Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Korean before and during the Japanese occupation

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Korean before and during the Japanese occupation
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:22 am Post subject:

Quote:

Sorry if I made anyone think I was Korean.

You had me fooled... perhaps it was the "I am Korean." that did it.
Wink

HardyandTiny

Joined: 03 Jun 2003

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:25 am Post subject:

shakuhachi wrote:

Quote:

& how does mandatory english study & the adaptation of english names (in the case of emigrants & in some hagwon practice) reflect on this debate?

Very perceptive! I was waiting for someone to ask that.

Japanese language was the language that everyone wanted to learn in Korea, just as mothers send their children to english school now. At the time people couldnt learn to be doctors (I mean modern medicine, not chinese herbalism), architecture, mechanical engineering, political science and theoretical physics in the Korean language. Only in Japanese and a few other western languages could you study modern subjects, due to the fact that Korean language at that time was too primitive and lacked the vocabulary to handle those complicated subjects. The fact that you can learn these things in Korean now is thanks to the inclusion of modern Japanese vocabulary into the lanaguage. If you were born without knowing one of the lanaguges that can cope with modern science, you first need to learn a second language before you start learning any of the above sciences.

Now many Korean mothers today want their children to go to university. They want their children to succeed. In those days people that wanted a university education learned japanese. They didnt need to be "forced" at all.

What?
You're offering theories about language and writing and you're not fluent and you can't write properly! Sad

Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:34 am Post subject:

ohahakehte wrote:

what legal experts? the experts of the field of might makes right? thought so.

Actually, it was a collection of experts on international law. So, basically people who know more than you. Right or wrong, we're talking legalities. Your moral reasonings are not of concern.

Quote:

i find that often when people look back at history and deem this or that atrocity to be legitimate, its more a reflection of their opinion of those conquered than any reading of the facts. as an example, look at the shameful double standards involved in mainstream understandings of american-indian relations in the 1800's. if they attacked whites it was a "massacre", if whites attacked them (with much more brutality) it was a "victory." if hitler won i think german history would sound much the same.

That's lovely.

Quote:

the egyptian army was on the israeli border - *not* "masssed" - in a *defensive* position. the jordanian army was a joke and was defeated very quickly. the syrian army was bigger but not as powerful as egypts and was smashed in the latter days of the war. im not aware of any of these armies "collecitvely saying they were going to invade." evidence please. for evidence on what im talking about, consult israeli historian Benny Morris and any of these fine scholars: Yehoshuah Porath, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Tanya Reinhart, i could go on if you wish.

Why are forcing me to embarass you so? Have you never heard of Google? Fine, fine. Here we go:

You're forgetting about the blockage Egypt put into place to starve out Israel. You're also chooing to ignore how after Egypt poured forces into Sinai on May 15, 1967. Followed immediately by Syria pouring forces along the Golan heightson by May 18. Then the UN Emergency force in place to protect Israel was ordered out of the area. All the while Syria had been firing the occasional shell at civilians just for the hell of it. Then after the peacekeepers were forced out, the Voice of Arabs gave the following release:

Quote:

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.

At what point in this threat is it not completely obvious that it's a threat of war. Hell, it's beyond threat. It's a god damned promise. Normally I would stop here, but since YOU JUST WON'T LISTEN, I'm going keep embarassing you.

Here's another fine quote from May 20 from the Syrian Defense Minister:

Quote:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.

So the guys who are already shooting at Israel says they about to step up the pressure.

Nassar was a nice guy, He also gave lovely speeches like ""We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood." He wasn't exactly in favor of negociating with Israel, despite what you claim later in your posting about Egypt being a bunch a stand-up guys who want to love Israel if only Israel would let themselves be loved.

Quote:

i didnt leave out 1973. syria and egypt launched a surprise attack that was powerful and devastating at first but israel soon routed them and beat them back. it ended when israel surrounded the egyptian army in the sinai desert.

