Home » Archives » KoreanStudies » the Korean language
| the Korean language [message #6604] |
Tue, 08 April 2003 15:20  |
jaynee
Messages: 3
Registered: April 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hello,
I am a second generation Korean-American who knows very little Korean.
However, my parents and my older sister (who knows more Korean and has
spent time in Korea) like to rattle off an interesting fact on occasion.
They say Korean is the most scientific (spoken?) language in the world. I
ran a Google search and other Koreans say this on their personal website,
but I do not know who else thinks this. One website mentioned that it was
supported by a German anthropologist, but it did not mention his name. Do
you know if this is true and if so, what was the anthropologist's
name and title of study?
Sincerely,
Jayne Jung
|
|
|
|
| Re: the Korean language [message #6605 is a reply to message #6604] |
Wed, 09 April 2003 09:12  |
J.Scott Burgeson
Messages: 120
Registered: January 2002
|
Senior Member |
|
|
--- jaynee wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am a second generation Korean-American who knows
> very little Korean.
> However, my parents and my older sister (who knows
> more Korean and has
> spent time in Korea) like to rattle off an
> interesting fact on occasion.
> They say Korean is the most scientific (spoken?)
> language in the world. I
> ran a Google search and other Koreans say this on
> their personal website,
> but I do not know who else thinks this. One website
> mentioned that it was
> supported by a German anthropologist, but it did not
> mention his name. Do
> you know if this is true and if so, what was the
> anthropologist's
> name and title of study?
>
> Sincerely,
> Jayne Jung
>
All the linguists on this list are being silent here
on this question, so I am probably walking into a
minefield, but isn't that claim of "scientificness"
normally made in reference to Han'gul, the Korean
alphabet, not the language itself? Anyway, Han'gul may
or may not be the most scientific alphabet in the
world when it comes to expressing the indigenous
language for which it was created, but is decidedly
non-scientific and often merely approximate when it
comes to rendering many foreign words. As for the
Korean language itself being scientific, there are so
many homophones in it that it is often hard even for
educated Koreans to know what certain words actually
mean, or what their exact word root is (unless you
want to lug around a giant Chinese character
dictionary with you all the time and make educated
guesses about which sound refers to which Chinese
character, etc.) This does not really fit my own idea
of what "scientific" means, which normally suggests
precision and clarity of meaning...
--Scott Bug
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: the Korean language [message #6607 is a reply to message #6605] |
Wed, 09 April 2003 13:38 |
michael Robinson
Messages: 87
Registered: October 2001
|
Member |
|
|
Dear List:
with reference to the issue of Korean being the "most scientific
language" ----it seems to me it is a pointless but certainly understandable
question. For Koreans as with other language groups, the language itself
forms the core of cultural identity. Thus claims are made about the
language "most beautiful, most scientific, most poetic, etc." in relation to
group cultural pride. In Korea's case the langauge is very intimately
associated with nationalism and I believe this is the origin of the claim,
spurious or not. All languages are unique, each does what it is supposed to
do though not all develop literatures. I always remember a statement made
by my Japanese teacher Roy Miller in his book on the Japanese language....a
statement made with calculation to upset Japanese linguistic
nationalists...."Japanese is, after all is said and done, just another
language.
Moreover, I still take issue with what I believe is the canard of
homophones. I seldom see Koreans educated or not lugging around
dictionaries or in fits about various possible meanings of sino-Korean
homophones....certainly the Koreans seem to do fine with their enormous
vocabulatry in speach. Maybe this is because I'm anhistorian and after all
that is the "ruthless discipline of context."
Best to All,
Mike R.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J.Scott Burgeson"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [KS] the Korean language
>
> --- jaynee wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am a second generation Korean-American who knows
> > very little Korean.
> > However, my parents and my older sister (who knows
> > more Korean and has
> > spent time in Korea) like to rattle off an
> > interesting fact on occasion.
> > They say Korean is the most scientific (spoken?)
