Talk:McCune–Reischauer

message: 66.156.41.49, don't you know Phonology. There is phonologically no distinction between the b and p in Korean as the p and p'  complementally distribute in English. --Nanshu 01:03, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: heycan you help me to myfb account 158.62.43.25 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: ...to the maximum extent possible.
:::no, not to the maximum extent possible. A judicious use where needed would be much more logical. Filling this page with translations for every character is ridiculous (荒謬).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.93.237 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add English and Chinese characters to all examples 

message: I'd like to challenge the transcription of  as choŭn:
:“Thus in Romanization, a syllabic final  should be represented as follows: h before vowels …” —McCune, George M. & Reischauer, Edwin O. (1939). The Romanization of the Korean Language. In Transactions of the Korea Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 29, p. 47, first footnote
Hence, I think it should be chohŭn.—Wikipeditor
Odd, though, that what seems to be an official site does not say so. There is no difference in pronunciation between 좋은 and 조은, so in my mind their McCune-Reischauer transliterations should not differ, either. Hence, I believe that choŭn is still correct. McCune-Reischauer's first purpose is for pronunciation, not complete depiction of the characters. Blue Wizard 23:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to stick to the original rules as far as possible. As long as everybody romanises their own way, finding information can be a tedious task. Wikipeditor 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although one does run the risk that the original rules may either a) no longer reflect standard North/South Korean pronunciation, or b) introduce errors due to the creators' imperfect grasp of Korean phonology (they were non-native speakers, after all, and it would be surprising if they had *not* introduced a few errors).  -- Visviva 15:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Going by the 1939 paper, it does appear that you're right; the authors are quite explicit on p. 36 that ㅎ is always and only romanized "H."  But that's not quite the end of the story, since the remark in the table on p. 40 (that syllable-final ㅎ is "used in the new spelling only") reminds us that McCune & Reischauer were working with a hangul orthography rather different from the one now standard.  It does seem, although one doesn't wish to cast aspersions, that the p. 47 footnote might have been due to an imperfect grasp/consideration of the pronunciation issues involved.  Hard to say... but I would aver that choŭn at least reflects the spirit, if not the letter, of MR.  -- Visviva 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: M&R's original paper was mainly concerned with the traditional Korean orthography.  Syllable-final "ㅎ" never occurred in the traditional orthography, as far as I know. Yongjik 09:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final {{lang|ko|ㅎ}} 

message: Would the correct MR for 닭 be tak?  Is this perchance mentioned in an authoritative document somewhere?  -- Visviva 15:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it... p. 42 in the 1939 paper.  And yes, it would.  Must go change the table in Buldak now. -- Visviva 15:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicken

message: The "North Korean variant" section currently consists of an unsourced claim that in North Korea, they use an H instead of an apostrophe for the aspirated consonants. A [citation needed] tag was slapped on it, and not entirely without cause, but how likely is it that an official source for this exists anywhere outside of some inaccessible North Korean printed publication? There is at least evidence for this being a rule, since romanized place names in KCNA articles follow this convention. (They also omit the diacritics, so there's no telling apart Ŏ/O or Ŭ/U.) While this isn't equivalent to an official romanization guide saying "write it this way", it may be as close as we're going to get. Commander Spock (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant information can now be found on the Romanization of Korean (North) page with the official source from North Korea. 176.195.170.207 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules of the North Korean variant 

message: The first paragraph under Characteristics and criticism makes no sense, and I don't know how to rewrite it to make it say anything useful.  The distinction McCune–Reischauer uses the apostrophe for is aspirated vs. unaspirated, not voiced vs. voiceless.  Bus, gold, Donald and James are not Korean words, and the romanization system doesn't force anyone to pronounce these words differently.  The source cited at the end of the paragraph doesn't say any of this.  Can this paragraph be removed? Obiara (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the paragraph. Obiara (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics and criticism