So because Israel won, it doesn't count? What the hell kind of logic is that?

Quote:

israel had ample warning that its consistent rejection of peace with the arabs was pushing the surrounding nations to go to war against israel, but in their jingoistic triumphalism from 1967 they ignored the threats and paid for it in 1973. only after 1973 did israel make peace with egypt and fully withdrew from the sinai after egypt had been pressing for a resolution of the conflict since the late 60's. it has yet to make peace with syria and withdraw from the occupied golan heights.
you think im being unfair at best (likely you think im being hateful at worst), but you should consult what israelis themselves actually say about israeli foreign and military behaviour. david ben-gurion the first PM of israel made no attempt to hide his expansionist aims for israel and was clear that the zionist movement should not be satisfied with the 1948 partition plan of palestine and should do what it has to do to get as much land as possible. that thinking has guided the rejectionist camp of israeli zionist thought (im including here the liked and labour) until the present time

Come back to the debate when you've read a history book. I just don't have enough time in the day to continue correcting the stories you post.

Quote:

offensive to who? all jews everywhere? making me a rabid anti-semite? im not aware of leaving out chunks of history, fill me in please. i can certainly see how my viewpoints are dishonourable if what passes for honour is an uncritical acceptance of the BS jingoistic folklore one is expected to swallow lest they be labelled a hater of freedom, israel, america, democracy, truth, jews, myself, bla bla bla. i dont go for that intimidation.

I'm referring to your tactics of making things up and claiming they are real, then demanding that I prove you false instead of backing up your claims as dishonourable.

I don't mind embarassing someone when they make things up, but you're making this too easy and you're trying to hard. You've moved beyond misrepesenting to outright lying. You failed to prove your opinion on the Korean issue, now you've moved here in the hopes of shifting the argument from X to Y, and hoping that by saying Y was wrong that X must also be wrong.

Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:40 am Post subject:

HardyandTiny wrote:

What?
You're offering theories about language and writing and you're not fluent and you can't write properly! Sad

Korea had been walled off from the world for centuries before the Japanese ran the show, so it was missing huge chunks of vocabulary to describe advances in science. Plus if you look at high end words in use today, they are primarily borrowed from other languages which even a person who isn't fluent in the language can see that they imported words instead of using their own.

Shakuhachi's post was correct.

ohahakehte

Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:55 am Post subject:

Gord wrote:

You're forgetting about the blockage Egypt put into place to starve out Israel.

was that before or after israel invaded egypt in its first attempt (but not its last) to conquer the sinai? after

Quote:

You're also chooing to ignore how after Egypt poured forces into Sinai on May 15, 1967.

source please. bear in mind that you're saying nothing here about whether the egyptian positions were defensive or not, therefore doing nothing to rebut what i said before.

Quote:

Followed immediately by Syria pouring forces along the Golan heightson by May 18.

source please. actually thats totally wrong. israeli farmers near the golan heights were hungry for the land before israel launched the 67 war. before the war israel had started aggressive actions like shelling of syrian positions near the border. check out The Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky for that one.

Quote:

source please. or did you get that from ariel sharon's autobiography?

Quote:

source please.

Quote:

Nassar was a nice guy, He also gave lovely speeches like ""We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood." He wasn't exactly in favor of negociating with Israel, despite what you claim later in your posting about Egypt being a bunch a stand-up guys who want to love Israel if only Israel would let themselves be loved.

again, you would do well to examine the sources. read *israeli* writers for these issues because those are the people you are claiming to be speaking for. they tell a very different story than you think. i never implied that egypt is a "bunch of stand-up guys" and i never would. i have no sympathy for their corrupt and brutal regime. egypt's posturing for negotiations with israel were as realist as libya's current claims to be giving up WMD. nasser *was* in favour of negotiating with israel. dont take my word for it, look it up. nasser realized israel was the new boss in town and that to mess with it was to mess with egypt's future.