> > language in the world. I
> > ran a Google search and other Koreans say this on
> > their personal website,
> > but I do not know who else thinks this. One website
> > mentioned that it was
> > supported by a German anthropologist, but it did not
> > mention his name. Do
> > you know if this is true and if so, what was the
> > anthropologist's
> > name and title of study?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jayne Jung
> >
>
>
> All the linguists on this list are being silent here
> on this question, so I am probably walking into a
> minefield, but isn't that claim of "scientificness"
> normally made in reference to Han'gul, the Korean
> alphabet, not the language itself? Anyway, Han'gul may
> or may not be the most scientific alphabet in the
> world when it comes to expressing the indigenous
> language for which it was created, but is decidedly
> non-scientific and often merely approximate when it
> comes to rendering many foreign words. As for the
> Korean language itself being scientific, there are so
> many homophones in it that it is often hard even for
> educated Koreans to know what certain words actually
> mean, or what their exact word root is (unless you
> want to lug around a giant Chinese character
> dictionary with you all the time and make educated
> guesses about which sound refers to which Chinese
> character, etc.) This does not really fit my own idea
> of what "scientific" means, which normally suggests
> precision and clarity of meaning...
> --Scott Bug
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the Korean language [message #6610 is a reply to message #6604] |
Wed, 09 April 2003 18:07 |
Lee JooBai
Messages: 23
Registered: March 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi,
Is there a measure of how scientific a language is?
Is it even a relevant question to ask?
Were there to be an answer and were it to prove to be
that language K is not as scientific as language
Y, will the questioner find it a blow to her self confidence?
Or, should it indeed prove to be that language K is
the most "scientific" of all languages, will she
be rushing to sign up for the courses in language K?
And if the language K is a mixture of languages KO,CH, and EN
in the proportions of 20%, 70% , and 10%, respectively,
should the "scientificness" be the weighted average of the
"scientificness" of respective languages?
It is not clear that the question is one that can be easily
answered and possibly one really belonging with the questions
of how "beautiful" a language is.
On the face of it, the question may not even be deserving of
an answer. But it would be interesting were there to be such
a measure.
It is also a very odd question on the face of it as I suppose
the most important question one would ask in learning anything
new would be "How profitable is it to learn it given that the
learner must make an investment of precious time and effort?"
Were the question be one of profitability in the modern world, the
answer is unquestionably English. Why bother with anything else?
What other country would give tenure to a foreigner or allow a
foreigner to participate as fully in its social and economic life?
And among the East Asian languages, the profitability scale would
be from the top to bottom, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, Thai,
and Korean.
But then, is the question really about why should anybody study
Korean?
I do think Korean is beautiful, poetic, and scientific. And
surely it would be porfitable for you to learn it if you have
the time and are willing to make the effort.
For most people, the attachment to a language is a matter of
birth. For everyone on the list, it is also surely a matter of
attachment.
And on the face of it, the question does not allow for an easy
answer, and yet it surely deserves a considered answer.
Regards,
JooBai Lee
>From: jaynee
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I am a second generation Korean-American who knows very little Korean.
>However, my parents and my older sister (who knows more Korean and has
>spent time in Korea) like to rattle off an interesting fact on occasion.
>They say Korean is the most scientific (spoken?) language in the world. I
>ran a Google search and other Koreans say this on their personal website,
>but I do not know who else thinks this. One website mentioned that it was
>supported by a German anthropologist, but it did not mention his name. Do
>you know if this is true and if so, what was the anthropologist's
>name and title of study?
>
>Sincerely,
>Jayne Jung
>
____________________________________________________________ _____
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
|
|
|
|
| Re: the Korean language [message #6611 is a reply to message #6607] |
Wed, 09 April 2003 21:43 |
Gary Rector / Yu
Messages: 16
Registered: March 2002
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear List,
With regard to Korean as "the most scientific language," such
a claim is unscientific hyperbole based on misplaced cultural
pride and nationalism. Don't get me wrong--I find the
Korean language fascinating and have devoted many years
to studying it, but all languages have the potential of being
fascinating. Always beware of superlatives when talking about
languages (or almost anything, I suppose). If we leave out
the word "most," we can make some statements about Korean
that are more acceptable and also more helpful to anyone who
might be considering learning it: for example, that its writing system
is very well thought out and fits the language very nicely or
that Korean morphology is very regular, with few exceptions
that need to be memorized.
As for the problem of homophones, I agree with Michael
Robinson. I've been living in Korea, among Koreans, for
36 years and have found homophones to be no more of a
problem than they are in English. Far from lugging around
dictionaries of sino-Korean words, most Koreans aren't
even quite sure of how to look up a Chinese character in
the okpyeon.
Gary Rector
|
|
|
|
| Re: the Korean language [message #6612 is a reply to message #6605] |
Wed, 09 April 2003 22:44 |
jaynee
Messages: 3
Registered: April 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hello again,
Thanks all for your responses.
> All the linguists on this list are being silent here
> on this question, so I am probably walking into a
> minefield, but isn't that claim of "scientificness"
> normally made in reference to Han'gul, the Korean
> alphabet, not the language itself?
