> From: Kirk Larsen <kwlarsen67 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation
> To: Brother Anthony <ansonjae at sogang.ac.kr>,    Korean Studies
>        Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Message-ID:
>        <a7e564fd0904251110l12dc989ds55fac15cd2aa9309 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> It probably is worth noting that the almighty Wikipedia (the first and
> often
> only source that all too many of my students consult) uses the RR system
> (although entries often also list Mc-R romanization for some terms as
> well).
> This fact alone may contribute more to the propagation and standardization
> of the RR system's use than any debate among scholars.
>
> I do, however, have one concern about wholesale adoption of the RR system:
> is it appropriate to use this system when writing about North Korea?
> Choosing the ROK-devised RR system to write about the DPRK (which has
> developed its own system of romanization) seems to me to make a political
> statement (albeit unintended in many cases) about the "true" Korea, the
> true
> source of authority on Korea etc.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk Larsen
>
> 2009/4/25 Brother Anthony <ansonjae at sogang.ac.kr>
>
> > Romanization rears its head again! Like Werner, I have no problems with
> the
> > current official Korean system, since no matter what you do, the result
> is a
> > set of conventions, the exact pronunciation of which will have to be
> learned
> > (e.g. 'u' tastes different in French and German and English) and that
> > includes 'eo' (which I deplore but cannot find a convincing substitute
> for).
> > It seems clear to me that nobody will ever get the 'ordinary Korean' to
> use
> > letters with diacritics, it goes too deeply against the grain. But since
> no
> > ordinary Korean is ever taught to use the official system, it is not
> > surprising that there are as many variants as before.
> >
> > Just to warn against a false sense of security, I should report that I
> was
> > phoned some weeks back by an official saying that the Government was
> aware
> > of widespread dissatisfaction with the current system and asking would I
> be
> > prepared to attend a consultation on a possible reform? I said yes, so
> have
> > heard nothing more but we all know that in Korea, Nothing is Ever Settled
> > Once and for All.
> >
> > Brother Anthony
> > Sogang University, Seoul
> > http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Kirk W. Larsen
> Department of History
> 2151 JFSB
> BYU
> Provo, UT 84602-6707
> (801) 422-3445
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/attachments/20090425/6f6efe02/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:16:57 +0200
> From: "Walraven, B.C.A." <B.C.A.Walraven at hum.leidenuniv.nl>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation
> To: "Brother Anthony" <ansonjae at sogang.ac.kr>,  "Korean Studies
>        Discussion List" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Message-ID:
>        <0A434A40F2F82E44B4D000CA0C3E54A1175CA1 at VUWVXC01.VUW.leidenuniv.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
>
> The use of diacritics in McC-R. has been given as the major argument for
> switching to the current official system, because the diacritics were
> judged unsuitable to the digital age. Note that English is about the
> only European language that does without diacritics and that none of the
> countries that use diacritics has even considered giving them up for
> this reason, and still no great harm seems to have befallen them.
>
> Brother Anthony is right that every system is up to a point a matter of
> convention, but the new system is remarkably unsystematic because of the
> many compromises that were made in its development. And most people
> don't fully know how to apply it.
>
> Boudewijn Walraven
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: koreanstudies-bounces at koreaweb.ws
> [mailto:koreanstudies-bounces at koreaweb.ws] On Behalf Of Brother Anthony
> Sent: zaterdag 25 april 2009 15:39
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List
> Subject: [KS] Romanisation
>
> Romanization rears its head again! Like Werner, I have no problems with
> the current official Korean system, since no matter what you do, the
> result is a set of conventions, the exact pronunciation of which will
> have to be learned (e.g. 'u' tastes different in French and German and
> English) and that includes 'eo' (which I deplore but cannot find a
> convincing substitute for). It seems clear to me that nobody will ever
> get the 'ordinary Korean' to use letters with diacritics, it goes too
> deeply against the grain. But since no ordinary Korean is ever taught to
> use the official system, it is not surprising that there are as many
> variants as before.
