Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Archive 1

message: [1] Caveats.  To begin with, I have never been a huge fan of the idea of "Romanizing" Korean, and still am not:
* The practice does not help "foreigners" (i.e., non-Koreans) to better pronounce, assimilate, or understand the use of Hangul or the Korean language (강남 will still be mispronounced, whether written Kangnam or Gangnam).
* Koreans will continue to have their names brutalized by immigration officials, regardless of spellings (well, is it Bak [/b�/] or Park?)  
* Romanization ignores the fact that average Koreans still prefer Hangul on a daily basis; a practice adopted by most long-term foreign residents of Korea (representation of the spoken language is, after all, the intent of Hangul).
* Modern technology has enabled the international usage of Hangul, and Hangul is now an available option on most, if not all, word processing programs.  It only takes a few hours to become adept with the script.
* In a democratic society, you know, like South Korea is touted as being, there is no need for an "approved" spelling method, as free people are at liberty to spell their own names as they choose.  Sure, the government might want an official system, but the people themselves are under no obligation to adhere to it.
* Similarly, it is offensive that anyone should suggest to non-Koreans how Korean words adopted into their own languages should be spelled, especially when Koreans themselves are under no such obligation (see above), and non-Koreans are not involved in determining the spellings of foreign words borrowed into Korean (e.g., the entire body of Konglish).
* Give all these caveats, one should expect that the system for widespread use should be the one that offers the greatest utility and makes the most sense; much in the same way that Hangul established itself as the preferred spelling system.  Instead, we have the personal opinions of certain "scholars" and politicians foisted on us.  Case in point, "The ㅂ is 부산 sounds more like a 'b' than a 'p'."  This is a common argument often touted by self-proclaimed subject-matter experts.  In truth, however, it shows a lack of research, scientific methodology, and objectivity.  
Since Korean has no 'b', the question is unanswerable because "letters", while having sounds associated with them, have no sound.  The determination of what a 'b' sounds like would depend on the language being spoken (Italian 'b' is different from English 'b'), in which case, the traditional use of 'b' is to indicate lenis, bilabial, obstruent sounds.  The statement is true only if the basis for spelling is English; but shouldn't a Korean "Romanization" system be based on Korean?
[2]Some Rules.  I believe most of these were amended to the SKKR, but if they weren't, they are good practices to follow (unless you know the reader will have non-standard pronunciation.)  They should be followed in the order given.
:a. Final consonants become the beginning of the next syllable if that syllable begins with a vowel (syllabification).  Since this creates a phonetic environment for voicing, syllabified final consonants should be written normally.
::직업 'ji-geop' NOT 'jik-eop'
:b. Final consonants "double up" (geminate) when followed by the same, or similar, sound.
::셋소   'se-sso' NOT 'set-so' 
::붓장난 'bu-jjang-nan' NOT 'but-jang-nan' OR 'bus-jang-nan'
:NOTE: The SKKR, when last checked, does not address "double consonants"; geminate scripting is assumed, by I see great merit (perhaps as a helpful spelling distinction?) in the following system, which I will credit Gary Rector for, at the very least, inspiring the idea.
::붓순나무 'bu-tsu-nna-mo' BUT 부썩 'bu-sseok'
::붓장난   'bu-tjang-nan' BUT 부쩍 'bu-jjeok'
:c. Final obstruents aspirate when followed by ㅎ; initial obstruents aspirate when preceded by ㅎ.
::묵흔 'mu-keun' NOT 'muk-heun'
::좋다 'jo-ta' NOT 'joh-ta'
:NOTE: I am deviating here from the SKKR because there is a glaring contradiction of logic.  The McCune-Reischauer-based system of 1985 (M-R) adopted ph/th/kh/ch for ㅍ/ㅌ/ㅋ/ㅊ, of which only 'ch' remains; the others are now p/t/k (apparently a suitable replacement could not be found for 'ch').  Nevertheless, standard Korean pronunciation does produce the aspirated obstruent sounds in these environments.  If the rationale for the geminate graphs ㅃ/ㄸ/ㄲ is that this is the sound created in the environment 'ㅂ+ㅂ' = ㅃ, ergo 'pp' or 'pb', the same logic should apply to aspirates; 'ㅂ+ㅎ' = ㅍ, ergo 'ph'.  Some have argued that 'ph' might be pronounced /f/, but we are not speaking Greek, are we?  On the merits of this argument, shouldn't we also then spell 집행 'jiphaeng' some other way, lest one mistakenly pronounce it /jifaeng/?  Until a change does occur, it's probably better to delete the 'h'.
    
