Home » Archives » KoreanStudies » re uri
| re uri [message #10951] |
Wed, 23 June 2010 22:26  |
will pore
Messages: 17
Registered: March 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear List:
For the several fine replies I received regarding my inquiry about the
Korean pronoun 'uri,' in particular those of Jim Thomas, Ross King and
Alison Tokita, I am very grateful for the detailed and useful comments they
supplied. While familiar with the similar usage of the inclusive "we" in the
unrelated Chinese language and the usages in modern Japanese, the only reply
from a list member to mention a lesser known, but, assumedly "related"
language's similarity (Mongolian) was by Balazs Szolontai. There is much
more, therefore, that I wish I knew. It is truely unfortunate that an
etymological dictionary, as far as I know, does not exist for Korean.
In conjunction with my query, and as only an amature historical linguist, I
must mention by comparison the outstanding work of the French linguists who
long ago investigated and have written intriguingly on such topics as the
origin on tones in Vietnamese. According to their research, Vietnamese,
historically a non-tonal, Mon-Khmer language, became tonal in about the
thirteenth century under Thai influence. There is that and really much more
that seems to have been authoratatively investigated about Vietnamese and
other Southeast Asian languages than I am aware existing on the many topics
on Korean that historians I think should find useful.
Regards,
Will
--
William F. Pore
Associate Professor
Global Studies Program
Pusan National University
|
|
|
|
| Re: re uri [message #10952 is a reply to message #10951] |
Thu, 24 June 2010 19:39  |
Kyungmi Chun
Messages: 4
Registered: February 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
There are several Korean etymological dictionaries written in Korean.
One way of finding them is to perform a keyword search for 'Korean
etymology dictionaries' in FirstSearch (WorldCat). One of the
dictionaries is:
Title: Uri mal ŭi ppuri rŭl ch'ajasŏ: Han'gugŏ ŏwŏn sajŏn (Chŭngbop'an)
Author: Paek, Mun-sik
Publication: Sŏul Tŭkpyŏlsi: Samgwang Ch'ulp'ansa, 2006
Its entry for '우리' on page 398 mentions that it is equivalent to
Hyangch'al 吾里; Japanese wa[我, 吾], ware, udi; and Mongolian uru-q(親戚).
WorldCat also retrieves an English dictionary of Korean etymology. Since
Stanford does not own the book, I did not check the contents.
Title: Studies in Korean etymology (2 vols.)
Author: Ramstedt, G. J.; Aalto, Pentti
Publication: Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura, 1949-1953
Kyungmi Chun
Korean Studies Librarian
East Asia Library
Meyer Library Bldg. 4th Floor
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6004
Tel.: 650-724-5934
Fax.: 650-724-2028
http://lib.stanford.edu/eal-korean
will pore wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> For the several fine replies I received regarding my inquiry about the
> Korean pronoun 'uri,' in particular those of Jim Thomas, Ross King and
> Alison Tokita, I am very grateful for the detailed and useful comments
> they supplied. While familiar with the similar usage of the inclusive
> "we" in the unrelated Chinese language and the usages in modern
> Japanese, the only reply from a list member to mention a lesser known,
> but, assumedly "related" language's similarity (Mongolian) was by Balazs
> Szolontai. There is much more, therefore, that I wish I knew. It is
> truely unfortunate that an etymological dictionary, as far as I know,
> does not exist for Korean.
>
> In conjunction with my query, and as only an amature historical
> linguist, I must mention by comparison the outstanding work of the
> French linguists who long ago investigated and have written intriguingly
> on such topics as the origin on tones in Vietnamese. According to their
> research, Vietnamese, historically a non-tonal, Mon-Khmer language,
> became tonal in about the thirteenth century under Thai influence. There
> is that and really much more that seems to have been authoratatively
> investigated about Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian languages than I
> am aware existing on the many topics on Korean that historians I think
> should find useful.
