Talk:Hangul/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Jamo order

Jamo order needs update. One listed in the article is actually South Korean order. Here's North Korean order:

ㄱㄴㄷㄹㅁㅂㅅㅇㅈㅊㅋㅌㅍㅎㄲㄸㅃㅆㅉㅇ

First ㅇ, if it represents sound /ng/. Second ㅇ, is zero. Note that ㄲㄸㅃㅆㅉ is placed *after* all other jamos, not just after their simple counterpart.

For vowels:

ㅏㅑㅓㅕㅗㅛㅜㅠㅡㅣㅐㅒㅔㅖㅚㅟㅢㅘㅝㅙㅞ

Again, ㅐ and ㅔ is placed after all basic vowels, not after ㅏ and ㅓ.

And the comment that Choi Sejin established the current order, is although correct, but misleading. What he decided is *basic jamo order*. Nothing about five glottalized consonants, or combined vowels. So South and Korea differ in these matters, but same in basics. -- 143.248.205.98

A varied order is interesting. Thank you for the info. They have been added. --Menchi 10:30 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The reason the order differs is that the "glottalized" consonants were not part of the Korean language, and the compound vowels were still diphthongs, when the alphabetic order was set. It's common to add new letters at the end of an alphabet (such as Roman wye and zed), but it's also common to group them with similar letters (such as Spanish ene and eñe). — kwami 10:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lattices

Some claims that King Sejong visualized the written characters after studying the intricate lattice work one sees on the sliding doors found in classic Korean homes. But the others say that it is a rumor spread under the Japanese rule, in order to condemn the language of a colony.

It's not obvious to me how this theory/story/rumor could be considered "condemning". Could you explain further?

Ok, perhaps I picked wrong word. (I am not a native speaker of English) But Hangul is a deep philosophical and phonological system, not just an imitation of lattice. Ok, I would revise the article, wait a minute.

Okay, I see what you're getting at. But some environmental stimulus (for instance, intricite latticework) can still serve as inspiration leading to someone with a sharp mind developing a deep philosophical and phonological system, which is how I interpreted the claim. Nothing derogatory that I can see.

Inspiration, possible. By the way there is no evidence for that. And a preceeding paragraph states how letters were designed, which is supported by evidences.

Sure... but it doesn't sound any nastier than the "so-and-so invented X after noticing Y in Z, and realizing that he could use the W method to make X work perfectly" statements to be found in glowingly praiseful biographies of inventors. So, while it may be a rumor, legend, or what have you (insofar as it's unsupported by any evidence), it's not in the least bit negative in any way I've yet been able to figure out. Why the need to be defensive about it?

---

Oops, "jal motaiyo". I was a bit hasty with the patterns thing. Correction coming in 5 minutes. Bear with me. Cham-kan ki-da-ri-se-yo.

---

Alphabet image

Removed from article:

The Korean letters for "Hangul" in above table are not correct. The incorrect letters are pronounced as /hang-ul/. But the "Hangul" is pronounced like /han-gl/ and the correct letters are 한글.

That, and the table's labelled in French. :) Actually, there's already a version with the spelling corrected (I've just switched it above), but I'm still going to make a French-free version. (Or... no, I think it's still wrong. Just differently so.) --Brion

Maybe (but I don't know) the version should also be made to fit English pronounciation rules (or global ones), since this one may be using the French ones. Jeronimo

Hmm, that table seems to be a mish-mash of different transcription systems (or just one I haven't encountered -- not unlikely, as I'm not very familiar with Korean). Unless someone has a better idea, I'd suggest using the current South Korean official romanization. --Brion

---

Forgot to include the move in the summary. But I rephrased and moved the following to Korean language:

As an aside, hangeul characters are not completely phonetic in themselves. For example, JongLo is pronounced as JongNo and HanKukMal as HangGungMal. The rules for word pronunciation are quite regular, though.

These are examples of "irregularities" governed by phonetic rules, which existed before Hangul. The Hangul spelling is always regular, regardless of pronunciation. (Although the consistency is amazingly high.) So anyway, that's why it's moved to the Language article, because it's an aspect of the language.

---

Myth

Hey, 66.156.33.26, don't you know some Koreans claim that the so-called Garimto script was the forerunner of Hangul. --Nanshu 02:13, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Garimto is still mysterious and it's not well-accepted. Who knows? Possibly, Garimto could be another "Jinda-moji." Nobody knows its origins. And please, stop watering down the explanation of Jindai-moji. --66.156.33.26

Anybody is free to create detailed articles on Jinda-moji or Garimto, then improve them. I would, except I know nothing about them. Please bring minute details there, not on the general introduction to Hangul. --Menchi 23:06, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

People have different opinions on whether or not the two "mystery languages" are real or bogus fakes. Wouldn't that "clash"---lack of better words. Also, there is not much information on Garimto, but there seems to be some info on Jindai-moji. --66.156.33.26

Write how ever much on either one or both article as you could research. Other Wikipedians will follow with more info if they could. Just be careful not to be pursuasive (i.e., subtly trying to make our encyclopedia article agree with theory A or B). --Menchi 23:37, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I moved the thing to Tondemo. This would be the right place. Yes, it is entertainment except for few believers. --Nanshu 01:36, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I have added tables giving the names of the jamo, corrected the number of jamo (51, not 52), elaborated upon the makeup of that number (simple vs. combined; vowels vs. consonants), and added some other material (Korean words for "consonant" and "vowel," for example).

--Sewing ~16:00, 26 Sept 2003 (UTC)

---

Hey, Nanshu! There's no reference to Garimto on your Tondemo page, leading to the implication that by clicking on the Tondemo link at the bottom of the Hangul page that you think Hangul or its history is "outrageous nonsense." I'm sure that's not your intention; could you please fix this? Sewing 18:04, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Coding

Sewing, I'm curious about what you are doing with this conversion of Hangul. Why are you doing it and where can we get more information on these two different coding systems? Rschmertz 23:10, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Unicode has two different sets of Hangeul Jamo: "Hangeul Jamo" (starting with hex 1100/decimal 4352) and "Hangeul Compatibility Jamo" (starting with hex 3130/decimal 12592). (There is apparently yet a third set, also called "Hangeul Compatibility Jamo," starting at hex FFA0/decimal 65440; these are half-width, as opposed to the full-width forms of the 3130 block.) I switched simply because while I could view the 1100-block characters in Opera, I could not see them in Internet Explorer; whereas after the switch to the 3130 block, I could view the jamo in both browsers with no problem. The explanation for the difference comes from Section 10.4 (p. 275) of the Online Edition of the Unicode Standard, Version 3.0, which says that the 1100 block can be used for composing syllable blocks, and is ordered in such a way as to enable sorting, with initial consonants coming first, then all the medial vowels, then the final consonants. The 3100 and FFA0 blocks, on the other hand, are not designed for syllable composition or sorting--the initial and final consonants are merged into a single sequence, followed by all the vowels. The 3100 block exists "solely for compatibility with the KS C 5601 standard," which apparently Microsoft follows.... Well, I hope that answers your question: sorry if my reply tends on the long side, but better more info than less, right? --Yours, Sewing 14:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(Note: 4 years later) I'm reading this article for the first time and I noticed this issue with some of the obsolete jamo in the Jamo design section. The U+1100 range of Korean fonts in MacOS X 10.4 have none of the obsolete jamo, only the ones in current use. So I've replaced those few U+1100 characters with their equivalents in the U+3130 range. But I don't understand what ᇰ is supposed to be in the 2nd paragraph of that section. (The character doesn't display for me, but the Unicode spec says it's 옛이응 ㆁ.) The text describes “two elements, stacked one over the other” so it seems like it can't be ㆁ. MJ 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Move page back to Hangul

I'm not sure, if I'm doing right. According to the new romanization, the title must be Hangeul. I made a Hangeul page, and make it redirect this page. But I think it's better to change the title of this page to Hangeul and leave a note that the romanization Hangul is out-dated. --Xaos, early 2003

This page should be moved back to Hangul. That is the most common name used in English. [1] Nohat 02:43, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

I have replied to your completely unhelpful request on your Talk page. --Sewing 05:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Seeing as how this is the English Wikipedia, we have an obligation to follow the primary naming convention of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). We have no obligation to follow the "official" romanizations of Korean according to anyone. English spelling is beholden to no foreign standardizing organization, regardless of the origin of the word. "Hangul" has entries in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the OED, and the American Heritage Dictionary, while "Hangeul" is in none of them. "Hangul" is the the predominant spelling in English, and it is the spelling that should be used in Wikipedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) even says "Exceptions to this are English words borrowed from Korean, whose irregular spellings have crystallized in English." Nohat 15:04, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

Why don't you go hassle people about the spelling of Peking and Mao Tse-tung and come back here when you're finished with that? -- Dominus 15:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, because "Beijing" is more common than "Peking" [2] and "Mao Zedong" is more common than "Mao Tse-tung" [3]. Nevertheless, "Hangul" is more common than "Hangeul" [4]. Nohat 15:21, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

And how do you think it got that way? All your arguments about "Hangul" would have applied equally well to "Peking" thirty years ago. "Beijing" is more common now only because official sources such as newpapers, magazines, dictionaries, and encyclopedias acceded to the desire of the Chinese government to change the official spelling. The request of the South Korean government to change the spelling of "Hangul" is no different. -- Dominus 15:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's because the official Pinyin spelling has had time to filter its way into English. I wrote the rule this morning on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) that you're referring to, in response to you. I added the caveat that the exception should only apply to words used frequently in a non-Korean context. Anyhow, Hangul currently redirects to Hangeul, and the spelling "Hangul" is acknowledged—in bold, no less—in the first sentence. --Sewing 15:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and "Hangeul" has not "filtered its way into English". "Hangul" is the English name of the Korean writing system. "Hangul" is the English word, as listed in English dictionaries, and is the way it should be spelled in the English Wikipedia. If "Hangeul" ever becomes the more common spelling in English, then we can change the page's name. Until then, the page should be at "Hangul" and it should be spelled "Hangul". This is exactly like "Kimchi" and "Taekwondo"---and we should use English spellings. Nohat 15:36, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

And 30 years ago I would have expected to find an article under "Peking" as almost no one in the English speaking world would hae known what "Beijing" was. However, that has changed, and most people know about "Beijing". It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to be normative: we have no obligation to accede to the requests of the South Koreans until the spelling "Hangeul" becomes well-established in English, which it has not. Furthermore, until the spelling "Hangeul" becomes more common than "Hangul", the analogy argument with "Beijing" and "Mao Zedong" is moot. Nohat 16:02, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that article titles should be in the most common form in English usage, with variant spellings described in the article overview. We should be descriptive and not prescriptive, and therefore official government spellings shouldn't have any undue influence upon article titles at all (though they should, of course, be mentioned. Once words switch spelling in common English usage, then the article should be moved then, but not before. The government's official name is a part of the process of the spelling change, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor for our purposes. ---Seth Ilys 16:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Accepted. I'll leave the article the way Nohat last edited it, leaving Hangul as the lead entry word with an appropriately parenthetized mention of Hangeul. As for Nohat's "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," you could have persuaded me without resorting to insults. --Sewing 17:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were insulted. Brion used the same Ralph Waldo Emerson quotation on Talk:Devanagari, and I thought it was appropriate here as well. I didn't intend to imply that you had a small mind; I just wanted to illustrate that even the great masters admit that consistency isn't always the greatest goal to strive for. Nohat 18:09, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I agree. Despite the strong imprint of Confucian conformity, part of the beauty of Korean culture is its individualism: witness the myriad spellings of Korean personal names. Like French with its Académie française, (South) Korean spelling and pronunciation rules are set by a central body. Despite this, the romanization of personal names is so idiosyncratic that the government's own rules say that a person's name should just be spelled according to his or her own preference, rules be damned! --Sewing 18:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is mad. Google is not our god. Korean has a given (controlled, read official) spelling. I think it is crucial we follow the official spelling: let's undo these changes. Kokiri 23:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here a quote from Google test: It should be stressed that none of these applications is conclusive evidence, but simply a first-pass heuristic. --Kokiri 23:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an official spelling in the English language. Users of English are beholden to no foreign government to dictate how they should spell words in English. "Hangeul" may be the proper way to romanize the Korean word 한글 but "Hangul" is the English name for the Korean writing system. In dictionaries. It's spelled "Hangul". That usage is more prevalent on the web. If you think this page should be on Hangeul then you should also move Kimchi to Gimchi and Taekwondo to Taegwondo. Why is it "crucial" that we follow the official spelling?

