A Holiday in Honor of the Korean Writing System(mentalfloss.com)
mentalfloss.com
A Holiday in Honor of the Korean Writing System
http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/53091/today-holiday-honor-world%E2%80%99s-greatest-alphabet
12 comments
The Wikipedia article about the hangul script points out that people who were literate in Chinese characters resisted a simpler writing system that would broaden literacy, and thus threaten their social position. The same happened in Japan (where kana syllabaries were derided as fit only for women) and in China (where a brief period of using Chinese characters for sound only, rather like Japanese kana, occurred at the beginning of the Han dynasty, but was suppressed by scholars). The Chinese case of early sound writing was only recently rediscovered by history, as archeology in sites from that period showed how many writings there were that used Chinese characters strictly for sound value, in violation of etymology. Chinese development might have been very different if broad literacy had occurred two millennia earlier.
Thanks for pointing out the early Chinese phonetic effort, I remember reading it about in the excellent The World's Writing Systems by OUP.
Resisting efforts to broaden literacy for the masses is also cites as the reason why the Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing did not evolve much over the vast time period (first inscriptions around BCE 2800, last inscription dated to CE 394, that's more than 3,000 years!). Specifically, although they did have 24 uniliteral signs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_uniliteral_signs#Unili...), which they could have used as an alphabet they never did so.
Resisting efforts to broaden literacy for the masses is also cites as the reason why the Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing did not evolve much over the vast time period (first inscriptions around BCE 2800, last inscription dated to CE 394, that's more than 3,000 years!). Specifically, although they did have 24 uniliteral signs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_uniliteral_signs#Unili...), which they could have used as an alphabet they never did so.
Even now, knowledge of classical Chinese is considered an important part of an elite Korean education.
The way I've heard it explained is that Japanese has too many homonyms and simply writing things by sound would be too ambiguous.
On the other hand, a friend who spent a year in Japan remarked that, e.g. policemen carry dictionaries with them. When you need to carry around a book on how to write your own language because it has way too many complicated glyphs for everyday people to learn to 100%, maybe it's time for an orthographic reform.
On the other hand, a friend who spent a year in Japan remarked that, e.g. policemen carry dictionaries with them. When you need to carry around a book on how to write your own language because it has way too many complicated glyphs for everyday people to learn to 100%, maybe it's time for an orthographic reform.
> a friend who spent a year in Japan remarked that, e.g. policemen carry dictionaries with them
I am not at all surprised to hear that. I have family in Japan and have observed many times an inability to remember how to write a certain kanji eg. when filling in a form. Typically people will then type the word phonetically on a cell phone or computer, which prompts them with matching kanji, jogging their memory. There is a strong reliance on these technologies or, I suppose, dictionaries, which are also organised phonetically.
It is of course the case that English speakers occasionally forget words - I've looked up "diarrhoea" more than once in my life! But it's not an everyday thing like I've seen with my japanese relatives.
I am not at all surprised to hear that. I have family in Japan and have observed many times an inability to remember how to write a certain kanji eg. when filling in a form. Typically people will then type the word phonetically on a cell phone or computer, which prompts them with matching kanji, jogging their memory. There is a strong reliance on these technologies or, I suppose, dictionaries, which are also organised phonetically.
It is of course the case that English speakers occasionally forget words - I've looked up "diarrhoea" more than once in my life! But it's not an everyday thing like I've seen with my japanese relatives.
a friend who spent a year in Japan remarked that, e.g. policemen carry dictionaries with them.
Wow. I write fiction, but this is one of those cases where truth is so much weirder than anything I'd feel comfortable "inventing."
Wow. I write fiction, but this is one of those cases where truth is so much weirder than anything I'd feel comfortable "inventing."
> On the other hand, a friend who spent a year in Japan remarked that, e.g. policemen carry dictionaries with them.
From my experience this is more of a cultural thing than linguistic...
From my experience this is more of a cultural thing than linguistic...
> The way I've heard it explained is that Japanese has too many homonyms and simply writing things by sound would be too ambiguous.
I explored this concept in this Reddit comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14bv4p/wednes...
I explored this concept in this Reddit comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14bv4p/wednes...
Well, to be fair, many Korean bureaucrats resisted using Hangul for centuries, and Koreans kept three different writing systems: scholarly works and government documents in classical Chinese, lower-level bureaucrats using Idu (a system of writing Korean words using Chinese characters with the same sound), and Hangul. I think the move to write everything in Korean only happened in 20th century. Even then, most documents contained a liberal amount of Chinese characters to write Sino-Korean words (maybe due to Japanese influence?), which could be seen well into 1980s.
(And these days Koreans decided to put English vocabulary in the position of literary significance, and some would write sentences which are just strings of English words connected by Korean suffixes. Grrrr.)
* Also one of the reason modern Korean spelling is so regular is that it's totally revamped in 1930s thanks to the heroic work of Korean scholars who considered the work as means of preserving Korean culture under the oppressive Japanese regime. It involved discarding four letters, adding a horde of new letter combinations to represent underlying forms, and a drastic shift from purely phonemic to morphophonemic script. (Something like English always using "-ed" to mark past tense even though they sound different in parted, picked, and seemed.)
(And these days Koreans decided to put English vocabulary in the position of literary significance, and some would write sentences which are just strings of English words connected by Korean suffixes. Grrrr.)
* Also one of the reason modern Korean spelling is so regular is that it's totally revamped in 1930s thanks to the heroic work of Korean scholars who considered the work as means of preserving Korean culture under the oppressive Japanese regime. It involved discarding four letters, adding a horde of new letter combinations to represent underlying forms, and a drastic shift from purely phonemic to morphophonemic script. (Something like English always using "-ed" to mark past tense even though they sound different in parted, picked, and seemed.)