>
> Regards,
>
> Will
>
> --
> William F. Pore
> Associate Professor
> Global Studies Program
> Pusan National University
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: re uri [message #10953 is a reply to message #10952] |
Thu, 24 June 2010 23:26 |
Robert Ramsey
Messages: 21
Registered: November 1998
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear Ms. Chun (and List),
Thank you for those references; they are useful to linguists (including me).
But I suspect they are not quite what Will was looking for. Most likely he
was talking about a Korean equivalent of the OED, and on that score he was
absolutely right; there is no etymological reference like that for Korean.
The works you mention may be titled "etymological" dictionaries, but in fact
they are not lists of documented etymologies per se, but rather compilations
of various etymological hypotheses that have been put forward for each
lexical item. The example you cite illustrates well what I mean by that: In
various sources 우리 has often been compared to the cited Japanese and
Mongolian words, but those connections are completely hypothetical (어원설, in
other words), just as are (at least so far) the comparisons of the Korean
language to Japanese and Altaic (including Mongolian) more generally. (As
an aside I might mention that the nearest Japanese equivalent to the OED,
the Nihon gokugo daijiten, gives explicit recognition to the hypothetical
status of Japanese "etymologies" by listing and labeling them gogensetsu 語言
説.)
I suggest that perhaps a better source along the lines I believe Will is
looking for might simply be the 3-volume Korean dictionary, 표준 국어 대사전
published by the 국립 국어 연구원. All the historical forms noted there are ones
with solid documentation. In addition, a very useful resource (though
limited in terms of lexical size) is Lee Ki-Moon's 國語語彙史硏究. The
documentation there is generally impeccable. Finally I should note that
Professor Lee has been at work on a true Korean etymological dictionary for
a couple of decades now. He's a bit evasive whenever I ask him when that
volume, which he says now represents his "life's work", might be published.
But when it does appear, I feel confident it will be a quantum leap ahead
toward that reference work we all--including Will--have long been looking
for.
Robert Ramsey
On 6/24/10 7:39 PM, "Kyungmi Chun" wrote:
> There are several Korean etymological dictionaries written in Korean.
> One way of finding them is to perform a keyword search for 'Korean
> etymology dictionaries' in FirstSearch (WorldCat). One of the
> dictionaries is:
>
> Title: Uri mal ŭi ppuri rŭl ch'ajasŏ: Han'gugŏ ŏwŏn sajŏn (Chŭngbop'an)
> Author: Paek, Mun-sik
> Publication: Sŏul Tŭkpyŏlsi: Samgwang Ch'ulp'ansa, 2006
>
> Its entry for '우리' on page 398 mentions that it is equivalent to
> Hyangch'al 吾里; Japanese wa[我, 吾], ware, udi; and Mongolian uru-q(親戚).
>
> WorldCat also retrieves an English dictionary of Korean etymology. Since
> Stanford does not own the book, I did not check the contents.
>
> Title: Studies in Korean etymology (2 vols.)
> Author: Ramstedt, G. J.; Aalto, Pentti
> Publication: Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura, 1949-1953
>
>
> Kyungmi Chun
> Korean Studies Librarian
> East Asia Library
> Meyer Library Bldg. 4th Floor
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-6004
> Tel.: 650-724-5934
> Fax.: 650-724-2028
> http://lib.stanford.edu/eal-korean
>
>
> will pore wrote:
>> Dear List:
>>
>> For the several fine replies I received regarding my inquiry about the
>> Korean pronoun 'uri,' in particular those of Jim Thomas, Ross King and
>> Alison Tokita, I am very grateful for the detailed and useful comments
>> they supplied. While familiar with the similar usage of the inclusive
>> "we" in the unrelated Chinese language and the usages in modern
>> Japanese, the only reply from a list member to mention a lesser known,
>> but, assumedly "related" language's similarity (Mongolian) was by Balazs
>> Szolontai. There is much more, therefore, that I wish I knew. It is
>> truely unfortunate that an etymological dictionary, as far as I know,
>> does not exist for Korean.
>>
>> In conjunction with my query, and as only an amature historical
>> linguist, I must mention by comparison the outstanding work of the
>> French linguists who long ago investigated and have written intriguingly
>> on such topics as the origin on tones in Vietnamese. According to their
>> research, Vietnamese, historically a non-tonal, Mon-Khmer language,
>> became tonal in about the thirteenth century under Thai influence. There
>> is that and really much more that seems to have been authoratatively
>> investigated about Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian languages than I
>> am aware existing on the many topics on Korean that historians I think
>> should find useful.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Will
>>
>> --
>> William F. Pore
>> Associate Professor
>> Global Studies Program
>> Pusan National University
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: re uri [message #10954 is a reply to message #10952] |
Fri, 25 June 2010 01:05 |
will pore
Messages: 17
Registered: March 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear Ms. Chun,
Thank you so much for the information about the Korean etymological
dictionary. I am very happy to learn more about the connections to Japanese
and Mongolian. So, is it is possible to say that Korean 'uri' is derived
from the Japanese and/or Mongolian, the same as the English pronoun we can
be traced back to an Indo-European or a Gothic (?) source?
Will
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Kyungmi Chun wrote:
> There are several Korean etymological dictionaries written in Korean. One
> way of finding them is to perform a keyword search for 'Korean etymology
> dictionaries' in FirstSearch (WorldCat). One of the dictionaries is:
>
> Title: Uri mal ŭi ppuri rŭl ch'ajasŏ: Han'gugŏ ŏwŏn sajŏn (Chŭngbop'an)
> Author: Paek, Mun-sik
> Publication: Sŏul Tŭkpyŏlsi: Samgwang Ch'ulp'ansa, 2006
>
> Its entry for '우리' on page 398 mentions that it is equivalent to Hyangch'al
> 吾里; Japanese wa[我, 吾], ware, udi; and Mongolian uru-q(親戚).
>
> WorldCat also retrieves an English dictionary of Korean etymology. Since
> Stanford does not own the book, I did not check the contents.
>
> Title: Studies in Korean etymology (2 vols.)
> Author: Ramstedt, G. J.; Aalto, Pentti
> Publication: Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura, 1949-1953
>
>
> Kyungmi Chun
> Korean Studies Librarian
> East Asia Library
> Meyer Library Bldg. 4th Floor
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-6004
> Tel.: 650-724-5934
> Fax.: 650-724-2028
> http://lib.stanford.edu/eal-korean
>
>
>
> will pore wrote:
>
>> Dear List:
>> For the several fine replies I received regarding my inquiry about the
>> Korean pronoun 'uri,' in particular those of Jim Thomas, Ross King and
>> Alison Tokita, I am very grateful for the detailed and useful comments they
>> supplied. While familiar with the similar usage of the inclusive "we" in the
>> unrelated Chinese language and the usages in modern Japanese, the only reply
>> from a list member to mention a lesser known, but, assumedly "related"
>> language's similarity (Mongolian) was by Balazs Szolontai. There is much
>> more, therefore, that I wish I knew. It is truely unfortunate that an
>> etymological dictionary, as far as I know, does not exist for Korean. In
>> conjunction with my query, and as only an amature historical linguist, I
>> must mention by comparison the outstanding work of the French linguists who
>> long ago investigated and have written intriguingly on such topics as the
>> origin on tones in Vietnamese. According to their research, Vietnamese,
>> historically a non-tonal, Mon-Khmer language, became tonal in about the
>> thirteenth century under Thai influence. There is that and really much more
>> that seems to have been authoratatively investigated about Vietnamese and
>> other Southeast Asian languages than I am aware existing on the many topics
>> on Korean that historians I think should find useful. Regards,
>> Will
>> --
>> William F. Pore
>> Associate Professor
>> Global Studies Program
>> Pusan National University
>>
>>
>>
>
--
William F. Pore
Associate Professor
Global Studies Program
Pusan National University
|
|
|
|
| Re: re uri [message #10955 is a reply to message #10952] |
Fri, 25 June 2010 01:18 |
johnfrankl
Messages: 11
Registered: August 2008
|
Junior Member |
|
|
This is very interesting, but I am not certain it provides any sort of etymology:
"Its entry for '우리' on page 398 mentions that it is equivalent to Hyangch'al 吾里; Japanese wa[我, 吾], ware, udi; and Mongolian uru-q(親戚)."
