This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwgracie (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Victorhlpenn (article contribs).

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Korea C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Languages C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. China C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia C‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

1 2 Create using the "move procedure"

KOREAN LANGUAGE SPEAKING POPULATION NEED MAJOR UPDATE:

TOTAL KOREAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS AROUND THE WORLD:

KOREAN PENINSULA POPULATION IS 82 MILLION. PLUS 7-10 OVERSEAS KOREAN POPULATION WOULD BE 89-92 MILLION. PLUS KOREAN/ HALF KOREANS IN MANCHURIA, RUSSIA/SIBERIA, JAPAN, USA, EUROPE, LATIN AMERICA 110-150 MILLION. PREVIOUS NUMBER 150 MILLION SPEAKERS IS CORRECT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoUpdatetoday (talk • contribs) 12:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers: Korean language spoken around the World: 90-100 Million. ( Overseas Koreans living in Manchuria, Siberia ( Russia), Japan). Year 2015 Korean language spoken by 80 Million is far too low. Korean Peninsula population is 82 Million. If you include 7 Million Overseas Korean it would be 88 Million. Including Half Korean population living and working in Manchuria, Russia ( Siberia), Japan. It would be 100 Million Korean speaker around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea Info Update (talk • contribs) 05:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KOREAN PENINSULA POPULATION (2016) ALREADY 80-86 MILLION. IF YOU ADD 7 MILLION IT IS 93 MILLION KOREAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS. TOTAL KOREAN LANGUAGE USERS IS 93-96 MILLION. NOT 75 MILLION. ( OUTDATED YEARS AGO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaupdate (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares about your personal opinions - only Reliable Sources are used to document articles.50.111.211.140 (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible loanwords from Japanese (?)

言語 (언어) Ultimately from Classical Chinese but in modern Chinese means "speech", not "language"

料理 （요리） In Chinese, it can also mean "to manage" but it's current usage in CJK languages means "cuisine".

自動車 (자동차); 医者 (의사); 建物 （건물）; 電球 （전구）; 電池 （전지）; 扇風機 （선풍기）; 会社 （회사）; 空港 （공항）; 蹴球 （축구）; 財閥 （재벌）; 寄宿舎 (기숙사); 野球 （야구）

Chinese loanwords:

眼鏡 (안경); 先生 （선생）; 鑰匙 （열쇠）; 拉麺 （라면); 工夫 (공부); 豆腐（두부)

家族 （가족） This word originates from Classical Chinese and is understood by many Chinese having fair knowledge of the former but its current usage in Japanese and Korean is noteworthy.

綠茶 （녹차）; 紅茶 （홍차）; －色 （－색）

While my main background and field of expertise on Wikipedia is video games, I've recently gotten into languages here, as they're an interest in my personal life as well. I recently built Czech language from lower C-class to a current GAN (with FAC in mind), and I plan to work on this page as well. Just letting anyone who watches this know that there will be lots of edits, including ones involving the page's structure, in the coming days. Please tell me any concerns you have along the way. Tezero (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Or maybe not. The Google Books available are frustratingly incomplete, though I have placed a couple inter-library loan requests. Tezero (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I forgot all about this. I never really got around to looking at it because I got an absolutely medieval GA review for Czech (though it eventually passed and was mostly justified). I haven't really got the motivation or time to solo this right now or in the near future, but if anyone wants to collaborate on a GA push for this or something, I'm willing to help. Tezero (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what sense you are using "medieval" here, to mean "antiquated" or "unenlightened" or "torturous" or "of epic proportions"?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epic proportions. Tezero (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the Altaic hypothesis continues to die out, I might wait for a while - then it could be properly shelved as a footnote without starting a edit flip-flop-flip on here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Gender and the Korean Language section it states:

"In Western societies, individuals won't avoid expressions of power asymmetry, mutually addressing each other by their first names for the sake of solidarity. Between two people of asymmetrical status in a Korean society, people tend to emphasize differences in status for the sake of solidarity."

Both sentences are confusing to me. How is the Western practice of mutually using first names an expression of power asymmetry? As a Westerner it seems to me an expression of power symmetry, a way to level differences. Similarly why would the Korean practice of emphasizing differences in status be for the sake of solidarity, when it seems to do the exact opposite? Is there some additional cultural context I'm missing here, or is this simply an error? --94.11.131.245 (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC for all the articles subsumed under the discredited Altaic theory is here. --Taivo (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that, "The majority of linguists, however, such as Alexander Vovin, have argued that the indicated similarities between Japanese and Korean are not due to any genetic relationship, but rather to a sprachbund effect and heavy borrowing, especially from ancient Korean into Western Old Japanese." I believe that needs to be clarified, as it cannot be literally true as written, if only because (please correct me if I am mistaken) the majority of linguists do not offer arguments about whether the similarities between Japanese and Korean are due to the sprachbund effect or not. I assume that linguists concerned specifically with this question is meant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it means what you suggest. But whether (even) that is true or not, is a different question. (works assuming or asserting Altaic status include: The origin and evolution of word order

