Talk:Hangul/Archive 3

Confused
Let's take the example 한글. To someone who knows nothing about Hangul, this appears to be two characters. My computer also treats it as two characters. Nowhere in the article does there appear to any list of these characters or any explanation of how they are composed. OK, having spent ten minutes searching, I may have missed something, but it should be very obvious in the article. What I'm guessing is that these things that appear to be characters are what are called "syllabic blocks" in the lead section. No one who didn't already know would realise that without going through a lengthy stage of puzzlement. What happened to me is that I got to the list of "Jamo", which I expected to be "characters", or "letters", but I don't see anything resembling 한 or 글. If I'm right, somewhere there needs to be a big prominent diagram, showing a representative character, say 한, labelled a "syllabic block" (if that's it's name). The diagram needs to show that this "syllabic block" is made up of a certain number of these "jamo", and give a clear idea of how the it represents a syllable, if that's the case. There is also no indication that I can see of how many of these "syllabic block" permutations exist...

Sorry this is a bit rambling but I have no time now to finesse it. Suffice to say that, for someone coming to the article for a quick understanding, the article seems to be very deficient in explaining what to the uninitiated seem to be "characters" and therefore the most fundamental thing that they expect to be informed about. 86.176.211.86 (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree with your criticism. I think the article has a lot of technical information and historical detail that is useful for someone who already knows about hangul and wants to learn more in-depth information, but is probably not accessible to someone who doesn't know the first thing about the script. The first time I ever read this article was after I had already learned about hangul elsewhere so I didn't have problems, but I could imagine someone in your situation coming having a hard time understanding this; I myself have a hard time finding what I'm looking for when I come here to look up a particular jamo or something. I am not actually a Korean speaker and I'm not an expert on hangul, so I don't think I can undertake cleaning up this article in the near future; just wanted to chime in and let you know you're not crazy for having this concern. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (OP) OK, I see you reinstated my comment above which I had deleted; that's fine, but just to point out here that I actually deleted it with the comment "sorry, there are some diagrams, I think I must be too tired to be doing this now", so's people don't feel the need to point out again that there are diagrams. I think I was mostly thrown off the scent from the outset, by this "syallabic block" concept, and thinking that the "jamo", described as "letters", are the things that appear to me to be "characters", and that the "syllabic blocks" were larger units. I hope to come back here some time soon with some concrete proposals. I think just a few judicious words in the lead section and the "Jamo" section would have saved me some confusion. 86.160.212.182 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Further on this topic, what actually is the view on the word "character" as it applies to hangul script? In some materials I have seen, symbols such as 한 and 글, for example, are called "characters", and this was my perception before I came to this article. However, this article seems to largely eschew the term "character", and in the few places that it is used in relation to hangul, it seems to refer to the "jamo", not the "syllabic blocks". Any thoughts? 86.160.212.182 (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jamo is obscure jargon if it's English at all. I think it should be replaced with normal English "letter" or "digraph" except in parentheticals. Is there any advantage to using such an obscure term?
 * "Character" is avoided because they aren't characters, any more than English words are characters. They mimic the shape of Chinese characters, but are composed of simple sequences of letters.
 * Daniels and Bright use "letter" and "syllable/syllabic block", though they also use the rather ambiguous "symbol" and "sign". AFAICT, the term "jamo" is not used. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, so you think usages like the following are bad examples that we shouldn't follow?


 * "Modern Korean is written almost entirely with a separate system of Hangul characters constructed of smaller pieces called jamo letters."


 * "Each Korean character (hangul, 한글) represents one syllable."


 * "Each Korean (Hangul) character is made up of building blocks called Jamo."


 * If so, I think this terminology point is worth mentioning up front. My guess is that many people who know nothing about Korean, but have merely occasionally seen it written down, imagine that each of those blocks is a "character". If this is a bad way of thinking of it, then it would be useful to set people straight at the start to prevent confusion later. I don't personally have a problem with "jamo" unless it is hopelessly obscure (which isn't the impression I get from other sites). It has the potential advantage that the reader will have no preconceived idea of what it means, whereas they could easily think that 한, say, was a "letter". 86.160.212.182 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the wording of all of those is unfortunate. "Jamo letters" is like saying Korea is a "country land".
 * Hangul = the Korean alphabet. We should probably say that somewhere.
 * I agree about an explanation up front. They do look like characters, which seems to have been the point.
 * How's the lede now?
 * BTW, I added a point about how NKorean tense consonants are written differently, but in the section on sorting order it looks as though they're now written the same. When did this change? — kwami (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel like the clearest way to introduce the concept (caveat: I haven't looked at kwami's revision yet, so maybe the problem is already solved) would be to not make a big deal out of jamo at all (e.g., don't say "each Korean character/syllable/whatever is made up of a bunch of jamo), but rather just treat them as normal letters and mention they're arranged in syllabic blocks. Something along the lines of (very loosely) "Unlike the Latin alphabet, in which letters are written out linearly, letters in Hangul are arranged into a "block" for each syllable". r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (OP) A very belated thanks to the editors who have made the lead section so much clearer. 109.153.234.114 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Consonant Clusters
I'm no expert on Korean, but looking at the Wiktionary entry for 함께 leads me to believe that the so called "consonant clusters" might have never been pronounced as such. Rather, the extra consonants serve to alter the pronunciation of the surrounding consonants as in modern words like 없다. 함께 (ㅎㅏㅁㄲㅔ), for example, came from the obsolete hangul sequence ᄒᆞᆫᄢᅴ (ㅎㆍㄴㅴㅢ). I would guess that the following changes happened:

The Korean resources might have more information on this, but I don't read Korean very well so I've been confined to what I could find in English.
 * 1) ㆍ → ㅏ (Vowels sounds merge as with other words containing ㆍ.)
 * 2) ㄴㅂ → ㅁ (The nasal takes on the place of articulation of the following consonant which is ㅂ from ㅴ. Pronounced alone, ㅴ would have simply been ㅺ)
 * 3) ㅺ → ㄲ (The ㅅ was prepended to a consonant to mark it as tensed. As such, it's merely a change in orthography.)
 * 4) ㅢ → ㅔ (The ㅡ became a front vowel like ㅣ, changing to an ㅓ which I believe was pronounced /e/.)

LCS (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're seeing historical change. The 'tense' consonants, for example, did not exist in Sejeong's day, and ㄲ did evolve from sequences like ㅺ. But that doesn't mean it wasn't originally pronounced /sk/. AFAIK, there's no reason to think that hangul wasn't approximately phonetic when it was devised. Consider Italian, where "Victoria" is pronounced Vittoria. That doesn't mean that in Latin ct was pronounced /tt/, only that it changed to /tt/ in Italian. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

阿比留文字 and 児屋根文字?
Should 阿比留文字 (Ahiru moji) and 児屋根文字 (Koyane moji), both Hangul-based Japanese scripts, be mentioned here? Or should there instead be a See also link to Jindai moji and develop sections there? Or should a full articles on both be develped, with links to them from both this article and the Jindai moji article? CJLippert (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those have been denied between 100 to 200 years ago by both in Japanese linguistics and historical study, so it is not even notable just like usual scripts.--Orcano (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rename article?
I propose that the article be renamed to "Korean Alphabet", to maintain a neutral POV and to avoid debates regarding the Romanization of the title. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that should come from the Korean Language Institute itself. But at the moment, it should stay as Hangul (or Hangeul, or whatever it may be...). -- Merrick Lee 04:49, 02 December 2012

Korean State Railway
Could someone write Choson Cul Minzuzui Inmingonghoagug in Hangul/Chosongul for the Korean State Railway article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.205.144 (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article in Korean is 조선민주주의인민공화국 철도성, so I assume that's what you're looking for. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

hangul's 3000 year history
koreans claim alphabet more than 3000 years old

http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php?ud=20120702000747&cpv=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.10.40 (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Korean newspapers will print anything, especially in their online editions. Darkpoet (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cia-Cia
Apparently Hangul is not being used for Cia-Cia anymore (or at all; the source below makes it sound like it was all hype): r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Korean government's King Sejong Institute has decisively withdrawn its tentacles from Sulawesi, killing any hope for the revival of this project. Also, Mair reconfirms that this effort was not only impractical, hyped by the media, and not widespread at all but also illegal all along. This emptiness should be made absolutely clear in the article, and Cia-cia removed from the infobox. Shrigley (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Koryo-mar
Koryo-sarams, who are speakingKoryo-mar, in my presumption, are also using Hangul (or Hangul or whatever...) alongside Cyrillic. But the thing is, do they recognise it as Hangeul or Chosongul? It is evident that Koryo-mar is a continuum of Hamgyong dialect and can be considered as a seperate language since it is not intelligible with any of the two standard versions of Korean. How will that be? -- Merrick Lee (talk) 4:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing Section :: Letters
While I was reading the article again, I have realized that is is always confusing when reading the section following "The following letters and sequences are found:"

Might I suggest a complete rework of that section?

The article mixes obsolete with those still in use...then followed with more obsolete items. It is not laid out logically. 13 obsolete consonants (not indented), followed by obsolete *double* consonants (indented), followed by obsolete *double* consonants (not indented). followed by obsolete consonant clusters (indented).

The flow is bad, and I don't see the current format as being appropriate for the message trying to be displayed - aka the "usability" of that section is horrible.

There are many small problems in this article that are similar, but this seemed the biggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciscorucinski (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I separated them out. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

capitalization
에멜무지로 has changed the article to capitalize "Hangul". Since hangul is not capitalized in other articles, I've reverted to keep things consistent, but we should discuss it here.

에멜무지로 reasoned (1) that hangul is a proper noun, (2) that it is always capitalized, and (3) that hanja, kanji, etc. should also be capitalized.

AFAIK, hanja, hanzi, and kanji are never capitalized. As for hangul being a proper noun, the etymology section says the word is ambiguous between 'great script' and 'Korean script', which would mean it is not necessarily proper. It's hard to argue that it's a proper noun in English. It is often but by no means always capitalized; the difference is as significant as spelling differences, so you'll see "hangul" but "Hankul". If we don't capitalize hanja, which etymologically clearly is a proper noun, it does seem rather odd to capitalize hangul ("hanja-Hangul mixed script"). —kwami (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Dictionary.com says that it's from han 'great', but "frequently taken to be" from Han 'Korea'. The OED does not capitalize it in their entry; of the five quotations they include, it is capitalized in only one. If we're going to consider the greatest English dictionary, that's an argument against capitalization. kwami (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth: Britannica capitalizes Hangul, Websters does not. Doesn't matter to me either way, I suggest we settle on one and sticking to it though, so as to avoid being featured at Lamest edit wars. Dekkappai (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Hangul should always be capitalized in manner because do we spell English as english or Revised Romanization as revised romanization? I think 에멜무지로 has a point on this. --Appletrees (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But those are derived from proper nouns. Hangul (great script), like hieroglyph (sacred script), is not. kwami (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Others are runes, futhark, zhuyin, and ogham, though many sources are inconsistent. (Also, Younger & Elder Futhark are usually capitalized.) kwami (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say let Hangul and Hanja stay. If that's what people write, let them write it so! --Kjoonlee 10:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hangul is not capitalized in some other articles, but that's only because someone has been switching them to lowercase. On purpose. --Kjoonlee 10:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hieroglyph is a term. Hangul is a name. You might say Hanja is a term as well, no more a name than kanji is. Nevertheless, I object to lowercase "hangul" as well. --Kjoonlee 10:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Richard Feynman wrote that he enjoyed decoding "Mayan hieroglyphics". Surely hieroglyphs are distinct from Hangul. --Kjoonlee 11:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't follow. "Hieroglyph" and "hanja" are just as much names as "hangul" is. What's the difference? kwami (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you say Hanguls? --Kjoonlee 09:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but you can't say "a hangul" either, any more than "a futhark". They're the names of scripts, not the letters that make up the script. kwami (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you can say "The elder and younger futharks" can't you? --Kjoonlee 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they are considered different alphabets. No-one speaks of more than one alphabet called "hangul". kwami (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And won't you say that's also true of proper nouns? As a Korean speaker my linguistic intuition tells me that Hangul is a proper noun. Some other editors who object to lowercase Hangul are also Koreans, AFAIK. --Kjoonlee 06:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, maybe it is. The lines for capitalization in English are rather blurry. Wouldn't hanja (and kanji) then be clear proper names, since they mean "Chinese character"? But I've never seen kanji capitalized. It just seems very odd to me to capitalize Hangul but not hanja, or to capitalize Hangul and Hanja but not hanzi and kanji. kwami (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Language isn't logic; people drive on parkways and park on driveways. --Kjoonlee 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're not going according to logic, then we're back to dictionaries or polling Google. kwami (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're getting close to linguistic prescription again IMHO. --Kjoonlee 08:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than OR, here are the refs I can find: Don't know about Penguin. American Heritage is a second-rate dictionary, whereas the OED and MW are considered the best in their countries. The best English dictionaries use lower case, though they both note hangul "is frequently capitalized". kwami (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Capitalized Hangul: Random House, American Heritage.
 * Lower case hangul: Oxford English, Merriam Webster, Encl. Britannica.
 * Relying on dictionaries for authority is stupid IMHO. Why not just be descriptive, and let people write what they want to write? --Kjoonlee 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike most dictionaries, the OED isn't just some lexicographer decreeing proper usage, but rather a record of how words are used in the real world. That strikes me as a better guide than our own OR. kwami (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But have you looked at their corpus, or do you have an idea of whether they pondered on whether to describe "Hangul"? --Kjoonlee 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What the published is mostly not capitalized. kwami (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So if say, split infinitives were less common, it's OK to stamp them out from Wikipedia? No. --Kjoonlee 08:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And who says that Random House, American Heritage were not recording how words are used in the real world? Maybe they polled a lot more Koreans. --Kjoonlee 08:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you don't like logic, and you don't like references, I guess spelling should be at the discretion of the editor? Should it be okay to mix capitalization within a sentence? a paragraph? an article? or just between articles, the way we do with US vs. UK spelling? Who then decides which form to use for any particular article? kwami (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have reached the illogical conclusion that I don't like logic or references. I like logic, and I like references, but I don't like prescriptivism. Spelling should (IMHO) always be left to the discretion of the editor, preferably to native speakers. That solves the problem of capitalization neatly. --Kjoonlee 09:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the OED says Hangul is frequently capitalized, and if Hangul is frequently capitalized at Wikipedia, then what's the problem, really? --Kjoonlee 09:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. kwami (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It still looks unresolved, nearly 5 years later: I appreciate the latest capitalization edit for consistency of hanja (lc), but it draws my attention to the fact that Hangul is still capitalized and the other words aren’t. MJ (t • c) 00:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Vectorization of Hangeul_New_Version.jpg
I created a vectorized derivative of Hangeul_New_Version.jpg at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hangeul_New_Version_Vectorized.svg and tagged Hangeul_New_Version.jpg superseded. I don't know what else has to be done to use this improved image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynniv (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence is muddled
The Korean alphabet, often romanized in English as Hangul ...

This reads either as if the actual phrase "Korean alphabet" is romanised as "Hangul", or as if "Hangul" is a system for romanizing the Korean alphabet, both of which are obviously untrue. The actual Korean name (in Korean writing) needs to be inserted somewhere early on in that sentence, so that "romanized" has something relevant to refer to. 217.44.215.152 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed that it wasn't very clear. Hopefully it's better now.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the quick response! 217.44.215.152 (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure. :) BTW, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Everyone who wants to productively contribute is encouraged to be bold. Your contributions would be welcome.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Readability
The whole section on readability is very weak. It rests on one single source, that source is 34 years old and has not been corroborated since. What is more, the source is only a conference paper, not an academic article, making WP:RS and possible WP:UNDUE an issue. Building a whole section on one single source that is only a conference paper is not sufficient. Unless better support can be found, I suggest the readability section be removed.Jeppiz (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

신문Sinmun(新闻) 보도bodo(报道) are chinese and 뉴스nyuseu(news) is english,most so called change just change another boot to lick
this is really low for a nation's behavior

no really difference between kbs뉴스 or kbs신문,they are both not korean, korean have no their own words for most of things, even daily important things have no korean word ,large portion of korean words just plain other language use korean to pronounce, and korea people claim its korean shamelessly

basically korean change their words for real ruler of korea, now america rule korea so they just try really hard to change chinese word into english word 219.106.122.232 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusion
Normally the resulting block is written within a square of the same size and shape as a hanja (Chinese character) by compressing or stretching the letters to fill the bounds of the block; therefore someone not familiar with the scripts may mistake Hangul text for hanja or Chinese text.

