From: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com To: the_dojang-digest@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Subject: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #557 Reply-To: the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Errors-To: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Precedence: The_Dojang-Digest Mon, 8 Nov 1999 Vol 06 : Num 557 In this issue: the_dojang: The Korean Alphabet, Its History and Structure the_dojang: RE: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #556 the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #556 the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #556 Re: the_dojang: Kwans the_dojang: . ========================================================================= The_Dojang, serving the Internet since June 1994. ~800 members strong! Copyright 1994-99: Ray Terry, California Taekwondo, Martial Arts Resource Replying to this message will NOT unsubscribe you. To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe the_dojang-digest" (no quotes) in the body (top line, left justified) of a plain text e-mail addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. To send e-mail to this list use the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com See the Korean Martial Arts (KMA) FAQ and online search the last four years worth of digest issues at http://www.MartialArtsResource.com Pil Seung! Ray Terry, PO Box 110841, Campbell, CA 95011 KMA@MartialArtsResource.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ray Terry Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:11:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: the_dojang: The Korean Alphabet, Its History and Structure Forwarding. Ray - ------------------------------ _The Korean Alphabet: Its History and Structure_, _The Korean Alphabet: Its History and Structure_, ed. by Young-Key Kim-Renaud. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1997. xii + 317pp. (ISBN 0-8248-1989-6 cloth; ISBN 0-8248-1723-0 paper). Reviewed by Joe J. Ree Florida State University [This review first appeared in _Acta Koreana_ 2 (1999), pp.174-79. _Acta Koreana_ is published by Academia Koreana of Keimyung University.] The ten articles in this collection were papers presented at a special symposium that was organized by the editor herself in conjunction with the Eighth International Conference on Korean Linguistics, held at George Washington University in 1992. The ten essays are preceded by the editor's lucid and informative introductory chapter, and are, quite appropriately, followed by Samuel E. Martin's weighty commentary. This collection is dedicated to Professor Ki-Moon Lee, one of the contributors, as being "our most esteemed colleague and teacher, who has enlightened us not only on so many aspects of the Korean language and its history but also on the importance of studying it with love and sincerity" (Preface, xi). How appropriate it is indeed for a special volume like this on the Korean alphabet to be dedicated to a teacher and scholar who has taught us all, Koreans and Westerners alike, so much about the Korean language. For the purpose of linguistic analyses, i.e. structural analyses, it is always the spoken form of language that is taken to be primary, as one is likely to be "indoctrinated" in any introductory course in linguistics. However, this is not to diminish the importance of writing. As the Chinese proverb puts it, "The palest ink is better than the sharpest memory," so human memory is short-lived, and the brain can store only so much information, which is often subject to error or forgetfulness. The unavoidable, clichŽ-like reminder, "I'd better write it down, or else I'll forget it," certainly attests to human psychological limitations. Writing not only overcomes such immediate problems but also allows communication across the miles and through the centuries. Needless to say, then, the creation and development of writing systems is one of the greatest of human achievements (Fromkin and Rodman, p. 363). The invention of the Korean alphabet is the very symbol, a "powerful icon" (Lee and Ramsey), of Korea and Korean culture. In South Korea, it is called han'gžl and is often equated with the Korean language itself. The invention of han'gžl has been and will always be an indelible mark of national pride. King Sejong's marvelous invention of the Korean alphabet, which he called Hunmin ch™ngžm (The Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People), is often and justly described as an act of epochal genius (Ledyard, p. 31). This Korean alphabet is also acclaimed by many scholars as being unlike any other writing system in the world. In Fromkin and Rodman's words, "... the unique style of Korean writing is unlike