Re: conlan/natlang coincidences

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Henrik Theiling wrote:
The new system came out within the last year or so, though I think it had
been in preparation before that. I got a batch of material attacking the
new system from the leadership of the Royal Asiatic Society: Korea Branch,
which strongly opposed it. Personally I felt that the new system made it
more likely that at least the average English speaker would pronounce
Korean in a way that resembled the spoken Korean I heard when I taught
there in 87-88. I recently ran across my copy of the RASKB mailing; I will
try to find it again and send more information.
On pronouncing Seoul, I am not good with the IPA, but the hangul spelling
indicates that it has two vowels, the first being what I would call a
short o and the second what I would call a long u. As another contributor
noted, the short o sound is correctly Romanized (in the old system)
eo, not oe as I had it in my previous post.
John Leland
 > Hi!
>
> Concerning [duN] in Korean, {dung} in English:
>
> John Leland <leland@...> writes:
> > The traditionally standard system for transcribing Korean into the Roman
> > alphabet would probably transcribe this word as tong (or toeng?).
> > I am not sure what the new transcription system the ROK government
> > recently put out would do.
>
> A new Romanisation?  Is there any info about it?  How recent is that
> system?
>
> For [duN], I learned that the spelling in Roman should be {tung} or
> {dung}, depending on context (voiced context: {dung}, voiceless:
> {tung}).  For [dVN], {teong} and {deong} might correspond.
>
> Some vowel romanizations:
>
>    {u}  /u/
>    {eu} /M/
>    {o}  /o/
>    {eo} /O/
>
> Thus e.g. Seoul /sOul/.
>
> How's this 'dung' written in Korean?  If you only heard it, you don't
> know the Korean spelling either, do you?
>
> **Henrik
>

Reply