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

Werner Sasse werner_sasse at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 11 00:25:46 EDT 2014


Thanks, Bob,
>Werner wrote: "Note that this problem arises only in Sino-Korean words."
>    However, in the pre-modern stages of of the Korean vernacular,
>speakers in the southern half of the peninsula began to drop the
>initial consonants ㄴand ㄹ when followed byㅣ(-i),ㅑ(-ya,
>ㅕ(y`o),ㅛ(yo),and ㅠ(yu). of course, you are right, I should have said more precisely: "this problem arises only in Sino-Kor words in contemporary Korean as spoken in South Korea."
Thank you for pointing this out
Best, Werner

> From: ramsey at umd.edu
> To: koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 02:52:41 +0000
> Subject: Re: [KS] Variable Romanization of 년(年) in McCune-Reischauer
> 
> Korean philologists say that the dropping of initial n- took place in the
> latter half of the 18th century. One of Gari's examples, 님금 'king', for
> example, appears as 임금 in a 1772 text.
> 
> Bob Ramsey
> 
> On 3/10/14 3:37 PM, "gkl1 at columbia.edu" <gkl1 at columbia.edu> wrote:
> 
> >    Back from a long time away from home, it's taken a while to catch
> >up with the interesting postings over the last weeks. I'd like to
> >return to the long thread started by Dennis Lee about his supposed
> >McCune-Reischauer issue involving the dual readings 년 and 연 for the
> >character 年. My take is that those readings are not a romanization
> >issue. They raise rather a consonantal sandhi issue, and the McC-R
> >romanization is the only one of the three currently available systems
> >for Korean that address that problem.
> >    As Werner Sasse noted, when the character 年 is not proceeded by
> >another consonant, the initial ㄴ of 년 is dropped and the reading
> >begins with the zero consonant ㅇ as 연. In a response to a comment from
> >Frank Hoffman, who was the first to respond Dennis Lee's question,
> >Werner wrote: "Note that this problem arises only in Sino-Korean words."
> >    However, in the pre-modern stages of of the Korean vernacular,
> >speakers in the southern half of the peninsula began to drop the
> >initial consonants ㄴand ㄹ when followed byㅣ(-i),ㅑ(-ya,
> >ㅕ(y`o),ㅛ(yo),and ㅠ(yu).
> >    The reading 년 for 年 reflects the Chinese reading nien, from the
> >earliest stages of Sino-Korean. In the desk-top hanja dictionary 漢韓大辭典
> >(Tong-a taesaj`on that I have used since 1964, edited by Yang Chudong,
> >Min T'aesik, and Yi Kawon well known scholars working in
> >the mid- and late 20th century,the appropriate character reading is
> >given using the formula "年년(연)".
> >    I'm pretty sure that the process of dropping ㄴ(and also ㄹ) did not
> >originate in Sino-Korean. Rather it must surely have started in
> >ordinary vernacular Korean speech. Some examples from from Middle
> >Korean to modern Korean:
> >    니 > 이 tooth
> >    님 > 임금 king, Your Majesty
> >    냠냠 > 얌냠 goodies, yum yummy
> >    녀름 > 여름 summer
> >    녀기다 > think, consider, regard as, take for
> >    I couldn't think of or find any vernacular examples with -ㅛ or -ㅠ,
> >but you get the idea. In any case, I don't think it's likely that the
> >dropping of ㄴ- and ㄹ- initials could have originated in Sino-Korean
> >itself. But once the process was active in common vernacular speech,
> >sooner or later it would have impacted Sino-Korean. Looking in a hanja
> >dictionary, one can find many examples besides the 年 case. Here are a
> >few:
> >    泥 니 mud, clay: 泥金 니금 gold dust, gold paint
> >    孃 냥 woman: 孃孃 (양냥) empress
> >    寧 녕 peace: 寧歲 (영세) a peaceful year
> >    尿 뇨 urine: 尿강 (요강) chamber pot
> >    紐 뉴 button, tie 尿帶 (유대) relationships, ties, connections
> >    In the character indexes of the dictionary mentioned above, there
> >are thirty-nine characters with readings given as initial ㄴ(ㅇㅡ) in the
> >first character of a hanja compound. The corresponding list of
> >characters with initial ㄹ(ㅇㅡ) is almost five times as many, with 191
> >compounds.
