This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Is 습시다 and (시)습시오 right? Isn't it ㅂ시다 and 십시오? I asked a native speaker friend and he said "습시다" and "(시)습시오" were wrong. Bluesoju ( talk) 02:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Imperative, stem ending in consonant: 읽다 (read) -> 읽으십시오 (meaning: read!) Propositive, stem ending in consonant: 읽다 (read) -> 읽으십시다,읽읍시다 (meaning: why don't you read?, shall we read?) Imperative, stem ending in vowel: 가다 (read) -> 가십시오 (meaning: go!) Propositive, stem ending in vowel: 가다 (read) -> 가십시다,갑시다 (meaning: why don't you go?, shall we go?)
I found it at page 26 of "Basic Korean" (A Grammar and Workbook) of Andrew Sangpil Byon. Daniele. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.202.86.31 ( talk) 14:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Is propositive a real word? I can't find it in the dictionary or on wikipedia. The only other place i've seen it was in one Korean book. If thats not a right term, then what is the proper term? -- Bluesoju ( talk) 01:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
After looking at this article, there seem to be a lot of edits from people with no thorough understanding of Korean. In fact a lot of the info in this article I do not trust. For example I think the gerund section is totally wrong, but I will look across some textbooks to verify, the gerund is formed by adding the verb stem with -기 not 서. These are the types of mistakes that worry me. Also one author seems to not know proper Korean verb forms and doesn't seem to know the romanization rules, romanizing things things as they are spelled rather than how it's pronounced. -- Bluesoju ( talk) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Check the pages yourself (and any other pages which contain romanized Korean), I'm undoing your edit. One doesn't need to be able to read Hangeul to have it romanized properly for them. -- Bluesoju ( talk) 06:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"all official RPK usage is transcription": False. RRK, as described by the govt. of the RPK, specifically allows for transliteration. But the RPK is irrelevant: Transliteration of hangul is typically used for grammatical analysis of Korean, as it more clearly illuminates the nature of the language. This is a grammatical article that includes grammatical analysis of Korean. Ergo transliteration is appropriate for this article. Now if you want to change your argument from "this is wrong", as a matter of fact, to "I disagree with this approach", as a matter of opinion, fine; that would be an issue for broader discussion and consensus. Unfortunately, we do not have much of a discussion going on here, and so far no-one has answered at the romanization article either. kwami ( talk) 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I may not be an expert-expert on Korean, but I speak intermediate Korean, studied linguistics at an undergraduate level, and, more importantly, I own four for five large Korean reference grammars. I think may be able to help, but I didn't want to just edit the page without giving anyone the heads-up. I'm also a little bit considered about making sure I give the right citations and avoiding original research. It'll take me a long time to track them all down in my books.
The standard for transliteration and morphological analysis, which is used in most of the studious grammar books written in English, is Yale romanization. In my opinion, this article needs to have its examples rewritten in Yale rather than RR, with the appropriate note and link at the beginning of the page. RR can be used for pronunciation guides and for transliteration, but it's not very good for morphological analysis. There's a slightly different form of Yale used for morphological analysis, from the one used for transliteration, but it's very useful for both.
I can fix the references to Korean tense here that seem to have confused a lot of people, but it's very complicated and hard to explain briefly, so we might be better off creating a new article tense and aspect in Korean or similar and linking all the terms like retrospective and future-in-remote-past to the appropriate heading of that article.
Also, the description of -서 is wrong. It's not a gerund, it's a subordinating conjunction, which attaches to the past stem (해) of a verb.
I'll hold off on some of the bigger edits, but I can start correcting -서 right now. JohnDavidWard ( talk) 16:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
1.) I don't want to get into the dispute as to which transliteration method is most appropriate for this article, but I have edited it so that it is at least internally consistent as described in the footnotes.
2.) I have also deleted the hyphens following the particles "안" and "못" since those are treated as separate words (separated by spaces) in standard Korean orthography.
3.) I have removed several phonological descriptions, since those are already covered in Korean phonology.
