[KS] Romanization systems survey
Charles Muller
cmuller-lst at jj.em-net.ne.jp
Fri Sep 11 23:06:09 EDT 2009
Dear Brother Anthony,
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to give our input on
this matter of the future of the RR romanization system.
Since you seem to be directly involved in the meetings with the
Competitiveness Committee, I would like to communicate one or two
points to you directly.
Mainly, regardless of the feelings of emotional attachment that anyone
might have regarding one system or another, there seems to be a
picture being painted on the part of McC-R advocates that virtually no
one in the West has adopted the RR system. I would like to point out
that this view is inaccurate.
First, my online dictionaries--most importantly the Digital Dictionary
of Buddhism [DDB], which, with almost 50,000 entries, is now a primary
reference work in the field of Buddhist Studies (subscribed to by over
25 major university libraries)--has been using the RR system since its
implementation in 2000.
My decision to use RR in the DDB was based on having received a strong
request from a number of Korean scholars at SNU and the Academy of
Korean Studies who supported the new system to use it in my reference
works. Thus, there are a lot of young scholars in the field of East
Asian studies who have grown accustomed to RR, and use it regularly.
Furthermore, the RR system was also embedded as the standard
romanization of Korean in all software, as it became part of the
government standard for computing. Thus any computer program that
generates Korean readings (such as the the Korean readings generated
in commercial translation packages, and web software such as Google),
has also been using RR for almost a decade.
If the Korean government suddenly abandons RR, it is going end up
being a huge embarrassment for all of us who have supported it for
these past ten years. It is also going to be a huge amount of work to
retool and convert all web sources to.... to what?
If RR is withdrawn today, and McR is made to be the standard, how do
we know that this policy will not be reversed again in five years?
Frankly, if the government makes this change at this point, I
certainly will not be leaping to return to McCune-Reischauer. Because
the real problem here, as it has always been, is the lack of any
consistency in adhering to and supporting any kind of system.
In fact, there is no doubt that the main reason so many scholars were
reluctant to accept RR to begin with is not that it was inherently
flawed, but because, based on their prior observations of the behavior
of the Korean government, they had no confidence that the system would
be firmly adhered to. Those who had such fears have seen their
concerns materialized.
Thus, regardless of the technical merits or demerits of any given
system, a flip-flop on this matter at this point is certain to
obliterate the confidence of another full generation of scholars in
any official academic decisions that are made. No one will ever take
the gamble to follow a new romanization, no matter how
well-constructed it might be.
I hope that you will convey these sentiments to the appropriate
committee members.
Sincerely,
Charles Muller
-------------------
A. Charles Muller
University of Tokyo
Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Faculty of Letters
Center for Evolving Humanities
Akamon kenkyū tō #722
7-3-1 Hongō, Bunkyō-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
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list