The Hyangch'al "ori" is just an attempt at representing the word "uri" before Korea had its own writing system.
The parts about Japanese and Mongolian are only telling if some context is provided. Does the work posit that "uri," "ware," "udi," and "uru-q" are cognates? If so, is an origin posited?
JMF
--- On Thu, 6/24/10, Kyungmi Chun wrote:
From: Kyungmi Chun
Subject: Re: [KS] re uri
To: "Korean Studies Discussion List"
Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 4:39 PM
There are several Korean etymological dictionaries written in Korean. One way of finding them is to perform a keyword search for 'Korean etymology dictionaries' in FirstSearch (WorldCat). One of the dictionaries is:
Title: Uri mal ŭi ppuri rŭl ch'ajasŏ: Han'gugŏ ŏwŏn sajŏn (Chŭngbop'an)
Author: Paek, Mun-sik
Publication: Sŏul Tŭkpyŏlsi: Samgwang Ch'ulp'ansa, 2006
Its entry for '우리' on page 398 mentions that it is equivalent to Hyangch'al 吾里; Japanese wa[我, 吾], ware, udi; and Mongolian uru-q(親戚).
WorldCat also retrieves an English dictionary of Korean etymology. Since Stanford does not own the book, I did not check the contents.
Title: Studies in Korean etymology (2 vols.)
Author: Ramstedt, G. J.; Aalto, Pentti
Publication: Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura, 1949-1953
Kyungmi Chun
Korean Studies Librarian
East Asia Library
Meyer Library Bldg. 4th Floor
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6004
Tel.: 650-724-5934
Fax.: 650-724-2028
http://lib.stanford.edu/eal-korean
will pore wrote:
> Dear List:
> For the several fine replies I received regarding my inquiry about the Korean pronoun 'uri,' in particular those of Jim Thomas, Ross King and Alison Tokita, I am very grateful for the detailed and useful comments they supplied. While familiar with the similar usage of the inclusive "we" in the unrelated Chinese language and the usages in modern Japanese, the only reply from a list member to mention a lesser known, but, assumedly "related" language's similarity (Mongolian) was by Balazs Szolontai. There is much more, therefore, that I wish I knew. It is truely unfortunate that an etymological dictionary, as far as I know, does not exist for Korean. In conjunction with my query, and as only an amature historical linguist, I must mention by comparison the outstanding work of the French linguists who long ago investigated and have written intriguingly on such topics as the origin on tones in Vietnamese. According to their research, Vietnamese,
historically a non-tonal, Mon-Khmer language, became tonal in about the thirteenth century under Thai influence. There is that and really much more that seems to have been authoratatively investigated about Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian languages than I am aware existing on the many topics on Korean that historians I think should find useful. Regards,
> Will
> -- William F. Pore
> Associate Professor
> Global Studies Program
> Pusan National University
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: re uri [message #10956 is a reply to message #10952] |
Fri, 25 June 2010 12:44 |
Robert Ramsey
Messages: 21
Registered: November 1998
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Oops. Wrong Chinese characters for gogensetsu in my last posting: It should
have been語源説. Apologies!
Robert Ramsey
On 6/24/10 7:39 PM, "Kyungmi Chun" wrote:
> There are several Korean etymological dictionaries written in Korean.
> One way of finding them is to perform a keyword search for 'Korean
> etymology dictionaries' in FirstSearch (WorldCat). One of the
> dictionaries is:
>
> Title: Uri mal ŭi ppuri rŭl ch'ajasŏ: Han'gugŏ ŏwŏn sajŏn (Chŭngbop'an)
> Author: Paek, Mun-sik
> Publication: Sŏul Tŭkpyŏlsi: Samgwang Ch'ulp'ansa, 2006
>
> Its entry for '우리' on page 398 mentions that it is equivalent to
> Hyangch'al 吾里; Japanese wa[我, 吾], ware, udi; and Mongolian uru-q(親戚).