Some thoughts:
- To an outsider, Zhuyin Fuhao (注音符號) aka Bopomofo, c 1912 seems like an obvious and easy solution to the problems of the Chinese system. Yet it wasn't adopted during the simplification movement of the 1950s. Why is that? I think the reasons are complex and largely have to do with strong cultural biases towards logographs and a cultural comfort with education being the same as memorization, but other, more practical reasons may have contributed. For example, the very large number of homophones in spoken Chinese -- which are partially resolved via tones and context and unambiguously resolved by referencing the appropriate written character (do you mean this character or this one when you say that?) Chinese speakers on HN will probably be familiar with this kind of conversation clarification style.
- Korean, which has a very large number of Chinese loan words (한자어, 漢字語), but doesn't have tones to help resolve homophones, and Hangul (한글) doesn't even have different written forms, ambiguity can become problematic. Koreans will also often reference the Chinese written forms to resolve this! It's not uncommon, in formal Korean writing, to see a bit of Chinese written in parentheses next to the Hangul form to clarify the meaning. The same kind of conversation, referencing the appropriate Hanja (한자, 漢字) to sort out ambiguous homophones is also probably familiar to Korean speakers on HN.
- Knowledge of written Chinese is a social prestige marker in Asia, like knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek, and later French used to be prestige makers in the West. Men, traditional holders of most of the prestige positions have cared about these kinds of markers more, and spending lots of time and money educating girls in useless (for women) prestige things like reading/writing wasn't traditionally important. Using Chinese characters in Korea and Japan was important for social standing, and using "simple" non-Chinese systems might have been viewed as a shameful mark against...not too unlike Westerners, with perfectly fine native languages, writing to each other in French or Latin instead. For example, Isaac Newton, who I assume was perfectly capable of writing in English, wrote Principia in Latin.
- Hangul, though a 15th century invention, wasn't widely used except as a feminine script until Korean Nationalist and Identity movements in the late 19th century, intended to help cultural resist Japanese annexation pushed Hangul into prominence. During the occupation, writing in Hangul was considered a form of protest and resistance against the attempted cultural dominance of the invaders. Only Japanese was officially allowed during most of the occupation and downtown Seoul looked like a Japanese city with all of the Hiragan and Katakana on the street signs. - Old letters in Hangul are almost exclusively written between women, or between women and men who were close to one another http://imgur.com/a/IZpqn
- Hangul underwent a number of orthographic reforms, modern Hangul is a bit different the original, losing quite a few letters, some spelling formalization and a modernization movement in the 20th century establishing many rules that school children learn today. 15th century Korean written in Hangul is about as readable to a Korean today as 15th century Chaucer written in the original English is to a native English speaker.
This frere bosteth that he knoweth helle, And God it woot, that it is litel wonder; Freres and feendes been but lyte asonder.
- To an outsider, Zhuyin Fuhao (注音符號) aka Bopomofo, c 1912 seems like an obvious and easy solution to the problems of the Chinese system. Yet it wasn't adopted during the simplification movement of the 1950s. Why is that? I think the reasons are complex and largely have to do with strong cultural biases towards logographs and a cultural comfort with education being the same as memorization, but other, more practical reasons may have contributed. For example, the very large number of homophones in spoken Chinese -- which are partially resolved via tones and context and unambiguously resolved by referencing the appropriate written character (do you mean this character or this one when you say that?) Chinese speakers on HN will probably be familiar with this kind of conversation clarification style.
- Korean, which has a very large number of Chinese loan words (한자어, 漢字語), but doesn't have tones to help resolve homophones, and Hangul (한글) doesn't even have different written forms, ambiguity can become problematic. Koreans will also often reference the Chinese written forms to resolve this! It's not uncommon, in formal Korean writing, to see a bit of Chinese written in parentheses next to the Hangul form to clarify the meaning. The same kind of conversation, referencing the appropriate Hanja (한자, 漢字) to sort out ambiguous homophones is also probably familiar to Korean speakers on HN.
- Knowledge of written Chinese is a social prestige marker in Asia, like knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek, and later French used to be prestige makers in the West. Men, traditional holders of most of the prestige positions have cared about these kinds of markers more, and spending lots of time and money educating girls in useless (for women) prestige things like reading/writing wasn't traditionally important. Using Chinese characters in Korea and Japan was important for social standing, and using "simple" non-Chinese systems might have been viewed as a shameful mark against...not too unlike Westerners, with perfectly fine native languages, writing to each other in French or Latin instead. For example, Isaac Newton, who I assume was perfectly capable of writing in English, wrote Principia in Latin.
- Hangul, though a 15th century invention, wasn't widely used except as a feminine script until Korean Nationalist and Identity movements in the late 19th century, intended to help cultural resist Japanese annexation pushed Hangul into prominence. During the occupation, writing in Hangul was considered a form of protest and resistance against the attempted cultural dominance of the invaders. Only Japanese was officially allowed during most of the occupation and downtown Seoul looked like a Japanese city with all of the Hiragan and Katakana on the street signs. - Old letters in Hangul are almost exclusively written between women, or between women and men who were close to one another http://imgur.com/a/IZpqn
- Hangul underwent a number of orthographic reforms, modern Hangul is a bit different the original, losing quite a few letters, some spelling formalization and a modernization movement in the 20th century establishing many rules that school children learn today. 15th century Korean written in Hangul is about as readable to a Korean today as 15th century Chaucer written in the original English is to a native English speaker.
This frere bosteth that he knoweth helle, And God it woot, that it is litel wonder; Freres and feendes been but lyte asonder.
> Maybe Japanese writing was more culturally ingrained by the Middle ages in Japan compared to Korea to make such a sweeping reform unthinkable
I don't think this is true. By "Middle Ages", I'm guessing you're referring to the period from 1185 to 1600 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan#Medieval_Japa...). I've been working on translating two classical Japanese texts on my blog (http://www.kakekotoba.com/), one from the 1830s (http://www.kakekotoba.com/2012/08/introduction-to-shunshoku-...) and one from the 1100s (http://www.kakekotoba.com/2012/11/introduction-to-konjaku-mo...).
