Hangul jamo issues - are jamo sequences legitimate?
Soobok Lee
lsb at lsb.org
Tue Jan 9 14:29:16 CET 2007
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 05:14:02PM +0900, Yangwoo Ko wrote:
>
> Soobok Lee wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:28:40AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> >
> >>To repeat what has been said in other areas, the fact that a
> >>sequence is legitimate in some present or past use of the
> >>language, or that it would be comprehensible if used in a name,
> >>does not imply a "right" to have it included in the DNS. We
> >>should be careful about excluding it. But we should also not
> >>assume that, because it is possible and sources of conflicts
> >>cannot easily be identified, permitting it is a good idea.
> >>
> >
> >Hangul jamo sequences has been legitimate _by definition_
> >and by tradition _. No room for debate!
> >
> Wrong. As its original name ('Hun Min Jeong Eum' meaning correct sound
> to teach people) implies, hangul was introduced as a way to spell sounds
> correctly. There is no way to read consonant jamos by themselves. Thus,
> jamo sequences are not legitimate by definition.
> >Some confusible combinations of jamo sequences - as described
> >below - should be managed by registration policies.
You are pointing that stand-alone jamo chars are not hangul syllables.
I know and agree on that.
But see http://www.hangul.or.kr/4-b23.htm
(This is a scanned image of old HUN-MIN-JEONG-EUM HAE-RYAE texts
written by JUNG IN-JI (one of hangul inventors) in 15th century.
You can see KI-YEOK and other jamos and even _jamo sequences_ are
used in korean sentences as independent words.
KI-YEOK without vowel jamos should be pronunciated
according to the context, mostly as "KI-YEOK", but in some
cases pronunciated as having hidden vowel EU.
vowel jamo O-AE without preceding consonant should be pronunciated
according to the context, mostly as "O-AE",
as having hidden preceding consonant I-EUNG.
Jamo sequences or single-jamo word is not a hangul syllable, but
had, ___ by definition ____, been legitimate from 15th century.
And, that is why we can see jamo-containing words in dictionaries
and business names and book names etc.
>mo >
> Not that frequent but still we can find some names (e.g. business names
> and book titles) including jamo sequences.
Yes. If you review _any_ korean dictionary,
it is not difficult to find jamo-containing words, even in the first page.
Such use had been legitimated from 15th century by the hangul inventors
themselves.
> The principle that I can
> agree with is jamo sequences should be allowed as long as we are
> confident that harmful sequences can be clearly identified and hence
> effectively excluded.
Surely, fillers and u+11xx/u+31xx glyph conflicts and others should be
managed well.
>Since NIDA started to follow up this discussion I
> hope that more discussions within Korean community could result in some
> conclusions quite soon.
I don't know how "quite soon" we can have list up confusibility problems
around jamos, but we should do, anyway.
Regards,
Soobok
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list