> >
> >Gari Ledyard
> >
> >
> >Quoting Dennis Lee <dennisleeucla at gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Dear Colleagues:
> >>
> >> Thank you very much for the very enlightening comments.
> >>
> >> I always supposed that 천구백구십육년  and 1996년 would be romanized the same
> >>since
> >> they are pronounced the same in Korean. However, the fact that they are
> >>not
> >> was always bizarre to me.
> >>
> >> But as many of you have pointed out, there is quite a lot of variation
> >>in
> >> the actual implementation of these romanziation. And as the presses
> >>like to
> >> say, as long as you are consistent.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Dennis Lee
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Werner Sasse
> >> <werner_sasse at hotmail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ooops, why did I always write McC rather than McR...?
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> From: werner_sasse at hotmail.com
> >>> To: koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com
> >>> Subject: RE: [KS] Variable Romanization of 년(年) in McCune-Reischauer
> >>> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 06:04:49 +0000
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> trying to be pragmatic: if McR tries to write the pronunciation, there
> >>> should be 1) [n], 2.[zero], 3. [l]
> >>> 1. [n] if none of the following rules 2. and 3. is the case (육년
> >>>yungnyon,
> >>> 독신녀 toksinnyo)
> >>> 2. [zero] at the beginning of a word in S-Kor Korean, when the initial
> >>>n
> >>> is deleted like before yota. (여자 yoja).
> >>> The problem with  년 is that in most usages it more resembles a
> >>> dependent/bound noun, cf. 삼년 samnyon, not sam yon, 육년 yungnyon, not yuk
> >>> yon, 2014년 ... And (because of frequency of bound 년 ?) in normal talk
> >>>many
> >>> Koreans pronounce the n- in nyon even when initial, while only very
> >>>few say
> >>> nyoja for 여자.
> >>> (NO deletion in N-Kor official speak, but to my experience still used
> >>>even
> >>> there by many in casual conversation when a "non-political" vocabulary
> >>>item
> >>> is used...)
> >>> 3. [l] after l/r (말년 mallyon)
> >>> Note that this problem arises only in sino-kor words.
> >>>
> >>> Rules are one thing, applications are another. And, of course,
> >>>standards
> >>> should be followed strictly, but adapting the romanisation systems to
> >>> particular needs and/or documentation media seems to be a problem among
> >>> researchers and librarians which - seen from the outside - resembles
> >>> religion wars. I mean: fighting for and about the "best" solution,
> >>>while
> >>> there is no best solution looks like fighting for truth where the
> >>>opposite
> >>> of truth is only another truth... Pragmatical approach seems to be
> >>>asked
> >>> for. And, anyway, no system will be good for speakers of any language
> >>>or
> >>> for any application.
> >>>
> >>> And, by the way, the biggest problem I see in all of the different
> >>> romanisation systems is the lack of hyphenisation rules. Here no
> >>>solution
> >>> will be found before those, who are creating official standardized
> >>> romanisation rules (up to now 4 different systems in my lifetime...)
> >>>will
> >>> understand, that the system should not be made to please Korean eyes.
> >>> Hyphens or spacing are sine-qua-non for Western eyes, even when
> >>>Koreans do
> >>> not seem to need them.
> >>> Last footnote at the side: The beauty of McC rather than the current
> >>> system comes from the fact that foreigners made it for foreigners.
> >>> (Footnote: interesting that Korean colleagues often say that McC is bad
> >>> because it was made by foreigners. Look at Hepburn for Japanese... )
> >>>And we
> >>> have to give up the ridiculous idea that a writing system needs to be
> >>> logical, scientific, or what not. It should simply be standardized and
> >>>be
> >>> used by everyone, no matter how stupid it may look. (therefore it
> >>>should
> >>> also be taught in Korean schools!)
