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

[CE Whitehead]

Thanks for info!  I can change back to supporting [kore] as a default script 
if it turns out to be that native speakers perceive that they normally write 
in what could be labelled [kore], and not in pure Hangul.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
>
>Hi -
>
>I've been having a lengthy off-list discussion with Korean friends,
>and one thing we've stumbled over is confusion between "Hanja-eo"
>(words which at one time or other could be written using Hanja -
>i.e., sino-korean vocabulary) and "Hanja" (the ideographs themselves).
>This can lead to seemingly odd statements.  For example, one claimed a
>passage made up entirely of characters composed from jamos isn't
>pure hangul if it contains "transliterated hanja" (sino-korean
>vocabulary, which accounts for a large percentage of the language)
>even when no ideographs appear!
>
>This confusion leads to claims that ideographs are used more than
>they actually are, and at the same time to a denial that "pure"
>hangul is ever used at all.
>
>Though I still think ko = ko-kore is probably the correct call,
>I'm finding that the articles C. E. Whitehead cited are at odds
>with at least some native speakers' perceptions with regard to
>the current status of ideograph usage.
>
>I'd encourage others with contacts in the Korean-speaking community
>to dig into this, and, if possible, encourage those with first-hand
>knowledge to contribute directly to this discussion.
>
>Randy
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_________________________________________________________________
Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play now!  
http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=club_hotmailtextlink1