| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| American and foreigner are hard to read? We all know what they MEAN, and reading takes all of a few hours to learn. |
I know it takes a few hours to learn to read Korean and I can read Korean. But it takes me about three times as long as it does to read English words so I didn't bother. My point was why does anyone on here ever have to write anything in hangul? It's not necessary |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's a fair point, but it doesn't hurt anyone. Posters are free to ask meanings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinks
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Location: Formerly: Lower North Island
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I've noticed that posters who have a very high level of Korean ability always provide a translation when they type hangeul in their posts. Posters who type one liners (sometimes with mistakes), rarely do. I'm not an English-only nazi, but I think it is courteous - on an English language forum - to provide a translation, even for basic phrases. It's nothing to get bent out of shape about (foreign language use), but as someone else pointed out, if you provide a translation then everyone will be able to enjoy reading your posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
| American and foreigner are hard to read? We all know what they MEAN, and reading takes all of a few hours to learn. |
I know it takes a few hours to learn to read Korean and I can read Korean. But it takes me about three times as long as it does to read English words so I didn't bother. My point was why does anyone on here ever have to write anything in hangul? It's not necessary |
Because the hangul is clear whereas the romanization could be misinterpreted and completely alters the meaning.
For example: 'U' could be two different sounds. Unfortunately I am not on a hangul keyboard...
I mean why should Korean people ever bother to write anything English in the Roman Alphabet? Just write it in Hangul.
See how ridiculous the above sounds? Same with writing Korean words in the Roman Alphabet. It just doesn't quite compute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NilesQ
Joined: 27 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have heard the Korean Language refered to as one of the most culturally specific languages in the world. Meaning everything in the language refers to the Korean context, even when not in Korea. I live in Canada and Korean students here still call me wae-gook-een. I tell them that they are the wae-gook-een here, as a joke.
It is a good example of the true meaning of wae-gook-een. I would say that the literal English translation should be "non Korean". It is similar to foreigner in that it can be emotionally loaded depending on the context, but basically just refers to a person who is not ethnicly Korean. A whit skinned person could never be han-gook-een, even if granted citizenship. However, an American born and raised 3rd generation person of Korean decent, who cant speak a work of Korean, doesn't have Korean citizenship, nor has ever set foot on Korean soil, IS han-gook-een through and through. A bit hard for us from countries without racial citizenship to understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NilesQ wrote: |
I have heard the Korean Language refered to as one of the most culturally specific languages in the world. Meaning everything in the language refers to the Korean context, even when not in Korea. I live in Canada and Korean students here still call me wae-gook-een. I tell them that they are the wae-gook-een here, as a joke.
It is a good example of the true meaning of wae-gook-een. I would say that the literal English translation should be "non Korean". It is similar to foreigner in that it can be emotionally loaded depending on the context, but basically just refers to a person who is not ethnicly Korean. A whit skinned person could never be han-gook-een, even if granted citizenship. However, an American born and raised 3rd generation person of Korean decent, who cant speak a work of Korean, doesn't have Korean citizenship, nor has ever set foot on Korean soil, IS han-gook-een through and through. A bit hard for us from countries without racial citizenship to understand. |
For the poster who said that hangul is difficult:
See how this poster spelled wae-gook-een? Now some newbs are going to think this is how to say it. Using hangul makes it less likely that people will make mistakes like this. I've seen people spell things with so many different consonants, let alone vowel sounds. Using the correct alphabet makes it easier for everyone. I agree, though, if it's a longer post, there should always be a translation. Simple words like foreigner and American don't need it, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I mean why should Korean people ever bother to write anything English in the Roman Alphabet? Just write it in Hangul.
See how ridiculous the above sounds? |
It sounds pretty reasonable to me if they were writing on a Korean forum to other speakers of Korean. I don't frequent Korean forums but I don't imagine they use the Roman alphabet on them. Why would they? Why wouldn't they be able to translate any English words or expressions into Hangul? On the other hand , maybe they do. Perhaps someone can come on here with a quote from one and prove me wrong. I know Koreans use a lot of English words in magazines and advertising but I thought that was just for style purposes. Like the way they use it to decorate pencil cases and the like |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Why would they? Why wouldn't they be able to translate any English words or expressions into Hangul? |
Koreans do translate English words into Hangul. It always sounds slightly off - think of the way they say cafe latte in a coffee shop for just one example. Or coffee shop for another.