Quote:

So because Israel won, it doesn't count? What the hell kind of logic is that?

you're not getting it. this is the relevant passage:
"israel has only been the victim of military threats once in its existence and that was immediately before the 1947-1949 war of independence/conquest in the former palestine. it proved itself far superior militarily and has only smashed that point home with even greater force with each war it has fought since."

the 1973 could not have been a potential war of annihilation if thats what you're implying. egypt and syria could and did hurt israel, but they couldn't defeat it, nor did they, and israel totally clobbered them in 1973. 73 was not an attack by israel, i never claimed that i and i never will. it was an example of israel's superior military forces in the region.

Quote:

Come back to the debate when you've read a history book. I just don't have enough time in the day to continue correcting the stories you post.

good advice kid. follow it and look up the authors i listed.

Donghae

Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Location: Fukuoka, Japan

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:28 am Post subject:

Gord wrote:

HardyandTiny wrote:

What?
You're offering theories about language and writing and you're not fluent and you can't write properly! Sad

Hang on a minute, gord. You said above (a few pages back) that you had no fluency in reading Korean, which strongly suggests that your knowledge of Korean is not very advanced. So how about your Japanese? Are you fluent in that?

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:43 am Post subject:

Way back when, Japan borrowed words and learned how to write from Korea, but around the 19th century Japan brought in a lot of new words that came from Europe and translated them using Chinese characters...these were then picked up by Korea and China as well. I'll post a few examples of these words here when I find them, but they're mostly relatively new words like socialism, communism, submarine, etc.

shakuhachi

Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Sydney

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:48 am Post subject:

Quote:

I think this is about the fifth time ive answered this question.

Here is my last answer

Quote:

I would say that my Japanese level would be advanced. In Japan I was working in a department store. As for my Korean, it is "passable", like I said. Meaning that I can hold a conversation without any problems but I probably wouldnt try to talk about politics or anything like that (or at least not too deeply!). I think you underestimate the advantage of knowing Japanese then studying Korean. Its a huge advantage. Which is why Koreans are able to pick up Japanese so easily.

I can speak Japanese fluently, and all the Japanese links I put up I can read by myself except for the occasional kanji. I can read and write in Korean, and hold a conversation without problems, but I would say that writing an essay in Korean would be beyond my ability.

Donghae

Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Location: Fukuoka, Japan

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:51 am Post subject:

shakuhachi wrote:

Quote:

I think this is about the fifth time ive answered this question.

Here is my last answer

Quote:

Yeah, yeah, whatever, mate. Glad you have time for me now 'n' all that but I was neither quoting you here nor asking you. Please read a bit more carefully.

Or are you and gord actually the same person?!

shakuhachi

Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Sydney

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:55 am Post subject:

LOL sorry 'bout that, guv

ohahakehte

Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 8:49 pm Post subject:

mithridates wrote:

Way back when, Japan borrowed words and learned how to write from Korea, but around the 19th century Japan brought in a lot of new words that came from Europe and translated them using Chinese characters...these were then picked up by Korea and China as well.
I'll post a few examples of these words here when I find them, but they're mostly relatively new words like socialism, communism, submarine, etc.

tempura for example. its has a latin origin and was introduced when the portugese arrived in japan and taught the japanese how to fry things in oil

matthewwoodford

Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Location: Location, location, location.

Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:13 am Post subject:

mithridates wrote:

Every language at some point has had to develop a more sophisticated vocabulary to express more sophisticated concepts in science or whatever. The ancient Greeks did it by coining new words. The Germans also took this route, trying to improve their language using pure German root words. The English language developed by borrowing from other languages, mainly Latin, Greek and French.

So it's no surprise that Korea has had to develop its language too. Traditionally they borrowed heavily from Chinese. Nowadays South Korea borrows from other languages, mainly English, and North Korea has developed new vocabulary using Korean root words only. They even try to limit the use of Chinese root words as far as possible. So North Korean defectors find a lot of words completely unfamiliar.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13
Page 13 of 13

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe