|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ajgeddes
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Location: Yongsan
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I think a simple example will show the problems.
Take words like Jew and zoo. In what ways could you teach a Korean to distinguish between these two words? Is there any way to make a rule to help them learn the difference.
Now, take words like 때 and 대, ddae and dae. A normal person reading this isn't going to read it any differently. So, we have a problem. But all you have to know is that when speaking Korean, if you see a double 'd', like ddae you pronounce it harder than dae.
I do think that it works wonders for Korean and works well with Japanese, but it butchers every other language.
A big mistake here is that some people are saying a normal person will read it incorrectly in any language. That's correct. But, if you are studying the language, you can easily apply a few pronunciation rules and now the roman alphabet works adequately. Can we do this in Korean? Do any of these rules exist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scotticus wrote: |
| PS - Thanks to the condescending guy from a few posts after mine. The one who explained WHY they pronounce it "lodge-ee." I know WHY they do it... that doesn't make it correct or remotely helpful to the people who are going to someday go overseas and look like morons when they Konglish the hell out of words amongst native speakers who don't understand them. Do you really think I would be arguing about the merits of Hangul if I had no understanding of how the system works? |
Given a couple of your other assertions, yes, I think you just might. Perhaps you should concentrate your time on teaching your students that the cognate word in English is not pronounced the same way as it is in Korean.
| Quote: |
Once again:
For the people who are going to say I'm bashing on Korea for this post. I'M NOT. Hangul is great for Korean. It's simple, effective and elegant... when using Korean. However, it butchers any other language, even ones that are etymologically similar, like Chinese and Japanes. |
Japanese and Chinese both have a huge number of loan words from Chinese. Other than that, they are not linguistically similar.
| Quote: |
| I don't blame the Korean people. They're just repeating the words they're reading. It's an issue with the inability of Hangul to adapt to outside influences. What is stopping them from creating new characters to represent the sounds they're missing? |
Hangeul itself can--and I mentioned one case already--do that. There's no real reason to do so, though. We linguists, even Korean linguists, use the IPA because it works. "Why reinvent the wheel?"
Oh, and let's not forget that the "English Alphabet" is a borrowed orthography which was intended to represent the sounds of another language long before it was applied to English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgiles
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ajgeddes wrote: |
I think a simple example will show the problems.
Take words like Jew and zoo. In what ways could you teach a Korean to distinguish between these two words? Is there any way to make a rule to help them learn the difference.
Now, take words like 때 and 대, ddae and dae. A normal person reading this isn't going to read it any differently. So, we have a problem. But all you have to know is that when speaking Korean, if you see a double 'd', like ddae you pronounce it harder than dae.
I do think that it works wonders for Korean and works well with Japanese, but it butchers every other language.
A big mistake here is that some people are saying a normal person will read it incorrectly in any language. That's correct. But, if you are studying the language, you can easily apply a few pronunciation rules and now the roman alphabet works adequately. Can we do this in Korean? Do any of these rules exist? |
jew and zoo? sure! this is just off the top of my head, but we could use a hangeulised system of english. use ㅊ to represent "j" (and tell them how to pronounce it) and ㅈ for "z". pretty arbitrary, but just as arbitrary as ur "d" and "dd" example.
i'm not saying i'm a proponent for using hangeul when learning english. that's not my beef. i actually hate that, as much as a i hate romanisation when i'm trying to learn korean. they both don't work!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajgeddes
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Location: Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgiles wrote: |
| ajgeddes wrote: |
I think a simple example will show the problems.
Take words like Jew and zoo. In what ways could you teach a Korean to distinguish between these two words? Is there any way to make a rule to help them learn the difference.
Now, take words like 때 and 대, ddae and dae. A normal person reading this isn't going to read it any differently. So, we have a problem. But all you have to know is that when speaking Korean, if you see a double 'd', like ddae you pronounce it harder than dae.
I do think that it works wonders for Korean and works well with Japanese, but it butchers every other language.
