Anyway, just for fun I plugged some different spellings into Google. I've only seen some of them used on signs, but I've seen all of them used in guidebooks and on "English" webpages.
Jeollanam-do - 121,000 results
Chollanam-do - 22,500 results
Chŏllanam-to - 7,370 results
Jeonranamdo - 2,490 results
Chullanam-do - 746 results
Chunranam-do - 409 results
Junlanam-do - 136 results
Junranam-do - 93 results
Brian in Jeollanam-do - 18,000 results
Gwangju - 1,170,000
Kwangju - 1,340,000
Gangjin - 108,000
Kangjin - 92,200
I didn't include Suncheon or Sunchon or Sooncheon or Soonchun here because there is a Suncheon in North Korea which would skew the results; well, actually it's Sunch'ŏn, as North Korea uses the old romanization system. Nonetheless you'll find it commonly used down here as well, and the messageboard for English-speaking Suncheonians spells it the old way. But, if you use that style and don't spell it with the thing above the "o" or the apostrophe it would sound like 순촌 or 순존, or even 선촌 or 선존, rather than 순천. The confusion is compounded by the coexistence of two romanization systems plus a bunch of hybrids.
24 comments:
What would help even more? Foreigners actually being able to read the Korean alphabet, so that they can figure out name places for themselves :p
Andy,
I assume you can read the Japanese, Russian and Greek alphabets as well then?
"I've seen it spelled with a g.
I've seen it spelled with a k.
I've seen it spelled with an e.
I've seen the e go away."
Personally, I vote for Sooncheon. And Gwangju. And Pusan (which is closer to the way my high school students say it here in P-not-B-Town). And I vote in favor of capitalizing all parts of a name, (because it's a name, dammit). Thus the princess Lee Hyo-Ri, or better yet Yi Hyo-Ri, but not no never Lee Hyo-ri.
This Is Me Posting,
Why would he need to? Maybe I need to get out more, but I don't see those used very often in Korea. (For what it's worth, I'm not that bad with the Russian, Ukrainian, and Greek alphabets.) :D
Saturday,
I had no idea the entire world lived in Korea, either.
Neither you nor Andy seem to grasp that the point of their discussion for new romanization is not just for the ex-pats living inside Korea, but those living outside of it as well, yet still interacting with Korea in some way.
With English fast becoming the de facto international linguistic standard, it makes more sense for Korea to adopt an easier romanization of their language for ease of communication with everyone around the world than it is for everyone around the world to learn Korean.
My point with Andy is that his statement is akin to chastising people who might have trouble pronouncing Russian, Japanese or Greek words/names because those people haven't taken the time to study those languages.
While, yes, it would be fantastic if everyone in the world could read, speak and understand everyone else's language, the reality of the situation is otherwise and chastising people for not learning a language without thinking of all the grey areas of interaction people may or may not have with a country/culture shows a lack of critical thinking.
I think you read a bit too deep into my comment there, This Is Me Posting... if that is your real name :p
I'm all for a decent romanisation system. But, there's always gonna be someone who has a whinge about it when changes are made, and with everyone learning/knowing different systems and variations on systems, not everyone is going to be happy.
With some systems, some things work really well phonetically, and in others work well too. There's also parts that just look, sound and feel weird.
But, the one thing that ALL the romanisation systems have in common is 한글. Learn 한글 first, and then deal with different romanisation systems later. With everyone using different systems, and mixing and matching, it can confuse the hell out of people.
I lived in a very small place, where I'd often see old signs that used a variety of romanisation systems with writing things in English. But, I only used them a little, because after a short while, I learnt 한글, and could read the place names and other things, to figure out what was going on.
Seoul has to refuse the bureaucratic inclination to mandate a new romanization strategy as a means to market the country. Those tourists and boosters who care about things Korean will take the time to find out information.Korean is difficult, but it's because it's an artificial language created by government-supported academics and publications out of popular speech and elite texts from the ruins of Japanese attempts to destroy the language. I've met no Korean who thinks the language is easy to learn.
Seoul tends to tinker with the official language every decade, if creating it weren't enough of a travesty. One week into a DLI course on Korean, Seoul changed spellings. For weeks, the textbooks were "wrong", but students just had to change every wrong letter manually. We all asked the Korean teachers, "What kind of language is this?" Every language adapts, but this paper pusher intervention with hints of academic delusions is just laughable.
There's consistency *within* systems ~ for example, linguists all use the Yale system (but are the only ones who do so), other academics use the McCune-Reischauer primarily, and most other groups including the Korean government and associated bodies all use the revised system introduced in 2002. The real problem seems to be less finding and sticking to a system, but teaching the systems themselves. I can read and use both the MCR and the RR, but in both cases I had to learn the correspondence between the sound, the hangeul, and the roman letters.
