Talk:Hangul

If you want to know the Korean name of something or somebody, please ask at the notice board's “Korean name needed” section or try a dictionary.

---

GA

See previous discussion Talk:Hangul/Archive_1#GA

It's spelled Hangeul

See previous discussion Talk:Hangul/Archive_1#It's spelled Hangeul.

straw poll

Move to hangeul		Keep at Hangul
5		5

I'm starting to think Tahon is right. French and German wikipedia have converted to hangeul, and languages which have the means (Polish, Turkish, Russian - but not Vietnamese!) distinguish the second vowel from u. The misspelling can be confusing. This is not an entrenched English word - certainly nowhere near as entrenched as Peking was before switching to Pinyin - so I don't think that's much of an excuse to keep the pseudo-Wade Giles orthography. The OED citations only treat 'hangul' as an unassimilated foreign word. True, Google hits (if restricted to English) are 6:1 in favor of 'hangul' over 'hangeul', but I'm not sure that should be a deciding factor. All in favor of moving the page to hangeul vs. keeping it here? kwami (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep at "Hangul". Widely used pre-existing romanization. Badagnani (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Change to "Hangeul". See the discussion above: It's Spelled Hangeul/Say Hageul [han gl], not hangul [hang gool]/Hanguel is right and hangul is wrong. Do not keep the wrong.--Tahon (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Follow the official, follow the official. Hanguel is the official romanization of Korean. Spelling mistakes for an article's title is humiliating and we should all be ashamed by it. Chang it now if you don't want anyone laughing at us please. Hangul will be 한굴 in Korean, but Hangeul will be 한글, thus Hangeul is correct. Please follow the official and correct term whether the majority also follows it or not. Once again, I strongly suggest this article is changed back to Hangeul. Xia xia. Veritasian (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Change to "Hangeul" Just seems to be the proper Romanization... Typing "Hangul" seems awkward when it's pronounced "Hangeul", not "Hangooool"... Dekkappai (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep at Hangul per WP:NAMING and WP:UE — The common English spelling is "Hangul", per Merriam-Webster, American Heritage Dictionary, and Encyclopaedia Britannica. (The official romanization can, and should, be corrected inside the language box, where romanizations go.)--Endroit (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Move to Hangeul and of course leave behind a redirect under the old romanization. -- Dominus (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep at Hangul already known as the spelling --Appletrees (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep at Hangul. Hangul is the most commonly used English name and should be preferred to a correct romanization/transliteration as per WP:ENGLISH. --Kusunose (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

After nearly two weeks, the vote is nearly evenly divided. Looks like we're sticking with the current spelling. kwami (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

'"'Move to Hangeul'Bold text"' because it is the official romanization. It is the official and correct term. Manhwagirl (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Though the subject seems to be at rest now, I'd like to put in a thought. The "Standard English spelling" argument makes sense to me, and had me considering changing my vote to "Keep". However, with this debate in mind, I began noticing the presence of many articles with non-standard English characters-- Shōchū and Karel Čapek for example. How can these be considered "Standard English spellings" when they use characters not even on our keyboard? How can it be considered appropriate to use non-standard English characters to accomodate non-English alphabets in these cases, while the mere inclusion of a perfectly English-standard "e" in hangeul to represent a Korean word is not? I don't get very worked up over either "hangul" or "hangeul", but the application of the "Standard English spelling" rule seems inconsistent. Dekkappai (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't agree with the WikiProject Japan's blanket addition of macrons to titles, as in most cases the standard English spelling doesn't use them. For Eastern European composers such as Antonín Dvořák, the spelling with diacritics really is the standard English spelling. Badagnani (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK-- Thanks for the feedback. If Japanese lost the macrons, I'd be fully pro-hangul. I'm still not convinced that Antonín Dvořák is standard English when 99.999999% of the searches on the composer on English Wiki are going to be redirected from "Antonin Dvorak" (note the American "Dvoraks", such as Ann). But it's not that big a deal. Just wondering... Dekkappai (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen Dvořák's name spelled in a book or encyclopedia as "Dvorak." Similarly, Béla Bartók's name is always spelled with the diacritics. But Tokyo is spelled without macrons (though it "should" have them). There's no hard and fast rule between languages, I'm afraid. Badagnani (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo is anglicized (it has three syllables). Rather like Beijing, where the j is pronounced [ʒ], as if it were French. Hang(e)ul isn't that assimilated. kwami (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this discussion! I agree that four years hence the situation regarding hangul has changed some; however, I do not think there is enough evidence to support the claim that hangeul is now the accepted English spelling. Maybe in four more years. I disagree with most of points given by Tahon. In particular, the I think the pronunciation described by 'hahng-gool' is not really how the word is pronounced in English: it is usually pronounced with one of the other "u" sounds: as 'hahng-gull' (rhymes with full). The [ʊ] sound is indeed the closest English sound to Korean [ɨ] (which is anyway pronounced with slightly compressed lips, making it more like [ʊ] than canonical IPA [ɨ]). Anyhow, my vote is keep. Nohat (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as it is; leave it at Hangul. "Hangul" is an certificated English spelling, although 한글 is romanized as Hangeul according to the RRoK. --­ (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Orthography section

I've deleted it mainly because its all made up nonsense. Its also littered with stuff about the Japanese which have zero to do with anything Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inincognito (talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so this orthagraphy section's example has been around since before wikipedia, and I gather while here it has been challenged many times based on the comment in the code. Nonetheless, the negative connotations (which inject a defeatist attitude subconsciously to those trying to learn Hangul) of the sample make it non NPOV, in my opinion. I welcome discussion on and don't want to go by myself here especially since I just came across this article/it isn't my topic per se, but unless someone objects I am going to request an not-NPOV warning on the article until the example text can be changed. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hangul and unsourced material on it

Why is there so much unsourced information on this page?

Before I edited it, there were 11 paragraphs in the history section. 4 of them have citations. 3 of them have citations that either 1. dont go anywhere, 2. some unreliable source.

In the orthography section,

that entire section has zero sources, most of the stuff i've never heard of it.

This section needs alot of improvements as there are too much Japanese and Chinese propaganda.Inincognito (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

_{For the record, Inincognito (talk · contribs) has been infinitely blocked for his abusive sockpuppetry.--Appletrees (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)}

You can add {{fact}} tags to things you believe need referencing. However, the fact that you've never heard of something doesn't mean much. There have been dozens of editors of this article who have heard of them. If you believe something is propaganda, then point it out. Deleting material you don't agree with or have never heard of without discussion will only get you blocked. kwami (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Without citations that means nothing. Everyone has heard one thing or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.142.154 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Misleading unsourced paragraph

Since regaining independence from Japan in 1945, the Koreas have used Hangul or mixed Hangul as their sole official writing system, with ever-decreasing use of hanja. Since the 1950s, it has become uncommon to find hanja in commercial or unofficial writing in the South, with some South Korean newspaper only using hanja as abbreviations or disambiguation of homonyms. There has been widespread debate as to the future of Hanja in South Korea. North Korea reinstated Hangul as its exclusive writing system in 1949, and banned the use of Hanja completely.

This paragraph implies Hangul was never used. It has been used since the migration of mongols into modern day Korea. Spoken Hangul has existed for a long time, while written Hangul has been around since the 15th century.

There has been no widespread debate and there is no citation to support this claim. Hanja is still used for the same purposes as it always was. It has become obsolete because of the influx of western science and tech.

Contrary to popular belief there are not that many Hanja words. You could not form a coherent language based on Hanja and nearly impossible to write a sentence in. Hanja has been historically been used for buddhist and confucius texts written in Chinese as well as science that was transmitted through China. Some words for example computer does not exist in Korean. This is where hanja steps in.

