Talk:Korean language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If you want to know the Korean name of something or somebody, please ask at the notice board's “Korean name needed” section or try a dictionary.

Insights on vocabulary[edit]




Numbers: Korean language spoken around the World: 90-100 Million. ( Overseas Koreans living in Manchuria, Siberia ( Russia), Japan). Year 2015 Korean language spoken by 80 Million is far too low. Korean Peninsula population is 82 Million. If you include 7 Million Overseas Korean it would be 88 Million. Including Half Korean population living and working in Manchuria, Russia ( Siberia), Japan. It would be 100 Million Korean speaker around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea Info Update (talkcontribs) 05:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

KOREAN PENINSULA POPULATION (2016) ALREADY 80-86 MILLION. IF YOU ADD 7 MILLION IT IS 93 MILLION KOREAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS. TOTAL KOREAN LANGUAGE USERS IS 93-96 MILLION. NOT 75 MILLION. ( OUTDATED YEARS AGO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaupdate (talkcontribs) 02:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your personal opinions - only Reliable Sources are used to document articles. (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible loanwords from Japanese (?)

言語 (언어) Ultimately from Classical Chinese but in modern Chinese means "speech", not "language"

料理 (요리) In Chinese, it can also mean "to manage" but it's current usage in CJK languages means "cuisine".

自動車 (자동차); 医者 (의사); 建物 (건물); 電球 (전구); 電池 (전지); 扇風機 (선풍기); 会社 (회사); 空港 (공항); 蹴球 (축구); 財閥 (재벌); 寄宿舎 (기숙사); 野球 (야구)

Chinese loanwords:

眼鏡 (안경); 先生 (선생); 鑰匙 (열쇠); 拉麺 (라면); 工夫 (공부); 豆腐(두부)

家族 (가족) This word originates from Classical Chinese and is understood by many Chinese having fair knowledge of the former but its current usage in Japanese and Korean is noteworthy.

綠茶 (녹차); 紅茶 (홍차); -色 (-색)

GA push[edit]

While my main background and field of expertise on Wikipedia is video games, I've recently gotten into languages here, as they're an interest in my personal life as well. I recently built Czech language from lower C-class to a current GAN (with FAC in mind), and I plan to work on this page as well. Just letting anyone who watches this know that there will be lots of edits, including ones involving the page's structure, in the coming days. Please tell me any concerns you have along the way. Tezero (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

...Or maybe not. The Google Books available are frustratingly incomplete, though I have placed a couple inter-library loan requests. Tezero (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Man, I forgot all about this. I never really got around to looking at it because I got an absolutely medieval GA review for Czech (though it eventually passed and was mostly justified). I haven't really got the motivation or time to solo this right now or in the near future, but if anyone wants to collaborate on a GA push for this or something, I'm willing to help. Tezero (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I wonder what sense you are using "medieval" here, to mean "antiquated" or "unenlightened" or "torturous" or "of epic proportions"?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Epic proportions. Tezero (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
As the Altaic hypothesis continues to die out, I might wait for a while - then it could be properly shelved as a footnote without starting a edit flip-flop-flip on here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


In the Gender and the Korean Language section it states:

"In Western societies, individuals won't avoid expressions of power asymmetry, mutually addressing each other by their first names for the sake of solidarity. Between two people of asymmetrical status in a Korean society, people tend to emphasize differences in status for the sake of solidarity."

Both sentences are confusing to me. How is the Western practice of mutually using first names an expression of power asymmetry? As a Westerner it seems to me an expression of power symmetry, a way to level differences. Similarly why would the Korean practice of emphasizing differences in status be for the sake of solidarity, when it seems to do the exact opposite? Is there some additional cultural context I'm missing here, or is this simply an error? -- (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Language isolate[edit]