I wish you had read the discussion above before moving the page again. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Nohat 23:58, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

Well, you have now insulted both of the two most active contributors on Korea-related topics. I have referred the Hangeul-vs.-Hangul question to Menchi, who has some interest in Korea-related matters but as far as I know would have a more detached position on this issue than the other participants. --Sewing 01:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Detached I am from the dusty world...," enters the monk:

Nohat claims that Hangul is "the English word, as listed in English dictionaries". It seems so, as the OED's entry is Hangul. But OED's earliest quote is only about 50 years ago. Which, as Nohat admits, means the word hasn't "filtered through". Not only that, this 1951 quote by C. Osgood in Koreans & their Culture xvi. 323 is not really Hangul, but the McCune-Reischauer Hangŭl. Ironically, it was Shannon McCune (younger bro of McCune) who ignored the breve in his 1966 Korea: Land of Broken Calm (but then he also totally mistranslated Joseon in the book title....)

My conclusion is that having like 50 years of ocassional "unfiltered-through" use does not seem long. Worse, a linguistic technical term like Hangul will probably NEVER be filtered through as action-y words like Kung fu or tasty words like tofu did. The confusion of this matter is that Hangul, IF an English word, seems to be in a half-living half-dead state. So, does it still count as a legitimate English word? Or should be follow the consistency of the very official 2000 SK Romanization?

My feeling is that, until SK 2000 ages a bit and is recognized internationally like Hanyu Pinyin, we can stick with "Hangul". Shall the United Nations proclaim its adoption of SK 2000 as it did with Hanyu Pinyin in the 70s, we can switch to Hangeul. But the Korean government has been really gung ho about the new romanization and actually enforced on its citizens all these years. So I think its international standardization is a definite possibility.

However, regarding to other article titles, unless OED has the word, I definitely support SK 2000 (breve absolutely does not appear in WP titles). ---Menchi 05:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nohat, just wanted to let you know that, afaik, both Sewing and I are tired of persistent edits without consultation of the community. I did never argue that there was an official spelling in English, but pointed out that there is one in Korean. On the other hand, your edit summary reads Use *correct* spelling of English word Hangul (my highlighting). As for 'being able to easily change to Hangeul when it is more common'... who is going to change the spellings in the texts (not just the links)? Finally, is it odd that a dictionary from 1989 doesn't have a spelling introduced 4 years ago? Kokiri

Just wanted to add that I did read the discussion before either moving or commenting on this. I don't think allegations (23:58, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)) are a good way to handle this. Kokiri 12:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not quite done yet. First of all, I wish to publicly state my disappointment that one person (in this case Nohat) comes and unilaterally changes the naming conventions and then all the links and then keeps reverting. If at least he changed all occurrences of Hangeul into Hangul. I'm too tired to insist on my preference, but I will spell it out. IMHO it's ridiculous to spend so much energy on arguing about a mere e in a word that is transcribed anyway. We can do this once we've written all the articles, filled Wikipedia with content.

As we have established, there is an official romanization of Korean. I think it is unreasonable to forego the new romanization, because it will establish itself. People reading about Korea or learning Korean will more and more often come across the official spellings. Why should we work against this trend?

We have redirects anyway. I don't think anyone who is interested in Korea will be profoundly confused about the e in Hangeul, but I do think that people expect up-to-date spellings from Wikipedia. Meaning: people will be puzzled why Wikipedia sticks with outdated spellings, after all, we're not a book. The OED can't do it, but we can be up-to-date. --Kokiri 17:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, it is not Wikipedia's place to promote new spellings of words that haven't yet been firmly established in English. IF and ONLY IF "Hangeul" becomes the established way of spelling the word in English, THEN Wikipedia should spell it that way, and NOT BEFORE. We are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive and it is outside of the scope of our mission to be promulgating new spellings of words. Frankly, I think the revised romanization is lousy, and seeing as how it's only been around for 4 years, how do we know they're not going to change their minds and revise it again in 6 months or a year from now? Where a word has a history of being spelled in a particular way in English, we should stick to that spelling and not jump on the bandwagon of every Johnny-come-lately romanization scheme foreign governments deign to throw our way.

Nohat wrote: Frankly, I think the revised romanization is lousy. Well, that's your opinion. For a non-Korean reading a newspaper article, would the Revised "eo" and "eu" be any more cryptic than their McCune-Reischauer equivalents "ŏ" and "ŭ"? Furthermore, McCune and Reischauer screwed up on their consonants. When I first learned Korean, I tried to pronounce ㅋ the way M & R romanized it, as "k'," with a forceful breath of air after the "k." Truth is, it sounds just like an English "k," hence the Revised representation of it as plain old "k." Meanwhile, M & R's "k" (which transliterates an initial ㄱ) is misleading, too. A leading ㄱ sounds much closer to an English "g" than an English "k." Thus, an initial ㄱ is written as "g" in the Revised Romanization. I guarantee you that a non-Korean who says "Gimpo" (the revised spelling of 김포) will be understood more readily than one who says "Kimp'o" (the old spelling). At any rate, I hope your personal opinion on the "lousiness" of the new system did not play a part in your reverting zeal. --Sewing 01:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, much more has been written about the Korean language before the implementation of the new romanization scheme than after, and because of this, potential readers are many times more likely to have encountered the spelling "Hangul" than the spelling "Hangeul". Just because the S. Korean government has declared that Korean should be romanized in a particular way does not mean that we have to capitulate to their demands to respell words that have already been established into English with a particular spelling. While Chinese is one example where government-imposed new spellings have, for the most part, been accepted into English, there are lots of examples of languages that have had spelling reforms that have not affected the English spellings of borrowed words, for example Dutch and Russian.

Finally, while I couldn't care less whether or not you are "disappointed" in my behavior, I want to state for the record, that each time I reverted to the spelling "Hangul" it was after having explained myself and discussed my reasoning for doing so. Progress on Wikipedia would come to a screeching halt if every minor spelling change has to be discussed ad nauseum on talk pages before any changes can be made. I was just following the principle of Be bold in editing pagesNohat 19:06, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

As for establishing new spellings, we seem to disagree. You seem to argue that Hangul has become an English word. I tend to see 한글 and regard Hangeul as a romanization.

As for your opinion on the revised romanization, I can't see how that matters. Being familiar with all the common romaizations and being aware of their development, all linguistically, politically and historically, I don't think there will be a major change to the system in the near future. Out of interest, maybe you can tell us what is lousy about the revised romanization. Your labelling the revised romanization a Johnny-come-lately romanization may not be popular with everyone.

I think we agree that Hangeul is less common than Hangul. However, I think we disagree on the role of the official romanization. You constitute it as something we have to capitulate to. You seem happy to capitulate to both Google and the OED, though.

Finally, it's not necessary to despise fellow Wikipedians. --Kokiri 00:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Schemes for romanization are used for different purposes. They can be used for representing foreign names in a way that native users of the roman alphabet can easily understand how a name is pronounced in the original language. They can be used by native speakers for storing and retrieving texts in the foreign language in a computer system that isn't equipped to handle the native writing system. They can be used by linguists in making consistent analyses of different aspects of the language. They can be used in creating romanized versions of words that have been borrowed into a language using the roman alphabet. Each of these different uses of a romanization scheme impose different requirements and ideals for how the romanization scheme should function. If the scheme is being used by native speakers for use on a computer, then ensuring that the romanization scheme works in a round-trip—that is, that the romanized text can be unambiguously converted back to the native writing system—is most important. On the other hand, if the romanization scheme is used for foreigners merely for identifying names in the romanized language, then being able to convert back to the native writing system is less important than making sure that the intended pronunciation of romanized text is easily and clearly grasped. For linguists, the most important aspect of a romanization scheme is to ensure that each phoneme is represented by one grapheme in the romanization scheme. And so on.

The revised romanization scheme for Korean tries to serve all these purposes, and in so attempting is ideal for none of them. For use on Wikipedia, the most important aspect of a romanization scheme is pronunciation—the whole point of including a romanized version of a Korean word or phrase is so the reader has some idea how to pronounce it. The fact that we can include the Hangul for Korean words means that the phonemic isolation and consistency is not crucial. The only purpose of included the romanization is so readers can have an idea of how to pronounce a Korean word. However, the largest group of changes introduced by the revised romanization in fact detracts from the phonetic accuracy of the romanized texts. Whereas the McCune-Reischauer only used b, d, and g in those places where the Korean word used those sounds [b], [d], and [g] in IPA, the new system uses them always for the plain stops, even when to English speakers it sounds like [p], [t], or [k], like at the beginning of a word. Similarly, whereas the new system uses the opaque bigraphs "eu" and "eo" whose pronunciation is non-obvious to English speakers, the old system used "ŏ" and "ŭ", which are more likely to be pronounced in a way that sounds similar to the Korean by an English speaker than "eu" and "eo". But most importantly, the new scheme eschews shi in favor of si, for no apparent reason other than consistency. Yet, si is always pronounced like "shi" in Korean.

It is for these reasons that I find the revised romanization of Korean to be "lousy"—I don't believe that it effectively serves the most relevant purposes of a romanization scheme on Wikipedia.

With regards to my describing the revised romanization as a "johnny-come-lately", I can't think of a more apt way to describe a scheme that has been devised in just the past several years and seeks to replace all the existing schemes. It is both a "newcomer" and an "upstart" [5]. Note, however, that I only used this term here on the talk in comments attributed to me. I wouldn't try to use that label to describe anything in actual Wikipedia article text.

I agree that whether "Hangul" is an English word or not is debatable. However, what tests are there to determine whether or not a word has been borrowed into a language permanently? I would suggest the following:

• Does the word occur in English texts with any regularity? Yes, it occurs on over 200,000 pages indexed by Google, and it occurs on nearly 40,000 pages indexed by Google that don't have the word "Korea" or "Korean" on it—indicating it is often used in contexts that are not explicitly about the Korean language.
• Is it listed in any major English dictionaries? Yes, it's in the Merriam-Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary, and the American Heritage Dictionary, all of which are dictionaries of English.
• Is the word used by people who don't speak the foreign language? Well, I for one don't speak any Korean, yet as a linguist I use the word "Hangul" all the time, and not just on Wikipedia. If a word is used by people who only speak one language, how can you argue that the word is not part of the language?

By these three criteria, "hangul" is an English word. Since you seem to disagree, what criteria would you use for measuring whether or not a word has been borrowed into a language or not?

As for "capitulating" to Google and OED vs the Korean government, the difference is that Google and the OED are descriptive tools, whereas the revised romanization is prescriptive. There is no such thing as "official" anything in the English language, and anyone who states otherwise is attempting to wield power that they don't have. There are no "official" spellings of words in the English language. All there is is usage—how do most people spell a word? The OED prides itself on only choosing and defining words in English as they are used, and not telling people how they should and shouldn't use or spell words. And as for them not being up-to-date, they release new words every quarter and the online edition of the OED contains all those words—it still does not contain "Hangeul". Similarly, and more obviously, Google only tells us how words are used on the internet. Instances of "Hangul" outnumber "Hangeul" by a factor of more than ten to one. If the ratio were closer, I'd be more hesitant and less forceful, but numbers like that show a clear preference of usage on the Web for "Hangul" and I see no legitimate reason why we shouldn't respect that. Usage is the only arbiter of usage in English, and although it seems circular, that's the way it is and always has been.

