From: js92@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Jungshik  Shin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: Super-set system
Keywords: Korea, writing system
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:54:03 GMT
Reply-To: js92@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Jungshik  Shin)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr8.223612.26170@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> phantom@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Choi) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.191320.11695@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> js92@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Jungshik  Shin) writes:
>>    You would see a lot of sounds created by children and babies
>>    if you lived in Korea.  

>
>Babies of any nationality creates new sound.  It has nothing to do with the
>writing system, and the odd sounds are surpressed well before they learn to
>write.  It is the language that make people conform, not the writing
>system.
    
   i never said that new sounds are only created by babies in Korea
   although I admit that my statement may have misled you to
   understand me that way. And you're right that many conform to the
   social co cention. But, there is certainly a larger room for 
   deviation from that convention which may be tried by some bold 
   and creative writters in Hangul and other writting system with 
   huge number of sounds to be represented than in those with smaller number
   of sounds to be expressed.
>
>>    Without Hangul's flexiblity,though it's
>>    not unique  , writeen Korean would be much more dull than now. Much
>>    smaller number of words to represent sounds and shapes of many
>>    natural things(animal sound,color,taste, etc.) 
>
>A writing system cannot mimic any color or taste or shape.  It is purely a
>convention that everyone agrees upon and understand collectively.  I know
>it has anything to do with the writing system and it is my suspicion that
   Sure, it has something to do with writting system. You cannot
seperate writting system from language. Writting system is a important
ingredient of language. 

>these rich expressions existed long before hangul came along.

   Sure it existed before Hangul. But, modern civilization is largely
   based on printed material and without writting system to represent
   those rich expression as closely to what they pronounce in SPOKEN 
   Korean    as closely as possible, 'WRITTEN' Korean would be  duller
 than now and it would feed back this effect to SPOKEN Korean and
 Korean altoghether would become dull.
>
>>    If  primary
>>    students were encouraged to write a poem (I don't mean a  
>>    stereotypical poem  which is nearly forced to write at primary
>>    school in Korea,but I mean really ACTIVE and Lively poem), they
>>    would make the most of Hangul's flexiblity to express their own
>>    feeling and emotion about everything around their life. They are
>>    not yet defected by common sense. 
>
>You mean Korean elementary school student can write better poem because of
>hangul?  Wow...

   Of course, this would not be  achieved solele due to Hangul and it
is not likely that this is achieved considering current Korean
educational system..( But, once again, Hangul and otehr writting
system with a large number of syllabels represented by it surely
offer more chance for that than those with smaller set of sounds. 

   Please read my message in context of limitation which may be
   imposed by KSC 5610(with fixed number of syllables) on the
   creativity of the young. Assume they like to express some feeling
with syllables they can pronounce but are not able to type in computer
screen.  How much would they be frustrated?   
>
>>    For them, no need to use
>>    'Mungmung' for dog's sound, 'Kkokotak' for hen's . Not only
>>    this, Hangul's flexibility allows  many writers  to use rich set of
>>    words in dialects in their works. Assume that Hangul is able to
>>    represent only fixed number of syllables. What would happen? A
>>    writer  would not find a appropriate syllable to express his own
>>    way of listening some sounds in nature and he would not be able to
>>    give his reader what he feel about that sound. 
>
>I have a little trouble following your argument here.  I just want to add
>that ANY language, regardless of its writing system, has a way to express
>these animal sounds, etc.  This again is a purely convention.  Frankly I do
>not know which one of 'chak-chak' or 'clap-clap' or 'pachi-pachi' comes
>closest to clapping sound.  It all depends on what you grew up with.

   I'm not saying that Hangul is better because it has the expression
   for animal sound or color. Of course, any language has its own way
   to express those sounds. Who does not know that simple fact? I'm
   not so fool that I don't know that.

>>    hypothetical situation but will happen in  near future because of Standard
>>    Hangul Code made by KSRI(Korea Standard Res. Institute) whihc accomodates
>>    only fixed number of  syllables in it (about 2350 out of more than
>>    10K syllables) and more popular use of word-processing and desk
>>    top publishing. This coding system seriously limits the
>>    flexibility of Hangul and the imagination of writers and generally
>>    all of Koreans.    
>
>It indeed defeats the purpose of hangul.  However, there are many redundant
>or illegal combination in hangul (ex. u-a and o-a will sound practically
>the same).  When each of this never used vowel combination is multiplied by
>all possible consants that could have come before and after them, a huge
>number of them are redundant or illegal. 
   But, certainly much more sounds in Korean than 2350 are very USEFUL
   and FREQUENTLY USED.
   Of course, many of them are reluctant. But, the problem is KSC
   5610(?) is that it does not allow  MANY MANY Useful and Actively 
   used syllables to appear on Computer screen as well as so-called
   redudant syllables. I don't remember which frequently used
   syllables are not inculded in KSC 5610. But, i remembered not being
   able to write an articles because that word-processor only allows
   2350(KSC 5610) letters. (Many Hang-Mang(Administration Network)
   computer inculdes only 2350 letters, which is far smaller than
   number of syllables used in our language life).  
>
>>    Ball ==>  Boru(in KANA) Simply KANA does NOT have effective ways to
>>    represent syllables with 'Patchim' in Hangul with only few
>>    exceptions.  
>
>But everyone understands what 'boru' is and that surved the purpose
>perfectly.  How it relates to the original language is not important.  Who

    You seemed not to understand my point. My point is not that
    Japanese KANA does not able to serve effectively Japanese People
    (It certainly serves Japanese people's need and persisted more
    than a thousand years and will remain as Japanes writting system
    in the future)but that Japanese KANA is not capable of representing as many
    sounds as Hangul or Roman alphabet can do. In that sense and if we
    are to evaluate writting system from that points of view(numbner
    of sounds represented by it), Japanese Kana is not so good as
    Roman alphabet or Hangul. Why don't you simply accept this
    well-established fact?  That's all and I don't intend to insist on
    superiority of Hangul. 
>
>>Jungshik Shin | APS(Am.Phys.Soc.)  | E-mail          
>
>James Choi


Jungshik Shin | APS(Am.Phys.Soc.)  | E-mail              |The unreasonable try  
Columbia Univ.| OSA(Opt.Soc.Am)    |Internet:js92@cunixb.|to change their    
New York      | IEEE member        |cc.columbia.edu      |society to fit their 
Tel. 212-932-3860                  |Bitnet:js92@cunixc   |ideal. Bernard Shaw