I first received an email from Ross King, who was also kind enough to
point out this difference. In terms of Korean as a 'writing system' (the
same term Gary Rector used), it is very scientific. As a spoken language,
it is not. In fact, I guess there isn't a 'scientific' language.
Although, Latin is probably a 'scientific language', but that has a
totally different meaning and I'm probably just confusing the issue.
Anyways, I found this website helpful:
http://www.usu.edu/anthro/
Click on Origins of Writing...Begin...Hangul
The author uses the phrase 'scientific language', but from the website
it's clear he means a 'scientifc writing system'. More importantly, the
website may ellucidate the meaning of 'scientific' in this context. (What
Clart Tufts was referring to)
Well, I might not be comfortable saying, "Korean is the most
scientific writing system", but I'll definitely be able to say,
"Korean is one of the most scientific writing systems", if it ever comes
up in random conversation again.
Thanks so much,
Jayne
|
|
|
|
| Re: the Korean language [message #6613 is a reply to message #6611] |
Wed, 09 April 2003 23:08 |
J.Scott Burgeson
Messages: 120
Registered: January 2002
|
Senior Member |
|
|
--- ??? wrote:
> As for the problem of homophones, I agree with
> Michael
> Robinson. I've been living in Korea, among Koreans,
> for
> 36 years and have found homophones to be no more of
> a
> problem than they are in English. Far from lugging
> around
> dictionaries of sino-Korean words, most Koreans
> aren't
> even quite sure of how to look up a Chinese
> character in
> the okpyeon.
>
Yes, that is my point--most people don't do that
because it's a pain in the ass... Ask 100 Korean
adults what the famous "P'imatgol" means, for example,
and I bet 99 of them would have no idea... I do a lot
of translation work with Koreans and even when
researching academic texts, the problem of homophones
and which sound means which Chinese character always
arises... And then if there is no Chinese character
and it is a purely Korean word, then often the meaning
of the original word root is lost in the mists of the
ancient past... Anyway, maybe the meaning of most
words in Korean are intuitively understood by most
Koreans, but when it comes to isolating the exact
meaning and translating them into another language,
that is when all sorts of slippery problems occur...
Again, I would argue that science is based on more
than mere "intuition"...
--Scott Bug
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the Korean language [message #6616 is a reply to message #6610] |
Thu, 10 April 2003 14:10 |
jaynee
Messages: 3
Registered: April 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hello JooBai and all,
I'm not sure if these questions were meant to be rhetorical or not, but
I'll take a stab at a few.
> Is there a measure of how scientific a language is?
> Is it even a relevant question to ask?
I think you answered those questions later on in your email.
>
> Were there to be an answer and were it to prove to be
> that language K is not as scientific as language
> Y, will the questioner find it a blow to her self confidence?
>
> Or, should it indeed prove to be that language K is
> the most "scientific" of all languages, will she
> be rushing to sign up for the courses in language K?
Hmmm. Probably not yes to either. Pride/Nationalism runs deeper than one
phrase and the need to learn your ethic language isn't too compelling if your
friends, including other Korean-Ams, don't speak it or understand it
either. ... I just asked the question to figure out a random nagging
question. I also have a random question about a fable. I'm not sure
if it was my mom's translation of a traditional Korean fable or if
my mom 'Koreanized' a traditional American fable. Does anyone happen to
know a lot about Korean fables? I asked my mom already and well,
it's been a long time since she told us fables....
By the way, I'm not sure quite how to handle Korean Nationalism. One of
my Taiwanese-Am friends once told me about how her other friend, who's a
Korean exchange student, wore a shirt that said a F*ck U.S.A! She wore
this around her U.C. campus without hesitation. It was during the World
Cup, but I'm not sure she made that clear on the shirt she made. I
didn't know what to say. It was clearly not in the best of taste, but
what do you say when your friend looks at you with questioning eyes? Is
Korean Nationalism at a boiling point right now? Is it from all
generations or only the younger generation? If there is a gap, what are
the reasons for this gap? (Besides the conflict with the U.S. military or
is this the reason for the spike?)
> And if the language K is a mixture of languages KO,CH, and EN
> in the proportions of 20%, 70% , and 10%, respectively,
> should the "scientificness" be the weighted average of the
> "scientificness" of respective languages?
Yes!
>
> It is not clear that the question is one that can be easily
> answered and possibly one really belonging with the questions
> of how "beautiful" a language is.
>
> On the face of it, the question may not even be deserving of
> an answer. But it would be interesting were there to be such
> a measure.