Last, Kokiri, I don't know why you think I despise you. I haven't made any personal attacks or insulted your intelligence. I haven't said I don't like you. I did say I don't care whether or not my behavior disappointed you, and that was because I believed my actions were justified by Wikipedia policy. I love all Wikipedians; however, when I get into an argument with someone and I believe I'm right, I use whatever rhetorical tools are at my disposal to convincingly demonstrate that. I'm sorry if you felt I was personally attacking you—I wasn't. I was only trying to make my points clear. Nohat 04:21, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

Thanks, Nohat, to reply in such length. I don't agree with your description of the revised romanization, but this isn't really the issue here. Let's clear up all the Hangeul and have a good time together. One final point, though, in the future it might be more appropriate to discuss such large-scale changes first. --Kokiri 10:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"I love all Wikipedians" -- woa, somebody's been reading up Mencius's Universal Love. Or maybe Nohat was just been slutty. *kidding* --Menchi 10:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A hangul is a DEER!

As an aside, some disambiguation-related matter: A hangul is also a red deer Cervus cashmiriensis from the Cashmere. This name has been mentioned six times from 1858 to 1970s (that's as recent as OED gets). Knowing how selectively OED chooses its quotes, that's relatively a lot. Maybe that's why one gets so many Google hits on Hangul, which also includes the deer. --Menchi 05:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have searched for Hangul and deer and Kashmir repectively and don't get many hits, though. Kokiri 12:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We have a link to subspieces Asiatic hangul(Cervus elaphus hanglu) in Red Deer. Red List says it's endangered.[6] See also http://www.kewa.org/hangul.html --Puzzlet Chung 12:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete jamo

The current text says:

ㆍ or 丶 (arae-a or araea 아래 아): Pronounced as [V] , similar to eo. 
    Existed only in the syllable ㆎ (area-ae)

First of all, this archaic vowel was used in as versatile a manner as any other simple vowels in Korean. So I don't get what the statement that it only existed in the syllable ㆎ (area-ae) is getting at. Also, I am puzzled by the omission of ㅸ (sungyeong-eum bieub, 순경음 비읍) when ㅱ is included in the list of derived jamo representing a single sound. In my Korean dictionary, it says that the latter was only used to transcribe sino-Korean words closer to the contemporary Chinese spellings and so cannot be said to represent a native Korean phonetic element, while it has no such qualifications for the former. In addition, I think linguists have paid more attention to ㅸ and ㅿ in the understanding of Middle Korean phonology (such as archaic intermediate forms in verb conjugations where ㅂ and ㅅ have become [w] or have been lost respectively in Modern Korean). I do not feel qualified enough to make modifications to the text yet, but I might after some research. --Iceager 15:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and update with your research conclusions later then. --Menchi 18:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Iceager is correct about arae-a.

ㅸ (gabyeoun bieup, 가벼운 비읍) [B]

I put in ㅸ instead of ㅱ, because that's what [B] is talking about.

Anyone know where the number 42 came from ("there are 42 more jamo that have fallen out of use")? This doesn't seem to square with the rest of the article. Menchi put it there, but he is on vacation, apparently. --Rschmertz 14:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

The number 42 has a deep cosmological meaning in Korean metaphysics. Seriously, I have my doubts about the claim as well, as it is not at all clear which jamo combinations to classify as separate jamo (an imperfect analogy would be the question of whether ligatures count as separate letters in the Roman alphabet). I have a suspicion the number might have been culled from something like a Unicode list. The claim is no longer in the article, but I thought I should warn against similar claims in the future; if you include an estimate of the number of archaic jamo, at least state the criteria for determining what counts as a separate jamo. Iceager 3 April 2005

I got rid of the 42 thing a good while after nobody answered my question. Too bad, though: 42 is a great number.Rschmertz 07:56, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have seen two dots ( .. ) in old Korean texts, but I can

't find any discussion of this apparent jamo in the article.

They're called ssang arae a (ᆢ) in Unicode. Where have you found those? I've never seen them in any old text. Were they used to represent sounds of foreign languages? dda says they're still used for the Jeju dialect.—Wikipeditor

I saw them in a few old books in our library. Unfortunately, I don't recall which books.

Perhaps what s/he saw was the two-dot tone mark? That's illustrated in the article. kwami 18:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, a few things: 1/ arae-a was used in Middle Korean just as any vowel.Including with the ∆ (triangle) consonant. Using Yale-Martin system (arae-a is o, and I am noting ∆ as Z): :tan .Zo .li ho .ta (== 補助하다; note the use of : and . for the 聲調 marks), in 朝鮮語辭典, 1964/1990, Yonsei University. Many more examples in there and other places. 2/ ssang arae-a is the equivalent of y + arae a (yo in Yale Martin – although yo is most often used to represent modern ywo, but anyway...). It's part of the Cheju dialect, although you'll have to look very hard to find it in writing. I think the Anthology of popular and oral litterature (can't remember the Korean title presently) has a bunch of them. 3/ ㅱ and ㅸ. Both represent a lax form of /w/ – think the b in la bodega, except that, AFAIK, ㅱ was used in sino-korean words (see 文 transcribed ㅱ+ㅡ+ㄴ in the 訓蒙字會 for instance), while ㅸ can be found in vernacular Korean. For example, 덥다 => 더운 is a reflexion of this phenomenon, where the intervocalic ㅂ became ㅸ, then w, to finally merge with the following /u/. tepun -> teßun -> tewun -> tewun (using again Yale-Martin, with ß as a custom char for ㅸ). -- dda

Jamo means "the mother of script"?!

Definitely 'No'. 'Jaeum' means 'consonant' and 'Moeum' means 'vowel', and abbreviation of 'Jaeum' and 'Moeum' is 'Jamo'. ...But I'm not sure about this one. Is there anybody know exactly?

You are correct. I have changed the etymology on the article page. --Sewing 03:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are both mistaken, I'm afraid. Look at the Hanja and you'll notice that's not the case. I corrected the article. Kjoonlee 07:05, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Writing without syllabic blocks

I haven't researched this extensively, buyt I'd like to challenge the notion that hangul written without blocks would necessitate spaces between syllables. The fact that hangul is typed on computers with no special effort required to determine when one syllable ends and the next begins supports this. My example: ㅇㅣㄱㅓㅅㅇㅣ ㅂㅡㄹㄹㅗㄱ ㅅㅏㅇ ㅛㅇ ㅇㅏㄴㅎㅏㄴㅡㄴ ㄱㅡㄹ ㅇㅣㅂㄴㅣㄷㅏ. With this system, one could conceivably also eliminate syllable-initial ieungs, which would eliminate all the circles in my example save the fourth one. It might be required that doubled consonants be written as a single character (much the way they are typed in hangul today, using the shift key on the doubled letter, rather than typing it twice). Rschmertz 19:40, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

This idea has been proposed by other linguists too; but, most have concluded that it would be inefficient and ambiguous, as to the pronounciation of the word. Modern linguists have proposed this idea in order to get around Hangul's lack of multi-consonants; however, the most efficient way to get around that problem is the put consonants together in the same syllable block as instructed in the Hunminjeongeum. In the Hunminjeongeum, there are at least two example of this: Bsgŭm, meaning groove, and Dalks-Bsdae, meaning the hour of the rooster.

(somewhat OT)I can understand what the article says about syllables as units and English apearing like Morse Code to Koreans. The trouble is that the alphabetical / phonemic nature of Hangul sort of disappears. Thus, with new words, my Chinese fellow students sound out each letter just as i do, but once they've learned a word or syllable, they almost always can read it instantly, whereas i might be into the second szllable of a two-syllable word (going letter by letter) until I realize what the word is. And with i run into some syllable with ㅎ orㄹ

down at the bottom, I have to get the paper a few inches from my nose to even decipher the tiny letters!

Origins & Philosophy

We are forgetting about the basics.... The philosophy, the importance to life that Hangul has. What it means, why it originated. It was meant to represent things Korean. The Chinese characters just weren't enough. So the King chose those simple things that really mean everything...

ㅣ- man. What is now the vowel "i" is the basis for the vowels (ㅏ,ㅑ,ㅓ,ㅕ,ㅐ,ㅔ,ㅖ,etc.) It represented man, standing upright, an everyday thing and this made everything by adding...

. or ㅇ. it represents the sky, nothingness, everything, endlessness, eternity and nothing in one symbol... It is difficult to describe for me... so that just goes onto the "man".. gosh this is hard.... maybe that's why you all didn't try to explain!! It is the mother of all consonants (ㄱㄴㄷㄹㅁㅂㅅㅇㅈㅊㅋㅌㅍㅎ) They are all from ㅇ. and then ㅡ...the ground. the base... see they are all natural things they represent... life and stuff.

Is this true? This sounds just like New Age romanticism... =S I have heard the shapes of the Hangul were chosen on status of in which position the throat was in, or something similar... I don't know if they looked down the throats of the speakere, or how they were aware at that, but that's the story I heard...

I think both accounts have seeds of truth in them. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think Hunmin Jeongeum (document) has symbolism mentioned inside as well. (Maybe it was Hunmin Jeongeum Haerye, but you get the idea.) Kjoonlee 07:21, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the bit about the consonants representing speech organs is from the Hunmin Jeonngeum, but is probably an early mnemonic or rationalization, not the historical origin of the letters.

(On the other hand, it seems likely that the story of the pairs of dotted vowels representing yin and yang is true, as vowel harmony was important at the time; the three vowels without dots, <ㆍㅡㅣ>, are the ones that didn't participate in vowel harmony.)

Ledyard [ref below] makes a convincing case that hangeul was based on the Phagspa script ("Mongol seal script") of the Mongol empire and Yuan dynasty, with the letters <ㄱㄷㄹㅂㅈ> g, d, l, b, j taken over directly (ultimately from Tibetan <ག,ད,ལ,བ,ས>; one letter, <ㅇ>, invented; and the other consonants derived from these. (For aspirates a stroke was added, and for nasals and s a stroke was removed. This differs from the traditional account, which takes the nasals and s as basic.) Since this was during the Ming dynasty, when crediting the Mongol Yuan with anything was unpopular, the attributions are veiled, but do seem to exist in the earliest documentation ("hangeul was derived from the gu seal script, and nobody was more gu than the Menggu," etc.). For me, the most convincing detail is the lip on the upper left corner of the letter <ㄷ> d, which you wouldn't expect in a set of simple geometric shapes created ex-nihilo. This lip does, however, beautifully match the Phagspa and Tibetan d's, which have this same feature. Some of the oddities, such as the letter ng', seem to be due to the fact that hangeul was created to write Chinese words in Korean, not just native Korean words. The ng' was present etymologically at the beginning of Chinese borrowings, but was not usually pronounced in Korean, so it was (perhaps) created by combining the vertical stroke of the <ㄱ> with the null sign <ㅇ> to indicate both possibilities. (Of course, later the ng' collapsed together with the <ㅇ>, and the contrast was lost.)

My source for this is: Ledyard, Gari. "The International Linguistic Background of the Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People." In Young-Key Kim-Renaud, ed. The Korean Alphabet: Its History and Structure. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1997. [In English.] This is a very tightly argued article. Much of the same information can probably be found in Ledyard, Gari K. The Korean Language Reform of 1446. Seoul: Shingu munhwasa, 1998. — kwami 11:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, ㆍ was positive vowel to correspond with negative ㅡ, and only ㅣ was a neutral. According to Hunmin Jeongeum Haerye, ㆍ represents Heaven (Yang - positivity), ㅡ represents Earth (Yin - negativity), and ㅣ represents Human being (neutrality). --Puzzlet Chung 04:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I was writing from memory of what I read a few years ago and missed that. It's correct in the article. kwami 05:10, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Actually it is <ㄷ> t not d. And why couldn't this shape represent exactly a dental character: the left stroke representing the front teeth, the top and bottom being the top and bottom of the mouth? Also if Hangul was truly trying to represent Chinese pronunciation, it would have many tone markings, retroflexes, and more vowels but it doesn't.

Also I do not take seriously the "politically unpopularity" of recognizing borrowings from Phagspa alphabet. Unpopular to who? The common people? The same people who are illiterate and would have no clue which alphabet is which? The fall of the Mongolian empire occurred in 1386. The Hunmin Jeonngeum published in 1446. That is nearly 60 years ... everyone who was an adult in 1386 would have been dead by this time.--pickle

The now official transliteration of <ㄷ> is d, not t. Yes, the lip on the letter could be a representation of the speech organs. But it also is strikingly similar to Phagspa and Tibetan. True, Hangul only had tone marks for Korean pitch accent, not Chinese tone, but the point was to replicate the Chinese rime tables, where tone was not of primary importance. And it did have many other letters to represent the retroflex series and plenty of Chinese vowels and diphthongs. As for the political unpopularity of the Mongol conquest 60 years earlier, consider the lingering resentment of the Opium Wars today, after 145 years. Or of Japanese rule in Korea and Manchuria after 60 years. And unpopular with the ruling Ming dynasty, of course. The common people probably could have cared less. kwami 23:59, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Odd line...

"The shapes of the consonants were designed scientifically, and the vowels philosophically."

What the hell does that even mean? Philwelch 03:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's explained in the first sentence of the two following sections:

The designs of the basic jamo consonant letters model the physical morphology of the tongue, palate, teeth and throat.

and

Vowel letters, on the other hand, consist of three elements:

• Horizontal line (which signifies the flat Earth)
• point (the round Heaven), which later becomes a short stroke
• vertical line (the upright Human)

Nohat 20:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The traditional speech-organ account of the letters is a mnemonic, and perhaps a post-facto rationalization. (See my comments above.) According to Ledyard, it appears that the five basic consonants b, d, l, j, g were borrowed from the Yuan Phagspa script, a sixth (the circular null sign) was invented ex-nihilo, and all the other consonants were systematically derived from these six by phonetic principles: add a stroke to b, d, j, g, ʔ to derive the homorganic aspirates p, t, c, k, h; remove a stroke from b, d, g to derive the homorganic nasals m, n, ng' (the null sign was added to the remaining stroke of the g to bulk it up, and also to show that ng' was generally silent word initially; later ng' was conflated with the null sign itself, and they're now considered to be a single letter); and remove a stroke from j (= [ts] at the time) to derive the fricative s. Additional letters were derived to represent Chinese, but these are obsolete today.

This is really quite remarkable, and the reason that hangeul is my favorite script. While the Indic scripts are arranged according to phonetic principals, with homorganic letters placed together in the order of the alphabet, no other script on the planet was designed according to phonetic principals, at least not until some of the shorthand and missionary scripts of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The traditional account holds that a different set of basic consonants (m, n, s, g, null) were modeled after the speech organs, and were therefore "scientific", but that the vowels were modeled after yin and yang and the organization of the cosmos, and were therefore "philosophic". However, the vowels were designed according to phonetic principles as well. Korean of the 15th century had vowel harmony involving the four dotted vowels, with a alternating with eo, and o alternating with u (there are still traces of this today). Three vowels, i, eu, ə, did not alternate, and these neutral vowels were written with a single stroke. Vowel harmony was understood in terms of yin and yang in the phonetics of the day, so of course these principles are reflected in the design of the script. This doesn't make the script "philosophic".

There may be an intentional connection between horizontal eu and horizontal dotted o, u (all back vowels), and between vertical i and vertical dotted a, eo (all non-back vowels: eo was [e] at the time); but whether the designers of the script saw any connection between undotted i, eu, ə and the cosmological principles of heaven, earth, man is pure speculation; it's very possibly the same kind of post-facto rationalization as the supposed derivation of the consonants from the shapes of the speech organs. — kwami 22:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The "obsolete Jamo" section had some SAMPA transcriptions, which I've changed to IPA in conformance with Wikipedia policy. But how is one to understand the various other transcriptions in the rest of the article? rossb 12:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The other transcriptions in the article are presumably in one of the romanization schemes used for Korean, probably the revised romanization promulgated by the South Korean government, as that seems to be the mantra among those who contribute to Korea-related articles on Wikipedia—see the fervent debate from last year which is archived above. I haven't read this article recently so I don't know if it says that anywhere in the article, but it probably should if it doesn't. Nohat 07:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pure pronunciations should be in IPA, IMO. If it's just a transliteration of written Korean, please use the revised romanization style.

What would you use to represent the strong/doubled consonants, since the IPA doesn't have a diacritic for them? [p*, t*, k*, s*], with the asterisk for "undefined"? —kwami 07:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd just use /pʼ/, with the ʼ for glottalization. KJ

It is true that the ejective symbol is sometimes used, but it's fairly clear that the Korean stiff voice stops aren't in fact ejectives, so using the IPA symbol for ejectives could be misleading. The asterisk approach is the one used by Ladefoged and Maddieson in Sounds of the World's Languages, and can be respected on that grounds although it too is somewhat unsatisfying because the asterisk is kind of a catch-all for "other". Whatever notation is used should by clarified in the text with what is meant because there is no standard notation for indicating stiff voice. Nohat 06:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Ladefoged uses the voicing diacritic under a modally voiced stop for stiff voice: [b̬, d̬, g̬]. (That is, more voiced than modal voice, but not quite creaky.) I think this has the advantage of being completely unambiguous (unlike calling it "glattalization"), and forcing people to read the description if they aren't familiar with the notation. But I don't know what would be appropriate for the ess; maybe [s̬]? (That, however, is ambiguous, but [z̬] might be misleading.) —kwami 01:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

But are the Korean stops stiff voice? As far as I can tell, stiff voiced stops in Javanese are truly voiced: the vocal chords are vibrating during the stop. I don't think this is the case for Korean. Maybe we could use the voicing diacritic under the voiceless stops, [p̬, t̬, k̬, s̬]? (An outside link is at [7] (pdf); a description of phonation types is at [8]). kwami

Meaning of doen in doubled consonants

The double consonants precede the parent consonant's name with the word ssang (쌍), meaning "twin" or "double", or with doen (된) in North Korea, meaning "changed" or "modified". Thus:

Doen can mean "strong" in South Korean. Consequently, glottalized sounds—the sounds that these doubled consonants represent—are called doensori ("strong sounds") in South Korea. Does anyone really know for sure if "doen" means "changed" in this case? KJ 18:10, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

"된"(doen) could be a word meaning "strong" as in doen-sori, but also a derivated form of "되다"(doe-da), which means "to change." --Puzzlet Chung 00:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree. With doe-da, you need to mention what it has become, what it has been changed into. KJ

I'd got it wrong. "Doen"-alone expression does exist in the language, but not in this case. I changed it to "strong "--Puzzlet Chung 01:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There should be an explanation of what is meant by "glottalized". The article glottalic consonant only explains ejectives and implosives, and Korean doubled consonants are neither. --kwami 20:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

typo

• ㆍ or 丶 (arae-a or araea 아래 아): Pronounced as (IPA ʌ, similar to eo.
  • the brackets aren't closed, but I'm not sure whether to put the ) after IPA ʌ or after eo. (80.109.255.5 17:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC))

Maybe with phonetics brackets around the IPA notation, and the eo transcription in italics:

ㆍ or 丶 (arae-a or araea, 아래 아): Pronounced as IPA [ʌ], similar to eo.

—kwami 00:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Seong Sam-Mun

Wikipedia has an article about Seong Sam-Mun, but I can't seem to find anything about him in the Hangul article. Does the Seong Sam-Mun need to be either linked to from here or merged?? Jaberwocky6669 23:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) He is credited for inventing the Hangul alphabet. No one seems interested... Jaberwocky6669 July 9, 2005 05:14 (UTC)

Doesn't say anything about him, not even what position he held in Seijong's court. I had intended to write something about this, but never got around to it. If you can tie in who he was that he had the responsibilities he did, it would be a useful addition - otherwise, he's just a name. kwami 2005 July 9 05:48 (UTC)

The reason I posted something in this talk page is because i just stumbled across the article while looking for orphan pages to give a home to. I actually dont know anything about this person or the language personally. Jaberwocky6669 July 9, 2005 14:52 (UTC)

Logographic?

"While Hangul writing may appear logographic to the uninitiated," - What's the basis for this statement(assumption that Korean stuff is a version of Chinese stuff?)?

No idea. Shall I add "probably"? --Puzzlet Chung 11:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but I sure have encountered a lot of people who assumed that it was logographic. I suspect that it's partly that they're not looking closely, partly that the individual graphemes are arranged into blocks, and partly by a false analogy with Chinese and Japanese. -- Dominus 13:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mixed Latin-Hangul

Anyone interested in a photo of a building sign spelling 'Gardena' as Gㅏ디나, or is that too insignificant a use to bother with? kwami 2005 July 9 02:53 (UTC)

I'd like to see it, but I'm not sure it belongs on this page. --Taejo|대조 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm no longer in the area. I'll see what I can do next time I visit. kwami 22:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Consonants clusters

On the article is said there are 11 consonants clusters but they are not refered to anymore. I've been looking for more info about it, but anywher I look says there are 19 consonants (simple and double) and 21 vowels (simple and diphtongs). So, what's this about? --Viktor 19:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This edit should clarify it. kwami 21:13, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

Ledyard

As his work is not yet widely accepted, inlcuding Ledyard's theory on the main article on Hangul is no different than including information about Garimto, Jindaimoji, and other scripts that are supposedly the models for Hangul. Ledyard's theory, in my honest opinion, should have its own article that is linked from the main Hangul article. - unregistered

Well make that article first, you can't just mass blank information on a page unless it is unfactual or something. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

There already is an article on Ledyard, which I've created. There is a link to it on Hangul:

"On the other hand, recent research by Gari Ledyard suggests that Hangul may have been derived from the imperial alphabet of the Yuan dynasty, Phagspa, but that the subsequent internal featural derivation (which was a Korean invention) obscured this relationship for all but a handful of consonants"

Exactly why is it so important to include his theory on the main article? - unregistered

In books I've seen on Hangul, such as the one edited by Kim-Renaud that was referenced in the article, two hypotheses are presented: the Hunmin Jeong-eum account and Ledyard's. There is also usually a mention of the popular idea that the jamo come from lattice shadows cast in the moonlight. The editors evidently didn't feel that any of the other hypotheses warranted mention. So I feel that, yes, the literature supports including Ledyard. If we relegate him to another article, we should also have a separate article on the Hunmin Jeong-eum account. At least the way it's currently written, it's presented as fact rather than just one possibility. kwami 00:53, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

In the current revision of the article, Ledyard gets disproportionally large space for the fringe theory it is. It should be cut at least in half and the image removed. For those interested in the theory, the linked main article is adequate. --Himasaram (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation of ㅡ in IPA

What is the correct IPA rendering of ㅡ (written as ŭ in MR, eu in RR, and u in Yale)? Some sources say [ɨ], while others say [ɯ]. Can someone clear this up and decide which one of these two is the correct one? --Metric1031 17:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In Seoul, it is quite clearly [ɯ] among people who distinguish it from eo, at least according to the chart in the IPA Handbook. It may differ, of course, in other dialects.

As for the alternate transcription, it is very common for people to use whichever symbol is most convenient, as long as it's "close enough". [ɨ] is easier to write, since you can get it by striking through an ordinary ASCII "i" (compare i). Maybe that's the reason it's used? Or perhaps people are just more familiar with that symbol. kwami 19:30, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Spelling of terms and other topics

I'm comparing two articles related to Hangul and I'm confused by some of the spelling inconsistencies. Some instances include the following (words in parentheses are from the Korean government website ([9]) and those that are not are found in the article):

• Hummin Jeong-eum (Hunminjeongeum)
• Amkeul (Amgeul)

Which version would be correct?

If following the conventions of Revised Romanization the way the Korean government does, Hangul in Korean can be transliterated as Hangeul (without the hyphen). Revised Romanization provides though that in case of confusion, the hyphen can be used. However, the hyphen is generally not used in practice to spell Hangeul (the Korean government does not always use it, for example).

--Akira123323 11:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hangul is such an easy script, that it's probably best just to learn it and not worry about romanization.

