[KS] the Korean language
jayne at newdream.net
Wed Apr 9 22:44:43 EDT 2003
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:
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,
More information about the Koreanstudies