>
> WorldCat also retrieves an English dictionary of Korean etymology. Since
> Stanford does not own the book, I did not check the contents.
>
> Title: Studies in Korean etymology (2 vols.)
> Author: Ramstedt, G. J.; Aalto, Pentti
> Publication: Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura, 1949-1953
>
>
> Kyungmi Chun
> Korean Studies Librarian
> East Asia Library
> Meyer Library Bldg. 4th Floor
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-6004
> Tel.: 650-724-5934
> Fax.: 650-724-2028
> http://lib.stanford.edu/eal-korean
>
>
> will pore wrote:
>> Dear List:
>>
>> For the several fine replies I received regarding my inquiry about the
>> Korean pronoun 'uri,' in particular those of Jim Thomas, Ross King and
>> Alison Tokita, I am very grateful for the detailed and useful comments
>> they supplied. While familiar with the similar usage of the inclusive
>> "we" in the unrelated Chinese language and the usages in modern
>> Japanese, the only reply from a list member to mention a lesser known,
>> but, assumedly "related" language's similarity (Mongolian) was by Balazs
>> Szolontai. There is much more, therefore, that I wish I knew. It is
>> truely unfortunate that an etymological dictionary, as far as I know,
>> does not exist for Korean.
>>
>> In conjunction with my query, and as only an amature historical
>> linguist, I must mention by comparison the outstanding work of the
>> French linguists who long ago investigated and have written intriguingly
>> on such topics as the origin on tones in Vietnamese. According to their
>> research, Vietnamese, historically a non-tonal, Mon-Khmer language,
>> became tonal in about the thirteenth century under Thai influence. There
>> is that and really much more that seems to have been authoratatively
>> investigated about Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian languages than I
>> am aware existing on the many topics on Korean that historians I think
>> should find useful.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Will
>>
>> --
>> William F. Pore
>> Associate Professor
>> Global Studies Program
>> Pusan National University
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: re uri [message #10958 is a reply to message #10953] |
Sun, 27 June 2010 20:06 |
Werner Sasse
Messages: 71
Registered: November 2001
|
Member |
|
|
Dear Bob (and list),
thanks for your plea to be cautious with these *-forms.
Fully agreeing with every word you said I still want to point out the problem just a little more explicitly, following up on your remarks re Hyangch'al 吾里 interpreted as 우리. Maybe I am wrong, but there may be readers who need this information.
The 里 (1x in the Silla-Hyangga, 3x in the Goryeo-Hyangga) can in all instances be interpreted as phonetic OKor *-ri > MKor -ri, when read in MKor/ModKor pronunciation. The 1st problem is the timespan of several 100 years. More serious, however, is that there is no indication, what is hidden in the semantic 吾. Any syllable(s) can be read before -里. Of course OKor ** > MKor 우리 comes in conveniently, but that is all we can say.
Best,
Werner Sasse
> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:26:34 -0400
> From: ramsey@umd.edu
> To: koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
> Subject: Re: [KS] re uri
>
> Dear Ms. Chun (and List),
>
> Thank you for those references; they are useful to linguists (including me).
> But I suspect they are not quite what Will was looking for. Most likely he
> was talking about a Korean equivalent of the OED, and on that score he was
> absolutely right; there is no etymological reference like that for Korean.
>
> The works you mention may be titled "etymological" dictionaries, but in fact
> they are not lists of documented etymologies per se, but rather compilations
> of various etymological hypotheses that have been put forward for each
> lexical item. The example you cite illustrates well what I mean by that: In
> various sources 우리 has often been compared to the cited Japanese and
> Mongolian words, but those connections are completely hypothetical (어원설, in
> other words), just as are (at least so far) the comparisons of the Korean
> language to Japanese and Altaic (including Mongolian) more generally. (As
> an aside I might mention that the nearest Japanese equivalent to the OED,
> the Nihon gokugo daijiten, gives explicit recognition to the hypothetical
> status of Japanese "etymologies" by listing and labeling them gogensetsu 語言
> 説.)
>
> I suggest that perhaps a better source along the lines I believe Will is
> looking for might simply be the 3-volume Korean dictionary, 표준 국어 대사전
> published by the 국립 국어 연구원. All the historical forms noted there are ones
> with solid documentation. In addition, a very useful resource (though
> limited in terms of lexical size) is Lee Ki-Moon's 國語語彙史硏究. The
> documentation there is generally impeccable. Finally I should note that
> Professor Lee has been at work on a true Korean etymological dictionary for
> a couple of decades now. He's a bit evasive whenever I ask him when that
> volume, which he says now represents his "life's work", might be published.
> But when it does appear, I feel confident it will be a quantum leap ahead
> toward that reference work we all--including Will--have long been looking
> for.
>
> Robert Ramsey
>
>
> On 6/24/10 7:39 PM, "Kyungmi Chun" wrote:
>
> > There are several Korean etymological dictionaries written in Korean.
> > One way of finding them is to perform a keyword search for 'Korean
> > etymology dictionaries' in FirstSearch (WorldCat). One of the
> > dictionaries is:
> >
> > Title: Uri mal ŭi ppuri rŭl ch'ajasŏ: Han'gugŏ ŏwŏn sajŏn (Chŭngbop'an)
> > Author: Paek, Mun-sik
> > Publication: Sŏul Tŭkpyŏlsi: Samgwang Ch'ulp'ansa, 2006
> >
> > Its entry for '우리' on page 398 mentions that it is equivalent to
> > Hyangch'al 吾里; Japanese wa[我, 吾], ware, udi; and Mongolian uru-q(親戚).
> >
> > WorldCat also retrieves an English dictionary of Korean etymology. Since
> > Stanford does not own the book, I did not check the contents.
> >
> > Title: Studies in Korean etymology (2 vols.)
> > Author: Ramstedt, G. J.; Aalto, Pentti
> > Publication: Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura, 1949-1953
> >
> >
> > Kyungmi Chun
> > Korean Studies Librarian
> > East Asia Library
> > Meyer Library Bldg. 4th Floor
> > Stanford University
> > Stanford, CA 94305-6004
> > Tel.: 650-724-5934
> > Fax.: 650-724-2028
> > http://lib.stanford.edu/eal-korean
> >
> >
> > will pore wrote:
> >> Dear List:
> >>
> >> For the several fine replies I received regarding my inquiry about the
> >> Korean pronoun 'uri,' in particular those of Jim Thomas, Ross King and
> >> Alison Tokita, I am very grateful for the detailed and useful comments
> >> they supplied. While familiar with the similar usage of the inclusive
> >> "we" in the unrelated Chinese language and the usages in modern
> >> Japanese, the only reply from a list member to mention a lesser known,
> >> but, assumedly "related" language's similarity (Mongolian) was by Balazs
> >> Szolontai. There is much more, therefore, that I wish I knew. It is
> >> truely unfortunate that an etymological dictionary, as far as I know,
> >> does not exist for Korean.
> >>
> >> In conjunction with my query, and as only an amature historical
> >> linguist, I must mention by comparison the outstanding work of the
> >> French linguists who long ago investigated and have written intriguingly
> >> on such topics as the origin on tones in Vietnamese. According to their
> >> research, Vietnamese, historically a non-tonal, Mon-Khmer language,
> >> became tonal in about the thirteenth century under Thai influence. There
> >> is that and really much more that seems to have been authoratatively
> >> investigated about Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian languages than I
> >> am aware existing on the many topics on Korean that historians I think
> >> should find useful.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Will
> >>
> >> --
> >> William F. Pore
> >> Associate Professor
> >> Global Studies Program
> >> Pusan National University
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________ _____
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 25 16:51:50 EDT 2013
|
Korean Studies Discussion List
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