A big mistake here is that some people are saying a normal person will read it incorrectly in any language. That's correct. But, if you are studying the language, you can easily apply a few pronunciation rules and now the roman alphabet works adequately. Can we do this in Korean? Do any of these rules exist? |
jew and zoo? sure! this is just off the top of my head, but we could use a hangeulised system of english. use ㅊ to represent "j" (and tell them how to pronounce it) and ㅈ for "z". pretty arbitrary, but just as arbitrary as ur "d" and "dd" example.
i'm not saying i'm a proponent for using hangeul when learning english. that's not my beef. i actually hate that, as much as a i hate romanisation when i'm trying to learn korean. they both don't work!! |
What letter will you use for ch?
I know what you are saying, but the fact of the matter is that they don't do it. We do. So, in a final analysis, it is inadequate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scotticus
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
Japanese and Chinese both have a huge number of loan words from Chinese. Other than that, they are not linguistically similar. |
How does that change the fact that Korean and Japan are linguistically derivative of Chinese? That's like saying English and German/Latin are "not linguistically similar." English is a Germanic language with huge influences from Latin (most importantly via French and the Normon conquest of Britain).
Here's an article from Wiki I found in about one click from Google, as you seem to not believe me. Read up on the origins of Korean before telling me they're not linguistically similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Korean
| Quote: |
Oh, and let's not forget that the "English Alphabet" is a borrowed orthography which was intended to represent the sounds of another language long before it was applied to English. |
Why did you put it in quotes, as if I said "English Alphabet?" I don't think I once referred to it as such in any of the posts I've made on this topic. I refer to it as the Roman Alphabet. Is your argument so weak that you need to invent errors to berate me about?
Cali, give up, brah. You called me out, and I answered you, in turn. You made some silly presumptions and some ambiguous statements when you got schooled. I'm not here for an argument, but if you keep bashing my posts, at least make sure you can back it up when someone calls you on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatever
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Korea: More fun than jail.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Japanese and Chinese both have a huge number of loan words from Chinese. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about you quit making up stuff and pretending that's what I said. Had I asserted that you had used that particular term, I would have put it in a quote box as I did with everything else I quoted from you. I put the alphabet's name in quotes to make a point, obviously lost on you.
I made no assumptions, no ambiguous statements. And you certainly haven't schooled me. Your assertion that loan words makes two languages linguistically similar shows your incredible ignorance of Linguistics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scotticus
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
Your assertion that loan words makes two languages linguistically similar shows your incredible ignorance of Linguistics. |
Your apparent inability to read a very short article I linked for you shows your argument's incredible lack of a leg to stand on. Keep calling people ignorant, though. Excellent way to win friends and influence people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lonewolf
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You can always correct their Korean and I bet they will stop on a dime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xenok
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scotticus wrote: |
Define "standard pronunciation." The Roman alphabet isn't a phonetic alphabet, no matter how much phonics teachers want you to believe it. Pronunciation is based on the specific words and, generally, what culture the word originated in.
The Roman alphabet, when inadequate, as it often is, is then changed to be able to passably/accurate describe the sights and sounds of a language. Both Chinese and Korean have two major forms of transliteration, among other minor ones. If you know how to read that form of transliteration, then you can speak the language, just by reading it, with an excellent chance of pronouncing the words correctly. This is, of course, in addition to all the little additions and punctuation that make the Roman alphabet able to accurately represent most languages, after some changes.
An easy example is the word Sinchon. Well all know it's pronounced Sheenchone, not as it's spelled (if we were reading it the way an English word would be read). This is because we all know that, in the standard Korean transliterartion, Si - shee, and o = long o.
My whole point is that Korean has no such thing. When the word "large" becomes "lodge-ee," there is no "correct" way to say it. Among Koreans, it's pronounced "lodge-ee," and many (not all) Koreans will look at you funny if you pronounce it the correct way. Korean takes words from foreign languages and, if they don't fit into the rigid rules of Hangul, butchers them.
|
we have to clarify what the argument here. if it's Roman alphabet vs Korean alphabet, then i would agree that the former is much more flexible (it is afterall used as the basis for several different languages). i'm also not sure you can call this is a feature of the Roman alphabet. is there an official Roman alphabet that is being maintained by some authority that says new characters are sounds are being added to accomodate other languages? the last i check, the Roman alphabet is also the Latin alphabet, and i know that hasn't really been changed. are you including any language that uses the Roman alphabet as a basis and comparing all those languages to Korean, and saying that the latter is inadequate? theni would agree with you, yes Korean is not flexible enough as a language to accomodate several languages easily. in fact, i'll say Korean does a pretty poor job of transliterating most languages, except maybe Japanese. however, my corollary is that most *languages* (not alphabets) suffer from the same malaise.
