Talk:Korean postpositions

Japanese particles but no Korean particles?

Why is there a Japanese particles but no Korean particles? -- HAYSON¹⁹⁹¹ 15:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Created new article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hanja

This Korean War propaganda leaflet made by the US Army uses Hangul-Hanja mixed script. The Korean War was only 58 years ago.

I don't agree with the reasoning used in removing the Hanja within the article. For native speakers of English and other phonetic script languages, using exclusively Hangul writing is much easier, however for native Japanese and Chinese speakers learning Korean, it makes more sense to them within their mind to use Hanja as well, and they can read faster ideographically than phonetically since they are used to reading that way. This article should be helpful to as many people as possible, and not only to a select few.

In addition, including Hanja as "entirely unnecessary" makes no sense, since Hanja is an integral part of the Korean language. Even though it may not be used as commonly today as it were, say 60 years ago, it is used in certain cases, where Hanja is used alongside Hangul in a similar manner to Kanji being used within the Japanese language, and that alone makes the claim of it being "entirely unnecessary" dubious. As a linguistics-related article, the purpose of the article is to inform with as much detail as possible, and inclusion of Hanja does not thwart that; rather it makes reading all the more educating. Languages such as Serbian and Macedonian have two separate writing systems, and linguistics articles relating to Serbian use both Cyrillic and Latin to show examples in Serbian; this article does something similar. As the original author of this page, my intention of including Hanja was solely to provide linguistic demonstration, and only that.