4.) The section on gerunds makes very little sense to anyone who has a basic understanding of both the Korean language and linguistic terminology. The suffix "-서" is a conjunctive particle akin to "-며," "-면," "-고," "-니," "-니까," etc., and generally corresponds to English "when," "because," or "and." Thus, I don't really see how it could be considered a gerund. If by a gerund you mean a nominal verb form, then the suffix "-기," as mentioned above, is correct. In most contexts it corresponds closely to the English "-ing" gerund or to infinitive. For example, "I like watching movies"/"I like to watch movies" in Korean would be "영화 보기가 좋아." I did initially delete the entire section but it seems to have resurfaced. Further, I have no idea what the phrase "with vowel harmony to 사 -sa" is intended to mean. Is it referring to the verb stem "사-" meaning "buy"? If not, what does "사" signify?
5.) The section on number also has several problems. As mentioned in that section as it is currently written, Korean does not generally express number, and it is only rarely obligatory. Thus I don't see the point of dedicating such a large section to it while ignoring several other more salient features of Korean grammar. Also, the phrase "for example" is used to introduce the final three example sentences therein, but those sentences in no way illustrate the point described thereabove. The plural suffix is attached only to the subject in all three of them.
6.) The distinction in the instrumental case clitic is not strictly V/C, since "-로" also occurs with stems ending in ㄹ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.41.14 ( talk) 18:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me. Brett ( talk) 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC) )
Well, I wrote here and I haven't heard anything back, so I'm going to assume no-one minds if I add Yale romanization to this article. JohnDavidWard ( talk) 03:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
영어 수동태와 우리말 피동문 (2008-02-03). It seems that some South Korean linguists treats the verbal passives like English passives. This is an unorthodox approach. Komitsuki ( talk) 02:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure -(i)na should be included as a separate informational clitic; I was under the impression that it's just a form of the copulative verb -- Tyrannus Mundi ( talk) 02:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the postposition subsection should be placed separately, instead of being listed under the substantives. The classification of words section mentions the postposition in the separate category of function words. Since the organization of the first half of this article follows the structure of classification of words section, and it has the section for other content words but no function words, it makes more sense to relocate the proposition subsection under a new separate section for function words. -- Ieay4a ( talk) 10:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Malaika 59.103.141.49 ( talk) 11:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Is 습시다 and (시)습시오 right? Isn't it ㅂ시다 and 십시오? I asked a native speaker friend and he said "습시다" and "(시)습시오" were wrong. Bluesoju ( talk) 02:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Imperative, stem ending in consonant: 읽다 (read) -> 읽으십시오 (meaning: read!) Propositive, stem ending in consonant: 읽다 (read) -> 읽으십시다,읽읍시다 (meaning: why don't you read?, shall we read?) Imperative, stem ending in vowel: 가다 (read) -> 가십시오 (meaning: go!) Propositive, stem ending in vowel: 가다 (read) -> 가십시다,갑시다 (meaning: why don't you go?, shall we go?)
I found it at page 26 of "Basic Korean" (A Grammar and Workbook) of Andrew Sangpil Byon. Daniele. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.202.86.31 ( talk) 14:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Is propositive a real word? I can't find it in the dictionary or on wikipedia. The only other place i've seen it was in one Korean book. If thats not a right term, then what is the proper term? -- Bluesoju ( talk) 01:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
After looking at this article, there seem to be a lot of edits from people with no thorough understanding of Korean. In fact a lot of the info in this article I do not trust. For example I think the gerund section is totally wrong, but I will look across some textbooks to verify, the gerund is formed by adding the verb stem with -기 not 서. These are the types of mistakes that worry me. Also one author seems to not know proper Korean verb forms and doesn't seem to know the romanization rules, romanizing things things as they are spelled rather than how it's pronounced. -- Bluesoju ( talk) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Check the pages yourself (and any other pages which contain romanized Korean), I'm undoing your edit. One doesn't need to be able to read Hangeul to have it romanized properly for them. -- Bluesoju ( talk) 06:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"all official RPK usage is transcription": False. RRK, as described by the govt. of the RPK, specifically allows for transliteration. But the RPK is irrelevant: Transliteration of hangul is typically used for grammatical analysis of Korean, as it more clearly illuminates the nature of the language. This is a grammatical article that includes grammatical analysis of Korean. Ergo transliteration is appropriate for this article. Now if you want to change your argument from "this is wrong", as a matter of fact, to "I disagree with this approach", as a matter of opinion, fine; that would be an issue for broader discussion and consensus. Unfortunately, we do not have much of a discussion going on here, and so far no-one has answered at the romanization article either. kwami ( talk) 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I may not be an expert-expert on Korean, but I speak intermediate Korean, studied linguistics at an undergraduate level, and, more importantly, I own four for five large Korean reference grammars. I think may be able to help, but I didn't want to just edit the page without giving anyone the heads-up. I'm also a little bit considered about making sure I give the right citations and avoiding original research. It'll take me a long time to track them all down in my books.
