[KS] Revised Romanization Detailed Guidelines?

Wed Dec 14 06:14:02 EST 2016

Exactly what I said, there is no need to think about changing the Romanization system for the libraries, especially if there is no original script in the catalogues. It is much more important to add Hangul to the catalogues and to work on the retrieval for original script. This is what the library networks in Germany have agreed to do. The question of Romanization becomes less important the better the original script works in the catalogues and the more data are available in original script. We are working on that challenge.

To search our East Asia collection we recommend to use our platform http://crossasia.org/ for search in original script.

Best regards,

Carolin

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Koreanstudies [mailto:koreanstudies-bounces at koreanstudies.com] Im Auftrag von Frank Hoffmann
Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2016 18:02
An: koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com
Betreff: [KS] Revised Romanization Detailed Guidelines?

Thanks for the insights. The more we hear, the more disturbing this becomes.

To answer that rhetorical question regarding "MR forever in the
libraries?":
YES, absolutely yes. Why would you possibly want to change a working script system?

Looking at the online catalog of Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, after all one of the largest libraries in Europe, I find THREE (at least three) different romanization systems being used.

(1) the old East German one (with "ä" and "ü" etc.) -- saw 
    two records of North Korean textbooks from the 1950s 
    were that was used
(2) the McC-R system
(3) the mutilated version of the RR 2000 system (e.g., instead of "norae" with an R the catalog has it as "no lae") 

What is NOT possible is a search in Han'gŭl, and I have also not seen a single bibliographic entry that would display Korean script either.
http://stabikat.de/DB=1/LNG=DU/SID=6dadaa31-2/LNG=EN/
or:
http://stabikat.de/en/

THERE IS NO WAY to find publications unless one uses the romanization system used for each particular record (again, there are now three different ones!). As a real life example what this means ... I wanted to refer here to that NK textbook entry done in the East German system, and I was unable to locate that again, as I do not know the rules of that old GDR system.

THIS catalog, in its present state, is actually the *perfect* example for what kind of mess the introduction of the RR 2000 system has done. 
These are not just some academic problems or style issues of any sort. 
One REALLY has major problems locating publications! 

Regards,
Frank

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:35:30 +0000, Dunkel, Carolin wrote:
> No, as soon as one thinks about changing the romanization system in 
> the library you will always have to deal with pre- and post-changing 
> date situations in the catalogues (this is what has been suggested 
> here earlier). Does that mean MR forever in the libraries? It would be 
> the only solution to avoid two searches. But then, why have original 
> script in the catalogues at all? In the long term to focus on the 
> original script seems to be the best solution here.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Carolin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Koreanstudies [mailto:koreanstudies-bounces at koreanstudies.com]
> Im Auftrag von Frank Hoffmann
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2016 05:19
> An: Korean Studies Discussion List
> Betreff: Re: [KS] Revised Romanization Detailed Guidelines?
> 
>> 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

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