Talk:Hanja

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
	B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
	High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] 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)

The two martial arts are totally different, that's true, but the meaning of hapkido in korean is equal to the meaning of aikido in Japanese. --Kbarends 15:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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?

--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

This is coming rather late, however, I have only just noticed thate the person before me posted small, middle, and large, then put the hanja characters beside it in brackets. However, as they said, that is not the correct character for "large." 太 means "wife" or "sun". The proper hanja for "big" should be 大. --Hyung-Qing Hong

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] Usage of "hanja"

We should decide on a uniform way to use "hanja" for the purposes of the article. Several questions:

1. Capitalize or not

2. Singular or plural (i.e. should the term "hanja" refer to an individual character, or the whole system?)

My personal inclination is not to capitalize, and to use hanja to refer to the whole system. Individual characters could just be called "characters." --Reuben 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

i agree it should refer to the system as a whole, as a collective noun. casual googling seems to indicate that it is generally capitalized, however. aren't the names of other script systems treated as capitalized proper nouns? Appleby 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a general rule, unless they contain other proper nouns (e.g. Greek alphabet, Cyrillic). However, Wikipedia articles on other writing systems seem to be split. Some of them are general categories rather than specific writing systems, and therefore not capitalized: runes, abugida, alphabet, cuneiform. Some are lower case even when specific: hieroglyphics, kanji, hiragana. Some are capitalized: Bhijimol, Brahmi, Glagolitic. In summary: I can't find any general rule about it! If googling shows it mostly capitalized, let's go with that. --Reuben 04:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation question

Can a Korean language expert help me with the Seolleongtang article? I'm trying to determine why, if the second hanja is pronounced "neong," the soup is pronounced "seolleongtang." Is this just a colloqualism or is it the correct/standard pronuncation. Any help would be great--please respond on the "Discussion" page of the Seolleongtang article. Badagnani 02:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merger proposal

The person who proposed the merger has (incorrectly) posted this comment at the Sino-Korean talk page. I'm posting it here for reference:

I suggested a merge of this article into the Hanja article because:

1. Both this article and the Hanja article suggest or imply that "Hanja" and "Sino-Korean" are the same thing. In the Hanja article, the first sentence is, "Hanja, or hanmun, sometimes translated as Sino-Korean characters or just Chinese characters, are what Chinese characters (hànzì) are called in Korean", where "Sino-Korean characters" are linked to this article.

2. This article is too short to stand on its own.

It's been explained to me that Hanja and Sino-Korean are two different things. But it still remains that there's not much content on this article and I think it should be merged, as a section, into either the Hanja article or Korean language.

This was posted by Hong Qi Gong

support Appleby 05:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC) they are different things, but sino-korean could be adequately covered by a paragraph or short subsection here, removing much overlap and giving readers a more complete context for both topics. overall, i think we should be aiming to streamline, make consistent, & more logically organize the overlapping contents of Korean language, Hangul, Hanja, and Sino-Korean & all the hard-to-find sub-topic articles. this is a good first step. Appleby 04:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

oppose. Having read the two articles, it appears that there is considerable overlap. However, this appears to be due to a failure to make the important conceptual distinction between Hanja (meaning Chinese characters, i.e., the characters used to write the Korean language) and Sino-Korean vocabulary as a segment of the Korean vocabulary. In this sense, Sino-Korean is opposed to native Korean vocabulary (固有語). And as the "Vocabulary" section of the Hanja article explains, Sino-Korean vocabulary is not necessarily Chinese. In some cases it was borrowed from Japanese. What is more, Sino-Korean is not necessarily written with hanja. In fact, modern Korean makes very sparing use of Hanja, so that in fact much Sino-Korean vocabulary is written with hangul.

I would suggest that the section on "Vocabulary" should be moved to Sino-Korean. That would help make the conceptual difference clearer. And I think it is important to maintain the distinction; it is too easy to fall into the trap of equating characters to words and thus vocabulary. (This is a particularly seductive notion in Chinese because there is really no other way of writing Chinese than in characters, and characters are needed to tie the various dialects together. In fact, it's quite possible to have Sino-xxxx without using Hanja, Kanji, or Chinese characters at all. See, for instance, the article on Sino-Vietnamese, a huge segment of the Vietnamese vocabulary that is no longer written with characters at all.)

The proposal to merge the content to Korean language makes somewhat more sense, but even in this case I would suggest the vocabulary section would be better moved to the Korean language article. (If you read the Korean language article, you will find that there is, in fact, a clear distinction made between Sino-Korean and Hanja.)

Finally, I would suggest that the word 'Sino-Korean' should be removed from the definition of Hanja, as it seems to be causing some confusion. Bathrobe 03:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In Korean:

jungguk-eo: chinese language
hanja: chinese characters, including those used in china (traditional & simplified), korea, japan
hanja-mal or hanja-eo: words consisting of chinese characters (written in hanja or hangul), used in china, korea, japan
hanmun: 1. chinese writing; 2. chinese classics studied in china, korea, japan Appleby 06:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, if your definitions given here are correct, then the definition of Hanja as 'Sino-Korean characters' (which I've deleted in the meantime) was incorrect. Your definition suggests that Hanja should refer to all Chinese characters, regardless of language. This is useful information and probably should be mentioned in the article. In fact, kanji in Japanese refers to all Chinese characters, just as hanja does in Korean, but many people want to restrict the meaning to characters as used in Japanese (see Menchi's comment in the page history where he changed "kanji" to "hanzi" -- the thrust appears to be that kanji can't be used to refer to characters used in Chinese, and must refer only to Japanese).