also, if we enter into an argument of superiority, then you get into another issue of is it better to have a strict pronunciation guide or a very loose one, where you can spell a word the same way but depending on the context, pronounce it completely differently. the latter is obviously very much more flexible, at the same time it is also significantly more confusing.
the other problem with your argument is that i'm not sure it is the right thing for Korean to adapt new characters or sound just to allow better transliteration of foreign languages. if you think about it, no *language* (not the Roman alphabet) does this that i know of. i've always maintained that the transliteration of English to Korean may help in the early going but one should try to get rid of it as soon as possible before it becomes a detriment.
| Quote: |
A quick example, probably most pertinent to those of us using a keyboard, is the "~." It's not a new letter, but it's a way to convey a sound that the normal letter would not make.
|
i didn't know there was an official way to pronounce/use tilde.
| Quote: |
Over the last 50 years? Terrible example. Users of the Roman alphabet have been in contact with, and transliterating foreign languages, for hundreds of years. Why would we be adding to systems that already function? I've already explained that there is a system for transliterating every major foreign language, thus, at this point, why would we need even more changes?
Korea is in a very different position. Unlike the Roman alphabet, it is only a recent addition to the world stage (as far as being a "major" player), and thus needs to act like it if they're going to adapt and be taken seriously.
|
i just threw the 50 years as a number out there.
one has to be careful.. you are comparing the Roman alphabet (plus any augmentations to it, official and/or non-official), which is not a language, with Korean. while the Roman alphabet is widely used, it also has a bunch of different variants (e.g. the English alphabet) with corresponding pronunciation guides. i don't think it's quite fair to make a direct comparison, given it becomes an apple or orange comparison.
also, i would hardly call the Korean alphabet a major player. i don't think it ever will be, but then again that was never the argument in the first place.
| Quote: |
Once again:
For the people who are going to say I'm bashing on Korea for this post. I'M NOT. Hangul is great for Korean. It's simple, effective and elegant... when using Korean. However, it butchers any other language, even ones that are etymologically similar, like Chinese and Japanes. |
Chinese is quite etymologically dissimilar to Korean and Japanese. having common characters is about where any similarities end. linguistically speaking Chinese is quite different from Korean, it might be closer to English even. consider the simplest form of grammar, Chinese and English are Subject-Verb-Object languages, whereas Korean (and I believe Japanese) is a Subject-Object-Verb language.
i wrote a lot and there might be some confusion in getting my point across so allow me to summarize:
1) Roman alphabet vs Korean is a very unfair comparison to make.
2) I still believe all languages generally suffer from the same malaise of transliterating foreign languages to their own.
3) Chinese is not very linguistically similar to Korean.
there, i should have just said that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xenok
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scotticus wrote: |
How does that change the fact that Korean and Japan are linguistically derivative of Chinese? That's like saying English and German/Latin are "not linguistically similar." English is a Germanic language with huge influences from Latin (most importantly via French and the Normon conquest of Britain).
|
you have to understand that linguistically similar is not the same as saying using similar characters. just because they loan words doesn't mean they are linguistically similar.
for example, Malay uses the English alphabet but it is quite linguistically different from English.
you have to understand the Chinese character system existed before the language. Korean and Japanese are linguistically similar, Chinese/Mandarin is definitely not. and as a pre-emptive answer, i'm trilingual -- English, Chinese and Korean (in that order of fluency). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ajgeddes wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| The Japanese didn't, strictly speaking, introduce a new alphabet to accomodate a new language. After all katakana and hirigana are completly isomorphic (ie same sounds, different characters). They probably introduced it as a way of segregating introduced words from native ones, according to my old high school teacher. |
Actually, I am pretty sure (but could be wrong) that Katakana was made for use with males and hirigana was made for use with females originally. Hence the more flowing, prettier hirigana and the sharper, stronger looking katakana. |
Never heard that. Hiragana is Japanese. Kanji is Chinese. Katakana is foreign loan words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scotticus
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Xenok:
Honestly, I don't care about this anymore. At this point, I'm going to be wasting a lot of time if I type up a refutation for every one of your points. I'm making some quick points here and then I'm done.
