This page 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. |
WIKIPEDIA SAYS, TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION IS ONLY 74 MILLION??? are you really sure??? 2012: Korean Peninsula population is reaching 88 Million. There are 10 Million Overseas Koreans and Half Koreans. It would add up 98 Million Koreans probably be about 90 Million Korean speakers not 74 Million.
such as mongshil mongshil (wool) doongshildoongshil (balloon) dongshil dongshil (floating)
dalsong dalsong (dew)
i RE-INSTATED THE CITATION. Although I gave up waiting for the link to load, I found the cited material at [1]. More importantly, the citation is to a book. By going to the real world, one can find the cited material in this authoritative source. Perhaps the link needs to be fixed, but the citation is valid. Kdammers ( talk) 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"Korean is regarded in the West as a difficult language to learn, an opinion that was expressed as early as 1880 by German businessman Ernst Oppert..."
I found this line laughably ridiculous. A 1880 German businessman finding it difficult does not speak for the majority of others learning this language, two centuries later. I've removed this portion entirely because of the a) lack of statistical credence; and b) relevance. I'm sure there are harder languages to learn and quantifying languages according to difficulty of study itself is a complex task. I've removed this portion entirely. 192.206.151.130 ( talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
korean is really as difficult as chinese and japanese?in category 4?i think korean vocabulary is quite easy and their writing system hangul is much easier than chinese hanzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.87.4 ( talk) 21:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the 2002 Russian census, there were only 60,888 speakers of Korean ( [2] row 72) out of 148,556 people claiming Korean ethnicity ( [3] row 86). That 60,888 is undoubtedly composed overwhelmingly of the 55,000 or so Sakhalin Koreans, and not Koryo-saram, who are by now five or six generations removed from their immigrant forebears who settled in the Russian Far East.
The trend of falling Korean-language proficiency among the Koryo-saram is well-documented. The last Soviet Union census in 1989, now two decades old, found 216,811 ethnic Koreans who claimed Korean as their "mother tongue" [4], a fall of 12% since 1970 [5]. In contrast, the number of ethnic Koreans claiming Russian as their mother tongue doubled over the same period. Basically what is happening here is that all the elderly folks who used to speak Korean with their own parents before the 1937 deportations are dying out and being replaced by ethnic Korean babies who grow up speaking solely in Russian. This decrease undoubtedly accelerated in the period 1989-2008 as compared to 1970-1989. German Kim predicted that the language might disappear entirely within 10-15 years, with the exception of South Korean expatriates and a few Koryo-saram who learn the language by socializing with them [6].
So by now, the total number of Korean speakers in the CIS (as opposed to people with great-grandmothers who spoke Korean 50 years ago) is probably less than in the Philippines or Canada, each of which have around a hundred thousand recent Korean immigrants and their second-generation children (see Korean Canadian and Koreans in the Philippines); unless anyone has a current source for the number of Korean speakers in the CIS, I'd suggest removing that entry. cab cab ( talk) 05:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
i do not mean to offend anyone but this artical looks like it has lots of information but could also use more sources. about 5 more sources would do.hawkey131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Any information on intonation patterns?? 210.229.27.75 ( talk) 23:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD IS 90 MILLION. PLUS OVERSEAS Koreans/ Half Koreans. Total speakers would be 98-99 Million. not 74 Million. 74 Million is outdated.
SOUTH KOREA: 50,044,790 + NORTH KOREA: 25,790,000 + OVERSEAS KOREANS: 7,077,716 (2008)= 82,879,507 KOREANS/KOREAN LANGUAGE POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD. PLEASE UPDATE POPULATION FIGURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanResearch ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
KOREAN LANGUAGE IS SPOKEN 80-88 MILLION AROUND THE WORLD. NOT 67 MILLION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanstudy1 ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
67 million Koreans is wrong. 88 million Koreans is correct. THE YEAR 2008 KOREAN TOTAL KOREAN POPULATION IS ABOUT 78 MILLION. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA MAKE SUCH A SILLY AND STUPID MISTAKE 67 MILLION???? WIKPEDIA NEED TO SMELL COFFEE AND WAKE UP. ITS 80-88 MILLION TOTAL KOREAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88millionkoreans ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
KOREAN PENINSULA: 72,711,933 PLUS 7,000,000 MILLION OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION YOU HAVE TOTAL 79,711,933 PLUS 6,000,000 HALF KOREAN POPULATIONS AND NORTH KOREAN POLITICAL REFUGEES LIVING IN MANCHURIA, CHINA, RUSSIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA, EASTERN EUROPE. TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION SHOULD BE ABOUT 80-86 MILLION. PLEASE CORRECT WIKIPEDIA NUMBER. KOREAN POPULATION (2008) IS 72 MILLION. HOW CAN IT BE 67 MILLION??? FACTS AND FIGURES DOES NOT ADD UP. PLEASE CORRECT THE NUMBER.
I added a source which says 78 million, which closely tracks to the cited population figures at the Wikipedia article Koreans. In any case, numbers have to match the quoted sources! I believe this solves the issue, but if it doesn't, reliable sources must be provided for any change. Edits which stubbornly insist on ignoring Wikipedia policies may be deleted immediately. - Do c t orW 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
78 MILLION IS OUTDATED SOURCE. SOUTH KOREAN POPULATION: 49,044,790 + NORTH KOREAN POPULATION: 24,790,000+ OVERSEAS KOREAN: 7,044,716= 80,879,506 KOREAN SPEAKERS.(L1) KOREAN SPEAKER (L2): Half Koreans, Adopted Koreans, North Korean political refugee's: 11,230,000. 80,879,506+11,230,000= 92,109,506 Korean speakers around the world.
