[ks-open] Re: ·Î¸¸¾ÆÀÌzation

[T.N. Park]

REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

Rüdiger Frank wrote:

> REPLY sends your message to the whole list
> __________________________________________
> 
> Rob Smith wrote:
> 
> Romanisation is
>> intended for non-Koreans who cannot read Hangul. Thus,
>> any romanisation system must make it possible for
>> non-Koreans to pronounce Korean words as close as
>> possible to that of a native speaker. As Pilzer points
>> out, his relatives can closely pronounce Korean words
>> using the M-R system but not with the new system. I am
>> quite certain that such anecdotal evidence will be
>> readily dismissed by the ROK government's esteemed
>> scholars and bureaucrats.
> 
> More inspirated by your posting instead of arguing against or in favour of
> it, I would like to emphasize the fact that "non-Koreans" does not
> automatically mean "English-speaking persons", but other large groups as
> Chinese, Russians, etc. as well, who also are very likely to have contact
> with Korea and therefore have to be considerd as addressates of any
> transcription too (but obviously are not).

In a way, this is already being dealt with, in a big way in fact. Rather
than having Chinese and Japanese speakers rely solely on the Romanization,
the powers that be have been including copious amounts of Chinese
characters. From new road signs, to subway markers, to neighborhood locater
maps (which are becoming a big thing here), the *hanmun* place names are
everywhere.

Frankly, I think it's a great solution. There is the initial problem in
which a Chinese or Japanese speaker will pronounce something (e.g.,
Namdaemun) with their own language's version of those characters (e.g., for
the Japanese, Nandaimon), but the ability to reproduce the same characters,
supplemented by the Romanization that is right next to the *hanmun*, I don't
think this is a big problem.

Also, it is an excellent opportunity to have constant visual reinforcement
for those who are learning *hanmun*. I've never really actively tried to
learn them, and one time, going through a book I realized I could write
about 100 characters and recognize 300 or so. The basic ones, of course.

As for the Russians and other users of the Cyrillic alphabet, I could see
this being a problem, but I was of the understanding that those groups also
learned Roman characters quite proficiently, meaning this is not really a
big problem.

One last point, the Romanization system can not really be considered
Anglo-centric completely (even if it leans that way). If it were, then the
'o' in Chongno (Jongro/Jongno) or Haebangch'on, for example, would be
written more clearly as a long oh (e.g., as 'oh'). Instead, both the M-R
system and the "new" system both expect English speakers to understand the
simple non-diacritical marked 'o' is a long 'o', which runs counter to
standard English practice. I just explain to North Americans to think of the
'o' in Haebangchon or Tongduchôn [Dongducheon] as a "Spanish o". For the
layperson, that helps. [My work makes me deal with a lot of laypeople]

> Finding a Romanization system which enables (all) non-Koreans to correctly
> pronunciate Korean is a noble, but unrealistic goal. The user-friendliness
> for foreigners is therefore a rather debatable criterion, I think.

I have to disagree. The foreigners are the key here. The Romanization issue
is all about providing a medium to communicate Korean words or names into a
way that non-Korean speakers (or those without access to Korean type) can
understand. And by nature, systems that are intended for wide acceptance
should be as user friendly as possible for the layperson.

TNP (aka kushibo [gusibo], with a Spanish 'o')