![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Why is there so much unsourced information on this page?
Before I edited it, there were 11 paragraphs in the history section. 4 of them have citations. 3 of them have citations that either 1. dont go anywhere, 2. some unreliable source.
In the orthography section,
that entire section has zero sources, most of the stuff i've never heard of it.
This section needs alot of improvements as there are too much Japanese and Chinese propaganda. Inincognito ( talk) 04:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Without citations that means nothing. Everyone has heard one thing or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.142.154 ( talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the section on the history of hangeul might be improved if information on the influence of Christian missionaries were added. The Western missionaries needed a written language that both they and the Koreans could learn quickly, and of course it takes less time to learn an alphabet than it does to develop an adequate reading vocabulary in Chinese. So, hangeul became the biblical language of Korea, which must have raised its prestige. One missionary even claimed that hangeul was created by divine providence for this very purpose. The evangelists' mission was highly successful in Korea, and they founded many schools in which hangeul must have been taught. Furthermore, many prominent leaders of the nationalist movements that promoted use of hangeul were Christian.
A condensed version of the above information--two or three sentences, perhaps--would contribute to a fuller picture of hangeul's jump from low to high prestige. I have sources for all of the information, as well. Would anyone mind if I added this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling150 ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted it mainly because its all made up nonsense. Its also littered with stuff about the Japanese which have zero to do with anything Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inincognito ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Since regaining independence from Japan in 1945, the Koreas have used Hangul or mixed Hangul as their sole official writing system, with ever-decreasing use of hanja. Since the 1950s, it has become uncommon to find hanja in commercial or unofficial writing in the South, with some South Korean newspaper only using hanja as abbreviations or disambiguation of homonyms. There has been widespread debate as to the future of Hanja in South Korea. North Korea reinstated Hangul as its exclusive writing system in 1949, and banned the use of Hanja completely.
This paragraph implies Hangul was never used. It has been used since the migration of mongols into modern day Korea. Spoken Hangul has existed for a long time, while written Hangul has been around since the 15th century.
There has been no widespread debate and there is no citation to support this claim. Hanja is still used for the same purposes as it always was. It has become obsolete because of the influx of western science and tech.
Contrary to popular belief there are not that many Hanja words. You could not form a coherent language based on Hanja and nearly impossible to write a sentence in. Hanja has been historically been used for buddhist and confucius texts written in Chinese as well as science that was transmitted through China. Some words for example computer does not exist in Korean. This is where hanja steps in.
North Korea did not exist prior to the Korean war, this is not a reinstated language, its a declaration of the official language like any other nation. The way it is worded is misleading to viewers of this article. Furthermore Hanja has not been banned in North Korea and there are no citations to proof this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.13.18 ( talk) 01:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No you're right its not but I did not misread the paragraph.
"North Korea reinstated Hangul as its exclusive writing system in 1949"
It's biased and slightly anti-Korean with injections of pro-Chinese propaganda(lack of a better word). The word reinstated implies something different was there before. North Korea never existed previously, so there is no such thing as a reinstatement. Hangul has always been the exclusive writing system of Korea.
There is too much unsourced biased material in this paragraph among other things in this section.
"Since the 1950s, it has become uncommon to find hanja in commercial or unofficial writing in the South, with some South Korean newspaper only using hanja as abbreviations or disambiguation of homonyms"
Its hard to prove when and to what degree that something was not used but I'll use these two examples, Hanseong sunbo & Dongnip Sinmun. One was published in the 1880's and the other in the 1890's. None of the newspapers have any sort of hanja. Those two were one of the first "modern newspapers" in Korea. Above the mentioned paragraph, there is also a reference to Korean poetry and books. 1950's was not the end of Hanja, its use has never been big unlike Japanese counterparts where Kanji is used heavily. This little excerpt has no citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.13.18 ( talk) 07:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
WRONG, it was reinstated because the japs ruled you and banned it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.145.7 ( talk) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
We have a clause "Hangul was promulgated in public domain by the fourth king of the Joseon Dynasty, Sejong the Great," with the reasoning (on a different page history, when reverting a clarification needed template) that "If King Sejong held a copyright, people couldn't use Hangul at all; that's why Hangul was on public domain when it was first announced."
Am I the only one who finds this problematic? Could we say essentially the same thing without invoking modern concepts of copyright? (Not that those would apply to hangul anyway.) Was there a possibility that Sejong could have promulgated hangul in the private domain? kwami ( talk) 20:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Now it's "copyleft"! I'm removing this as unhistorical. kwami ( talk) 06:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
(And it's not just anachronistic, but technically wrong: you cannot copyright a writing system. kwami ( talk) 06:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
"But unlike in Japanese, hanja was used only for nouns."