WIKEPIDA INFORMATION: SOUTH KOREA POPULATION (2007): 49,044,790+ NORTH KOREA POPULATION (2007) 23,790,000 + OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION (2007) 7,932,671.
49,044,790+23,790,000+7,932,671= 80,767,461 TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKER. NOT 78-79 MILLION. CORRECT FACT SHOULD BE 80,767,461 MILLION KOREAN SPEAKER. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Korean1Professor (
talk •
contribs) 13:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA "FALSE" FACTS: WIKIPEDIA SUGGEST KOREAN LANGUAGE SPOKEN 78 MILLION ( USING 10 YEAR OLD DATA). SOUTH KOREA POPULATION: 49,044,790+ NORTH KOREA POPULATION:24,790,000+ OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION: 7,044,716= 80,879,506 Million. ( KOREAN TOTAL POPULATION IS 80,879,506 + 10,230,000 ( HALF KOREANS, ADOPTED KOREANS, NORTH KOREAN POLITICAL REFUGEE LIVING IN CHINA, RUSSIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA, MIDDLE EAST). KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD IS ( 91,109,506 MILLION.): IF WIKIPEDIA CANNOT ACCEPT TRUE FACT. THEN ITS SAVE TO SAY KOREAN LANGUAGE IS SPOKEN BY 80,879,506 MILLION KOREANS. KOREAN PENINSULA 73,834,790+ OVERSEAS KOREANS 7,044,716= 80,879,506 MILLION KOREANS. DON'T TELL US KOREANS LIVING IN KOREAN PENINSULA AND OVERSEAS KOREANS CANNOT SPEAK OR WRITE KOREANS!!!! UPDATE CORRECT FACT AND FIGURE. KOREAN LANGUAGE IS SPOKEN BY 80.8 MILLION KOREANS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Who says that Korean is Altaic? Most linguists? That is not correct, most linguists believe is it language isolate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.107.211 ( talk) 21:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you know what 'most linguists' believe. It's never been universally accepted anyway, and the text of the article explains that. 220.253.138.16 ( talk) 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
KOREAN LANGUAGE IS RELATED TO " ALTAIC" FAMILY. ( KOREAN, JAPANESE, MONGOLIAN, MANCHURIAN, TURKISH). KOREAN LANGUAGE IS NOT RELATED TO CHINESE OR HAN-PEOPLE. OVER PAST 10 YEARS CHINESE SCHOLARS WANTED TO TAKE MORE CREDITS APPLYING KOREANS RELATE TO CHINESE BECAUSE KOREANS USE CHINESE CHARACTERS OR KOREAN VOCABULARY DERIVED FROM CHINESE CHARACTERS. REALITY KOREANS GRAMMAR OR WRITING DOES NOT RELATE TO CHINESE. KOREANS BORROWED VOCABULARY FROM CHINESE CHARACTERS. FOR EXAMPLE, ENGLISH ADOPTED VOCABULARY FROM LATIN, GREEK, FRENCH, AND GERMAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
"KOREAN LANGUAGE IS NOT RELATED TO CHINESE" Hey, don't get upset - nobody has said so.
"ENGLISH ADOPTED VOCABULARY FROM LATIN, GREEK, FRENCH, AND GERMAN." Very true, indeed. And, in addition, English is genetically related to German - both are West Germanic languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.150.6 ( talk) 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
English genetically related to German- both are West Germanic languages. English is related to Germans but does English sound similiar to German language today??? For example, Japanese genetically related to Korean. Japanese sound similiar to Korean language today??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea1times ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Please note that the research cited for arguing that most linguists consider Korean a language isolate actually just says "many" and does so after explaining that the Altaic argument is the most persuasive in regards to the origins of the Korean language. Edited the page to be more in the spirit of that reference. Alexander.lewis@trinity.edu ( talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The author clearly states that he finds the Altaic argument to be the most persuasive. He acknowledges that it is not universally accepted and continues to state that MANY disagree. 45 out of 100 is many without being most. Furthermore, to disagree with the Altaic hypothesis isn't automatically agreeing that Korean is a language isolate. There may be other sources, but the one linked does not support the statement that "Most modern linguists consider Korean to be a language isolate." 09:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.53.94.118 ( talk)
It doesn't make English language a German. Plus the world is divided between American English ( North American English) and British English ( Queens English). I personally prefer American/ North American English. So does all North American English speakers Germans???? So stop non-sense Korean language being related to Chinese language. Past, Present, for the future Koreans and Chinese always have been different in Food, Language, Culture, National Characters, History, Nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanKimKlan1 ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The statement that "... borrowed Chinese characters pronounced in the Korean way" is hilarious. First, do you really need to borrow? When will you return what you borrowed? And then, do you not have your own words to describe things that are so basic and innate such as emotions and feelings or even body parts? And then, what's with the Korean way of pronunciation? There are hundreds of ways (dialects) to pronounce those Chinese characters. Korean way may be just one of them. Skyline68 ( talk) 04:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a linguistics background, but is the choice here really between the Altaic language family and a true isolate? It seems like the introduction could at least mention that Korean is probably related to Japanese, or qualify the word "isolate." 108.36.121.235 ( talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Need Korean word in the box at Kowtow. Is there a Sino-Korean equivalent (such as gaedu or godu? Badagnani ( talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I just rated this article C-Class for WP Languages, but would like to give a bit more reasons than I could give in the edit history. First, there are no in-line references. For this article, this is not as bad as for other articles as most information is Korean school grammar that you can "verify" everywhere. But as the linguistic value of school grammar is known to be limited, it would merit to quote from some actual research. It's all there. And, if I remember correctly, Korean vowel phonemes are in dispute. Then, the article is inconsistent. First, it doesn't give any reason why adjectives are distinct from verbs which is easy enough to demonstrate. Then, it continues with nouns, but provides misplaced info on their origin first! The worst part is grammar other than morphology. Korean is quite well-known for double object constructions and a few other things, so that should be discussed. Converbs should be mentioned as well, and not to mention aspect and evidentiality. The part on language origin is somewhat biased, but I admit that I'm free to improve it myself if I would like to. Mention Vovin, for example. And it is not so biased that it is already unscientific, it does mention the other position, so it'll be okay for me for the time being. A yes, and "Morphophonemics" doesn't contain a transcription. (I won't do that, I'm only familiar with the Yale transcription.) G Purevdorj ( talk) 08:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to judge from the case affixes (just remember that I don’t actually speak Korean!), the first example looks like a double nominative construction, cp. Japanese X wa/ga Y ga suki da 'X likes Y'. There seem to be several double object constructions. The one I thought of was
