Re: Learning Hangul (Was Re: Neosyllabaries)

--- "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> 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.

Which is different to assuming that every reader of
this newsgroup knows the difference.

> > 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.

Oh? The first says "represent or spell in the
characters of another alphabet". It does not say
"represent speech sounds" or "represent the characters
of one alphabet in the characters in another".

> > 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.

What is needed?

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

Are you really saying there are no systems for any
language to represent the sounds of any another
language rather than the characters of the other
language?

I've certainly come up against many transcribed words
so I find it hard to believe that none of them were
part of a larger system.

(please nobody respond talking about general systems
like IPA - that'd just be a tangent)

> > > > > 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?

Cool. It was hard work but I just learned something!
Several Koreans have told me Korean spelling was easy
or logical so I made the assumption that it must be
logical when you're accustomed to it.

> > 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.

Thanks.

Andrew Dunbar.

> --
> Peter T. Daniels
> grammatim@...
>

http://en.wiktionary.org -- http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com