Talk:Korean language/Archive 2

KOREAN LANGUAGE SPEAKING POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD.
WIKIPEDIA SAYS, TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION IS ONLY 74 MILLION??? are you really sure??? 2012: Korean Peninsula population is reaching 88 Million. There are 10 Million Overseas Koreans and Half Koreans. It would add up 98 Million Koreans probably be about 90 Million Korean speakers not 74 Million.

such as mongshil mongshil (wool) doongshildoongshil (balloon) dongshil dongshil (floating)

dalsong dalsong (dew)

Citation for loanwords
i RE-INSTATED THE CITATION. Although I gave up waiting for the link to load, I found the cited material at. More importantly, the citation is to a book. By going to the real world, one can find the cited material in this authoritative source. Perhaps the link needs to be fixed, but the citation is valid. Kdammers (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Incidentally I also had problems with those links in Firefox ... IE seemed fine. Or one can even just scroll down to page 12 in Google Books. cab (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubiousness of difficulty in studying Korean language
"Korean is regarded in the West as a difficult language to learn, an opinion that was expressed as early as 1880 by German businessman Ernst Oppert..."

I found this line laughably ridiculous. A 1880 German businessman finding it difficult does not speak for the majority of others learning this language, two centuries later. I've removed this portion entirely because of the a) lack of statistical credence; and b) relevance. I'm sure there are harder languages to learn and quantifying languages according to difficulty of study itself is a complex task. I've removed this portion entirely. 192.206.151.130 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd do the same for hardest language. --Kjoonlee 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And the rest of the section which you gave no reason whatsoever for deleting? The difficulty of learning a language is obviously relative; the best we can do is give statistics from those who have done quantitative studies on learners of it, and the DLI are a widely-cited (if obviously Anglocentric) authority in this regard. cab (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

korean is really as difficult as chinese and japanese?in category 4?i think korean vocabulary is quite easy and their writing system hangul is much easier than chinese hanzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.87.4 (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hangeul may be easier to memorize than hanzi, but most advanced learners of Korean are required to learn hanja anyways. You may personally find Korean words easy to memorize, but I don't think Korean vocabulary is easier for English-speakers than Chinese or Japanese in any measurable way. 108.36.121.235 (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Independent States under "where spoken"?
According to the 2002 Russian census, there were only 60,888 speakers of Korean ( row 72) out of 148,556 people claiming Korean ethnicity ( row 86). That 60,888 is undoubtedly composed overwhelmingly of the 55,000 or so Sakhalin Koreans, and not Koryo-saram, who are by now five or six generations removed from their immigrant forebears who settled in the Russian Far East.

The trend of falling Korean-language proficiency among the Koryo-saram is well-documented. The last Soviet Union census in 1989, now two decades old, found 216,811 ethnic Koreans who claimed Korean as their "mother tongue", a fall of 12% since 1970. In contrast, the number of ethnic Koreans claiming Russian as their mother tongue doubled over the same period. Basically what is happening here is that all the elderly folks who used to speak Korean with their own parents before the 1937 deportations are dying out and being replaced by ethnic Korean babies who grow up speaking solely in Russian. This decrease undoubtedly accelerated in the period 1989-2008 as compared to 1970-1989. German Kim predicted that the language might disappear entirely within 10-15 years, with the exception of South Korean expatriates and a few Koryo-saram who learn the language by socializing with them.

So by now, the total number of Korean speakers in the CIS (as opposed to people with great-grandmothers who spoke Korean 50 years ago) is probably less than in the Philippines or Canada, each of which have around a hundred thousand recent Korean immigrants and their second-generation children (see Korean Canadian and Koreans in the Philippines); unless anyone has a current source for the number of Korean speakers in the CIS, I'd suggest removing that entry. cab cab (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

refrences
i do not mean to offend anyone but this artical looks like it has lots of information but could also use more sources. about 5 more sources would do.hawkey131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Intonation
Any information on intonation patterns?? 210.229.27.75 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If memory serves, I think that the KLEAR textbook series on the Korean language state that the intonation pattern is relatively constant (pitch does not change much throughout the sentence), with a slight tendency to lowering pitches in declarative statements. However, questions maintain a constant tone until the last syllable where there is a noticeable rise in pitch. Jf1357 (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Number of speakers
TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD IS 90 MILLION. PLUS OVERSEAS Koreans/ Half Koreans. Total speakers would be 98-99 Million. not 74 Million. 74 Million is outdated.

SOUTH KOREA: 50,044,790 + NORTH KOREA: 25,790,000 + OVERSEAS KOREANS: 7,077,716 (2008)= 82,879,507 KOREANS/KOREAN LANGUAGE POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD. PLEASE UPDATE POPULATION FIGURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanResearch (talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a reliable source for those figures? --Swift (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

KOREAN LANGUAGE IS SPOKEN 80-88 MILLION AROUND THE WORLD. NOT 67 MILLION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanstudy1 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That may well be, but you have to provide a reliable source to show it. The source currently being used says 67 million. You can't change the number given while still citing it to the old source. —Angr 12:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since both you and User:Irishboston persist in changing the number without adding a source to back it up, I have been forced to protect the article until you do so. When either of you (or are you the same person with two accounts?) has a source that backs up the larger figure, announce it here on the talk page and the page can be unprotected. —Angr 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or three accounts, if and  are the same person as each other and as . —Angr 13:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

67 million Koreans is wrong. 88 million Koreans is correct. THE YEAR 2008 KOREAN TOTAL KOREAN POPULATION IS ABOUT 78 MILLION. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA MAKE SUCH A SILLY AND STUPID MISTAKE 67 MILLION???? WIKPEDIA NEED TO SMELL COFFEE AND WAKE UP. ITS 80-88 MILLION TOTAL KOREAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88millionkoreans (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

