Hangeul without initial circles?

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 902
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Woods » 2022-11-24, 10:39

I can't help but ask, could hangeul be written without the ㅇ when it is silent, and has anyone ever done that?

User avatar
Karavinka
Posts: 2359
Joined: 2004-04-24, 4:00
Location: Montréal
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Karavinka » 2022-11-24, 23:36

No, ㅇ was specifically designed to serve both purposes of null initial consonant in a syllable.

The glyph shape of ㅇ is to represent the round glottis, and the primary function of ㅇ is to represent the absence of initial consonant.

There was another letter ㆁ for /ng/, and this was used both as syllable-initial and syllable-final but as Korean lost syllable-initial /ng/, ㆁ dropped out of usage and ㅇ is used for both null-consonant and syllable-final /ng/.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 902
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Woods » 2022-11-26, 23:35

Karavinka wrote:No, ㅇ was specifically designed to serve both purposes of null initial consonant in a syllable.

The glyph shape of ㅇ is to represent the round glottis, and the primary function of ㅇ is to represent the absence of initial consonant.

I'm not getting it - first of all what do the sound ŋ and the absence of a sound have in common, and second of all - why is a marker of the absence of a consonant needed? Does it have something to do with the arrangement of the other letters in the character?

Maybe I need to study the rules of positioning the different letters within the square first (i.e. which goes at the top, which goes left etc), but without having this knowledge, it appears to me that if we take away those circles and keep the remaining parts of the characters where they are, the text would be more readable.


Karavinka wrote:There was another letter ㆁ for /ng/, and this was used both as syllable-initial and syllable-final but as Korean lost syllable-initial /ng/, ㆁ dropped out of usage and ㅇ is used for both null-consonant and syllable-final /ng/.

I've seen the little stroke on top of the circle some places - is it that since the two letters merged, now some fonts have it and some don't, or as the combined letters are encoded as separate characters, some fonts just add the stroke when ㅇ is at the end, or do some more traditionalist people still make use of the letter ㆁ when they write?

User avatar
Karavinka
Posts: 2359
Joined: 2004-04-24, 4:00
Location: Montréal
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Karavinka » 2022-11-27, 6:26

Woods wrote:I'm not getting it - first of all what do the sound ŋ and the absence of a sound have in common, and second of all - why is a marker of the absence of a consonant needed? Does it have something to do with the arrangement of the other letters in the character?

Maybe I need to study the rules of positioning the different letters within the square first (i.e. which goes at the top, which goes left etc), but without having this knowledge, it appears to me that if we take away those circles and keep the remaining parts of the characters where they are, the text would be more readable.


The entire alphabet is designed around the CV(C) syllable structure. Nobody cares if you think it makes sense or not, there won't be a spelling revision. If you insist, good luck convincing both Koreas at the same time.

There are minor differences in the standard orthography between the two Koreas but neither will even try to tamper with the fundamental principles, the writing is almost sacred and is one of the few remaining ties between the two Koreas torn apart in the cold war. In fact, North Korea attempted a drastic revision in 1948 but reverted back in 1954 to hold onto the continuity with the South.

After all, ㅇ serving as null-consonant in the syllable initial is a part of the orthographic tradition that goes back for centuries.

In short: It's not a topic for discussion whether you think it makes sense or not, if you want to learn it you just learn it. If you don't like it, go learn something else, nobody cares.

I've seen the little stroke on top of the circle some places - is it that since the two letters merged, now some fonts have it and some don't, or as the combined letters are encoded as separate characters, some fonts just add the stroke when ㅇ is at the end, or do some more traditionalist people still make use of the letter ㆁ when they write?


The difference is akin to serif and sans-serif. No more than that.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 902
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Woods » 2022-11-27, 11:18

Karavinka wrote:
Woods wrote:I'm not getting it - first of all what do the sound ŋ and the absence of a sound have in common, and second of all - why is a marker of the absence of a consonant needed? Does it have something to do with the arrangement of the other letters in the character?

Maybe I need to study the rules of positioning the different letters within the square first (i.e. which goes at the top, which goes left etc), but without having this knowledge, it appears to me that if we take away those circles and keep the remaining parts of the characters where they are, the text would be more readable.

The entire alphabet is designed around the CV(C) syllable structure. Nobody cares if you think it makes sense or not, there won't be a spelling revision. If you insist, good luck convincing both Koreas at the same time.

Well, I guess so, but the question was more: if I write it without the circle will it be readable, and has anyone tried it? Don't be so aggressive - I am not about to change your spelling system nor do I have the power to do so!


Karavinka wrote:the writing is almost sacred

Sacred in the same way some religious people rely on thousands-of-years old texts and thus try to convince you the earth is flat?


