Talk:Hanja
|
|
|
| Contents |
Hap Ki Do vs. Ai Ki Do
On the page it lists "Hap Ki Do" as the Korean form of "Aikido" but this is not the case. I've taken both and they are very different martial arts and have different pages here. --Nachtrabe 18:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Chinese & Korean pronunciation
Korean and Chinese are completely different languages, no doubt that pronounciations are different. Is it meaningful to compare them in the article? wshun 20:28, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- When they borrowed the characters, they also borrowed some pronunciation. e.g., Daehan Min-guk is Dahan Min-guo in Chinese. --Menchi 20:36, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Which dialect of Chinese? ;-) --Rschmertz 21:00, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)
- I used modern Mandarin Chinese to compare. But Mandarin has since the borrowing time dropped all final consonants except n & ng -- the finals are still visible in Cantonese Chinese: Daa-hon Man-gwok. --Menchi 21:54, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I was going to say the same thing. In fact, I'm fairly sure that the pronunciation of every hanja comes from a foreign source, usually a dialect of Chinese, perhaps Japanese in some cases (not sure about that last part). I suspect the disparate pronunciation of the character for "woman" more likely arises from a different point of contact with Chinese culture at the time when Koreans were using Chinese characters to write Korean, as opposed to simply using Chinese directly as the language of writing. Don't forget, also, that languages evolve. A word borrowed five hundred years ago could have changed pronunciation in both languages by now. Yet the paragraph on Hanja#Pronunciation, as it is currently written, seems to imply that Koreans used Chinese characters in some cases for native Korean words, which I'm fairly sure has never happened (though I was never sure how to pronounce the "shin" character you sometimes see stamped on advertisements to indicate a product is new; "shin" by itself does not mean "new" in Korean). Rschmertz 20:55, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)
- The "woman" case is in fact due to divergent evolution (Lee and Ramsey, 73). I've corrected it.
The original pronunciation of "woman" is revealed when it is a non-initial element, e.g. nam-nyeo (男女 "Men and women"). Likewise,- yeon (年 "year") = Chinese: nian; BUT, sin-nyeon (新年 "New Year") = Chinese: xin-nian
- ik (匿 "hide") = Chinese: nì; BUT, un-nik (隱匿 "concealment") = Chinese: yin-ni
- Native Korean pronunciation-Hanzi also fixed.
- Do you shin (not with the Hanja 新) mean something else, or that shin (with the Hanja 新) does not mean "new" or "fresh" in Korean now?
- The "woman" case is in fact due to divergent evolution (Lee and Ramsey, 73). I've corrected it.
- --Menchi 21:54, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Your sentence about "shin" is a little messed up, I'm afraid, so I'm not sure what you mean, but let me explain, though it is sort of difficult. The hanja "新" is pronounced "shin" in Korean. It means "new" in Korean in the same sense that "neo" means "new" in English. You can't say, "I think it's time to get a neo car", in English, but we use it to mean "new" in terms like "neo-conservative", "neologism", etc. Similarly, Koreans do not say "shin cha sasseo" for "I bought a new car"; they say "sae cha sasseo", "sae" in this case being a pure Korean word for "new" (and, totally off-topic, one of two adjectives I'm aware of in the Korean language that are not verbs). Nonetheless, they use the "新" hanja in advertisement-type literature -- not in a sentence where "sae" would normally be used, but all by itself. I don't remember if I ever asked a Korean how this should be pronounced; I suspect somehow that the answer is that it is not to be pronounced, just read.
- You also see the characters for "small, middle, large" (小, 中, 太) used this way. Except the last character here is wrong; for some reason, my Korean input software crashes whenever I try to produce the hanja for 대, so I had to use the closest alternative :-P
- Thanks for the fix on "yeo". BTW, I've edited your spelling of Korean a bit here. Hope you don't mind.--Rschmertz 08:01, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
I've actually seen both jeong-o and ojeong being used in Korean to mean "noon", and in fact I prefer the form jeong-o myself, as a native speaker. Should that be mentioned? --Iceager
- Oh yeah, thanks for the info. I've added it. It's very relevant. I was under the impression that Koreans only used "ojeong". --Menchi 00:24, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
North Korean usage
I heard that in North Korea Hanja were almost completely wiped out, and nearly all korean texts were written entirely in Hangul. The article should make a mention of that --Anon
- It does. Quote from article: "Officially, Hanja have not been in use in North Korea since 1949." --Menchi 06:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hanja is Hancha in McCune-Reischauer.
Hanja, when it means Chinese character, is actually Hancha in McCune-Reischauer. It was written in the article that Hanja is
- Often erroneously spelled as "Hancha" in McCune-Reischauer ["nch" gets assimilated to "nj" in that system]
This is incorrect. In McCune-Reischauer, pronunciation is followed (because "Pronunciation takes precedence over (1) spelling and (2) romanization rules", in this case (2) the n+ch = nj rule), i.e. "j" when voiced, and "ch" when unvoiced. When 한자 means Chinese character, the ㅈ is glottalised (and therefore becomes unvoiced) to the ㅉ sound, a change that doesn't follow usual glottalisation rules, but which is well documented in dictionaries. It is unvoiced, hence "ch" is used. When 한자 represents measure, the ㅈ is, as would usually be the case, voiced, and so in this case it is still "Hanja" in McCune-Reischauer. (Note that however it is not the glottalised romanisation that is used; hence 의과 ŭikwa, although it also has an exceptional glottalisation, so we don't write Hantcha.) Check these (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/korean.pdf) guidelines.
In Revised Romanization, of course, "ch" only represents the aspirated sound, so there is no such problem.
-- KittySaturn 07:31, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)