From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 5025
Date: 2005-05-03
>It's pretty likely that they do, considering who this list goes to.
> --- "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:The "another" pretty much rules out anything but an _alphabet_ as what
> > >
> > > 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? They exist. What more do you want me to say? You called it
> > > "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"What would such a "system" be, other than a phonetic notation scheme?
> > 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 wordsThen what could you be talking about?? Transcriptions are either
> 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 KoreanOf course. Korean-native-speakers already _have_ Korean morphophonemics
> > > > > > 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.