Were they only used for nouns, or only for Sino-Korean, all of which were nouns? That is, were hanja used for native Korean nouns? kwami ( talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for original research and controversial theories. There are no hard evidences that Hangul's 'ancestors' are all those other alphabet systems.
Agnistus, the article Phoenician_alphabet does NOT say hangul is derived from phagspa script. Please do not lie. It currently says: "Many historians believe that the Brahmi script and the subsequent Indic alphabets are derived from this script as well, which would make it and ultimately Egyptian the ancestor of most writing systems in use today, possibly including even Hangul, which may have been influenced by Brahmic Phagspa. This would mean that of all the national scripts in use in the world today, only the Chinese script and its derivatives have an independent origin."
"... POSSIBLY including even Hanul, which MAY have been INFLUENCED..." I have highlighted the key words for you.
kwami, you left a note on my page saying: "Agnistus didn't mean that "Korean is based on all those alphabets", but that that is its genealogy. Controversial, but there is substantial evidence."
Genealogy is just a scientific word used to say "based on". You said yourself that it is controversial, so why include it in wikipedia?
If you guys feel intent on including something in the article about the REMOTE POSSIBILITY that Hangul is based on some other alphabets, then please do so as a separate section in the article, not in the table where only hard facts should appear. Wookie919 ( talk) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition to that, I would greatly thank anyone who could add citation[s] that verify that Korean is related to Altaic roots.
Benhpark ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.204.49.221 ( talk) 10:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The 'Phagspa connection in the infobox is back, courtesty of Special:Contributions/219.111.79.204 219.111.79.204. I didn't want to get involved in the debate, so for now I just wikified it (so it looks pretty and a reader can check out the relevant articles) and added a footnote so that readers know it's a controversial topic. You guys can decide whether or not to delete it. -- Politizer ( talk) 04:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the 2nd ¶ of the Block shape section:
I would just like to comment that the style exemplified by the UnJamo fonts is that of a Korean typewriter, with only one glyph available for each letter. These had to combine to produce readable syllable blocks; the results are clear but uneven in terms of type color. Like our Latin monospace fonts, it’s not the best typography, but it comes to be recognized as a certain style in its own right. MJ ( t • c) 03:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Are the symbols shown in the top two rows at Image:Origin of Korean.jpg equivalent phonetically, or just simply coincidentally similar in shape? As the diagram doesn't give the pronunciations, it's not a very useful diagram. Badagnani ( talk) 05:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
one comment by User:Politizer moved down during refactoring
Even better, answer the actual question I asked. Badagnani ( talk) 06:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That image and two similar versions of it by the same uploader have no source information and are of questionable value (one has already been challenged at its talk page by myself and another user). Does anyone have any opinion about whether to IfD them, or just make sure they're not used in any articles, or anything else? Here are the three images in question:
'인사이클로피디아(www.encyclopedia.com)'와 '내이션스인사이클로피디아(www.nationsencyclopedia.com)' 등은 "한글은 중국 한자를 모방해 만들었다"고 왜곡했다. Even though it's not clear either, and I sent an e-mail to the auther, I still have no idea. And I don't think it'd be just a coincidence. talk/ contribs 08:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, so I didn't feel comfortable just blindly reverting, but this addition looks pretty questionable to me. First of all, the source is a blog, which leads me to believe it's mostly OR and is the ref was just whatever the editor could find. Secondly, it suggests that ㆍ, ㅡ, and ㅣ stand for "heaven, earth, and human," and bases this assertion on the order in which they appeared in some early dictionary... as far as I knew, ㅡ and ㅣ had more to do with the backness/frontness of the vowels they represent?
Anyway, I won't revert by myself because I don't totally know what I'm talking about, but I'm just wondering if anyone else finds this questionable. Politizer talk/ contribs 00:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
While it's true that books etc. have gone over to left-to-right, store signs, especially listings of menu itmes on walls of restaurants have not. I am about as likely to see top-to-bottom as left-to-right. It could also be noted that on such signs, the space is often block, so that you can get huge gaps between words and even syllables. Kdammers ( talk) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Another thing I notice in the Style section...the image
is nice, but unfortunately the examples it gives for different fonts are all different characters! It's not a big deal, but could someone who has Photoshop (or some other software that would allow you to make a pretty image like that) make a new image in which the same characters are used to demonstrate each font? --
Politizer (
talk)
13:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Unless I don't understand the flow of information, the graphic for E (tieut) is in error. All the other graphics show the completed Hangul at the beginning of the stroke sequence; that one shows a partial Hangul missing the center (second) stroke. I can't fix it because I'm at work and don't have access to a graphics editor that writes .png's so I'm noting it here for someone else to fix. I'll come back later and fix it if someone else doesn't do it first. 12.151.32.25 ( talk) 20:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)some anonymous person.
