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

[Soobok Lee]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:59:19AM +0900, Yangwoo Ko wrote:
> 
> 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;

HUN-MIN-JEONG-EUM is the standard document defining HANGUL.

You should look into  5th line in http://www.hangul.or.kr/4-10.html
carefully, you see vowel jamo "I".

You should look into  3th line in http://www.hangul.or.kr/4-9.html
, you see consonant jamo "KI-YEOK".

Not only hangul syllables but also jamo letters form hangul words.

Such use is not an "illustrative" use of jamo letters.

> 
> <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.

You should read "HUN-MONG-JAE-HOE" which was published later time.
HUN-MIN-JEONG-EUM does not define how to reading JAMO, but it is 
unreasonable to assume hangul inventors don't pronunciate jamos
in the very standard document. HUN-MONG-JAE-HOE contain the pronunciation
of jamos.

Soobok

> 
> >>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.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update