Hi, I said a looong time ago that I had created a method for using Hangeul to write Spanish, but I had forgotten to post it As I think I said, it can be improved and, in fact, I guess there could be more (and better) ways to adapt Hangeul, but that's the way I did it, just with the purpose of making it more or less coherent and understandable for a Spanish speaker (which means it may be completely incomprehensible for a Korean speaker.)

Vowels:
a-아
e-에
i-이
o-오
u-우
ai-아이
ei-에이
oi-오이
ui-위
au-아우
eu-에우
ou-오우
ia-야
ie-예
io-요
iu-유
ua-와
ue-웨
uo-워
Ø (no vowel)-으

Consonants
g (with [g/ɣ] sound)-ᄀ
k/q/c ([k] sound)-ᄁ
n-ᄂ (and I use ᄂᄌ to write ñ)
d ([d/ð] sound)-ᄃ
t-ᄄ
l-ᄅ (and I use ᄅᄅ to write ll ([ʝ/j/ʒ/ʃ/ʎ] sounds)
m-ᄆ
b ([b/β] sound)-ᄇ
p-ᄈ
s-ᄉ
x ([ks])-ᄊ
Ø (no consonant)-ᄋ
y ([ʝ/j/ʒ/ʃ] or whichever the sound is when y is used as a consonant)-ᄌ
ch ([tʃ])-ᄍ
r-ᄎ (and I use ᄎᄎ to write rr)
j/g ([x] sound)-ᄏ
z/c ([θ])-ᄐ
f-ᄑ (and I use ᄑᄒ to write v, although it can be simplified to ᄇ)
h (silent)-ᄒ

Finally I use ᄋ at the end of a syllable to accentuate vowels. For example: José= 코셍.

As I've said, this method may be quite incomprehensible for a Korean speaker, for example the use of ᄎ to write r, which has no relation with the real sound in Korean, but I needed a different letter for r, and I liked that one xD.

The use of ieung (ᄋ) to show accentuation is really innovative. But I find a lot of the other choices curious. Overall, there's an odd mix of phonemic and orthographic principles at work. Why have separate symbols for v and x, for instance, but not q and j? Why have any silent consonant at all, particularly when it would've been useful to reuse hieut (ᄒ) for /x/ or /f/?

Hey, I also made an adaptation of Hangeul for Spanish just after I understood how it worked...
Hey, yo también hice una adaptación del Hangeul para el español justo después que entendí cómo funcionaba...
에이 요 탐볜 이세 우나 아닾타숀 델 한굴 파자 엘 엣팒옿 훗토 뎃퓃 케 엔텐디 커모 푼쇼나바...

Thanks, I didn't wanted to leave the graphical accent out of the writing system because I think it is somehow important even though it can be elided and understood easily. And since there is no final ng in Spanish and it is visually quite beautiful (at least for my taste xD) is used ᄋ.



I'm aware of it, I have an explanation for some of the choices, but some other choices are just arbitrary.



I chose it like that because, in general, people who write more or less well in Spanish tend to use the differenciation between b and v for etymological reasons. As for x, I've never seen "eksistir" or "ecsistir" instead of "existir". However, it is really quite normal to read things such as "ke" instead of "que"(you know, in personal writings, msn and so on.) On the other hand, the etymology wasn't applied completely to the rules for the use of g and j, for example you write "coger" but, "usted coja" and "digo", but "dije" (I know it is because of the sound, but still). It made me think that the difference between b and v is more important for etymology than the use of g and j, so I tried a more phonetic approach for this matter.



Just for the same reason above, since I already had j/g ([x] sound) written as ᄏ, and f written as ᄑ, I could use ᄒ to represent the silent h, which is useful to distinguish, for example, "haber" and "a ver" (하벷/아 프헻).



I think yours is quite straightforward but still I think there are some things that could be confused. For instance, you wrote "español" as "엣팒옿" and "funcionaba" as "푼쇼나바" but then ᄑ is used for p and f. BTW, I think the ñ is really perfectly represented, but I just didn't know how to write that jamo o_O.
Besides, I think it is quite important to indicate the difference between c/z and s for a Spaniard, because even though there are some zones of seseo and ceceo, we are very used to our standard dialect which clearly distinguishes the two sounds.

I would've expected an etymological spelling here, i.e. 한글.


Is 옿 a typo for 올 or is there something else going on here?


¿포르켕 노 엣크리벳 "코모"?

I find it interesting how you both seem to have independently hit upon the idea of repurposing jiot (ᄎ) for /r/. At first, it seems quite arbitrary, but when you consider that this letter is based on ㅅ, which like /r/ is alveolar, then it makes a good deal of sense--particularly in Remd's system, where the letters for Korean aspirates generally represent fricatives.

Good point.
They're really typos I didn't notice. Yes, they should be 엣팒올 and 코모, I'm not used to read Hangeul at all...
Yes, it's very simple, all the syncretism is on purpose (/p/ and /f/ written the same, /ɾ/ and /r/, /s/ and /θ/, /ʎ/ and /ʝ/; even though there are perfectly ways to differentiate them using double letters or something) and no stress is marked as well.
It's a ㄴnext to a ㅎ —it's in some way inspired by Portuguese <nh>.

I think it's a very good idea, but is there an available key for it in a normal Korean keyboard?

I've thought about these adaptations, and what do you think about trying to decide a "standard" form with ideas of some people, that is, an adaptation which seems better, easier or more consistent to more people just in case Simon wants to add it to Omniglot's list of adaptations of existing alphabets? Then we'll only need an army to make people use it ! xD

You don't need a key for every consonant cluster at the end of a syllable group. Just type ㄴ... and then ㅎ.

ㅍ 파 판 팒
It sounds like a nice idea. We'd need to think about every possibility though. If we're gonna reform the orthography, we gotta do it well.

There are some things that are unclear to me: how would you write "perro", "año", and "rayita" in your system?

I'll come up with some proposals later on...

Wo! Thank you! But...it isn't possible to write them together in the onset of a syllable, is it? Because if it isn't, we couldn't write words beginning with ñ (there are few words beginning with ñ, but anyway...)


뼃초, 안조 and 차지따.

Feel free to tell me your proposals! I'm very interested .

i'm not sure that hangul works very well for any language that has even a moderately complex syllable structure