The standard for transliteration and morphological analysis, which is used in most of the studious grammar books written in English, is Yale romanization. In my opinion, this article needs to have its examples rewritten in Yale rather than RR, with the appropriate note and link at the beginning of the page. RR can be used for pronunciation guides and for transliteration, but it's not very good for morphological analysis. There's a slightly different form of Yale used for morphological analysis, from the one used for transliteration, but it's very useful for both.
I can fix the references to Korean tense here that seem to have confused a lot of people, but it's very complicated and hard to explain briefly, so we might be better off creating a new article tense and aspect in Korean or similar and linking all the terms like retrospective and future-in-remote-past to the appropriate heading of that article.
Also, the description of -서 is wrong. It's not a gerund, it's a subordinating conjunction, which attaches to the past stem (해) of a verb.
I'll hold off on some of the bigger edits, but I can start correcting -서 right now. JohnDavidWard ( talk) 16:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
1.) I don't want to get into the dispute as to which transliteration method is most appropriate for this article, but I have edited it so that it is at least internally consistent as described in the footnotes.
2.) I have also deleted the hyphens following the particles "안" and "못" since those are treated as separate words (separated by spaces) in standard Korean orthography.
3.) I have removed several phonological descriptions, since those are already covered in Korean phonology.
4.) The section on gerunds makes very little sense to anyone who has a basic understanding of both the Korean language and linguistic terminology. The suffix "-서" is a conjunctive particle akin to "-며," "-면," "-고," "-니," "-니까," etc., and generally corresponds to English "when," "because," or "and." Thus, I don't really see how it could be considered a gerund. If by a gerund you mean a nominal verb form, then the suffix "-기," as mentioned above, is correct. In most contexts it corresponds closely to the English "-ing" gerund or to infinitive. For example, "I like watching movies"/"I like to watch movies" in Korean would be "영화 보기가 좋아." I did initially delete the entire section but it seems to have resurfaced. Further, I have no idea what the phrase "with vowel harmony to 사 -sa" is intended to mean. Is it referring to the verb stem "사-" meaning "buy"? If not, what does "사" signify?
5.) The section on number also has several problems. As mentioned in that section as it is currently written, Korean does not generally express number, and it is only rarely obligatory. Thus I don't see the point of dedicating such a large section to it while ignoring several other more salient features of Korean grammar. Also, the phrase "for example" is used to introduce the final three example sentences therein, but those sentences in no way illustrate the point described thereabove. The plural suffix is attached only to the subject in all three of them.
6.) The distinction in the instrumental case clitic is not strictly V/C, since "-로" also occurs with stems ending in ㄹ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.41.14 ( talk) 18:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me. Brett ( talk) 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC) )
Well, I wrote here and I haven't heard anything back, so I'm going to assume no-one minds if I add Yale romanization to this article. JohnDavidWard ( talk) 03:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
영어 수동태와 우리말 피동문 (2008-02-03). It seems that some South Korean linguists treats the verbal passives like English passives. This is an unorthodox approach. Komitsuki ( talk) 02:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure -(i)na should be included as a separate informational clitic; I was under the impression that it's just a form of the copulative verb -- Tyrannus Mundi ( talk) 02:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the postposition subsection should be placed separately, instead of being listed under the substantives. The classification of words section mentions the postposition in the separate category of function words. Since the organization of the first half of this article follows the structure of classification of words section, and it has the section for other content words but no function words, it makes more sense to relocate the proposition subsection under a new separate section for function words. -- Ieay4a ( talk) 10:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Malaika 59.103.141.49 ( talk) 11:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)