RE: Hangul script type

From: Karlsson Kent - keka (keka@im.se)
Date: Tue Oct 16 2001 - 09:01:08 EDT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jungshik Shin [mailto:jshin@pantheon.yale.edu]
...
> > ...
> > > art understanding of ....) The shape of 'derived'/related consonants
> > > were determined/derived by adding a stroke or point to basic
consonants
> > > ( Giyeok [k/g] -> Kieuk [k'], Digeut [t/d] -> Tieut[t'], etc) so that
> > > consonants close in terms of pronunciation are similar to
> > > each other in
> >
> > How is that manifested in modern Hangul, if at all? How is it manifested
> > in Unicode? I haven't noticed anything resembling what you describe,
...
> For instance, all aspirated consonants are represented by
> adding a bar to the sign of the resepcitve non-aspirated consonants.
> Palatalization is likewise indicated by an additional stroke. Diphtongs,
> too, are represented by adding the same element in all cases to basic
> vowel signs.
>
> Let me just give an example. The shape of U+0110F (Hangul Choseong Khieuk:
> aspirated) is obtained by adding a horizontal stroke to U+01100 (Hangul
> Choseong Kiyeok: non-aspirated)

Oh, now I see what you mean. What lead me astray was that you wrote
Kieuk for the letter named Khieukh in Unicode (similarly for Tieut).
I took Kieuk to be the same as Kiyeok, since from what little I know
Kieuk is the preferred 'northern' spelling out (in the Latin script)
of that letter's name.
From ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22/WG20 N879:
<S1100> % HANGUL CHOSEONG KIYEOK (KIEUK)
<S1103> % HANGUL CHOSEONG TIKEUT (TIEUT)
So I mistakenly thought you meant something that made the "k"/"g"
(ambiguous transcription) letter into something that should always
be transcribed as just a "k".

...
> section 3.11 (Conjoining Jamo Behavior). In MS implementation, I.C.,
> M.V. and F.C. can be either a single code point in U+1100 Jamo block
> (as described in Unicode 3.0) or a composite of two or more
> code points
> in the block. 3.11 of TUS 3.0 may have to be revised to reflect this.

Do you know if any such rewriting/expansion of the TUS text is in
the works? The (compatibility) decomposition of the double consonants
were, however, removed from Unicode a while ago. Do you mean that
they really should have been canonical decompositions (too late to
change now).

                /kent k



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Oct 16 2001 - 10:32:12 EDT