> >>> And Pusan/Busan, Kwangju/Gwangju, etc. still lingering on ...,  but
> >>>here
> >>> comes a different story)
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes
> >>> peruno sase
> >>>
> >>> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 14:07:50 -0800
> >>> From: hoffmann at koreanstudies.com
> >>> To: *koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com <koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com>*
> >>> Subject: Re: [KS] Variable Romanization of 년(年) in McCune-Reischauer
> >>>
> >>> Hi Dennis:
> >>>
> >>> Good question. Never saw that before you mentioned it here ... but yes,
> >>>
> >>> the Library of Congress version of the McC-R rules does indeed list
> >>> such examples as
> >>>   1996 년  =  1996-yon
> >>>   62 年 事業  =  62-yon saop
> >>> on age 32, just as you say.
> >>>
> >>> Am also a little confused here. Maybe some linguist can explain that?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I just wanted to say ne thing though: there are lots if rules in this
> >>> very *detailed* ruleset by the Library of Congress. And it seems that
> >>> for most there are too many rules, so many that non-bibliographers are
> >>>
> >>> unwilling to follow them, also because they make our life harder and
> >>> not easier. FOR EXAMPLE (from my memory, without having reconfirmed
> >>> with the guide), when you look up the book title "한글 타자" in the
> >>>
> >>> online Library of Congress catalog you will find this:
> >>>   Han’gul t‘aja
> >>> Not sure if your email program shows this correctly when my message
> >>> arrives on your computer ... so here is an IMAGE of it:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Do you see the variations there in the quotes -- between curved closing
> >>> single quote and curved opening single quote? That is one of those LC
> >>>rules
> >>> that hardly anyone follows, one thought to be a stop to separate
> >>>syllables,
> >>> so Han’gul is not misread as Hang’ul, in the other case just
> >>>representing
> >>> the tiut (ㅌ). That's very Prussian, I'd say, except that it comes from
> >>> Washington. Not even first rate university presses follow such rules.
> >>>The
> >>> same page of the LG guide you referred to also has this example:
> >>>천구백구십육년 =
> >>> Ch’on-kubaek-kusip-yungnyon Apart from that "-yon" which same as you I
> >>>do
> >>> not understand (yet), it does make sense to transcribe a year in e.g. a
> >>> book title *if* it is given there in han’gul (not numerals), just as
> >>>in the
> >>> example above. It also makes sense to leave it in numerals *if* it is
> >>>given
> >>> in numerals in the original (e.g. 1962 년). But I see that a number of
> >>> writers then also transcribe it into full words if the original is in
> >>> numerals. The only reason this happens is because there are just too
> >>>many
> >>> rules in the ALA-LC guidelines for researchers to follow. You just
> >>>can't
> >>> have a life in the real world and parallel to that follow ALA-LC rules.
> >>> Enough is enough. Best, Frank On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 04:56:16 +0900,
> >>>Dennis
> >>> Lee wrote: > Dear List Members: > > I apologize in advance if this has
> >>> already been answered on the list. > However, my search came up nothing
> >>> about this. > > This is something about the McR romanization for 년(年)
> >>>that
> >>> has > bothered me for years, but I haven't yet found a satisfactory
> >>>answer.
> >>> > > On page 32 of the ALA-LC guidelines, it gives several examples of >
> >>> romanizing 년, but in some cases it will romanize it nyon while in >
> >>>others
> >>> it will be yon. Logically, I think it should be nyon all the > time. At
> >>> first, I thought the use of yon was some arbitrary rule for > years
> >>>written
> >>> in Indo-Arabic numerals, but I have seen it used both > ways in various
> >>> publications. > > Does anybody know what the exact rule is for
> >>>choosing yon
> >>> over nyon, > and more importantly, why? Also, does this apply to the
> >>> Revised > Romanization system as well? > > Here are the examples
> >>>given: > >
> >>> 천구백구십육년 Ch'on-kubaek-kusip-yungnyon > 1996년 1996-yon > > 六十二年 事業 計劃
> >>> Yuksip-inyon saop kyehoek > 62 年 事業 計劃 62-yon saop kyehoek > > > Thank
> >>>you,
> >>> > Dennis Lee > > > > -------------------------------------- Frank
> >>>Hoffmann
> >>> http://koreanstudies.com
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20140311/7da13ce1/attachment.html>


More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list