User talk:Vindication

Korean pronunciation
Hi there! Saw you reverted my edit to Rason, reasoning "/ʌ/ in North Korean dialects is reported higher than /o/, which is perhaps [ɔ]. It might be [ə], [ɘ], or rounded [ɵ]. I suggest we keep it /ʌ/". North–South differences in the Korean language and most off-wiki things I've looked at generally agree the Northern articulation of ㅓ is [ɔ]. Not really relevant here, but that's also what it fairly consistently sounds like to me listening to KCNA speakers - though I'm not about to do a spectro analysis (idea for a paper there?). But, my point is - even if it's not [ɔ] but one of the others you mention, the Northern pronunciation of ㅓ is definitely not [ʌ]. So I'd suggest it might be a better compromise to include both [ɔ] and [ʌ], though if it were my call alone I'd remove [ʌ] entirely and have only [ɔ], since the sound is certainly not [ʌ]. 2Q (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late reply. I'm not arguing that /ʌ/ is pronounced as (or "like") [ʌ] in North Korean dialects. I suggested to keep it /ʌ/ (and not [ʌ]) because there does not seem to be a consensus about how to transcribe North Korean /ʌ/ in Wikipedia yet! (Perhaps due to lack of sufficient researches, due to lack of sufficient data..) But this recent article (http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.4920798) reports that /ʌ/ in Pyongyang Korean is higher than /o/ in Pyongyang Korean. This video might also help. The /ʌ/s I hear in this video are indeed quite high, and do not seem to be pronounced with noticeable lip-rounding. --Vindication (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - okay, that's fair enough. As for lack of sufficient data, I'd suspect there'd be enough to work with, but that's an entirely different question. Back to pronunciation though, I really think we should translate the 조선말 규범집 and use that as the transcription guide (though of course it doesn't answer [ɔ] vs [ʌ]!) - regarding Hyesan see: 제4항.《ㄱ, ㄹ, ㅎ》뒤에 있는《ㅖ》는 각각 [ㅔ]로 발음한다. 례: 계속[게속], 계시다[게시다], 관계[관게], 례절[레절], 사례[사레], 차례[차레], 혜택[헤택], 은혜[은헤]. 2Q (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a very good suggestion! Although the pronunciation-related part (the only part I've just read) of the Compendium of Korean Language Norms looks orthoepic and prescriptive rather than analytic, it can certainly help us establishing the transcription guidelines in Wikipedia. I'll try to do what I can to help. Cheers. --Vindication (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Prescriptive is, I think, far better than making assumptions. At the very least, it's official Northern pronunciation. 2Q (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Korean language
Korean is generally included as a part of altaic hypothesis. See Altaic languages. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the Altaic hypothesis is a hypothesis, and a largely discredited one. You know that Wikipedia articles are not always a reliable source of information. --Vindication (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are another examples that use familycolor Altaic. (e.g. Turkish language and Mongolian language) Also, we use the colour as an areal classification, not a language family. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And If we shouldn't use familycolor Altaic just because the hypothesis is discredited, It shoudn't be exist. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Turkish and Mongolian belong to Turkic and Mongolic languages, which are/were widely accepted as Altaic, by the majority of the supporters of the Altaic hypothesis. Koreanic languages aren't. The page Koreanic languages itself contains the sentences "Among extant languages, Korean is considered by most linguists to be a language isolate and by some others as part of the widely rejected Altaic family or the Dravido-Korean languages. Some even suggest an Austronesian connection." in its lead section. --Vindication (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dravido-Korean is just a minor hypothesis and it is even widely discredited than Altaic hypothesis. The Koreanic languages are generally included a part of the Altaic hypothesis along with the Turkic and the Mongolian languages. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two problems: 1. Koreanic languages do not have the same status as Mongolic or Turkic languages in the Altaic hypotheis. 2. The Altaic hypothesis is not proven. But as you said, English Wikipedia seems to be using the colour "as an areal classification" to mark Mongolic and Turkic languages, which may enables us to ignore the second problem. The first problem still remains. Koreanic languages are not generally regarded Altaic even by the supporters of the hypothesis. --Vindication (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Georg et al. 1999: says 'The hypothesis of an Altaic language family, comprising the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean...' --117.53.77.84 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue that Korean is not a part of the Altaic hypothesis, you should cite a reliable source which can prove your argument. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For all anything going back that far into the past can be proved, we could just as reasonably argue that Korean is the third branch of the Uralic family... which (I can't recall where, though) I *have* actually seen being suggested... 2Q (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The paper you linked (Georg et al. 1999:) concludes that Despite the great amount of work which has been done to this effect (and most of the credit here surely must go to Doerfer 1963-75), this enterprise [Altaic hypothesis] still has far to go, especially as regards Korean and Japanese. (See p. 92) And the sentence you cited from its abstract says "The hypothesis of an Altaic language family, comprising the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and, in most recent versions, Japanese languages continues to be a viable linguistic proposal, despite various published claims that it is no longer accepted." which means: the claims supporting the Altaic hypothesis (and among them, some supporting the inclusion of Korean and Japanese) are being raised continuously. It does not say the claims are valid or accepted. The openings typically say "there are these claims" and you should read the article through to see if "but" follows. --Vindication (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to continue this talk, please come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Languages. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have copied this talk to the page mentioned. --Vindication (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can speak Korean, could we talk about the topic using the language each other? --117.53.77.84 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Korean is my first language. But aren't we supposed to use English in English Wikipedia? If you happen to have/know a channel where we can discuss this in Korean, please do invite me. --Vindication (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 사용자 2명간의 토론은 꼭 영어로 안 해도 됩니다. 물론 위키프로젝트 토론이나 문서 토론은 당연히 영어로 해야지요. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 어찌되었든 일단 한국어가 알타이어족 가설에 포함되는 것 자체는 명백한 사실입니다. 해당 저널도 알타이어족 가설이 신뢰할 수 있느냐 없느냐를 떠나서 한국어가 알타이어족 가설에 포함은 된다는 것을 입증하기 위해 링크한 것이고요. 일단 familycolor 자체는 areal classification의 용도로 사용하는 것이지 그 색깔이 같다고 꼭 동일한 어족이란 뜻은 아닙니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 같은 대화를 위에 전부 했는데 읽지 않으신 것 같습니다. 영어를 읽기 힘들어 하실 수도 있는 것 같아 한국어로 다시 말씀드릴게요. 알타이 가설은 튀르크어족, 퉁구스어족, 몽골어족이 같은 조상을 둔다는 주장이고, 이 주장 자체도 널리 받아들여진다고 하기에는 무리가 있습니다. 더 나아가서 한국어족, 또는 한국어족과 일본어족까지 함께 포함시키는 것은 더욱 그래요. 링크하신 99년 논문의 초록에서 인용해오신 문장은 거칠게 요약하면 "퉁구스어족, 몽골어족, 튀르크어족, 한국어족, 일본어족 등을 한 데 묶으려는 학술적 시도가 끊임없이 이어지고 있다." 같은 뜻이고, 같은 논문의 결론 부분을 보시면 "수많은 연구가 이루어져 왔으나 알타이 가설은 아직 갈 길이 멀다. 특히 한국어나 일본어와 관련해서는 더욱 그렇다."로 요약할 수 있는 내용이 나옵니다. 늘 "그러나"가 더 중요하고, 가져오신 글이 117.53.77.84 님의 주장을 뒷받침한다기에 무리가 있습니다. 또한 벌써 18년이 흘렀고, 그 동안 여러가지 연구들이 더 나오지 않았나요? 예를 들어 "I present the evidence that personal pronouns in Japanese and Korean that have been also cited as a ‘proof’ of the genetic relationship of these languages to other ‘Altaic’ languages have nothing to do with them except superficial chance rersemblance."라고 말하는 Vovin (2011) 같은 연구들이요. 한국어족(또는 한국어족과 일본어족)이 몽골어족·퉁구스어족·튀르크어족과 함께 알타이어족을 구성한다는 주장, 특히 한국어족과 몽골어족·튀르크어족 사이의 계통적 연관성을 나타내는 "근거"들이 대부분 이런 식으로 반박되지 않았나요? 알타이어 가설을 지지하는 사람들도 인정하지 않을 수 없는 반박들 말이에요. "알타이어족(몽골어족, 퉁구스어족 및 튀르크어족)과 한국어족이 공통 조상을 두고 있을 수 있다."라는 가설(Macro-Altaic)이라면 또 모르겠습니다. --Vindication (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (117.53.77.84 본인입니다.) familycolor는 언어의 지역적 구분을 위해 사용하는 것이지 무조건 같은 어족만 묶으라고 있는 기능이 아닙니다. 알타이어족 가설이 신뢰할 수 있든 없든 familycolor에는 지역 구분의 목적으로 altaic도 넣어놨고 알타이어족 가설에 포함되는 언어들이 모두 해당 familycolor를 사용하고 있는 만큼 한국어 역시 사용하지 않을 이유가 없습니다. 덧붙여 한국어의 familycolor를 altaic으로 쓰기로 한 것 역시 과거 토론 결과에 따른 것이기도 합니다.(Talk:Korean_language 참조바람.) --211.54.2.241 (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 또한 Georg et al. 1999:은 Altaic languages에서 한국어도 알타이어족 가설에 포함된다는 사실을 뒷받침하는 데 쓰인 출처입니다.(다시 한 번 말씀드립니다만 알타이어족 가설이 신뢰할 수 있는가 없는가를 떠나서 한국어가 알타이어족 가설 자체에 포함된다는 이야기입니다.) 해당 출처가 그런 의미를 포함한다고 생각하지 않으신다면 Talk:Altaic languages에서 다른 사용자들과 토론부터 하시기 바랍니다. --211.54.2.241 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 마지막으로 familycolor에는 Amerindian, Papuan, Australian, Caucasian, Khoisan 등 어족이 아니라 지리적 단위로 된 분류들도 얼마든지 많습니다. Altaic도 존재가 입증된 어족이라서 있는 분류가 아니라 그저 지리적 단위로 묶기 위해 존재하는 분류일 뿐이에요. 이 부분을 이해하신다면 제가 말하고 싶은 게 무엇인지 깨달을 수 있을 것이라 생각합니다. --211.54.2.241 (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 답이 늦어 죄송합니다. 알타이어족 가설을 지지하는 연구 가운데, 알타이어족 안에 한국어/일본어를 포함시키려는 시도가 거의 모두 이미 반박되었는데도 "한국어가 알타이어 가설에 포함된다."는 주장을 할 수 있는지 잘 모르겠어요. "가설에 포함되었던 적이 있다."라면 모를까요. 한국어를 포함하는 알타이어 가설은 현재 주장되고 있지 않잖습니까? 제가 하고 있었던 말은 "한국어를 알타이어족에 포함하려는 시도가 있었고, 실패하였다."로 요약할 수 있는는 결론이 널리 받아들여진다는 것이에요. 위에 말씀드렸듯이, "알타이어족과 한국어가 공통된 조상을 두고 있을 가능성이 있다."라는 가설과는 또 다릅니다. 후자에는 한국어가 알타이어족에 포함되지 않는다는 (합의된) 전제가 들어 있고, 후자는 아직 "반박되었다."라고 확실히 말하기에는 이르기 때문이에요. 이 상황에서 한국어의 색상을 "Altaic"으로 해놓는 것이 오해의 소지를 만들지 않을지 걱정이 됩니다. 연구자가 아닌 사람들은 한국어의 계통에 대한 연구 동향을 잘 모르고, 예전에는 심지어 초중고등학교에서 "한국어는 알타이어에 속한다."라고 가르치기도 했으니까요. --Vindication (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)