Talk:Romanization of Korean

Untitled
"Romanization" should be spelled with a lower-case "r," hence my moving of this page to "Korean romanization." --Sewing 16:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hangulisation
Is there a systematic way to "hangulise" foreign words, especially English words, into Korean? &mdash; Instantnood 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes.
 * http://www.korean.go.kr/search/grammar/rule/foreign_rule1.html
 * http://www.korean.go.kr/search/grammar/rule/foreign_rule2.html
 * Wikipeditor


 * Thanks. Would be great if we've an article on Wikipedia on it. &mdash; Instantnood 09:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to look at a hard copy and have access to a university's Korean Studies library, you might find quite a few books that contain the same guidelines. I think some people at the Korean WP over yonder are fairly good at hangulisation following that system. I haven't taken the time yet to read it all through; it doesn't always seem to yield the closest approximation of a foreign sound in some cases—e.g. German +consonant is hangulised as 르+consonant (e.g. 베를린, 함부르크, 아르바이트) even though there's no audible [ɣ] involved in most speakers' speech—instead, I think (northern) standard German pronunciation changes the quality of the vowel towards [ɐ̯] where it fades into the consonant, so perhaps 아 would come closer to actual pronunciation, while 어 would be more consistent with the custom of hangulising the same sound as 어 when it is not followed by a consonant. So, while it looks fairly systematic to me, it does have its oddities. Merry Christmas! Wikipeditor 13:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Joseon Gwahagwon (조선민주주의인민공화국 과학원) romanization
Can anyone provide any additional information on this romanization? --Lukobe 01:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Anybody? --Lukobe 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I've added the entry. As far as I recall, it was based on one of the PDF tables or another article, without any background information. I guess the people over at the 조선민주주의인민공화국 과학원 would be happy to provide more information if somebody asked them, though. Wikipeditor 20:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

More exact references
Say which ones, not just "The first two systems vary mainly in the". We can only see so much on our PDA etc.

/th/ in RR
Any guesses as to whether -렷하-, where not in a “noun”, should be -ryeota- or -ryeotha- in RR? The rules only mention “ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅂ, and ㅈ”, but not ㅅ, so I used -th- in the table. Wikipeditor 13:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the official explanation is less than honest about the "noun" business (예: 잡힘); but anyway... I think that 뚜렷하다 is more akin to words like 같이 and 잡히다 than to compounds like 오죽헌, and so would lean toward t in this case.  One could make a good argument either way, though, as far as I can tell. -- Visviva 13:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * NB: The Korean version specifies the no-h version for 체언, an evil grammatical term generally translated as "substantive," not noun.  If I understand it right, something like 입학 is a substantive, even when it is (arguably) part of a verb in 입학하다 (so we would write "iphakhada" and not "ipakada").  On the other hand, 뚜렷하다 isn't a substantive by any stretch, and 뚜렷 isn't even a word by itself... so I'm sticking by "tturyeotada."  Still, one wishes we had more thorough guidelines.  -- Visviva 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the ad-hoc romanisations are based on?
Is there a system, on which the ad-hoc romanisations like Samgyupsal or names etc. are based on? Why is that way of romanisation that popular in Korea? This should be pointed out in the article. -- iGEL (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Many people probably use such spellings to increase the possibility that an average (i.e. ko-0 ) American, when trying to read the word out loud as if it were an English one, comes close to a native speaker's pronunciation. This can help to avoid embarassing situations to the American.


 * Another reason may be the Korean sound inventory's and writing system's unfitness for easy transcription, compared to Japanese where there may be fewer issues to solve. When we look at Pinyin's success, however, you do have a point.


 * I don't think the following aberrations are based on a system, but from what I've seen they are popular:
 * Not indicating sound assimilation
 * Putting spaces between the syllables of even word stems
 * a→ah
 * ae→e (and vice versa)
 * eo→u(h)
 * yeong→young
 * eu→u
 * hui→hee
 * i→ee
 * j→ch, z
 * jj→zz?
 * u→oo
 * Should we include these in the article? Would a list of this kind be helpful to people stumbling across such romanisations?
 * Wikipeditor 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Korean transliteration online free service
Planning to add Korean free transliteration online service (http://www.latkey.com/translit) which conforms to wiki guidelines, is free and it makes sense to have it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanIssa (talk • contribs).


 * It does not matter if it's "free" or "useful". Linking to download sites for Microsoft Office plugins to use the online service of a company is not appropriate. There is no encyclopedic content on the site, and it does promote other products of that comany. If you reference and the corresponding user contributions, you'll see that there were repeated attempts to place links in several articles, despite all warnings not to re-add them (including the ignored warning on your own talk page). Not only to the transliteration service but also to the company main page, with link descriptions promoting the keyboard stickers. You will not add any more links to latkey.com, i-keyboard.com, or related domains. Femto 13:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Online Korean Romanization Tool
http://yuefu.org/tools/korean_romanization/

The external link is on-topic, although it is created by me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hzy (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * This is an encyclopedia article, not a link directory to web tools (especially not ad-supported ones added by their owner). Femto 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if it were legitimate (which it is not), a link would do more harm than good, as your site's automated conversion leaves a lot to be desired. It is neither RR nor any other system. Wikipeditor 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions
Hangul Romanization Revision Proposed Foreigners Get Confused Over Current System By Ryu Jin, Staff Reporter, The Korea Times —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.5.239.47 (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

SKATS/SCATS? Strictly Speaking Is Not a Romanization and Doesn't Belong Here
Here is the Wikipedia defintion of Romanization: "In linguistics, romanization (or Latinization, also spelled romanisation or Latinisation) is the representation of a word or language with the Roman (Latin) alphabet, or a system for doing so, where the original word or language uses a different writing system (or none). Methods of romanization include transliteration, for representing written text, and transcription, for representing the spoken word. The latter can be subdivided into phonemic transcription, which records the phonemes or units of semantic meaning in speech, and more strict phonetic transcription, which records speech sounds with precision. Each romanization has its own set of rules for pronunciation of the romanized words.

Examples of languages to which this process is often applied are Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK).

Cyrillization is the similar process of representing a language using the Cyrillic alphabet +"

SKATS/SCATS does not fit this definition as it is a system for one-to-one representation of hangeul characters without regard to phonemic or phonetic values of the charactersDoc Rock 13:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SKATS very strictly fits the definition:
 * "Methods of romanization include transliteration, for representing written text..."
 * SKATS represents every Hangǔl letter by a standard Latin letter such that the exact plain-text, if you will, could be recovered from a SKATS text. The full definition quite clearly lists methods, not a complete set of requirements that every romanization must satisfy. In fact SKATS plays its particular—transliteration—rôle better than any of the other romanization—transcription—systems do theirs. For example, how do you phonetically represent written ' ㅐ' ? If one is talking about making it 'sound' sorta like a Korean pronounces it, it varies from idiolect to dialect to native word to loan word, and is too often indistinguishable from the 'sound' of 'ㅔ'
 * The only way to do a thorough job is to run high quality speech samples through PRAAT, derive objective phonetic representations of each element and do a close IPA transcription. That sort of thing is really only of interest to linguists, Korean speech-therapy theorists and practitioners and the like. It is far from the main interest of romanization, which is to give non-Koreans and students of Korean some approximation of how texts would sound if spoken, or a rough idea of what they are listening to, or should listen for, in Korean recorded speech and speech in videos and instructional material. JohndanR (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Question
Is there a computer input method that allows one to type in Revised Romanization, and the text appears in hangul (the way I do with pinyin in the Simplified Chinese IME from Microsoft)? The Korean IME doesn't seem to allow for this, and the hangul keyboard configuration takes time to figure out. If not, is there a way I could reconfigure the hangul keyboard so the letters match the English keyboard? Thanks, Badagnani (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration versus transcription
Based on these Wikipedia definitions:

"Transliteration attempts to be exact, so that an informed reader should be able to reconstruct the original spelling of unknown transliterated words."