:d. All obstruents become 'p', 't', or 'k' according to their pronunciation (e.g., ㅂ/ㅃ/ㅍ become 'p') when they end words or are followed by another audible consonant.
::덥석   'deopseok' NOT 'deobseog'
::섣불리 'seotbulli' NOT 'seodbulli', also applies to the ㅈ and ㅅ series.
::목동   'mokdong' NOT 'mogdong' 
:e. Obstruent sounds that precede nasals and liquids become nasals.
::입니다 'imnida' NOT 'ipnida'
:f. Dental nasals that precede liquids becomes liquids.
::신라 'silla' NOT 'sinra'
:g. Post-nasal liquids (no pun intended) become nasals.
::양립 'yangnip' NOT 'yangrip'   
::Ex.) 대학로 'daehangno' NOT 'daehakro'
::     독립문 'dongnimmun' NOT 'dogribmun'
[3] Graphing Problems.
:a. In those dialects that pronounce digraphic Hangul vowels as diphthongs, the initial rounded vowel is often inaudible when it follows a consonant (except in careful speech), although a slight rounding of the consonant is visible.  Further, some of these graphs are associated with similar sounds, c.f., 웬, 왜, and 왼.  The SKKR provides three separate spellings for this same sound, which all approximate /e/ when preceded by a consonant.
:b. Along similar lines, the SKKR does not address changes in unrounded front vowels, i.e., 이, 에, and 애, when they are part of an open or closed syllable.  
::기 rhymes with "key", but 김 rhymes with "him"; spelled 'i'
::게 rhymes with "kay", but 겟 rhymes with "get"; spelled 'e'
::개 rhymes with "eh" (short 'e'), but 갯 is closer to "cat" spelled 'ae'
:c. In transliteration, the use of digraphic vowels creates a dilemma; is 'gaeop' to be pronounced 가업 or 개옵?  Sure, the second word may be nonsensical, but a non-Korean probably would not know that.  Perhaps a better illustration of this problem is 개업, "opening of business or trade", which is now to be spelled 'gaeeop'.  Removing the M-R diacritics may have created some confusion between 가옵/가업/개옵/개업 for 'gaop', but it is difficult to see how the digraphic system offers a better alternative, rather than simply replacing one problem with another.
:d. There doesn't seem to be any directive for what to do with foreign words borrowed into Korean.  It's as if, once spelled in Hangul, that becomes the basis for "Romanizing" the term.  For example, rather than return 헤어 드라이어 to the original 'hair dryer' from which it was borrowed, we are more likely to encounter 'heeo deuraieo' because few dictionaries give etymological information that would indicate a foreign word.
No system will find widespread acceptance until these problems are addressed.  The new system did little to correct these problems, which then brings to question the necessity of making the change.  Perhaps it would be a better investment to teach non-Koreans how to read Hangul, rather than put so much time, money, and effort into a system that will probably never work properly.
:-- Sean M. Witty, Seoul (July 2004)
:: Thanks for your extended views on the romanization of Korean. I think most Wikipedians are aware of what you cite here, but it's not up to us to solve these problems. I believe the consensus is to follow what is actually used, and by so doing we don't violate the suggestions by Wikipedia in general. Kokiri 09:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with the SKKR

message: ::"Syngman Rhee" is written as "Rhee Sygnman" in the Korean name order, and according to the Revised Romanization of Korean would be spelled as "I Seungman."
</blockquote></font>
::For articles on North Korean personages, we should substitute McCune-Reischauer romanization for the Revised Romanization of Korean (sorry, but we have to keep in line with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:NPOV policy).  I suppose the advantage of using the "Alternate spellings" format is that we could even respell these names according both romanization systems!  --Sewing 15:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of the <acronym> tag, but it doesn't work on Wikipedia, it seems. On the other hand, do we have to include all the alternatives in the text? Maybe we can reduce it to the most common name (e.g. Syngman Rhee) and leave all the explaining to the article on the person/place etc.? (just an idea, not an opinion) --Kokiri 16:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking to only have the alternate spellings in the article on that person/place.  In links to it, we should definitely only use the name that actually forms the article title (like Syngman Rhee).  (I revised my examples above to reflect this.)  So if we have the explanatory material in the article, the question is, do we just weave it into the article text, or do we create an "Alternate spellings" section, or something else?  --Sewing 16:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate spellings

message: I think we shouldn't apply S.Korean Romanization System to N.Korea related terms. Currently I use the M-R alternatively. Nanshu 07:37 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)
: Why not? soax
: Perhaps for N. Korean words, we use M-R followed by S. Korean Romanization in parenthesis. Or the other way around. --Menchi 08:37 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
:This is a difficult subject...but if we stick as closely as possible to the NPOV policy, it might make sense to use M-R for the North, and the Revised Romanization for the south; or use RR for the south and both M-R and RR for the north.  For place names especially, I am trying to use RR for the south and M-R for the north...thus: Gangweondo (남) and Kangwŏndo (북) for 강원도.  (I know strictly in M-R, we write "ui" (not "ŭi") and "wo" (not "wŏ"), but that bugs me!)  On the 2003 National Geographic map "The Two Koreas", M-R is used for the North and RR for the south, with diacritics retained in Shinŭiju and Wŏnsan.  --Sewing 13:02, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korean Romanization 

message: Well, it's time to standardize these things, as has been done (more or less?) for pages on Chinese history.  I am going through the Wikipedia now, looking for Korean topics to add to the List of Korea-related topics page, and of course I'm finding a lot of inconsistency in how rulers are named, not to mention dynasties.
First of all, I saw a page entitled Joseon Dynasty, but it is called the Yi Dynasty (이씨 (李氏; I Ssi) in Korean--Joseon was the name of the country.  For naming individual monarchs, however, I suggest the following format, which does not use the dynastic name but the kingdom name:
King/Queen X (the Great) of Y
Where X = the ruler's posthumous name (Taejo, Sejong, etc.) and Y = the Kingdom's name (Silla, Goguryeo, Baekje, Goryeo, Joseon).  The few Kings who have made the title "the Great" (Daewang (대왕; 大王)) will get the name inserted.  Thus:
* King Taejo of Goryeo (there was one)
* King Taejo of Joseon
* King Sejong the Great of Joseon
* Emperor Gojong of Korea
* Queen Min of Joseon (민씨; Min Ssi, King Taejong of Joseon's wife; also the name of the wife of then-King Gojong)
Finally, I have used the Revised Romanization of Korean for the names of monarchs.  There are 3 reasons for doing so: (1) It is now the official Romanization of South Korea, which has roughly twice the number of Korean speakers as North Korea; (2) It is easier to type than McCune-Reischauer (which is still the official system in North Korea); and (3) it is now the mandatory romanization scheme in South Korean textbooks.  As an alternative, we could add the McCune-Reischauer spelling after the Revised spelling, in the body of the article, and/or have entries in the McCune-Reischauer spelling with redirects to the Revised Romanized spelling.
What do people think?
--Sewing 23:46, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes for standardization. As for the Joseon Dynasty... move it and redirect the other way? Also, why not add a link to this page in the talk page of each Korea related article? I didn't know about this page when I started contributing... Kokiri 11:30, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good idea...but there are a lot of Korea-related talk pages!  Perhaps as we edit a page, if we can remember to add a link back here on the talk page, then we can introduce the change that way, step by step.  If someone else doesn't move the Joseon Dynasty page, I will try to do it some time this weekend...  --Sewing 17:23, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Just for the record, we have (quite some time ago) established that Joseon Dynasty is the most common form. Kokiri 10:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of Dynasties and Monarchs

message: I can't find any guidance here on whether (for example) Kim Il-Sung or Kim Il-sung is the preferred form. Both seem to be widely used in English-language media. I have recently written articles on Kim Jong-Nam and Kim Jong-Chul with all three name-elements capitalised. Any comments? Adam 10:25, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Il-sung' (according to the official romanizations), not capitalized like 'Il-Sung' (like many overseas Koreans like to write). The reason being that the syllables are not the middle and last names, but one given name. It is like calling Adam Dam or A by writing A-Dam. And yes, in some romanizations, the two syllables can in fact be joined, dehyphenated. But then, Vietnamese script would've written it as 'Il Sung' (note the space). But then they semi-officially call Il a middle name too. I don't get that reasoning. ----Menchi 11:35, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: The examples of given names given on this convention page since ages ago have always been the official one, i.e., decapitalized, if hyphenated. It even uses Kim Il-sung! --Menchi 12:35, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm not sure there's an official convention (at all). The government in the South spells first names as two seperate words, and in the documents I have seen, all capitalized :-). Most Koreans spell there names hypenated or joined (as one word). When hypehnated, it is commonly spelt with only one capital letter (the one at the beginning of the word). This is done to reflect that the name, despite consisting of two parts, is actually one. Many people I know despise the spelling in two words. HTH. --Kokiri 21:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of given name 

message: See: Talk:Hangul for discussions. Kokiri (rev. Sewing)
Please do not just change the convention before consulting the community. Changing the spelling of a word is not just about changing links and moving the article. There are many occurrences of Hangeul which are not linked. Also, some sentences need rewriting... The discussion is at Talk:Hangul. Kokiri 12:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hangeul vs. Hangul

message: These are a lot cleaner than the way we (especially I!) were doing things before.  I added a new section to the top of the article page.  --Sewing 20:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They are great! Kokiri 10:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I've renamed them as "Korean name tables" since the former section heading of "info boxes" is kind of vague...  --Sewing 03:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I've updated the Article template with the Wikimedia table markup. This way editing table is real easy; adding and correcting information is much easier this way. Kokiri 09:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean Name Tables

message: I don't want to cross-post, but there are quite a few links to Japan in Korean topics that actually should link to Empire of Japan. Just bear the existence of this article in mind when linking... Kokiri 22:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan 

message: I have checked on the web and found that both spellings Barhae and Balhae are used for the Korean 발해. Actually, the government brochure I checked uses Balhae. -- Kokiri 18:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Periods 

message: I have created . We can add this to all tak pages of Korea-related articles. I hope this maximizes compliance and involvement with our conventions... --Kokiri 15:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you can't add this anymore... I've just gone trough the list (Korea related topics). Kokiri 18:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, 코끼리: Good job!  I've added the message to Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages.  --Sewing 21:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{msg:korean}}</nowiki>