The word 'hanja-mal' or 'hanja-eo': I am curious whether it includes all words written in Chinese characters in China, Korea, and Japan. The reason I ask is because there are many kun'yomi words in Japanese that are written in Kanji, although they would never be considered Sino-Japanese. Also, does this class of word include Chinese words that are not found in Korean or Japanese? An example that springs to mind is 洗衣機 (washing machine), which I know is not used in Japanese and I suspect is not used in Korean. Would this be considered 'hanja-eo'?

'Hanmun' in your definition is equivalent to the meaning of kanbun. You also give it the meaning 'Chinese writing'. If that is the case, then should it be removed as a synonym of "hanja" from the beginning of the Hanja article. I'm not quite clear on this one.

It seems that the article as it stands has a lot of problems. Bathrobe 07:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

those are the definition from general dictionaries, but i would like specialists/linguists to comment? you bring up good points, as whether hanja-mal/hanja-eo would encompass chinese words used exclusively in china. in common conversations, that would be referred to as "jungguk-eo," and probably not hanja-mal/hanja-eo, despite the dictionary definition. but i do agree the intro needs to be changed, as hanja definitely =/= hanmun. Appleby 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made quite a few changes to both articles. One big change I made is to move "Vocabulary" from Hanja to Sino-Korean.

I appreciate that we are discussing whether or not to merge the articles and that this change may appear to be moving in the opposite direction. However, the reason for making the changes is to demonstrate how the two articles cover conceptually quite distinct notions. Naturally, if it is decided to merge the two articles, I am quite happy to see the information re-integrated into a single article. Even if it is decided to merge, however, I think there is a need to clarify the difference between hanja and hanjaeo (Sino-Korean).

Bathrobe

bathrobe, thanks for putting in the work to improve these articles. my concern was that the non-expert reader be able to easily find and get the gist of the big picture, and proper context for each sub-topic, without a lot of overlapping, hard-to-find sub-articles. my feeling, as of now, is that hanja/hanmun/hanja-eo/sino-korean can be better discussed in one well-organized, cleanly-written article. i could be wrong, though. Appleby 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, I think we need input from someone with expertise in Korean linguistics. You yourself are (I presume) Korean, but you say you are not an expert. I'm not a speaker of Korean at all, although I'm familiar with Chinese and Japanese. The person who suggested the merger, Hong Qi Gong, is Hong Kong Chinese, and I think the Chinese (or Cantonese) way of looking at this may be slightly different from the Korean way of doing so. Do we have any people on Wikipedia with expertise in this area?

Bathrobe 05:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already asked for input at hangul & korean language article talk pages, but nobody's biting. guess it's slow season. I am fully fluent in korean, but I'm no linguist, so I wouldn't be confident about detailed scholarly usage, & don't have a strong opinion on the merger, just sounded like a good idea to me. please don't feel like I'm holding you back from working on the articles. (but I do know hanja & hanmun are different things) Appleby 06:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support this merger, as providing a better basis for a good article. Some info on the matter of hanja vs. Chinese characters:

Writers on Korean language education often distinguish between hanjagwon learners (those from Taiwan, China, and Japan) and non-hanjagwon learners. The term hanja, in this context, clearly refers to Chinese characters in general.
The couple of Korean-Korean dictionaries I have at hand just now concur in defining hanja as "중국어를 표기하는 중국 고유의 문자," which pretty strongly indicates that the word's scope is not restricted to Sino-Korean, and is in fact synonymous with Chinese character.

In sum, it seems like the distinction between hanja and (traditional) Chinese characters has been adopted by English speakers, but is (generally) not present in Korean. This makes a bit of sense, since a) there is nothing quite comparable to the kanji/hanzi distinction in Korean, and b) English speakers would never think of referring to non-Korean uses of the characters as "hanja." I think this makes a fairly strong case for considering that "hanja" does not constitute an independent topic outside of Sino-Korean. -- Visviva 05:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Like most everyone else here, I'm no linguist, and my Korean is still very shaky. Initially I was absolutely opposed to the merge, as hanja and sino-korean vocabulary are clearly distinct concepts. My biggest concern is that many articles link to hanja in the sense of the characters exclusively, and they have nothing to do with linguistics. Think about the reader who has no knowledge of East Asian languages, looking up topics like Hyundai or Kim Jong-Il. I also think there needs to be some expansion, on the subject of archaic uses of hanja - specifically, that before the promulgation of hangeul, hanja could be used to write native vocabulary in addition to sino-korean (much like Japanese kun'yomi). I do agree with some of the points above, though, namely that in a modern context, for the English-language reader, hanja is inextricably linked with sino-korean words. I'm still going to have to oppose; but if this merge does go through, at the least, the merged article should include a link at the very top of the article to Chinese character. AKADriver 16:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse language and script. 漢字 are characters, and used in many languages. Sino-Korean is 漢字語, Korean words built from 漢字. Koreans will use the word "漢字" to designate the characters used in any of the language that uses them. -- dda

Oppose. IANALinguist, but the current articles look different enough to me. People wouldn't want to merge Latin alphabet and List of Latin words with English derivatives; I think separate articles for a writing system (Hanja) and word formation (Sino-Korean) is justified that way. --Kjoonlee 12:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose & removing the "merge" tag - The Sino-Korean article forms a triplet, together with Sino-Vietnamese and Sino-Japanese, and is important for non-Korean people trying to learn the Korean language.--Endroit 19:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On-line Hangul-Hanja automatic converter

I would like to ask if any one knows any available on-line Hangul-Hanja automatic converter.--Jusjih 17:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Although a Hanja-Hangul converter could be easily implemented, I'm not sure the other way around would be so simple to create, depends on how good the AI would be to interpret common vocabulary and syntax in a sentence. (Allegedly, similar systems work quite well for Japanese.) 惑乱分からん 01:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo! Korea has an online encyclopedia/dictionary you can use to convert hangul to hanja, but it only works on words. Enter your query and click on "사전". --KJ 00:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Naver.com has something like that too (actually most Korean search engine (Daum, Paran) have one). --Kbarends 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proportion?

If I pick up a newspaper in South Korea, what proportion of characters will be Hanja? How about in a normal novel, an academic journal or a code of law? Thanks, AxelBoldt 06:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper: depends on the newspaper. In the "tabloid press", as you might call it, the percentage is probably 1% or less; in whatever their equivalent of the WSJ is, could go as high as 50% (I'm really just guessing here -- I'm sure it would have been that high or higher 20-30 years ago, but not sure now). Normal novel: 0%. Academic journal/code of law: probably similar to the "WSJ"-type newspaper. I'm not in Korea, so I don't have access to these sorts of things to check out, but you can trust me about the normal novel and tabloid newspapers. --Rschmertz 06:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Chinese hanja

In light of my recent revert, it'd be great if we could give a better idea of just how many (current use) Hanja were invented in Korea, and how many are imported from Japan. The recently added Hanja#Korean Hanja is a start, but perhaps the scope could be widened. --Rschmertz 06:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all hanja were borrowed from Chinese, if there are such that were "invented" in Korea, I'm sure they are rare, and probably not worth making an article for. However, that is just my opinion, and if anyone else has any other say, let me know! --Hyung-Qing Hong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.13.247 (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement by hangul

The last paragraph of the intro (IIRC) mentions when Hangul really began to replace Hanja. Then the rest of that paragraph is about its use (or non-use) in North Korea. What about South Korea? Kind of an unbalanced paragraph as it is. --Rschmertz 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retention of labial codas in syllables with labial onsets

Hairwizard: why is my edit wrong? It is true that Korean retained labial codas in syllables with labial onsets. -- ran (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did you see it? I must check them. ㅂ is not the pronunciation of p

I'm using the Revised Romanization of Korean. Is there some reason why I should not use it? -- ran (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's how the labial codas work: in Classical Chinese, the 凡 rime, consisting of characters like 泛凡帆範犯梵法乏, were pronounced with labial onsets and labial codas. These were lost in Chinese: even in the most conservative varieties like Cantonese and Minnan, the labial codas were changed to dental codas. But in Korean, the labial codas were kept. -- ran (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have copied the sentence from where you have mentioned.

Unlike McCune-Reischauer, aspirated consonants (ㅋ, ㅌ, ㅍ, ㅊ) have no apostrophe: k, t, p, ch. Their unaspirated counterparts (ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅂ, ㅈ) are written with letters that are voiced in English: g, d, b, j.

Keep reading the same article:

However, all consonants that are pronounced as unreleased stops (which basically means all except ㄴ, ㄹ, ㅁ, ㅇ that are not followed by a vowel or semivowel) are written as k, t, p, with no regard to their morphophonemic value: 벽 → byeok, 밖 → bak, 부엌 → bueok (But: 벽에 → byeoge, 밖에 → bakke, 부엌에 → bueoke)

-- ran (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any more questions about my edits? -- ran (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That is weird romanization. You have correctly edited. ^^

[edit] chinese characters

they are not only used in china, korea, and japan, but also in singapore, hk, taiwan.

I think for our perposes, we have included Hong Kong, and Taiwan as part of China. I'm sure that the main 3 countries to use hanja are China, Korea, and Japan. If it is not mentioned in the article that these are the 3 main, I'll go and add it in, otherwise, I don't think it nessicary to write in ALL the countries to use hanja. --Hyung-Qing Hong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.13.247 (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hanja=Han language in Turkish and Turkic languages

It fits perfectly since it is the writing system of Han Chinese. Could it be just coincidence, or does anyone know the connection?

Interesting, but the "ja" in Hanja comes from the Chinese character meaning "character" or "letter," not language. --Reuben 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retention of labial codas for syllables with labial onsets

Regarding this quote:

In other aspects, the pronunciation of Hanja is more conservative than most Chinese dialects, for example in the retention of labial consonant codas in characters with labial consonant onsets, such as the characters 法 (법 beop) and 凡 (범 beom); the labial codas existed in Middle Chinese but do not survive intact in most Chinese varieties today, except conservative southern varieties like Cantonese and Min.

Not sure about Min, but it's definitely not true for Cantonese. There are no Cantonese syllables which retain a labial initial consonant and a labial final consonant. There are 泵 and 乓 (read bam1), but I'm pretty confident neither of those had a labial initial + labial final in Middle Chinese. I double-checked CUHK's Cantonese pronunciation database [1] on initials b, m, p, w, and even f (a labiodental rather than a labial) to make sure; those two characters I mentioned are the only examples of this kind of pronunciation. Anyone know better for Min? cab 13:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments moved from education section to talk page

"about 100 fewer than Kanji" NOTE TO EDITOR: This comparison is misleading because Kanji is primarily 'Simplified Chinese' and Hanja is primarily 'Traditional Chinese'. The wikipedia article on 'Chinese Characters' addresses this, but it's general knowledge. Also, why bother comparing to just Kanji? Why not Taiwanese? I think this is suggestive, and better left out or placed elsewhere.

