[KS] formal question (which version of Chinese characters?)

Frank Hoffmann hoffmann at koreanstudies.com
Wed May 27 17:47:39 EDT 2015

Werner, with the second part of your note below I am a little lost. 
Maybe you meant this part of your response to be a ironic? I am not 
sure. In a publications of an academic nature I/we would not use "Gwon" 
to represent 權, no matter what that person prints on his name card 
(unless we talk about an overseas Korean). Of course, one can always 
add such information in parentheses, if it seems to make sense.

Once more my question -- same question:
What is your recommendation for **personal names** (and I am not 
referring to the transcription in Latin letters but to Chinese 
characters). Shall we, in a Korea related publication, if the journal 
or publisher has no different requirements, use the "regional" version 
of the characters when introducing a post-1949 personality from China 
(e.g. simplified Chinese characters for Deng Xiaoping or for that Mr. 
Kwŏn from Jilin)? 

I ask this as there SEEMS no semantic change involved in case of 
personal names, and thus this is a different case than terminology or 
publication titles.


> 2) "rather > than Quan)? If we 'push' that a little, we then get 
> sentences like: "In 
>> 1990 Mr. Kwŏn 权 xx visited his his nephew Mr. Kwŏn 權 yy in Seoul." 
>  Mr. Kwŏn 权
>  Mr. Kwŏn  權
> Mr. Quan 权
>  Mr. Quan 權
> Mr. Gweon
> Mr. Gwon aso... --- Look at the namecards. If you dont have them, 
> look where this is printed...
> Greetings to everyone
> Werner

Frank Hoffmann

More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list