Can someone post me the characters depicted here? I would be very appriciated
PS. Idk where I should post that :/... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.63.84.236 (
talk)
07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to mean anything.-- 119.149.135.35 ( talk) 12:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It's pronounced 'Tep-hik-luk' and it doesn't mean anything.-- Younghyun0403 ( talk) 13:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a link:
[1]
Is this credible enough to mention in this page? --
Tk TommyKim (
talk)
18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Since it's a fairly recently initiated movement, I don't think Hangul yet qualifies as "the" writing system for Cia-Cia. I'd recommend changing the way that's stated in the overview paragraph to something more tentative. I also doubt that the Cia-Cia movement merits mention in the first paragraph, but that's not my call. For now, I'll just rephrase "It has also been adopted as the writing system of the Austronesian Cia-Cia language." Samboha ( talk) 04:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this article had nothing about "patchim" in it. I am thinking about adding it in. Does anyone else agree, or is it unnecessary? Αδελφος ( talk) 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed someone edited one hanja (語 for the last syllable of 조선글) in the info box under “North Korean name.” Aside from doubting that this is right (語 is 어 as in 한국어 as far as I know), my bigger question is: Why write a North Korean word with hanja at all? They certainly don’t. I’m removing that line from the box; feel free to revert if you have a reason. (Also, why does the infobox template spell it “hancha” while everywhere else here I find “hanja”?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark R Johnson ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree: Koreans aren't using hanja to write their words. I think somebody who studied Chinese and Korean wrote that and wanted to put both here. I also think that it should be hanja, not hancha. Αδελφος ( talk) 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Samson (1990) misrepresents Ledyard, and would appear to not understand his argument. He says, "So remarkable an achievement was Han'gul that some Western scholars to this day argue that it must have been developed on the basis of an earlier model", and give Ledyard as an example. This is completely off base: L never claims that Hangul must be based on s.t. else because it's too remarkable to be Korean; in fact, he goes to pains to deny such an interpretation of his work, and he clearly has a great admiration for Korea and its culture. And indeed, what he ascribes to Phagspa is the least remarkable aspect of the script: the shapes of a few letters. It is patently not the model for hangul in L's treatment. To mischaracterize him as considering the featural system unimportant, as Samson does, is dishonest. It's like saying that Diringer claims the alphabet was not an invention because the shapes of the letters came from hieroglyphs, or that Braille was not an invention because someone else had already invented the dot. Or take Cherokee: no-one claims that anyone pointing out the Latin sources of the characters is denying Sequoya's achievement, or that the Latin alphabet could not have been the antecedent of Cherokee because it's not syllabic. The featural system of the script was innovative in L's account, though of course based on Chinese phonological theory. (The script was of course a product of its time, as any invention is.) If we have a ref that most scholars reject L, fine, but the Samson quote should be removed as misinformation. kwami ( talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"...the graphic complexity of Korean syllabic blocks varies in direct proportion with the phonemic complexity of the syllable." I can't buy this. What about the words with two-consonant padjims? What about words with 쯔 , ㅃ, ㄸ or ㅆ? I would say they all are graphically complex, but I don't think ㄸ is more complex phonemically than ㄷ is. Kdammers ( talk) 09:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The text of “morpho-syllabic blocks” section, which apparently needs improvement:
What means “consonants” in this context, letters-consonants or consonant sounds? As stated, ‹ ㅇ › may both initial and final, but it represents silent sound when be initial. BTW: is the silence a consonant or what? How to understand “ ㅇ ng ”: the ‹ ㅇ › jamo which English name is ng, or the [ŋ] (ng) sound written by the (final) jamo ‹ ㅇ ›? First interpretation is false, second leads to a tautology. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 12:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I added some information here. This isn't OR, but still it would be nice to get some more sources corroborating what I have there now (which mostly comes from a small number of sources), so if anyone has any other sources to add to that section or clarify things, they would be very welcome! Thanks. -- Politizer ( talk) 19:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-- JWB ( talk) 20:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, hanja isn't an alphabet. That needs to be changed immediately.
Second, whereas JWB expressed doubts that the featural aspect of hangul improves legibility, I believe it actually reduces it. That's because it forces many of the letters to have similar shapes and therefore to be less distinct. The only benefit of the featural aspect, besides aesthetics and national pride, is that it makes the script easier to learn by foreigners who know something of phonetics. It has no benefit for Koreans, or for foreigners either once letter recognition is automatic.
