Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrative violence or personal attack?[edit]

Atelaes deleted the following commentary from under the section Homophones without any prior discussion. This is hopelessly nasty, isn't it?

--KYPark 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The information above talks about the entry as though it is from the outside - this is the wrong tone of voice for a dictionary which should only describe the words. It is also a bit long and lengthy and doesn't make its point clearly and succinctly which is what dictionaries are all about. I feel the talk page is the right place for the commentary as it stands. Conrad.Irwin 00:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Conrad summed up my motivation rather succinctly. I feel very strongly that such commentary does not belong within the entry (but is acceptable on the talk page). Also, you may want to post this on the WT:BP if you hope to get much more of a response. I doubt many people will see it here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Both of you should have talked like this prior to Atelaes' complete deletion. The length, clarity, relevance, "tone," or whatever may be more or less debatable. The "wrong tone of voice" could be counter-edited to the right tone, namely through edit wars. But few readers would agree that my commentary is wholly irrelevant and worth such rubbish as to be entirely deleted without prior discussion, advice, or counter-edit. I am quite upset by such a nasty way of treating me as an editor who has tried to contribute as much as I could. (Atelaes may duly excuse himself or apologize for this.) Yesterday I spent practically the whole day aiming for more and more improvements of that commentary and the other contents, willing to make a preciser and conciser point, as shown by such frequent edits.
In this regard, I talked cats and dogs last year with a few admins, including Stephen and perhaps you Atelaes. As a result in my favor, I guess, the so-called "RR Transliteration" provision was reflected on the Wikt policy and the "ko-pron" template. My point is that all the existing Romanizations of Korean is highly problematic not only from orthographic but also even orthoepic perspective. The Wikt readers should know that anyway! So I will further speak up to show up here and perhaps elsewhere. Someday I may post this question on the WT:BP as Atelaes sugguests. By the way, Conrad, what do you mean by "as though it is from the outside?" --KYPark 05:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


For Hangul 못하다 "cannot do"

This RR conforms to the Wikt policy. Nevertheless some readers may mistake its /th/ for English /th/ as of moth and/or mother, especially when the Pronunciation section is missing, as was the case prior to my edits. I am blaming no previous one for this. But readers should know how such information could possibly mislead them.

A reasonable alternative is mot-hada. Yet, it should be taken into account that the primary motivation for Romanization lies in proper names, which people may well like to do with few or no hyphen. Such would be moreover the case when the Roman orthography is intended besides Hangul. --KYPark 08:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


For Hangul 못타요 "cannot ride"

Readers may well mistake the /tt/ of this RR for /ㄸ/, or perhaps be puzzled by the difference between this RR and motayo for the phontic hangul "모타요". A shift may be mot-tayo. --KYPark 08:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be 못 타요, mot tayo. You need a space between the negative adverb and the verb. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


For Hangul 못가요 "cannot go"

Readers may be puzzled by the difference between this RR and mokkayo for the phonetic hangul "모까요". Orthography is one hare; orthoepy is another. Such are the orthographic or canonical Hangul and orthoepic or phonetic Hangul. Accordingly, such should be the orthographic and orthoepic Roman transcriptions or transliterations of Korean. Then, the current Wiktionary policy of Romanization of Korean attempting to adapt the orthographic Hangul to the effect of the orthoepic Hangul exactly looks like chasing the two hares. Such a policy is inherently self-contradictory and all inconsistency. Simplicity and clarity are what the dictionary is all about!

In a nutshell, motgayo does relate to orthography, while mokkayo to orthoepy, from which readers may learn an additional lesson that the voiced /g/ and the like becomes voiceless after /t/ or the like, as is the case with motgayo. This is exactly the principle underlying the orthographic Hangul that appears to violate orthoepy so often. In conclusion, Wiktionary would better have two Roman transliterations: one for the orthographic and another for the orthoepic or phonetic Hangul. --KYPark 08:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Every language using the Roman alphabet is proud of its own way of pronouncing it. Thus, /j/ for example sounds different in English and German. Such should be the Roman alphabet for Korean. And foreigners interested in Korean should learn the Korean way of pronunciation, however eccentric it may sound. It would be an additional virtue to make it less eccentric. In this regard, the RR motgayo in its own right would be good enough to be pronounced like mokkayo for the phonetic hangul. It is from this perspective that even the so-called "RR transliteration" mosgayo exactly matching with Hangul could be superior to motgayo which is still far from the orthoepic mokkayo. The "middle way" or "third way" like motgayo may not always be the best, if not the worst. --KYPark 11:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)