Talk:Sino-Korean vocabulary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Doesn't the Thousand Character Classic postdate the Han dynasty by several centuries? -- Visviva 09:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)í

Merge into Hanja article[edit]

I suggested a merge of this article into the Hanja article because:

  1. Both this article and the Hanja article suggest or imply that "Hanja" and "Sino-Korean" are the same thing. In the Hanja article, the first sentence is, "Hanja, or hanmun, sometimes translated as Sino-Korean characters or just Chinese characters, are what Chinese characters (hànzì) are called in Korean", where "Sino-Korean characters" are linked to this article.
  2. This article is too short to stand on its own.

It's been explained to me that Hanja and Sino-Korean are two different things. But it still remains that there's not much content on this article and I think it should be merged, as a section, into either the Hanja article or Korean language. --Hong Qi Gong 21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merging of Hanja and Sino-Korean. The entire topic of "Sino-Korean" doesn't even exist in Korea. These so called Sino-Korean words that the Chinese refer to are Hanja. Hanja means "Chinese words". Labelling Chinese words as Sino-Korean are complete and utter lies. --aneconomist 14:47, 24 December 2007 (EST)

If "Hanja are Chinese words", as Aneconomist says, the situation's even worse than he makes out. At least Sino-Korean can be regarded as Korean vocabulary originally borrowed from Chinese. If Hanja is Chinese, then the Korean language is filled with pure Chinese words! That means that every Korean can't help but constantly slip into Chinese when holding an everyday conversation. (What's worse, they are "Chinese words" that a Chinese could barely understand if pronounced aloud.) This is patent nonsense. Aneconomist should stick to economics.
Bathrobe (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your logic doesn't make sense.Subvertmsm (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Vocabulary section[edit]

With some hesitation I've removed the Chinese (Mandarin) readings from the list of kun'yomi borrowings from Japanese. There is no doubt that this is information of a certain interest for those who like seeing the resemblances between hanja readings and Mandarin, but that is not the point of this section and it is quite confusing in the context of the article. There are at least two problems: (1) The listing of the Chinese pronunciations gives the impression that these words actually might exist in Chinese, whereas some of them are merely hypothetical forms -- how the character combinations would be pronounced if they were actually Chinese words. This is confusing for a person who doesn't know much Chinese and misrepresents the actual situation. (2) There is no particular reason for inserting Mandarin over other possibilities. Why not the Japanese on'yomi, which would make clear the difference between on'yomi and kun'yomi? Why not the Cantonese readings, which might be closer to the Korean in pronunciation? Why not Vietnamese, even? There doesn't seem to be any overwhelming reason for putting the Mandarin pronunciation here, other than to say: "Hey look, this is how we'd pronounce these in Mandarin!"

I'm adding this note because removing information from a Wiki article is in a general sense frowned upon. In this case, however, the information seemed more distracting than illuminating. Bathrobe 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has since added the Cantonese pronunciation and then the Mandarin pronunciation again. The point I make above still stands. These are not words in Chinese (except for 手续), so there is little point in listing how they would be pronounced if they were Chinese words. It would make about as much sense as if we added a column showing how these character combinations would be pronounced if they were read in on'yomi: sogō, kenbutsu (actually a different word in Japanese, 見物), kenseki, shushiki, shigō, and shuzoku. This is patent nonsense since despite the theoretical possibility of reading these combinations this way in Japanese, that is not how they are actually read. Adding all these theoretical readings is a kind of linguistic game (Hey guys, this is how WE would read it) but doesn't add anything to the point of the article. Hence I've removed the Cantonese and Mandarin columns again.
Bathrobe (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sino-Korean traditionally written in Hanja"[edit]

The problem with saying that Sino-Korean traditionally was written in Hanja, and that now it is not, is that the point is basically moot. ALL of the Korean language was "traditionally" written in Hanja up until the 20th century when Hangul finally came into popular usage, and that includes native Korean words as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is another patently false lie from the Chinese. Hangul has used for centuries prior to the 20th century. The idea that Koreans did not use their own language for centuries after it was invented is just ludicrous and contributes to the lack of integrity and promotion of propaganda in wikipedia.Aneconomist (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No one said anything of the kind. You don't seem to know the difference between language and writing. kwami (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hong just said Korean was never used in Korea. I think its you who doesn't know the difference between language and writing. There's more than enough proof of the use of Korean, that it just makes his comment ridiculous.Subvertmsm (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he said that Korean script (hangul) wasn't used until the 20th century. If he's wrong, address that statement. Don't put nonsense words in his mouth. I can't find anything he wrote that says "Korean was never used in Korea". You seem to the one who can't understand the difference between script and writing.
Are you our old friend Aneconomist back under a different name?
I've reverted you edits pending a sensible response to my requests for clarification at the Hanja talk page.
Bathrobe (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Korean vocabulary?[edit]

It's been raised at the Sino-Japanese talk page that "Sino-Japanese" is not a very descriptive title for the page. The same would apply to "Sino-Korean". Could we move this page to "Sino-Korean vocabulary"? That would be much clearer. (Perhaps with a redirect page at Hanja-eo). Bathrobe (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply at the Sino-Japanese talk page - [1]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply also at Sino-Japanese.
Bathrobe (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Same here. I like Bathrobe's suggestion. kwami (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


It would be nice to see the readings of the Japanese Kanji and The readings of the Chinese characters in English beside the words in parenthesis like the Korean words are. I want to see the comparison between Korean pronunciations and the readings of the Chinese characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Please add romanisations to every word in every language. I wish I could read the words, but I can't, but I'm still interested in seeing the similarities and differences between the source words and the loaned counterparts in Japanese and Korean. Skomakar'n (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary Usage Note:[edit]

I was watching a new Korean show on Hulu today called "Faith".

In the pilot, there is a scene in which a main character visits a fortune teller who reads her fortune from sticks in "Sino-Korean".

I would be interested in seeing a section on this page that cites the use of Sino-Korean in occult or traditional religious practices in contemporary Korea, and especially a discussion of why this particular usage seemed to be unintelligible to the characters in the aforementioned scene.

This article as it stands implies that Sino-Korean words are recognizable and in current usage, but the television show implied that there is a specific vocabulary which has a place in Korean subcultures, but not in popular culture.

Of course, it could have just been a bad translation into English.

See the video in question here:

The scene in question begins at approximately 47:45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraktol (talkcontribs) 19:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Writing Systems: ˜aœ Linguistic Introduction  By Geoffrey Sampson[edit]

Rajmaan (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)