Kanji is not traditionally "simplified Chinese". Most of the forms match with traditional Chinese, a small percentage match with simplified Chinese, and an even smaller percentage are Japan-only simplifications. But that's not what this is talking about; the statement is about the NUMBER of characters taught, not their FORM. There are 1945 Jouyou Kanji, IIRC, so 1800 Kanji is pretty clearly 145 less than that. cab 00:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This still does not address the question. Why just compare to the number taught in Japan? Why not elsewhere? Until that question is answered, this reference to kanji is best left elsewhere (maybe in the wiki article on 'Kanji'). Again, this is an article about Hanja, not how much more Japanese students, do/don't learn. In any regard, it's a different system, which does not seem to be a point of debate. --Jh98105 13:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to add the information about the number in other places. According to the same source I see for the 1800 number, 2000 are taught in North Korea; I also recall 3000 being thrown around as an average number for Chinese university students. Anyway, these numbers are important to provide context, since many people coming to this article may know nothing about Chinese characters at all except something they read in some newspaper about the Kangxi dictionary having 47,000 characters. Also, what's the relevance of the fact that it's a "different system"? The characters themselves are almost exactly the same; the fact that the Japanese removed strokes from some characters hardly means they suddenly face a much easier task learning and using 1945 characters (compared to Koreans who learn, and then rarely/never use, 1800). cab 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of information that can be added to an article, such as those you mentioned above about how many Chinese students learn. Context is most helpful if it's on point, and kanji/chinese/hanja are materially different. A few strokes matter a great deal in Chinese-derived script, as you know. These are what distinguish 'traditional chinese', 'simplied chinese', and kanji, for that matter.--Jh98105 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would you need a citation for something like this? People can clearly study hanja at the university level, which is being questioned here. Is the person requesting the citation looking for a course listing at a university?

A citation is needed for both the amount of Hanja taught and for the fact that they can study it at the university. Anyway it's better if all information has inline citations to reliable sources. Though I didn't add the citation tag, I for one find it surprising that you can specifically study hanja at the tertiary level, unless as a calligraphy class; you would be hard-pressed to get degree credit for a university course in spelling in the US, for example, and when I was attending university in Hong Kong I didn't notice any hanzi courses listed either. cab 00:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The scope of the statement is much broader than your interpretation. It relates to post-secondary education. Education can mean a major, yes, but it can also mean classes related to hanja. Your educational experience in Hong Kong has little bearing on this section on Korean post-secondary education in Hanja (unless your experience relates to Hanja taught in Hong Kong).--Jh98105 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, the point is that the statement is surprising, and so should have an inline citation, which I have since added. I'm not trying to "prove" that there's no tertiary Hanja education in Korea, but to tell you the reasons why someone might want verification of the statement. When an editor puts a {{fact}} tag on a statement, it isn't because he's trying to sabotage the article; it's generally because, in good faith, he thinks a statement needs stronger verification and wants to be pointed to the exact place where an expert said it. If you disagree with that opinion, it's in general not because the original editor is lying about the statement needing a {{fact}} tag, but because you're more familiar with the material in question. It is NOT good form to remove such tags without providing inline citation. I find it very surprising that you have such low standards citation in one sentence, but then suddenly extremely higher standards one sentence later. cab 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think someone provided a citation, so this is moot. I thank the person who took the time and effort to find and share this revelation. It's definitely OK to have personal doubts, but does it seem so unreasonable that there are courses in hanja in universities in Korea? General or reasonably certain facts don't conventionally call for a citation, unless it's necessary to prove a point. I think the broader issue of what citations are for and the burden of action. Generally, if the individual is that skeptical about something obvious, can't she look for it on her own? Still, I see your point about protocol.--Jh98105 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(NOTE TO EDITOR: Again, a totally misleading reference. An unscientific sample at one university done by a broadcaster with no details on how it was conducted should not be cited as sufficient evidence to suggest the preceding about 'students' in general. There are articles noting high levels of kanji illiteracy in Japan, such as New York Times in January 2002 and http://www.kh.rim.or.jp/~nagamura/literacy.html, for instance, but these should not be stated in an encyclopedia as a general assessment about the state of affairs without a far more formal evidence. It also implicates the validity of other sections in this article. There are less authoritative forums for this information. This should be deleted until there is more evidence that is less tabloid. If you must keep it, then at least make the statement more accurate: New students surveyed at one university in Korea cannot write ...etc. The accurate statement, however, does not sound like encyclopedic material, which goes to the protest.)

"New York Times in January 2002" is not a citation, and the other URL you point to doesn't even mention Korea. but Japan. In contrast, the cited article clearly describes that it was an examination of their own students, and the text points out that it was one university. "one 2007 survey by Sungkyunkwan University of 380 freshmen". There is also the quote at [2]: In 1956 Gray's Korean subjects read this type of mixed script faster than the pure phonetic hangul, but 20 years later, Noh Hwang Park & Kim (1977, cited by Taylor & Taylor, 1983: 90) found that hangul was read faster - a difference which may be due to the decreasing familiarity of hanja. And that was 30 years ago. Matches with my own experience doing language exchange with Korean students around my own age. cab 00:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue was not that the study was done at one university or the conclusions. The issue is that there is no information on the specifics of the study itself, and this small, anonymous study is used in the article to make a general statement.

The 'citation' you seek was a note to editors to illustrate that there are all sorts of claims out there. Not all should be used to describe a general state of affairs, especially in an encyclopedia. Keep such things for blogs. Your citations above are helpful, and they provide a basis for statements like the following: Koreans read hangul faster than mixed script with hanja. This, however, is not the statement made in the article.--Jh98105 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved the disputed information here. I find your characterisation of it as a "tabloid story" rather dishonest. cab 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

However, commentators worry that students do not retain what they have been taught; one 2007 survey by Sungkyunkwan University of 380 of their own freshmen showed that 20% could not write their own names in hanja, while 77% could not write their father's name and more than 99% could not write the word "lecture" (강의/講義). "대학 새내기 20% "한자로 내 이름도 못 쓴다" (20% of new university students can't even write own name in hanja)", SBS News, 2007-03-12. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.

There are many different stories on SBS of varying quality and sensationalism. The link is definitely more 'tabloid' than 'academic'. The other citations above seem more appropriate for the article.--Jh98105 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cognitive processing of Hanja

Read an interesting paper on the cognitive processing of hanja, wonder if we can work this into the article somehow . Basically, it's about a class of experiments in which subjects are given a category and, when presented with a word, have to quickly decide whether the word belongs to the category. When this was done on Chinese subjects, it found that response times were slower and error rates higher for hanzi of words which did not belong to the category but which were visually similar to words which did; however, no such effect was observed for hanzi of words which did not belong to the category but which were homophones of words which did.

In the case of the Korean experiment, the author took a group of university students and divided them into "skilled" and "less-skilled" hanja readers. The more-skilled readers showed a pattern similar to the Chinese students (errors/slowness on visually-similar hanja, but not phonologically-similar hanja), but the less-skilled readers also showed a higher error rate on phonologically-similar hanja. The author's conclusion was that "phonology plays a prominent role in the processing of logographic hanja for the less-skilled readers, but not for the skilled readers. See Cho, Jeung-Ryeul; Chen, Hsuan-Chih (1999). "Orthographic and Phonological Activation in the Semantic Processing of Korean Hanja and Hangul". Processing East Asian Languages: A Special Issue of the Journal of Language and Cognitive Processes, Psychology Press. ISBN 0-8637-7660-4. cab 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that just show that the less-skilled hanja readers didn't know all of the characters involved, or their meanings? Without having read the article, it sounds like it could be a matter of remembering the characters, rather than the cognitive mechanisms of recognizing and processing symbols. --Reuben 01:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies regarding Hanja and its uses

I am writing here, because of some changes I would like to make. Alot of the information posted regarding Hanja is either inaccurate or patently false. Many of these so called uses of Hanja, are completely wrong. Hanja is never used to clarify ambiguous words. I dont know where the hell this came from.Aneconomist (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Im editing education. What im doing is removing patent lies with no sources. For one, hanja has NEVER EVER been compulsory. EVER. I cannot say it another way. Hanja has never been a requirement either.PatentLies (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Education section in fact cites Hannas and Brown books mentioned at the end of the article. So this is not a valid reason to delete that section. Instead of deleting, please offer valid academic sources which contradict what is stated in the article, and rewrite the article to conform with what those sources say. Thanks, cab (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if PatentLies and Aneconomist are the same editor, may I suggest you restrict yourself to using a single account per WP:SOCK. Thanks, cab (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Also possibly Inincognito.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph of education has ZERO citations. The only citations are about North Korea's education system, which is patently false. Right now they teach about 300 Hanja, yet this paragraph states they use more than 1800? In case you haven't actually read the article it states North korean colleges using Hanja? I dont think so. Inincognito (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Inincognito may be a sockpuppet of the other two deletionist accounts. kwami (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

All three accounts have been blocked indefinitely. kwami (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'city of water'

水都 — 'city of water' (e.g. Hong Kong and Naples)

Sorry, I don't understand "city of water" from those examples. A port? A city by the sea? jnestorius^(talk) 23:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake hanja

There is an example of hanja here which refers to the so called korean word "hani",

>"hani" in modern Korean, that means "does, and so".

The word hani does not exist in the Korean language. It does not mean does or so. It does not mean anything.

As such Im removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subvertmsm (talk • contribs) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hanja edits

The only thing i see that has any relevancy to hanja is the first sentence. "Due to standardization efforts..." although its unreferenced.

The rest have almost nothing to do with hanja and is more of a subway guide. It may look like vandalism but it belongs to a subway guide of korea page or something and contributes nothing to the viewer's knowledge of hanja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subvertmsm (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned at Subvertmsm's edits to this article:

1. They have not been written from the point of view of someone who knows anything about linguistics. The opening paragraph is particularly bad from this point of view. This sentence shows the muddled thinking typical of a layman:

More specifically, it refers to those Korean spoken language written using Chinese characters with Korean phonetics.

What are "Chinese characters with Korean phonetics"? What is "Korean spoken language written using Chinese characters"? This doesn't make a great deal of sense.

2. In the process of editing, potentially valuable and useful information has simply been deleted:

The fact that Hanja are essentially the same as Traditional Chinese characters (i.e., have not been simplified as in China or Japan) has been omitted. The claim is made that there are no possible sources for this. Before deleting, couldn't Subvertmsm have found a few sources? I'm pretty sure that Hanja are largely identical to Traditional Chinese characters and that something could be found to support this.

I take the following back: The 'hani' example is interesting in the light of how Chinese characters have been adapted to writing languages like Japanese and Vietnamese. Since I don't know Korean, I'm not in a position to comment on the factualness of the example 'hani'. But deleting any reference to this phenomenon because the example is wrong seems to be rather high-handed. Useful information on this aspect still remains.

Information on the way in which Hanja are combined in place names has been removed. This could have been placed in the article on Sino-Korean vocabulary instead of being deleted.

Do we have any editors with some knowledge of the subject who could comment on this?

Bathrobe (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I clarified what I meant on your talk page. Hanja is traditional Chinese. It was a writing system for spoken Korean prior to the 15th century. The Korean language is an Altaic language. You do not derive an Altaic language from a language that is in a completely different family.

"Chinese characters with Korean phonetics"

The context is simliar to Vietnamese who speak Vietnamese but use French/Latin to write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subvertmsm (talk • contribs) 04:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the following is Subvertmsm's comment at my talk page:

You are right. Hanja are traditional chinese characters and i haven't removed it. It is still there.

The word hani does not exist at all. As in if you said hani to some Korean he/she would have ZERO idea what you were saying.

The phenomenon does exist but by nowhere near the extent the Chinese claim. There are words of sino origin, more specifically words of religious and scientific origin. However it is patently false to say sino-Korean words are of sino origin. Sino-Korean words are simply words that can be written in Hanja.

Sino-Korean words are spoken in Korean, have been in the Korean spoken language since Koreans arrived. Traditional Chinese was the only written language 2000 years ago ergo the use of hanja(traditional chinese). The context I'm describing is similiar to the Vietnamese language, which is spoken in Vietnamese but written with French.

This is what i mean by "Korean spoken language written using Chinese characters". Languages are usually spoken first before a writing system is developed.

(Comment by Subvertmsm)

Bathrobe (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

Actually, I've been mystified for some time by the confusion in what hanja actually refers to. At a superficial level, it seems equivalent to Hanzi or Kanji. But Koreans appear to use the term in a completely different sense, namely, to refer to a certain type of language, not the characters that are used to write it. In both Chinese and Japanese, hanzi/kanji refer only to the characters themselves, not to the vocabulary, style of language, or writing system as a whole.

If Korean usage in this regard is different from Chinese and Japanese usage, it's important to indicate that in the introductory paragraph. The current introduction is highly confusing because it's impossible to tell what hanja refers to. Your definition implies that hanja refers to the Korean spoken language (as opposed to what? a specific written style?), that it refers to the spoken language written in Chinese characters (so what happens when hanja and hangul are mixed together -- is this referred to as "hanja" or "hangul" or what?). The definition seems to imply that all Korean ("the Korean spoken language") can be written in Chinese characters, and when it is, that spoken language is called "hanja". It is totally confusing.

This confusion emerges in the following comment:

There are words of sino origin, more specifically words of religious and scientific origin. However it is patently false to say sino-Korean words are of sino origin. Sino-Korean words are simply words that can be written in Hanja."

Could you explain what Korean words can be written in hanja? That is, exactly what are the conditions for a word to be written in hanja? If they are not words of sino origin, then what words are we talking about? Native Korean words that someone has decided to write in hanja?

Incidentally, Vietnamese is not "written with French". It's written in a romanisation that was originally adapted from Portuguese.

Bathrobe (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The following copied from my talk page:

Kanji and Hanja are not used for the same purposes. Hanja represents Korean phonetics, Kanji is Japanese.

The quote, seems really clear to me, although I see your ambiguity.

Hanja is a bit abstract, there is no meaning or logic behind it because the Chinese language has no alphabet while Korean does. Modern Chinese, when you are learning it, is learned by memorization. It doesn't follow like a language with an alphabet.

I would really appreciate some clarification of the following:

Kanji and Hanja are not used for the same purposes. Hanja represents Korean phonetics, Kanji is Japanese. Could you provide some examples to show what this statement means?

I think you mean the opposite. Kanji and what not represent much more than just a series of characters. The entire Japanese writing system and much of its vocabulary is Chinese. In Korean, hanja represents nothing other than the assigned sounds and have almost no correlation to Chinese. Similarly for this. Please give examples of what you mean. You are saying that Chinese characters in Korean represent only sound (and not meaning?), and that characters as used in Korean have no correlation to Chinese. So characters like 國家 only represent a sound in Korean (presumably kookka) but represent a meaning in Japanese? Or do you mean something else?

For example, if you ask a Chinese person to try to learn Japanese, he/she will find an enormous amount of similarities. Ask him to learn Korean, with or without Hanja, it will be difficult and Hanja will not help at all. So you are saying there is little vocabulary in Korean with Chinese cognates? Could you back that up? I've seen plenty of words in Korean that are cognate with Chinese or Japanese vocabulary (like 國家, for instance). If the existence of such vocabulary is of no use to a Chinese speaker, then please tell me why not. For example, there is a Korean word 기계, written in hanja as 機械. It is related to the Chinese word 機械 and the Japanese word 機械（きかい）. Could you tell me exactly why this kind of word would be of no use to a Chinese speaker learning Korean?

Hanja is a bit abstract, there is no meaning or logic behind it because the Chinese language has no alphabet while Korean does. This makes no sense at all. If you knew anything about Chinese characters you wouldn't say they have "no meaning or logic". True, hanja are not a phonetic alphabet, but that doesn't mean it has no meaning or logic. I have great difficulty understanding what you are trying to say.

Most hanja can be written for proper nouns or words that dont exist. If the Chinese invented the computer, we wouldn't have a Korean word for it. We'd make up a word, and then there would be hanja attached to it to clarify it. It seems to me that this is the same for most languages. Whether the word is "made up" or borrowed, there has to be some kind of coinage of new words. But I can't see what you mean when you say hanja can be attached to "clarify" a word. Hanja surely can't be attached to anything and everything. Are you trying to say you can just make a word (e.g. to make up a nonsense word, sel-bug-leg), and attach the characters 電腦 to it and say, "these hanja have been attached to the word sel-bug-leg to "clarify" its meaning"? I find that hard to believe. My understanding is that hanja can only be attached if a word is created from Chinese-based morphemes. These are morphemes that were originally borrowed from Chinese and have a hanja associated with them. For example, the morpheme "kook" in Korean has the hanja 國 associated with it and means 'country'. The morpheme "kook" itself was borrowed from Chinese at some stage. Please tell me if my understanding is incorrect.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted Subvertmsm's edits pending a sensible response to the above questions. This editor seems to be coming from somewhere, but I can't figure out where. There seems to be some kind of nationalist agenda to try and deny any connection between the use of Chinese characters (hanja) in Korean and Chinese characters in Chinese itself. If this is what Subvertsms means, I would be grateful for some examples to back this thesis up, rather than the increasingly vague, puzzling, and frankly nonsensical assertions that he is using in his replies.