that of the Europeans, the Arabians, the Chinese, the Cascagians, or even 'ladies in English'" (p. 376). Han'gžl being the only alphabet completely native to East Asia "distinguish[es] itself among writing systems of the world with its scientific qualities (Preface, ix). Although any Korean can readily name King Sejong when the word han'gžl is mentioned, scholars have long racked their brains over the question of who really invented the alphabet, how the shapes of the letters were created, and what the "theoretical" underpinnings were. After at least a half century's scholarship probing into the origin and background of han'gžl, its graphic structure is yet to be fully appreciated. There has been much praise but little appraisal. Han'gžl has been admired, and rightly so, but has not been critically analyzed (Chin W. Kim, p. 145). As is widely known, the Korean alphabet was invented in the fifteenth century, but it was not until the discovery in 1940 of an original copy of the 1446 document called Hunmin ch™ngžm haerye (Explanations and Examples of the Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People) that scholars began much vigorous research into the underlying principles and the origin of han'gžl (Preface, ix). Yet, no comprehensive study of this remarkable writing system by any specialist of the Korean language is available in one place for those unable to read Korean, says the editor. And the purpose of this collection is to fill this gap and to meet international needs by presenting research and thought-provoking interpretations by eminent scholars of the cultural-historical and theoretical-linguistic background of the Korean alphabet (Preface, x). Who, indeed, better than the distinguished scholars Kim-Renaud so sagaciously chose can delve into the background of the making of the alphabet and translate it into modern terms? The idea of a symposium devoted solely to the Korean alphabet, and subsequently this invaluable volume could hardly have been conceived at a better time. Kim-Renaud should be commended for her wisdom in initiating this important step. The first six articles are devoted to some important linguistic, cultural, and philosophical issues underlying Hunmin ch™ng'žm although the very first essay, the one by Ki-Moon Lee, stands out in that he makes a very cogent argument in support of his view that King Sejong alone was the inventor of the alphabet. The essays by Chin W. Kim and Kim-Renaud examine the alphabet in light of contemporary theories of phonology, particularly in terms of phonological units. Ho-Min Sohn's article which succinctly compares divergent orthographic conventions of South Korea and North Korea is extremely interesting and informative. The North Korean orthographic practice seems to manifest, at least to a certain extent, a living example of how arbitrary or even nationalistic a language policy could be made to be. Ross King's article, which is topically placed after all the others, is a fascinating account of experimentation with the "on-line" (linearized) writing of han'gžl. The prevalent view on the invention of the alphabet has been and still is that King Sejong did not personally create it. This interpretation seems to go back to the Yongjae ch'onghwa (volume 7) of S™ng Hy™n (1439-1504). I quote: "Sejong established the ïnmun ch'™ng (Vernacular Script Headquarters) and gave orders to Sin Sukchu, Song Sammun, et al., to create the Vernacular Script ..." (Ki-Moon Lee, p. 11). That is, Sejong gave orders to certain scholars to create the alphabet, which Ki-Moon Lee calls a "command" hypothesis. Subsequently, Chu Sigy™ng, a linguist-patriot and a member of the enlightenment movement (who is believed to have been instrumental in changing the original name of the Korean alphabet ™nmun (vernacular writing) to han'gžl), is reported to have said that "there had been collaborators in the invention of the alphabet," which is labeled as the "cooperation" hypothesis by Ki-Moon Lee (p. 12). What Ki-Moon Lee convincingly argues against these views, among other pieces of evidence, is this: "... the earliest record of the Korean alphabet (Sejong sillok, vol. 102) begins as follows: 'This month, His Highness personally created the twenty-eight letters of the Vernacular Script (™nmun).'" Lee offers this assessment: It is easy to imagine that it might have been customary at the time to ascribe all accomplishments to the king. But in fact such was not the case. Rather, of all the many accomplishments of Sejong, this is the only instance in which the Sejong sillok described the accomplishment as ch'inje (the personal creation of the king)...it is clear that the phrase ch'inje was not a mere figure of speech (p. 13). This certainly changes the dynamics of