>
> Just to warn against a false sense of security, I should report that I
> was phoned some weeks back by an official saying that the Government was
> aware of widespread dissatisfaction with the current system and asking
> would I be prepared to attend a consultation on a possible reform? I
> said yes, so have heard nothing more but we all know that in Korea,
> Nothing is Ever Settled Once and for All.
>
> Brother Anthony
> Sogang University, Seoul
> http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:38:17 -0400
> From: gkl1 at columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Message-ID: <20090425213817.lmaqtba3kk0cgws0 at cubmail.cc.columbia.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=ISO-8859-1;     DelSp="Yes";
>        format="flowed"
>
>      It never fails. This list limps along week after week without any
> meaningful Korean Studies discussion while living (if you can call it
> that) on notices about conferences, lectures, and positions available.
> Then somebody pops out of the void with an opinion on romanization and
> boom, we actually have a discussion germane to Korean Studies!
> Romanization seems always to get the juices roiling. While I wish this
> topic were more interesting, it is good to see old friends sounding
> off again.
>
>      I can understand views like those of Werner Sasse (of course he
> knows what Wade-Giles is all about!!), Eugene Park, Charles Muller,
> and Brother Anthony, to the effect that the South Korean system is
> taking over the internet and the museums (most recently the
> Metropolitan in New York) while Koreans are as allergic as ever to
> diacritics. They all have their individual quibbles with that system
> while stating their various reasons (all of them perfectly sensible)
> for throwing in the McC-R towel and going with the flow.
>
>      My own position has been that McC-R is the superior system and
> has the most academic legitimacy as well as a distinguished history
> now 70 years long. For the most part, American and European print
> journals have stuck with McC-R. But we all know what is happening to
> print, and it wouldn't be surprising to see more people yielding to
> this different kind of "Korean wave." Whatever happens I will continue
> to use McC-R (or when necessary, the Yale system and especially its
> Middle Korean variant), simply because of the quality of these systems
> and the manifest lack of same in the Korean system.
>
>      But like Charles, I've never criticized anyone for following their
> particular choice. From the moment I saw that the South Korean
> government's system was going to go into effect, my attitude was
> laissez-faire, including with my students (so long as they used the
> chosen system correctly, and especially that they decided upon a
> principled position on hyphens or not and took care to use intelligent
> word division--avoiding monstrosities like
> "Hunminjeongeum" or "HunminchOngUm"). And I have to say that on
> several occasions when I have submitted materials for Korean
> publication and used McC-R exclusively, the people in Korea have given
> me the same respect. In fact, given the bitterness that sometimes
> broke through in the debates prior to full Korean government
> acceptance, it is to the credit of all that in general we haven't gone
> to war on this issue. Frankly, I see no problem with two systems so
> long as nobody tries to tell me not to use the one I prefer. We've
> lived with this situation for a decade now, and the sky has not
> fallen. If another generation drives one or the other out of existence
> in a natural, laissez-faire manner, so be it. Or if we are forever to
> be stuck with two systems, I can live with that. But I do believe
> sincerely that the South Korean system is poorly imagined and
> seriously distorts, for an average foreigner, the pronunciation of
> Korean words.
>
> Gari Ledyard
>
> Quoting Charles Muller <cmuller-lst at jj.em-net.ne.jp>:
>
> > Werner Sasse wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, to raise the question of romanisation again...
> >> [...]
> >> However, I have started to stop using McR, and now would advocate
> >> we follow the current system. The only reason is that it actually
> >> seems to become the standard through continuous use, no matter
> >> how ridiculous it makes Korean look like.
> >
> > I also hesitated to rejoin this fray, for obvious reasons, but would
> > like to thank Werner for putting some weight behind the matter of
> > _practicality_, which has been the main force behind my own usage of
> > the new system, going back as far as two years before its official
> > release.
> >
> > My own decision to adopt the Revised Romanization system had to do
> > mainly with the fact that I was trying to develop web resources for
> > Korean and East Asian studies, and the decision between doing this with
> > a breve-less system that would become a national standard (both
> > culturally and technically), or adhering to M-R (which would clearly be
> > out of the picture in terms of Korea-generated resources), was a
> > no-brainer. After adopting RR for my developing my web resources, it
> > just didn't make any sense to use a different system for the rest of my
> > work.
