Print

Print


Hi!

Sanghyeon Seo <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>...
> Hello, I am a lurker, and I am a native Korean speaker. Yes, it looks
> weird to me, but still interesting. Perhaps that's because I am a
> conlanger though. :-)

Hi! :-)  Nice to meet you!

> First, we Koreans are not accustomed to the language written in
> Hanguel which has many monosyllable words like yours: so the word
> spacing looks quite weird.

Ah, interesting.  There are a few words that have two syllables, but
the vast majority so far has only one.

> We sometimes write Japanese or Chinese, even English in Hangeul, but
> we don't see all words[!] written in one Hangeul 'unit'. For
> example, "strange" is a monosyllable but we write it as
> \354\212\244\355\212\270\353\240\210\354\235\270\354\247\200.

Errm, I cannot read Unicode, sorry.  The list server often breaks
UTF-8, too.  I cannot judge whether it broke this, but my newsreader
is still unable to show me Unicode, sorry.

> Next, any syllable ending in khieukh looks very weird.

Ah! :-)

> We don't use that even for transcribing foreign languages. But I can
> understand that you need to differentiate g/k and x... Official
> Hangeul transcription of German uses ....

Cannot read those either, unfortunately.

> Hangeul choice for t, s, n, l, k, h is good, using ieung for both ng and
> ' is brilliant. Vowel assignments also make a lot of sense.

One problem was that [1] and [M] exist, but no [u], so I had to make
choices about which Korean vowel to use for which.  No ideal assignment,
but better than nothing, maybe.

> I'd use ? and vowel separately for [j]+vowels, remove space between
> particle-like prefix words and core words, change [x] as above,
> perhaps write [3] and [E] has two vowels -- to make it "look natural"
> to Korean eyes. But of course then you lose the beauty of one-to-one
> correspondence.

Hmm, I don't think I want a natural Korean writing, actually -- the
language is different.  Writing particles as parts of words is not
really correct, and breaking one-to-one correspondence would not be
elegant, I think, since as it is, Hanguel strangely fits the phonology
of Tyl Sjok quite whell.

> By the way, the most interesting way to use Hangeul for conlang
> would be adopt Modern Korean's "morphophonemic spelling".

Tyl Sjok has almost no sandhi that would change much, so phonetic and
morphophonemic spelling are quite the same.

> That is, where many agglutinative suffixes has well-understood
> automatic changes, those phonemic changes are not written to keep
> inflected forms as close as possible to the root.

Very annoying though, when a foreigner tries to re-encode a Korean
address he received in romanization (with all the fancy phonetic rules
applied, of course) back to Hangeul.  *shudder* :-)))

**Henrik

PS: Please add a note that you are a G-Mail user and your Reply-To is
    broken, since your Reply-To is broken and I almost accidentally
    replied privately to you.  The welcome message explains this.
    (Did you get one?)