[KS] Exporting Han'gûl -- small correction
Robert Provine
provine at umd.edu
Sun Aug 9 20:17:19 EDT 2009
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:47:33 -0400
>From: Robert Provine <provine at umd.edu>
>Subject: Re: [KS] Exporting Han'gûl
>To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
>
>Jeremy Kritt's observations ask for some further consideration.
>
>> The only problem with Hulbert's argument is that it is linguistically
>> incorrect. Hangul falls short of being able to capture the significant
>> tonal structure of various forms of spoken Chinese. That is probably one
>> reason why this project failed miserably in China.
>
>Every writing system falls short of capturing all languages, though IPO does a pretty good
>job overall. IPO looks like roman letters with modifications and additions.
>
>> Hangul was not developed to capture all the sounds that are humanly
>> possible. Instead, the orthography was designed to meet the needs of a
>> very specific sociolinguistic situation for a particular spoken language.
>
>Again, like all other writing systems, apart from hybrid fabrications like IPO.
>
>> Given that language is such a core aspect of a community's identity, it
>> is a rather strange idea to think that a country like China would even
>> remotely consider adopting a writing system developed by a country it
>> considers to be culturally subordinate. While it may have been attempted
>> on a small scale, it was clearly destined to fail from the outset and
>> the premises fueling such a movement seem to be misguided.
>
>Yet, to take an example, tonal Vietnamese is written with (highly) modified roman letters,
>and it has the advantage that a lot of people around the world can make noises that bear
>at least a passing resemblance to Vietnamese.
>
>My main point: yes, Han'gûl was designed for writing Korean, but, like roman letters, it
>can be modified to become more appropriate for denoting the sounds of non-Korean
>languages. Indeed, there are historical instances where this was done in Korea, the prime
>example probably being the translator's dictionary _Han Han mun'gam_ 漢淸文鑑 of about
>1780, in which a much-extended Han'gûl is employed to depict the (decidedly foreign)
>sounds of Manchu and Chinese. Those interested to look up this work should consult the
>opening section of rubrics that explains the extended Han'gûl. The _Han Han mun'gam_ was
>in effect a rip-off of a five-language dictionary (Chinese, Manchu, Tibetan, Mongolian,
>and Uighur, but not Korean), _Wuti Qing wenjian_ 五體淸文鑑, published in China in
>something like 1770.
>
>In other words, the point is not whether an unmodified writing system is suitable for a
>language different from the language for which the writing system was initially designed,
>since it can be appropriately modified. The main problem surely lies in the political
>aspects that Jeremy and others have already mentioned.
>
>> Of course, my comments are not meant to diminish the accomplishment of
>> Hangul. Korean people should be proud of their language; however, as was
>> previously mentioned by a distinguished scholar, at times that pride
>> leads to rather strange ideas.
>
>Let's don't confuse Han'gûl and the Korean language!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Rob Provine
>
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list