[KS] Variable Romanization of 년(年) in McCune-Reischauer

[Werner Sasse]

Dear Fank,
yes, languages ARE, and the rules ARE NOT, they are only in our heads as convenient (and hopefully as much as possible correct, that is well working) descriptions.  (And those for orthography, when written language is supposed to write spoken language, are always only approximations ) Like in all culture studies you have the REALITY, for which humans need structures in their head to live by, so we make rules...
As for nyŏn=yŏn, in my impression few people pronounce either a clear  N-yŏn or a clear #-yŏn when initial. It is more that they form the tongue (against the  alveolar ridge)  as if they want to pronounce an /n/ (occlusive rather than with an opening like a clear /y/), but then start without the nasal /n/ by simply opening the space between alveolar ridge and tongue. A kind of non-nyŏn and non-yŏn. Funny in a way, but how do you write a "pronounced non-consonant"... (! My impression. No research done, which really would need to separate speakers by age, social, educational, and regional background of the speaker and his parents... )

> If so, then is this not one of those many cases where the written 
> representation (and the rules) of language do not match present 
> practice? That example in the Library of Congress ruleset is then just 
> some "theoretical" case we never see?

Absolutely. Only a rule..., see above, and in this case not a good one, as it is too far from reality.

> And is the LG guide's example of "1996 년  =  1996-yŏn" not simply 
> incorrect? In that example the year 1996 and 년 are treated as if they 
> were not two compounds, while in practice 년 takes that role, like a 
> "unit" complementing a numeral. No?

Right you are. Reminds me of Korean scholars in "Germanistik", who try to convince me that Korean 외 is identical with German /ö/ : The linguist's need or wish to make a rule, which sometimes is overriding simple observation, a not uncommon occupational disease amongst us scholars (and not only linguists)

Best wishes, 
and "Happy Structuring",
Werner 

> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 08:58:02 -0800
> From: hoffmann at koreanstudies.com
> To: koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com
> Subject: Re: [KS] Variable Romanization of 년(年) in McCune-Reischauer
> 
> Thank you Werner, for making the blind see.
> Guess in my own case the very simple fact causing the slight confusion 
> was that I did not realize that 年 alone can be pronounced yŏn. As you 
> point out, it hardly ever appears without being bound to some other 
> word or year, is mostly a compound. In addition, if I follow you 
> correctly, even in South Korea do people even then not pronounce it 
> yŏn. (Correct me, if I got anything wrong.) 
> 
> If so, then is this not one of those many cases where the written 
> representation (and the rules) of language do not match present 
> practice? That example in the Library of Congress ruleset is then just 
> some "theoretical" case we never see?
> And is the LG guide's example of "1996 년  =  1996-yŏn" not simply 
> incorrect? In that example the year 1996 and 년 are treated as if they 
> were not two compounds, while in practice 년 takes that role, like a 
> "unit" complementing a numeral. No?
> 
> Forgive me if I should have gotten it all wrong ... just asking 
> questions.
> 
> By the way, do you guys know this useful website? 
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki
> See this link:  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B9%B4
> (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/年)
> Very useful in general.
> 
> Quoting Werner:
> > Note that this problem arises only in sino-kor words.
> 
> THAT makes total sense. So it is basically a changing "deal" of how to 
> "call" certain characters properly, with local variations also 
> (north/south) of what the deal is at any given time.
> 
> 
> Best,
> Frank
> 
> 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20140224/34258ab8/attachment.html>