[Almost OT] Re: Hangul jamo issues - are jamo sequences legitimate?

[Yangwoo Ko]

Soobok Lee wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:29:16PM +0900, Soobok Lee wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> More:
> 
> You can look into 
>     http://www.hangul.or.kr/4-10.html 
> and http://www.hangul.or.kr/4-9.html  as well.
> 
> They contains words of consonant/vowel sequences in old sentences.

I am aware of these examples and they just reinforce my understanding 
that jamo sequences were not defined to be used by themselves. Though 
these examples show that we can use jamo sequences but they are all just 
for illustrative use. For those who don't understand Hangul/Korean, one 
of these examples can be interpreted (in a very poor way) as;

<poor interpretation>
EU, O, U, ... should be written below of initial consonant;
I, A, EO, ... should be written right-side of initial consonant;
Characters can make a sound ONLY WHEN they are properly composed...
</poor interpretation>

These use cases are very similar to Unicode code pages. Even though they 
include "parts" of characters, it does not justify that these parts 
should be understood and used by themselves even in very restrictive 
naming/identifier spaces.

> 
> Soobok
> 
>> 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.

Would send me pointers to documents supporting these arguments? It is 
very interesting to me.

>> Jamo sequences or single-jamo word is not a hangul syllable, but
>> had, ___ by definition ____, been legitimate from 15th century.

As argued above, my understanding is that they are just for illustration.

>> And, that is why we can see  jamo-containing words in dictionaries
>> and business names and book names etc.