Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Kimchi Cha Cha]

It�s a rainy day and I�ve got a lot of time on my hands. I�ve been thinking about the limitations of Hangeul when it comes to words and sounds not naturally occurring in Korean. I started thinking about Katakana, Japan�s alphabet used primarily for non-Japanese words. I then thought about all the Korean characters, which were once part of Hangeul but have since been eliminated. There�s scores of them in all kinds of shapes and combinations on the scrap heap. Here at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamo & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hangul_Jamo

Why doesn�t Korea reinstate some of these obsolete Hangeul characters and use them for foreign sounds and when transcribing foreign words? Believe or not, there exists now obsolete Hangeul characters for sounds such as �v� and �w�. Why doesn�t Korea bring some of these obsolete Hangeul off the bench and use them for words and sounds of foreign origin? It would have the advantage of introducing Koreans to these sounds are an earlier date and help their pronunciation of non-Korean words, bringing their pronunciation closer to the �true� pronunciation of the non-Korean word.

Here are some examples:

The word city comes out as shitty in Korean as the rule with Korean is that a sh sound always proceeds a �i (ee)� vowel. How about using the unused ᄼ(s) character for situations as above when using non-Korean words such as city.

Here are a couple of characters which used to be used for sounds of non-Korean origin: ㅱ (w), ㅿ (z) and ㆅ (x) � but I personally prefer using ᄽ for (x).

Some other characters that could be used for foreign sounds: ᅅ (soft �th� θ sound as in �thin�), ᅆ (hard �th� � sound as in �this�), ᄙ (�English-sounding� r as in �rooster�), ㅬ (�English-sounding� l as in �love�), ㅸ (English-sounding� b as in �boy�), ㅹ (v), ᄤ (f).

ㆍ � could be placed below words of foreign origin which end with consonant sounds, which are currently limited by Hangeul�s need for a vowel to follow the consonant as in �mart� 마트 which comes out as �marteu�. Instead, have the dot below the final ㅌ so the word is pronounced �mart�, similar to in English.

What do you think?

[Thiuda]

If we were to follow your suggestion and resurrect the defunct symbols you identify in your post, Korean would still lack those sounds in its phonology. I imagine that the reason for the absence of those symbols is because those sounds do not occur in Korean.

I am unfamiliar with Japanese, however, I believe that while Katakana is used for foreign words, this does not mean that those words sound any more natural than those spoken by Korean speakers. Television, for example, is written as テレビ and pronounced "terebi," and coffee, コーヒー, is pronounced as "kohi."

But, as I said, I'm speculating. Maybe someone with more knowledge about Katakana can add their insights.

[Young FRANKenstein]

[Kimchi Cha Cha]

Good point.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that these foreign sounds should be incorporated into the Korean language as they exist in such numbers now, due to the huge influx of English and other foreign words in the last 50 years. Koreans encounter words on a daily basis which require a f, v, z sound if they are to be said in a similar fashion to their original pronunciation. Koreans are obsessed with learning English but one of the many, but main, obstacles is the limitations of sounds which exist in Korean. Why don't they incorporate foreign sounds into Koreans, have the children learn these sounds at the same time they're learning the rest of the Korean alphabet.

That way, they will have overcame one obstacle by the time if comes to learning English, they have encountered these foreign sounds before. I guess I'm advocate one step further then the Japanese go with Katakana, I'm suggesting that Korean incorporate not only these new sounds but also the foreign (English) pronunciation and functions that go with the word.

I'd imagine they'd be huge opposition to this as there generally is to any thing which questions or seeks to change Korean customs and cultural assets such as its language.

[JustJohn]

Mostly on topic:


Has anyone else found that Koreans don't realize they change the ㅅ sound? I was teaching my kids that the ㅅ in 사 sounds more like s and the ㅅ in 시 sounds more like sh, and my co-teacher jumped in to correct me. "No, they're the same sound."

I don't know about you guys, they sure don't sound the same to me.

[Kimchi Cha Cha]

Young FRANKenstein made good points. I'm not sure of the history behind these now obsolete characters and when and why they were dropped, and whether they were all dropped simultaneously or gradually over the course of hundreds of years. But, it's something I'd like to learn more about.

I'd imagine a lot of these now obsolete characters were used for foreign words and sounds - just like I'm advocating now. I imagine they were used mainly for either Chinese words or Sino-Korean words, where over the years either a Korean word took prominence over the Chinese origin word, or Koreans just started pronouncing the word using a more limited phonology, such as 'z' words just being pronounced with a 'j'.

Perhaps also nationalism and/or the political structure of the nation had an effect on these words. Perhaps they existed before the 20th century when Korea had firm ties with China but were lost due to the Japanese occupation, when words of Japanese origin and foreign words which came via Japan became the main source of foreign words. And, subsequently when Korea gained independence, when Hangeul really came to prominence (beforehand Hanja was used interspersed with Hangeul for 'pure' Korean words).

[Young FRANKenstein]

[Kimchi Cha Cha]

Good point. I'm not from Canada, haven't been there and don't know a huge amount about the place. But, one thing that strikes me as a little funny is the apparent animousity between many Anglophones and Francophones in the country. I know not all Canadians are like that and many are truly bilingual and/or are comfortable with the other language. But, that said, I've met a significant number of Anglophones over here who seemingly despise Francophones and the French language. Seems a bit counterproductive to me...

I've heard people say that one of the main strengths of English is its diversity of linguistic roots (German, French, Latin, Greek, etc.) and willingness to incorporate both new and foreign words into its lexicon whereas other languages such as French and Korean are less willing to do so. English has many faults but its flexibility to be one of its main advantages.

[Thiuda]

[Thiuda]

[Thiuda]

[JustJohn]

Ah, that's what I suspected.

[mithridates]

I made a system like that before, and got a few magazine and tv interviews as a result. I called it 훈외정음.

http://blog.imbc.com/blog.menu.bbs.read.screen?page_num=28&p_club_id=happysky&p_menu_id=2&p_list_type=1&order=&p_party_seq=&message_id=26703