Murray Gell-Mann, Merritt Ruhlen Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 108, No. 42 (October 18, 2011), pp. 17290-17295 and those discussed and mentioned by the leading opponent, Vovin: "by Japanese, Korean, and Other 'Non-Altaic' Languages" Alexander Vovin, Central Asiatic Journal, Vol. 53, No. 1 (2009), pp. 105-147

Kdammers (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest that the article be changed, Kdammers? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you see Merritt Ruhlen's name as a proponent of some grouping or other you can be quite suspicious. His methodology has been soundly rejected by the body of historical linguists. --Taivo (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is as may be, but the validity or not of Altaic was not what was under discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. While I definitely agree that Korean currently has to be classified as a language isolate and that its inclusion in larger groupings of any sorts has yet to be proven, I have several concerns with the wording of this section.

• First of all, the beginning makes the somewhat misleading impression that most, if not all, of the various proponents of Altaic (Trans-Eurasian, whatever) have only based their assumptions on typological grounds. That simply isn't the case, as proven, for instance, by the (no matter how unreliable or erroneous) issue of the Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages (EDAL). Even if all of those thousands of comparanda were merely a loose conglomerate of coincidental similarities and multiple layers of loanwords (and I'm afraid the data may turn out to be too opaque to ever prove otherwise), it is clear evidence to the contrary.
• Also, contrary to Sasha Vovin's wishes (as encapsulated in the title of his famous, or infamous if you're pro, polemical paper), the debate is far from over, (as demonstrated by the follow-up series of reply-papers, even if I must say I tend to side with Vovin). Thus, "discredited" might not sound neutral enough, and I would replace it with "highly criticised", "largely rejected" or "contested" or something along those lines. To me, "discredited" would apply to something like "Uralo-Altaic", or "Dravido-Japonic", or "Vasco-Aztec". I would simply reduce the mention of Altaic to an absolute minimum, stress its being contested, and move on to the much more important and interesting issue of Koreo-Japonic similarities as viewed by Vovin (and/or others).
• And that takes us to the excessively generous second half of the section, which is devoted to completely pseudo-scientific jibber-jabber (any serious linguist must see how utterly nonsensical Dravido-Koreanic proposals are, and I don't understand why mentions of this silly idea keep popping up here and then) and, in my opinion, should be deleted altogether. If I had more time, I'd make some changes myself, but I'd have to consult some of my materials to see whether I could cite something useful on the matter. Moreover, I wasn't actually sure whether I was allowed to change the article after I saw the above discussion has long been closed. --P^ětušek 21:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration in which a highway sign is labeled as being in Korean actually shows signs in Korean and English.Kdammers (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The illustrations of the letters is incomplete. Since all syllables are written within equal-sized boxes, the letters can vary depending on what other letters are in the syllable. For example, kyok alone looks very different from the way it is written in the word gimchi: 김치. In addition, there is the archaic, stylized but still used ㅏ which is written as a dot. Kdammers (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wow.are you a korean?because i don't know where you get the korean letters Silver baby (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korean work colleagues say they enjoy visiting Finland as they recognize many Finnish words.88.105.147.37 (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheer coincidence. There is no evolutionary connection between Koreans/Korean language and the Finns/Finnish language - separated by huge distances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.211.140 (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possible evolutionary connection between Korean and Finnish through Ural–Altaic_languages / Turanian language-family proposal. However this connection would be very ancient, and likely will manifest itself through structural similarities detectable only by historical linguists after careful study. I agree that occasional words picked up by tourists are probably a coincidence. Selerian (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Korean language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630173621/http://www.dliflc.edu/academics/academic_materials/all/ALLissues/all16two.pdf to http://www.dliflc.edu/academics/academic_materials/all/ALLissues/all16two.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is definitely worthwhile to explore how gender disparity is shown through different speech patterns, but the crux of matter is that the Korean language *lacks* grammatical gender.

Basically, the difference in words or commonly used expressions is best considered a subject of sociolinguistics, not a part of Korean grammar per se. Contrast this with honorifics which are very clearly an integral part of Korean grammar.

I don't mind having a bit of discussion on gender-related issues, but having that as a subsection inside "Grammar" is very misleading, so I moved out into its own section and added a bit of remark to (hopefully) clear things up.

I mean, think about American English. African-American English speakers have a distinct dialect and even some of their own grammar. However, nobody will consider "race" a part of English grammar.