> >
> > Now, more than a decade later, web resources are the first step taken in
> > the process of research by the vast majority of younger scholars, as
> > well as many middle-age and older colleagues. All web resources (and
> > other forms of computer-based tools, including web translators, most
> > Wikis, etc.) are built upon the KSC standard which has the RR system
> > built-in. That means that when you look something up, or have it
> > translated by machine, in almost every case you are going to have it
> > presented in the RR system (I have already heard complaints of
> > frustration from instructors who try to introduce M-R in their courses,
> > while their students see only RR on the web).
> >
> > So even disparaging remarks by senior scholars that have the apparent
> > aim of diminishing the view of the value of works published with the new
> > system will not, I think, be able to stem the tide of change.
> >
> > Despite my long leanings toward the new system, I have never, publicly
> > or privately, criticized the work of any colleague based on the fact
> > that she or he continued to adhere to M-R. So please do allow those of
> > us who choose to use the new system to make our own decision (even if
> > it is not yet recognized by the LOC), and try to pay attention to the
> > content of the work, rather than the romanization system used to render
> > it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -------------------
> >
> > A. Charles Muller
> >
> > University of Tokyo
> > Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Faculty of Letters
> > Center for Evolving Humanities
> > Akamon kenky? t? #722
> > 7-3-1 Hong?, Bunky?-ku
> > Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
> >
> > Web Site: Resources for East Asian Language and Thought
> > http://www.acmuller.net
> >
> > <acmuller[at]jj.em-net.ne.jp>
> >
> > Mobile Phone: 090-9310-1787
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
> From: don kirk <kirkdon at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Message-ID: <843075.19852.qm at web51610.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> It's interesting to see so many distinguished scholars on Korea -- I'm not
> saying "Korean scholars" since that wd imply they're Korean, which few of
> these learned commentators are. If they were, they'd be sensitive to the
> reality that nobody outside the groves of academe understands, knows or
> wants to understand or has any reason to understand or ever will understand
> "diacritics," either the word itself or what they're all about. So that
> helps explain a system bereft of your beloved diacritics. Still, to people
> who write about Korea, it's really difficult getting used to the changes in
> place names. Luckily, though, the new system no longer uses the spelling,
> "Choi," which baseball announcers invariably pronounced Choy for a Korean
> player whose name was really more like Choe or Jae or Jae -- or anything but
> Choy. (Luckily his career in major league baseball was short-lived, and I
> believe he's now playing for Kwangju, sorry,Gwangju.)
> The sooner academics lose their love for diacritics, the better off we'll
> all be -- as the revised transliteration seems to recognize.
> Donald Kirk
>
> --- On Sat, 4/25/09, gkl1 at columbia.edu <gkl1 at columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> From: gkl1 at columbia.edu <gkl1 at columbia.edu>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Romanisation
> To: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 9:38 PM
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> ? ? ? It never fails. This list limps along week after week without any
> meaningful Korean Studies discussion while living (if you can call it
> that) on notices about conferences, lectures, and positions available.
> Then somebody pops out of the void with an opinion on romanization and
> boom, we actually have a discussion germane to Korean Studies!
> Romanization seems always to get the juices roiling. While I wish this
> topic were more interesting, it is good to see old friends sounding
> off again.
>
> ? ? ? I can understand views like those of Werner Sasse (of course he
> knows what Wade-Giles is all about!!), Eugene Park, Charles Muller,
> and Brother Anthony, to the effect that the South Korean system is
> taking over the internet and the museums (most recently the
> Metropolitan in New York) while Koreans are as allergic as ever to
> diacritics. They all have their individual quibbles with that system
> while stating their various reasons (all of them perfectly sensible)
> for throwing in the McC-R towel and going with the flow.
>
> ? ? ? My own position has been that McC-R is the superior system and
> has the most academic legitimacy as well as a distinguished history
> now 70 years long. For the most part, American and European print
> journals have stuck with McC-R. But we all know what is happening to
> print, and it wouldn't be surprising to see more people yielding to
> this different kind of "Korean wave." Whatever happens I will continue
> to use McC-R (or when necessary, the Yale system and especially its
> Middle Korean variant), simply because of the quality of these systems
> and the manifest lack of same in the Korean system.