But there are other ways. The first is X-i Y-ul Z-ul hada, and I just stumbled over a sentence that is new to me and more ore less seems to resemble English:
That would be three. All these sentences might get discussed. G Purevdorj ( talk) 07:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Cpryby has tagged the statement "However, it is very difficult to argue that similarities in such key terms like "water" and the verbs "to be" "to go" would arise from sprachbund effects" as "dubious" but has not, as far as I can see, given any reason for doing so. Does anyone have any reason for doubting the statement? JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the following piece of text from the article:
It is certainly the case that the Ceycwuto and Yukcin dialects are of utmost relevance to reconstructing stages of the language older than Late Middle Korean, and the rest of this paragraph may well hold, but I'm afraid it cannot stay in the article without APPROPRIATE references. G Purevdorj ( talk) 07:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I do question the validity of Jeju Language as a language or dialect. However, difference is the same as Mainland Japanese language vs. Ryukyuan language. Therefore, it is called Japanic language family. Would Korean language be the same as Japan and be Koreanic if Jeju is a separate language. In Endangered Languages by google, it states that Jeju is a severely endangered language? Native Speakers 5,000 to 10,000. Check this link: http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/1mm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.156.217 ( talk) 23:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I see that my removal of an unsourced POV statement about Korean not being related to Chinese has been readded to the article, with the comment, "there is no credible theory that Korean is related to Chinese." To reply to that: The issue is not specifically about Chinese and Korean at all. Rather, it is whether all currently spoken languages have a common origin or not. If they do, then Chinese and Korean would be related because all languages would be related. Insisting on stating in an completely unqualified way that Chinese and Korean are not related is simply taking sides with one theory about the history of languages (that they don't have a common origin) against the competing theory that they do have a common origin. Neither view is necessarily more credible than the other. WP:UNDUE is wholly irrelevant here, since I did not make the article say that Chinese and Korean were in any way related. Born Gay ( talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition, it's quite unnecessary to state that they aren't related, as stating that Korean has borrowed Chinese vocabulary in no way implies that they are. Born Gay ( talk) 23:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
A lexicon article is to be to the point, not a kaleidoscope of irrelevant opinions. So I propose to delete this section. G Purevdorj ( talk) 10:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I read the following
as German (areubaiteu "part-time job", allereugi "allergy", "gibsu" "plaster cast used for broken bones").
They are actually loanword coming from Japan who, on their turn loaned it from the Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.121.98 ( talk) 13:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with the choice of calling them determiners and linking to the article on it. It doesn't seem like the determiner article describes them at all. Their usage is much closer to regular adjectives, and includes words that are adjectives in English like "beautiful". [10] see page 19 and 21. In fact for that entire section there doesn't seem to be a single citation and this book's list of the parts of speech doesn't make any reference to determiners at all. So I'm recommending that the determiner article be unlinked as I don't think it is appropriately descriptive of this part of speech, and the name changed unless there are reliable sources that refer to it and describe it as such.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
In fact this academic paper, which google reports as having been cited twice, [11], says that Korean is a determine-less language. After reading the paper I'm inclined to agree, and I don't think labeling them as such or linking to an article on determiner's properly provides context or explanation as to what these are. As such I'm going to change it. if you have some compelling evidence to contradict these two sources, please provide them.-- Crossmr ( talk) 10:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This source [12] page 104 also refers to them as prenouns. It also defines adnominals as something else entirely. "A sentence that is embedded in another sentence and is used to as an element modifying a following noun phrase is an adnominal". This sounds more like an adjective clause than a prenoun. -- Crossmr ( talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Korean pre-nouns (관형사, gwanhyeongsa, 冠形詞) are also known in English as "determinatives", "attributives", and "unconjugated adjectives". Examples include 각 (kak, "each"). For a larger list, see wikt:Category:Korean determiners.
Since the classification of Korean is disputed, why don't we list all available sources with quotations. I will list some of accessible sources. Please add sources to the list if possible-- Caspian blue 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
over half of the linguistics classify Korean in Altaic languages.-- 62.248.33.182 ( talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Martin, Samuel E. (June 1996), Consonant Lenition in Korean and the Macro-Altaic Question,
University of Hawaii Press, p. 60,
ISBN
978-0824818098, With more of assertion that proof, I fear, is a characterization of much of what has been written on language relationships in East Asia. [… M]any of the comparisons I offer, both here and in forthcoming publications, can be taken as support for the view that the languages under discussion are all genetically related, but I caution that others of the comparisons cast doubt on that conclusion.