Finally, I hope people are not taking this as some sort of a "nationalistic statement". There is no nationalistic point being made through the inclusion of Hanja; it is merely a factual presentation of information. Usage of Hanja in this article does not imply anything, and they are there solely to demonstrate. Not everyone "is against you" or "out to get you", and I hope you don't assume that way in bad faith. To the contrary, I could also say that the persistent insistance of Hanja being unnecessary can be interpreted as a nationalistic statement to downplay the usage of Hanja within the Korean language. Rather than having everyone suspecting and accusing each other of something and eventually forming another heated dispute and argument, it would be more better off for everyone to assume non-malice of each other. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll make this point again: the English Wikipedia is for English speakers, not Japanese or Chinese. Using Chinese characters here is as absurd as using latin in articles on English or German languages. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You have failed to address most, if not any, of my points. As I have said earlier, I suspect that this is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your behalf. As for your statement regarding Latin, I don't follow. English has many Latin-origin words, your claim makes no sense. Also, Hanja is not the same as Chinese; you're making a non sequitur here. If you haven't noticed already, the sole writing system used to write English and German is the Latin alphabet. Furthermore, the point of me suggesting to you to engage in discussion on the talk page was so that both sides could get their arguments across properly, to right any misunderstandings, and to gain consensus. That does not mean "it's okay to post a 15-word comment and then start reverting again", that's not how WP:BRD works, and is borderline disruptive. You seem to be the only one with a problem against the Hanja on this page; this page has had at least 100 views already since its creation, and has been on the Linguistics noticeboard for quite some time, yet no one else has come up with a similar complaint as you have (and no, this isn't the cue for you to call up all your skype friends like you have done before, either). Finally, it's not like the Hanja isn't verifiable either; the Hangul-Hanja correspondence can easily be verified at http://hanja.naver.com which is one of South Korea's most popular and widely used online Hanja dictionaries. I myself used Naver's Hanja dictionary whilst creating this article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll put it as simple as possible so that you can understand this very simple problem - Chinese characters are as unnecessary in this article as latin words in English or German article are unnecessary. Maybe using latin words in those article can help people who are proficient in latin to better understand the article. But the articles are for English speakers, not ancient Romans. You may also notice that there is an English word in this article as well, and by your own logic, we should have another sentence for that English word. This is just absurd and extraneous. If Chinese or Japanese are trying to learn Korean, they should do so by learning Korean like others, rather than trying to learn Chinese Characters. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Again you have ignored my warnings to you regarding WP:BRD; do not blindly revert just for the sake of it, even if you believe you are right; that is not "discussion", that is edit warring and is a form of disruptive editing. Also, ${\frac {mypoint}{yourhead}}$. Writing systems do not equate to languages, and if you are unable to comprehend such a simple concept, why are you editing linguistics-related articles on Wikipedia? Per WP:COMPETENCE, I'd recommend dealing with topics you are more familiar with. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. This discussion is going nowhere. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You are as much involved in this "slow edit warring" as I am. You are trying to be bold and write a controversial and unnecessary content into the article, and that is not something I agree with. So until we've reached an agreement, I suggest you refrain from trying to write that content. And please don't insult my competence in understanding what the subject is. You are trying to put in Chinese characters so that Chinese and Japanese readers can better understand them. But use of Hangul alone provides more than enough information for the purpose of this article. If they don't know what the word means, they should look it up in a dictionary. For instance, there is an English term, "James", in one of the sentences. However, we don't need a separate sentence to write "James" in English. Also, please establish some significant connections between Korean particles, Japanese particles and Okinawan particles if you wish to link them to this page. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverting disruptive editing is not EWing. You are disruptive for refusing to follow WP:BRD. As for the see also, there does not have to be "significant connections" between topics for similar and relevant articles to be listed in See also sections. Your removal seems WP:POINT-y at best. Foreign relations of Japan links to Visa requirements for Japanese citizens, and the link is on-par with the links on this article. You are making a bug fuss out of a non-issue. You're getting upset over things are aren't even supposed to be even remotely belligerent, and I assume you're doing this simply because of an old grudge against me or something. I'm pretty sure I can put my bets on if this article was created as-is by someone else, you wouldn't have the same grievances as you're having right now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Now now, let's not be too hasty to accuse people of disruptive editing. I personally don't see anything in these reverts other than a content dispute, and that is something to be resolved by discussion and consensus. I suggest you talk the issues out here on the talk page, keeping the discussion strictly on content, not each other. If the discussion stalls then you can try one of the steps listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Slow edit warring, however, is still edit warring, and I don't think admins will look too kindly on it. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Japanese citizens can be significantly related to Foreign relations of Japan, because they have one common element, Japan. And as far as I know, the links you've made don't have much of a common element. I've done the very same had someone else put on unnecessary information in this article. Cydevil38 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that Hangul is more useful for native English speakers than Hanja. For most native English speakers, both Hangul and Hanja are completely opaque. The benefit of including Hanja is not primarily for Chinese and Japanese speakers but for historians, linguists, and ordinary Koreans for whom Hangul can be ambiguous. In any case, Benlisquare is not arguing for the inclusion of a truly archaic pure Hanja system, but for Korean mixed script, which is a valid way of writing Korean in modern Korea. It is truly disingenuous to regard Hanja as being alien to Korean. Quigley (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree. Hangul and Hanja are on two entirely different levels. One is an alphabet, the other is a language of complicated symbols. Hangul can be picked up within a few days of moderate study. Hanja can take a life time or more. There is no reason that the sentences should be duplicated and Hanja only need be used for words which are ambiguous as is done in mainstream Korean usage. That is who the encyclopedia is written for after-all.--Crossmr (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the relative usefulness of Hangul and Hanja is completely out of context. This article is about the Korean language, a language which Hangul expresses quite well enough. The examples presented by this article are simple and easy words that do not require the use of Hanja. Using Hanja is extraneous and can only be confusing for people who don't use it, which includes many Koreans users as well as the majority of English-speaking Wikipedia users. Cydevil38 (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Usage of hanja

The Korean language uses two writing systems: Hangul most of the time, and Hanja (in conjunction with Hangul) in certain circumstances, such as legal documents and published academic works (for example, the Constitution of South Korea is written in Hanja). I originally included the Hanja within the article as examples of text, so that the article would be more informative. To account for two different possible ways of displaying Korean orthography, the article contains example texts written in two lots: one entirely in Hangul, the other in Hangul-Hanja mixed script, in a similar manner to how Chinese linguistic pages are glossed with Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese, Serbian pages are glossed with Cyrillic and Latin alphabet, Mongolian with Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet and Mongolian script, and so forth. It is well known even in Korea that Hanja is an indisputable part of the Korean language (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]).

