Talk:Jeju language

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ohtgao (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Victorhlpenn (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mpak7 (article contribs).

Move title back to "dialect"?

The recent move, although notified on Talk:Korean language was not supported by GB ngram (ignoring Jeju/Cheju issue). In ictu oculi (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It was supported by recent local and UNESCO classification of Jeju as a language, and no objections after a month on the Jeju and Korean talk pages. Normally a week is considered adequate for discussion. (And according to Ngram, the old name "Jeju dialect" was also wrong.[1]) — kwami (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Can this language be written entirely with Korean letters?

Can this language be written completely in Korean letters? 86.182.236.120 (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this language, like many others can be written in Hangul. For example, the Indonesian language Cia-Cia also use Hangul as one of more writing systems.--AsadalEditor (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite: Some thoughts and comments

This is the rewrite.

For Romanization, Yang C., Yang S., and O'Grady use a version of the Revised Romanization of Korean with allophones unmarked, so that e.g. Korean 빗자루 is transcribed bisjalu and not bitjaru. I used the normal version of RR, i.e. the version that takes into account allophony, per the Manual of Style. This may need to be changed. Normally in linguistics you use Yale, but the only English source on the language doesn't, so...

Most sources are Korean, specifically academic papers by South Korean dialectologists, reflecting the actual state of the scholarship on Jeju. Yang C., Yang S., and O’Grady 2019 cite only about nine English-language sources specific to Jeju, while also citing eighty-nine Korean sources, all focusing on Jeju. Could have missed a few either way, but the point stands. I decided to divide the sources between languages because I thought most readers would benefit from having a section for English-only sources without having to wade through paper after paper they will never understand. The sources cited are almost all either sources referenced by Yang C., Yang S., and O'Grady (whose monograph also informs the organization of the grammar sections, so it's probably the single biggest influence on the article), or sources referenced by the provincial government reports.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your excellent edits to this article! It looks really good. I think there are a couple of missing references which may have been removed, for example works which use the English-language name 'Jejuan' are not present including the major ELAR deposit. lŋgwstks (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lŋgwstks: Thanks for adding that! I wasn't aware of the resource before, and I've just now added the ELAR deposit to the External links section too.

BTW, if you're interested in Korean studies, you might be interested in the ongoing rewrite of Korean mythology that I'm writing here.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In the first paragraph: "much of the language has been altered due to the prevalence of Old Korean." Which language? What is "the prevalence of Old Korean"? What does "prevalence" mean here? Prevalent in general modern Korean or in Jeju? Old Korean is an ancient stage, ancestral to both Jeju and general modern Korean, so Old Korean is prevalent, in a sense, in both Jeju and general modern Korean. Maybe "prevalence" is not the right word for what is intended in this sentence. Linguistatlunch (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"Jeju people"

@Coastaline and Ogress:

Per a 2016 South Korean government report, Jeju Island currently has one of the weakest regional feelings in the entire country (p. 135). A Jeju identity appears to be weaker than a Chungcheong identity, and is certainly far, far weaker than either a feeling of Gyeongsang-ness or Jeolla-ness. Per the same report, a Jeju identity was stronger in the 1980s (when there would have been many native speakers of Jeju), but even then it was about the same as the notion of a Jeolla identity, who are never counted as a separate ethnic group.

The existence of a Jeju people article, in which (as mentioned in the issues box above) "the central claim of a distinct Jeju people is not substantiated" (and certainly would not be agreed upon by most people currently in Jeju Island), shouldn't mean that the article should link to it as the sole "ethnicity" of the Jeju language. I'm willing to compromise and have either "Jeju people (Koreans of Jeju Island)" or "Koreans of Jeju Island (Jeju people)," but I don't agree that Jeju people should be the only thing there.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the topic, but for any statement that is made in the infobox (as in this case the one about Jeju speakers belonging to a separate Jeju ethnic group) we should use the same standards of verifiability we use for the rest of the article: statements should have sources, and if an unsourced statement is challenged, it should be up to those wishing to reinstate it to provide those sources before reinstating it. – Uanfala (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the late response. I didn’t actually mean to imply that people from Jeju are ethnically different from the other Koreans. I mainly added “Jeju people” because it was an article on Wikipedia and it’s mainly Jejuans who speak the Jeju language. In fact, the “Jeju people” page itself doesn’t necessarily list them as a separate ethnicity. The first line of that page is “Jejuans are a subgroup of the Koreans”. I will agree with your compromise since I do understand that putting only “Jeju people” in the ethnicity section could cause confusion and make people think Jejuans are definitely a separate group. However, I would also like to point out that in the article Shanghainese language, it lists the speakers’ ethnicity as Shanghainese in the infobox despite the Shanghainese being a part of the Han ethnicity. Coastaline (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Coastaline: Thank you for the response, and point taken on Shanghainese. I'll put up the compromise "Jeju people (Koreans of Jeju Island)" then.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)