Let me summarize my current position on the controversial issues. I am somewhat suspicious of the Altaic hypothesis as it is currently enshrined but I am willing to use cautiously
Poppe's proto-Altaic reconstructions, with the revisions made by
Street and others, at least as a heuristic device. I do not believe that my 1966 paper proved the genetic relationship of Japanese to Korean, nor do I believe that
Miller
1971 proved its relationship to the Altaic languages […]. I continue to believe that the relationship between Japanese and Korean is closer than that of either to any other language […].
{{
citation}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 396 (
help)—Posted by
Wikipeditor (
talk) 23:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
"Most classify it as a language isolate". This phrase was written based on a reference, Song, Jae Jung (2005) "The Korean language: structure, use and context" Routledge, p. 15 Lyle Campbell & Mauricio Mixco. 2007. A Glossary of Historical Linguistics. University of Utah Press. I READ THE REFERENCE ONLY TO FIND THAT THERE'S NO GROUND TO WRITE "Most classify it as a language isolate".
The reference just tells "many linguists choose to regard Korean as a language isolate". YES, MOST IS DIFFERENT FROM MANY.
The reference also says "this is not unfair to say that the Altaic hypothesis is accepted by more scholars than other views". It's contradictory.
The bottomline is that: The Altaic hypothesis is accepted by more scholars than other views, but there are also many scholars to see it as a language isolate. So "Most classify it as a language isolate" is illogical. The editor may have a negative perspective to the Altaic hypothesis and prefer the language isolate idea, however it's not proper to write any personal preference.
Better to link another reference, if the editor wants to keep this notion : "Most classify it as a language isolate".
>> I'm not interested in your personal preference. I've found most of books tell that the Altaic hypothesis is accepted largely. If you want to keep your personal opinion alive, please link a proper reference. The previous reference's totally wrong.
The way the difference is presented in the article makes it look like there are words that do not exist or are not a part of Korean spoken in the north or south. But actually the use or none use of the word, for example the North Korean word for friend is not used much in the South, does not mean that the word is not a part of the language there. Many people in the south know both words for "friend" but do not use the word used in North Korea because of the political history associated with it. Using it could lead to being accused of sympathising with the North which used to have dire consequences, and many Koreans I talk to are still aware of this today. Bungleu ( talk) 12:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this must be corrected.
In south korea, ㅓ is similar to ə...
In north korea, ㅓ is similar to ɔ...
Nobody pronounces ㅓ as ʌ at both the south and north korea.
Korean_language#Names does not help a lot. Could you please specify which language should appear in a language selection menu of an open source project? 한국어/조선말 greetings -- Paddyez ( talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to re-organize the parts of speech a bit. I suggest we classify verbs as action verbs and descriptive verbs, which is in accordance with most Korean Language textbooks for Americans, which I've read (I have about 20).
Also, most "adjectives" in Korean are descriptive verbs and are conjugated as such. Either we say The book is red or we mention a red book - but the latter translates literally as "a book which is red". I think there are also a few Korean adjectives like green (초록빛) or small (조금) which aren't derived from verbs. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This article on the Korean language doesn't address the Goryeomal dialect spoken by the Koryo-saram. This is like archaic Korean right? Shouldn't this be noted or addressed? - M0rphzone ( talk) 23:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Could someone write Choson Cul Minzuzui Inmingonghoagug in Hangul/Chosongul for the Korean State Railway article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.205.144 ( talk) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's please leave the gender issue out of this article. I mean how is the use of Korean language by gender so significantly different (as compared to other languages) that it merits a whole subsection? Let's keep the discussion squarely on language itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.253.74.155 ( talk) 12:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Under "Korean Particles": -에, -에서, -한테 aren't listed. Also the particle "-의" while listed, has an incorrect pronunciation listed. 의 when part of a noun is indeed pronounced "ui", but when it's used as a particle it is pronounced "e" the same as "에"
This is shown in other wiki articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_grammar#Substantives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.205.228.150 ( talk) 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I could not garner the following information from the article. I think Korean words are written in a box with the word elements ordered top to bottom and right to left. Form instance then word "juche" is written with "j" in the upper left, "u" in the lower left, "ch" to the right of "j" "u" and lastly "e" to the right of "ch". Both "ch" and "e" occupy both the top and bottom of the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.184.119 ( talk) 19:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted a move of Jeju dialect to Jeju language, pending greater input. There are moves promoting it as a separate language, which may be relevant (cf. our treatment of Serbian, Hindi, and Indonesian as languages because they are officially promoted as languages, despite having less claim to that status cladistically than Jeju does). — kwami ( talk) 06:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Can the letter ㅈ represent ʦ͡ sound? It needs to be reflected in the article in that case. 178.49.18.203 ( talk) 04:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Am I missing some-thing? I see two vowel quadrilaterals and numbered black and red Hangeul vowels but no explanation of any of it. Did some-one vandalize this section perhaps? Kdammers ( talk) 11:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Altaic languages is just a proposed language family. And linguists usually regard that Jeju langaugae is a Korean dialect, not a language. -- 117.53.77.30 ( talk) 22:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Punjabi_language#Punjabi_Relation_with_Isolates_like_Korean_and_Japanese
This page 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. |
This page 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. |
WIKIPEDIA SAYS, TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION IS ONLY 74 MILLION??? are you really sure??? 2012: Korean Peninsula population is reaching 88 Million. There are 10 Million Overseas Koreans and Half Koreans. It would add up 98 Million Koreans probably be about 90 Million Korean speakers not 74 Million.
such as mongshil mongshil (wool) doongshildoongshil (balloon) dongshil dongshil (floating)
dalsong dalsong (dew)
i RE-INSTATED THE CITATION. Although I gave up waiting for the link to load, I found the cited material at [1]. More importantly, the citation is to a book. By going to the real world, one can find the cited material in this authoritative source. Perhaps the link needs to be fixed, but the citation is valid. Kdammers ( talk) 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"Korean is regarded in the West as a difficult language to learn, an opinion that was expressed as early as 1880 by German businessman Ernst Oppert..."
I found this line laughably ridiculous. A 1880 German businessman finding it difficult does not speak for the majority of others learning this language, two centuries later. I've removed this portion entirely because of the a) lack of statistical credence; and b) relevance. I'm sure there are harder languages to learn and quantifying languages according to difficulty of study itself is a complex task. I've removed this portion entirely. 192.206.151.130 ( talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
korean is really as difficult as chinese and japanese?in category 4?i think korean vocabulary is quite easy and their writing system hangul is much easier than chinese hanzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.87.4 ( talk) 21:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the 2002 Russian census, there were only 60,888 speakers of Korean ( [2] row 72) out of 148,556 people claiming Korean ethnicity ( [3] row 86). That 60,888 is undoubtedly composed overwhelmingly of the 55,000 or so Sakhalin Koreans, and not Koryo-saram, who are by now five or six generations removed from their immigrant forebears who settled in the Russian Far East.
The trend of falling Korean-language proficiency among the Koryo-saram is well-documented. The last Soviet Union census in 1989, now two decades old, found 216,811 ethnic Koreans who claimed Korean as their "mother tongue" [4], a fall of 12% since 1970 [5]. In contrast, the number of ethnic Koreans claiming Russian as their mother tongue doubled over the same period. Basically what is happening here is that all the elderly folks who used to speak Korean with their own parents before the 1937 deportations are dying out and being replaced by ethnic Korean babies who grow up speaking solely in Russian. This decrease undoubtedly accelerated in the period 1989-2008 as compared to 1970-1989. German Kim predicted that the language might disappear entirely within 10-15 years, with the exception of South Korean expatriates and a few Koryo-saram who learn the language by socializing with them [6].
So by now, the total number of Korean speakers in the CIS (as opposed to people with great-grandmothers who spoke Korean 50 years ago) is probably less than in the Philippines or Canada, each of which have around a hundred thousand recent Korean immigrants and their second-generation children (see Korean Canadian and Koreans in the Philippines); unless anyone has a current source for the number of Korean speakers in the CIS, I'd suggest removing that entry. cab cab ( talk) 05:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
i do not mean to offend anyone but this artical looks like it has lots of information but could also use more sources. about 5 more sources would do.hawkey131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Any information on intonation patterns?? 210.229.27.75 ( talk) 23:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD IS 90 MILLION. PLUS OVERSEAS Koreans/ Half Koreans. Total speakers would be 98-99 Million. not 74 Million. 74 Million is outdated.
SOUTH KOREA: 50,044,790 + NORTH KOREA: 25,790,000 + OVERSEAS KOREANS: 7,077,716 (2008)= 82,879,507 KOREANS/KOREAN LANGUAGE POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD. PLEASE UPDATE POPULATION FIGURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanResearch ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
KOREAN LANGUAGE IS SPOKEN 80-88 MILLION AROUND THE WORLD. NOT 67 MILLION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanstudy1 ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
67 million Koreans is wrong. 88 million Koreans is correct. THE YEAR 2008 KOREAN TOTAL KOREAN POPULATION IS ABOUT 78 MILLION. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA MAKE SUCH A SILLY AND STUPID MISTAKE 67 MILLION???? WIKPEDIA NEED TO SMELL COFFEE AND WAKE UP. ITS 80-88 MILLION TOTAL KOREAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88millionkoreans ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
KOREAN PENINSULA: 72,711,933 PLUS 7,000,000 MILLION OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION YOU HAVE TOTAL 79,711,933 PLUS 6,000,000 HALF KOREAN POPULATIONS AND NORTH KOREAN POLITICAL REFUGEES LIVING IN MANCHURIA, CHINA, RUSSIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA, EASTERN EUROPE. TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION SHOULD BE ABOUT 80-86 MILLION. PLEASE CORRECT WIKIPEDIA NUMBER. KOREAN POPULATION (2008) IS 72 MILLION. HOW CAN IT BE 67 MILLION??? FACTS AND FIGURES DOES NOT ADD UP. PLEASE CORRECT THE NUMBER.
I added a source which says 78 million, which closely tracks to the cited population figures at the Wikipedia article Koreans. In any case, numbers have to match the quoted sources! I believe this solves the issue, but if it doesn't, reliable sources must be provided for any change. Edits which stubbornly insist on ignoring Wikipedia policies may be deleted immediately. - Do c t orW 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
78 MILLION IS OUTDATED SOURCE. SOUTH KOREAN POPULATION: 49,044,790 + NORTH KOREAN POPULATION: 24,790,000+ OVERSEAS KOREAN: 7,044,716= 80,879,506 KOREAN SPEAKERS.(L1) KOREAN SPEAKER (L2): Half Koreans, Adopted Koreans, North Korean political refugee's: 11,230,000. 80,879,506+11,230,000= 92,109,506 Korean speakers around the world.
WIKEPIDA INFORMATION: SOUTH KOREA POPULATION (2007): 49,044,790+ NORTH KOREA POPULATION (2007) 23,790,000 + OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION (2007) 7,932,671.
49,044,790+23,790,000+7,932,671= 80,767,461 TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKER. NOT 78-79 MILLION. CORRECT FACT SHOULD BE 80,767,461 MILLION KOREAN SPEAKER. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Korean1Professor (
talk •
contribs) 13:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA "FALSE" FACTS: WIKIPEDIA SUGGEST KOREAN LANGUAGE SPOKEN 78 MILLION ( USING 10 YEAR OLD DATA). SOUTH KOREA POPULATION: 49,044,790+ NORTH KOREA POPULATION:24,790,000+ OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION: 7,044,716= 80,879,506 Million. ( KOREAN TOTAL POPULATION IS 80,879,506 + 10,230,000 ( HALF KOREANS, ADOPTED KOREANS, NORTH KOREAN POLITICAL REFUGEE LIVING IN CHINA, RUSSIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA, MIDDLE EAST). KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD IS ( 91,109,506 MILLION.): IF WIKIPEDIA CANNOT ACCEPT TRUE FACT. THEN ITS SAVE TO SAY KOREAN LANGUAGE IS SPOKEN BY 80,879,506 MILLION KOREANS. KOREAN PENINSULA 73,834,790+ OVERSEAS KOREANS 7,044,716= 80,879,506 MILLION KOREANS. DON'T TELL US KOREANS LIVING IN KOREAN PENINSULA AND OVERSEAS KOREANS CANNOT SPEAK OR WRITE KOREANS!!!! UPDATE CORRECT FACT AND FIGURE. KOREAN LANGUAGE IS SPOKEN BY 80.8 MILLION KOREANS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Who says that Korean is Altaic? Most linguists? That is not correct, most linguists believe is it language isolate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.107.211 ( talk) 21:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you know what 'most linguists' believe. It's never been universally accepted anyway, and the text of the article explains that. 220.253.138.16 ( talk) 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
KOREAN LANGUAGE IS RELATED TO " ALTAIC" FAMILY. ( KOREAN, JAPANESE, MONGOLIAN, MANCHURIAN, TURKISH). KOREAN LANGUAGE IS NOT RELATED TO CHINESE OR HAN-PEOPLE. OVER PAST 10 YEARS CHINESE SCHOLARS WANTED TO TAKE MORE CREDITS APPLYING KOREANS RELATE TO CHINESE BECAUSE KOREANS USE CHINESE CHARACTERS OR KOREAN VOCABULARY DERIVED FROM CHINESE CHARACTERS. REALITY KOREANS GRAMMAR OR WRITING DOES NOT RELATE TO CHINESE. KOREANS BORROWED VOCABULARY FROM CHINESE CHARACTERS. FOR EXAMPLE, ENGLISH ADOPTED VOCABULARY FROM LATIN, GREEK, FRENCH, AND GERMAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
"KOREAN LANGUAGE IS NOT RELATED TO CHINESE" Hey, don't get upset - nobody has said so.
"ENGLISH ADOPTED VOCABULARY FROM LATIN, GREEK, FRENCH, AND GERMAN." Very true, indeed. And, in addition, English is genetically related to German - both are West Germanic languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.150.6 ( talk) 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
English genetically related to German- both are West Germanic languages. English is related to Germans but does English sound similiar to German language today??? For example, Japanese genetically related to Korean. Japanese sound similiar to Korean language today??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea1times ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Please note that the research cited for arguing that most linguists consider Korean a language isolate actually just says "many" and does so after explaining that the Altaic argument is the most persuasive in regards to the origins of the Korean language. Edited the page to be more in the spirit of that reference. Alexander.lewis@trinity.edu ( talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The author clearly states that he finds the Altaic argument to be the most persuasive. He acknowledges that it is not universally accepted and continues to state that MANY disagree. 45 out of 100 is many without being most. Furthermore, to disagree with the Altaic hypothesis isn't automatically agreeing that Korean is a language isolate. There may be other sources, but the one linked does not support the statement that "Most modern linguists consider Korean to be a language isolate." 09:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.53.94.118 ( talk)
It doesn't make English language a German. Plus the world is divided between American English ( North American English) and British English ( Queens English). I personally prefer American/ North American English. So does all North American English speakers Germans???? So stop non-sense Korean language being related to Chinese language. Past, Present, for the future Koreans and Chinese always have been different in Food, Language, Culture, National Characters, History, Nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanKimKlan1 ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The statement that "... borrowed Chinese characters pronounced in the Korean way" is hilarious. First, do you really need to borrow? When will you return what you borrowed? And then, do you not have your own words to describe things that are so basic and innate such as emotions and feelings or even body parts? And then, what's with the Korean way of pronunciation? There are hundreds of ways (dialects) to pronounce those Chinese characters. Korean way may be just one of them. Skyline68 ( talk) 04:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a linguistics background, but is the choice here really between the Altaic language family and a true isolate? It seems like the introduction could at least mention that Korean is probably related to Japanese, or qualify the word "isolate." 108.36.121.235 ( talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Need Korean word in the box at Kowtow. Is there a Sino-Korean equivalent (such as gaedu or godu? Badagnani ( talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I just rated this article C-Class for WP Languages, but would like to give a bit more reasons than I could give in the edit history. First, there are no in-line references. For this article, this is not as bad as for other articles as most information is Korean school grammar that you can "verify" everywhere. But as the linguistic value of school grammar is known to be limited, it would merit to quote from some actual research. It's all there. And, if I remember correctly, Korean vowel phonemes are in dispute. Then, the article is inconsistent. First, it doesn't give any reason why adjectives are distinct from verbs which is easy enough to demonstrate. Then, it continues with nouns, but provides misplaced info on their origin first! The worst part is grammar other than morphology. Korean is quite well-known for double object constructions and a few other things, so that should be discussed. Converbs should be mentioned as well, and not to mention aspect and evidentiality. The part on language origin is somewhat biased, but I admit that I'm free to improve it myself if I would like to. Mention Vovin, for example. And it is not so biased that it is already unscientific, it does mention the other position, so it'll be okay for me for the time being. A yes, and "Morphophonemics" doesn't contain a transcription. (I won't do that, I'm only familiar with the Yale transcription.) G Purevdorj ( talk) 08:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to judge from the case affixes (just remember that I don’t actually speak Korean!), the first example looks like a double nominative construction, cp. Japanese X wa/ga Y ga suki da 'X likes Y'. There seem to be several double object constructions. The one I thought of was