the theory to which many scholars adhere. Personally, I find it difficult to accept a one-inventor theory on the basis of this particular piece of research, enlightening though it is. The extensive research that has been carried out by other scholars tends to point to the probability which Chin W. Kim has articulated: han'gžl is "... a synthesis of many writing systems in Asia, all of them coexisting in subtle harmony, subtle enough to make [their] presence not readily recognizable, but each element detectable enough to invite diverse theories of origins" (1988, pp. 732-733). What makes the Korean writing system unique is that it is half-alphabetic and half- syllabic. It is alphabetic in that one letter represents one sound, be it a vowel or consonant; i.e., k + a = ka (go) or a + k + i = aki (baby). This way of writing a word coincides with the convention of "on-line" (linear) writing in English, whose writing system is also alphabetic. However, the parallelism ends here. Words with closed or checked syllables are written in syllable blocks, which makes the writing non-linear. For example, the Korean counterpart of "The wind is blowing" is written as: pa lam i pul ™ yo, not palamipul™yo. Since every Korean has grown up in the non-linear system, it is difficult to be objective about this alternative of linear writing. However, Ross King's detailed and fascinating account of experimentation with the "on-line" system in Russia and the USSR in 1914-1937 certainly leaves us wondering if we could have avoided the heated discussions and controversies about spelling and spacing problems that haunt us today. Gari Ledyard's main point is that King Sejong's knowledge of the Mongolian 'Phags-pa practices enabled him to critically examine the Chinese riming theory and to see the need for the "middle sound" (chungs™ng), which was the vowel or diphthong. Ledyard suggests that King Sejong's analysis of vowels represented new thinking that transcended traditional Chinese phonological thought (p. 40). Pyong-Hi Ahn offers views that are similar to Ledyard's. His extensive research leads him to the conclusion that "in developing the Korean alphabet, knowledge of Neo-Confucianism and Chinese phonology was used to a great extent" (p. 100). Ahn goes on to say that Sejong and his counselors thought it necessary to study the writing systems of 'Phags-pa, Sanskrit, and Japanese kana. Sang-Oak Lee offers an interesting idea about the designing of han'gžl letters. The essential characteristics of the shapes of the letters are the creation of related letters by the addition of strokes to basic letters, and writing words in syllabic units (p. 107). In addition to these characteristics, says Lee, some calligraphic principles have been applied: (1) maintaining equidistance in adding strokes and in creating syllabic units, and (2) limiting the size of syllabic units to the inside of squares in equal sequence. What is particularly interesting with regard to these characteristics is Lee's insightful idea of density, which is impossible to show without the actual graphic representations of related han'gžl letters. Sinhang Kang shows a correlation between the actual Sino-Korean readings and the readings of Chinese characters presented in Tongguk ch™ngun (Correct Rhymes of the Eastern Country) in 1447. He says that "these correspondences are especially striking in the two vowel systems" (p. 125). In Tongguk ch™ngun, character readings were transcribed in the Korean alphabet and arranged in such a way as to show clearly the initial consonants, the vowels, and the endings of the finals, whose arrangement corresponded to the phonological system of initials, vowels, and final endings found in the promulgation document of the Korean alphabet (p. 118). Robert Ramsey's essay reveals some interesting findings concerning consonant clusters, aspirated consonants, and complex tonal patterns that were lost in some dialects. Many geminated consonants (written with double consonant letters) are explained by the process of syncope (deletion of medial vowels) (pp. 139-140). As a person whose area of linguistics is outside of the expertise that is required to review a book of this magnitude, which encompasses nothing less than King Sejong's invention of han'gžl, I am afraid I may have done injustice to some of the essays either by representing the author's views incorrectly, or by not offering the comment they definitely deserve. In either case, I beg the author's forgiveness. There is hope yet, however, for thoroughly appreciating the wealth of information and analyses that are presented in each of the essays. The final commentary chapter by Professor Martin, the "founding father" of Korean linguistics in the West, provides that hope. Also, the