Karavinka wrote:There are minor differences in the standard orthography between the two Koreas but neither will even try to tamper with the fundamental principles, the writing is almost sacred and is one of the few remaining ties between the two Koreas torn apart in the cold war. In fact, North Korea attempted a drastic revision in 1948 but reverted back in 1954 to hold onto the continuity with the South.

Good. If you've followed my ideas so far you'll know that I would be against anything that sets the North Korean and the South Korean languages apart.


Karavinka wrote:If you don't like it, go learn something else, nobody cares.

If you want to learn Korean, you have no choice. It's okay to analyse, like or dislike and sometimes even improve features of the languages you're speaking though.


Karavinka wrote:
Woods wrote:
Karavinka wrote:There was another letter ㆁ for /ng/, and this was used both as syllable-initial and syllable-final but as Korean lost syllable-initial /ng/, ㆁ dropped out of usage and ㅇ is used for both null-consonant and syllable-final /ng/.

I've seen the little stroke on top of the circle some places - is it that since the two letters merged, now some fonts have it and some don't, or as the combined letters are encoded as separate characters, some fonts just add the stroke when ㅇ is at the end, or do some more traditionalist people still make use of the letter ㆁ when they write?

So not better if you add the stroke at the bottom and leave it out at the top (if you like older features like me)?

User avatar
Karavinka
Posts: 2359
Joined: 2004-04-24, 4:00
Location: Montréal
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Karavinka » 2022-11-27, 18:33

Woods wrote:Well, I guess so, but the question was more: if I write it without the circle will it be readable, and has anyone tried it? Don't be so aggressive - I am not about to change your spelling system nor do I have the power to do so!

Karavinka wrote:If you don't like it, go learn something else, nobody cares.

If you want to learn Korean, you have no choice. It's okay to analyse, like or dislike and sometimes even improve features of the languages you're speaking though.


It won't make it any more readable, and nobody in the history did so unless it was a typo. Do you think we're a bunch of morons who can't see the obvious defect in the alphabet for centuries and a random foreigner who just started looking into the language could "improve" that? I'm almost on the verge of saying f-word.

Analyze all you want, just know it's not a topic of discussion. Nobody cares if you like temperature or not, or whether you think temperature makes sense and make human life easier or not. If you want to know why ㅇ exists as syllable-initial null consonant, I gave you the answer already: every syllable block is designed to conform CV(C). Period.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 902
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Woods » 2022-11-27, 19:34

Karavinka wrote:
Woods wrote:Well, I guess so, but the question was more: if I write it without the circle will it be readable, and has anyone tried it? Don't be so aggressive - I am not about to change your spelling system nor do I have the power to do so!

Woods wrote:
Karavinka wrote:If you don't like it, go learn something else, nobody cares.

If you want to learn Korean, you have no choice. It's okay to analyse, like or dislike and sometimes even improve features of the languages you're speaking though.

It won't make it any more readable, and nobody in the history did so unless it was a typo.

Okay, but I still don't grasp how you don't understand my question - I am not asking if me taking the circle off will make the text more readable, I am asking if it will still be readable if one does so and if anyone has tried doing that somewhere (for example in some newly-styled fonts, logos, whatever comes to your or anyone else's mind.) Seems like you're so shocked that I am even thinking of omitting this holy no-vowel marker that you can't even make out what I am saying because of it!


Karavinka wrote:Do you think we're a bunch of morons who can't see the obvious defect in the alphabet for centuries

Why do you think I would think you would be a bunch of morons?


Karavinka wrote:and a random foreigner who just started looking into the language could "improve" that?

No clue. In theory it is perfectly possible for a random person (foreigner or not) to improve something somewhere, and also foreigners and other incompetent people are generally allowed to ask themselves questions.


Karavinka wrote:I'm almost on the verge of saying f-word.

Yeah, hold your horses. Usually people who react like that later come back saying "sorry man, I didn't get you, I wasn't right."


Karavinka wrote:Nobody cares if you like temperature or not, or whether you think temperature makes sense and make human life easier or not.

Yet people discuss the weather all the time, complain about it, curse or praise it, and even come up with new solutions to go around it such as making better clothes or heating their homes.


Karavinka wrote:If you want to know why ㅇ exists as syllable-initial null consonant, I gave you the answer already: every syllable block is designed to conform CV(C).

Yeah, thanks for the answer! I am yet to read what CV(C) actually means.

User avatar
Karavinka
Posts: 2359
Joined: 2004-04-24, 4:00
Location: Montréal
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Karavinka » 2022-11-27, 19:39

I'm not even going to bother respond to each and every piece of bullshit, I'll just stress this again.

