User talk:Noropdoropi

Konglish
The exactly definition of Konglish varies. The first reliable source we have in the article states I suppose an official term for this is called "Konglish," when something is written in Korean but is a literal translation of the sounds of an English word which is what those words are. The second source agrees, Konglish is a sublanguage in which English words or phrases are used in a Korean context.. Konglish is sometimes synonymous with loanword. Only specifically relating to Korean. The problem with the previous entry was that it was a target for drive-by editing with very little quality control. There was no evidence that the entries added were notable examples of Konglish. The konglish/loanwords from the Languageplus book which are generated based on the frequency of their appearance in the Korean language gives us a guarantee that these words are notable examples of Konglish. Words like 아파트 are basically incomplete loanwords. Which is what Koreans often do to longer English words they borrow. Some people also see Konglish as terrible and common grammar mistakes/odd phrasing. Finally some see Konglish as being sentences that mix korean and english together, like korean americans do. Those views are present in the article as well--Crossmr (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this definition is not proper for Konglish article. "something is written in Korean but is a literal translation of the sounds of an English word" It's too extensive and obscure definition, and not useful. When words borrowed, they usually change their pronunciation,spelling, and sometimes their meaning. It's natural. You know, English has many loanwords from French,Latin and other languages, and its pronunciation are differ compare with source languages. for example, bus is short form of Latin "omnibus". Then why not can we call it as *Englatin? Do you think *Englatin is proper or useful concept? If we follow this definition, then we can make numerous article about *Englatin, *Englais, *Engreek....etc. English banana itself Spanish loanword, and Spanish banana is Western Africa language loanword. If 바나나 regarded as Konglish word, then should we English banana call as *Engpanol, and spanish banana call as *Esparican? I think words like 버스,바나나,게임 are just loanword from English. 버스 and bus, 바나나 and banana, 게임 and game, they have almost same meaning, and because Korean language don't allow initial voiced consonant, they changed their pronunciation for adoting into Korean language. That's all. If Korean speakers pronounce 버스 while he/she speaking English, it regarded as Korean accent or Konglish, but the word itself is not regarded as "Konglish" word in Korean. Noropdoropi (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You would have to discuss that with the reliable sources. The reliable sources have stated that is what the definition is, and for us to write anything else would be original research. There is nothing extensive about the definition. It shows that Konglish does not have a set definition. If reliable sources were calling loanwords Englatin, then we'd use that, but no one calls it that. While Konglish is often used to mean English words borrowed, it actually extends to all borrowed words, because reliable sources have included words like 아르바이트 in lists of Konglish. Even though it is a german loanword. The definition of Konglish is taken from reliable sources it is not the creation of wikipedia editors.--Crossmr (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with this sentence. "Konglish does not have a set definition". Indeed it does.I think such as "One room", "One shot", "Handphone" "Fighting" are more useful and proper example of Konglish. These are neologism made by English root-word, and English speaker don't use or cannot understand these words usually. I don't watch your source not yet, so I cannot judge whether it reliable source or not, but again, words like 바나나,게임,버스 are just "loanword" not Konglish in common sense. Noropdoropi (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, and as I just pointed out several reliable sources call loanwords Konglish. What you view as "common sense" doesn't meet WP:V, and is essentially WP:OR. The list I was creating isn't finished and is taken from a reliable source. Not random words people have pulled off the internet. If you admit that you're not looking at the sources, then why are you trying to push your view of Konglish into the article. Here is another book source which indicates konglish is loanwords --Crossmr (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think like that, Then, it seemed to me that the term "Konglish" in English context and "콩글리시" in Korean context has different meaning or defination each other. 바나나,게임,버스 are 외래어 and not 콩글리시 in Korean, but you(or some English speakers) use Konglish as term covers loanwords from English which differ its pronunciation. Is that right? I don't know how much useful that concept, but I don't care more about your opinion. Good luck. Noropdoropi (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As the article points out, Konglish is used to mean the following things:
 * Loanwords
 * Incorrect grammar and vocabulary (like legitimate barbeque or eye shopping)
 * a mix of korean and english spoken together
 * It seems like you feel konglish only applies to incorrect vocabulary choices or neologisms created from those. That is one aspect of the definition and a secondary table using notable examples of those kinds of words could be made if properly sourced.--Crossmr (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think 프랑스 is borrowed from English "France". If it was borrowed from English, it should be pronounced as Peu-raen-seu 프랜스 and not 프랑스. Korean 프랑스 is French loanword or revised more near the French pronunciation. Noropdoropi (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)