Talk:History of Korean
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
History of the korean language[edit]
Rajmaan (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.chiyukit.sakura.ne.jp/Korean%20accent%20reconstruction.pdf
http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/13656/1/tLoJaK_06_Korean_dialects_-_final.pdf
http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/korean2.html
http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/rischel1992lexical.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20120929031827/https://www.indiana.edu/~iulcwp/pdfs/08-Lee.pdf
Missionary contributions toward the revaluation of Hangeul in late nineteenth-century Korea DAVID J. SILVA
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/david/IJSL_2008_Silva.pdf
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/david/KorStu_2002_Silva.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=MZ9hAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=The+idea+that+there+are+two+languages+in+Korea+is+strengthened+by+the+fact+that+foreigners,+who+are+perhaps+tolerably+well+acquainted+with+words+purely+Korean,+have,+when+they+heard+conversations+carried+on+between+officials+and+scholars,+been+unable+to+understand+what+was+said&source=bl&ots=BBPHALSPxy&sig=fcWSPqt-EuxFKvq4cPYA0fkvOmM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1h9yznpXOAhUKqB4KHRwQBXMQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=The%20idea%20that%20there%20are%20two%20languages%20in%20Korea%20is%20strengthened%20by%20the%20fact%20that%20foreigners%2C%20who%20are%20perhaps%20tolerably%20well%20acquainted%20with%20words%20purely%20Korean%2C%20have%2C%20when%20they%20heard%20conversations%20carried%20on%20between%20officials%20and%20scholars%2C%20been%20unable%20to%20understand%20what%20was%20said&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=MZ9hAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA5&dq=The+idea+that+there+are+two+languages+in+Korea+is+strengthened+by+the+fact+that+foreigners,+who+are+perhaps+tolerably+well+acquainted+with+words+purely+Korean,+have,+when+they+heard+conversations+carried+on+between+officials+and+scholars,+been+unable+to+understand+what+was+said&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjppYa9opXOAhVMHR4KHdSiDOcQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=The%20idea%20that%20there%20are%20two%20languages%20in%20Korea%20is%20strengthened%20by%20the%20fact%20that%20foreigners%2C%20who%20are%20perhaps%20tolerably%20well%20acquainted%20with%20words%20purely%20Korean%2C%20have%2C%20when%20they%20heard%20conversations%20carried%20on%20between%20officials%20and%20scholars%2C%20been%20unable%20to%20understand%20what%20was%20said&f=false
61
https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/readbook_text/An_Introduction_Korean_Spoken_Language_v1_1000148177/21 p.4-5. An Introduction Korean Spoken Language - Forgotten Books www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/An_Introduction_Korean...Language.../21 Volume: 2; Author: Horace Grant Underwood; Category: Language - English Language; ... the book, the effort has been made to present Korean from the Korean stand point. ... tolerably well acquainted with words purely Korean, have, when they heard conversations carried on between officials and scholars, been unable to ...
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023332707/cu31924023332707_djvu.txt
Tonality in middle korean[edit]
Tonality in middle korean
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sx6gdJIOcoQC&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=nVgr2BkwAdkC&pg=PA315#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=2AmspKX3beoC&pg=PA168#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Missionaries[edit]
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/david/IJSL_2008_Silva.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.464.723&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Materials[edit]
English-Korean colloquial
https://archive.org/details/fiftyhelpsforbeg00bairuoft
https://archive.org/details/cu31924023332707
https://archive.org/details/introductiontoko00unde
https://archive.org/details/anintroductiont00undegoog
https://archive.org/details/coreanmanualorph00scotrich
French-Chinese-Korean-Ainu vocabulary
https://archive.org/details/vocabulairechino00rosn
Korean English dictionary
https://archive.org/details/KoreanEnglishDictionary
Corean primer (same author and principles as Mandarin primer)
https://archive.org/details/coreanprimerbei01rossgoog
https://archive.org/details/coreanprimerbei00rossgoog
https://archive.org/details/coreanprimerbein00rossrich
French Corean dictionary
https://archive.org/details/coreen
https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireCoren-franais
https://archive.org/details/petitdictionair00alevgoog
Korean texts
https://archive.org/details/chijongpibangpu008800
https://archive.org/details/aonkakpi3kwon008800
https://archive.org/details/ojongkyujangchon008800
https://archive.org/details/pyogonbang00np
In Hanja
https://archive.org/details/sohakchugwankwon008800
Rajmaan (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Beckwith's view on Goguryeo language is not supported by mainstream linguists[edit]
I have cited some sentences from Thomas Pellard(expert linguist of Japonic languages)’s review on the problematic book written by Beckwith:
- “Unfortunately, Beckwith’s ambitious work is heavily flawed in many aspects, of which I will provide only a few examples. First, I deplore the general opacity of his methodology, since most of his reconstructions are his own, quite different from the ones adopted in mainstream Chinese (Baxter 1992; Sagart 1999; Starostin 1989, 1998-2003) and Japanese (Martin 1987) historical phonology, and it is unclear how they were arrived at. His comparisons thus use reconstructions that are too often problematic, sometimes simply incorrect, or, worse, just circular.”
