| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:11 am Post subject: English spelling of Korean words |
 |
|
I was just reading a post that said "hakwon"
I've always pronounced it Hog-won.
If it is indeed pronounced hog-won, why do people insist on spelling it
hakwon? Do we really have to bring all of the strange spelling from the English language, and start doing it with Korean? Why can't we spell it phonetically? Kim should be spelt Gim. Park should be spelled Pak (or are there two different names, Park and Pak?) Kyeong Ju should be Gyeong Jew.
How did this creep into the language? I'm aware of the spelling issues like Taegu versus Daegu, but as English teachers, the least we could do is start spelling things phonetically. Would be less confusing for everyone, me thinks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
The closest spelling to its actual pronunciation is hagwon.
As for some of the others, the problem is that their pronunciation changes depending on their position in a sentence. Kangnam becomes Gangnam for example, in the same way that the t in water sounds like a d when pronounced by North Americans (and maybe some others).
The biggest problem I have is using si for shi. Sincheon is retarded, only Shincheon makes any sense. Sheenchawn would be the easiest for an English speaker to pronounce correctly though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah it really is difficult to transliterate between English and Korean. The Korean government seems to want a strict 1 for 1 system, and it's just not feasible.
As for hagwon, I think even that is not a good transliteration because most English speakers will say it with a short a. Hogwon would really be the best.
Similary, the best translation I've seen for 방 as in PC방 is bahng. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
If one doesn't read Korean and doesn't know the pronunciation, it's hard to know how to pronounce the Romanization. Hard to spell it too. There are many that don't resemble words we know in English, and English phonics is so irregular with many words that spell alike and don't rhyme.
Phone, gone, done... which rhymes with cheon?
Bun Dang... say those like bun and dang it....
Jam Sill?
Mock Dong?
Anyway, Po Hang in there.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
blaseblasphemener, short answer: your pronunciation sucks.
Have you ever eaten Peking duck? Ever wondered hoe Peking became Beijing?
Main Entry: trans�lit�er�ate
Pronunciation: tran(t)s-'li-t&-"rAt, tranz-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at�ed; -at�ing
Etymology: trans- + Latin littera letter
: to represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet
- trans�lit�er�a�tion /(")tran(t)s-"li-t&-'rA-sh&n, (")tranz-/ noun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_romanization_of_Korean |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kotakji
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
The closest spelling to its actual pronunciation is hagwon.
As for some of the others, the problem is that their pronunciation changes depending on their position in a sentence. Kangnam becomes Gangnam for example, in the same way that the t in water sounds like a d when pronounced by North Americans (and maybe some others).
The biggest problem I have is using si for shi. Sincheon is retarded, only Shincheon makes any sense. Sheenchawn would be the easiest for an English speaker to pronounce correctly though. |
I had a long argument with my wife over the spelling of silim station as well. Now granted they at least don't spell it sinlim, but still its probably more correctly spelled as shilim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kotakji wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
The closest spelling to its actual pronunciation is hagwon.
As for some of the others, the problem is that their pronunciation changes depending on their position in a sentence. Kangnam becomes Gangnam for example, in the same way that the t in water sounds like a d when pronounced by North Americans (and maybe some others).
The biggest problem I have is using si for shi. Sincheon is retarded, only Shincheon makes any sense. Sheenchawn would be the easiest for an English speaker to pronounce correctly though. |
I had a long argument with my wife over the spelling of silim station as well. Now granted they at least don't spell it sinlim, but still its probably more correctly spelled as shilim. |
Thing is, most native speakers are going to pronounce it with a short i, which is of course nonexistent in Korean.
Sheeleem. There ya go. No mistakes ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why should the romanization of Korean be designed for English speakers specifically, Q?
Transliteration is really intended to provide a consistent representation of one writing system in another. And a simple one-to-one process does that best. To be able to pronounce from such a system does assume that you know the language that has been transliterated, but I know of no way around that.
Point being: learn a little Korean, folks. And maybe a little bit about the linguistics of transliteration, too. It's all for the good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Novernae
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Woland wrote: |
Why should the romanization of Korean be designed for English speakers specifically, Q?
Transliteration is really intended to provide a consistent representation of one writing system in another. And a simple one-to-one process does that best. To be able to pronounce from such a system does assume that you know the language that has been transliterated, but I know of no way around that.
Point being: learn a little Korean, folks. And maybe a little bit about the linguistics of transliteration, too. It's all for the good. |
ditto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Woland wrote: |
Why should the romanization of Korean be designed for English speakers specifically, Q?
Transliteration is really intended to provide a consistent representation of one writing system in another. And a simple one-to-one process does that best. To be able to pronounce from such a system does assume that you know the language that has been transliterated, but I know of no way around that.
Point being: learn a little Korean, folks. And maybe a little bit about the linguistics of transliteration, too. It's all for the good. |
Doesn't that defeat the purpose? If you know the language to be transliterated why would you transliterate it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject: |
< | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