If you look at the texts, there's a huge difference in the writing style, which is partially due to the nature of the content and the target audience. As more people became literate, there was a marked shift in how Japanese was written.
I don't think this is true. By "Middle Ages", I'm guessing you're referring to the period from 1185 to 1600 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan#Medieval_Japa...). I've been working on translating two classical Japanese texts on my blog (http://www.kakekotoba.com/), one from the 1830s (http://www.kakekotoba.com/2012/08/introduction-to-shunshoku-...) and one from the 1100s (http://www.kakekotoba.com/2012/11/introduction-to-konjaku-mo...).
If you look at the texts, there's a huge difference in the writing style, which is partially due to the nature of the content and the target audience. As more people became literate, there was a marked shift in how Japanese was written.
Why do you think the German spelling reform of 1996 didn't succeed? Of course some people, especially older ones, didn't make the switch in their own writing, but basically all newspapers, magazines and books use the new spelling nowadays.
Korea, Japan, and China are not part of Southeast Asia.
Reminds me of this comic:
(Learn to read Korean in 15 minutes)
http://9gag.com/gag/3968335
(Learn to read Korean in 15 minutes)
http://9gag.com/gag/3968335
WOW! This is actually a very useful comic :)
I remember first reading about it on a Zed Shaw's article:
"Ever seen the Korean alphabet? It’s called Hangul and it is probably the most advanced alphabet humans have right now while also being simpler than most of them at the same time. It can be stacked like Chinese characters, but it’s also built more like ours with an ability to construct unusual vowel sounds. Get this, it was invented in about 1443 AD and even mimicks the way the mouth is constructed. That’s right, the characters actually look like how the mouth, jaw, and glottis form to make the sound. It’s brilliant and a gorgeous piece of work that demonstrates how something simple can also have incredible complexity lurking under the surface.
Did you know that Hangul is so good at mimicking other language constructs that some anthropologists want to use it to record near-extinct languages? It takes an average person about 3 days to learn it, whether they speak Korean or not, and they can use it to write down their own language even if it’s completely different from Korean. It’s that universal. Imagine being able to get native speakers of dying languages to actually write down how their language is pronounced. Now that’s power.
I’ll give you a great example. I was walking around Seoul one day and drinking this soda call “Pocari Sweat” (said so in English on the side). Yeah, it says it’s got sweat in it but damn it was good. I turn to a Korean woman, point at the Hangul on the side of the can, and ask in bad Korean, “Can you say this?” She reads each character of Hangul as:
“poh car ee sw et”
That’s right, the English on the can was mimicked nearly exactly by the Hangul and it made no sense to her either. But, she could read it and we both said the same exact verbal noises even though we read different alphabets. She thought it was funny too."
http://zedshaw.com/essays/fortune_favors_big_turds.html
"Ever seen the Korean alphabet? It’s called Hangul and it is probably the most advanced alphabet humans have right now while also being simpler than most of them at the same time. It can be stacked like Chinese characters, but it’s also built more like ours with an ability to construct unusual vowel sounds. Get this, it was invented in about 1443 AD and even mimicks the way the mouth is constructed. That’s right, the characters actually look like how the mouth, jaw, and glottis form to make the sound. It’s brilliant and a gorgeous piece of work that demonstrates how something simple can also have incredible complexity lurking under the surface.
Did you know that Hangul is so good at mimicking other language constructs that some anthropologists want to use it to record near-extinct languages? It takes an average person about 3 days to learn it, whether they speak Korean or not, and they can use it to write down their own language even if it’s completely different from Korean. It’s that universal. Imagine being able to get native speakers of dying languages to actually write down how their language is pronounced. Now that’s power.
I’ll give you a great example. I was walking around Seoul one day and drinking this soda call “Pocari Sweat” (said so in English on the side). Yeah, it says it’s got sweat in it but damn it was good. I turn to a Korean woman, point at the Hangul on the side of the can, and ask in bad Korean, “Can you say this?” She reads each character of Hangul as:
“poh car ee sw et”
That’s right, the English on the can was mimicked nearly exactly by the Hangul and it made no sense to her either. But, she could read it and we both said the same exact verbal noises even though we read different alphabets. She thought it was funny too."
http://zedshaw.com/essays/fortune_favors_big_turds.html
Hangul is great, but don't try to use it for English. Try writing "Larry really loves the zoo very much". You get "Raeri ri-a-ri reo-beu-seu da joo bae-ri meo-chi".
In other words, you lose the L/R and V/B differences, and words like "much" can't end on consonants, so you get "Muchi".
Hangul has no sounds corresponding to "V, F, R-L, Th, and 'woo'".
In other words, you lose the L/R and V/B differences, and words like "much" can't end on consonants, so you get "Muchi".
Hangul has no sounds corresponding to "V, F, R-L, Th, and 'woo'".
Following Korean spelling rules, yes, but when I was a kid I had a slightly adapted Hangul that I used for English all the time. It was a brilliant secret code and only took a couple of days to master it. All I did was add a couple of characters borrowed from Hiragana and put a floating bar above T and S to make TH and SH. I can still more or less remember it and read it 30 odd years later.
The simplicity of Hangul is partly because of the simplicity in the Korean syllables. It will be much harder to derive a simple writing system for a complex-sounding language like Vietnamese or English.
Btw, for the 3 countries, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, that were influenced by Chinese writing deeply, each of them has a different approach.
Korean came out with its Hangul writing system. Japanese came out with hiragana and katakana (together with Kanji). Vietnamese came out with Chu Nom ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_nom) , a logographic script that is even more complex than Chinese characters.
Btw, for the 3 countries, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, that were influenced by Chinese writing deeply, each of them has a different approach.
Korean came out with its Hangul writing system. Japanese came out with hiragana and katakana (together with Kanji). Vietnamese came out with Chu Nom ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_nom) , a logographic script that is even more complex than Chinese characters.