Last edited by morrisonhotel on Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NilesQ wrote: |
| I would say that the literal English translation should be "non Korean". |
I may be slightly off here, but I seem to recall that the root of the word is Chinese. The literal translation of the root is 'outsider'. Someone correct me if that's wrong, I think it may be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Koreans do translate English words into Hangul. It always sounds slightly off - think of the way they say cafe latte in a coffee shop for just one example. Or coffee shop for another.
|
Yes sometimes you read a translated novel and there are one or two phrases that seem to be a bit off. However, novels where they just put the foreign word in because they think they can't translate it are annoying. Imagine how much more annoying they would be if they were written in a different alphabet as well. I read a novel written by a Gypo the other day and it was riddled with Korean words (in the Roman alphabet) you were just supposed to guess the meaning of from the context, or find them in the glossary at the back. It takes a little bit more time and detracts from the reading excperience in the same way Tomato's Hangul does for me, and, as I said before, it's not necessary. If you can explain the word in a glossary you can explain it in the novel and I don't need splatterings of a foreign language to convince me of the cultual realism of the writing. I can get that from the story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
Koreans do translate English words into Hangul. It always sounds slightly off - think of the way they say cafe latte in a coffee shop for just one example. Or coffee shop for another.
|
Yes sometimes you read a translated novel and there are one or two phrases that seem to be a bit off. However, novels where they just put the foreign word in because they think they can't translate it are annoying. Imagine how much more annoying they would be if they were written in a different alphabet as well. I read a novel written by a Gypo the other day and it was riddled with Korean words (in the Roman alphabet) you were just supposed to guess the meaning of from the context, or find them in the glossary at the back. It takes a little bit more time and detracts from the reading excperience in the same way Tomato's Hangul does for me, and, as I said before, it's not necessary. If you can explain the word in a glossary you can explain it in the novel and I don't need splatterings of a foreign language to convince me of the cultual realism of the writing. I can get that from the story. |
Don't forget catflap, this forum is an English forum about living in KOREA. Hence posting things in Hangul is not unreasonable. Oh my goodness you have to read hangul...such torture...
For the longest time Sinchon (near Yonsei) and Sinchon (near Jamsil) were spelled the same in English. In this case the Hangul makes a WORLD of difference, especially if you are an expat trying to take your Korean date to On the Border. As you can tell, I've had personal experience with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Don't forget catflap, this forum is an English forum about living in KOREA. Hence posting things in Hangul is not unreasonable. |
+1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
For the longest time Sinchon (near Yonsei) and Sinchon (near Jamsil) were spelled the same in English. In this case the Hangul makes a WORLD of difference, especially if you are an expat trying to take your Korean date to On the Border. As you can tell, I've had personal experience with this. |
No doubt! I missed out on some hot action because of that many many moons ago. I imagine it would have been interesting to be one of the subway workers watching the cameras there. "Ha, there goes another one!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NilesQ
Joined: 27 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| morrisonhotel wrote: |
| NilesQ wrote: |
| I would say that the literal English translation should be "non Korean". |
I may be slightly off here, but I seem to recall that the root of the word is Chinese. The literal translation of the root is 'outsider'. Someone correct me if that's wrong, I think it may be. |
The root of the word may well be Chinese, but in the Korean context, as a part of the Korean Language, IMHO it means a person who isn't Korean. It can't be used as an adjective to describe a person who is an "outsider" to any group the way the English word "outsider" can be. SE Hinton's "The Outsiders" is not titled "Wae-Gook-Een Deul" in Korean translations! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
| Eh. You do know that in Korean, the word foreigner has no negative connotation behind it and that it is just a descriptor, right? |
That may be true, but we're not talking about the Korean word for "foreigner". We're talking about the English word, and its synonyms and connotations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
