Re: ISO 15924 draft fixes

From: Antoine Leca (
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 14:05:00 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: ISO 15924 draft fixes"

    > Antoine Leca a écrit :
    >> The French name for Hang looks strange. It happened to be "hangul
    >> (hangul, hangeul)" (after quite a bit of discussion.)

    Sorry guys. For reasons known to itself, my mailer refused to post in UTF-8
    this morning. I meant "hangul(hangul, hangeul)".

    According to a native <> the
    correct form are the ones between parenthesis (with an added apostrophe
    between han'gul).

    : From: "Jian YANG"
    : Subject: Re: Re: (iso15924.275) "Hangul (Hang~ul, Hangeul)"
    : as script name (~is adiacritical mark)
    : Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 15:49:25 -0400
    : «Hangeul» = Norme de romanisation du Ministère de
    : l'Éducation de la Corée du Sud;
    : «Hangul» = Romanisation Mc-Cune-Reischauer (la forme exacte
    : est «Han'gul» : «u» with breve, et non caron; mais on a
    : enlevé le signe diacritique pour accommoder la convention de
    : ascii, sans doute);

    On Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:51 PM, Patrick Andries va escriure:
    > The name in ISO/CEI 10646 (F) is « hangûl » from a Corean dictionary
    > and a Corean grammar published by the Inalco (Langues O').

    Clearly, the Langues'O did adapt it to French typographical possibilities,
    reversing the breve accent into a circumflex.

    > Another
    > suggested form in some sources, to appromixate the pronounciation.
    > is « hangueul »

    This is the other form, with an added, euphonical u after the g, to avoid a
    complete misprononciation.

    About whether all this right or not, I do not know. But I believe this text
    did go through two ballots against the very people of Langues'O (?), so we
    have no reason to correct now what was accepted in the standard. The only
    choice right now is to type exactly what was printed, since I understand we
    do not have any more the master that served to the [F]DIS texts.

    Since I am not a member of TC46, and furthermore I was away from the process
    last year, I might very easily be wrong.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 20 2004 - 14:06:59 CDT