No, the real problems are people who don't know ANY of the systems and just make up their own spelling for whatever word they're trying to transliterate, absolutely butchering it in the process. I can figure out Joseon vs. Chosun, but I'll be damned if I can figure out half the stuff that people just make up off the top of their heads.
Gomushin Girl:
But that's how a language evolves - popularly. I teach students about problems with Konglish, but that process of incorporating foreign languages into Korean a very natural process. The spectacle of a government telling people how to spell every decade and picking academic alternatives is about as wrong as a gulag.
What kind of Korean language would have arisen in 6 decades without Seoul's lordly fiat? Maybe the regional dialects would have begun to form a more popular language with elements now extinct? As in 19th Century America, maybe poets and novelists would have crafted a more beautiful grammar. As I tell students language is not math: it's messy, unruly, but can be just as beautiful!
This Is Me Posting,
Thank you for the reply -- I had been very short-sighted in not thinking about the use of transliterated Korean outside of the peninsula. My comment came after posting this entry, which might go some way toward showing that my thoughts weren't entirely gathered. Obviously I should have done more thinking before I hit the "publish" button. My apologies.
Out of curiosity, does the Korean government publish standardized transliterations for non-Latin alphabets as well?
The problem prior to 2002 was not the Romanization issue itself, but the inconsistency in using it, as Gomushin Girl mentions. The ŏ and ŭ were a problem for some on their computers and in doing searches, but it would have been a lot cheaper for the Korean government to work with Microsoft and Apple to make ŏ and o mutually searchable than to spend the tens of millions of dollars they did changing signs and everything else.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, the new system is an old system that basically teaches people to mispronounce things. There's a difference between the two ㄱ's in 고구마 and between the two ㅂ's in 바보. "Goguma" and "babo" don't cut it like koguma and pabo.
And it cracks me up when they say that "Korea" came from "Goryeo" when it is much clearer to write that "Korea" came from Koryŏ."
I'm not a fan of the old system, and generally when people insist on using old spellings like Kangjin or Kwangju I take it to mean they're just being lazy.
In the Chosun Ilbo today there's more on this and of an effort to make a standard romanization for names.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/06/25/2009062501050.html
Standard, that is, among the people who follow it.
A lot of gems in that article:
***
Experts have said that the younger generation have trouble understanding the conventional dictionary, as there are too many difficult Chinese characters in explanations and definitions.
***
***
A Hangul cultural center, to be built at a cost of W35.2 billion (US$1=W1,282) by 2012, is to give visitors hands-on experience of the Korean language.
***
The last time they tried for a "new" romanization--with it came some valid criticisms from foreign language scholars of what was wrong with some of the rules within it--foreign critics were told to "shut up" because it was "not for foreigners anyway"; "it is Korea's language, so it is only Korea's business".
I wish I had saved the link. That particular editorial was sparklriffic.
I'd also like to know which genius is in charge of hanguel spelling for foreign words. The Pusan Lotte Giants' right-fielder, for example, is Karim Garcia. 갈시아, one character for each syllable; right? No. Instead it's 가르시아. So naturally Koreans say Gar-uh-shee-uh instead of Gar-shee-uh. It's as if they don't even want to speak better English (Spanish, etc.)
Brian wrote:
I'm not a fan of the old system, and generally when people insist on using old spellings like Kangjin or Kwangju I take it to mean they're just being lazy.
Wow. Thanks so much.
I use old spellings because I prefer McCune-Reischauer. I've actually done work on this to show which produced more understandable sounds by newbies to the language and M-R won hands down over the "new" system.
People I know who continue to write Kwangju do so because they think it looks better or sounds more accurate. I suppose there is some element of being used to it, but that's not laziness.
WeikuBoy wrote:
갈시아, one character for each syllable; right? No. Instead it's 가르시아. So naturally Koreans say Gar-uh-shee-uh instead of Gar-shee-uh.
No, your suggestion would be Kal-shi-ah, not Kar-shi-ah (or Gar-shee-uh).
ㄹ takes on an r-like sound only when followed by a vowel. Otherwise it's an l-sound or a cross between an l and an rl-like sound (as in girl or curl). These are, of course, approximations.
It's as if they don't even want to speak better English (Spanish, etc.)
I know what you mean. I feel the same way when I hear Gringos say "Lahss ann-juh-less" instead of Lohs Ahn-heh-less."
Baltimoron wrote:
One week into a DLI course on Korean, Seoul changed spellings. For weeks, the textbooks were "wrong", but students just had to change every wrong letter manually.
