Hangul jamo issues - are jamo sequences legitimate?

[Yangwoo Ko]

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.
>   
Not that frequent but still we can find some names (e.g. business names 
and book titles) including jamo sequences. 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. Since NIDA started to follow up this discussion I 
hope that more discussions within Korean community could result in some 
conclusions quite soon.

Regards