Hanja ≠ Chinese; one is a writing system, the other a language. The Japanese language uses Kanji, but that does not make it any more "Chinese". As a linguistics-related article, the purpose of the article is to inform with as much detail as possible, and inclusion of Hanja does not thwart that; rather it makes reading all the more educating.

Examples of academic publications published in Hangul-Hanja mixed script:

• 漢文讀法에 쓰여진 韓國의 角筆符號口訣과 日本의 오코토點의 비교, 2003
• 韓國精神文化硏究院 新刊案內, 1985
• 韓國의 古代 漢詩 硏究를 통한 東아시아 춤의 理解, 2009
• 국제근로계약(國際勤勞契約)의 준거법(準據法)에 관한 한국(韓國)과 중국국제사법(中國國際私法)의 이동(異同), 2010
• 전후기 (戰後期) 한국농업문제 (韓國農業問題) 의 성격변화 (性格變化) 와 정책대응 (政策對應), 2006
• 韓國의 土活字印刷術에 관한 硏究, 2008
• 한국선시(韓國禪詩)의 발달사(發達史), 2006
• (特輯): 제 12 회 법을 통한 식민지배; 법 (法) 을 통한 일본 (日本) 의 한국식민지배 (韓國植民支配)-제 2 차 (第 2 次) 한일협약 (韓日協約) 후의 민사법 (民事法) 을 중심으로, 2007
• 한국(韓國)의 회사법(會社法) 개정내용(改正內容)에 대한 개관적 소개 -2009 한양대,간사이대 공동발표회에 부쳐, 2009
• 연구논문(硏究論文) : 한국(韓國)의 수출함수(輸出函數): 수출단가(輸出單價)와 수출물가(輸出物價)의 비교(比較) 및 효율적(效率的) 공적분추정법(共積分推定法)의 이용(利用), 1995

These are just the tip of the iceberg. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is involved in research in Korea, I can confidently say that what you've sampled here is a gross overstatement of the usage of Hanja in Korean academic journals. Use of the Hanja is a mostly limited to a few specific fields of research, particularly law and history. In conventional use, use of Hanja is seldom used in conservative newspapers, mostly for words where meaning can be a bit ambiguous. Nonetheless, the general rule is that you don't use Hanja unless it is absolutely necessary. Most people won't understand it anyways. If you have to use Hanja in exemplars that are supposed to facilitate linguistic understanding, than you are obviously using exemplars that are too hard for novices to understand. If you really feel that Hanjas are required for other words, then replace the words with easier ones that don't need disambiguation. Otherwise, it needs to be assumed that you are trying to put those Chinese characters there for reasons other than helping readers understand and learn Korean. Cydevil38 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, and I would say that if hanja is to be used it should be used in-line and not as a duplicated sentence (example: 의자(義姉)랑 만났어요. - I met my step sister). Though there are some easy words that might need disambiguation. Korean has a lot of homophones. but really, the focus here is the particles. Not the other words. It's simply to illustrate the use of the particles in an example sentence. Creating a separate sentence for them puts far too much focus on them unnecessarily and does nothing to further the understanding of the particle itself.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Questionably Yale

I've noticed that you used a different type of romanization from what most people I assume would know (eg kay instead of kae, nun instead of neun), so I've held out on editing those out, but I fixed the glaringly obvious "'n un" problem (the n is part of the particle, the particle is part of the word). If any of you feel that that is unnecessary feel free to revert.

And while we're at it, I feel that Yale is kinda clunky, so maybe using the other type (I don't remember what it's called though) would be a bit better. Droomph (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Postposition versus Case Suffix

I realize traditional Korean grammar calls these affixes "postpositions", but that deviates from standard use of the term. Should this be mentioned anywhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.196.39.195 (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)