Baltimoron, are you talking about the spelling standardizations for Han-gŭl or are you talking about the new Romanization system?
That's sort of a different issue (but not entirely), and with different players. The how and why of the Han•gŭl standardizations is different and far more justifiable than how and why they changed Romanization systems.
It's as if they don't even want to speak better English (Spanish, etc.)
I know what you mean. I feel the same way when I hear Gringos say "Lahss ann-juh-less" instead of Lohs Ahn-heh-less."
Nicely played, Kushibo. Well done.
I could be a bore and point out it's acutally Lohs Ahn-heh-lees, not heh-less; but your point is well taken.
And yet, don't you merely point out the difficulty of spelling western languages in Korean? which was of course my point? given the inflexible and unforgiving nature of hanguel? And that if they (the Koreans) want to learn to speak the more widely spoken languages of the world, perhaps they should cut some freaking slack when it comes to spellng foreign words in hanguel? Just as they (the Koreans) demand of foreigners who (for whatever reason) might want to spell Korean words in western or Roman letters?
Just wondering.
Forgive me, Kushibo. The heat is making me a little cranky. What I meant to say is, thank you for educating me that 갈시아 would be Gal-shee-ah not Gar-shee-ah. I see now that it's more difficult than I realized to spell English words in Hanguel.
If Korean English teachers who don't speak English are the #1 enemy of English education in Korea, then Hanguel and its limitations must be #2.
Just thought I'd copy a comment I made in a more recent post here, as it's just as relevant, but before that I'd like to say that kushibo is spot on here. I have to say, I also greatly prefer the MR system, and the old spellings, like Pusan and Kwangju are far more accurate.
Anyway, here we go: Korean really doesn't lend itself to accurate Romanisation, partly because the letters of 한글 and the reading of them don't follow the same pronounciation rules as letters of the Roman alphabet, especially not in English. Of course, Romanisation is also not the way anyone who is serious about learning Korean should try and learn it - you just have to learn how to accurately pronounce the Korean. The main reason for this relates to what holterbarbour said in reply to the later post. Korean consonants, such as ㅈ change in pronounciation value depending on where they are in a word, meaning they need two Romanised values.
Another thing to consider is that it is not only English speakers who need to use a Romanisation system - the Roman alphabet is used by speakers of many languages, and is recognisable in most parts of the world. Therefore a Romanisation system needs to be language-neutral, reflecting a standard pronounciation most common among all the languages that use the Roman alphabet.
This is why most scholars of the Korean language actually prefer the McCune-Reischauer system, as it generally reflects these difficulties better.
Also, in reply to holterbarbour, the Koreans have created a system of their own - both of the main systems (McCune-Reischauer and Revised Romanization) are actually created by Koreans - don't believe Wikipedia(!), McCune and Reischauer actually just proliferated a system they saw that worked well.
It shows a complete lack of understanding on behalf of the Korean government when they decided to switch to a system that had no accents or other marks that weren't present in standard English, as quite simply, it's only English that lacks these among the languages that use the Roman alphabet. Kushibo is right, they should have just worked towards making it easier to use those characters on computers. I'd be interested to hear how non-speakers of Korean have got along using the Revised Romanisation, or the former system if they were in Korea then!
Apologies for the long post, it's just years of lectures emerging from somewhere!
I find the MR system to be more confusing because of the funny symbols. And I can't type them... The new system is CONSISTENT and easy to figure out how to write. For many years, I snubbed at the new system, but when I started translating Korean into English, that is when I converted to the new system. It is consistent !!
The only thing going for MR is it is generally shorter and familiar looking due to long usage. But this is not a good enough reason to become the standard.
I really would like to hear the 'forgeign experts' why they think the MR is better ? The Korean government did a rush job in 2002, but they got it just fine. My only problem with the new system is that it does not write 시 as 'shi', but as 'si'. The new system insists on consistency without exceptions, but the pronounciation is clearly different with 사,소,서 etc. Just add 'sh' next to 's' on the chart!! I am surprised no one talks about this... The most famous Korean is Yi Sun-sin, should be Sun-shin. He was not a sinner...
With the new system, one can easily figure out the spelling of the Korean hangeul. The argument that it should be easy for foreigners to read, I say that is BS. This is transliteration. The Chinese pin-yin is even more difficult for foreigners. Unless you put in hours of study, there is no way you will read correctly, with the Q, C and Zh etc, no average Joe can read "Qing" or "Cao" etc. Transliteration should not be decided for lazy foreigners.
Jay wrote:
I really would like to hear the 'forgeign experts' why they think the MR is better ?
This is a kernel of a future M-R post.
Thanks for the bump, Jay, this was an interesting post to revisit.
Post a Comment