But there are other ways. The first is X-i Y-ul Z-ul hada, and I just stumbled over a sentence that is new to me and more ore less seems to resemble English:
That would be three. All these sentences might get discussed. G Purevdorj ( talk) 07:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Cpryby has tagged the statement "However, it is very difficult to argue that similarities in such key terms like "water" and the verbs "to be" "to go" would arise from sprachbund effects" as "dubious" but has not, as far as I can see, given any reason for doing so. Does anyone have any reason for doubting the statement? JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the following piece of text from the article:
It is certainly the case that the Ceycwuto and Yukcin dialects are of utmost relevance to reconstructing stages of the language older than Late Middle Korean, and the rest of this paragraph may well hold, but I'm afraid it cannot stay in the article without APPROPRIATE references. G Purevdorj ( talk) 07:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I do question the validity of Jeju Language as a language or dialect. However, difference is the same as Mainland Japanese language vs. Ryukyuan language. Therefore, it is called Japanic language family. Would Korean language be the same as Japan and be Koreanic if Jeju is a separate language. In Endangered Languages by google, it states that Jeju is a severely endangered language? Native Speakers 5,000 to 10,000. Check this link: http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/1mm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.156.217 ( talk) 23:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I see that my removal of an unsourced POV statement about Korean not being related to Chinese has been readded to the article, with the comment, "there is no credible theory that Korean is related to Chinese." To reply to that: The issue is not specifically about Chinese and Korean at all. Rather, it is whether all currently spoken languages have a common origin or not. If they do, then Chinese and Korean would be related because all languages would be related. Insisting on stating in an completely unqualified way that Chinese and Korean are not related is simply taking sides with one theory about the history of languages (that they don't have a common origin) against the competing theory that they do have a common origin. Neither view is necessarily more credible than the other. WP:UNDUE is wholly irrelevant here, since I did not make the article say that Chinese and Korean were in any way related. Born Gay ( talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition, it's quite unnecessary to state that they aren't related, as stating that Korean has borrowed Chinese vocabulary in no way implies that they are. Born Gay ( talk) 23:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
A lexicon article is to be to the point, not a kaleidoscope of irrelevant opinions. So I propose to delete this section. G Purevdorj ( talk) 10:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I read the following
as German (areubaiteu "part-time job", allereugi "allergy", "gibsu" "plaster cast used for broken bones").
They are actually loanword coming from Japan who, on their turn loaned it from the Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.121.98 ( talk) 13:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with the choice of calling them determiners and linking to the article on it. It doesn't seem like the determiner article describes them at all. Their usage is much closer to regular adjectives, and includes words that are adjectives in English like "beautiful". [10] see page 19 and 21. In fact for that entire section there doesn't seem to be a single citation and this book's list of the parts of speech doesn't make any reference to determiners at all. So I'm recommending that the determiner article be unlinked as I don't think it is appropriately descriptive of this part of speech, and the name changed unless there are reliable sources that refer to it and describe it as such.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
In fact this academic paper, which google reports as having been cited twice, [11], says that Korean is a determine-less language. After reading the paper I'm inclined to agree, and I don't think labeling them as such or linking to an article on determiner's properly provides context or explanation as to what these are. As such I'm going to change it. if you have some compelling evidence to contradict these two sources, please provide them.-- Crossmr ( talk) 10:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This source [12] page 104 also refers to them as prenouns. It also defines adnominals as something else entirely. "A sentence that is embedded in another sentence and is used to as an element modifying a following noun phrase is an adnominal". This sounds more like an adjective clause than a prenoun. -- Crossmr ( talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Korean pre-nouns (관형사, gwanhyeongsa, 冠形詞) are also known in English as "determinatives", "attributives", and "unconjugated adjectives". Examples include 각 (kak, "each"). For a larger list, see wikt:Category:Korean determiners.
Since the classification of Korean is disputed, why don't we list all available sources with quotations. I will list some of accessible sources. Please add sources to the list if possible-- Caspian blue 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
over half of the linguistics classify Korean in Altaic languages.-- 62.248.33.182 ( talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Martin, Samuel E. (June 1996), Consonant Lenition in Korean and the Macro-Altaic Question,
University of Hawaii Press, p. 60,
ISBN
978-0824818098, With more of assertion that proof, I fear, is a characterization of much of what has been written on language relationships in East Asia. [… M]any of the comparisons I offer, both here and in forthcoming publications, can be taken as support for the view that the languages under discussion are all genetically related, but I caution that others of the comparisons cast doubt on that conclusion.