Since AFAIK the mixed script was introduced by the Japanese in imitation of Japanese, and never actually used very much (and certainly never used now), that paragraph is irrelevant to the section and should be removed. I believe it would indeed help legibility, as it does for Japanese, but that's a hypothetical question.
Per JWB, the morphophonemic aspect really does help with legibility. That's one reason irregular spellings in English are sometimes beneficial, and why for example Turkish seems to be evolving in that direction.
"graphs for consonants show whether the phoneme is voiced". False. The only voiced consonants are m, n, ng, and l, and there is nothing to show that they are voiced.
"there is nearly a one-to-one phoneme-graph correspondence". False. This is not a phonemic script. All consonants have more that one pronunciation, except for the three like ㅃ that do not occur at the end of a syllable. The the letter ㅅ, for example, is pronounced /s/, /t/, and /n/, and phoneme /n/ is variously written ㄴ, ㄹ, ㄷ, ㅅ, and ㅈ (and I believe even more, but I'd need to double check).
kwami ( talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a source handy, but I wouldn't say mixed script was never used much. If it was used for a good part of the 20th century, that's still quite a lot.
The traditional scholarly attitude would have been to write Literary Chinese rather than Korean at all. Hangul was apparently initially intended for all-Hangul texts; for that matter, Japanese kana were initially used for all-kana texts. But it's quite possible mixed script got significant usage before the 20th century; I don't have evidence either for or against.
Our opinions are our own and not citeable, but on the other hand if none of us believe a claim (e.g. that the featural nature of the script aids reading) and it's not so widespread as to be notable, what reason is there to include it in the article?
The claims that seem most credible are the ones around nonlinearity / using both dimensions / visual variation / syllabicity. You might consider working these into the existing section on syllable blocking, which already mentions readability issues.
The stuff about stroke-count is less about Hangul in particular than about Chinese characters vs. alphabets in general, so perhaps treatment of this would make more sense in the Chinese character articles. -- JWB ( talk) 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it's consonant. For example, there is a politeness morpheme |p| that surfaces as /m/ in verbs such as hamnida. That's written syllabically as hap-ni-da, not morphemically as ha-p-ni-da. Or usually is, anyway. There are historical exceptions. kwami ( talk) 01:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of saying something about that, but a vocalic morpheme such as 이 is still written as a separate block. The ieung is just a placeholder. There was a time when it was not: jib-i was written ji-bi, but that's no longer the case. There are a few vocalic morphemes that are written as part of the preceding block (usually something like o-a being written oa / wa), but I'll have to look them up. The point is that the lack of independent consonants is an orthographic rule similar to the requirement of ieung before an initial vowel. kwami ( talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's there and I just didn't see it, but I can't find any mention of the custom of printing (ㅇ)ㅏ as a squiggle below a consonant, as in 한, where there is a squiggle between the ㅎ and the ㄴ and nothing to the right of it . Kdammers ( talk) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hangul → Hangeul — Hangeul is a Korea Government's official spelling.
Hangeul(O) Hankeul(X) Han-gŭl(X)
http://www.korean.go.kr/09_new/dic/rule/rule_roman.jsp
There are two search boxes. In the below box, search a word "한글." -- Gnulinux ( talk) 02:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
"In addition, there are 10 obsolete double letters: ㅥ, ᄙ, ㅹ, ᄽ, ᄿ, ᅇ, ᇮ, ᅏ, ᅑ, ㆅ."
ᅇ appears twice. What was the original 10th? ㆀ? —
MK (
t/
c)
05:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
audio pronunciation says hanzi not hangeul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.114.69 ( talk) 22:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed the comment [Have these logically impossible ones ever been used?] from directly after the 41 obsolete vowel diphthongs section, but the point still stands - have those vowel diphthongs ever been used? Vanisaac ( talk) 04:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Early in describing the jamo, the article says that it's the top stroke of ㅌ t [tʰ] that denotes aspiration. But later we find that d [t] is ㄷ, so that apparently isn't true. If anything, it would be the middle stroke that denotes aspiration—which is consistent with the case of ㄱ g [k] and ㅋ k [kʰ]. I'd fix it but I don't know any details beyond the obviousness of the contradiction. Can someone else please fix it? —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently in that section, 6 base vowels and 2 dipthongs (ㅐ (ae) and ㅔ (e)) are shown. I suggest re-ording to show the six base vowels, then only one of the dipthong vowel and also add one iotized vowel, or have the two non-base vowels be a combination of the dipthong and iotized vowels where one is based upon either ㅏ (a) or ㅓ (eo), and the other based upon either ㅗ (o) or ㅜ (u). (I would have made a replacement graphic(s) but don't have the appropriate image editing program at the moment.) CJLippert ( talk) 18:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Why is there so much unsourced information on this page?
