![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have personally performed extensive research into the usage of Chinese characters in transcribing Old Korean and Middle Korean word forms, and I have found that what appears as 烏 (/ʔo/, "crow; black") is almost always an error for 鳥 (/tjo/, later /tɕo/, "bird"). Reading instances of 烏 /ʔo/ as 鳥 /tjo/ makes many of the forms in the table on the Goguryeo language page plainly recognizable as the ancestors of various modern Korean words. For example, the Goguryeo form 烏斯含 (*/ʔo.sʌ.hɔm/) would become 鳥斯含 (*/tjo.sʌ.hɔm/) and be readily comparable to Proto-Turkic */tavısgan/ ("rabbit, hare") and Korean /tʰokki/ ("rabbit, hare"). In a similar manner, Early Middle Korean 烏子蓋 (*/ʔo.tɕʌ.kɔj/ "ax") makes much more sense when read as 鳥子蓋 (*/tjo.tɕʌ.kɔj/), which would clearly be the ancestor of the Late Middle Korean forms 돗귀 /tos.kuj/, 돗긔 /tos.kɨj/, and 도최 /to.tɕʰɔj/. Ebizur 11:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to report an anonymous user 125.54.251.167 ( 125.54.251.185) whose referenced contributions on this article, were different from the relevant data in the source paper of Itabashi Yoshizo(2003),板橋義三 (2003)「高句麗の地名から高句麗語と朝鮮語・日本語との史的関係をさぐる」"Research on the historical relationship between the Goguryeo language and the Korean/ Japanese languages through the Goguryeo toponyms."「日本語系統論の現在」 "Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language."
By altering deliberately the cited data taken from the paper of Itabashi, her/his referenced contributions were different from the information of the original source [1], [2](upper and middle one), [3] [4](the lowerst one), and by adding a cited contribution whose relevant data is in fact not existent in the paper of Itabashi Yoshizo at all. [5](lower one) By this I would like to make it clear that this is not the complaint of misrepresentation of sources, since this user altered the data given the Itabashi’s paper citied by this user.
Basically, this user strongly tends to change, remove and correct her/his previous own edits. Therefore the correctness and accuracy of her/his contributions cannot be guaranteed at all. So I have been monitoring this user, correcting her/his wrong edits. Considering her/his attempts to maintain false referenced edits despite my four times warning. (See also my Edit summaries) [6], [7], [8], [9], I would like to request all scrupulous users to keep constantly an eye on this user in order to prevent her/his further wrong edits in bed faith.
False citations made by this user are listed below:
False quotation | Original source | notes |
---|---|---|
ɣapma 盒馬 (山 : mountain) | ɣapma 盒馬 (大山 : big mountain) | Initially, I corrected this wrong contribution made by this user, based on the academic research. After a while, s/he insisted on her/his previous wrong edit once more by making citation. So I had to correct her/his edit based on the source s/he cited for it. |
mi1ra (蒜 : garlic) | mi1ra (韮 : garlic chives) | |
kuət-・ιəi | kur'iy | The reconstruction of the pronunciation of the Goguryeo word. |
kata- (tough, firm) | Not existent in the original source | I removed the false reference note. |
kari (犁 : plow) | kar- (刈る : to cut off) | |
so2ɸo(赤 : red) | so2ɸo (赤土 : red soil) | I corrected this edit made by this user, based on the source s/he cited for her/his contribution. After a while, s/he tried to insist on her/his previous wrong edit again removing her/his own citation. So I had to undo her/his unexplained deletion. |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagello ( talk • contribs) 2008-11-29T11:37:40 (UTC)
Some of entries in the big and large table are referenced, so the reason for the removal should be answered here first? -- Caspian blue 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Noting that the refs aren't in English, I'm giving translation a shot.
Anybody more familiar with the subject matter want to correct these? Should probably also be in ref templates. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like this article was subject to some unfortunate revert warring that resulted in a block for an editor interested in this topic. While it's true, the edits reintroducing the table weren't strictly vandalism, I think that there's a consensus here that the huge damn table should be omitted as potentially being original research or synthesis. Whether that consensus has changed is open for debate. I personally doubt it, and feel the article may merit semi protection to prevent the user who kept reintroducing it from doing so without discussing, as they are using multiple IPs and new accounts to do so. Any other thoughts? —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 15:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears tobe vandals keep on editing the article with ridiculous information.--Korsentry 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry ( talk • contribs)
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Goguryeo language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
There are records in the Japanese history book that the Goguryeo language and the Baekje language (possibly according to Vovin, Unger's language of Baekje's ruling class) from the late 6th to early 7th centuries differ from the Old Japanese language.
http://nihongo.hum.tmu.ac.jp/~long/longzemi/hosaka.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 ( talk) 00:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The recent addition is misplaced, repeats material already discussed in greater detail in the article, and misrepresents the sources it cites.