1) At no point have any of my posts been "Roman alphabet vs. Korean language." This has ALWAYS been a discussion about Hangul's inability to adapt to transliterating foreign. Hangul does not equal the Korean language... Hangul is an alphabet.
2) At no point did I make any comment that Chinese and Korean are related because of their written forms. Chinese uses a character system, not an alphabet... Hangul is a functioning alphabet where symbols represent sounds. As such, they aren't similar at all... and no, they don't really look similar either (another implication you made).
3) My point has never been to say one system is superior to another. Both are "superior" in their own way. Hangul is a specialized alphabet, built purely for Korean. It is perfect for Korean, easy to learn and very rarely inconsistant. The Roman alphabet is more fluid and adaptable, and as such, is better used for transliterating foreign alphabets. However, it is also cumbersome and highly inconsistant (both between different languages that use it, as well as within each language using it).
4) I linked you guys a very short Wiki about Chinese/Korean language relations. The article itself has many links you can check for further reading on the subject, if you'd like. You seem to have a very, very, very narrow view of how languages are related. By your definition, every language is an island, regardless of what language it originally sprang from and where the majority of its words came from.
PS - Your Malay example doesn't work at all. Hell, it proves my point that the Roman alphabet is adaptable, and willing to be adapted. Just because a nation uses the same alphabet doesn't mean it's related. It just means imperialism introduced the writing system there and, for whatever reason, it stuck (in this case, obviously). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgiles
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your Malay example doesn't work at all. Hell, it proves my point that the Roman alphabet is adaptable, and willing to be adapted. Just because a nation uses the same alphabet doesn't mean it's related. It just means imperialism introduced the writing system there and, for whatever reason, it stuck (in this case, obviously). |
now, while i agree in principle with your argument, i want to clarify again what we're talking about.
are you saying there is something intrinsic in the structure, morphology and idea behind the "roman alphabet" (which, btw, to pick nits, is NOT the english alphabet, nor the german, nor the french, etc. sorry, i know what u mean, but still...) that allows it to be more adaptable?
if that's what you are saying (pls tell me if it isn't), then i can't agree. why i don't is hinted at in the above quote. the very reason the roman alphabet was first used in england was because of power relations - the roman empire. the fact that empires that used the roman alphabet have forced their system of writing on peoples they have dealings with does not indicat e out of hand that this system has something intrinsically flexible about it. i don't think that the chinese ideogrammatic method of writing is intrinsically flexible, but it has been used to represent the speech of many different languages (if that is, indeed, what written characters do).
if u're making the weaker claim that the roman alphabet is used more often to represent languages, then of course, i completely agree with you. but i don't see the point in making that claim in comparison with the hangeul method.
Last edited by mrgiles on Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doggyji
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Location: Toronto - Hamilton - Vineland - St. Catherines
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scotticus wrote: |
| How does that change the fact that Korean and Japan are linguistically derivative of Chinese? That's like saying English and German/Latin are "not linguistically similar." English is a Germanic language with huge influences from Latin (most importantly via French and the Normon conquest of Britain). |
| Scotticus wrote: |
| 4) I linked you guys a very short Wiki about Chinese/Korean language relations. The article itself has many links you can check for further reading on the subject, if you'd like. You seem to have a very, very, very narrow view of how languages are related. By your definition, every language is an island, regardless of what language it originally sprang from and where the majority of its words came from. |
If we are talking strictly about vocabulary, there can be no doubt that Korean was heavily influenced by Chinese. In this sense, we sure can say Korean is "considerably related" to Chinese. Plenty of sino-Korean words. You can't convey a conversation without at least one sino-Korean word in each sentence especially if the topic is, say, metaphysical. In terms of grammar, it's a completely different story though. Very very different. You have to wonder whether one can really say Korean is a "linguistical derivative" of Chinese just because of many loan words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