Modern Vietnamese is written in romanised characters though, and Chu Nom is archaic and pretty much dead.
romanised characters are not roman characters though.
Omitting the tones the words become unintelligible, as far as I can tell.
What grandparente says regarding using hangul to express non-korean makes no sense to me.
Sure, I can mostly get korean pronounce right using hungarian spelling, but it fails miserably the other way around.
If a language is homophonic to hangul than of course it can be used for that, but the same is true of latin or most anything else.
What grandparente says regarding using hangul to express non-korean makes no sense to me.
Sure, I can mostly get korean pronounce right using hungarian spelling, but it fails miserably the other way around.
If a language is homophonic to hangul than of course it can be used for that, but the same is true of latin or most anything else.
Yes, you are right, nowadays Vietnamese did not use Chu Nom anymore. I think the main reason is because of its complexity.
It must be noted that most Korean people can read the Latin alphabet, because they get taught English. Now, it is not necessarily the case that they _learn_ English, but they get taught English.
Also, the orthography is not perfectly regular. 합니다, if it were regular, would be spoken "hapnida", but for phonetic convenience in the Seoul dialect it is spoken "hamnida". Something similar goes on for things like 학년.
It remains a legitimate focal point for the pride of the Korean people, however.
Also, the orthography is not perfectly regular. 합니다, if it were regular, would be spoken "hapnida", but for phonetic convenience in the Seoul dialect it is spoken "hamnida". Something similar goes on for things like 학년.
It remains a legitimate focal point for the pride of the Korean people, however.
Korean is terrible for writing languages that don't have a strong syllabic structure like English.
On the flip side, writing Korean in Latin script is a fool's errand and is almost always easier to read an pronounce correctly in Hangul.
On the flip side, writing Korean in Latin script is a fool's errand and is almost always easier to read an pronounce correctly in Hangul.
Sinhalese, spoken only in Sri Lanka, naturally has some of these features: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinhala_alphabet
1. Fully phonetic
2. Syllables are formed by a logical and consistent system of vowel signs that can be attached to consonant characters
3. Uses pure vowels and largely un-accentuated except for some minor stress on the first syllable of words
4. Alphabet order is logical -- a grid arranged by tongue position and nasalization
The biggest bad thing about the language: the formal grammar is very much latin-like, and equally difficult to master. Fortunately, the spoken version is largely grammar-less.
Source: I speak it.
1. Fully phonetic
2. Syllables are formed by a logical and consistent system of vowel signs that can be attached to consonant characters
3. Uses pure vowels and largely un-accentuated except for some minor stress on the first syllable of words
4. Alphabet order is logical -- a grid arranged by tongue position and nasalization
The biggest bad thing about the language: the formal grammar is very much latin-like, and equally difficult to master. Fortunately, the spoken version is largely grammar-less.
Source: I speak it.
There is a word for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abugida
This is what I commented on the blog post:
Really nice article. But the claim of "World's greatest alphabet" is a bit misleading. Please read about the alphabet system of Sanskrit and various modern languages that derives from Sanskrit like Hindi, Nepali etc. You'll find that all the things you've mentioned in the article are already used in Sanskrit and that too from the ancient times that predates the creation of Hanguel. In addition to that, sanskrit alphabets encompasses almost every possible consonant and vowel sounds that a human can generate. You'll also find how interestingly the consonants are grouped according to the place of the origin of the sound, starting from the throat and ending to lip sounds.So the real "Greatest alphabet system" is Sanskrit.
Sanskrit grammar is again another beautiful and well thought creation that is considered the best grammar to be used for scientific work. That's entirely different topic though. Hope I've made you interested in Sanskrit now. Thanks
Really nice article. But the claim of "World's greatest alphabet" is a bit misleading. Please read about the alphabet system of Sanskrit and various modern languages that derives from Sanskrit like Hindi, Nepali etc. You'll find that all the things you've mentioned in the article are already used in Sanskrit and that too from the ancient times that predates the creation of Hanguel. In addition to that, sanskrit alphabets encompasses almost every possible consonant and vowel sounds that a human can generate. You'll also find how interestingly the consonants are grouped according to the place of the origin of the sound, starting from the throat and ending to lip sounds.So the real "Greatest alphabet system" is Sanskrit.
Sanskrit grammar is again another beautiful and well thought creation that is considered the best grammar to be used for scientific work. That's entirely different topic though. Hope I've made you interested in Sanskrit now. Thanks
> Please read about the alphabet system of Sanskrit and various modern languages that derives from Sanskrit
The Sanskrit alphabet is very elegant indeed, but Sanskrit doesn't have a writing system. None of the various scripts used to encode Sanskrit (Siddham, Lantsa, Devanagari, Kharoshti etc.) are, in my opinion, anywhere near as well-structured as the Sanskrit alphabet.
>In addition to that, sanskrit alphabets encompasses almost every possible consonant and vowel sounds that a human can generate.
That's nowhere near true; listen to some languages like Xhosa, or even a tonal language like Chinese, and try to transliterate them using Sanskrit.
>Sanskrit grammar is again another beautiful and well thought creation that is considered the best grammar to be used for scientific work.
Sanskrit grammar is highly regular, which is why it is used in some AI applications, but there's no reason to think it is "the best grammar to be used for scientific work." And, as structured as Sanskrit grammar is, it still opens itself up to ambiguities-- it is nowhere near as clean as an artificial language would be.
Sanskrit is a great language, but there's no need to oversell it.
The Sanskrit alphabet is very elegant indeed, but Sanskrit doesn't have a writing system. None of the various scripts used to encode Sanskrit (Siddham, Lantsa, Devanagari, Kharoshti etc.) are, in my opinion, anywhere near as well-structured as the Sanskrit alphabet.
>In addition to that, sanskrit alphabets encompasses almost every possible consonant and vowel sounds that a human can generate.