Let me summarize my current position on the controversial issues. I am somewhat suspicious of the Altaic hypothesis as it is currently enshrined but I am willing to use cautiously
Poppe's proto-Altaic reconstructions, with the revisions made by
Street and others, at least as a heuristic device. I do not believe that my 1966 paper proved the genetic relationship of Japanese to Korean, nor do I believe that
Miller
1971 proved its relationship to the Altaic languages […]. I continue to believe that the relationship between Japanese and Korean is closer than that of either to any other language […].
{{
citation}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 396 (
help)—Posted by
Wikipeditor (
talk) 23:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
"Most classify it as a language isolate". This phrase was written based on a reference, Song, Jae Jung (2005) "The Korean language: structure, use and context" Routledge, p. 15 Lyle Campbell & Mauricio Mixco. 2007. A Glossary of Historical Linguistics. University of Utah Press. I READ THE REFERENCE ONLY TO FIND THAT THERE'S NO GROUND TO WRITE "Most classify it as a language isolate".
The reference just tells "many linguists choose to regard Korean as a language isolate". YES, MOST IS DIFFERENT FROM MANY.
The reference also says "this is not unfair to say that the Altaic hypothesis is accepted by more scholars than other views". It's contradictory.
The bottomline is that: The Altaic hypothesis is accepted by more scholars than other views, but there are also many scholars to see it as a language isolate. So "Most classify it as a language isolate" is illogical. The editor may have a negative perspective to the Altaic hypothesis and prefer the language isolate idea, however it's not proper to write any personal preference.
Better to link another reference, if the editor wants to keep this notion : "Most classify it as a language isolate".
>> I'm not interested in your personal preference. I've found most of books tell that the Altaic hypothesis is accepted largely. If you want to keep your personal opinion alive, please link a proper reference. The previous reference's totally wrong.
The way the difference is presented in the article makes it look like there are words that do not exist or are not a part of Korean spoken in the north or south. But actually the use or none use of the word, for example the North Korean word for friend is not used much in the South, does not mean that the word is not a part of the language there. Many people in the south know both words for "friend" but do not use the word used in North Korea because of the political history associated with it. Using it could lead to being accused of sympathising with the North which used to have dire consequences, and many Koreans I talk to are still aware of this today. Bungleu ( talk) 12:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this must be corrected.
In south korea, ㅓ is similar to ə...
In north korea, ㅓ is similar to ɔ...
Nobody pronounces ㅓ as ʌ at both the south and north korea.
Korean_language#Names does not help a lot. Could you please specify which language should appear in a language selection menu of an open source project? 한국어/조선말 greetings -- Paddyez ( talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to re-organize the parts of speech a bit. I suggest we classify verbs as action verbs and descriptive verbs, which is in accordance with most Korean Language textbooks for Americans, which I've read (I have about 20).
Also, most "adjectives" in Korean are descriptive verbs and are conjugated as such. Either we say The book is red or we mention a red book - but the latter translates literally as "a book which is red". I think there are also a few Korean adjectives like green (초록빛) or small (조금) which aren't derived from verbs. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This article on the Korean language doesn't address the Goryeomal dialect spoken by the Koryo-saram. This is like archaic Korean right? Shouldn't this be noted or addressed? - M0rphzone ( talk) 23:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Could someone write Choson Cul Minzuzui Inmingonghoagug in Hangul/Chosongul for the Korean State Railway article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.205.144 ( talk) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's please leave the gender issue out of this article. I mean how is the use of Korean language by gender so significantly different (as compared to other languages) that it merits a whole subsection? Let's keep the discussion squarely on language itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.253.74.155 ( talk) 12:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Under "Korean Particles": -에, -에서, -한테 aren't listed. Also the particle "-의" while listed, has an incorrect pronunciation listed. 의 when part of a noun is indeed pronounced "ui", but when it's used as a particle it is pronounced "e" the same as "에"
This is shown in other wiki articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_grammar#Substantives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.205.228.150 ( talk) 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I could not garner the following information from the article. I think Korean words are written in a box with the word elements ordered top to bottom and right to left. Form instance then word "juche" is written with "j" in the upper left, "u" in the lower left, "ch" to the right of "j" "u" and lastly "e" to the right of "ch". Both "ch" and "e" occupy both the top and bottom of the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.184.119 ( talk) 19:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted a move of Jeju dialect to Jeju language, pending greater input. There are moves promoting it as a separate language, which may be relevant (cf. our treatment of Serbian, Hindi, and Indonesian as languages because they are officially promoted as languages, despite having less claim to that status cladistically than Jeju does). — kwami ( talk) 06:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Can the letter ㅈ represent ʦ͡ sound? It needs to be reflected in the article in that case. 178.49.18.203 ( talk) 04:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Am I missing some-thing? I see two vowel quadrilaterals and numbered black and red Hangeul vowels but no explanation of any of it. Did some-one vandalize this section perhaps? Kdammers ( talk) 11:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Altaic languages is just a proposed language family. And linguists usually regard that Jeju langaugae is a Korean dialect, not a language. -- 117.53.77.30 ( talk) 22:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Punjabi_language#Punjabi_Relation_with_Isolates_like_Korean_and_Japanese
This page 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. |