KOREAN LANGUAGE FAMILY IS ALTAIC: KOREAN, JAPANESE, MANCHURIAN, MONGOLIAN, ASIAN TURKISH, ALL ALTAIC FAMILY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea Info Update (talkcontribs) 05:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing this moot discussion, per closure of centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#"Altaic ?" in the Infobox?: "Consensus is to eliminate the named controversial material from the infobox. Non admin closure. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)"  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The coloring for Altaic in the infobox is highly problematic. Korean is nearly universally rejected as being "Altaic". Should the infobox be colored "Altaic" or "Language isolate"? --Taivo (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Language Isolate. Altaic is a dead theory. Either the template for Altaic needs to be removed from this article or labelled "Areal" and not included in the infobox classification. --Taivo (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Altaic. English Wikipedia doesn't have Mongolic, Tungusic, Turkic and Japonic 'familycolours', but it has a 'familycolour' Altaic, insteadly. So we must use Altaic 'familycolour'. Also, Korean is a part of Altaic hypothesis. -- (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
If you notice, I have replaced the Altaic color, but not the note of Altaic as a higher level grouping. This is the most accurate listing since the Altaic color has been modified to an areal grouping. The inclusion of Korean (and Japonic) in Altaic must be considered a fringe theory now. It has been overwhelmingly discredited. It is no longer worthy of even a question mark. --Taivo (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
See the parallel discussion at Japonic languages. From the last discussion to reach consensus, it appeared that those scholars who still adhere to Altaic include Japonic and Korean, so those should be considered members of modern Altaic. I see nothing wrong with coloring "Altaic" languages, as it's not an overt claim. If we're going to have a separate color for every family, we'll need a lot of new colors. I mean, what would we do for the Americas? Or should we make the boxes of all American languages grey? — kwami (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not talking about the color, and dont care about the color scheme since I dont think ordinary readers are likely to be confused by that. But infoboxes should not include controversial information.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Maunus, let's take the discussion to Talk:Japonic languages and use that for developing a new consensus concerning "Altaic ?" in the infobox. --Taivo (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Could we have it at a more central location, such as "Altaic" itself? And advertize at WP:LANG for people who are not paying attention to that article? — kwami (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent work in getting this horrible mess corrected. Nonsense like this plagues the various language articles. We need the SME's to comment and edit these, not every Tom, Dick and Haruji who comes by with his pet fringy theory or nationalist agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talkcontribs) 07:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur with Maunus (and HammerFilmFan); the Altaic hypothesis is controversial at best. Controversial ideas should not be represented in the infobox, which will be taken as a presentation of basic (certain) facts; that's what infoboxes are for. PS: No one pays any attention to the infobox color but a few editors commenting here; readers don't even notice. Most editors don't even notice.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Striking comments; this issue was already closed in the RfC mentioned below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC concerning Altaic[edit]

An RfC for all the articles subsumed under the discredited Altaic theory is here. --Taivo (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Classification section[edit]

The article states that, "The majority of linguists, however, such as Alexander Vovin, have argued that the indicated similarities between Japanese and Korean are not due to any genetic relationship, but rather to a sprachbund effect and heavy borrowing, especially from ancient Korean into Western Old Japanese." I believe that needs to be clarified, as it cannot be literally true as written, if only because (please correct me if I am mistaken) the majority of linguists do not offer arguments about whether the similarities between Japanese and Korean are due to the sprachbund effect or not. I assume that linguists concerned specifically with this question is meant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, it means what you suggest. But whether (even) that is true or not, is a different question. (works assuming or asserting Altaic status include: The origin and evolution of word order

Murray Gell-Mann, Merritt Ruhlen Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 108, No. 42 (October 18, 2011), pp. 17290-17295 and those discussed and mentioned by the leading opponent, Vovin: "by Japanese, Korean, and Other 'Non-Altaic' Languages" Alexander Vovin, Central Asiatic Journal, Vol. 53, No. 1 (2009), pp. 105-147

Kdammers (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
How would you suggest that the article be changed, Kdammers? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Any time you see Merritt Ruhlen's name as a proponent of some grouping or other you can be quite suspicious. His methodology has been soundly rejected by the body of historical linguists. --Taivo (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This is as may be, but the validity or not of Altaic was not what was under discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

highway sign[edit]

The illustration in which a highway sign is labeled as being in Korean actually shows signs in Korean and English.Kdammers (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


The illustrations of the letters is incomplete. Since all syllables are written within equal-sized boxes, the letters can vary depending on what other letters are in the syllable. For example, kyok alone looks very different from the way it is written in the word gimchi: 김치. In addition, there is the archaic, stylized but still used ㅏ which is written as a dot. Kdammers (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

similarity between Korean and Finnish languages[edit]

Korean work colleagues say they enjoy visiting Finland as they recognize many Finnish words. (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sheer coincidence. There is no evolutionary connection between Koreans/Korean language and the Finns/Finnish language - separated by huge distances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Korean language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Gender and the Korean language" is misleading[edit]

I agree that it is definitely worthwhile to explore how gender disparity is shown through different speech patterns, but the crux of matter is that the Korean language *lacks* grammatical gender.

Basically, the difference in words or commonly used expressions is best considered a subject of sociolinguistics, not a part of Korean grammar per se. Contrast this with honorifics which are very clearly an integral part of Korean grammar.

I don't mind having a bit of discussion on gender-related issues, but having that as a subsection inside "Grammar" is very misleading, so I moved out into its own section and added a bit of remark to (hopefully) clear things up.

I mean, think about American English. African-American English speakers have a distinct dialect and even some of their own grammar. However, nobody will consider "race" a part of English grammar. (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

낮 7시 (nat ilgopssi)[edit]

What does 낮 7시 actually mean in korean language? 7 AM or 7 PM? I think it's 7 PM. (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)