Bathrobe (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hanja means 'Chinese character', just as kanji and hanzi do. In all languages, there is confusion between spoken and written language, as well as their units (phonemes and graphemes), with for example the English word nymph being said to contain no vowels. Then there's the problem of translation: if the concepts are a little blurred in your native language, and a little blurred in the target language, and worse yet don't correspond exactly, it's easy to come out the other end speaking gibberish. That said, I don't know that the confusion is any greater in Korean than in any other language.

The history, however, is different. The Japanese used to write in Chinese, with diacritics to help in comprehension, just as the Koreans did. However, they switched to writing Japanese (in Chinese characters) a millennium ago, much earlier than the Koreans. We hardly know anything of Middle Korean because there are so few records: Almost everything was written in Chinese, not just in Chinese characters. Therefore, there may be a greater sense in Korea than in Japan that 漢字 represent the Chinese language. My understanding is that the use of hanja for lexical roots and hangeul for grammatical endings is modeled after Japanese kanji/kana and only dates to the Japanese occupation. With that history, I can see how hanja could still be seen as a foreign system, used today only to clarify Sino-Korean words which aren't clear from context - a bit like the use of the Greek alphabet when writing technical English, or the use of romāji in Japanese. This is different from the use of kanji, which are even used to distinguish nuances of meaning in native Japanese vocabulary. I don't believe hanja are ever used that way. Both languages, however, have huge amounts of Chinese-derived vocabulary, though some Sino-Korean vocab is Japanese in origin (as are many of those same terms in Chinese). kwami (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kwamikagami, for that commentary. Perhaps I was too hasty in reverting his edits. It would have been better to leave them up there for all to comment on.

The differences in the history of writing systems in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese seem to be very relevant and important. There is perhaps a need in the articles to add more information from that angle. Otherwise JKV might be considered to have somehow "parallel" histories. Your commentary suggests that this is far from the case.

I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at Subvertmsm's edits and see which of them are well-motivated and which are not. I reverted them all because he seemed to be talking more and more nonsense. He seems unable to distinguish between (1) Hanja = Chinese characters, (2) associated Chinese-based morphemes (such morphemes being historically associated with a particular Chinese character), and (3) vocabulary formed from Chinese-based morphemes (which was not necessarily borrowed directly from Chinese but was to a large extent based on Chinese morphological rules). For instance, 'telescope' was not borrowed from Greek, but it is still based on Greek roots. That is largely how I see "Sino-Korean", although the fact that hanja were the medium of both borrowing and coinage complicates things considerably in comparison with the European situation.

The concept of "Korean phonetics" also gets thrown in, although it's hard to see what "Korean phonetics" is supposed to mean. It seems to me to be referring to the Korean pronunciation of Chinese morphemes, so we still get back to an etymological connection with Chinese. I'm left scratching my head over Subvertmsm's edits. (Also, I suspect he is a sockpuppet for Aneconomist).

Bathrobe (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you were right to remove them. Whether it's a language barrier or if he's just not clear on the concepts, they were not appropriate for public display. Maybe if he can explain himself here, we can work his points into the article.

I doubt I will, though. I've got other articles I'm working on that are taking all of my time, and which no one else is working on, whereas Korean is a popular topic. And there a lots of people who know much better than I! kwami (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

English is my first language and my english is fine. You seem to be having trouble following things in general.

You have been talking nonsense since your first reply with alot skepticism. Korean phonetics are not something I added in, it was already there. Words written in hanja are pronounced in Korean not Chinese.

I've told you atleast twice already that Hanja is traditional Chinese, yet you keep repeating this notion that hanja isn't Chinese.

Hanja has nothing to do with Chinese-based morphemes. The morphemes that Hanja represents in the Chinese language are not the same morphemes in Korean.

"kook" does not mean country it means soup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subvertmsm (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hanja has nothing to do with Chinese-based morphemes. The morphemes that Hanja represents in the Chinese language are not the same morphemes in Korean. This is the heart of the problem with your edits. Until you can clarify, with examples, exactly how "the morphemes that Hanja represents in the Chinese language are not the same morphemes in Korean", your edits will continue to be reverted.

For a start, please tell me what you think 韓國 means in Korean, and how it is pronounced. I'm happy to go along with your romanisation.

According to what you say above :

(1) 國 (a hanja) is "traditional Chinese".

(2) 國 represents Korean phonetics and is read in Korean

(3) In Korean, 國 represents nothing other than the assigned sounds and have almost no correlation to Chinese

(4) The morpheme that 國 represents in Korean is not the morpheme that 國 represents in Chinese.

Well, what exactly does 國 represent in Korean? I think we deserve a decent explanation. What exactly IS the connection between 國 in Chinese and 國 in Korean, and what is the connection of 國 to the Korean language?

According to what you are saying, 國 (which merely represents a sound) can therefore be used to clarify the word guk (soup) in Korean. And if 國 (i.e. guk) means "soup", then the Korean name for Korea means "Han Soup"? Please come back with some specific explanations.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Subvertmsm, it's a little rich that you tell us we're speaking nonsense, when you don't seem to know the meanings of the words you're using. For one thing, it appears you either don't know, or don't know how to express, the difference between language and writing.

When you say kook (I assume that's supposed to be guk - I suggest we stick to standard Romanization) doesn't mean 'country' it means 'soup', I assume you mean that guk 'country' is Sino-Korean and guk 'soup' is native Korean. It would be helpful if you actually explained what you meant, rather than simply saying things are 'wrong'. kwami (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Guk/kook by itself means soup. Guk in the word tae han min guk is Korea, its a proper noun. Guk simply does not mean country. I dont know where you got this from, but its utter nonsense. Something that doesn't exist doesn't require an explanation. Explain to me why anyone should be listening to either of you on this topic? Its clear neither of you have any idea what Hanja is, nor do you speak Hangul, Hanja or Chinese.Subvertmsm (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can only assume you're trolling, so I won't bother any further with you, and will revert anything you edit unless you start acting seriously.

And BTW, of course I don't speak hanja or hangul. Neither do you. Or maybe you speak romanization as well? kwami (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank, Subvermsm you for setting my mind at rest. You obviously know nothing about Chinese or Chinese characters, or even Korean, it seems. The character 國 means 'country', and it's read 국 (guk). If you do a little checking you'll find it's used in other Korean words, as well. Like nation (國家 국가), United Kingdom (英國 영국), militarism (軍國主義 군국주의), great power (大國 대국), people of a nation (國民 국민), national interest (國益 국익), national policy (國策 국책), international (國際 국제), foreign country (外國 외국) etc. If you don't know that 국 has this meaning, or that 國 means country, you have absolutely no business editing this article.

Bathrobe (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you have any idea what you are saying. Neither of you speak Korean or have any knowledge of Hanja yet here you are editing it. Its no wonder there are no citations here. The word for country in Korean is nara not guk. Guk is soup. You are basing your knowledge on patterns you have seen on the internet. Truepropagnda (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a sockpuppet for Subvertmsm. Amazing how he knows all but is incapable of expressing anything. —kwami (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've shown above the fact that 國 guk meaning "country" is a valid morpheme in Korean. 國 is a hanja, i.e., "Chinese character". Despite your not having the slightest clue about the hanja 國 and what it means, you try and edit the article about hanja and accuse other people of having no idea of what they are saying. The problem is not other people: it's your lack of knowledge about hanja and continued attempts to edit the article despite this. Before vandalising the article again, please go out and ask a knowledgeable Korean what they know about hanja. I have no idea of your background, but you may be surprised at what you learn.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bathrobe, I doubt it's worth our time to reason with this guy. If he were capable of that level of thought, he would be able to express himself coherently. We don't need to explain ourselves when we revert him for defacing the article. kwami (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No the problem is you have no idea, but you believe you know based on what you have seen on the internet. You are relying on everyone else's lack of knowledge in the matter. The simple fact is guk does not mean country. Hani does not mean do. Neither of you have absolutely any idea what you are saying here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truepropagnda (talk • contribs) 05:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand what your problem is. You added an entire section, the History section, that had more detailed information than what was there before (although the assertion that Koreans at the Japanese court supervised the creation of Manyogana needs to be supported).

Then you destroy your own credibility by replacing one section with "unreferenced bullshit by chinks and japs".

While you continue to behave like this, I can't see why anyone should take you seriously.

By the way, have you checked with any Korean linguists or Korean people with a good knowledge of Korean language and culture about the use of hanja in Korean?

Bathrobe (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste your time, Bathrobe. I just blocked our sockpuppet for his vandalism.

Since the Japanese acquired literacy (as well as Buddhism and much of their governmental structure) primarily through visiting Korean scholars, there is a good chance that they did supervise the creation of man'yogana. However, I fail to see the point of including that here. kwami (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's quite possible that Koreans supervised the creation of manyogana. It's probably relevant here, too, given that the history of Korean and Japanese writing systems seems to be intertwined. But I would prefer a cited source over conjecture.

Anyway, since this user and his sockpuppets seem completely immune to reason and prefer making wholesale changes without providing proper reasons, I agree with the decision to block. I don't think it will stop here, though.

One thing that rankles is the amount of time that I (or we) have wasted trying to reason with this editor. There are better things to do in life than spending time phrasing questions and responses in order to try and figure out where people like this are coming from. It's deflating to find out that they are simply ignorant, bigoted, unconstructive, and a total waste of time.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inaccurate translations

"sarang ae" Sarang hae means "i love you". Saram means person in Korean, however no one says Saram when they say "i love you" to someone. Sarang is a verb Saram is a noun. Hae/ae does not mean in, it means do. When someone says i love you its Sarang hae not Saram hae. This is just another example of the editor of this page' incompetence and inadequate knowledge of the subject.Truepropagnda (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no-one wrote any of that. Please read the paragraph again. You can go to any school, library, or bookshop in Korea and pick up a dictionary which says the same thing. kwami (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere in the paragraph that says sarang means "person", or that saram means "love". I'm not sure what you're talking about. Or maybe the problem is that you can't read the characters 愛 and 人. (I think the paragraph should be made clearer for people who don't understand hanja.)

Bathrobe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hanja was a requirement at some point

Ok, someone pointed out that Hanja was never a requirement. This is not true. It used to be a requirement for high schoolers required to learn 1800. Plus, you need to also know if you want to get certain jobs and nowadays there is even 한자자격증(Hanja competence), which is required for students in certain law or other field.