73.162.180.49 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "African-American English" - there are only various slang words used in all communities. There is absolutely no difference in grammar throughout the English language - that's absolute rot. 104.169.28.48 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is such a thing: African American Vernacular English 162.247.45.152 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does 낮 7시 actually mean in korean language? 7 AM or 7 PM? I think it's 7 PM. 139.192.184.34 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it's rather 7 AM. Surely a ridiculous problem since both 7 AM and 7 PM are not considered as noon. But slightly, 7 AM have a probability to be considered as noon by some earlybirds. But 7 PM is almost definitely evening (저녁). Garypark (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit frustrating reading this article because it vacillates between using McCune-Reischauer and Revised Romanization. This would be confusing, but at least justifiable, if McCune were used for North Korean transliterations and Revised for South Korean transliterations, and in some places it does seem like that's the convention being used, but then in other places McCune is used for South Korean transliterations! I feel like you need a whole lot of knowledge of Korean romanization already to understand what the hell is going on with these terms. Wouldn't it be better to use one or the other consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.182.194 (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained in my revert rationale, Korean should be areally grouped under familycolor = Altaic for purposes of convenience, a la Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic, and Japonic, and in a areally unrelated example, the Amerindian languages, which employ the same familycolor despite no demonstrated genetic relationship. Again, I must stress that familycolor = altaic is for areal purposes.

However, it looks like previous discussions have been inconclusive regarding the infobox color (1, 2, 3, 4) mostly revolving around the inclusion of the primary family being "Altaic ?" in the language infobox. The Verified Cactus 100% 16:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @FreeKnowledgeCreator:. The Verified Cactus 100% 16:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On the Template:Infobox language/family-color page, Altaic is specified as areal. RobbieM13 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This document seems to back up the claim about Sino-Korean morphemes being monosyllabic (in the vocabulary section), however, I don't know how to source it. https://blogs.uw.edu/isskl/files/2017/08/ISSKL-2-Song-presentation-01-updated.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieM13 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from RobbieM13's User Talk: Hello RobbieM13 I have had conversation with people from New Zealand (kiwi) and Australia who have Chinese ancestor, but I was surprised that they over-reacted and did not wish that Korean language belong to altaic language family. That's because Chinese people have so long been ruled by people who used altaic language family. However, personal emotion and scholastic work is separate thing.

The text books used in elementary, middle, and high school in South Korea still define that Korean language is part of altaic language family, in part, because there aren't many scholars who claim that Korean language is an isolated language. If South Korea does so, English wikipedia citing books from no linguistic background and listing different information will make the site like Galapagos Islands, and give wrong information to many people.

Also, I have a vovin book that was referenced, the referred content was not found in the book. Please understand that false information was disguised as true fact, citing a book that doesn't even have particular content. YOU MUST CHECK IT. IT IS REALLY WRITTEN LIKE THAT OR NOT. You can search about the book that Vovin wrote. It's about middle mongolian. And He wrote that the gender agreement is abandon in middle mongolian language.

Looking at the false contents that contains ideology of certain ethnic group, the English wikipedia users and the management in wikipedia should be ashamed and look back on their mistake. Thank you. --218.149.108.165 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

My response: The claim which is sourced with Mr. Vovin's book is the statement that Such factors of typological divergence as Middle Mongolian's exhibition of gender agreementcan be used to argue that a genetic relationship with Altaic is unlikely. I agree that this is not included in the source material; I emailed Mr. Vovin himself and he said that "Although it increasingly looks like that proto-Mongolic unlike Turkic had gender, and in general gender is a no-Altaic feature, I have never made a claim that it has any impact on Altaic problem because no typology has any say in deterening[sic] genetic affiliation." and so I agree with your removal of that section. I will discuss the amount of weight we should be giving the Altaic theory once I have read up on this stuff, however there have been numerous discussions on both this talk page and also on the WikiProject Languages archives which have all come to the same conclusion; Altaicism is largly discredited.

I'll try to link all relevant discussions

On this page: 1 2 3 4

On WikiProject Languages: 5 6 7

On WikiProject Linguistics: 8

RobbieM13 (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ono Susumu is a Japanese linguist asserting relations between Japanese and Dravidian and Austronesian. Problem is that he is not a specialist in Korean language. His only example for his Austonesian theory is the word "Phuwa" and he says it is a Korean word meaning lung, but this word doesn't exist in Korean. In native Korean, lung is 허파 (heopa).
I personally have tried to contact him to figure out what the heck this is, but he is already dead it is still a mystery. This mysterious word "phuwa" which is of course not Korean, is the only clue supporting his Austronesian theory. Unlike his absurd Austonesian theory, the Dravidian theory is considered "should not be overlooked" by many Korean linguists. A contributor brought the Ono Susumu's kindling again. I ask
1. not to correlate between Austonesian and Dravidian. Treat the two language stocks separately.
2. not to cite the Ono Susumu's old paper from 1998.

Lung is 허파 (heopa) or 부아 (bua) in native Korean but 부아 is almost dead now only used in some fixed expressions like 부아가 치민다. Maybe the word "Phuwa" refers to 부아 (Bua) ? In Sino Korean, lung is 폐 (pye). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.7.46.106 (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article should be merged with Korea. Spiritualpick (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]