>
> It is also a very odd question on the face of it as I suppose
> the most important question one would ask in learning anything
> new would be "How profitable is it to learn it given that the
> learner must make an investment of precious time and effort?"
>
> Were the question be one of profitability in the modern world, the
> answer is unquestionably English. Why bother with anything else?
> What other country would give tenure to a foreigner or allow a
> foreigner to participate as fully in its social and economic life?
>
> And among the East Asian languages, the profitability scale would
> be from the top to bottom, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, Thai,
> and Korean.
>
> But then, is the question really about why should anybody study
> Korean?
Personally I eventually want to study Korean to learn more about my
*family history*. If the future plays out as I would hope, then I'll be
starting in a year and a half, two years at latest. But, I do know a
good number of Korean-Ams who think it's more important to do well in the
place they are living, i.e. America, than it is to take the time to learn
their ethnic language. Not that we don't hang our heads in shame when we can't
understand someone speaking to us in Korean, but we aren't taking Korean
courses after work either. Some of my friends are close to 40; they have
a family already, a full blown career, so I think it's understandable.
Perhaps that's not where we find our 'Korean' identity (in language).
Why? Hobbies. The American Dream. Not sure.
I think cultural influences are other reasons why someone might learn a
language. For example, Anime's influence on Americans, who now want to
study Japanese. Korean doesn't have as much of a mainstream influence,
so maybe it is a matter of birth.
>
> I do think Korean is beautiful, poetic, and scientific. And
> surely it would be porfitable for you to learn it if you have
> the time and are willing to make the effort.
>
> For most people, the attachment to a language is a matter of
> birth. For everyone on the list, it is also surely a matter of
> attachment.
>
> And on the face of it, the question does not allow for an easy
> answer, and yet it surely deserves a considered answer.
>
> Regards,
>
> JooBai Lee
>
That's my $0.02.
-Jayne
|
|
|
|
| Re: the Korean language [message #6617 is a reply to message #6611] |
Thu, 10 April 2003 20:24 |
Peter Mauro Schroepfe[1][
Messages: 5
Registered: February 2002
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
I agree with everything critical that's ever been said here about the nationalist and sometimes imperialist statements from some linguists in the our-writing-system-can-beat-up-your-writing-system faction. Having said that, however, I do think there is room for a little more understanding of the context in which the word kwahakchOk is often used.
As most will recognize, the writing system known as han'gUl was invented, deliberately, using (dare I say) scientific methodology. Now to many, it may not be a very kwahakchOk use of the word kwahakchOk to then say that han'gUl is kwahakchOk, but you can certainly see the connection. The confusion arises in the unwillingness by most native speakers of Korean to differentiate between language and methods of recording it in writing. Han'gUl is han'gugO, and han'gugO is han'gUl. Hence you have a kwahakchOk writing system becoming a kwahakchOk language, and that becomes "Korean is a scientific language" in English. (This failure to differentiate also leads to very un-kwahakchOk terms like "yOngja," as if romaja belonged to English.)
I would like to submit that while "kwahakchOk" is a word all too often abused in Korean, even when it isn't, I think there are many occasions when it should not be translated as "scientific." I'm thinking of the times you see the word used quite naturally, but in contexts that would sound inappropriate in English. Just today I was reading about soktam (proverbs), and there was something about how these sayings have "kwahakchOk kUn'gO." Maybe the word has been misused so often that even I'm confused, but the expression seems "acceptable enough" to me in Korean, even though I'd hesitate to say "proverbs have scientific basis" in English.
About the claim that Korean is not only scientific but the "most" so, I wonder also about where "most" comes from. Surely there is no shortage of Korean linguists who really do think Korean and/or han'gUl are the "best" in the world and that they are the "most" whatever, more than all the rest. But time and time again I am impressed by sentences in Korean where the writer clearly just means "one of the most" but says "kajang" this or that, and how "one of the most" or "one of the best," when said in Korean, often sound either like coarse translations of English phrases or as if someone is getting too technical for everyday speech.
I think "kajang" sometimes gets misused much in the way "nOmu" often does. If someone ways "nOmu choa," I am not going to think they're saying they wish they'd like something less because they "like it too much," unless we are talking about an addiction. Likewise, if someone asks "Don't you think han'gUl is kajang kwahakchOk?" I say, "Yes it sure is! Relatively."
Just some thoughts,
Peter Schroepfer.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 24 22:51:54 EDT 2013
|
Korean Studies Discussion List
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
