[KS] Revised Romanization Detailed Guidelines?

[Frank Hoffmann]

> As the cataloguing systems are able to use different scripts by now, 
> the main focus of librarians can be on the original script in the 
> catalogues, not on the transcription any more.


Hmmm ... now why does this remind me of that 2011 German comedy "No Sex 
is not a Solution either" (Kein Sex ist auch keine Lösung)? 

> If original script is in the catalogue, we follow RR for romanization 
> but divide each word into single syllables, ...

A•i•go•!  
  Gug eo eui ro ma ja pyo gi beob 
Instead of completely mutilating and disassembling a language, how 
about just "doing nothing" to it, just leaving its structure in tact 
(including grammatical particles, if attached to word stems) in the 
romanization?
  Gugeoui romaja pyogibeop

What that new policy does to the German library system is:
(a) Users will now ALWAYS have to perform two searches, one according 
to McCune-Reischauer transcription for pre-2014 (or 2016?) cataloged 
materials, one for newer ones in Korean script (that is, many but not 
all of the older ones miss Korean script entries, thus cannot be found 
via Korean input).
(b) That mutilating approach to RR (which then is not anymore RR !!) 
makes it pretty much impossible for humans to search newer titles by 
transcription ... not a problem for the actual users (who obviously 
speak Korean), but what about non-EA librarians who want to assist a 
user, or who need in other ways to deal with the Korean collections 
here and there?

Of all possible approaches and solutions I can think of, this is by far 
the worst by any logical means. Is it not?


Regards,
Frank


On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:28:57 +0000, Dunkel, Carolin wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> let me add one comment about the use of romanization for librarians.   
> 
> As the cataloguing systems are able to use different scripts by now, 
> the main focus of librarians can be on the original script in the 
> catalogues, not on the transcription any more. Searching in Hangul is 
> much more efficient than bothering about the word division that might 
> have been used in the transcription in the catalogue. Therefore all 
> the effort should be on a good retrieval for the original script.
> If you follow that line of thought it will be of little importance 
> which romanization system is used in the catalogues, as long as there 
> is a correct and searchable Hangul version of the title, author, ... 
> 
> This is what the library networks in Germany have agreed upon in 2014 
> (of course, there is still some discussion about it):
> If possible, there should be the original script (Hangul) in the catalogue. 
> If there are Chinese characters in the title, ... a Hangul version 
> must be added.
> If original script is in the catalogue, we follow RR for romanization 
> but divide each word into single syllables, so there is no more 
> discussion about word division, and it can be done automatically. 
> If there is no original script in the catalogue MR is preferred.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Carolin Dunkel 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Carolin Dunkel
> East Asia Department   Korea Section
> Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz
> Potsdamer Str. 33
> 10785 Berlin
> Germany
> Tel: +49 (0)30 266 436 058
> Fax: +49 (0)30 266 336 001
> carolin.dunkel at sbb.spk-berlin.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Koreanstudies [mailto:koreanstudies-bounces at koreanstudies.com] 
> Im Auftrag von Charles Muller
> Gesendet: Montag, 12. Dezember 2016 07:43
> An: koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com
> Betreff: Re: [KS] Revised Romanization Detailed Guidelines?
> 
> On 12/12/2016 11:16 AM, Brother Anthony wrote:
> 
>> Charles Muller writes: " If an official Korean governmental or 
>> academic organization would take the time to carry out an equivalent 
>> effort just once, much could be resolved."
>> 
>> Alas, rather too much experience makes me want to write, rather, "If 
>> an official Korean governmental or academic organization took the time 
>> to carry out an equivalent effort, far greater confusion would 
>> result."
> 
> Aah, after all, you are right--by now I should know better.
> 
> In fact, the decision to contact NIKL during the publication of my 
> dictionary was made by my Korean colleagues, not by me, and it turned 
> out that I had it all right, and that the NIKL people and my Korean 
> collaborators did not understand the issues at all. It is, after all, 
> mainly the foreign scholars and librarians who need to deal with the 
> thorny issues.
> 
> And come to think of it, the detailed Pinyin guidelines that we have 
> at our disposal were probably not written by the Chinese, either.
> 
> With all I've invested in RR, it actually might make sense for me to 
> try to initiate, or at least offer my experience to the composition 
> of such a text. I'll try to look for an opportunity to do so...
> 
> Chuck
> 
> ---------------------------
> A. Charles Muller
> 
> Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology Faculty of Letters 
> University of Tokyo
> 7-3-1 Hongō, Bunkyō-ku
> Tokyo 113-8654, Japan
> 
> Office Phone: 03-5841-3735
> 
> Web Site: Resources for East Asian Language and Thought 
> http://www.acmuller.net
> 
> Twitter: @H_Buddhism
> 
> 

--------------------------------------
Frank Hoffmann
http://koreanstudies.com