That's nowhere near true; listen to some languages like Xhosa, or even a tonal language like Chinese, and try to transliterate them using Sanskrit.
>Sanskrit grammar is again another beautiful and well thought creation that is considered the best grammar to be used for scientific work.
Sanskrit grammar is highly regular, which is why it is used in some AI applications, but there's no reason to think it is "the best grammar to be used for scientific work." And, as structured as Sanskrit grammar is, it still opens itself up to ambiguities-- it is nowhere near as clean as an artificial language would be.
Sanskrit is a great language, but there's no need to oversell it.
Add to that the 15th Arabic letter ض [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B6] cannot be pronounced in any other language to the point that Arabic is sometimes referred to as the language of ض.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet
Well, I'm sure that Sanskrit and its descendants are awesome languages, but your claim that "sanskrit alphabets encompasses almost every possible consonant and vowel sounds that a human can generate" is just bollocks. (Many Koreans make the same claim about Hangul, which is equally stupid.)
In fact, if any writing system could write every possible sounds that appear in a human language, it won't be a great system. It will be a terrible system for any single language. Why would an English speaker want to learn symbols for nasals, clicks, ejectives, implosives, laryngeals and tones?
It's even worse. For example, English alphabet doesn't distinguish aspiration, which is actually very convenient because the "p" in "pin" or "spin" are perceived as the same sound (even though only "pin" has aspiration). To English speakers, a writing system that distinguishes aspiration is actually worse, not better.
In fact, if any writing system could write every possible sounds that appear in a human language, it won't be a great system. It will be a terrible system for any single language. Why would an English speaker want to learn symbols for nasals, clicks, ejectives, implosives, laryngeals and tones?
It's even worse. For example, English alphabet doesn't distinguish aspiration, which is actually very convenient because the "p" in "pin" or "spin" are perceived as the same sound (even though only "pin" has aspiration). To English speakers, a writing system that distinguishes aspiration is actually worse, not better.
It might look much like the IPA...
>Sanskrit grammar is again another beautiful and well thought creation that is considered the best grammar to be used for scientific work.
J Robert Oppenheimer was a fan of Sanskrit. He quoted the Bhagavad Gita, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds," to express his feelings on observing the Trinity test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e67mIPR6ryA
J Robert Oppenheimer was a fan of Sanskrit. He quoted the Bhagavad Gita, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds," to express his feelings on observing the Trinity test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e67mIPR6ryA
A rare example of a useful Wikipedia article, "Hangul,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul
fills in many of the details about the elegant alphabetic writing system used in Korea since about the same year that moveable-type printing began in Europe. The development of this writing system was a great advance over the former use of Chinese characters to write Korean (which is NOT a language cognate with Chinese). The simplicity and consistency (even with five centuries of subsequent sound change) of hangul spelling for learning to read Korean helps school pupils in Korea learn more in fewer total hours of schooling than is possible in Chinese-speaking countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul
fills in many of the details about the elegant alphabetic writing system used in Korea since about the same year that moveable-type printing began in Europe. The development of this writing system was a great advance over the former use of Chinese characters to write Korean (which is NOT a language cognate with Chinese). The simplicity and consistency (even with five centuries of subsequent sound change) of hangul spelling for learning to read Korean helps school pupils in Korea learn more in fewer total hours of schooling than is possible in Chinese-speaking countries.
As someone who took 5+ years of college-level Japanese and majored in (applied) Linguistics, recently learning Korean in my free time has made me appreciate the simplicity of the writing system.
In Japanese, a (non-native) reader can go from understanding one sentence to not even being able to read the next. Sure, there are instances where one may be able to _understand_ a sentence you can't read through inferring meaning from the kanji -- if one couldn't read [水力], but knew both characters (water and power), one could infer that it's "water power" or something hydroelectric. It's a slight advantage to have meaning inside of the characters, however, it's a wonder if the Japanese writing system is too information dense.
Now Korean (and my limited knowledge of it) seems, to me, that it might be the sweet spot. It's relatively information dense (takes less room than just writing things in Japanese kana[1], or hell, even just regular Latin alphabet), but it's quicker to read (and write).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kana
In Japanese, a (non-native) reader can go from understanding one sentence to not even being able to read the next. Sure, there are instances where one may be able to _understand_ a sentence you can't read through inferring meaning from the kanji -- if one couldn't read [水力], but knew both characters (water and power), one could infer that it's "water power" or something hydroelectric. It's a slight advantage to have meaning inside of the characters, however, it's a wonder if the Japanese writing system is too information dense.
Now Korean (and my limited knowledge of it) seems, to me, that it might be the sweet spot. It's relatively information dense (takes less room than just writing things in Japanese kana[1], or hell, even just regular Latin alphabet), but it's quicker to read (and write).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kana
What resources are you using to learn Korean? I spent a few years there as a kid, but on a military base, so my exposure was limited. Outside a handful of expressions I've almost completely forgotten it at this point (certainly the script). I've spent the last couple years around a lot of native Spanish speakers so I've been relearning that, and it rekindled my interest in languages so now seems like a good time to start on something new.
I started learning Korean a month or two ago.
I'm using Pimsleur to bootstrap some phrases and simple grammar. IMHO this is a great way to get started on speaking the language and practicing pronunciation, at least if you are self-studying.
I bought this because it was cheap and it covers a variety of levels: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307972232/ref=oh_details_o.... I am not sure how useful it is for me right now, but I expect that over time it will be helpful for small collections of vocab. (It's also pretty cheap!)
I wanted a book that dealt with grammar, so I bought Basic Korean: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Korean-Grammar-Workbook-Workbook.... It has been well worth it in my opinion.
Quizlet is an invaluable resource for this: quizlet.com. They have text to speech so you can hear pronunciation for arbitrary words, and lots of people have made sets for different collections of vocab. It's not just flashcards, as it offers you a few ways to test your knowledge. And there are apps for Android and iOS.
