Andrew Dunbar wrote:

>
> --- "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.

It's pretty likely that they do, considering who this list goes to.

> > > 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".

The "another" pretty much rules out anything but an _alphabet_ as what
is represented. If you look under "alphabet," you're liable to find that
it could be used (though not in specialist literature) for any set of
symbols used for writing. Certainly you've seen "Sanskrit alphabet" or
even "the Chinese alphabet stands for whole words."

This happens to be one case where a general dictionary does a pretty
decent job of dealing with technical terms.

> > > 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?

? They exist. What more do you want me to say? You called it
"romanization" above.

> > 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?

What would such a "system" be, other than a phonetic notation scheme?

> 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)

Then what could you be talking about?? Transcriptions are either
phonetic (using IPA or an equivalent) or phonemic (using a symbol for
each phoneme, and it doesn't matter what script you write them in,
though conventionally they're done in an augmented roman alphabet that
often bears considerable similarity to IPA, unless the transcriber is
American-trained, in which case they're likely to be in an "Americanist"
tradition, which is typewriter-friendly; see Pullum & Laduslaw).

> > > > > > 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.

Of course. Korean-native-speakers already _have_ Korean morphophonemics
in their head, and there's no reason to suppose they have to think about
what sounds the letters are supposed to stand for, any more than you
read English by sounding out the letters as you come to them.

> > > 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@...