Talk:Korean romanization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale. |
 |
WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea.
|
 |
"Romanization" should be spelled with a lower-case "r," hence my moving of this page to "Korean romanization." --Sewing 16:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Hangulisation
Is there a systematic way to "hangulise" foreign words, especially English words, into Korean? — Instantnood 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes.
- Wikipeditor
-
-
- If you want to look at a hard copy and have access to a university's Korean Studies library, you might find quite a few books that contain the same guidelines. I think some people at the Korean WP over yonder are fairly good at hangulisation following that system. I haven't taken the time yet to read it all through; it doesn't always seem to yield the closest approximation of a foreign sound in some cases—e.g. German <r>+consonant is hangulised as 르+consonant (e.g. 베를린, 함부르크, 아르바이트) even though there's no audible [ɣ] involved in most speakers' speech—instead, I think (northern) standard German pronunciation changes the quality of the vowel towards [ɐ̯] where it fades into the consonant, so perhaps 아 would come closer to actual pronunciation, while 어 would be more consistent with the custom of hangulising the same sound as 어 when it is not followed by a consonant. So, while it looks fairly systematic to me, it does have its oddities. Merry Christmas!
Wikipeditor 13:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to look at a hard copy and have access to a university's Korean Studies library, you might find quite a few books that contain the same guidelines. I think some people at the Korean WP over yonder are fairly good at hangulisation following that system. I haven't taken the time yet to read it all through; it doesn't always seem to yield the closest approximation of a foreign sound in some cases—e.g. German <r>+consonant is hangulised as 르+consonant (e.g. 베를린, 함부르크, 아르바이트) even though there's no audible [ɣ] involved in most speakers' speech—instead, I think (northern) standard German pronunciation changes the quality of the vowel towards [ɐ̯] where it fades into the consonant, so perhaps 아 would come closer to actual pronunciation, while 어 would be more consistent with the custom of hangulising the same sound as 어 when it is not followed by a consonant. So, while it looks fairly systematic to me, it does have its oddities. Merry Christmas!
-
[edit] Joseon Gwahagwon (조선민주주의인민공화국 과학원) romanization
Can anyone provide any additional information on this romanization? --Lukobe 01:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Anybody? --Lukobe 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think I've added the entry. As far as I recall, it was based on one of the PDF tables or another article, without any background information. I guess the people over at the 조선민주주의인민공화국 과학원 would be happy to provide more information if somebody asked them, though. Wikipeditor 20:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More exact references
Say which ones, not just "The first two systems vary mainly in the". We can only see so much on our PDA etc.
[edit] /th/ in RR
Any guesses as to whether -렷하-, where not in a “noun”, should be -ryeota- or -ryeotha- in RR? The rules only mention “ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅂ, and ㅈ”, but not ㅅ, so I used -th- in the table. Wikipeditor 13:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that the official explanation is less than honest about the "noun" business (예: 잡힘); but anyway... I think that 뚜렷하다 is more akin to words like 같이 and 잡히다 than to compounds like 오죽헌, and so would lean toward t in this case. One could make a good argument either way, though, as far as I can tell. -- Visviva 13:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- NB: The Korean version specifies the no-h version for 체언, an evil grammatical term generally translated as "substantive," not noun. If I understand it right, something like 입학 is a substantive, even when it is (arguably) part of a verb in 입학하다 (so we would write "iphakhada" and not "ipakada"). On the other hand, 뚜렷하다 isn't a substantive by any stretch, and 뚜렷 isn't even a word by itself... so I'm sticking by "tturyeotada." Still, one wishes we had more thorough guidelines. -- Visviva 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What are the ad-hoc romanisations are based on?
Is there a system, on which the ad-hoc romanisations like Samgyupsal or names etc. are based on? Why is that way of romanisation that popular in Korea? This should be pointed out in the article. -- iGEL (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Many people probably use such spellings to increase the possibility that an average (i.e. ko-0) American, when trying to read the word out loud as if it were an English one, comes close to a native speaker's pronunciation. This can help to avoid embarassing situations to the American.
- Another reason may be the Korean sound inventory's and writing system's unfitness for easy transcription, compared to Japanese where there may be fewer issues to solve. When we look at Pinyin's success, however, you do have a point.
- I don't think the following aberrations are based on a system, but from what I've seen they are popular:
- Not indicating sound assimilation
- Putting spaces between the syllables of even word stems
- a→ah
- ae→e (and vice versa)
- eo→u(h)
- yeong→young
- eu→u
- hui→hee
- i→ee
- j→ch, z
- jj→zz?
- u→oo
- Should we include these in the article? Would a list of this kind be helpful to people stumbling across such romanisations?
- Wikipeditor 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Korean transliteration online free service
Planning to add Korean free transliteration online service (http://www.latkey.com/translit) which conforms to wiki guidelines, is free and it makes sense to have it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanIssa (talk • contribs) .
- It does not matter if it's "free" or "useful". Linking to download sites for Microsoft Office plugins to use the online service of a company is not appropriate. There is no encyclopedic content on the site, and it does promote other products of that comany. If you reference Linksearch: *.latkey.com and the corresponding user contributions, you'll see that there were repeated attempts to place links in several articles, despite all warnings not to re-add them (including the ignored warning on your own talk page). Not only to the transliteration service but also to the company main page, with link descriptions promoting the keyboard stickers. You will not add any more links to latkey.com, i-keyboard.com, or related domains. Femto 13:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Online Korean Romanization Tool
http://yuefu.org/tools/korean_romanization/
The external link is on-topic, although it is created by me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hzy (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
- This is an encyclopedia article, not a link directory to web tools (especially not ad-supported ones added by their owner). Femto 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Even if it were legitimate (which it is not), a link would do more harm than good, as your site's automated conversion leaves a lot to be desired. It is neither RR nor any other system. Wikipeditor 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
