Andrew Dunbar wrote:

>
> --- "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > How so? Are there exceptions, or do you mean
> > > > > 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.
>
> I know many people differentiate transliterate and
> transcribe with the former having the sense "map
> letters of language a to letters of language b" and
> the latter "map the sounds of language a to the
> letters of language b".
> Unfortunately, most dictionaries don't make this
> distinction so why the smart arse tone?

You just said that you know the difference in meaning between the two
words.

> Here's what Merriam Webster online says:
>
> transliterate: to represent or spell in the characters
> of another alphabet
>
> transcribe: 2 a: to represent (speech sounds) by means
> of phonetic symbols

You just claimed that "most dictionaries" don't make this distinction,
yet the only example you give is one that does.

> And how is every member of this group to know "That's
> why they're called transliterations and not
> transcriptions". I don't know the names of he systems
> and you didn't give them.

The names of the systems of transliteration are not needed for knowing
that they are transliteration systems.

There's no such thing as a "transcription system" for Korean (or any
other language).

> > > > If it's "full of holes," then so is Korean
> > > > 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"?
>
> Because I think Korean spelling is more consistent
> than English spelling. I would think consistent
> equated with logical. Where did I oppose the
> orthography and the writing system?

I can't say; you snipped the passage in which you did so.

What do you know about Korean spelling, that you can make such a
judgment? Have you looked at Ho-Minh Sohn's book, which provides
orthography beside pronunciation for hundreds of words?

> I suppose the hangul writing system could be thought
> more logical than the English one due to the shapes of
> some of the letters and they way they fit each
> syllable into a box. But the English writing system
> isn't illogical... Not that anyone was talking about
> this...

The Korean writing system is "more logical" than the English. Korean
orthography is not "more logical" than English -- and for the same
reason.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...