As for the hyphen, its usage is inconsistant. Jeong-eum and Han-geul, Jeongeum and Hangeul are all acceptable. However, when you wish to be precise, the ministry recommends using the hyphen in place of silent ieung: Jeong-eum, but Hangeul.

I just checked the Korean Wikipedia site, and they have they spelling 암클. In official romanization, the only correct transliteration of this is amkeul. The letters k and g are only interchangeable at the ends of syllables. (K is typically used for final g.) kwami 19:17, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Can you cite or point to a source where “the ministry recommends using the hyphen in place of silent ieung” but not between nieun and giyeok? I think this is only done in transliteration.

Rather than not always using a hyphen, actual official usage seems to be never to use any hyphen at all, e.g. sometimes Hunmin Jeongeum and sometimes (for example, in the brochure that introduced RR) Hunminjeongeum, but never Hunminjeong-eum or Hunmin Jeong-eum. Of course, the rules indeed explicitly allow the hyphen, but if you have a government publication that makes use of this provision, I'd like to see that.—Wikipeditor 14:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ledyard account

i see this has been discussed a bit, but it seems to me this one theory is taking too prominent a role in this article. it's a very interesting theory, & i personally find in pretty convincing after reading this article, but there are at least a couple other theories about what the "ancient text" reference is about, & no theory has dominant support right now. would it be ok to summarize ledyard's thesis in this article, since the details are already in the separate ledyard article? or at least give this section a less conclusive & monopolistic feel? Appleby 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure. (I wrote the section originally.) kwami 21:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Viewing this page

I'd like to view this page complete with the Hangeul characters. In IE, choosing View, Unicode UTF-8 (my default) does not show any Hangeul characters at all. Do I need to instal the Korean Language Pack in Windows to be able to see all the characters? 203.12.156.238 17:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe what you need is Korean fonts. Download from here. --Puzzlet Chung 01:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the language pack is only needed for hangul input. Wikipeditor

Phagspa vs. Indic phonology

Can anyone explain the relationship between these two in "Although some aspects of Hangul are shared with Phagspa (and thus Indic phonology)...". I cannot figure out why there exists this kind of relationship. Thanks in advance. Nguyen Thanh Quang 13:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one, they are both organized around consonants vs. vowels, rather than onsets vs. rimes. Also, the Indic scripts are organized so that homorganic consonants are associated, and that's basic to hangul. kwami 14:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Need help

Can someone give me the hanggul (and hancha, if it exists) for "kyulmyungja," a type of seed used to make a medicinal tea in Korea that is believed to be good for the eyes? I am going to make an article for this (species Cassia obtusifolia/Cassia tora) and want to list the Korean name accurately. Thank you. Badagnani 04:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

결명자 決明子 revised romanization would be Gyeolmyeongja Appleby 04:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much!; I've got the article up here: Cassia obtusifolia. Badagnani 05:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Chinese murmured/muddy consonants

Hi, I find it interesting the note about double consonants being originally used to represent chinese muddy consonants. Though, i'm not sure which consonants these are (I'm assuming this is talking about middle or old chinese). Can someone please clarify? Thanks

"Muddy" is a calque from the Chinese. Sorry, there doesn't appear to be anything on Wikipedia for me to refer you to. They are generally transcribed as voiced stops (b, d, g, etc; which in Pinyin would be bb, dd, gg), but probably had some phonation other than modal voicing. They survive in Shanghainese, but there they aren't murmured, but slack, so that needs to be modified (assuming modern Shanghaiese has the same phonation that the Korean sources did). kwami 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hangeul, not HANGUL?

I thought that the July 2002 revised romanization for this word was "HANGEUL", no? Are we making an exception here? If so, I am afraid that detractors of Korean Studies and all-things-Korean will have more ammunition against us. This makes those who look at Korean Studies from the outside somewhat dismissive of our work and makes our work appear to lack credibility. Do we want to give the impression that anything goes in Korean Studies? "Pick any old romanization, or better yet make your own! It doesn't matter!" I feel uncomfortable with these things and I think consistently using the same romanization, or both systems, is the ONLY way to go. best wishes to you. 한국학 만세! Mumun 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC) PS - Please do not reply by writing that this comment is "unhelpful" as you have written above. You ignored the issues...

"Hangul" is the English spelling. "Seoul" has retained its spelling despite changes of romanization elsewhere, and "hangul" is similar. So have "kimchi" and the names of Korean leaders. kwami 23:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification's sake, Hangul is standard spelling of the English word Hangul, which is pronounced [hɑŋguːɫ]. Hangeul is the Revised Romanization of the Korean word 한글, which is pronounced [haŋkɯl]. The relevant Wikipedia style conventions are to use English when there are English words. Hangul appears in several major English dictionaries, so its status as an English word is well-established. If it bothers you that this article's title appears "wrong", remember that this article uses the English word Hangul, not a romanization of the Korean word 한글. Nohat 04:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Lest anyone be confused, let me correct the above and point out that the Korean word 한글 is actually pronounced [haːnɡɯl]. --Iceager 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Very, very, very good point. That convinced me. This is an English word that we're dealing with here.

Hangul is a corruption of Han'gŭl. It does not make sense not to change to Hangeul when the Revised Romanization system is being followed for everything else. For example, Hunmin Jeongeum is the spelling conforming to the Revised Romanization system. Hangul should be changed to Hangeul, which will be the correct spelling in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.175.248 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hangul is the established spelling of the word in English. This article is titled with the English word Hangul. Romanization schemes do not apply to English words, because they are already written using roman letters. If the spelling Hangeul ever becomes the dominant spelling in English, appearing in English dictionaries with that spelling, the article can be moved then. Nohat 08:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it capitalized?

Why is hangul always capitalized? It doesn't seem like a proper noun to me, any more than hiragana is. -220.52.172.2 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster says "often capitalized", and the American Heritage Dictionary spells it with a capital H. Nohat 04:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Jaso

This dictionary gives a somewhat different definition.—Wikipeditor 06:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries list definitions, but they are not always exhaustive or up-to-date. Jaso is the term commonly used when describing Korean IMEs. --KJ 10:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.—Wikipeditor

Choe Manri

sorry to delete so much content, but it was way to detailed and out of proportion to this article, imho. perhaps there should be a separate article on this person or position? imho, one or two sentences to sum up the position would be sufficient, probably replacing or integrating with existing explanation of scholarly opposition of the time. Appleby 20:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the material to Choe Manri's own page. I hope this is all right. – Kaihsu 20:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

i'm amazed by the number of deeply knowledgeable wikipedians who continue to watch over, add to, and improve this article. it is very informative & well-written. i wonder, though, if the length and technical detail is pushing the limits for the general educated-but-non-specialist reader. not that it needs drastic work, but i'd just like to ask those who continue to work on the article to perhaps consider simplifying the organization, combine some of the various lists/tables, move some details to related articles, etc., for readability & length control. thanks. Appleby 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The jamo section is huge. Even though it covers what is arguably essential about hangul, we could considerably shorten the article by giving the topic its own main article.

The Japanese Wikipedia even gives each jamo its own article. If we do something like that here, an individual jamo's morphophonemic value and hypotheses about its origin and pronunciation through the ages would have their place.—Wikipeditor 10:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Linear Hangul

Can somebody rewrite that section in a more unbiased way?

“[T]he blocks make Hangul efficient to read, as each syllable has a unique shape”

This is like claiming an English syllable/word doesn't have a unique shape.

Concerning the 20th century morphophonemic spelling, this is nothing that couldn't be implemented in linear hangul or an alphabet (see here for an example). The way the section is written, it sounds a bit as if each syllable block represented a morpheme.—Wikipeditor 10:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed most of that section. The flow wasn't very logical, I guessed it wasn't worth a rewrite. --KJ 15:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is some anecdotal evidence that Hangul is easier for dyslexic (natives) to learn than is the roman alphabet - and the assumption is that it is due to the unique/block character. On the other hqad as a myopic non-native mildly dyslexic learner of Korean, I find Hangul difficlty, due to the incredibly tiny bits of some "letters" in the compound blocks, due to the disappearance of some parts of some of these on cheaper printers (e.g., the horizontal bar on ㅓ ) and mirror image "letters" such as ㅓ/ㅏ , ㅑ/ㅕ and ㅜ/ㅗ . Kdammers 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

need comments on hanja/hanmun

any experts here want to share your comments at Talk:Hanja, about difference between hanja, hanmun, hanja-eo, sino-korean, etc, & possible reorganization of content? thanks. Appleby 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

漢字 ==> "Chinese characters" aka sinograms. 漢字語 ==> words made of sinograms 漢文 ==> Classical Chinese [also called 文言文]

In modern Korea, many people make the confusion between script and language [한글 for Korean, 漢文 for 漢字].

What was used before Hangul?

Hi, well, the answer is: Hanmun. Let me quote from the Hunmin Jeongeum article:

Because our language is different from China's, it is not communicable with [Chinese] letters. Therefore, when the simple people wish to communicate something, many cannot achieve their intent. Because I am saddened by this, I have made 28 letters, which may be easily learned by everyone and be convenient in daily use.

The yangban did not write in Korean, they wrote in Classical Chinese. Commoners didn't write at all; Hyangchal and Idu were dead by the reign of King Sejong, only to be rediscovered in modern times. --KJ 14:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Whence the 사이 시옷 in “아햇글”?

I gather this term comes from Middle Korean. If so, what is the ㅅ doing in there? As far as I am aware, ㅅ can be either

1. a honorific genitive, which is probably not the case if the term “children's script” was understood as discrediting, or
2. a genitive for what is inanimate, which accounts for the ㅅ in “바닷물”.

Did those who wrote “아햇글” think of children as things? Wikipeditor 14:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Abugida??

Is this script a syllabary or an abugida? — Yom 04:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an alphabet. :) Consonants and vowels are composed into syllabic blocks. You could argue that it's a syllabary with 11,172 syllables, but IMHO it's much more elegant to just call it an alphabet. Definately not an abugida. --KJ 13:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a syllabary at all, according to the logic of Bill Poser of Language Log. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002529.html --Kjoonlee 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

some references?

for such an important article, there should be references.--Dangerous-Boy 18:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is "hangul" capitalized?

I think it should be in small caps just like "kanji".--Sir Edgar 06:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

see above, apparently capitalized in dictionaries. but i don't understand the inconsistency either. Appleby 06:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Japanese is the word for the Japanese writing system. Isn't it that "kanji," and the others are "subgroups" of the Japanese writing system? Hangul is just Hangul. Oyo321 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Korean writing consists of hangul and hanja. But scripts like Taana and Nagari are also capitalized. kwami 21:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

removal of citation needed label

i just removed a dozen or so useless " " entries. i know of no article in wikipedia that demands a citation after virtually each and every sentence. i have read the history section, it is accurate. the info in this section is common knowledge for folks who study korea. it may be easilly found on the internet with searchs.

who ever is in charge of the "article needs citation" labels, please remove it from this article. thank you. Hongkyongnae 02:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hangul in Hanzi

Please don't readd this info to the article. It might belong in the Chinese edition of Wikipedia, but not here. --Kjoonlee 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Transcription

Quoted from article:

• Pronunciation and translation:

[mo.tʰa.nɯn.sa.ɾa.mi]

a person who cannot do it

• Phonemic transcription:

모타는사라미

/mo.tʰa.nɯn.sa.la.mi/

• Morphophonemic transcription:

못하는사람이

|mos.ha.nɯn.sa.lam.i |

Morpheme-by-morpheme gloss:

	못-하-는	사람-이
	mos-ha-neun	saram-i
	cannot-do-[modifier]	person-[subject]

These descriptions are correct (AFAIK) and don't need to be "corrected."

1. 모타는사라미 is an example of phonemic transcription, where you write in phonemes, as close as you can. If you hear <독립문> or <버스> being pronounced and you write "동님문" or "뻐쓰," then you're doing phonemic transcription.
2. 못하는사람이 is an example of morphophonemic transcription, because you can see all the morphemes in their original forms. You can choose either <r> or <l> to write [ɾ], because they're allophones of the same phoneme, the 리을 phoneme. --Kjoonlee 12:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

McCune-Reischauer

Hi, I think McCune-Reischauer needs to be used for all North Korean stuff in the article (Alternate names for ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅅ, ㄲ, ㄸ, and ㅆ, for example). --Kjoonlee 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

WHAT IS A FLAG OF JAPAN DOING NEXT TO "HANGUL"????????????????

I don't see what you're talking about. Where do you see this? --Rschmertz 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. I leave this message here as a record of what has been said. Apologies for the excessive use of uppercase characters, but I was very shocked.

There is no doubt that Korea suffered, and has suffered, at the hands of Japan. This is undisputable. The details of which, with historical accounts being the way they are, will always be controversial. Merely, it was disappointing to see a Japanese flag next to something that is very Korean.

It was simple vandalism, chill. Revert the vandalism, warn/block the vandal, carry on as before. Mithridates 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that it was put there by an anonymous vandal a few minutes before you removed it again. -- Dominus 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The first newspaper written in Hangul

Hangul first appeared in 漢城周報 from 1886 (previously called 漢城旬報 from 1883 to 1885).

The first newspaper written in Hangul(mixed hanja-Hangul) was 漢城周報(previously called 漢城旬報). 漢城旬報 was funded by Fukuzawa_Yukichi. Fukuzawa_Yukichi also personally helped many Korean students such as Kim_Okgyun. Fukuzawa_Yukichi had a great impact on Korean modernization especially in terms of building the educational system in Korea.

Fukuzawa_Yukichi told his ex-student Inoue Kakugorou (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%95%E4%B8%8A%E8%A7%92%E4%BA%94%E9%83%8E) "It is neccesary to publish newspapers in Korean language in order to educate Korean people and for the independence of Korea".

Inoue Kakugorou became the editor and the translator of the newspaper. It was Inoue Kakugorou who started using Hangul font for the first time.

We cannot talk about modern Hangul without talking about Inoue Kakugorou and Fukuzawa_Yukichi. They, in fact, started the use of today's Haungl in Korea.

Sadly, most Korean people believe that Japan took away Hangul(and everything! sigh) from Korea, but it was Japanese who re-introduced Hangul to Korean people... This is the one of so many distorted history and causing anti-Japan feeling in Korea today.

I could give you refs, but I need someone who can read and verify the source in Japanese. This link ja:Fukuzawa_Yukichi has some info as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjoyfuga (talk • contribs)

--Tahon 07:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hangul has never been banned after 1910

Hangul has never been officially banned by Japan(ese). Please show evidences that Japan banned the use of Hangul. There are so many evidences (eg. school text books in Hangul, Newspapers in Hangul, pictures of students learning Hangul, etc) that shows Hangul has been taught in schools and widely used.

At some point, it depends on the schools, however, Hangul(Korean language) became a required laungage to a selective laungage class. Childrens had a choice to learn hangul in school. Besides, some principals were Koreans. It was natural (because Korea at the time was Japan) for children to learn Japanese as well at the time. But please make it clear that Japan has never banned Hangul.

There are newspapers in Hangul at the time. A radio staion broadcasted programs in both Japanese AND Korean language. Even if the use of Hangul declined over the time, it was because Korea at the time was Japan after all.

This is a common misconception that Japan banned the use of Haungl (in fact, the Korean goverment leading this. eg teaching school) in Korea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjoyfuga (talk • contribs)

Actually, check out the "Country Studies" by the Library of Congress of the United States, for South Korea, under the section "The Media":

"At annexation in 1910, the Japanese governor general assumed direct control of the press along with other public institutions. Following the March First Movement in 1919, Japanese authorities loosened their overt control over cultural activities and permitted several Korean newspapers to function while maintaining some behind-the-scenes direction over politically sensitive topics. During the 1920s, Korean vernacular newspapers, such as Tonga ilbo (East Asia Daily), and intellectual journals such as Kaebyok (Creation), conducted running skirmishes with Japanese censors. Japanese authorities prohibited sales of individual issues on hundreds of occasions between 1926 and 1932. Japan's war mobilization in the ensuing years ended any semblance of autonomy for the Korean press; all Korean-language publications were outlawed in 1941."

I don't know how to properly format the citation, but somebody should integrate this public domain reference into this article and other articles too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.28.115 (talk) 01:44, November 5, 2006

75.7.28.115. That has nothing to do with the banning the use of Hangul. Even today, South Korea still regulate politically sensitive topics, such as communism, North Korea and Pro-Japan.

Hangul, Spoken language and freedom of speech are three different topics.

The last sentence says "all Korean-language publications were outlawed in 1941" 70.49.104.32 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is no objection or reasonable argument, I'll replace "After Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910, Hangul was briefly taught in schools before being banned" with "After Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910, Hangul was taught in schools throughout Korea." in a week or so.

I did some research and found a picture of a Korean newspaper "Chosun Ilbo" (March 10th, 1940). I definitely see Hangul there. http://www.joase.org/technote/board/zzz/upimg/1037932683.gif

It is obvious that history is so distorted in Korea. Read this article. http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200504/200504210039.html She claims "My great-grandfather, in 1940s Korea, was arrested for putting together the first Korean dictionary, when the language had been banned by the Japanese government." But, wait a minute, Governor-General of Korea published a Korean-Japanese dictionary in 1920. The first real Korean dictionary made by Korean(문세영) was published in 1938. And when exactly Korean language had been banned by the Japanese government? What on earth is she talking about in front of U.S.President George W. Bush?

I'm still waiting. When exactly and how exactly the Japanese government banned the use of Hangul?

To understand the "ban" of the Korean language, one has to understand the entire issue of Japanese colonization of Korea. It's not a simple topic to dissect quickly. By 1910, all speeches and public assemblies were banned. All Korean newspapers and magazines (but one) were forced to cease publication while all school textbooks written in Korean were also banned. Following this, hundreds of private schools were closed down. Japanese language instruction was first introduced as a requirement in all public schools at this time. In this time period, there remained only one Korean language, one English language, and several Japanese language newspapers. Free speech was severely restricted for all the press in Korea. A Japanese reporter from the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun commented in an editorial on October 2, 1910:

"Newspapers were checked one by one; controls on companies were exercised to an extremne, unsatisfactory companies being destroyed one after the other. Reporters and writers were at their wits' end, gasping. If one grumbled, he would be arrested. I felt as if I were in hell."

More Korean language newspapers appeared only after the March 1st Movement of 1919 out of two reasons: A) Japanese language was not spoken by the majority of the populationa yet. A form of mass communication was essential for the Japanese in order to communicate with the Koreans. B) To appease growing Korean nationalism. As a result, only five government censored Korean magazines emerged, the biggest ones being: Tong-a Ilbo, the Choson Ilbo, and the Chung-ang Ilbo. Any ant-Japanese remarks or articles led to the confiscation of certain issues or the suspension of publication.

The Imperial Rescript on Education (October 30, 1931) is one of the turning points in the banning of Hangul. It was essentially a new plan for the educational and cultural indoctrination of the Korean people. Accordingly in 1935, new textbooks were published and a new school curriculum was adopted. Instruction in Japanese ethics and history were required in all schools. The majority of public schools did not have Korean language instruction anyways since 1910 (as it was discouraged). This new cultural and educational policy also introduced the "doka" reform. It's goal was the eventual assimilation of the Korean and Japanese people as one. However, the doka policy upon closer examniation reveals that it was essentially a reform plan to obliterate the racial and cultural heritage of the Koreans. In the name of "assimilation," Korean language instruction was officially banned in 1938 in all public schools. The dispute of whether we can use "ban" comes from the issue of the existance of Korean language newspapers and photographs of certain schools teaching Hangul during this time. However, one has to remember that these newspapers were government controlled and were essential in communicating with the Koreans, especially during this time in world history of the growth of mass communication. These photographs of schools were from a small amount of private Christian missionary schools that resisted the ban on Hangul, resulting in the banning of these institutions in 1939.

In everyday life, the ban on the Korean language is clearly evident. All Koreans were forced to memorize "The Pledge of the Imperial Subjects" (October 1937) and henceforth was recited at all public gatherings whether they were political, religious, eduational or social. This was introduced to "...discourage the rise of Korean nationalism and to accelerate the learning of Japanese through memorization." (Yagi Nobuo, Chief of the Education Secgtion, Bureau of Education). If not recited, severe repression in the form of the denial of ration tickets and forced labor would be used. There were two types of the pledge, one for elementary students (A) , and the other for secondary students and adults (B):

Type A:

We were the subjects of the great Empire of Japan. We shall serve the Emperor with united hearts. We shall endure hardships and train ourselves to become good and strong subjects.

Type B:

We, the Imperial subjects, shall serve the nation loyally and faithfully. We, the Imperial subjects, shall, through trust and love, cooperate tlo strengthen our unity. We, the Imperial subjects, will endure hardships and train ourselves to promote the Imperial way.

Failure to speak Japanese also denied Koreans many rights and privileges, including that of securing ration cards, public certification, and employment. In 1935, compulsory attendance at Shinto ceremonies was forced upon Koreans for the same reasonings as to why "The Pledge of Imperial Subjects" was forced to be recited.

The suppression of the Korean language is undeniably tied to the suppression/ban of Korean nationalism. From the information that I have presented, the word "ban" can be used for the following reasons:

A) Publications in the Korean language were for governmental use, not for the people. B) The use of the Japanese language became essential for surivival and to escape repression C) Ban on the Korean language is evident in several official edicts. The reasoning why is clear: the eventual obliteration of the Korean language.

Also, concerning the newspaper that was posted. It is evident that hangul is scattered throughout the newspaper. I'm not quite sure what they are there for but I learned in class that certain newspapers used hangul as a tool to accelerate the learning of Japanese. An example would be like Katakana being used by some Japanese people to learn English. The letters would be used phonetically to represent English sounds. Kindahypertonic 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the said newspaper image. That newspaper's articles are using both hangul (phonogram) and Chinese characters (ideogram). Even today, Koreans often do this (though, much less Chinese characters tend to be used these days). It is like Japanese people using Kana and Kanji. So, this is not at all related to the education of Japanese language. No Japanese Kanas are there. And thus, it is clear that newespapers written in Korean language were published and read daily in 1940.Red Balor 05:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the above string of discussions. I am a native Korean. I've also looked at the Korean newspaper article cited above (Chosun Ilbo, March 10, Showa 15 or 1940). The entire text was in Korean, consisting of Hangeul and Hanja (Kanji in Japanese). The top row was an editorial. Its title was "On the Army Day - Pray for the Everlasting Success of the Imperial Army". The horizontal headline below read: "THE HOLY WAR, THE FOURTH YEAR, THE ARMY COMMEMORATION DAY". The vertical headlines below that read: "Attain Holy War Ideals, Remembring and Revering the Great Deed of [Our] Forefathers, Message by Nakamura, Commander in Chief of the Chosen Army". The entire text was a Japanese war propaganda, written in Korean to the Korean people using a Koean newspaper. Korean language newspapers were published only to help the "Holy War", the invasion of Manchuria and China and later other Asian countries in the Pacific by the Japanese Military. The Japanese did ban Hangeul, but used it where necessary to advance their cause (e.g., a Holy War), a cunning way. These newspapers (e.g., Chosun Ilbo) in Korea then would not fit the today's concept of free-press newspapers.

I would like to respond also to the quotation below, copied from an earlier posting.

"I'm still waiting. When exactly and how exactly the Japanese government banned the use of Hangul?"

The Japanese government had to have written directives in Japanese for banning and eradicating Hangeul and the Korean language in Korea. The current Japanese government is likely to disown the existence of any documented evidence for them just as they have been denying any documented evidence for comfort women. When I was a third grader (1940?), Korean (Hangeul) lessons were abolished and Hangeul reading books were taken away from me and my classmates. No more Hangeul lessons were given after that. The Korean language was not allowed at schools and public places. The "rule of law" was Kokugo Joyo, meaning "Use the National Language Always". This slogan was posted everywhere. The national laguage was of course the Japanese language then. When I was a seventh grader (1944), a Japanese teacher slapped my face because he thought he heard a Korean word from someone near me. (The teacher misheard Jaiki, name of a classmate, as Jegil-hal in Korean, equivalent to shucks.) Japan did ban Hangeul and the Korean language in Korea. Any suggestions to the contrary is twisting the history.

The request for evidence for the Hangeul ban in Korea may have come from curiosity in History. It sounds like a mugger asking the mugged for a documented evidence of the details of the mugging crime he committed. Kunimoto is one of the Japanese swordsmen who broke into the inner court of the last empress of Korea and stabbed or slashed her to death in 1895. Kunimoto's grandson, now an 86 year old man, came to Seoul and wept for the sins and crimes of his grandfather in Korea. (Joong Ang Daily Nov. 8, 2007.) This old Japanese man's conscience can see history; he did not ask for a documented evidence for his grandfather's misdeed. [Tahon] --Tahon 07:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, banning Hangul is not the same thing as banning Korean. You didn't have Korean textbooks written in hanja and kana, but only Japanese textbooks, correct? It's fine to say that Hangul went out when the Korean language itself was banned, but to only say that Hangul was banned is misleading: it implies that the Korean language was not banned. kwami 08:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace at Top of Article

Hi. I just visited the article page in hopes of finding an article.Where is it? :P Now, joking aside, do you guys think it would be possible to adjust the layout and implementation of tables/info-boxes so that we don't have an entire page of whitespace before the article begins? Dxco 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What browser are you using? Looks fine to me on FF, but I have nothing else at hand ATM. --Rschmertz 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good point Rschmertz. Im seeing the problem (screenshot above in my original comment) while using IE6.Dxco 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix this by moving some templates located at top to later sections. I hope this does not break another browser. I checked FF and IE6. --Kusunose 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, you're referring to this change. Well now I see a huge block of whitespace to the right of the table of contents, under the one template that's up there, in FF. I guess that's better than what Dxco reports seeing in IE, but not ideal. First question is, do you think the new locations of the templates make more sense than where they were? --Rschmertz 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was not logged in on IE6 when I made that change (I use FF mainly). For locations, I think locations of Korean name templates make sense. I'm not sure the location of the Alphabet template is ideal, though I don't think it's bad. --Kusunose 05:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, much better! Dxco 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yin Yang theory? or Cheon Ji In

vowel letters according to the principles of yin and yang and vowel harmony. I was taught that it was put together according to the principles of Cheon (heaven), Ji (earth) and In (men). With the ㅣ, ㅡ & . (the dot is an archaic sound) you can write all the vowels. For example ㅣ + . = ㅏ and . + ㅡ = ㅗ

And shouldn't we write uem yang since it is about Korean culture?? ;-)

List of Korean family names nominated for deletion

Vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean family names (2nd nomination). Badagnani 05:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Almost no citations.

¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research in obsolete jamos

statements like "...perhaps IPA..." or "...Presumably pronounced as IPA ..." are essentially original research as they're expressing the unsourced opinion of an editor who is drawing a conclusion and putting forth a theory on what they think something sounds like. Unless someone can find a reliable source putting forth these opinions they need to be removed.--Crossmr 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not OR if they're paraphrasing the published consensus. No one knows how MK vowels were pronounced, and the various reconstructions conflict, as the scholars themselves describe. kwami 15:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Names of letters

The article says that Korean consonants have two-syllable names, but the audio pronunciation examples at ZKorean.com are obviously putting the vowel ㅡ at the end, making 3 sylablles. Which is the correct pronunciation? --RisingSunWiki 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As noted in Korean language#Phonology, only seven allophones are found at the end of utterances. This means that "밖" and "박" are homophones, unless you say "밖이" or "박이". This is relevant because when you say "쌍 기역" you can't tell the reader how ㄲ is pronounced at the beginning/end of a syllable. The sound samples are three syllables, yes, but they are in the form of "기역, 그" and "쌍 기역, 끄". --Kjoonlee 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kjoon, now I understand. --RisingSunWiki 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Syllabic blocks

This section doesn't seem to me to make sense.

Except for a few grammatical morphemes in archaic texts, no letter may stand alone to represent elements of the Korean language. Instead, jamo are grouped into syllabic blocks of at least two and often three: a consonant or consonant cluster called the initial (초성, 初聲 choseong syllable onset), a vowel or diphthong called the medial (중성, 中聲 jungseong syllable nucleus), and, optionally, a consonant or consonant cluster at the end of the syllable, called the final (종성, 終聲 jongseong syllable coda). When a syllable has no actual initial consonant, the null initial ㅇ ieung is used as a placeholder. (No placeholder is needed when there is no final.) That is, a syllabic block contains a minimum of two jamo.

So, imagine we have no initial - then we use the null initial as a placeholder. However, we then immediately read that no placeholder is needed if there is no final. So if we have no initial, since there is no final, how do we have a minimum of two jamo? do we mean to say the null initial is used when there is no final?

Toby Douglass 10:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No placeholder is needed in the final position, if there is no final.

• a: 아
• ga: 가
• gak: 각

I'll see what I can do.. --Kjoonlee 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. The existing wording is completely misleading. Toby Douglass 11:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That should take care of it. kwami 16:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, much better! Thank you. :) --Kjoonlee 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo modern arae-a?

The article states that arae-a can be found in modern use in brand names. Does anyone have a photo they could post of such use? That would be intriguing. And what pronunciation does it have? kwami 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The definitive example is Haansoft Corporation's HWP. You can see HWP's logo at Haansoft's website. Other examples pop up at an amusing rate (심심치 않게), but I can't remember any of them off hand. ko:ㆍ links to some examples, though. --Kjoonlee 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation is always the same as 아. The arae-a is used for its look, rather than its pronunciation. Think "Ye Olde Shoppe." --Kjoonlee 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but it would be nice to have an illustration for the article. kwami 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The only word I can remember was where some brand used the letter on plastic bags of 찹쌀, with ㆍ replacing the first ㅏ, but I didn't have a camera with me when I saw it. Are you concerned about licensing issues preventing us to use (parts of) Haansoft logos from their website? Wikipeditor 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's perfect. Sorry, I missed that paragraph! It would be nice to have both the san-serif and calligraphic versions of their logo; the calligraphy is quite pretty. kwami 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw a restaurant today whose name contains three arae a and no other vowel, which is the most arae-aed thing I have seen so far. It is in an alley in Insadong, but is visible from the main street. Next, I noticed another sign in the main street that spelled 기쁨 with a triple ㅂ above the ㅡ. Didn't have a camera with me, though. Wikipeditor 15:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

number of hanja

No one's responded to an editorial comment in the article:

The following paragraph came without references from Wikibooks Korean/Alphabet. Anyone can confirm this?

"and the number of characters taught in schools has fallen from a required 12,000 in 1956, to a now non-compulsory 1,800 in the 1990s. North Korea reinstated Hangul as its exclusive writing system in 1949, and banned the use of Hanja completely."

I believe it is now 1800, though I don't know about its being voluntary. Don't know about a required 12,000 in 1956; that seems a bit extreme. kwami 07:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

12,000 seems a preposterous figure for Korea. Even Chinese college graduates know only 4~5,000. (This is different from the tally of vocabulary words, most of which are 2-character combinations.) It's a rare individual who recognizes more than around 5~6,000. See under literacy at Written Chinese. MJ (t • c) 23:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Title.

I think that this article should be renamed Hageul, because 'eu' is the correct way of transliterating 'ㅡ' in the revised romanization of Korean. Please consider changing the title of this article to the correct form. Amphitere 07:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously (#Move_page_back_to_Hangul, #Hangeul.2C_not_HANGUL.3F) and rejected. This article is titled 'Hangul' because that how the word is spelled in English. Nohat 08:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have just installed the Korean IME on my PC but would rather key the jamo in in Revised Romanization using my normal Latin keyboard, the way I type in Chinese hanzi using the pinyin IME. Has anyone created such an IME for hangul? Thank you, Badagnani 05:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should look into Nalgaeset and Saenaru.

• http://moogi.new21.org/prg4.html
• http://kldp.net/projects/saenaru/

I prefer Saenaru, but I'm not sure it supports the feature. --Kjoonlee 06:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I am trying to figure out the Korean keyboard that comes with the Microsoft IME but I think I could type faster if I could just use RR with the regular Latin keyboard. Do the programs you mention work WITH the Microsoft IME or would it work separately? Badagnani 06:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Saenaru and Nalgaeset are drop-in replacements AFAIK, so they should work separately, I think. If you can't get Nalgaeset's Romaja mode to function properly, you might need to use Dubeolsik, the "default" layout. If you need to type a lot, you should look into Sebeolsik Final. Saenaru's support (and extra features) for Sebeolsik is excellent IMHO. --Kjoonlee 16:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. There is no English in the instructions, so I can't even figure out what the link is to download Nalgaeset. And is it available for Windows Vista? Badagnani 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't connect to its site right now, but there should be two links near the top under "내려받기":

• 프로그램 받기: 32비트 (1.51MB) / 64비트 (2.07MB)

Both versions will probably work with Vista, so choose one that matchers your architecture. :) Nalgaeset is highly configurable, but the problem with configurable software is that you need to configure it. Nalgaeset has some presets, preset 0 being Dubeolsik and preset 1 being Romaja Qwerty mode. --Kjoonlee 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's spelled Hangeul.

한글. The first one is han, there's no disagreement with that. But the second one is geul. It has a ㅡ (which is transliterated as eu) not a ㅜ (which would be transliterated as just u). 168.103.223.167 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's Hangul - see discussion above. kwami (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Say Hangeul [han gl], not Hangul [hahng gool]

Hangeul as a Wikipedia article title word was discussed three years ago. A few things have changed since then. I would like to pick it up again to offer additional factors for consideration.

Seven people posted about 20 entries on hangeul during 2003 – Nov. 2007. They all preferred hangeul to hangul. One person has been opposing their preference almost single handedly, which is unusual. He stuck consistently to his reasons: hangul “is the most common name used in English” and only English words should be allowed as Wikipedia article titles. Three criteria were proposed as a word regulator (Nohat 04:21, 2004 Mar 12). An evaluation showed them to be inadequate, inappropriate, or both. See (1) – (3). Use hangeul, not hangul. The reasons are discussed in (4) – (7).

(1) Google Hits

In March 2004, Google hits on hangul vs hangeul might have been 10 to 1 (Nohat 04:21, 2004 Mar 12). This ratio has decreased to about 1.7 to 1 (12/7/07). This is not a decisive factor. “When there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage. counting Google hits” Both hangeul and hangul are young words (seven and about 40 years old, respectively) as compared with common English words, most of which are hundreds years old. Hangeul is the correct (romanized English) word and hangul is a wrong word as discussed in (4) - (7).

(2) Use English

Yes, as much as possible. Nohat attempted to define English words as those included in English dictionaries. The English Wikipedia now has over two million articles. The OED lists about 600,000 words. Many words that are not in English dictionaries (therefore, non-English words) would have to be used as Wiki article titles. For example, podcast is a Wiki article title; it is not yet listed in AHD Online, M-W Online, or Webster Online. The OED was not checked because it had no free online service. Another example is Goryeo, an old kingdom of Korea that gave the name Korea. Goryeo is a Wiki article title word, although not listed in English dictionaries. Likewise, hangeul can be a Wiki article title word although listed in only two or three English dictionaries.

Both hangeul and hangul are listed as an English word in Webster Online, the M-W Online Open Dictionary, and Wiktionary. M-W Online lists hangul but not hangeul. It lists, however, Busan and Incheon. These are the revised spellings, like hangeul, of Pusan and Inchǒn, respectively. M-W Online is catching up with the new romanization of Korean words. Neither hanguel nor hangul is found in Cambridge Dictionaries Online, Ask.Oxford, YourDictionary.com, and other less-known dictionaries. Both hangeul and hangul are not “full-fledged” English words because not all English dictionaries have them. The Wicki Hangul article states: “hangul. This is how it appears in many English dictionaries”. The word many is inappropriate and misleading. Only four or five large dictionaries list hangul and there are just as many dictionaries that do not. (None of online dictionaries lists hankul. Therefore, “Hankul in Yale Romanization, another common system in English dictionaries” in the Hangul Article is incorrect. Yale Romanization is not a common system in English dictionaries.)

According to Oxford.com, “The general rule of thumb for the OED is that any word can be included which appears five times, in five different printed sources, over a period of five years.” The word hangeul meets this requirement. OED Online has been negligent or biased if it has not listed hangeul. The OED stated that it does not act as an English word regulator. Likewise, no one should act as a word regulator for Wikipedia.

(3) Usage by non-Koreans?

The last of the three Nohat criteria as a word regulator is unclear. Nohat seemed to be saying that he is a linguist who does not speak Korean and that he “uses the word hangul all the time” but not hangeul. Why not? No one objected to hangeul as an article title word in both French and German Wikipedias. No one insisted that the word hangeul must be included in French or German dictionaries first before it could be used as a Wikipedia title word. Both Anglophones and non-anglophones are using the word hangeul.

Hangeul is a better choice as a Wikipedia article title word than hangul for the following reasons

(4) Pronunciation

“For use on Wikipedia, the most important aspect of a romanization scheme is pronunciation – Nohat 04:21, 2004 Mar 12.” This would be true in general, not just for Wikipedia.

Both han’gŭl and hangeul represent the same Korean script Image:Hangeul.png, pronounced as /hangɨl/ (or /hangɯl/) [han gl] in Korea. The word hangul has corrupted this pronunciation to /hän-gül/ in M-W Online, [häng'gūl] in Anwers.com, /häng'gōōl/ [hang gool] in AHD Online and Dictionary.com, and [haáng goòl] in MSN Encarta. All are linguistic inventions for the word hangul. Hangeul [han gl] in Korea means the Korean alphabet or the great scrip; [han gool] in Korean sounds like “one cave” or “a great pit”.

Two more variants appeared: /haŋguːł/ for hangul and /haŋkɯl/ for hangeul (Nohat 04:55, 18 February 2006). Neither one makes sense to Koreans. These are like corrupting Nohat to [Nohead] or [Noheart]. It would be difficult for linguists to know where they went wrong in discussing spoken Korean words if they do not speak Korean. Hangul only promotes wrong pronunciations with new linguistic variants (more corruptions).

Hangeul will soon appear in more English dictionaries than now. Nobody would or should pronounce hangeul as [hang gool]. Dictionary editors would have to find out that the eu in hangeul stands for /ɨ/ in romanized Korean words. They would have to show the correct pronunciation, /hangɨl/ [han gl], for hangeul. Anglophones will not pronounce hangeul as [han gool], [hahng gool], [hang kl], or [hang jyool] any more. They will have to learn to say [han gl] for hangeul just as Koreans do.

Hangeul is the right word that can restore and keep the correct pronunciation /hangɨl/ [han gl]. This is the most important reason why the word hangul [hahng gool] must go before it can do more damage (i.e., “crystallize” as a recognized pronunciation). This is a more important reason than which one, hangeul or hangul, has “crystallized” more as an English word than the other. This is why hangeul must be used as the article title word as well as the lead word. Wikipedia must do the right thing.

(5) Conformity to Romanization Systems

Wikipedia has many rules and guidelines (e.g., consensus) for conformity by little minds as well as by great minds to achieve consistency. Hangeul is not a “foolish consistency” (Nohat 15:04, 2004 Mar 10). Insisting on a wrong word, hangul, consistently for wrong reasons is.

In July 2000, Korea introduced the Revised Romanization of Korean, referred to as the RR system. It was called ”lousy” and a “johnny-come-lately” (Nohat 04:21, 2004 Mar 12). No romanization or written language system is perfect. Look at English. “Why the sound sh can be written as ce (as in ocean), ti (as in nation), or ss (as in issue)? – by Jared Diamond, Discovery, 6/1/94.” Why borrow only five vowel letters for over 20 different sounds? The Taipei Times anguished over Romanization (June 25, 2000): “This obfuscation of Chinese even extends to the subway system, where a silky feminine voice coos ‘Tam-shooey’ instead of the proper ‘dan-shui’. Mispronouncing station names in a caricatured foreigner accent only makes it harder for visitors to get familiar with Taipei, since this is not what we hear on the street.” Other countries all have their share of problems with romanization. Two of the three leading Japanese romanization systems write si and pronounce it as shi as does the RR system, one of the reasons for the “lousy” criticisms.

Like the M-R system, Nohat assigned a k sound to the g in hangeul as /haŋkɯl/. This was one of the very reasons why the RR system had to modify the M-R system. Why do linguists, including Nohat, want to change han to hang by adding an extra g? To Koreans, romanized Korean words according to the M-R system did not sound like Korean (e.g., Pusan for Busan). After seven years, the RR system is maturing in Korea (“It’s Not Perfect; Let’s Use the RR System”, Hankooki, 1/3/2007; “Globalization of Hangeul”, The Korea Times, 10/08/07; “Three Cheers for Hangeul”, English Chosen, 10/9/07).

The RR system requires a simple lesson as did the M-R system (no free lunch). The RR system abandoned diacritics. It was worth the price for having to use eu and eo instead of ǒ and ŭ for /ə/ and /ɨ/, respectively, in the M-R system. All are phonetic codes. Also, the letter g in the RR system always sounds like the g in Gregory, not like the g in Ginger. Then, the RR system will be “readable”.

(6) Hangeul/Hangul vs Kimchi/Taekwondo vs Incheon/Busan

Kimchi was first listed in the M-W dictionary in 1898. Taekwondo is an Olympic sport. Both kimchi, and taekwondo have been commercialized in the US and elsewhere and have gained word recognition, albeit less than Samsung or Hyundai. When the RR system was introduced in 2000, the words like kimchi, taekwondo, Samsung, or Hyundai remained unchanged in recognition of their “name brand values” in the Anglosphere. Korea is still using kimchi and taekwondo without changing their spellings even now (Guide to Korean Cultural Herritage, 2007 Edition, ISBN 89-7375-022-103910). Han’gŭl or hangul had not gained the same level of word recognition or had not “crystallized” as English words as much as kimchi or taekwondo had. Therefore, Korea changed han’gŭl or hangul to hangeul. Even Pusan and Inchŏn/Inchon, both better known than hangul, changed to Busan and Incheon, respectively.

(7) Korea’s Right as the Nameholder of Romanized Korean Words including Han’gŭl and Hangeul

Both hangul and hangeul are not common English words. Both words are not “full-fledged” English words as discussed in (2) and (6). Han’gŭl and hangeul originated in Korea. Hangul is a wrong spelling that will continue to vandalize the correct pronunciation.

Koreans respect and follow English word spellings, pronunciations, and usage rules in the Anglosphere. Non-Koreans should respect Korea’s preference for hangeul as the nameholder of Korean including romanized Korean words. Only the unlearned (little minds) would say who cares about what Korea wants. The learned would care and understand that Korea wants everyone to use hangeul now, not hangul. Nohat can understand that Korea does not want anyone to use the word hangul or say [hahng gool] for [han gl]. Insisting on hangul is like insisting on [Nohead] for Nohat even when Nohat pleads not to. Use hangeul and say [han gl].

(8) Request to Kokiri, Sewing, Nohat, Menchi, et al.

If a consensus can be reached on hangeul, please change the article title from Hangul to Hangeul. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I would like to leave the article editing to any one of Wikiperts. I apologize for a discussion that is a little too long. Average readers of Wikipedia articles would wonder “why the fuss?”. Eh? Tahon (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The most convincing point you've made, in my opinion, is (6). (Several strike me as completely irrelevant.) The second most convincing argument for me is (4) that people mispronounce hangŭl because it is usually spelled hangul. Point (5) only works if (6) does. There are two questions here: How far has hangul (as opposed to hangŭl) settled into the English language; and, at which point does Wikipedia wish to join what may or may not prove to be a general conversion in orthography?

Both spellings (hangul and hangŭl) have a history of over half a century in the English language, but it is nearly always spelled hangul. In fact, the OED only records the breve spelling once, in 1951. However, even when the breve was omitted, all OED attestations have hangul in italics or parentheses, suggesting that it is still being treated as a foreign word. Therefore, Tahon, I think you may have a convincing argument in (6).

However, your ratios in (1) are wrong. A Google search, if restricted to English, turns up a 6:1 ratio of hangul vs hangeul, in favor of hangul. If you restrict the search to pages from the past year, the ratio goes up slightly, not down, suggesting that there is no change in the air.

As for the Korean 'right' to determine English spelling (8), that's ridiculous. You're wrong to say that Koreans respect Anglosphere pronunciations. For example, they call the United States miguk, not yunaiteot seuteiteuseu. In other words, this is just point (6) again.

I've sided with Nohat in the past in preferring to keep the hangul spelling. That may simply be because it's the spelling I'm familiar with.

I also think RR is unfortunate, though a huge improvement over WG, which was horrible. But that's not relevant here, since there are no diacritics to worry about.

If we're going to change spelling, I suggest we also drop the capital H. Most OED citations of hangul are lower case, and we don't capitalize kana, hanja, kanji, hanzi, or the like.

kwami (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hangeul is right and hangul is wrong

Thank you very much for your comments. Saying miguk ([migook] or [me gook?]) is not disrespectful of America or a vandalism of the English words United States.

Miguk, a romanized Korean word, means a beautiful country. Koreans call America or the United States of America miguk when they speak in Korean. When speaking in English, however, they will say United States United States, not miguk. Likewise, Koreans say [Yeong-gook] for England and [Joong-gook] for China, etc., when speaking in Korean. This is the same as the word Korea in English although Korea’s proper name is “Daehan Mingook” in Korean. Koreans call every nation a gook.

I am grateful to McCune and Reischauer for the M-R Romanization system (1939). It served the needs in the past, but not any more. Unfortunately, a few Anglophones have not only corrupted the spelling han’gŭl according to the M-R system to hangul but also its pronunciation from [han gl] to [hang gool] before most Anglophones and Koreans have realized what have happened. Now, the few Anglophones are forcing everyone to accept hangul, the word they took and vandalized according to their convenience, as being the legitimate one simply because they have become familiar with it. This is unjust, almost like a word anglicization imperialism. The days of imperialistic minds are long gone.

Kwami raised two questions: “How far has hangul (as opposed to hangŭl) settled into the English language; and, at which point does Wikipedia wish to join what may or may not prove to be a general conversion in orthography?” A better question would be: Do Wikipedians want to do the right thing?

Look at the Wikipedia slogan at the top of every Wikipedia page: “You can help Wikipedia change the world.” This slogan is not just for money donations. Wikipedians can change the world by leading the world rather than by following the world. If you wait to see a general conversion from hangul to hangeul, it may take hundreds years or will never occur in your life. Conversely, Wikipedia can cause it to occur or can change the world. That’s the strength of Wikipedia. That is what sets Wikipedia apart from other Pedias, being able to seek the right path spontaneously, true to the Wikipedia spirit. It is the question of doing the right from keeping the wrong. Hangul is wrong and hangeul is right. The numerical number of Google hits matters little in choosing hangeul over hangul. I, a Korean, am complaining and pleading: do not use hangul because it is wrong. Korea wants to keep [han gl] as [han gl], not as [hang gool] or [hang kl]. Changing hangul to hangeul is the first step to do this.

Hangeul [han gl] is like the spirit of the Korean language. It must not change to [hang gool] or [hang kl] in the Anglosphere or anywhere else. Wikipedia has the opportunity to correct the wrong that Anglophones have done. Let’s change hangul to hangeul as the article title word as well as the lead word. It will mean a lot to the Anglosphere. Let other Pedias follow Wikipedia wiki wiki. --Tahon (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4