Before I edited it, there were 11 paragraphs in the history section. 4 of them have citations. 3 of them have citations that either 1. dont go anywhere, 2. some unreliable source.
In the orthography section,
that entire section has zero sources, most of the stuff i've never heard of it.
This section needs alot of improvements as there are too much Japanese and Chinese propaganda. Inincognito ( talk) 04:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Without citations that means nothing. Everyone has heard one thing or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.142.154 ( talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the section on the history of hangeul might be improved if information on the influence of Christian missionaries were added. The Western missionaries needed a written language that both they and the Koreans could learn quickly, and of course it takes less time to learn an alphabet than it does to develop an adequate reading vocabulary in Chinese. So, hangeul became the biblical language of Korea, which must have raised its prestige. One missionary even claimed that hangeul was created by divine providence for this very purpose. The evangelists' mission was highly successful in Korea, and they founded many schools in which hangeul must have been taught. Furthermore, many prominent leaders of the nationalist movements that promoted use of hangeul were Christian.
A condensed version of the above information--two or three sentences, perhaps--would contribute to a fuller picture of hangeul's jump from low to high prestige. I have sources for all of the information, as well. Would anyone mind if I added this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling150 ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted it mainly because its all made up nonsense. Its also littered with stuff about the Japanese which have zero to do with anything Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inincognito ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Since regaining independence from Japan in 1945, the Koreas have used Hangul or mixed Hangul as their sole official writing system, with ever-decreasing use of hanja. Since the 1950s, it has become uncommon to find hanja in commercial or unofficial writing in the South, with some South Korean newspaper only using hanja as abbreviations or disambiguation of homonyms. There has been widespread debate as to the future of Hanja in South Korea. North Korea reinstated Hangul as its exclusive writing system in 1949, and banned the use of Hanja completely.
This paragraph implies Hangul was never used. It has been used since the migration of mongols into modern day Korea. Spoken Hangul has existed for a long time, while written Hangul has been around since the 15th century.
There has been no widespread debate and there is no citation to support this claim. Hanja is still used for the same purposes as it always was. It has become obsolete because of the influx of western science and tech.
Contrary to popular belief there are not that many Hanja words. You could not form a coherent language based on Hanja and nearly impossible to write a sentence in. Hanja has been historically been used for buddhist and confucius texts written in Chinese as well as science that was transmitted through China. Some words for example computer does not exist in Korean. This is where hanja steps in.
North Korea did not exist prior to the Korean war, this is not a reinstated language, its a declaration of the official language like any other nation. The way it is worded is misleading to viewers of this article. Furthermore Hanja has not been banned in North Korea and there are no citations to proof this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.13.18 ( talk) 01:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No you're right its not but I did not misread the paragraph.
"North Korea reinstated Hangul as its exclusive writing system in 1949"
It's biased and slightly anti-Korean with injections of pro-Chinese propaganda(lack of a better word). The word reinstated implies something different was there before. North Korea never existed previously, so there is no such thing as a reinstatement. Hangul has always been the exclusive writing system of Korea.
There is too much unsourced biased material in this paragraph among other things in this section.
"Since the 1950s, it has become uncommon to find hanja in commercial or unofficial writing in the South, with some South Korean newspaper only using hanja as abbreviations or disambiguation of homonyms"
Its hard to prove when and to what degree that something was not used but I'll use these two examples, Hanseong sunbo & Dongnip Sinmun. One was published in the 1880's and the other in the 1890's. None of the newspapers have any sort of hanja. Those two were one of the first "modern newspapers" in Korea. Above the mentioned paragraph, there is also a reference to Korean poetry and books. 1950's was not the end of Hanja, its use has never been big unlike Japanese counterparts where Kanji is used heavily. This little excerpt has no citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.13.18 ( talk) 07:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
WRONG, it was reinstated because the japs ruled you and banned it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.145.7 ( talk) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
We have a clause "Hangul was promulgated in public domain by the fourth king of the Joseon Dynasty, Sejong the Great," with the reasoning (on a different page history, when reverting a clarification needed template) that "If King Sejong held a copyright, people couldn't use Hangul at all; that's why Hangul was on public domain when it was first announced."
Am I the only one who finds this problematic? Could we say essentially the same thing without invoking modern concepts of copyright? (Not that those would apply to hangul anyway.) Was there a possibility that Sejong could have promulgated hangul in the private domain? kwami ( talk) 20:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Now it's "copyleft"! I'm removing this as unhistorical. kwami ( talk) 06:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
(And it's not just anachronistic, but technically wrong: you cannot copyright a writing system. kwami ( talk) 06:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
"But unlike in Japanese, hanja was used only for nouns."