- “Beckwith’s comparisons also include a significant number of cases with questionable or unrealistic semantics.”
- “The exact nature of the source language of the place names remains problematic in spite of Beckwith’s arguments, and this has led some scholars to label it cautiously “pseudo-Koguryo”.”
- “Nevertheless, its too many methodological shortcomings forbid us to accept Beckwith’s reconstructions and conclusions, although it is quite clear that some of the Koguryo place names indeed represent in all likelihood a language related to Japanese that was once spoken in the center of the Korean peninsula.”
Koryosaram (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's pretty normal for scholars to disagree. The way that we usually handle such spats on Wikipedia is to include the claim, but to also include the criticism of it. In any case, you haven't demonstrated that Beckwith is on the fringe to such an extent that we cannot include any citation to him at all. Also, the Gaogouli language is not the main point here: it's the fact that nationalistic scholars in Korea have tried to stretch the history of the current language spoken on the Korean peninsula to that of the ancient kingdoms that existed there. This specific historiographical issue is not addressed by Pellard. Shrigley (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Korean nationalism is not the focus of this article. This article is about the Korean language. If Beckwith's theory is to be included, there should be a balanced coverage of the contested theories of Old Korean, which is well covered in this article. http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/?bmode=view&stype=1&sidx=110&page=2&mode=&s_word=&bidx=4&search= Cydevil38 (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Korean nationalism has created this idea that there was such a thing as "Old Korean": i.e., the people who lived in the land across from Japan during that time did not speak their own language that was complete and separate with their own identity, but was just some primitive stage in evolution that preceded the glorious modern Korean race.
- Also, you should know how much of a charged and bad-faith expression it is to link to a foundation that was created by the South Korean government to advance the claim that every ancient polity that ever touched a small piece of modern-day Korean territory was "ethnically Korean".
- The "national language studies" movement is absolutely relevant to an article about the history of the Korean language, because history is ultimately written and created by some people, and their motivations in doing so are essential to understanding the product of their efforts. The nationalistic motivations of the scholars is a fact documented by Beckwith: whether the historians were ultimately "right" or not, is debateable, but that's secondary, and you are free to include any additional sources about that that you want, but you have provided no good justification for removing the whole bit. Shrigley (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Beckwith might be less controversial or even a mainstream linguist in his major fields like Old Tibetan and Central Eurasian languages studies. But, his problematic reconstructions based on Goguryeo placenames were labeled as pseudo by western linguists. However, not only Beckwith’s discredited reconstructions are highly criticized but also Beckwith’s invalid conclusions, relying on his heavily flawed reconstructions, also are rejected by Pellard. Koryosaram (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your hostile edits and comments are getting tiresome. Old Korean is not a construct that exclusively owes its creation to Korean nationalist scholars. It is a phase of historical linguistics used by most Korean language experts, including non-Korean experts. The journal I have provided is a special edition of Journal of Inner and East Asian Studies that focuses on the controversies surrounding Old Korean. It is edited by a non-Korean expert, and most articles were written by non-Korean experts, including Beckwith that you are so fond about. Calling this "bad faith" rather reflects your own general bad faith and hostile editing tendencies on Korean articles. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Ono Susumu's mysterious word "Phuwa"[edit]
http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/Ling450ch/reports/korean.html
Ono Susumu has compared a so-called Korean word Phuwa(lung), but such word doesn't exist in Korean. Lung is 허파(heopa) in native Korean. Because of this false comparation, the Austronesian theory has spread everywhere. It is not even a Korean word, and in the first place, a single word can't be the evidence of language classification. Please help to delete this false reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.247.135.183 (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)