North Korea did not exist prior to the Korean war, this is not a reinstated language, its a declaration of the official language like any other nation. The way it is worded is misleading to viewers of this article. Furthermore Hanja has not been banned in North Korea and there are no citations to proof this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.13.18 (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that English is not your native language and that you have read a faulty translation of that paragraph. (Please forgive me if I'm wrong about that. I mean no offense.) That paragraph only describes events beginning in 1945. It does not describe events before 1945. So, it does not deny that Hangul was used since the 15th century. In English, "Hangul" denotes the written script (한글). "Hangul" does not denote the spoken Korean language (한국어). The last sentence of the paragraph does not say that North Korea existed before the Korean war. It does not say that North Korea changed its spoken language in 1949. You are correct that it needs a citation, but its claim (that Kim Il-sung declared Hangul as the official script of North Korea in 1949) does not seems controversial. Do you disagree with that claim? Do you have any suggestions about how to reword the paragraph so that it's easier to understand? Rod (A. Smith) 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No you're right its not but I did not misread the paragraph.

"North Korea reinstated Hangul as its exclusive writing system in 1949"

It's biased and slightly anti-Korean with injections of pro-Chinese propaganda(lack of a better word). The word reinstated implies something different was there before. North Korea never existed previously, so there is no such thing as a reinstatement. Hangul has always been the exclusive writing system of Korea.

There is too much unsourced biased material in this paragraph among other things in this section.

"Since the 1950s, it has become uncommon to find hanja in commercial or unofficial writing in the South, with some South Korean newspaper only using hanja as abbreviations or disambiguation of homonyms"

Its hard to prove when and to what degree that something was not used but I'll use these two examples, Hanseong sunbo & Dongnip Sinmun. One was published in the 1880's and the other in the 1890's. None of the newspapers have any sort of hanja. Those two were one of the first "modern newspapers" in Korea. Above the mentioned paragraph, there is also a reference to Korean poetry and books. 1950's was not the end of Hanja, its use has never been big unlike Japanese counterparts where Kanji is used heavily. This little excerpt has no citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.13.18 (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WRONG, it was reinstated because the japs ruled you and banned it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.145.7 (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Parent Systems

Wikipedia is not a place for original research and controversial theories. There are no hard evidences that Hangul's 'ancestors' are all those other alphabet systems.

Agnistus, the article Phoenician_alphabet does NOT say hangul is derived from phagspa script. Please do not lie. It currently says: "Many historians believe that the Brahmi script and the subsequent Indic alphabets are derived from this script as well, which would make it and ultimately Egyptian the ancestor of most writing systems in use today, possibly including even Hangul, which may have been influenced by Brahmic Phagspa. This would mean that of all the national scripts in use in the world today, only the Chinese script and its derivatives have an independent origin."

"... POSSIBLY including even Hanul, which MAY have been INFLUENCED..." I have highlighted the key words for you.

kwami, you left a note on my page saying: "Agnistus didn't mean that "Korean is based on all those alphabets", but that that is its genealogy. Controversial, but there is substantial evidence."

Genealogy is just a scientific word used to say "based on". You said yourself that it is controversial, so why include it in wikipedia?

If you guys feel intent on including something in the article about the REMOTE POSSIBILITY that Hangul is based on some other alphabets, then please do so as a separate section in the article, not in the table where only hard facts should appear. Wookie919 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for it to be included in the table, and the idea is already covered adequately in the body of the article. The evidence actually is very good, though a minority opinion. The Phoenician alphabet article is too full of weasel words. When you said "based on all those alphabets", I thought you'd misunderstood, and thought that Agnistus meant that each of those alphabets was a separate ancestor of hangul, whereas it's only Phagspa that's claimed to be directly ancestral. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the connection between Hangul and Phagspa is uncertain, although the evidence is very good. If the genealogical information was completely removed from the table, then it would say artificial script, which is not true; since there certainly is connection between Hangul and Phaspa (quoting kwami: "The evidence actually is very good, though a minority opinion."). It is best to list the entire genealogical information, with an additional notice that says the connection is uncertain. I have done this by including the word "(uncertain)" next to Phaspa in the table. - Agnistus (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I have created a new article on the origin of Hangul called Origin of Hangul. I also removed the (uncertain) word since it affected the neatness of the table. (The 2 citations with regard to the controversial status of the Hangul-Phaspa connection were not removed). If any of you want to add it back, feel free to do so. - Agnistus (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"It is true that the connection between Hangul and Phagspa is uncertain..." - Enough said. Again, removed from the info box. Wookie919 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"The evidence actually is very good, though a minority opinion." - Enough evidence to include parent systems in Infobox. - Agnistus (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wookie919 (talk), please stop pushing lopsided POV - prove the hangul-phagspa connection to be false, before removing it from the infobox. - Agnistus (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comment has a serious logical flaw in it. I don't have to prove that hangul is not based on phagspa. It is up to you guys to prove that phagspa is infact the parental system of hangul to include it in the infobox. "lopsided POV"? I could have used the exact same phrase in response to your post above - please try to stay objective. Now, let me say this again. Info box is a place for HARD FACTS, not THEORIES. If the evidence is enough, majority of the world would believe that phagspa is the parental system of hangul. I am not stating that there is NO possibility that a connection between phagspa and hangul exists. All I am saying is that this theory (while the evidence might seem good to both you, Agnistus, and Kwamikagami) is still only a minority opinion (as stated by Kwamikagami) and hence MUST NOT belong in the info box. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? The article already deals in depth with the possible connection between phagspa and Hangul. Wookie919 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also not a direct connection, as such a table would imply. Any comment in the infobox should reflect that. kwami (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me make this clear to you now Wookie919, the aim is to make the infobox as close to the truth as possible. You could either say in the infobox that hangul is an artifcial script OR show all the information along with the word "(controversial)" next to Phagspa. Which one is closer to the TRUTH ??? To any sensible person the former is without question. And most readers will understand the uncertain nature of the connection the moment they see the word "(controversial)" next to Phaspa. I hope this clears any misunderstanding you may have, Wookie919. It would be in the best interests of everyone to close the discussion here, and leave the infobox with full genealogical information along with the word "(controversial)" next to Phagspa. Thank you - Agnistus (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't edit this article, but I've been watching this for a while, Agnistus, and I guess I'll put my 2-cents in now. The theories you are putting forward at this page are all very interesting, but far, far from the standard, accepted history of hangul. I think you can see this, right? Wikipedia's standards are Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth. So if you believe with all your heart that these theories are the truth, it still does not make it the standard, scholarly, verifiable version of the history of hangul. Rather than engage in an edit-war to push this marginal theory as "truth" at the page, I would suggest discussing with the other editors here whether the theory deserves mention as an "alternate theory" section of the article. Keep up the path you are following though, and you'll probably wind up blocked eventually... Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The connection between hangul and phagspa are completely verifiable (see Origin of Hangul). I thought placing the "(controversial)" tag wouldmake things clear for the reader, but it seems some editors still have a problem. Owing to the fact that the connection is indeed verifiable an closer to the truth, could those editors against showing full genealogical formatting provide a better explanation for doing so. - Agnistus (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agnistus, Ledyard is a very respected scholar in the field, both in the US and in Korea. However, I don't know how many Korean scholars accept his conclusions on this point. I imagine that many maintain the traditional view that hangul is an artificial script. I don't know either way, but this could be checked in to.

The rest of you, the fact that a connection is disputed does not mean that it is not included in the info table. For example, the derivation from Brahmi from Aramaic is probably accepted by a majority of scholars, but is hotly disputed by some, especially in India. Such connections have normally been included with a warning. This is similar to the situation with languages, where few old families have been established beyond reasonable doubt. I can think of only Indo-european, Uralic, Austronesian, and Afrasiatic which have been demonstrated. Yet in our info boxes we include families like Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Niger-Congo, and Nilo-Saharan, none of which are particularly well supported, as if they were fact. kwami (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agnistus, you are the one who wrote the whole article Origin of Hangul which is currently badly mis-titled (will get to that later) because it is merely a theory and it is basically a summary of the Ledyard's studies. Referring to Origin of Hangul only emphasizes that your argument is solely based on the thoughts of Ledyard, and nothing else. "The connection between hangul and phagspa are completely verifiable" - wow. Just wow. Now you have completed re-worded yourself as if to say that the connection is a HARD FACT! Wookie919 (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, I am anxious to find out what your responses would be to the discussions of the article Origin of Hangul. It seems that you have taken only the bits that support your argument from Ledyard's and failed to see the whole picture of Ledyard's studies. Wookie919 (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agnistus did not write the article. He just moved it. kwami (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

capitalization

에멜무지로 has changed the article to capitalize "Hangul". Since hangul is not capitalized in other articles, I've reverted to keep things consistent, but we should discuss it here.

에멜무지로 reasoned (1) that hangul is a proper noun, (2) that it is always capitalized, and (3) that hanja, kanji, etc. should also be capitalized.

AFAIK, hanja, hanzi, and kanji are never capitalized. As for hangul being a proper noun, the etymology section says the word is ambiguous between 'great script' and 'Korean script', which would mean it is not necessarily proper. It's hard to argue that it's a proper noun in English. It is often but by no means always capitalized; the difference is as significant as spelling differences, so you'll see "hangul" but "Hankul". If we don't capitalize hanja, which etymologically clearly is a proper noun, it does seem rather odd to capitalize hangul ("hanja-Hangul mixed script"). —kwami (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Dictionary.com says that it's from han 'great', but "frequently taken to be" from Han 'Korea'. The OED does not capitalize it in their entry; of the five quotations they include, it is capitalized in only one. If we're going to consider the greatest English dictionary, that's an argument against capitalization. kwami (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth: Britannica capitalizes Hangul, Websters does not. Doesn't matter to me either way, I suggest we settle on one and sticking to it though, so as to avoid being featured at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Dekkappai (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Hangul should always be capitalized in manner because do we spell English as english or Revised Romanization as revised romanization? I think 에멜무지로 has a point on this. --Appletrees (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But those are derived from proper nouns. Hangul (great script), like hieroglyph (sacred script), is not. kwami (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Others are runes, futhark, zhuyin, and ogham, though many sources are inconsistent. (Also, Younger & Elder Futhark are usually capitalized.) kwami (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say let Hangul and Hanja stay. If that's what people write, let them write it so! --Kjoonlee 10:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hangul is not capitalized in some other articles, but that's only because someone has been switching them to lowercase. On purpose. --Kjoonlee 10:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hieroglyph is a term. Hangul is a name. You might say Hanja is a term as well, no more a name than kanji is. Nevertheless, I object to lowercase "hangul" as well. --Kjoonlee 10:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Feynman wrote that he enjoyed decoding "Mayan hieroglyphics". Surely hieroglyphs are distinct from Hangul. --Kjoonlee 11:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. "Hieroglyph" and "hanja" are just as much names as "hangul" is. What's the difference? kwami (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you say Hanguls? --Kjoonlee 09:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but you can't say "a hangul" either, any more than "a futhark". They're the names of scripts, not the letters that make up the script. kwami (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but you can say "The elder and younger futharks" can't you? --Kjoonlee 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they are considered different alphabets. No-one speaks of more than one alphabet called "hangul". kwami (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And won't you say that's also true of proper nouns? As a Korean speaker my linguistic intuition tells me that Hangul is a proper noun. Some other editors who object to lowercase Hangul are also Koreans, AFAIK. --Kjoonlee 06:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, maybe it is. The lines for capitalization in English are rather blurry. Wouldn't hanja (and kanji) then be clear proper names, since they mean "Chinese character"? But I've never seen kanji capitalized. It just seems very odd to me to capitalize Hangul but not hanja, or to capitalize Hangul and Hanja but not hanzi and kanji. kwami (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Language isn't logic; people drive on parkways and park on driveways. --Kjoonlee 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're not going according to logic, then we're back to dictionaries or polling Google. kwami (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You're getting close to linguistic prescription again IMHO. --Kjoonlee 08:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than OR, here are the refs I can find:

• Capitalized Hangul: Random House, American Heritage.
• Lower case hangul: Oxford English, Merriam Webster, Encl. Britannica.

Don't know about Penguin. American Heritage is a second-rate dictionary, whereas the OED and MW are considered the best in their countries. The best English dictionaries use lower case, though they both note hangul "is frequently capitalized". kwami (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Relying on dictionaries for authority is stupid IMHO. Why not just be descriptive, and let people write what they want to write? --Kjoonlee 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlike most dictionaries, the OED isn't just some lexicographer decreeing proper usage, but rather a record of how words are used in the real world. That strikes me as a better guide than our own OR. kwami (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But have you looked at their corpus, or do you have an idea of whether they pondered on whether to describe "Hangul"? --Kjoonlee 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What the published is mostly not capitalized. kwami (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So if say, split infinitives were less common, it's OK to stamp them out from Wikipedia? No. --Kjoonlee 08:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And who says that Random House, American Heritage were not recording how words are used in the real world? Maybe they polled a lot more Koreans. --Kjoonlee 08:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't like logic, and you don't like references, I guess spelling should be at the discretion of the editor? Should it be okay to mix capitalization within a sentence? a paragraph? an article? or just between articles, the way we do with US vs. UK spelling? Who then decides which form to use for any particular article? kwami (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You have reached the illogical conclusion that I don't like logic or references. I like logic, and I like references, but I don't like prescriptivism. Spelling should (IMHO) always be left to the discretion of the editor, preferably to native speakers. That solves the problem of capitalization neatly. --Kjoonlee 09:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If the OED says Hangul is frequently capitalized, and if Hangul is frequently capitalized at Wikipedia, then what's the problem, really? --Kjoonlee 09:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. kwami (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Popularization of hangeul

I think that the section on the history of hangeul might be improved if information on the influence of Christian missionaries were added. The Western missionaries needed a written language that both they and the Koreans could learn quickly, and of course it takes less time to learn an alphabet than it does to develop an adequate reading vocabulary in Chinese. So, hangeul became the biblical language of Korea, which must have raised its prestige. One missionary even claimed that hangeul was created by divine providence for this very purpose. The evangelists' mission was highly successful in Korea, and they founded many schools in which hangeul must have been taught. Furthermore, many prominent leaders of the nationalist movements that promoted use of hangeul were Christian.

A condensed version of the above information--two or three sentences, perhaps--would contribute to a fuller picture of hangeul's jump from low to high prestige. I have sources for all of the information, as well. Would anyone mind if I added this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling150 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Offtopic but help needed

Can someone post me the characters depicted here? I would be very appriciated

3 Hangul chars

PS. Idk where I should post that :/... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.63.84.236 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

mixed script

"But unlike in Japanese, hanja was used only for nouns."

Were they only used for nouns, or only for Sino-Korean, all of which were nouns? That is, were hanja used for native Korean nouns? kwami (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a quite late response. Anyway, the answer is "not exactly."

1. Many native Korean nouns don't have hanja.
2. Some adjectives and some verbs have hanja.

Therefore, we need to delete that sentence. --­ (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. --­ (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

According to one of my sources, hanja are/were not restricted to verbs, but in general the content words in a sentence would be written in hanja, while the function words would be in hangul: “An optimal text for efficient visual and semantic processing may be one that uses mixed scripts to enhance visual distinction of semantically important and unimportant words” (75). This is the source: Taylor, Insup. “The Korean writing system: An alphabet? A syllabary? A logography?” Processing of Visible Language 2. Eds. Paul A. Kolers, Merald E. Wrolstad, and Herman Bouma. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 65-82. 1980.

Public domain?

We have a clause "Hangul was promulgated in public domain by the fourth king of the Joseon Dynasty, Sejong the Great," with the reasoning (on a different page history, when reverting a template) that "If King Sejong held a copyright, people couldn't use Hangul at all; that's why Hangul was on public domain when it was first announced."

Am I the only one who finds this problematic? Could we say essentially the same thing without invoking modern concepts of copyright? (Not that those would apply to hangul anyway.) Was there a possibility that Sejong could have promulgated hangul in the private domain? kwami (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Origin of Hangul#Copyright of Hangul?. --­ (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Now it's "copyleft"! I'm removing this as unhistorical. kwami (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(And it's not just anachronistic, but technically wrong: you cannot copyright a writing system. kwami (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC))