[KS] Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 121, Issue 26

[Sangoak Lee]

[Chuck] So I've been writing in RR since 1998 or so, and now my
dictionaries contain almost 100,000 entries in
total, where RR is used for the Korean.------ [Sang-Oak] The six-member
committee met about 10 times only in 1999 and announced its result in 2000.
I don't know who you met around that time and in 1998 the outline of 2000
RR was not formulated.

 [Chuck] This would be especially problematic in area of lexicography, as
it would create chaos. ------ [Sang-Oak] I also noticed that chaotic
problem in mass data processing in general
since I had done many quantitative linguistics. That was why I insisted to
insert (8) to allow final p/t/k > b/d/g. (This was my last-minute
contribution and revision to the draft of RR
although I was reluctant to accept eo and eu and nullify some good points
in MR.)

I think you can still use 'I' instead of 'Lee' in line with (8) in your
dictionary and lexicographical data. Please give me an access address of
your dictionary.
I will be away to China for 5 days from now on.

Sang-Oak Lee


2013/7/15 <koreanstudies-request at koreanstudies.com>

> Send Koreanstudies mailing list submissions to
>         koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://koreanstudies.com/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         koreanstudies-request at koreanstudies.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         koreanstudies-owner at koreanstudies.com
>
> 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. RR romanization (Charles Muller)
>    2. Re: RR romanization (Charles Muller)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:28:58 +0900
> From: Charles Muller <acmuller at l.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com>
> Subject: [KS] RR romanization
> Message-ID: <51E21AFA.6060907 at l.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 2013/07/13 17:06, Sangoak Lee wrote:
>
> >   "Yi Songgye", should be rendered in RR as "I Seonggye".---No.
> > According to  RR 3(4)? Romanization of family names will be determined
> > separately, its correct appllication is still "(Not decided but later)
> > Seonggye."
>
> This begins to soundlike the establishment of two standards: one for
> family names, and one for the rest of the language. Surely, this cannot
> be the case. I don't see how RR could possibly say that ? would be
> romanized as "i" in all cases except for family names. This would be
> especially problematic in area of lexicography, as it would create
> chaos. I would certainly argue strongly against the creation of such a
> policy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ---------------------------
> A. Charles Muller
>
> Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology
> Faculty of Letters
> University of Tokyo
> 7-3-1 Hong?, Bunky?-ku
> Tokyo 113-8654, Japan
>
> Office Phone: 03-5841-3735
>
> Web Site: Resources for East Asian Language and Thought
> http://www.acmuller.net
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:55:20 +0900
> From: Charles Muller <acmuller at l.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com>
> Subject: Re: [KS] RR romanization
> Message-ID: <51E22128.4070704 at l.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 2013/07/14 12:28, Charles Muller wrote:
>
> > On 2013/07/13 17:06, Sangoak Lee wrote:
> >
> >>   "Yi Songgye", should be rendered in RR as "I Seonggye".---No.
> >> According to  RR 3(4)? Romanization of family names will be determined
> >> separately, its correct appllication is still "(Not decided but later)
> >> Seonggye."
> >
> > This begins to sound like the establishment of two standards: one for
> > family names, and one for the rest of the language. Surely, this cannot
> > be the case. I don't see how RR could possibly say that ? would be
> > romanized as "i" in all cases except for family names. This would be
> > especially problematic in area of lexicography, as it would create
> > chaos. I would certainly argue strongly against the creation of such a
> > policy.
>
> Furthermore, it is hard to imagine any kind of sound principle upon
> which such a decision could be based, without either (1) undermining the
> basic principles and rationales informing RR itself, or (2) appealing to
> subjectivity and emotionalism.
>
> (1) For example: A decision to retain Yi because it was used for a long
> time in MR: in that case, why bother using RR for anything at all? Why
> not just retain MR for all other cases? Or,
>
> (2) Using *Yi* because *I* "looks ugly"-- a commonly-seen argument
> against the usage of new romanization forms in various languages that
> cannot stand up to any scientific form of academic scrutiny. Let's face
> it, such a response indicates nothing more than an emotional expression
> of conditioned habit. (Which, to my mind, is actually 90% of what all
> arguments over romanization boil down to).
>
> Having stated that, I should make my own reasons for my own perspective
> and high level of interest (and emotional attachment!) in this matter
> clear.
>
> During the late 90's, when the scholars who were working on RR (then
> known as the Ministry of Education System) were in the midst of
> finalizing its principles, my online dictionaries were beginning to come
> to the attention of many academics around the world. I had occasion to
> meet some of these committee members at conferences during this period,
> and they strongly encouraged me to support it in my dictionaries.
>
> I did so, and also adopted RR in my academic writing, perhaps becoming
> the first Western scholar to do so. So I've been writing in RR since
> 1998 or so, and now my dictionaries contain almost 100,000 entries in
> total, where RR is used for the Korean. So obviously, I have a lot
> invested in it, and I'm very concerned about its future. I'm most
> concerned when I see arguments made for removal or destabilization of RR
> that have no sound principle behind them, and seem to be to be primarily
> based on foreign pressure, habit, or emotionalisms.
>
> Thus, I don't see why the Korean government can't simply stick to the
> orthographic principles it has established when it comes to orthography,
> and when it comes to surnames and personal names, just acknowledge the
> fact that people are going to do whatever they like, no matter how they
> try to legislate it.
>
> I'll be very interested to see what comes out of this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> ---------------------------
> A. Charles Muller
>
> Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology
> Faculty of Letters
> University of Tokyo
> 7-3-1 Hong?, Bunky?-ku
> Tokyo 113-8654, Japan
>
> Office Phone: 03-5841-3735
>
> Web Site: Resources for East Asian Language and Thought
> http://www.acmuller.net
>
>
>
>
> End of Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 121, Issue 26
> **********************************************
>



-- 
이상억 Sang-Oak Lee/www.sangoak.com
Prof. Emeritus, Dep't of Korean
College of Humanities, Seoul Nat'l Univ.
Seoul 151-745, Korea
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20130715/803038cb/attachment.html>