>
> ? ? ? But like Charles, I've never criticized anyone for following their
> particular choice. From the moment I saw that the South Korean
> government's system was going to go into effect, my attitude was
> laissez-faire, including with my students (so long as they used the
> chosen system correctly, and especially that they decided upon a
> principled position on hyphens or not and took care to use intelligent
> word division--avoiding monstrosities like
> "Hunminjeongeum" or "HunminchOngUm"). And I have to say that on
> several occasions when I have submitted materials for Korean
> publication and used McC-R exclusively, the people in Korea have given
> me the same respect. In fact, given the bitterness that sometimes
> broke through in the debates prior to full Korean government
> acceptance, it is to the credit of all that in general we haven't gone
> to war on this issue. Frankly, I see no problem with two systems so
> long as nobody tries to tell me not to use the one I prefer. We've
> lived with this situation for a decade now, and the sky has not
> fallen. If another generation drives one or the other out of existence
> in a natural, laissez-faire manner, so be it. Or if we are forever to
> be stuck with two systems, I can live with that. But I do believe
> sincerely that the South Korean system is poorly imagined and
> seriously distorts, for an average foreigner, the pronunciation of
> Korean words.
>
> Gari Ledyard
>
> Quoting Charles Muller <cmuller-lst at jj.em-net.ne.jp>:
>
> > Werner Sasse wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, to raise the question of romanisation again...
> >> [...]
> >> However, I have started to stop using McR, and now would advocate
> >> we follow the current system. The only reason is that it actually
> >> seems to become the standard through continuous use, no matter
> >> how ridiculous it makes Korean look like.
> >
> > I also hesitated to rejoin this fray, for obvious reasons, but would
> > like to thank Werner for putting some weight behind the matter of
> > _practicality_, which has been the main force behind my own usage of
> > the new system, going back as far as two years before its official
> > release.
> >
> > My own decision to adopt the Revised Romanization system had to do
> > mainly with the fact that I was trying to develop web resources for
> > Korean and East Asian studies, and the decision between doing this with
> > a breve-less system that would become a national standard (both
> > culturally and technically), or adhering to M-R (which would clearly be
> > out of the picture in terms of Korea-generated resources), was a
> > no-brainer. After adopting RR for my developing my web resources, it
> > just didn't make any sense to use a different system for the rest of my
> > work.
> >
> > Now, more than a decade later, web resources are the first step taken in
> > the process of research by the vast majority of younger scholars, as
> > well as many middle-age and older colleagues. All web resources (and
> > other forms of computer-based tools, including web translators, most
> > Wikis, etc.) are built upon the KSC standard which has the RR system
> > built-in. That means that when you look something up, or have it
> > translated by machine, in almost every case you are going to have it
> > presented in the RR system (I have already heard complaints of
> > frustration from instructors who try to introduce M-R in their courses,
> > while their students see only RR on the web).
> >
> > So even disparaging remarks by senior scholars that have the apparent
> > aim of diminishing the view of the value of works published with the new
> > system will not, I think, be able to stem the tide of change.
> >
> > Despite my long leanings toward the new system, I have never, publicly
> > or privately, criticized the work of any colleague based on the fact
> > that she or he continued to adhere to M-R. So please do allow those of
> > us who choose to use the new system to make our own decision (even if
> > it is not yet recognized by the LOC), and try to pay attention to the
> > content of the work, rather than the romanization system used to render
> > it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -------------------
> >
> > A. Charles Muller
> >
> > University of Tokyo
> > Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Faculty of Letters
> > Center for Evolving Humanities
> > Akamon kenky? t? #722
> > 7-3-1 Hong?, Bunky?-ku
> > Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
> >
> > Web Site: Resources for East Asian Language and Thought
> > http://www.acmuller.net
> >
> > <acmuller[at]jj.em-net.ne.jp>
> >
> > Mobile Phone: 090-9310-1787
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/attachments/20090426/dacdec7b/attachment.html
> >
>
> End of Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 70, Issue 26
> *********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20090426/b777b4f4/attachment.html>