reading of the editor's introductory chapter is a must in this regard. Martin seems to accept the prevailing view that Sejong was an expert on Chinese theories of phonology, and that some of the scholars around him were even more sophisticated, particularly Sin Sukchu, one of the brilliant young men in the Academy of Worthies (Chiphy™nj™n). No scholar today questions the influence of Chinese phonological theories on the designing of the Korean alphabet. However, a major breakthrough was that Sejong was able to reanalyze Chinese riming theory. In the Chinese theory of the rime, the vowel was never separated from the final consonant, and the phonemic identity of initial and final consonants was not recognized. That is to say, Chinese phonologists had failed to split the vowel from the final consonant and to identify final consonants with initial consonants (Martin, p. 264). Martin seems to support Ledyard's assumption that the achievement of that analysis was the result of a familiarity with the Mongolian 'Phags-pa alphabet. In commenting on Chin W. Kim's suggestion of the featural characteristic of the Korean script, he admonishes us against the "modernist fallacy of ascribing to King Sejong notions set forth as the latest fads of linguistic theory" (p. 268). On this point I will have to agree with Professor Martin. Martin's rich comments on the other essays, such as Kim-Renaud's idea of "psychological saliency" for Korean speakers in grouping letters into syllable blocks, Sang-Oak Lee's description of the horizontal and vertical "density" of syllable blocks, and Ramsey's discussion of consonant clusters, cannot easily be summarized, and to be properly savored must be read in each scholar's own words. The editor should be applauded for providing a useful index, which is somewhat unusual for a collection of essays. Undoubtedly, the publication of essays written in English offering scholarly analyses of the Korean alphabet is long overdue, and ought to be most welcome for the insights it provides to the Western audience. For all students or devotees of han'gžl, this book should prove to be an immeasurably helpful source of a wealth of hitherto inaccessible information, and a powerful impetus for further research. In all fairness, however, the book is unfortunately not for the reader without considerable sophistication in phonology and historical linguistics. References Fromkin, V., and Robert Rodman. 1993. _An Introduction to Language_. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Kim, Chin-W. 1988. "Origin and Structure of the Korean Script." _Sojourns in Language II_, 721-734. Seoul: Tower Press. Lee, Iksop, and S. Robert Ramsey. "The Korean Language" (ms.). Citation: Ree, Joe J. 1999 Review of Young-Key Kim-Renaud, ed., _The Korean Alphabet: Its History and Structure_ (1997) Korean Studies Review 1999, no. 8 Electronic file: http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/korean-studies/files/ksr99-08.htm ------------------------------ From: "Vaught, Clifford (CLF N6Y2K8)" Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:22:16 -0500 Subject: the_dojang: RE: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #556 Sally, I don't have my History of the Moo Duk Kwan (Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation) in front of me as I write this, and perhaps Mr. McHenry will respond to your question as well, but Gen Choi created Tae Kwon Do under the auspices of the Korean Sports Association and then attempted to first remove the names of each existing Kwan and simply number them. Then intense pressure from the Korean government was brought to bear against the Kwans to unify. GM Hwang Kee refused, and only after a decision by the Korean Supreme Court was the Moo Duk Kwan allowed to remain. So I don't believe there was a point where all the kwans actually unified, although the attempt was made. If you get a copy of the book I mentioned above, GM Hwang Kee has two charts in it that lay out the kwans, styles, and important person connected with the kwan pre and post Korean war. Hope that is of some help. Cliff Vaught ------------------------------ From: "Silke Schulz" Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:48:43 -0800 Subject: the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #556 SESilz wrote: >I think, sir, if we are applying a Korean term here, it would be "moo do." >Any thoughts? Thank you...I don't know much Korean, so I merely applied the term that I know. Now that I know the Korean word, I will remember it. With all due respect, though, I am much more accustomed to being called "ma'am" than "sir", I don't have a "Y" chromosome of which I'm aware. In the spirit of "moo do", Silke Schulz ------------------------------ From: "Silke Schulz" Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:06:20 -0800 Subject: the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #556 SESilz wrote: >Please understand the sentiments of my comments in this >light. Best regards to you. I do understand, sir. You are entitled to your own beliefs in the same way that I am entitled to mine. Unfortunately, many martial artists are taught their martial art, but not how to teach. We were all taught how to punch, how to perform a front stance, but how many of us were taught by our instructors that there people learn three different ways and that each of us has one predominant method of learning we prefer, etc.? Also, please disregard my previous comment regarding the "ma'am" vs. "sir". I did not get to this comment until after I had already sent the last one. I will have to hold my replies until I get through the entire digest next time. In the spirit of moo do, Silke Schulz ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:16:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: the_dojang: Kwans > If the history of Taekwondo we've heard is to be believed, the heads of the > several Kwans in Korea came together and created a kind of "universal" Korean > martial art known as Taekwondo. At that time, the various Kwans were > supposedly absorbed into Taekwondo. > > How does it happen that now we still have Taekwondo (Jidokwan system) and > Taekwondo (Chungdokwan system)? Wouldn't we have Taekwondo, Jidokwan, and > Chungdokwan, three different Korean martial arts? Or at least Taekwondo and > "Korean Karate" (Jidokwan system; Chungdokwan system; etc.)? > > This is something I've wondered about for a while... Can someone explain it > to me? Let me try, first a quick review... In the mid-late 1940s several kwans/schools were formed in Korea, each kwan had its own head or Master. Most of the Masters had at least some prior training in martial arts. An early attempt was made in the 40s to get the kwans to unite, but each Master (or most of them) wanted to be in charge of his own school (or be the one to be in charge of all the schools). Also a kwan was something of a fraternity, you joined that fraternity when you received your 1st Dan, and you were then a member of that fraternity for life. You helped out your fellow 'brothers' and they helped out you. More kwans were formed in the early-mid 50s, with Gen. Choi's Oh Do Kwan being one of them. It was a sub-kwan of the Chung Do Kwan. Being a military man in favor with the then current government he had significant power after the Korean War. He called a meeting of the kwan heads to again discuss uniting the kwans. From this committee the name Taekwondo apparently came, but the name didn't really catch on until about 10 years later. The South Korean government finally got more involved, most of the kwans were uniting but the Masters still held tight to their kwans roots. Their kwan affiliation was more important to them than their affiliation to Taekwondo or the Kukkiwon. Along this time came the attempt to stomp out the kwans, to get people to forget about them. They replaced their names with numbers, and later didn't even acknowledge the numbers. This was again to get the kwan affiliation to be replaced with the Taekwondo and Kukkiwon affiliation. It worked, to some degree. 15-25 years ago it was rather difficult to get a Korean TKD master to talk about the kwans. They'd claim that the kwans didn't exist anymore, they were dead. If you'd ask a question about the kwans, they'd reply with a 'it isn't important' answer. But more recently many of those same masters seem to be willing to admit their kwan affiliation. And many are even telling their students something along the line of "I was Chung Do Kwan, I made you a 1st Dan, therefore you are Chung Do Kwan". Does that make it better or worse? :) Ray Terry raymail@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:07:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: the_dojang: . ------------------------------ End of The_Dojang-Digest V6 #557 ******************************** Support the USTU by joining today! US Taekwondo Union, 1 Olympic Plaza, Ste 405, Colorado Spgs, CO 80909 719-578-4632 FAX 719-578-4642 ustutkd1@aol.com http://www.ustu.com ===================================================================== To unsubscribe from this digest, the_dojang-digest, send the command: unsubscribe the_dojang-digest -or- unsubscribe the_dojang-digest your.old@address in the BODY of an email (top line, left justified) addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com in pub/the_dojang/digests. All digest files have the suffix '.txt' Copyright 1994-99: Ray Terry, Martial Arts Resource, California Taekwondo Standard disclaimers apply.