From: Andrew Dunbar
Message: 4993
Date: 2005-04-29
> > > > How so? Are there exceptions, or do you meanI know many people differentiate transliterate and
> > > > that the usual Romanization is full of holes?
> > >
> > > "The usual romanization" is a 1-to-1
> > > transliteration.
> >
> > Actually there seems to be 2 standard
> > romanizations and 1 ad-hoc one in my experience:
> >
> > One uses a diacritic over "o" and "u" for vowels
> > not in English.
> > The second uses "eo" and "eu" (and may have other
> > differences).
> > The one I think of as ad-hoc may well only be used
> > for people's names in passports and such and
> > uses "oo" where the other systems would use "u".
> >
> > Do all three of these systems reflect the spelling
> > rather than the pronunciation?
>
> Yes. That's why they're called transliterations and
> not transcriptions.
> > > If it's "full of holes," then so is KoreanBecause I think Korean spelling is more consistent
> > > orthography. If you call English spelling "full
> > > of holes," then so is Korean -- it's
> > > MORPHOPHONEMIC.
> >
> > I'm sure Korean orthography is more logical than
> > English orthography but that doesn't mean an
> > amatuer foreigner can figure it out without being
> > taught. Maybe a bit like an English speaker trying
> > to get used to French orthography without being
> > taught.
>
> Why would you think the _orthography_, as opposed to
> the writing system, is "more logical than English"?
> --http://en.wiktionary.org -- http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl
> Peter T. Daniels
> grammatim@...
>