If anyone else has found useful mobile apps, I'd love to hear it. For the most part I haven't found anything that I thought was truly great, so for the most part I just listen & practice the Pimsleur lessons when I'm in transit.
Hope this helps!
I'm using Pimsleur to bootstrap some phrases and simple grammar. IMHO this is a great way to get started on speaking the language and practicing pronunciation, at least if you are self-studying.
I bought this because it was cheap and it covers a variety of levels: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307972232/ref=oh_details_o.... I am not sure how useful it is for me right now, but I expect that over time it will be helpful for small collections of vocab. (It's also pretty cheap!)
I wanted a book that dealt with grammar, so I bought Basic Korean: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Korean-Grammar-Workbook-Workbook.... It has been well worth it in my opinion.
Quizlet is an invaluable resource for this: quizlet.com. They have text to speech so you can hear pronunciation for arbitrary words, and lots of people have made sets for different collections of vocab. It's not just flashcards, as it offers you a few ways to test your knowledge. And there are apps for Android and iOS.
If anyone else has found useful mobile apps, I'd love to hear it. For the most part I haven't found anything that I thought was truly great, so for the most part I just listen & practice the Pimsleur lessons when I'm in transit.
Hope this helps!
Thanks for the reply and suggestions. It also occurred to me that "there's a reddit for that", and sure enough there is one so I'll check out the resources you've listed and what I can find over there. One of my hobbies has come to a screeching halt (scheduling conflicts, people moving) so I actually have time over the next few months to spend on this.
I actually use mostly the Wikipedia article and the overarching Korean language article[1] mentioned for most of the basics, though I may not be such a good source for gathering materials as I'm just gingerly walking through the material.
If you're _really_ intent on learning more than just Korean, getting familiar with the IPA[1] would also prove useful if you also want to speak the language.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_language
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet
If you're _really_ intent on learning more than just Korean, getting familiar with the IPA[1] would also prove useful if you also want to speak the language.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_language
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet
Alright, thanks. There was a time in college lo these many years ago, when I thought about becoming a linguistics minor. I just took a couple of dead languages instead (Latin and Old English - because why not?). Later on I wish I realized how much time I wasted not taking more courses and additional languages, free time is harder to come by for these things when you're "grown up".
The best free resource is probably http://www.talktomeinkorean.com/
If you're willing to spend some money the Integrated Korean books are a very good source. http://www.amazon.com/Integrated-Korean-Beginning-Textbooks-...
Reddit's /r/korean has a very nice thread full of beginner resources. http://www.reddit.com/r/Korean/comments/rq3th/the_ultimate_b...
With some work and a combination of sources, you can actually get to a fairly conversational level of speaking/writing within a year. I and many others I know have done it. Just hang in there because it gets a little tough after the beginner phase. Be sure to drop by /r/korean's irc channel(http://webchat.snoonet.org/korean) if you have any questions.
If you're willing to spend some money the Integrated Korean books are a very good source. http://www.amazon.com/Integrated-Korean-Beginning-Textbooks-...
Reddit's /r/korean has a very nice thread full of beginner resources. http://www.reddit.com/r/Korean/comments/rq3th/the_ultimate_b...
With some work and a combination of sources, you can actually get to a fairly conversational level of speaking/writing within a year. I and many others I know have done it. Just hang in there because it gets a little tough after the beginner phase. Be sure to drop by /r/korean's irc channel(http://webchat.snoonet.org/korean) if you have any questions.
Thanks for the resources.
One site is: http://koreanclass101.com
I am not a subscriber or even a speaker of Korean, but I did learn the alphabet in College and if I ever had time, I feel like I could learn Korean at this site.
I am not a subscriber or even a speaker of Korean, but I did learn the alphabet in College and if I ever had time, I feel like I could learn Korean at this site.
Thanks, I'll check it out later.
Why the hate for Wikipedia? In my humble opinion it is the clearest embodiment of internet ideals.
I'm a Wikipedian, and between posting my first comment here and replying to yours, I was just posting to a talk page of a biography article on yet another pseudoscientist who has too many credulous followers on Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia well enough to roll up my sleeves to try to make it better, but I dearly wish that more Wikipedians knew more about how to look up reliable sources before adding edits to the encyclopedia that any bozo can edit.
I know the editing wars take a toll on Wikipedians(thanks for being one) but I still have to take issue with the idea that useful articles on Wikipedia are rare. As for being the encyclopedia that any bozo can edit, that is true, but unavoidable. Think how much worse off HN would be if it disallowed comments by any bozo(looking in mirror).
The opposite problem can happen. I've had a problem with the page for my local hackerspace. Someone nominated it for deletion. I found numerous legit sources, which the deltionist did no research and dismissed with bogus arguments the source (a government funded technology incubator was dismissed as "only a blog"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...
I've had people tell me that Korean is much easier to learn than Japanese and Mandarin. Perhaps this is why.
The writing system is easier to learn. But the pronunciation is a lot harder to learn than Japanese, and the grammar harder to learn than Mandarin.
There's also the fact that Mandarin has a lot of non-native speakers who are Chinese. I believe 400 million in the PRC, or 1/3rd of the population, only have a basic grasp of the language. Even a lot of the fluent speakers have thick accents. So the Chinese are used to speaking in Mandarin with non-native speakers, something that the Japanese and Koreans aren't as accustomed to.
There's also the fact that Mandarin has a lot of non-native speakers who are Chinese. I believe 400 million in the PRC, or 1/3rd of the population, only have a basic grasp of the language. Even a lot of the fluent speakers have thick accents. So the Chinese are used to speaking in Mandarin with non-native speakers, something that the Japanese and Koreans aren't as accustomed to.
I agree 100%. This is, I think, and underappreciated aspect of language study. Chinese people speak Mandarin with accents, so they're not irritated to hear my accent.
