Talk:Cyrillization of Korean

ㅚ
Transcription of "ㅚ" as "ВЕ" seems really strange, I would expect "ой" or something similar. The link to Kontsevich article has indeed "ВЕ", but I strongly suspect this is an error (moreover, "ВЕ" is already a transcription of "ㅞ"). rado 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it's a case of them being distinguished by funny diacritics that people can't or couldn't be bothered to type, kinda like what happens to McCune-Reischauer. There's the same problem of distinguishing ㅗ and ㅓ, both got transcribed by О according to ruwiki and that external link. Would be nice to have a printed reference --- there'd be a table in the back matter of a Russian-published Korean dictionary or textbook, probably. cab 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the Kontsevich system is very unlikely to contain any diacritics - this would be very unusual for a Russian cyrillic based system. I did some research and I am puzzled. The World's Writing Systems by Peter T. Daniels (rather respectable book) gives the pronunciation of "ㅚ" as [we], which corresponds with Russian transcription as "ве". However, every other online source I have been able to find gives the pronunciation as [ø] or (historical) [oi̯]. rado 09:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The pronunciation of "ㅚ" may be either [ø] or [we] according to the standard rules in South Korea, and [we] dominates in the younger generation especially. I'm not sure what the tendency is in North Korea, but in both Koreas there is an ongoing simplification of the vowel system. As Russian lacks a simple way to represent [ø], it makes sense to write both "ㅚ" and "ㅞ" as "ве" to reflect the ongoing "ㅚ"-"ㅞ" merger. I can come back with some references if needed. 124.111.53.68 09:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bae Juchae 배주채 (Hangugeo-eui Bareum 한국어의 발음, 2003) describes the different varieties of Korean as having between 6 and 10 vowels according to region and generation. He lists 6 different vowel systems. Of these, only one—the 10-vowel system used by the older generation in Central and Jeolla regions—retains [ø] as a simple vowel. In all the rest (all of which have fewer than 10 vowels), including that of both older and younger generations in North Korea, "ㅚ" is pronounced [we]. --124.111.53.217 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, this is mostly related to peculiarities of the Russian language, not Korean. There are no diphthongs like "we", "wa" or "wi" in Russian, so those diphthongs usually are transliterated using "v". For example, Russian transliteration of Washington is Вашингтон [Vashington], Watson turns into "Vahtson", William into "Vil'yam", "quest" into "kvest", Queen into "kvin" and so on and so forth. This is a general rule, even though sometimes they use Russian "У" ("oo" in English) as a substitute for "v". In that case William turns into something like "OOil'yam" (Уильям), Watson into (I know, it's funny) "OOotson" (Уотсон) and so on. So, in case of "ㅚ" they actually had a choice between "ве" [ve] and "уе" [ooye], and they evidently chose a more traditional way, that is "ве". Ri hwa won (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the old table
How are we supposed to figure out how to transcribe ㄶ or ㄼ? Or how is it clear why ъ is not used always? Or why Hong Gildong is Хон Гильдон, not Хонъ Кильдонъ? I believe that deleting that table was not the right thing. Kf8 (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kf8, What you described is another cyrillization system. This is Kholodovich's system, not Kontsevich's. there is no this article in the English Wikipedia.--Modun (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Number   5  7  11:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Kontsevich system → Cyrillization of Korean – Commonly used or not, the current title is inconsistent with. "Kontsevich" may be notable, but the proposed title is more recognizable. --Relisted.  Sunrise    (talk)  23:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – The proposed title more adequately defines the scope of the article, and is more recognisable, i.e. more concise and natural. It is also more consistent with other similar articles. Let's move it. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.