KOREAN PENINSULA: 72,711,933 PLUS 7,000,000 MILLION OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION YOU HAVE TOTAL 79,711,933 PLUS 6,000,000 HALF KOREAN POPULATIONS AND NORTH KOREAN POLITICAL REFUGEES LIVING IN MANCHURIA, CHINA, RUSSIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA, EASTERN EUROPE. TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION SHOULD BE ABOUT 80-86 MILLION. PLEASE CORRECT WIKIPEDIA NUMBER. KOREAN POPULATION (2008) IS 72 MILLION. HOW CAN IT BE 67 MILLION??? FACTS AND FIGURES DOES NOT ADD UP. PLEASE CORRECT THE NUMBER.
 * For, what is this, the fifth time I've asked?, give a reliable source. You keep coming here, registering under different user names and screaming at us in all caps that there are around 80–86 million Korean speakers, but you still haven't provided a single source to back up your claim. That's all that's needed. Stop yelling, do some research, and come back and provide a source. —Angr 14:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See Suspected sock puppets/Korea4one and Suspected sock puppets/Korea4one (2nd). Undoubtedly the same editor. 61.18.170.214 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Solution
I added a source which says 78 million, which closely tracks to the cited population figures at the Wikipedia article Koreans. In any case, numbers have to match the quoted sources! I believe this solves the issue, but if it doesn't, reliable sources must be provided for any change. Edits which stubbornly insist on ignoring Wikipedia policies may be deleted immediately. - Do c  t  orW  18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, though I'm astonished that the 14th edition of Ethnologue gives a higher number than the 15th edition. —Angr 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

78 MILLION IS OUTDATED SOURCE. SOUTH KOREAN POPULATION: 49,044,790 + NORTH KOREAN POPULATION: 24,790,000+ OVERSEAS KOREAN: 7,044,716= 80,879,506 KOREAN SPEAKERS.(L1) KOREAN SPEAKER (L2): Half Koreans, Adopted Koreans, North Korean political refugee's: 11,230,000. 80,879,506+11,230,000= 92,109,506 Korean speakers around the world.

WIKEPIDA INFORMATION: SOUTH KOREA POPULATION (2007): 49,044,790+ NORTH KOREA POPULATION (2007) 23,790,000 + OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION (2007) 7,932,671. 49,044,790+23,790,000+7,932,671= 80,767,461 TOTAL KOREAN SPEAKER. NOT 78-79 MILLION. CORRECT FACT SHOULD BE 80,767,461 MILLION KOREAN SPEAKER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * False. South Korea has one million foreigners. A significant proportion of those speak little to no Korean . Also some of the Overseas Korean population are now third, fourth, or even fifth generation (especially Koryo-saram and Koreans in Japan, totalling another 1 million+ individuals). They speak local languages, not Korean; their great-grandparents are the ones who once spoke Korean, but since they're dead now, they don't count towards the total number of current Korean speakers. cab (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA "FALSE" FACTS: WIKIPEDIA SUGGEST KOREAN LANGUAGE SPOKEN 78 MILLION ( USING 10 YEAR OLD DATA). SOUTH KOREA POPULATION: 49,044,790+ NORTH KOREA POPULATION:24,790,000+ OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION: 7,044,716= 80,879,506 Million. ( KOREAN TOTAL POPULATION IS 80,879,506 + 10,230,000 ( HALF KOREANS, ADOPTED KOREANS, NORTH KOREAN POLITICAL REFUGEE LIVING IN CHINA, RUSSIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA, MIDDLE EAST). KOREAN SPEAKING POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD IS ( 91,109,506 MILLION.): IF WIKIPEDIA CANNOT ACCEPT TRUE FACT. THEN ITS SAVE TO SAY KOREAN LANGUAGE IS SPOKEN BY 80,879,506 MILLION KOREANS. KOREAN PENINSULA 73,834,790+ OVERSEAS KOREANS 7,044,716= 80,879,506 MILLION KOREANS. DON'T TELL US KOREANS LIVING IN KOREAN PENINSULA AND OVERSEAS KOREANS CANNOT SPEAK OR WRITE KOREANS!!!! UPDATE CORRECT FACT AND FIGURE. KOREAN LANGUAGE IS SPOKEN BY 80.8 MILLION KOREANS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by SineBot--

SOUTH KOREA POPULATION: 49,044,790 ( 2009)+ NORTH KOREA POPULATION: 24,790,000 (2009) + OVERSEASE KOREANS 7,044,716 = 80,568,594. TOTAL POPULATION KOREAN SPEAKER: 80,568,594. NOT 78 MILLION.

Dupilcate information.
Introduction "Around 60% of the vocabulary has originated from Chinese, especially words that denote abstract ideas, in the same way European languages borrow from Latin and Greek."

Classfication "Native Korean words account for about 35% of the Korean vocabulary, while about 60% of the Korean vocabulary consists of Sino-Korean words."

Vocabulary "Likewise Japanese and Vietnamese, more than 50% of the vocabulary (up to 60% by some estimates), however, especially scholarly terminology, are Sino-Korean words-"

Clearly an overemphasis. One mention is enough. Kuebie (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -Do c t orW  04:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Phonology -- Audio files *most* appreciated!
The IPA is all well and good for folks intimately familiar with it, but would someone be so kind as to upload audio for these sounds (especially the vowels) for us mere mortals who have little idea of the distinction between /i/ and /iː/, or /u/ and /ɯ/, etc.? For that matter, the whole Vowels subsection is extremely sparse in terms of readily-understood information. The correlation between the two IPA-ish quadrilateral images on the left (what the heck are those meant to impart, anyway?) and the Hangul chart on the right completely escapes me. TIA, -- Erik Anderson, 207.118.47.246 (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article should not be accessible only to linguists. More explanation is needed in the Vowels section. Both charts on the left (which should be moved down) need to be labeled "high" "low" "front" "back", and ideally should have the hangul characters right on the diagrams. A minor point is that the accuracy of the diagrams could be challenged; according to a research article I read, Koreans born after about 1931 pronounce /e/ ㅔ and /ɛ/ ㅐ the same in natural speech at full speed, and this has been my experience 100% of the time (unless you ask Koreans to distinguish them, which they can do; many linguistically naive Koreans will also insist that there is a difference in natural speech). Charting the sounds when the vowels are sounded in isolation is a somewhat artificial and perhaps even misleading exercise. Nevertheless, this chart is commonly used, even if it has very limited value for those who are not at least amateur linguists. A pronunciation guide for the average person would be helpful. It should not be any more controversial than the issue of whether ㅓ is actually closer to /ɔ/ than it is to /ʌ/. -Do c t orW  17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * About /e/ ㅔ and /ɛ/ ㅐ, at least, I asked a few native South Korean speakers (late teenagers, I think from Seoul) living in my neighborhood about the difference and was told that there really isn't one. One fellow even said he often had trouble spelling people's names correctly in Hangul if he didn't explicitly ask them which jamo was correct.


 * A pronunciation guide for the average person would be helpful. 


 * Hear, hear! While adding Hangul to the IPA charts would more clearly exhibit the relationship between those two, I still have no real practical idea of what the charts attempt to describe, even after reading (or, more accurately, trying to read) the IPA page itself.  If Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia useful to the general public (an open question, possibly), then the articles themselves should be written to be understandable and elucidating to non-specialists.  Sure, I'm a translator by trade, but that does not make me an expert on phonology.  I'm studying Korean in my spare time, and I came to the Korean language page to try to learn more about pronunciation.  I was sorely dismayed to find no audio files, and only this rather abstruse and obtuse IPA stuff.  Writing about sound is all well and good when books are the medium; but now with the web, is there really any reason not to post audio samples?  Describing sound with sound would seem to make much better sense.  :)


 * It should not be any more controversial than the issue of whether ㅓ is actually closer to /ɔ/ than it is to /ʌ/. 


 * Okay, now you've lost me! :)  But I think this underscores my point that chunks of this article could use rewriting for a less expert audience.  Since I don't know the language from anything other than an early-learner perspective, I'm certainly not the one to undertake the edits -- but I can hopefully help by pointing out where the article is hard to understand.  Cheers -- Erik Anderson, 207.118.47.246 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

/ø/ ㅚ
My Korean colleague is here and he says very clearly that this is /wɛ/ and not in any way /ø/. -- Evertype·✆ 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think historically it was /ø/; maybe it still is in some conservative dialects. —Angr 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

An objection about the "vocabulary" section
Yes, the Korean name for "Germany" was borrowed from Japanese "Doitsu" but I am afraid "Doitsu" was not an endonym. Rather, it was a Dutch (yes, Dutch, not German) exonym. The Japanese coined "Doitsu" from Dutch "Duits" (meaning "German", of course). It was borrowed during the Japanese Edo era, when Japan was closed to the outside world, except for a few trading posts such as Nagasaki. The Dutch and Belgians (often assimilted with with the Dutch in the Japanese psyche because the Flemings share the same language as the Dutch) were among the few foreigners allowed to trade with the Japanese at those trading posts and this is how Japan borrowed a number of loanwords from Dutch/Flemish, amog which "Duits/Doitsu". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.87.168.134 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Altaic
Who says that Korean is Altaic? Most linguists? That is not correct, most linguists believe is it language isolate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.107.211 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you know what 'most linguists' believe. It's never been universally accepted anyway, and the text of the article explains that. 220.253.138.16 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KOREAN LANGUAGE IS RELATED TO " ALTAIC" FAMILY. ( KOREAN, JAPANESE, MONGOLIAN, MANCHURIAN, TURKISH). KOREAN LANGUAGE IS NOT RELATED TO CHINESE OR HAN-PEOPLE. OVER PAST 10 YEARS CHINESE SCHOLARS WANTED TO TAKE MORE CREDITS APPLYING KOREANS RELATE TO CHINESE BECAUSE KOREANS USE CHINESE CHARACTERS OR KOREAN VOCABULARY DERIVED FROM CHINESE CHARACTERS. REALITY KOREANS GRAMMAR OR WRITING DOES NOT RELATE TO CHINESE. KOREANS BORROWED VOCABULARY FROM CHINESE CHARACTERS. FOR EXAMPLE, ENGLISH ADOPTED VOCABULARY FROM LATIN, GREEK, FRENCH, AND GERMAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 03:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"KOREAN LANGUAGE IS NOT RELATED TO CHINESE" Hey, don't get upset - nobody has said so.

"ENGLISH ADOPTED VOCABULARY FROM LATIN, GREEK, FRENCH, AND GERMAN." Very true, indeed. And, in addition, English is genetically related to German - both are West Germanic languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.150.6 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

English genetically related to German- both are West Germanic languages. English is related to Germans but does English sound similiar to German language today??? For example, Japanese genetically related to Korean. Japanese sound similiar to Korean language today??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea1times (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, English has about 40% Germanic vocabulary that can be retraced back to a common Germanic ancestor via regular sound laws. Then, there is a dialect continuum from English to Frisian to Low German to the (High) German standard language. That proves genetic relations beyond doubt. For Japanese as Altaic, we don't have comparable evidence, and the evidence produced by Starostin often doesn't confirm to his own sound laws, shows a high disregard for internal reconstruction and is thus, well, worthless. A list of 100 words that are cognate, soundly assessed with regard to semantics and confirm to a system of sound laws that involves cognates in four (or even only three) language families of makro-Altaic hasn't been produced so far. No reasonable dialect continuum can be pointed to, and a serious reconstruction eg for common Japanese-Mongolian morphology paradigms has not been done. Thus, the status of "makro-Altaic" (and mikro-Altaic, for that matter) is far from a scientific fact and should best be treated as the unproven speculation that it is. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With all the possible features of language, narrowing oneself to a method that, although well-worn, by its own nature loses cohesion the farther back one looks, and that simply has no opportunity for application in some contexts, is not a safe approach. The various aspects of the structural argument are not insubstantial and should be pursued until such time as indubitable cognates, or something better, can be dug up or postulated.  There's so much more Altaic in Korean/Japanese than anything else (and certainly far more in support of it than of their polygenesis); we're really missing the boat if we sit on our hands waiting for cognates.  People like Martin and Vovin don't seem to realize how infinitesimal the probability of Korean being an isolate really is, and for them to spend their careers struggling to discredit both implausible and plausible leads and confusing tangible evidence with "speculation" is to doom themselves to become disparaged footnotes in future language books.


 * At any rate, I think a headcount of linguists right now would favour Macro-Altaicism, and it should be given a proper showing in this article, without the biases of lone authors being given quite so much weight as they are now. By all means, mention that the relationship hasn't been "proven beyond doubt with cognates", which is true, and leave the objection at that, rather than throwing out the rest of the debate. (Bravo-Alpha (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. Please note that the research cited for arguing that most linguists consider Korean a language isolate actually just says "many" and does so after explaining that the Altaic argument is the most persuasive in regards to the origins of the Korean language. Edited the page to be more in the spirit of that reference. Alexander.lewis@trinity.edu (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't read the references based on your comment. From A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (pg 7): "While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related.  In spite of this, Altaic does have a few dedicated followers."  That's a pretty definitive most and few.  (Taivo (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

The author clearly states that he finds the Altaic argument to be the most persuasive. He acknowledges that it is not universally accepted and continues to state that MANY disagree. 45 out of 100 is many without being most. Furthermore, to disagree with the Altaic hypothesis isn't automatically agreeing that Korean is a language isolate. There may be other sources, but the one linked does not support the statement that "Most modern linguists consider Korean to be a language isolate." 09:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.53.94.118 (talk)

It doesn't make English language a German. Plus the world is divided between American English ( North American English) and British English ( Queens English). I personally prefer American/ North American English. So does all North American English speakers Germans???? So stop non-sense Korean language being related to Chinese language. Past, Present, for the future Koreans and Chinese always have been different in Food, Language, Culture, National Characters, History, Nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanKimKlan1 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The English language isn't the German language, but English *is* Germanic. (See link, please.) Nobody said Korean was related to Chinese like that. --Kjoonlee 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement that "... borrowed Chinese characters pronounced in the Korean way" is hilarious. First, do you really need to borrow? When will you return what you borrowed? And then, do you not have your own words to describe things that are so basic and innate such as emotions and feelings or even body parts? And then, what's with the Korean way of pronunciation? There are hundreds of ways (dialects) to pronounce those Chinese characters. Korean way may be just one of them. Skyline68 (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of the word "borrow" is an English colloquialism. See loanword. --Swift (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a linguistics background, but is the choice here really between the Altaic language family and a true isolate? It seems like the introduction could at least mention that Korean is probably related to Japanese, or qualify the word "isolate." 108.36.121.235 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "probably" here. The majority of linguists reject the notion that Korean is demonstrably related to Japanese.  If Korean is not demonstrably related to any other language, it is an isolate.  That's the way it works.  Ultimately, linguists virtually all accept that all languages are related to all other languages under the prevailing belief in monogenesis, but the key is demonstrating those relationships.  If those assumed ancient relationships cannot be demonstrated, then a language is marked as an isolate.  Yes, that's the way it works.  --Taivo (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Need Korean
Need Korean word in the box at Kowtow. Is there a Sino-Korean equivalent (such as gaedu or godu? Badagnani (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about Korean language. Do not bring the irrelevant request for the Chinese culture.--Caspian blue 18:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

C-Rating
I just rated this article C-Class for WP Languages, but would like to give a bit more reasons than I could give in the edit history. First, there are no in-line references. For this article, this is not as bad as for other articles as most information is Korean school grammar that you can "verify" everywhere. But as the linguistic value of school grammar is known to be limited, it would merit to quote from some actual research. It's all there. And, if I remember correctly, Korean vowel phonemes are in dispute. Then, the article is inconsistent. First, it doesn't give any reason why adjectives are distinct from verbs which is easy enough to demonstrate. Then, it continues with nouns, but provides misplaced info on their origin first! The worst part is grammar other than morphology. Korean is quite well-known for double object constructions and a few other things, so that should be discussed. Converbs should be mentioned as well, and not to mention aspect and evidentiality. The part on language origin is somewhat biased, but I admit that I'm free to improve it myself if I would like to. Mention Vovin, for example. And it is not so biased that it is already unscientific, it does mention the other position, so it'll be okay for me for the time being. A yes, and "Morphophonemics" doesn't contain a transcription. (I won't do that, I'm only familiar with the Yale transcription.) G Purevdorj (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added RR to the morphophonemics section. BTW, what do you mean by double object constructions? I'm not too familiar with Korean syntax, I'm afraid.. :) Do you mean sentences like "코끼리는 코가 길다" and "코끼리한테 사과를 주지 말고 원숭이를 줘라"? The latter means "Don't give the apple to the elephant; give it to the monkey instead" instead of "Don't give the apple to the elephant; give him the monkey instead", BTW. ;) --Kjoonlee 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to judge from the case affixes (just remember that I don’t actually speak Korean!), the first example looks like a double nominative construction, cp. Japanese X wa/ga Y ga suki da 'X likes Y'. There seem to be several double object constructions. The one I thought of was


 * Mary-ka ku namwu-lul kaci-lul cal-lass-ta.
 * Mary-NOM the tree-ACC branch-ACC cut

But there are other ways. The first is X-i Y-ul Z-ul hada, and I just stumbled over a sentence that is new to me and more ore less seems to resemble English:


 * Ann-i Tom-ul swuhak-ul kaluchi-ess-ta
 * Ann-Nom Tom-Acc math-Acc teach-Past-Dec

That would be three. All these sentences might get discussed. G Purevdorj (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also I don't think I saw any mention of what we traditionally call an adjective in English, for example to be quiet is 조용하다 and when you use it to describe a person you would say 조용한 사람 (quiet person). What is this called? I don't think I saw it anywhere in the article. Bluesoju (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your example would be a participle. It's addressed in the Attributive verbs part of Korean grammar. A short summary of verbal forms would be useful for this article as well, but I fancy there are more pressing issues. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Limitation of sprachbund effect
Cpryby has tagged the statement "However, it is very difficult to argue that similarities in such key terms like "water" and the verbs "to be" "to go" would arise from sprachbund effects" as "dubious" but has not, as far as I can see, given any reason for doing so. Does anyone have any reason for doubting the statement? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's insufficient evidence of kinship, of course we should be doubtful. Also, at Wikipedia the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. --Kjoonlee 12:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) "If there's insufficient evidence of kinship, of course we should be doubtful": yes of course, but the issue is what constitutes sufficient evidence. (2) Yes, the burden of proof lies with those who wish to include material, but that does not, I think, detract in any way from the fact that it is helpful, when asserting that you regard something as doubtful, to say why. Also, once doubt has been expressed, it can be helpful, when deciding whether to delete the claim, to invite informed opinion as to why doubt might be held. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No scientist seriously doubts that single items from the so-called core vocabulary may be borrowed, and this is what the tagged statement denies. There are some scientists who hold that core vocabulary cannot be replaced as fast as other words, but even this claim is often questioned. Only extensive paradigms are agreed upon not to be capable of being borrowed. But as the claim in the text diverges even from the most radical position held by any scientist I’m aware of. It is therefore just plain wrong. G Purevdorj (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that point. However, if we replaced "cannot be replaced as fast as other words" by "are not commonly replaced as fast as other words" would we have a statement which would have support from most authorities? Even if not, "there are some scientists who hold that . . ." suggests a view with enough support to merit mention, albeit in more muted form than the current version, and with acknowledgement of the opposing view. However, I do not know enough to give reference to specific authorities, and I would prefer to avoid such weasel-wording as "some authorities think . . .", so can anyone else help there? Thanks to G Purevdorj for answering my query. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on context. I started reworking the whole section tonight, but I didn't get through, so I'll hopefully continue tomorrow. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good: the section was a mess, clearly in need of rewriting, and you have certainly improved it. However, I still wonder if there is a case for at least mentioning the argument that numerous similarities in basic vocabulary are suggestive of more than a sprachbund effect, although of course "it is very difficult to argue . . . " was a gross overstatement.  JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, but it depends on the literature. People like Miller perceive everything as suggestive, and Starostin 2003 has even been rejected by Miller. There is so much published, but thereafter disproved evidence around that anyone who is not well-versed in the literature has a hard time separating the wheat from the chaff. I'm an expert on Mongolian, have some knowledge of modern Japanese and some basic knowledge of Middle Japanese, Old Turkic, Manchu and modern Korean. Starostin et al. 2003 and Miller on their own may seem impressive, but if you look at the reconstructed case system of Altaic provided by Starostin, anyone with only a basic knowledge of Middle Mongolian, Classical Mongolian or Mongolian dialectology will have to recognize it as unscientific (and you would expect that at least one of the authors that compiled a dictionary of Altaic would have such knowledge at her command). Unfortunately, this lack of concern for accurate data permeats the whole book as amply shown by Vovin 2005, so giving prominence to any view held by Starostin seems unjustified. Miller is slightly better, but most parts of his major contributions to Altaic studies seem to be out of date. Taking into account that Miller 1971 takes as proven the relationship between Korean and Japanese on the one and Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic on the other hand, one cannot but call this somewhat over-enthusiastic. He is not careful enough. That is, a statement by Miller to the effect "suggestive" must be taken up with utmost caution. Miller and his opinion are already included in the article - now if you want to weigh evidence, you'll have to find literature that has not yet been refuted or that, at least, is most cautious in its methodology. This holds for Whitman 1985 or anything that Martin has written. (But then take care to make sure that you don't cite one of those statements that Martin later abondoned.) If someone from this side did use a word as strong as "suggestive" to address similarities of core vocabulary (and did so using a version of proto-Japanese that contains 6 vowels - this theory had been in the air for quite some time, but can only recently be taken as given), you may write in a lexicon article that "some scientists consider ... suggestive". G Purevdorj (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the following piece of text from the article:


 * It is presumed that modern Korean may be more closely related to the languages of Samhan and Silla than the Buyeo languages; many Korean scholars believe they were mutually intelligible, and the collective basis of what in the Goryeo period would merge to become Middle Korean (the language before the changes that the Seven-Year War brought) and eventually Modern Korean. The Jeju dialect preserves some archaic features that can also be found in Middle Korean, whose arae a is retained in the dialect as a distinct vowel.

It is certainly the case that the Ceycwuto and Yukcin dialects are of utmost relevance to reconstructing stages of the language older than Late Middle Korean, and the rest of this paragraph may well hold, but I'm afraid it cannot stay in the article without APPROPRIATE references. G Purevdorj (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I do question the validity of Jeju Language as a language or dialect. However, difference is the same as Mainland Japanese language vs. Ryukyuan language. Therefore, it is called Japanic language family. Would Korean language be the same as Japan and be Koreanic if Jeju is a separate language. In Endangered Languages by google, it states that Jeju is a severely endangered language? Native Speakers 5,000 to 10,000. Check this link:http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/1mm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.156.217 (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese
I see that my removal of an unsourced POV statement about Korean not being related to Chinese has been readded to the article, with the comment, "there is no credible theory that Korean is related to Chinese." To reply to that: The issue is not specifically about Chinese and Korean at all. Rather, it is whether all currently spoken languages have a common origin or not. If they do, then Chinese and Korean would be related because all languages would be related. Insisting on stating in an completely unqualified way that Chinese and Korean are not related is simply taking sides with one theory about the history of languages (that they don't have a common origin) against the competing theory that they do have a common origin. Neither view is necessarily more credible than the other. WP:UNDUE is wholly irrelevant here, since I did not make the article say that Chinese and Korean were in any way related. Born Gay (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, it's quite unnecessary to state that they aren't related, as stating that Korean has borrowed Chinese vocabulary in no way implies that they are. Born Gay (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with CaliforniaAliBaba that removing, "Though not related to Chinese..." in this context gives any undue weight to fringe theories, I don't think that it's unhelpful or inaccurate to keep it in.
 * I get your point that, technically, all languages are related but you could say that of people. Yet we make a distinction between people we know our relationship to (relatives) and those we don't.
 * Perhaps we could word it slightly different. Something like "Though Korean and Chinese belong to different language families, Korean has borrowed heavily from Chinese..." — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An unfortunate proportion of non-linguist readers assume that loanwords = relatedness. Eliminating the phrase only perpetuates that confusion. And "neither view is more credible than the other?" Monogenesis (linguistics): "Monogenesis was dismissed by many linguists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries ... it is scarcely more popular today." And looking at concrete current proposals, you have to go through four layers of theoretical superfamilies (in increasing order of dubiousness, Altaic, Dené-Caucasian, Nostratic, and Borean) if you want Korean to be related to Chinese. Aeusoes' wording is acceptable, but in my opinion the change is completely unnecessary in the first place and makes the article worse and less informative. cab (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I wouldn't have a clue what if any proportion of non-linguists would assume such a thing. Surely it isn't necessary to state in every article, after every statement that one language has borrowed vocabulary from another, that this fact doesn't mean that they are genetically related. The wording used by Aeusoes seems to make sense to me. Born Gay (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the advantages of the Korean language by foreigners
A lexicon article is to be to the point, not a kaleidoscope of irrelevant opinions. So I propose to delete this section. G Purevdorj (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Loanwords
I read the following

as German (areubaiteu "part-time job", allereugi "allergy", "gibsu" "plaster cast used for broken bones").

They are actually loanword coming from Japan who, on their turn loaned it from the Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.121.98 (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is true, please provide a reliable source.--Caspian blue 02:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Determiners
I don't agree with the choice of calling them determiners and linking to the article on it. It doesn't seem like the determiner article describes them at all. Their usage is much closer to regular adjectives, and includes words that are adjectives in English like "beautiful". see page 19 and 21. In fact for that entire section there doesn't seem to be a single citation and this book's list of the parts of speech doesn't make any reference to determiners at all. So I'm recommending that the determiner article be unlinked as I don't think it is appropriately descriptive of this part of speech, and the name changed unless there are reliable sources that refer to it and describe it as such.--Crossmr (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact this academic paper, which google reports as having been cited twice,, says that Korean is a determine-less language. After reading the paper I'm inclined to agree, and I don't think labeling them as such or linking to an article on determiner's properly provides context or explanation as to what these are. As such I'm going to change it. if you have some compelling evidence to contradict these two sources, please provide them.--Crossmr (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This source page 104 also refers to them as prenouns. It also defines adnominals as something else entirely. "A sentence that is embedded in another sentence and is used to as an element modifying a following noun phrase is an adnominal". This sounds more like an adjective clause than a prenoun. --Crossmr (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the Pre-nouns section?

"Korean pre-nouns (관형사, gwanhyeongsa, 冠形詞) are also known in English as "determinatives", "attributives", and "unconjugated adjectives". Examples include 각 (kak, "each"). For a larger list, see wikt:Category:Korean determiners."


 * Fetching or directly asking your question to User:Kjoonlee, User:Kwamikagami, or User:Rjanag would be faster to solve our query, I think. --Caspian blue 02:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I already changed it as all the reliable sources I've found so far are indicating it isn't called a determiner and in fact make a case for korean being a determiner-less language. I've also started a discussion on wiktionary about renaming their category as well as it is very misleading to english readers.--Crossmr (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Language isolate vs Altaic
Since the classification of Korean is disputed, why don't we list all available sources with quotations. I will list some of accessible sources. Please add sources to the list if possible--Caspian blue 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Books/thesis that classify Korean as "language isolate"
 * 1) Song, Jae Jung (2005) "The Korean language: structure, use and context" Routledge, p. 15, ISBN 0415328020 The Altaic hypothesis has not been universally accpeted due largely to the lack of regular sound correspondences between Korean and Altaic Languages,.....This is why many linguists choose to regard Korean as a language isolate or a Japanese with no known relatives.
 * 2) Gurevich, Naomi (2004) "Lenition and contrast: the functional consequences of certain phonetically conditioned sound changes", Routledge, p.130, ISBN 0415970997 Korean, phylum:Language isolate
 * 3) Blumenfeld, Robert (2002) "Accents: a manual for actors", Hal Leonard Corporation, ISBN 087910967X p.387, Vietnamese, like Korean and Japanese, is a language isolate


 * Books/thesis that classify Korean as "Altaic language"
 * 1) Choe, Sang-Hun; Torchia, Christopher (2007) "Looking for a Mr. Kim in Seoul: A Guide to Korean Expressions" Master Communications, Inc., p. 6, ISBN 1932457038, Many linguists place Koran in the Altaic language family; some others consider Korean to be a language isolate.
 * 2) * We can't use this one. Who are those "many linguists?" --Kjoonlee 05:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Ager, D. E. (1997) "Language, community and the state", Intellect Books, ISBN 1871516943 p.10, Altaic languages, on the border of Europe, include Turkish, Azerbaijani, Uzbek and Kazakh. Farther East, Mongolian and, a longer way from Europe, Japanese and Korean.


 * Thanks for your input, I guess it is still debated, I will update my info to match your references. --Objectiveye (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Altaic is not a generally accepted language family. Ethnologue, Linguasphere, International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, etc., all list Korean as a language isolate.  Even though Ethnologue includes Altaic, it does not include Korean in that.  Altaic is controversial, therefore definitively putting Korean in a widely rejected language family doesn't mean anything in terms of family relationships.  The two sources cited above as putting Korean in Altaic are not historical linguistics texts.  They are general purpose texts without any expertise in historical linguistics.  In other words, they are popular works that are not specifically oriented to placing Korean anywhere.  Campbell and Mixco's dictionary of historical linguistics clearly states that "while 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the...supposed Altaic groups...are related" (pg 7). And, "Korean: A language isolate....Korean is often said to belong with the Altaic hypothesis...though this is  not widely supported" (pp 90-91).   (Taivo (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

over half of the linguistics classify Korean in Altaic languages.--62.248.33.182 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You are wrong. The majority of linguists do not even accept "Altaic" as a valid linguistic family, let alone include Korean or Japanese in it.  It's a dead proposal.  Read any contemporary book on historical linguistics and you will find that "Altaic" is, at best, considered to be a Sprachbund, not a valid linguistic family by the majority of historical linguists.  (Taivo (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

—Posted by Wikipeditor (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But our personal views matter not one iota - it's what the vast majority of Reliable Sources say. As such, Korean is an isolate. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

any reference needs to be correct.
"Most classify it as a language isolate". This phrase was written based on a reference, Song, Jae Jung (2005) "The Korean language: structure, use and context" Routledge, p. 15 Lyle Campbell & Mauricio Mixco. 2007. A Glossary of Historical Linguistics. University of Utah Press. I READ THE REFERENCE ONLY TO FIND THAT THERE'S NO GROUND TO WRITE "Most classify it as a language isolate".

The reference just tells "many linguists choose to regard Korean as a language isolate". YES, MOST IS DIFFERENT FROM MANY.

The reference also says "this is not unfair to say that the Altaic hypothesis is accepted by more scholars than other views". It's contradictory.

The bottomline is that: The Altaic hypothesis is accepted by more scholars than other views, but there are also many scholars to see it as a language isolate. So "Most classify it as a language isolate" is illogical. The editor may have a negative perspective to the Altaic hypothesis and prefer the language isolate idea, however it's not proper to write any personal preference.

Better to link another reference, if the editor wants to keep this notion : "Most classify it as a language isolate".
 * No, you have obviously not actually read the Campbell and Mixco reference if you think that the Altaic hypothesis is accepted by more scholars than not. Most reject the Altaic hypothesis.  It is referenced.  You cannot use your own synthesis.  The Campbell and Mixco reference is authoritative and unequivocal--most linguists reject Altaic.  (Taivo (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

>> I'm not interested in your personal preference. I've found most of books tell that the Altaic hypothesis is accepted largely. If you want to keep your personal opinion alive, please link a proper reference. The previous reference's totally wrong.
 * This isn't personal preference it is the position of the great majority of historical linguists. Read the linguistic references, which you obviously are not doing.  I have added two additional links to authoritative linguistic references.  (Taivo (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC))


 * You are now deleting reliable sources. This constitutes vandalism since I have provided crystal clear references as well as quotes from those references.  (Taivo (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC))


 * In my role as administrator: I have protected the article for 24 hrs in order to arrive at a solution to this content dispuite that does not involve editwarring. Note that both Taivo and Neyagawa have been edit warring and broken the 3 revert rule - I could have blocked both of you for this offense. I chose to protect and encourage a discussion instead - please remain civil and adress the arguments by providing sources. In my role as linguist and editor I will give my perspective on the dispute: Campbell & Mixco is an extremely authoritative source about issues of linguistic classification on page 7 it states unequivocally that the Altaic hypothesis is defended by only a small minority of linguists. If we are to write otherwise it will require an equally clear statement from an equally authoritative source. Sohn is not such a source - he is a single linguist arguing in favour of the Altaic hypothesis, but he cannot beused as a source against the claim that most linguists reject the hypothesis. Please provide a better source if you still want the way we describe the Altaic hypothesis and its relation to Korean.·Maunus· ƛ · 09:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

North Korean and South Korean vocabulary
The way the difference is presented in the article makes it look like there are words that do not exist or are not a part of Korean spoken in the north or south. But actually the use or none use of the word, for example the North Korean word for friend is not used much in the South, does not mean that the word is not a part of the language there. Many people in the south know both words for "friend" but do not use the word used in North Korea because of the political history associated with it. Using it could lead to being accused of sympathising with the North which used to have dire consequences, and many Koreans I talk to are still aware of this today.Bungleu (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

korean ㅓ is very much different from /ʌ/
I think this must be corrected.

In south korea, ㅓ is similar to ə...

In north korea, ㅓ is similar to ɔ...

Nobody pronounces ㅓ as ʌ at both the south and north korea.


 * It seems that there is some disagreement about the issue. The KLEAR textbook series on the Korean langauge (if memory serves) say that it is pronounced as /ʌ/. However, Sogang University (through their online course) state that it is pronounced as /ə/. However, in the many interviews I've watched on the web, I've heard all three pronunciations (all interviews were done in the (standard) Seoul dialect of South Korea). I personaly use /ɔ/ because it is the one I hear the most in those interviews, and it is easier for me to pronounce (I'm not a native speaker, though). Jf1357 (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as South Korean goes, I seem to recall that it's undergoing a /ə/ > /ʌ/ sound change. I've certainly heard it articulated as /ʌ/ the great majority of the time by speakers from Seoul and Gyeonggi. But we'll need to defer to the sources. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Diaspora question from IRC
Korean_language does not help a lot. Could you please specify which language should appear in a language selection menu of an open source project? 한국어/조선말 greetings --Paddyez (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Verbs and adjectives
I'd like to re-organize the parts of speech a bit. I suggest we classify verbs as action verbs and descriptive verbs, which is in accordance with most Korean Language textbooks for Americans, which I've read (I have about 20).

Also, most "adjectives" in Korean are descriptive verbs and are conjugated as such. Either we say The book is red or we mention a red book - but the latter translates literally as "a book which is red". I think there are also a few Korean adjectives like green (초록빛) or small (조금) which aren't derived from verbs. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While I prefer the terms processive and stative, I would note that Samuel Martin uses the term "adjective" and his work is the definitive technical grammar. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There's sourcing, and then there's consistency. We don't have to use the terminology of a particular source when we use different terminology for the same thing in other articles. — kwami (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was only noting it -- the section Ed was referring to has gone already. —  Tyrannus  Mundi  19:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Koryo-mar
This article on the Korean language doesn't address the Goryeomal dialect spoken by the Koryo-saram. This is like archaic Korean right? Shouldn't this be noted or addressed? - M0rphzone (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as diachronic linguistics goes, the claim that it's like archaic Korean (at least to a greater extent than any other dialect of modern Korean) is pretty much meaningless. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Gender Politics
Let's please leave the gender issue out of this article. I mean how is the use of Korean language by gender so significantly different (as compared to other languages) that it merits a whole subsection? Let's keep the discussion squarely on language itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.253.74.155 (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article itself explains how it's different. If it's well-sourced there's no reason to remove it. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Information
Under "Korean Particles": -에, -에서, -한테 aren't listed. Also the particle "-의" while listed, has an incorrect pronunciation listed. 의 when part of a noun is indeed pronounced "ui", but when it's used as a particle it is pronounced "e" the same as "에"

This is shown in other wiki articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_grammar#Substantives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.205.228.150 (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Writing
I could not garner the following information from the article. I think Korean words are written in a box with the word elements ordered top to bottom and right to left. Form instance then word "juche" is written with "j" in the upper left, "u" in the lower left, "ch" to the right of "j" "u" and lastly "e" to the right of "ch". Both "ch" and "e" occupy both the top and bottom of the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.184.119 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeju language?
I've reverted a move of Jeju dialect to Jeju language, pending greater input. There are moves promoting it as a separate language, which may be relevant (cf. our treatment of Serbian, Hindi, and Indonesian as languages because they are officially promoted as languages, despite having less claim to that status cladistically than Jeju does). — kwami (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * okay, one month and no input, so I'll restore the move. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kwamikagami, I'll admit I came here as a result of noticing this move flagged on your Talk page. Had this gone via WP:RM, and a WP:Korea tag added to Cheju dialect talkpage then it would have had a chance for broader input. As it stands with so many sources eg. Ho-Min Sohn Korean Language in Culture and Society: Korean Language in Culture - 2006 Page 277 "Cheju dialect is virtually the only dialect to be described as having a different inventory from the standard 19 ... MK p-clusters are represented in Cheju dialect by aspirates, and in general, a great many sequences which produced tense ..." Cheju dialect is the natural WP:COMMONNAME here, and Jeju dialect is livable, a move to "Jeju language" doesn't seem supported. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is commonly described as a dialect. However, it has recently been treated as a language, both locally on Jeju and by UNESCO. — kwami (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

ㅈ allophone
Can the letter ㅈ represent ʦ͡ sound? It needs to be reflected in the article in that case. 178.49.18.203 (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's frequently pronounced [ts], especially be women. — kwami (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

vowels
Am I missing some-thing? I see two vowel quadrilaterals and numbered black and red Hangeul vowels but no explanation of any of it. Did some-one vandalize this section perhaps?Kdammers (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Korean language is a language isolate.
Altaic languages is just a proposed language family. And linguists usually regard that Jeju langaugae is a Korean dialect, not a language. --117.53.77.30 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Punjabi Relation with Isolates like Korean and Japanese
Talk:Punjabi_language