Were they only used for nouns, or only for Sino-Korean, all of which were nouns? That is, were hanja used for native Korean nouns? kwami ( talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for original research and controversial theories. There are no hard evidences that Hangul's 'ancestors' are all those other alphabet systems.
Agnistus, the article Phoenician_alphabet does NOT say hangul is derived from phagspa script. Please do not lie. It currently says: "Many historians believe that the Brahmi script and the subsequent Indic alphabets are derived from this script as well, which would make it and ultimately Egyptian the ancestor of most writing systems in use today, possibly including even Hangul, which may have been influenced by Brahmic Phagspa. This would mean that of all the national scripts in use in the world today, only the Chinese script and its derivatives have an independent origin."
"... POSSIBLY including even Hanul, which MAY have been INFLUENCED..." I have highlighted the key words for you.
kwami, you left a note on my page saying: "Agnistus didn't mean that "Korean is based on all those alphabets", but that that is its genealogy. Controversial, but there is substantial evidence."
Genealogy is just a scientific word used to say "based on". You said yourself that it is controversial, so why include it in wikipedia?
If you guys feel intent on including something in the article about the REMOTE POSSIBILITY that Hangul is based on some other alphabets, then please do so as a separate section in the article, not in the table where only hard facts should appear. Wookie919 ( talk) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition to that, I would greatly thank anyone who could add citation[s] that verify that Korean is related to Altaic roots.
Benhpark ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.204.49.221 ( talk) 10:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The 'Phagspa connection in the infobox is back, courtesty of Special:Contributions/219.111.79.204 219.111.79.204. I didn't want to get involved in the debate, so for now I just wikified it (so it looks pretty and a reader can check out the relevant articles) and added a footnote so that readers know it's a controversial topic. You guys can decide whether or not to delete it. -- Politizer ( talk) 04:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the 2nd ¶ of the Block shape section:
I would just like to comment that the style exemplified by the UnJamo fonts is that of a Korean typewriter, with only one glyph available for each letter. These had to combine to produce readable syllable blocks; the results are clear but uneven in terms of type color. Like our Latin monospace fonts, it’s not the best typography, but it comes to be recognized as a certain style in its own right. MJ ( t • c) 03:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Are the symbols shown in the top two rows at Image:Origin of Korean.jpg equivalent phonetically, or just simply coincidentally similar in shape? As the diagram doesn't give the pronunciations, it's not a very useful diagram. Badagnani ( talk) 05:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
one comment by User:Politizer moved down during refactoring
Even better, answer the actual question I asked. Badagnani ( talk) 06:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That image and two similar versions of it by the same uploader have no source information and are of questionable value (one has already been challenged at its talk page by myself and another user). Does anyone have any opinion about whether to IfD them, or just make sure they're not used in any articles, or anything else? Here are the three images in question:
'인사이클로피디아(www.encyclopedia.com)'와 '내이션스인사이클로피디아(www.nationsencyclopedia.com)' 등은 "한글은 중국 한자를 모방해 만들었다"고 왜곡했다. Even though it's not clear either, and I sent an e-mail to the auther, I still have no idea. And I don't think it'd be just a coincidence. talk/ contribs 08:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, so I didn't feel comfortable just blindly reverting, but this addition looks pretty questionable to me. First of all, the source is a blog, which leads me to believe it's mostly OR and is the ref was just whatever the editor could find. Secondly, it suggests that ㆍ, ㅡ, and ㅣ stand for "heaven, earth, and human," and bases this assertion on the order in which they appeared in some early dictionary... as far as I knew, ㅡ and ㅣ had more to do with the backness/frontness of the vowels they represent?
Anyway, I won't revert by myself because I don't totally know what I'm talking about, but I'm just wondering if anyone else finds this questionable. Politizer talk/ contribs 00:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
While it's true that books etc. have gone over to left-to-right, store signs, especially listings of menu itmes on walls of restaurants have not. I am about as likely to see top-to-bottom as left-to-right. It could also be noted that on such signs, the space is often block, so that you can get huge gaps between words and even syllables. Kdammers ( talk) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Another thing I notice in the Style section...the image
is nice, but unfortunately the examples it gives for different fonts are all different characters! It's not a big deal, but could someone who has Photoshop (or some other software that would allow you to make a pretty image like that) make a new image in which the same characters are used to demonstrate each font? --
Politizer (
talk)
13:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Unless I don't understand the flow of information, the graphic for E (tieut) is in error. All the other graphics show the completed Hangul at the beginning of the stroke sequence; that one shows a partial Hangul missing the center (second) stroke. I can't fix it because I'm at work and don't have access to a graphics editor that writes .png's so I'm noting it here for someone else to fix. I'll come back later and fix it if someone else doesn't do it first. 12.151.32.25 ( talk) 20:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)some anonymous person.