"Transliteration is opposed to transcription, which specifically maps the sounds of one language to the best matching script of another language."

I changed, in the "Examples" chart, "RR transliteration in brackets" to "RR transcription in brackets", since the bracketed examples are phonetic representations.Jrmcconvey (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential reference
Korean romanization was recently in the news:. At the moment the article is ill-structured to integrate this and I have little time at the moment, but perhaps another editor could fit it in well. FYI. Bendono (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

IPA in table
Any chance an IPA column could be added to the table, to compare the romanizations with the actual sounds [more or less...IPA is about the closest approximation there is]? I know the IPA and I'm familiar enough with Hangul that I could make guesses at a lot of these, but it would really be better if an actual Korean speaker did it. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The IPA transcriptions seem questionable based on my knowledge of Korean phonology... could anyone give some clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Kaninchen (talk • contribs) 05:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also requesting this. Funny that it's been over three years without anyone addressing this.--84.75.202.245 (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Other North Korean variant romanization schemes
I had heard about the new DPRK twitter account when I noticed that "우리 민족끼리" was romanized "uriminzokkiri". I wondered if this "z" was a typo at first but it seemed consistent across the other accounts they made. So I looked up the official DPRK website (very 'Web 0.5') when I got to their geography page: "Korea is situtated in the central part in the East of Asia, between the 43deg 00' 36" (Fungso, Onsong district, North Jamkiong Province), the 33deg 06' 32" (Mara island, Namzezu district, Zezu province) of northern latitude and the 124deg 10' 47*' (Bidan island, Riongchon district, North Piong-an province) and 131deg 52' 40" (Doh island, Ulung district, North Kiongsang province) of eastern latitude. … Korea has borders in the North with the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation through the rivers Amrok and Duman, and at the East, West and South is surrounded by sea."

- DPRK government

Understandably I was a tad confused as to what those represent but I think I figured them out:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! DPRK !! Hangeul !! RR !! !! DPRK !! Hangeul !! RR !! !! DPRK !! Hangeul !! RR As I finish the table I realize other pages on the website have yet more names romanized this way, of course. So my question: what is this romanization system? What is its history? I don't see it anywhere on Wikipedia, to my knowledge anyway. - MK (t/c) 06:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fungso || 풍서 || Pungseo ||  || Onsong || 온성 || Onseong ||   || Jamkiong || 함경 || Hamgyeong
 * Mara || 마라 || Mara ||  || Namzezu || 남제주 || Namjeju ||   || Zezu || 제주 || Jeju
 * Bidan || 비단 || Bidan ||  || Riongchon || 룡천/용천 || (R)yongcheon ||   || Piong-an || 평안 || Pyeongan
 * Doh || (도) || Do? ||  || Ulung || 울릉 || Ulleung ||   || Kiongsang || 경상 || Gyeongsang
 * Amrok || 압록 || Amnok ||  || Duman || 두만 || Duman
 * }
 * Doh || (도) || Do? ||  || Ulung || 울릉 || Ulleung ||   || Kiongsang || 경상 || Gyeongsang
 * Amrok || 압록 || Amnok ||  || Duman || 두만 || Duman
 * }
 * Amrok || 압록 || Amnok ||  || Duman || 두만 || Duman
 * }

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Korean romanization → Romanization of Korean – Like for all the other languages or writing systems: Romanization of Arabic, Romanization of Cyrillic, Romanization of Japanese, etc. Androoox (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support natural. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Ե րևանցի talk  03:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Standard form. Jaqeli (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support following consensus after discussion of categories for other scripts at WP:CFDS, see – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

romaja/romanization
Early in the article we're told "'romaja' is not to be confused with 'romanization'". So why are "romaja" (and "romacha" in McCune/Reischauer) given in the information box on the right as direct translations of "romanization"? That seems to imply that the terms at least overlap to a great extent, or that "romaja" has two separate meanings, as indicated in the two definitions given in the main text. Either way, I'm sure this could be expressed more clearly!213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)