More bitching about the official Korean romanization scheme and awkward English signboards around the country. [Korean Herald, HT to Joshua]
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
Oh, That Wacky Romanization Scheme…
This entry was written by Robert Koehler, posted on June 20, 2007 at 1:37 pm, filed under Asides, East and Central Asia, Ministry of Barbarian Affairs. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
17 Comments
He has a point, but I disagree about renaming historical landmarks. Namdaemun sounds a lot more appropriate than “Great South Gate.”
And the examples he showed in subways and hotels were minor compared to what I see every day.
I don’t really have a problem with “Dongdaemun” and “Euljiro-3-Ga.” Those are English transliterations of Korean words, which is just fine when you’re talking about foreign names for the foreign places in this foreign country. Tell me what they are, not what they translate into! Right now, if a tourist wants to go to Dongdaemun, they can at the very least repeat “Dongdaemun?” over and over and it will be more easily comprehensible than if they were to repeat “East Gate? East Gate?” to a hapless passer-by.
I don’t have a problem with abbreviations either. Sta. means station, Stn. means station! How many other meanings could it possibly have?
Bad translation, however, is hilarious. Everybody knows Grand Open as a ubiquitous (haha, like how I worked that one in?) example of bad English. Confusing signs that aren’t transliterated place names are a problem.
I also find it telling that this guy bitching about improper English usage skips an article and preposition in the sentence “…the specific place of court is generally referred to “Courthouse.”" and uses an improper preposition in the sentence “The same thing goes to our diplomacy…”
But then I get a fuzzy warm feeling knowing that I’ll be needed here for as long as I’m willing to stay!
.. and the various misplaced commas in that article. Does the Korea Herald need a copy editor?
“…recently our immigration office issued an “Exit Notice” to illegal alienations when they should have issued a “Deportation Notice.”
“illegal alienations”?
Even the Herald’s headline is fubar: “Egocentric, confusing signboards” Egocentric signboards? If the English-language papers can’t even write proper English, why go after bureaucrats?
“I was amused by a sign on the shelves that arrayed various gifts from other countries” I would be more amazed than amused that a sign could array gifts…
There are several reasons for the poor English, which the Herald and other papers share, like a refusal to pay proper salaries for qualified editors (i.e. people who actually worked as editors in their home countries), bad second-language education and so on. Until they get their own houses in order they should give it a rest.
This article was another in the long tradition of masturbatory get-out-the-thesaurus-Chulsoo articles that officious busybodies like to have published in the English media here. The purpose is not to achieve any social change (who the hell reads the Korea Herald?) but rather to show off the author’s high level of English ability and worldly skillz. Wank it, Chulsoo, wank it!
“The romanization system is supposed to be designed for the Korean people. Why then should we care about foreigners?”
How can you argue with such logic?
Viz the jizz:
Mr. Kim’s panties are demonstrably in a bunch.
Healer, heal thyself?
@ mateomiguel (#2): I agree with just about all you said; however, “grand open” is not bad English. It’s Korean written in the Roman alphabet.
There seems to be more and more of this these days, with loan words from English and other European languages being written in their original form rather than being changed into Hangul. We can find the word “리더십” in a Korean dictionary, but these days everyone seems to be mixing scripts, writing “leadership가 중요하다,” or some such…
It’s not bad English; it’s Korean katakana.
If the hostess girls would have said ‘would you like to buy me a drink” I would have never spent all that money.
I love the Konglish, as long as it is recognized as such and is not attempting to pass itself off as a cute coinage or something.
My friend once told me that 왤빙 was a uniquely Korean phrase. Of course, one gives up one’s missionary zeal after one meets the adamancy of the mind that defends the fan death. Now that’s coinage.
Your friend is right. “Well bing” is uniquely Korean.
And so is ‘moniteo’ and ‘apateu’ but you don’t see old Sejong getting his tongue-and-mind all confused because he didn’t know whether he should pronounce them as he learned them or apply a heavy accent.
Oh, and don’t forget: Korean, unlike any other language in the world, has many words to describe the colour “red”. I’ve heard that one a couple of times in class. “Oh, really? What about burgundy, vermilion, alizarin, and carmine? Don’t let your ignorance dictate your thoughts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....des_of_red
One thing really confuses me about this guy’s logic (and the poster’s)… What do bad choices for employing romanized text have to do with the choice of romanization schemes?
“Dongdaemun” and “Euljiro-3-Ga.” Those are English transliterations of Korean words…
No! They’re not! I can’t believe the ignorance of the great number of people who believe this crap.
Dongdaemun and Euljiro 3-Ga are Romanisations. They are the Korean language Romanised such that anyone from anywhere in the world with a knowledge of the Roman alphabet can at least, though perhaps not accurately, read Korean names.
Such Romanisation is not purely aimed at English-speaking foreigners. Native English speakers make up only part of the number of foreigners residing in or visiting Korea. Changing the signs to East Gate or Euljiro Third Avenue would leave non-English speaking visitors completely lost in Korea.
The country’s papers, reporters and, it seems, English-speaking residents are under a great misconception on this topic. Korean names shouldn’t be translated to English, but Romanised for the benefit of all those, wherever they come from and whatever their language, to be able to at least make sense of them. Perfect pronunciation of Korean names won’t ever be achieved by any Romanisation system unless the reader has a knowledge of the Korean language.
Korea’s obsession with the English language, while it keeps many of us employed, is in many ways harmful. Whether teaching children or adults, I have always taught Romanisation and made them aware of the difference between English and Romanised Korean.
The next time you’re at the bank or the immigration office and filling in a form, notice where it says “English Name” or “English Only” and spare a thought for the huge number of foreigners in Korea, like myself, who don’t have an English name.
Romanisation. Not Englishisation!