Korean is easier to learn to read and write, but much as w1ntermute says upthread it is harder to pronounce. Mandarin is quite regular & systematic in pronunciation; the tone just becomes part of the pronunciation. Grammar is relatively simple compared to Korean. This is an imprecise metric but it also seems to me that Korean has way more syllables for the same words, if nothing else because of all the particles and politeness levels.
But Mandarin reading & writing is punishingly hard. I studied Mandarin for a few years and although I could have some really basic conversations, I never learned to read or write. Korean has felt more rewarding in this regard-- I enjoy sounding out the words and delight in the occasional loanword.
But Mandarin reading & writing is punishingly hard. I studied Mandarin for a few years and although I could have some really basic conversations, I never learned to read or write. Korean has felt more rewarding in this regard-- I enjoy sounding out the words and delight in the occasional loanword.
I find Korean easier to speak and be understood. I know some Mandarin, but native speakers don't even know what I'm trying to say to them when I attempt it.
Hmm. I wonder why that is. Did you have a hard time with tones, do you think? Or do you think it's just harder to speak idiomatically? I could definitely see the latter.
My feeling — i.e. this is subjective — is that Mandarin pronunciation is far more regular. In Korean, it's not arbitrary, but there are more rules about pronunciation, and pronunciation is more subtle to my Western ears & tongue.
There are rules for consecutive consonants, where some of them disappear or change entirely (e.g. formal/deferential speech level endings, where p/b turns to m). Some sounds also just get dropped or emphasized based on where they are (e.g. words that end with ㅆ, depending on the next consonant). Then there's plain vs tense vs aspirated, diphthongs, etc. I'm still getting a handle on the various particles but there seem to be around a dozen, not including measure words.
Anyway there's one sort of irregular case in Mandarin, which is 3rd tone followed by 3rd tone. Other than that, if you learn how to say the "ie" as in "xiexie" or "bie", neither "x" nor "ie" or "b" really change depending on what they're paired with.
It may be that in practice, a Korean listener can figure out what sounds you're trying to make more easily than in Mandarin. Anecdotally Mandarin seems to have a lot of cognates because many basic words are one or so syllables + tone. Korean seems to me to have more syllables and more particles, which could help disambiguate. But this is just speculation from someone who is by no means an expert on either language.
My feeling — i.e. this is subjective — is that Mandarin pronunciation is far more regular. In Korean, it's not arbitrary, but there are more rules about pronunciation, and pronunciation is more subtle to my Western ears & tongue.
There are rules for consecutive consonants, where some of them disappear or change entirely (e.g. formal/deferential speech level endings, where p/b turns to m). Some sounds also just get dropped or emphasized based on where they are (e.g. words that end with ㅆ, depending on the next consonant). Then there's plain vs tense vs aspirated, diphthongs, etc. I'm still getting a handle on the various particles but there seem to be around a dozen, not including measure words.
Anyway there's one sort of irregular case in Mandarin, which is 3rd tone followed by 3rd tone. Other than that, if you learn how to say the "ie" as in "xiexie" or "bie", neither "x" nor "ie" or "b" really change depending on what they're paired with.
It may be that in practice, a Korean listener can figure out what sounds you're trying to make more easily than in Mandarin. Anecdotally Mandarin seems to have a lot of cognates because many basic words are one or so syllables + tone. Korean seems to me to have more syllables and more particles, which could help disambiguate. But this is just speculation from someone who is by no means an expert on either language.
I'd be curious if a strongly phonetic alphabet/writing leads to less changes in the sounds in the language...?
ISTM this would be difficult to study for periods that predate the phonograph? I guess one could look at rhyming poetry, but it's not clear how much that would help.
Rhymes, common misspellings, and often just primary texts talking about how words or letters sound.
reading it looks efficient but what about hand writing it?
As someone who is Korean, I don't find it all that more efficient or less efficient than Latin characters. I also speak Mandarin, however, and I do appreciate Hangul's terseness.
I wrote my name in Hangul and it came out to 16 "strokes", in English I approximated about 18 strokes (things like m/n I'm not quite sure how to calculate in strokes, so I counted both as a single stroke).
Meanwhile my Chinese name is a whopping 52 strokes. I hate writing my Chinese name.
I wrote my name in Hangul and it came out to 16 "strokes", in English I approximated about 18 strokes (things like m/n I'm not quite sure how to calculate in strokes, so I counted both as a single stroke).
Meanwhile my Chinese name is a whopping 52 strokes. I hate writing my Chinese name.
Latin alphabet's main problem is that it doesn't have any fricative consonants (sh ch j...) so every language has to roll out their own in incompatible fashion leading to confusion. Languages using alphabets specially tailored for them have much more consistent spelling.
also long and short vowels
Latin actually had them I think, they just got lost because romance languages didn't have much use for them, and english famously went proprietary with its great vowel shift.
[deleted]
> For example ㄱ g and ㅋ k are basically the same sound, a consonant formed by a closure at the back of the mouth, except that there is a stronger burst of air with the k.
't' and 'd' are the unvoiced and voiced alveolar stop, 'k' and 'g' are the unvoiced and voiced velar stop.
It just so happens that in English (and I guess Korean) that 't' and 'k' are somewhat heavily aspirated, but consider the sound 't' in French: much less aspiration (and IIRC the onset of the aspiration is earlier in French).
't' and 'd' are the unvoiced and voiced alveolar stop, 'k' and 'g' are the unvoiced and voiced velar stop.
It just so happens that in English (and I guess Korean) that 't' and 'k' are somewhat heavily aspirated, but consider the sound 't' in French: much less aspiration (and IIRC the onset of the aspiration is earlier in French).
Voice distinctions are allophonic in Korean; the phonemic difference between ㄱ and ㅋ is purely aspiration.
Are you saying the "g" is unvoiced? That's surprising. I don't speak Korean, but I've heard quite a bit of it, and I'd never picked up on that.
If a "g" is voiceless, then it's the same as a "k". If we are going by IPA notation, the only distinction between the sound represented by "g" and the sound represented by "k" is voicing.
What taejo is saying is that native Korean speakers will hear [g] and [k] as the same (they are allophones in Korean), however the sound [kʰ] (aspirated voiceless velar stop) will sound distinct to them compared to [g] or [k].
Aspiration is a large cue for English speakers as well in distinguishing between voiced and voiceless consonant pairs ([pʰ] and [b], [tʰ] and [d], [kʰ] and [g]), hence why partial or even full devoicing can occur in word-initial voiced stops like the /g/ in "game" (as yongjik mentioned), or why English speakers have such trouble replicating voiced and voiceless pairs in languages like Spanish that do not rely on aspiration.
What taejo is saying is that native Korean speakers will hear [g] and [k] as the same (they are allophones in Korean), however the sound [kʰ] (aspirated voiceless velar stop) will sound distinct to them compared to [g] or [k].
Aspiration is a large cue for English speakers as well in distinguishing between voiced and voiceless consonant pairs ([pʰ] and [b], [tʰ] and [d], [kʰ] and [g]), hence why partial or even full devoicing can occur in word-initial voiced stops like the /g/ in "game" (as yongjik mentioned), or why English speakers have such trouble replicating voiced and voiceless pairs in languages like Spanish that do not rely on aspiration.
g is "by default" unvoiced, but it becomes voiced between other voiced sounds (vowels or nasals). So in gagu "가구" (furniture), the first g is unvoiced but the second is voiced.
What complicates matter is that, in English, word-first g (as in "game") can become partially unvoiced, so g in English "game" is actually fairly close to the first g of "gagu"!
What complicates matter is that, in English, word-first g (as in "game") can become partially unvoiced, so g in English "game" is actually fairly close to the first g of "gagu"!
Wonderful explanation. Thank you!
Mapping ㄱ/ㅋ/ㄲ to g/k is imperfect, and the single-double consonants are especially hard for non-Koreans to even hear the difference between as we simply don't make any distinction, but Koreans do.
Furthermore, the pronunciation on many consonants differs based on letter position in the word, medial pronunciation is markedly different that initial or final.
e.g. ㄹ might be pronounced d/l/r based on position.
Furthermore, the pronunciation on many consonants differs based on letter position in the word, medial pronunciation is markedly different that initial or final.
e.g. ㄹ might be pronounced d/l/r based on position.
I think that it's really neat that the Korean alphabet has a near-equal number of distinct characters compared to the Latin/Greek/English alphabet because this allows it to have a very compatible key layout in a standard keyboard :D
I'm an American who learned to read Hangul. I had also tried learning to read Japanese and Chinese, but those were difficult for me. With Hangul, I just picked it up almost accidentally.
[EDIT] It was really kind of weird/awesome that one day while riding through Koreatown in L.A., I looked over at a sign and blurted out "I can read Korean!". I was completely surprised.
[EDIT] It was really kind of weird/awesome that one day while riding through Koreatown in L.A., I looked over at a sign and blurted out "I can read Korean!". I was completely surprised.
Fun fact, you can already read it backwards. Try reading Hangul that's painted on a piece of glass from the wrong side. It's almost as easy as reading it written correctly.
This is almost exactly like Sanskrit and the derivative Indian langauges. Convergent Evolution I guess?
I don't see it. Devanagari characters are not assembled by combining smaller blocks of sound.
Why not?
Vowels are a, aa, e, ee and so on
Consonants are kk, gg, rr and so on.
kk + a is pronounced ka kk + e is pronounced ke
kk with a subscript of rr becomes kr. Kr + a is again kra, kr+e is Kre and so on.
Korean seems exactly the same from: http://9gag.com/gag/3968335 atleast.
Vowels are a, aa, e, ee and so on
Consonants are kk, gg, rr and so on.
kk + a is pronounced ka kk + e is pronounced ke
kk with a subscript of rr becomes kr. Kr + a is again kra, kr+e is Kre and so on.
Korean seems exactly the same from: http://9gag.com/gag/3968335 atleast.
Yes, the overall organization of the alphabet is similarly logical. But for the physically written letters, you don't get from "ch" to "chh" by adding a line or other small graphical element.
Er, maybe not in Devanagari, but you sure as hell do in Nastaliq.
Almost as interesting is Hangul keyboard layout:
http://www.ke5ter.com/archives/2008/02/26/hangul-keyboard-la...
It is logical yet efficient. If you know Korean, you should be able to learn to touch type Hangul with just a few hours of practice as I had to about a decade ago. Even on iPhone, I found the layout easier to peck on.
http://www.ke5ter.com/archives/2008/02/26/hangul-keyboard-la...
It is logical yet efficient. If you know Korean, you should be able to learn to touch type Hangul with just a few hours of practice as I had to about a decade ago. Even on iPhone, I found the layout easier to peck on.
I learned to read and write in korean letter in a lazy afternoon - it really is miles ahead of roman alphabet. Extremely simple!
It is interesting to compare Japanese and Korean writing systems: Both of these started with borrowing Chinese characters, due to the immense cultural prestige of the Chinese Empire. These languages show striking similarities to each other (and Turkic languages of Central Asia; although they are usually considered language isolates this may stem more from a cultural bias). Although the Chinese logographic writing system seems hopeless to an outsider, it is uniquely suited to the to tonal Chinese language. The problem is that Korean and Japanese are very different from Chinese (i.e. Mandarin and its "dialects" spoken in China which are part of the Sino-Tibetan family). Koreans have solved this problem cleanly in the 15th century by inventing Hangul while the Japanese approach was to create an extremely complicated writing system with different characters, including many Chinese ones.
Maybe Japanese writing was more culturally ingrained by the Middle ages in Japan compared to Korea to make such a sweeping reform unthinkable or perhaps its feudal structure (i.e. the regional daimyo) and a weak emperor did not have the clout of a ruler like King Sejong in Korea.
Maybe someone with knowledge of Southeast Asian history care to comment on this.