The article covers the available evidence under three sections:
Regarding Lim Byeong-jun, it should be stated whether the words he refers to are from the Samguk sagi glosses (which Toh, Vovin and Whitman say do not reflect Goguryeo), or somewhere else. Also, "Predicate + object" makes no sense. Kanguole 23:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted recent changes to the lead, for the following reasons:
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have personally performed extensive research into the usage of Chinese characters in transcribing Old Korean and Middle Korean word forms, and I have found that what appears as 烏 (/ʔo/, "crow; black") is almost always an error for 鳥 (/tjo/, later /tɕo/, "bird"). Reading instances of 烏 /ʔo/ as 鳥 /tjo/ makes many of the forms in the table on the Goguryeo language page plainly recognizable as the ancestors of various modern Korean words. For example, the Goguryeo form 烏斯含 (*/ʔo.sʌ.hɔm/) would become 鳥斯含 (*/tjo.sʌ.hɔm/) and be readily comparable to Proto-Turkic */tavısgan/ ("rabbit, hare") and Korean /tʰokki/ ("rabbit, hare"). In a similar manner, Early Middle Korean 烏子蓋 (*/ʔo.tɕʌ.kɔj/ "ax") makes much more sense when read as 鳥子蓋 (*/tjo.tɕʌ.kɔj/), which would clearly be the ancestor of the Late Middle Korean forms 돗귀 /tos.kuj/, 돗긔 /tos.kɨj/, and 도최 /to.tɕʰɔj/. Ebizur 11:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to report an anonymous user 125.54.251.167 ( 125.54.251.185) whose referenced contributions on this article, were different from the relevant data in the source paper of Itabashi Yoshizo(2003),板橋義三 (2003)「高句麗の地名から高句麗語と朝鮮語・日本語との史的関係をさぐる」"Research on the historical relationship between the Goguryeo language and the Korean/ Japanese languages through the Goguryeo toponyms."「日本語系統論の現在」 "Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language."
By altering deliberately the cited data taken from the paper of Itabashi, her/his referenced contributions were different from the information of the original source [1], [2](upper and middle one), [3] [4](the lowerst one), and by adding a cited contribution whose relevant data is in fact not existent in the paper of Itabashi Yoshizo at all. [5](lower one) By this I would like to make it clear that this is not the complaint of misrepresentation of sources, since this user altered the data given the Itabashi’s paper citied by this user.
Basically, this user strongly tends to change, remove and correct her/his previous own edits. Therefore the correctness and accuracy of her/his contributions cannot be guaranteed at all. So I have been monitoring this user, correcting her/his wrong edits. Considering her/his attempts to maintain false referenced edits despite my four times warning. (See also my Edit summaries) [6], [7], [8], [9], I would like to request all scrupulous users to keep constantly an eye on this user in order to prevent her/his further wrong edits in bed faith.
False citations made by this user are listed below:
False quotation | Original source | notes |
---|---|---|
ɣapma 盒馬 (山 : mountain) | ɣapma 盒馬 (大山 : big mountain) | Initially, I corrected this wrong contribution made by this user, based on the academic research. After a while, s/he insisted on her/his previous wrong edit once more by making citation. So I had to correct her/his edit based on the source s/he cited for it. |
mi1ra (蒜 : garlic) | mi1ra (韮 : garlic chives) | |
kuət-・ιəi | kur'iy | The reconstruction of the pronunciation of the Goguryeo word. |
kata- (tough, firm) | Not existent in the original source | I removed the false reference note. |
kari (犁 : plow) | kar- (刈る : to cut off) | |
so2ɸo(赤 : red) | so2ɸo (赤土 : red soil) | I corrected this edit made by this user, based on the source s/he cited for her/his contribution. After a while, s/he tried to insist on her/his previous wrong edit again removing her/his own citation. So I had to undo her/his unexplained deletion. |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagello ( talk • contribs) 2008-11-29T11:37:40 (UTC)
Some of entries in the big and large table are referenced, so the reason for the removal should be answered here first? -- Caspian blue 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Noting that the refs aren't in English, I'm giving translation a shot.
Anybody more familiar with the subject matter want to correct these? Should probably also be in ref templates. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like this article was subject to some unfortunate revert warring that resulted in a block for an editor interested in this topic. While it's true, the edits reintroducing the table weren't strictly vandalism, I think that there's a consensus here that the huge damn table should be omitted as potentially being original research or synthesis. Whether that consensus has changed is open for debate. I personally doubt it, and feel the article may merit semi protection to prevent the user who kept reintroducing it from doing so without discussing, as they are using multiple IPs and new accounts to do so. Any other thoughts? —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 15:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears tobe vandals keep on editing the article with ridiculous information.--Korsentry 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry ( talk • contribs)
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Goguryeo language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
There are records in the Japanese history book that the Goguryeo language and the Baekje language (possibly according to Vovin, Unger's language of Baekje's ruling class) from the late 6th to early 7th centuries differ from the Old Japanese language.
http://nihongo.hum.tmu.ac.jp/~long/longzemi/hosaka.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 ( talk) 00:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The recent addition is misplaced, repeats material already discussed in greater detail in the article, and misrepresents the sources it cites.
The article covers the available evidence under three sections:
Regarding Lim Byeong-jun, it should be stated whether the words he refers to are from the Samguk sagi glosses (which Toh, Vovin and Whitman say do not reflect Goguryeo), or somewhere else. Also, "Predicate + object" makes no sense. Kanguole 23:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted recent changes to the lead, for the following reasons: