There are quite a bit of Sino-Korean words (derived from Chinese) that are homophonic and can only be distinguished from either context or the usage of hanja (Chinese characters). But most Koreans don't want to learn it, and they mostly forget by the time they graduate from high school or college. In order to solve the homophone problem without having to clutter the Korean education with hanjas that people never even use, should we replace many of the Sino-Korean words with the native Korean words? Some sources for those words could be the Jeju dialect (which is said to have much more native words than the mainland Korean dialects), older forms of Korean, and so on. What do you think? Is replacing the Sino-Korean words with the native Korean words the best way to solve the hanja problem?
Replacing Sino-Korean words with the native Korean words?
For example,
유학 (遊學) means "studying abroad" while 유학 (儒學) means Confucianism. Without the hanjas I would not be able to tell between the two if there was no context. But, instead of studying the hanjas that we find difficult and useless, why not just replace them with new words that are hopefully of native Korean origin? For example the studying abroad 유학 can be changed into "나라밖배움" or something similar.
유학 (遊學) means "studying abroad" while 유학 (儒學) means Confucianism. Without the hanjas I would not be able to tell between the two if there was no context. But, instead of studying the hanjas that we find difficult and useless, why not just replace them with new words that are hopefully of native Korean origin? For example the studying abroad 유학 can be changed into "나라밖배움" or something similar.
Another example can be 인도, which can mean "pedestrian sidewalk" or "India" or "to lead" depending on the context. They are all written with different hanjas. "To lead" already has a native Korean counterpart 이끌다, so we can popularize that. The 인도 meaning pedestrian sidewalk can be changed to 사람길, leaving 인도 to just mean India (note that I am not proposing complete elimination of Sino-Korean vocabulary, but enough that the homophones are gone and the study of hanja would be unnecessary in order to be considered a highly educated Korean).
If there's a dialect that is already natively and naturally using older, native words then I can't see there being too much of a problem in adopting them in Standard Korean. However, if such words do not exist, and they must be invented from scratch, or invented out of extinct words, then I don't think this would work.
Over the years many attempts have been made to purge languages of loan words to replace them with native forms, and in general it doesn't work.
If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
Over the years many attempts have been made to purge languages of loan words to replace them with native forms, and in general it doesn't work.
If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
"Over the years many attempts have been made to purge languages of loan words to replace them with native forms, and in general it doesn't work. "
Didn't it work for French and Turkish?
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it. "
The main reason is more about the removal of homophones that cause misunderstanding than Korean nationalism (although I guess the latter could be involved as well), so I guess you can say it is broken in a certain way.
Didn't it work for French and Turkish?
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it. "
The main reason is more about the removal of homophones that cause misunderstanding than Korean nationalism (although I guess the latter could be involved as well), so I guess you can say it is broken in a certain way.
<<or invented out of extinct words, then I don't think this would work.>>
Many working English words in actual use today were revived or spared from near-extinction, but you wouldn't know it: sibling, foreword, handbook, leach (a liquid), flat (apartment), uncanny, eerie, golf, flirt, glee, forgo, manslaughter, leer, scrumple; even words of non-native origin like ubiquitous, sans, allege, cantankerous, fraudsman, crochet. Successful words that were coined or invented: work out (excercise), bring up (suggest), outfit (to equip), etc...
<<Didn't it work for French and Turkish? >>
It did work for French. Today, bièvre refers only to the river, not the animal which the French now call a 'castor' ("beaver"). Likewise, touaille is also rare or obsolete being replaced by nappe and serviette and detester is hot on the heals of haïr.
<<The main reason is more about the removal of homophones that cause misunderstanding than Korean nationalism (although I guess the latter could be involved as well), so I guess you can say it is broken in a certain way. >>
Don;t fret too much over it. English words tend to be polysyllabic and will fix this issue ;)
Many working English words in actual use today were revived or spared from near-extinction, but you wouldn't know it: sibling, foreword, handbook, leach (a liquid), flat (apartment), uncanny, eerie, golf, flirt, glee, forgo, manslaughter, leer, scrumple; even words of non-native origin like ubiquitous, sans, allege, cantankerous, fraudsman, crochet. Successful words that were coined or invented: work out (excercise), bring up (suggest), outfit (to equip), etc...
<<Didn't it work for French and Turkish? >>
It did work for French. Today, bièvre refers only to the river, not the animal which the French now call a 'castor' ("beaver"). Likewise, touaille is also rare or obsolete being replaced by nappe and serviette and detester is hot on the heals of haïr.
<<The main reason is more about the removal of homophones that cause misunderstanding than Korean nationalism (although I guess the latter could be involved as well), so I guess you can say it is broken in a certain way. >>
Don;t fret too much over it. English words tend to be polysyllabic and will fix this issue ;)
<<Didn't it work for French and Turkish? >>
I can't comment on Turkish, but it hasn't worked that well for French. Despite efforts by the French language board to encourage to use of native forms, the population still uses words like "le week-end", and "le parking".
I can't comment on Turkish, but it hasn't worked that well for French. Despite efforts by the French language board to encourage to use of native forms, the population still uses words like "le week-end", and "le parking".
<<The main reason is more about the removal of homophones>>
Nearly every language has homophones. As long as the meaning of the word is understandable through implication, its not broken.
Nearly every language has homophones. As long as the meaning of the word is understandable through implication, its not broken.
"It did work for French. Today, bièvre refers only to the river, not the animal which the French now call a 'castor' ("beaver"). Likewise, touaille is also rare or obsolete being replaced by nappe and serviette and detester is hot on the heals of haïr."
"I can't comment on Turkish, but it hasn't worked that well for French. Despite efforts by the French language board to encourage to use of native forms, the population still uses words like "le week-end", and "le parking". "
I can't quite comment on who is right, but I believe that if it is conducted as well as the French had done, I feel like it could work even better for Korean, since it would be an effort to rid the language of a problem rather than simply trying to keep it "pure."
"Don;t fret too much over it. English words tend to be polysyllabic and will fix this issue ;) "
I'm talking about Korean... Or are you suggesting that we Koreans use English words instead?
"Nearly every language has homophones. As long as the meaning of the word is understandable through implication, its not broken. "
True, but the homophone situation seems to be worse in the case of the Korean language rather than that of English. There are some homophones, for example 사기, which can mean up to 17 different meanings according to the dictionary (luckily only three of them are in common use, but still). If you ask me, that seems kind of debilitatingly homophonic.
Chinese, the language Korean borrowed from extensively, has a vast amount of homophones, which are often distinguished by the tones. Korean does not have them, so the homophone problem is even worse.
"I can't comment on Turkish, but it hasn't worked that well for French. Despite efforts by the French language board to encourage to use of native forms, the population still uses words like "le week-end", and "le parking". "
I can't quite comment on who is right, but I believe that if it is conducted as well as the French had done, I feel like it could work even better for Korean, since it would be an effort to rid the language of a problem rather than simply trying to keep it "pure."
"Don;t fret too much over it. English words tend to be polysyllabic and will fix this issue ;) "
I'm talking about Korean... Or are you suggesting that we Koreans use English words instead?
"Nearly every language has homophones. As long as the meaning of the word is understandable through implication, its not broken. "
True, but the homophone situation seems to be worse in the case of the Korean language rather than that of English. There are some homophones, for example 사기, which can mean up to 17 different meanings according to the dictionary (luckily only three of them are in common use, but still). If you ask me, that seems kind of debilitatingly homophonic.
Chinese, the language Korean borrowed from extensively, has a vast amount of homophones, which are often distinguished by the tones. Korean does not have them, so the homophone problem is even worse.
<<I'm talking about Korean... Or are you suggesting that we Koreans use English words instead?
>>
Anio...tangyeonhi anineyo! milku, laempu, supeshyeol, geim, bbosu, taekshi, K'opi, k'adu, hot'el, jyusu, ...
>>
Anio...tangyeonhi anineyo! milku, laempu, supeshyeol, geim, bbosu, taekshi, K'opi, k'adu, hot'el, jyusu, ...