Can someone post me the characters depicted here? I would be very appriciated
PS. Idk where I should post that :/... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.63.84.236 (
talk)
07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to mean anything.-- 119.149.135.35 ( talk) 12:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It's pronounced 'Tep-hik-luk' and it doesn't mean anything.-- Younghyun0403 ( talk) 13:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a link:
[1]
Is this credible enough to mention in this page? --
Tk TommyKim (
talk)
18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Since it's a fairly recently initiated movement, I don't think Hangul yet qualifies as "the" writing system for Cia-Cia. I'd recommend changing the way that's stated in the overview paragraph to something more tentative. I also doubt that the Cia-Cia movement merits mention in the first paragraph, but that's not my call. For now, I'll just rephrase "It has also been adopted as the writing system of the Austronesian Cia-Cia language." Samboha ( talk) 04:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this article had nothing about "patchim" in it. I am thinking about adding it in. Does anyone else agree, or is it unnecessary? Αδελφος ( talk) 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed someone edited one hanja (語 for the last syllable of 조선글) in the info box under “North Korean name.” Aside from doubting that this is right (語 is 어 as in 한국어 as far as I know), my bigger question is: Why write a North Korean word with hanja at all? They certainly don’t. I’m removing that line from the box; feel free to revert if you have a reason. (Also, why does the infobox template spell it “hancha” while everywhere else here I find “hanja”?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark R Johnson ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree: Koreans aren't using hanja to write their words. I think somebody who studied Chinese and Korean wrote that and wanted to put both here. I also think that it should be hanja, not hancha. Αδελφος ( talk) 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Samson (1990) misrepresents Ledyard, and would appear to not understand his argument. He says, "So remarkable an achievement was Han'gul that some Western scholars to this day argue that it must have been developed on the basis of an earlier model", and give Ledyard as an example. This is completely off base: L never claims that Hangul must be based on s.t. else because it's too remarkable to be Korean; in fact, he goes to pains to deny such an interpretation of his work, and he clearly has a great admiration for Korea and its culture. And indeed, what he ascribes to Phagspa is the least remarkable aspect of the script: the shapes of a few letters. It is patently not the model for hangul in L's treatment. To mischaracterize him as considering the featural system unimportant, as Samson does, is dishonest. It's like saying that Diringer claims the alphabet was not an invention because the shapes of the letters came from hieroglyphs, or that Braille was not an invention because someone else had already invented the dot. Or take Cherokee: no-one claims that anyone pointing out the Latin sources of the characters is denying Sequoya's achievement, or that the Latin alphabet could not have been the antecedent of Cherokee because it's not syllabic. The featural system of the script was innovative in L's account, though of course based on Chinese phonological theory. (The script was of course a product of its time, as any invention is.) If we have a ref that most scholars reject L, fine, but the Samson quote should be removed as misinformation. kwami ( talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"...the graphic complexity of Korean syllabic blocks varies in direct proportion with the phonemic complexity of the syllable." I can't buy this. What about the words with two-consonant padjims? What about words with 쯔 , ㅃ, ㄸ or ㅆ? I would say they all are graphically complex, but I don't think ㄸ is more complex phonemically than ㄷ is. Kdammers ( talk) 09:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The text of “morpho-syllabic blocks” section, which apparently needs improvement:
What means “consonants” in this context, letters-consonants or consonant sounds? As stated, ‹ ㅇ › may both initial and final, but it represents silent sound when be initial. BTW: is the silence a consonant or what? How to understand “ ㅇ ng ”: the ‹ ㅇ › jamo which English name is ng, or the [ŋ] (ng) sound written by the (final) jamo ‹ ㅇ ›? First interpretation is false, second leads to a tautology. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 12:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I added some information here. This isn't OR, but still it would be nice to get some more sources corroborating what I have there now (which mostly comes from a small number of sources), so if anyone has any other sources to add to that section or clarify things, they would be very welcome! Thanks. -- Politizer ( talk) 19:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-- JWB ( talk) 20:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, hanja isn't an alphabet. That needs to be changed immediately.
Second, whereas JWB expressed doubts that the featural aspect of hangul improves legibility, I believe it actually reduces it. That's because it forces many of the letters to have similar shapes and therefore to be less distinct. The only benefit of the featural aspect, besides aesthetics and national pride, is that it makes the script easier to learn by foreigners who know something of phonetics. It has no benefit for Koreans, or for foreigners either once letter recognition is automatic.
Since AFAIK the mixed script was introduced by the Japanese in imitation of Japanese, and never actually used very much (and certainly never used now), that paragraph is irrelevant to the section and should be removed. I believe it would indeed help legibility, as it does for Japanese, but that's a hypothetical question.
Per JWB, the morphophonemic aspect really does help with legibility. That's one reason irregular spellings in English are sometimes beneficial, and why for example Turkish seems to be evolving in that direction.
"graphs for consonants show whether the phoneme is voiced". False. The only voiced consonants are m, n, ng, and l, and there is nothing to show that they are voiced.
"there is nearly a one-to-one phoneme-graph correspondence". False. This is not a phonemic script. All consonants have more that one pronunciation, except for the three like ㅃ that do not occur at the end of a syllable. The the letter ㅅ, for example, is pronounced /s/, /t/, and /n/, and phoneme /n/ is variously written ㄴ, ㄹ, ㄷ, ㅅ, and ㅈ (and I believe even more, but I'd need to double check).
kwami ( talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a source handy, but I wouldn't say mixed script was never used much. If it was used for a good part of the 20th century, that's still quite a lot.
The traditional scholarly attitude would have been to write Literary Chinese rather than Korean at all. Hangul was apparently initially intended for all-Hangul texts; for that matter, Japanese kana were initially used for all-kana texts. But it's quite possible mixed script got significant usage before the 20th century; I don't have evidence either for or against.
Our opinions are our own and not citeable, but on the other hand if none of us believe a claim (e.g. that the featural nature of the script aids reading) and it's not so widespread as to be notable, what reason is there to include it in the article?
The claims that seem most credible are the ones around nonlinearity / using both dimensions / visual variation / syllabicity. You might consider working these into the existing section on syllable blocking, which already mentions readability issues.
The stuff about stroke-count is less about Hangul in particular than about Chinese characters vs. alphabets in general, so perhaps treatment of this would make more sense in the Chinese character articles. -- JWB ( talk) 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it's consonant. For example, there is a politeness morpheme |p| that surfaces as /m/ in verbs such as hamnida. That's written syllabically as hap-ni-da, not morphemically as ha-p-ni-da. Or usually is, anyway. There are historical exceptions. kwami ( talk) 01:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of saying something about that, but a vocalic morpheme such as 이 is still written as a separate block. The ieung is just a placeholder. There was a time when it was not: jib-i was written ji-bi, but that's no longer the case. There are a few vocalic morphemes that are written as part of the preceding block (usually something like o-a being written oa / wa), but I'll have to look them up. The point is that the lack of independent consonants is an orthographic rule similar to the requirement of ieung before an initial vowel. kwami ( talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's there and I just didn't see it, but I can't find any mention of the custom of printing (ㅇ)ㅏ as a squiggle below a consonant, as in 한, where there is a squiggle between the ㅎ and the ㄴ and nothing to the right of it . Kdammers ( talk) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hangul → Hangeul — Hangeul is a Korea Government's official spelling.
Hangeul(O) Hankeul(X) Han-gŭl(X)
http://www.korean.go.kr/09_new/dic/rule/rule_roman.jsp
There are two search boxes. In the below box, search a word "한글." -- Gnulinux ( talk) 02:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
"In addition, there are 10 obsolete double letters: ㅥ, ᄙ, ㅹ, ᄽ, ᄿ, ᅇ, ᇮ, ᅏ, ᅑ, ㆅ."
ᅇ appears twice. What was the original 10th? ㆀ? —
MK (
t/
c)
05:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
audio pronunciation says hanzi not hangeul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.114.69 ( talk) 22:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed the comment [Have these logically impossible ones ever been used?] from directly after the 41 obsolete vowel diphthongs section, but the point still stands - have those vowel diphthongs ever been used? Vanisaac ( talk) 04:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Early in describing the jamo, the article says that it's the top stroke of ㅌ t [tʰ] that denotes aspiration. But later we find that d [t] is ㄷ, so that apparently isn't true. If anything, it would be the middle stroke that denotes aspiration—which is consistent with the case of ㄱ g [k] and ㅋ k [kʰ]. I'd fix it but I don't know any details beyond the obviousness of the contradiction. Can someone else please fix it? —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently in that section, 6 base vowels and 2 dipthongs (ㅐ (ae) and ㅔ (e)) are shown. I suggest re-ording to show the six base vowels, then only one of the dipthong vowel and also add one iotized vowel, or have the two non-base vowels be a combination of the dipthong and iotized vowels where one is based upon either ㅏ (a) or ㅓ (eo), and the other based upon either ㅗ (o) or ㅜ (u). (I would have made a replacement graphic(s) but don't have the appropriate image editing program at the moment.) CJLippert ( talk) 18:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)