This is an encyclopedia. We don't need a statement that some people might confuse Hangeul with Chinese. Why don't we add that someone might mistake it for Japanese Kana or some other script? --2.245.126.83 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Any source for 韓㐎 and 朝鮮㐎?!
Would you stop making a joke out of Wikipedia and remove 韓㐎 and 朝鮮㐎? "글" is a native Korean word and doesn't have a hanja form!!! --Anatoli (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

HANGUL LETTERS' SHAPE
These letters represent the longitudinal vertical profile or section of the tongue and oral cavity; their vowels represent vertical cross section of the pharynx and horizontal tongue. If everyone has a better idea please don't hesitate to say. Amir Arab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.163.19.99 (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC) 137.163.19.99 (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * These alphabetic letters are to be dealt with consonant letters and vowel letters represent separately. Unlike the consonant letters, the vowels do not represent the shape of the articulation. These are based on the Eastern philosophy with the letter "•" (now obsolete) for heaven, the letter "ㅣ" for man (standing upright) and the letter "ㅡ" for the earth, being combined in yin yang harmony. Ounbbl 24 October 2018.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hangul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090812024714/http://www.france24.com:80/en/20090806-indonesian-tribe-use-korean-alphabet-scholar to http://www.france24.com/en/20090806-indonesian-tribe-use-korean-alphabet-scholar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Korean Alphabet
There should be a way to find this article by writing "Korean alphabet" into the search line. - So far one gets only a proposal to Korean Alphabet Day. - No Korean Alphabet. I found this only by looking for Korean Alphabet in the German Wiki - which has it - and then switching to English from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.81.127 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is already. If you type "Korean alphabet" (with small case "a") in the search box, you will get suggested Korean alphabet which is a redirect to Hangul. If you had typed "Korean Alphabet" (with uppercase "A") you would not have seen the suggestion but you would have been redirected automatically to Hangul anyway if you had hit "enter" after typing "Korean Alphabet". I just created Korean Alphabet (with uppercase "A") as a redirect page so you should now also see it as a suggestion.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 23:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

SORTING ORDER - DICTIONARY ENTRIES
I am looking for a list that shows the order of words in the dictionary. The consonants are easy enough, but I don't know the order of the vowels (diphthongs included). Can some one add a heading list for this, please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.94.115.23 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Frequency
The referenced citation for 99.9% of all occurring Hangul syllables being covered by the most frequent 512 syllable blocks comes from a search of business names. This domain may not account for generality, and either the specificity of this information should be included, or the statistic left out entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.212.209 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hangul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622021232/http://www.rmv.nl/publicaties/11Koreavroeg/e/accidentalacquisitions.pdf to http://www.rmv.nl/publicaties/11Koreavroeg/e/accidentalacquisitions.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is this book's title written in the full form?
Why is "An Illustrated Description of Three Countries" written as ?--Adûnâi (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like it was an inept Paste from the article’s title. I removed the Kanji and fixed the code. MJ  (t • c) 14:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hangul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202000915/http://www.paregabia.com/data/photo_hangul/hangul_exposants.pdf to http://www.paregabia.com/data/photo_hangul/hangul_exposants.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718173123/http://blog.paran.com/blog/detail/postBoard.kth?pmcId=sookoeun2145&blogDataId=26450475 to http://blog.paran.com/blog/detail/postBoard.kth?pmcId=sookoeun2145&blogDataId=26450475

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yanwen
Yanwen redirects here. There is no mention of "Yanwen" on this page and it most certainly is not about the shipping company I was looking for. Somewhere on this page there should be a mention of "Yanwen", or if Yanwen is not related to Hangul (how should I know?) the redirect should be removed. W3ird N3rd (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Source
https://books.google.com/books?id=nonRl2cerIgC&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bamnamu (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

what dose this spell in English. 한국어
한국어 Korean to English plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.178.124 (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It says "Korean". 2600:1700:C870:E90:8885:1B15:C35C:BC4E (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * According to English Wiktionary, "한국어" is pronounced "[ˈha̠ːnɡuɡʌ̹] ≈ hahn-goog-uh" and means "the Korean language". Wiktionary is amazing!  —  Solo Owl   22:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can read Hangul; it says "Hangug-eo". I think Solo Owl is correct, it mwans "Korean Language".ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Vowel length in hangul?
The article says: "Although vowel length is still phonemic in some varieties of Korean, it is no longer written." Just for historical interest, how length was symbolized in hangul should be shown in the article, just as the obsolete symbols for pitch accent are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.135.13 (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Article neutrality
Several sections in this article are written in a way that paint Hangul in an explicitly positive light, implicitly describing it as 'better' than other scripts. For example, in the introduction - 'Many linguists consider Hangul to be the most logical writing system in the world, partly because the shapes of its consonants mimic the shapes of the speaker's mouth when pronouncing each consonant.' "Most logical" is explicitly subjective, and 'many' other linguists (myself included) would have a variety of other opinions. Additionally, the section on the design of the letters not only contains but begins with explicit praise of the system - "Numerous linguists have praised Hangul for its featural design, describing it as "remarkable", "the most perfect phonetic system devised", and "brilliant, so deliberately does it fit the language like a glove"." It might be the case that some linguists have said this, but that would be at best a side note, and likely not at all relevant to the discussion of the actual mechanics of the system. I personally would further object to the comment "fitting like a glove" - there are clear ways in which Hangul is slightly suboptimal for modern Korean. Those should also be discussed for this to be an unbiased and factual article.

This is likely to be a recurring problem, as most Koreans (including several I've met) view Hangul as "objectively the best writing system", and one can likely find sources to cite to provide an appearance of legitimacy to any such comments and prevent them from being easily dismissed as lacking citation. Nonetheless, I think it's worth the time to take this article and make it less of a hagiography of Hangul and more of a plain, factual discussion about Hangul with a tone more appropriate for Wikipedia.

2600:1700:1B0:9980:945C:2F50:C935:A8E8 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. It is a very good writing system, but it's hardly perfect, and I personally don't really get what all the fuss is about. The featural design stuff is neat, but it only really holds up for a few of the phonemes. I find it hard to see the graphic connection with the /m/ and /s/, for instance.
 * I rearranged the section you mentioned; I was wary to remove that paragraph completely, since as far as I can tell, it is the most common opinion people have of Hangul, but I moved it farther down in the section, under some of the more important, objective information, cleaned up the sources (the "most perfect phonetic system" quote is taken out of context and isn't really a quote), and changed the exgerrative "numerous" to the more factual "some".
 * I'm not sure what to do about the introduction. On the one hand, the POV stuff is placed at the end of the introduction, where I think it belongs if it belongs there at all, and it is a well-cited and very common opinion. I don't want to delete it myself, but I wouldn't object if someone else did.
 * Ultimately, the arguments against Hangul tend to be more subjective than those for it, and both public and expert opinion, at least as far as I've seen, are indeed quite positive toward it. That makes neutrality in this case tricky. I made what I think is the bare minimum for neutrality, but, as I said, I wouldn't object if another Wikipedian decided to delete or further paraphrase some of the more opinionated sentences.
 * Justin Kunimune (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only that, using "Hangul" as the title and lead sentence is a bit ROK-centric. Should be a more neutral term, like "Korean alphabet". – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * even the way South Korea was listed first in the infobox despite the fact we usually write alphabetically. I have changed that and paraphrased some other stuff. I strongly agree with moving this article to "Korean Alphabet" though. (WP:NEUTRAL) ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore this policy:(WP:POVNAMING) seems to indicate that this article should be named without bias; "Hangul" is a South Korean word so the only logical title for this article is "Korean alphabet". I don't want to do it myself but someone more important should move the article to "Korean alphabet" especially considering WP:5P2 is neutrality. ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Korean alphabet" is hardly viable, because there seems to be little agreement on whether it even is an alphabet. It's variously described in the literature as an alphabet, a syllabary or an "alphabetic syllabary". As for naming policy, I think you are reading the policy wrong. We follow WP:COMMONNAME, the commonly used term in international English, and that is "Hangul", no matter whether this or that local party prefers some other term over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Korean script" is always an option to avoid calling it an alphabet or a syllabary. I don't know about the common name, though. I've only heard it called "Hangul" or "Hanguel", so if that's its name in the literature as well, then it's probably the best title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinkunimune (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the previous situation of putting South Korean-related information before North Korean was better. South Korea has a closer connection to the rest of the world than North Korea (as well as twice as many people), so visitors to the article are far more likely to be looking for information on the South Korean version of Korean than the North Korean. It is strange that Chosŏn'gŭl appears before Hangul in the lead, for instance, as few people visiting the article probably use that term. There is no obligation to alphabetize the names of the script.
 * I agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise that the common name in English should be used even though it stems from the South Korean name of the script rather than the North Korean. — Eru·tuon 18:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Using Hangul in the title suggests Wikipedia favours South Korea over the North; it doesn't matter if South Korea has more of a connection with the outside world since Wikipedia should be neutral regardless of that. The WP:COMMONNAME argument is somewhat valid as Hangul is the "common name" although it is a foreign word. This is one of those exceptional circumstances where no matter what we name the article, we are breaking a policy. If we use the WP:IGNOREALLRULES we are more likely to come to the best decision. I think "Korean alphabet" or "Korean script", especially the latter because they are neutral and explain to people who have never heard of Hangul what it is. But what does everyone else think? Also, Hangul isn't a syllabary; each block is made up of alphabetic characters. It is a featural alphabet.  ImprovedWikiImprovment    ( disputationem ) 23:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's use of the name "Hangul" is only following English, which borrowed the name from South Korean rather than North Korean. As for South Korea's connection with the rest of the world, I do not use it as an argument about the title of the article, only about the order of information inside the article. — Eru·tuon 23:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Oxford dixtionary doesn't list the word "Hangul" which I consider to be the most reliable dictionary. The order in the lead can be changed which I do agree with (and I will do that now) but we can't reasonably say which is the correct term in English (although it is definately not Chosŏn'gŭl). "Korean script" is most appropriate in my opinion; it is not confusing and is neutral.  ImprovedWikiImprovment     ( disputationem ) 23:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionaries website isn't quite as complete as the real Oxford English Dictionary. You can find "hangul" in the OED (entry number 83991, though you need a library subscription). The entry hasn't been updated for 40 years, though. ("Chosongul" isn't in there.) — Eru·tuon 23:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I agree Chosŏn'gŭl is not a good title. Do you think we should do an article move proposal to attract attention and see what others think or should we leave it as Hangul? Like I said, none of the said titles are ideal as they all break a policy so this is a difficult situation.  ImprovedWikiImprovment    ( disputationem ) 00:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have much experience with initiating move discussions, but you could at least post on the talk pages of some of the WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page to get more people to participate. — Eru·tuon 18:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're of course free to file an WP:RM, but personally I'd advise against it; it's a waste of time. The appropriate name is and remains "Hangul". It's not in fact a difficult situation at all, as the naming policy is crystal clear on the matter. We go by common English usage, period. As far as I can see, no valid policy-based RM could possibly lead to a different result here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionaries website isn't quite as complete as the real Oxford English Dictionary. You can find "hangul" in the OED (entry number 83991, though you need a library subscription). The entry hasn't been updated for 40 years, though. ("Chosongul" isn't in there.) — Eru·tuon 23:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I agree Chosŏn'gŭl is not a good title. Do you think we should do an article move proposal to attract attention and see what others think or should we leave it as Hangul? Like I said, none of the said titles are ideal as they all break a policy so this is a difficult situation.  ImprovedWikiImprovment    ( disputationem ) 00:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have much experience with initiating move discussions, but you could at least post on the talk pages of some of the WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page to get more people to participate. — Eru·tuon 18:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're of course free to file an WP:RM, but personally I'd advise against it; it's a waste of time. The appropriate name is and remains "Hangul". It's not in fact a difficult situation at all, as the naming policy is crystal clear on the matter. We go by common English usage, period. As far as I can see, no valid policy-based RM could possibly lead to a different result here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will just leave it both because this is getting me nowhere and it appears me and IB are in the minority. I personally can't say what the common English usage is because I can't say I've ever had a conversation with someone about the Korean alphabet; if multiple people say "Hangul" is the common usage then there is clearly no point in the RM. ImprovedWikiImprovment    ( disputationem ) 22:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not use Korean (language)? Wouldn't that simplify the whole thing?  A ir ♠C ombat Talk!  15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained asterisks in Letters section
Quoting fragments of table in Hangul:


 * Final*
 * preceding word final letter*
 * following word initial letter**

Total 7 instances of such usage -- 4 for single (*) and 3 for double (**). But the only other asterisks in the article are in a different section Hangul and they are not there to explain what's going on with the ones from Hangul.

What do these asterisks mean?

--Unk3mpt (talkpage) 19:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This section is confusing in general, and written in broken English ("only used in solely"?). It should be rewritten. There's a much better table in Revised_Romanization_of_Korean. Maybe we should incorporate it into this article?

Also, in the article about the romanization, the transcription of final ㅆ is given as t, which contradicts ss/s/t/n of this article.

Also this: "Linguists disagree on the number of phonemes versus diphthongs among vowels in the Korean alphabet.". What is this supposed to mean? First off, diphthongs can be phonemes too, and secondly, phonemes are sounds, not letters in an alphabet. --188.147.5.17 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagreement in Different Sections
There's a major disagreement on the number of characters in Hangul on the page. At the top, it says there are 14 consonants and 10 vowels. In the Letters section, it says there are 19 consonants and 21 vowels. That's not a small difference. 71.215.245.72 (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 19 and 21 is more correct. But this is a problem with the concept of a “letter”, because the basic letters are modified and recombined to make all the others. From the 10 basic consonants, ㄱ,ㄷ,ㅂ,ㅅ,ㅈ are doubled to become ㄲ,ㄸ,ㅃ,ㅆ,ㅉ and modified to become ㅋ,ㅌ,ㅍ,ㅊ. And the 6 basic vowel letters ㅏ,ㅓ,ㅗ,ㅜ,ㅡ,ㅣ (which can be further broken down into combinations of a line and a dot) are variously combined to form all the diphthongs. I think the lede could clarify this. MJ  (t • c) 16:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

GA
See previous discussion Talk:Hangul/Archive_1

Jangle Jungkooko (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Kazakh
Nothing Jungkooko (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Choson or Joson - or Joseon?
Not only here but also in other places one sees again and again the Romanisation of 조선 in조선글 etc. as Chosŏn, although the first element in 조 is clearly not ch but j. - Interestingly the Article for the historic kingdom "Choson" is correctly entitled "Joseon".


 * See Romanization of Korean. It’s not a matter of correctness, but of choice of transliteration system. It isn’t possible to make a definitive one-to-one correspondence of Korean and Latin letters. MJ  (t • c) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Syllabification
The article says:

> Because of syllable clustering, words are shorter on the page than their linear counterparts would be, and the boundaries between syllables are easily visible (which may aid reading, if segmenting words into syllables is more natural for the reader than dividing them into phonemes).

A citation is even offered. But this isn't true, is it? 한국어 is pronounced han-gu-geo, not han-guk-eo, and thousands of words have syllables crossing characters in this same way. 73.114.147.77 (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It says “may aid reading”, rather than pronunciation, so it seems to refer to the way homophones can be distinguished by their syllables. To take your example, if “한구거” were another Korean word, it would be pronounced the same but have a completely different meaning. Linear writing removes this type of useful distinction. Syllable clusters are both more compact and more informative. MJ  (t • c) 15:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Images Removed
These two images were removed from a recent edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hangeul_letter_order.svg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hangul_Pronunciation_II.png but I think that they should remain. They're easily digestible and quite informative. Why were they removed? 2600:1700:C870:E90:8885:1B15:C35C:BC4E (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the first image because there are already diagrams of letter placement in the Morpho-syllabic blocks section. I also removed the second image and replaced it with two charts under the Letters section that include Revised Romanization pronunciation of each letter. That said, if others think additional images are helpful, I am happy to create new images, as I think the previous ones could be formatted more clearly. Lenoresm (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, now that I look at the second image again, I see that it doesn't include all of the consonants. Lenoresm (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Hangeul_letter_order.svg is more informative and useful, for this purpose and by itself as a single image. It can be conveniently saved and used later as a reference. Removing it from here makes it harder to discover, it should be more accessible. Compared to it, File:Hangul_letters.jpg is low quality, visually and structurally. It has quite a bit of text in English and pronunciation examples, but it ends up being embedded without translation on pages in other languages. File:Hangul_letters.jpg has a little bit of English too, but as a whole it looks more international and it's an easily translatable svg file. For now, File:Hangeul letter order.svg is added next to File:Hangul_letters.jpg and both images are repositioned to fit a little better without blank space. 37.195.119.161 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Naming convention for "Hangul"
Cross-link to a discussion I posted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean) Please discuss there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Lack of information and example
There is no good enough citations and examples to make people understand it. I hope the document to be developed with more example of the Hangul. Pedia19960514 (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

'ㅇ' at the consonants table : sound is null if it is initial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul#Consonants

'ㅇ' doesn't have any sound if it is initial. In second and third table of constants section, both ㅇ in 'Preceding word final letter' section and 'Following word initial letter'section wrote as ㅇ(ng).

Need to be changed to ㅇ(_) or ㅇ(null) in ;Following word initial letter' section. 118.221.204.58 (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Sentence in lede is cut off and confusing
The sentence is: " It consists of 19 consonant letters and 21 vowel letters as it additionally includes 5 tense consonants (ㄲ ㄸ ㅃ ㅉ ㅆ) and 20 (for compound and complex vowel letters as well as ㅐ ㅔ)."

The 'as' should probably be 'and' and the '20' isn't referring to anything. 46.239.248.239 (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Vowel IPA / diagram mismatch
The vowel diagram in the article doesn't agree with the IPA in the article. I'll tabulate them: a	ae	ya	yae	eo	e	yeo	ye	o	wa	wae /a/	/ɛ/	/ja/	/jɛ/	/ʌ/	/e/	/jʌ/	/je/	/o/	/wa/	/wɛ/ father	face	yard	yay	dog	face	young	yay	home	water	wet oe	yo	u	wo	we	wi	yu	eu	ui	i ø~[we]	/jo/	/u/	/wʌ/	/we/	y~[ɥi]	/ju/	/ɯ/	/ɰi/	/i/ wet	yo	moon	wonder	wet	weed	you	good	gooey	see I understand they're just supposed to be approximations, but these differences are just too damn big.

Assuming the IPA is correct, I'd expect something like: (lad)	pet	(yap)	yes	hut	---	---	---	(boar)	(whack)	--- (urn)	(yore)	---	---	way	(threw)	ewe	---	---	--- ~way					   ~we Here --- means I think the provided sound is close enough and means I don't consider any English sound a good match. For example, English doesn't really have an /a/, I feel it's somewhere between ‘father’ and ‘lad’, but closer to the latter, so we can disagree about some of these. On the other hand, for ‘ae’ either /ɛ/ or ‘face’ is clearly wrong. And possibly the IPA is wrong in some sense. Most of our exposure to Korean is South Korean after all, where /ɛ/ is lost and /ø/ and /y/ are on their way out, so it makes no sense to list those as the main pronunciations. Maybe it should be changed to: /a/	/e/	/ja/	/je/	/ʌ/	/e/	/jʌ/	/je/	/o/	/wa/	/we/ /we/	/jo/	/u/	/wʌ/	/we/	/ɥi/	/ju/	/ɯ/	/ɰi/	/i/ And leave the old distinctions to the footnotes. And maybe still change ‘wet’ to ‘way’?

I know next to nothing about Korean, otherwise I wouldn't have come here, and I can't know for sure what change is the best, but some change is necessary, because at present to the lay reader the article appears to contradict itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A455:1903:1:C4D6:4DE4:7855:38B5 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Misleading image
There is an image with the following caption: "An elementary school sign in Baubau written in Latin and Hangul alphabet." I think the general reader would assume this meant the same (Korean) words were written in Hangul and the Roman alphabet, whereas in fact the sign is in Malay/Indonesian and Korean. Unless anyone can give a good reason to keep it, I will remove the image. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Number of hangul combinations
The number of consonants + double-consonants (ex. ㄱ, ㄲ) is 19, single consonants = 14. There are a total of 21 vowels + diphthong vowels. There should be a total of 19*21 = 399 possible combinations for "two letter words". If one then assumes that all consonants are valid for a final letter (받침), this is not the case, then there should be 19*21*14 = 5586 possible combinations for a "three letter word" and 78 204 combinations for a "four letter word". Note that vowel diphthongs are included with vowels as a single letter in this. However, my "精选韩汉汉韩词典" (Korean-Chinese, Chinese-Korean dictionary), the following are listed as possible final "letters" (받침): ㄱ, ㄲ, ㄳ, ㄴ, ㄵ, ㄶ, ㄷ, ㄹ, ㄺ, ㄻ, ㄼ, ㄽ, ㄾ, ㄿ, ㅀ, ㅁ, ㅂ, ㅄ, ㅅ, ㅆ, ㅇ, ㅈ, ㅊ, ㅋ, ㅌ, ㅍ, ㅎ. With this restriction, there would appear to be, then, a total of 19*21*27 = 10 773 possibilities for >= "three letter words". That brings the total number of combinations to 11 172. Should this be added to the article? Someone asked for a reference in the introduction where this is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 제이5 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There are many others if we don't restrict ourselves to modern Korean. But your numbers assume any combo of C1-V-C2 is possible, when there may be restrictions.  That's why we need a ref.  — kwami (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the number 11 172, I posted a reference for this to the Unicode Consortium, but someone removed this, stating that, ″Unicode consortium is not a reliable source; they just provide whatever random companies ask them for.″ However, given that these companies include Adobe, Apple Inc., Berkeley, Emojipedia, Facebook, Google, Huawei, IBM, Microsoft, Monotype, Oracle Corporation, Yahoo! and SAP SE, these don't really register to me as ″random companies″. Their requirements should reflect the needs of their users and for a script with a large number of users, this 11 172 should be reflective of their expected needs, no? Posadist (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hangul → Korean alphabet – Should be moved to a neutral article per WP:NPOV and Hangul is only the name in South Korea as North Korea has Chosŏn'gŭl. Do not sign this. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:USEENGLISH. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONAME, WP:WEIGHT; Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:USEENGLISH says to use the name most commonly found in English sources; I think "Hangul" is the common name in English. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 03:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hangul is the name that the alphabet is known as in English, plus the North Korean name of the alphabet is significantly less relevant for most English speakers. Gbear605 (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose; "Chosongul" is a complete nonentity in English. -- choster (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- There are two reasons why.
 * 1. Use English
 * 2. NPOV
 * 103.132.150.28 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Hangul" is the English word for the Korean writing system; that is the entire point. Second, NPOV does not mean false equivalence, which is why the article is at Sea of Japan.-- choster (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Describing iconicity
There has been some disagreement on the best way to describe the way some letters reflect the points of articulation. For a long time, the article has said that many letters' shapes "mimic" the shape of the mouth:
 * All basic letters mimic their articulator's shape and phonetic features when pronouncing them...
 * (earlier version) ...the shapes of its consonants seemingly mimic the shapes of the speaker's mouth when pronouncing each consonant...

Recently, an editor has preferred the word "outline", which sounds wrong to me. So I thought I'd see what some reliable sources say (which the key word in boldface):
 * Han'gul characters were designed to depict the actual places of articulation...
 * [the letters] of Han'gŭl have systematic internal structure correlated with the phonetic-feature composition of the phonemes
 * ...the shapes of symbols reflect the articulations of sounds.
 * ...the Hangul letter shapes... reflect the shape of the speech organs used in their production...
 * ...the shapes of some consonants...represent the shapes of the vocal tract in making those sounds...
 * The visual shape of the consonant symbols closely represents the place and manner of articulation...
 * ...depicting the characteristic shape of the speech organs involved in the articulation of the sounds...
 * ...the pictographic representation of the speech organ...the segmentals depict the shape and place of articulation...
 * ...sounds that are pronounced in the same place of articulation show visual similarity...
 * ...an intentional diagrammatic iconicity between the letter-shapes and the articulatory features of the represented phonemes...
 * ...intended to relate the sounds they represented... depending on the place of articulation...
 * ...symbols are articulatorily iconic. Their shapes literally resemble the position or state of the lips and tongue...
 * The letters also mimic the shapes made by the mouth...
 * ...consonants are derived from five prototypical shapes... that were created to mimic the shape of the vocal tract...
 * ...that basic shape mimics the articulation in the mouth...
 * ...the shape of the basic letter was modeled on the articulatory organs...
 * ...the forms of five basic letters were modeled after their articulatory configurations...Hunmin chŏng'ŭm haerye...stated that these letters 'depict outlines'... of speech organs...

So I think that explains where the word outline comes from -- the Hunmin chŏng'ŭm haerye says that the five basic consonants "depict the outlines" of the speech organs. Which isn't quite the same as saying that they outline the speech organs. Otherwise, the WP:RS above seems to support using a word like depict or represent, and to restrict the description to the five basic consonants. --Macrakis (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's spelled Hangeul
See previous discussion Talk:Hangul/Archive_1

No, it's not. The English name is Hangul. Take Moscow, for example. In Russian, the city is called Москва. The official Russian romanization rules give us Moskva. But in English we call it Moscow, and that is why the English wikipedia article is called Moscow. Same for Hangul... in Korean it's called 한글, the official Korean romanization rules give us "Han'gŭl" or "Hangeul", but in English we call it Hangul, and that is why the English wikipedia article is called Hangul. I think the best thing to do here is to leave is as Hangul, and use the name Hangul all the way through, but add all other versions as redirections and also have a section inside the article explaining the other versions of the name. Azylber (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Han'gŭl" isn't the official romanisation, that's the McCune-Reischauer, if you remove the ' and the accent, you have hangul, this twist the meaning and even doesn't match this transliteration. The official transliteration is "hangeul", that help to not be confused with u in both English pronunciation and korean pronunciation and meaning. This is the same problem than with "taichi", that was using, the approximative transliteration, t'ai⁴chi²ch'üan² from Wale, where the ' is still removed, and we have a still more confusing transliteration, of tai (without expiration) and chi, a less good appropriation than ji in both Chinese and English. So without using Hangeul and taiji quan we have both a loose of meaning, and a word that goes the wrong way for the pronunciation. Both technical literature but en Wikipedia use this twisted form (from original and today official) transliteration now.Popolon (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you meant "aspiration". JohnSmith13345 (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you should STFU, "john". 2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:5044:E834:E690:8B04 (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Explanation of the city Moscow is totally wrong. Take the example from China(Mainland). Beijing was used to be spelled as 'Peking' from 19th century, but they have officially, domestically and both internationally, changed the romanization of their city. Nanjing is the other example. It was used to be spelled as 'Nanqing'. DoomeyAhn (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The English word for the Korean alphabet is "hangul." This is already an established word in English – it does not have to be affected by South Korea's official romanization system. Should the English word "Korea" be changed to "Goryeo" just because "Korea" is from the Korean word 고려 (Goryeo)? Hell no. Likewise, the English word "hangul" does not have to be changed to "hangeul" just because "hangul" is from the Korean word 한글 (hangeul). --73.198.36.59 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)