Proposal to add "Kore' as Suppress-Script for 'ko'

[CE Whitehead]

Doug, this answered all my questions; the suppress-script of kore for the 
subtag ko
is fine with me if it is the script most commony not identified with the 
subtag ko and if it is the most commonly used script in North and South 
Korea combined.  Especially since it allows the various Hanja characters on 
top of the Hangul, so it allows all varieties to be parsed, so I do not see 
a problem.

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com

Doug Ewell dewell at roadrunner.com
wrote:
>
>There's no unified KO, of course; there's only KR and KP, which brings back 
>the question of whether usage in KR and in KP is different enough to 
>justify different script tagging.  As we will see, I think it is not.
>
>Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:
>
>>Adding "kore" to "ko" seems natural enough, but I also think it 
>>problematic (shouldn't we suppress pure Hangul too??).
>
>Well, obviously we can't, as there'd be no way to derive the missing 
>script.  But wait.
>
>>In fact and in practice, the script subtag says nothing about the range of 
>>characters in a document bearing the subtag. I could label this document 
>>as being "en-Latn-US", even though it includes the word 文字化け.

This is bizarre!
>
>And this is why I don't think there is a problem with suppressing Kore. 
>Similar to the other "alias" script subtags (Hrkt and Jpan), Kore 
>represents "some combination" of Hangul and Han (Hanja).  It isn't stated 
>that the combination must be 50/50, and in fact it won't be anywhere near 
>that for Korean.  Modern Korean is almost always written overwhelmingly in 
>Hangul with (as CE called it) a smattering of Hanja, even in governmental 
>and scholarly works.  (For Jpan there is typically a larger concentration 
>of Kanji, but the principle is the same.)

Thank yo ufor this information
>
>In fact, consistent with Addison's observation that "en-Latn" text may 
>contain some occasional non-Latin characters, I contend that a given sample 
>of "ko-Kore" text *might actually not contain any Hanja at all*. The 
>important determining factor that makes such text different from "ko-Hang" 
>is that it is not *assumed* to be free of Hanja.  Rather, it is written in 
>the typical Korean mixed writing system and just coincidentally happens to 
>be all Hangul (just as this en-Latn message happens to contain no instances 
>of the letter Z, until now :).

Again, thanks; this answers my questions.
>
>I understand this may be controversial, but I think it explains a key 
>difference between Kore and Hang.  A children's book might be written in 
>ko-Hang, meaning that a deliberate effort was made to avoid all use of 
>Hanja.  A newspaper article would be written in ko-Kore, meaning that its 
>author recognizes Hanja as part of the overall writing system, even if no 
>Hanja are actually used.  This also explains how North and South Korea can 
>both be considered to use Kore, if there is any use of Hanja at all in the 
>DPRK (as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanja#Education says there is).

Thanks!
>
>--
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!  
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2