1. Nobody fucking writes that way.

2. Every hangul syllable block is designed to have CONSONANT-VOWEL-(CONSONANT) structure.

The final consonant is optional for the open syllable, the initial consonant and vowel must be present and written.
This is the design. It's just the way it is, don't fucking question, it's not up for discussion.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 902
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Woods » 2022-11-27, 21:40

Karavinka wrote:I'm not even going to bother respond to each and every piece of bullshit, I'll just stress this again.

1. Nobody fucking writes that way.

Thanks for the insults 👍


Linguaphile wrote:
Woods wrote:Okay, but I still don't grasp how you don't understand my question - I am not asking if me taking the circle off will make the text more readable, I am asking if it will still be readable if one does so and if anyone has tried doing that somewhere (for example in some newly-styled fonts, logos, whatever comes to your or anyone else's mind.)

Karavinka did answer this:
Karavinka wrote:nobody in the history did so unless it was a typo.

This tells you
(1) nobody in the history did so
(2) if you do so, it will be viewed as a typo

Yeah, this is the part he didn't answer:


Woods wrote:I am asking if it will still be readable if one does so and if anyone has tried doing that somewhere (for example in some newly-styled fonts, logos, whatever comes to your or anyone else's mind.)

Of course he's not obligated to answer anything, but it's literally strange he'd spend more time criticising me about what he thought I might be than on providing his opinion of the question, which is actually valuable.


Linguaphile wrote:
Woods wrote:
Karavinka wrote:and a random foreigner who just started looking into the language could "improve" that?

No clue. In theory it is perfectly possible for a random person (foreigner or not) to improve something somewhere, and also foreigners and other incompetent people are generally allowed to ask themselves questions.

But as you've been told numerous times, you will always get this reaction

Well, you gave me this reaction and now we're friendly and chatting over many interesting subjects. It's happened time and time again - I've been accused of anything you can name. As long as somebody's getting pissed off because of his misunderstanding and not because of what I actually said, I don't give a f***.


Linguaphile wrote:when you claim to have found a way to "improve" a language they speak natively or fluently and which you don't speak.

If you can point out where I've claimed that, I would side with you and admit to being the most ignorant and inconsiderate mother****er in the world.

(Let's stick to this thread though, cause if you refer me to what I've said about Spanish or Swedish I may have to admit right away 👼)


Linguaphile wrote:
Woods wrote:
Karavinka wrote:If you want to know why ㅇ exists as syllable-initial null consonant, I gave you the answer already: every syllable block is designed to conform CV(C).

Yeah, thanks for the answer! I am yet to read what CV(C) actually means.

This is common notation in linguistics. It means consonant + vowel + optional consonant. So, here, it means that each syllable must start with a written consonant so when there is no syllable-initial consonant, you must put ㅇ in its place.

What do you mean common notation - which other language writes in syllable blocks with consonants at the top or top left, wovels in the middle or right or bottom (if I've understood correctly) and an optional third consonant also at the bottom?

Linguaphile
Posts: 4805
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Linguaphile » 2022-11-27, 22:42

First of all, I want to say that I hadn't seen Karavinka's post when I posted mine, and when I saw that, I deleted mine. Not because I wanted to change anything I said but because I saw that Karavinka had answered your CV(C) question which I had answered as well and had addressed the other points that I'd responded to and I decided that my post wasn't adding anything and therefore it would be best to just stay out of it. But since you apparently read and quoted that post before I deleted it, I'll go ahead and respond.

Woods wrote:
Woods wrote:I am asking if it will still be readable if one does so and if anyone has tried doing that somewhere (for example in some newly-styled fonts, logos, whatever comes to your or anyone else's mind.)

Of course he's not obligated to answer anything, but it's literally strange he'd spend more time criticising me about what he thought I might be than on providing his opinion of the question, which is actually valuable.

You are missing the answer that Karavinka gave, though: it will look like a typo. From this we can infer that people will be able to figure out what is meant (so, it's probably readable in a limited, have-to-stop-and-think-about-it sort of way) but they won't see it as an improvement or unique style or logo or whatever, they'll think it's a mistake. I'm not sure how much clearer Karavinka could have made this. Doesn't that answer your question?

Woods wrote:
Linguaphile wrote:when you claim to have found a way to "improve" a language they speak natively or fluently and which you don't speak.

If you can point out where I've claimed that, I would side with you and admit to being the most ignorant and inconsiderate mother****er in the world.

(Let's stick to this thread though, cause if you refer me to what I've said about Spanish or Swedish I may have to admit right away 👼)


Sure. For one thing, there was this:
Woods wrote:If you want to learn Korean, you have no choice. It's okay to analyse, like or dislike and sometimes even improve features of the languages you're speaking though.

It was pretty easy to understand you were referring to yourself and your own so-called improvements to hangul because earlier in the thread you had already claimed to have improvements, when you said things like this:
Woods wrote:it appears to me that if we take away those circles and keep the remaining parts of the characters where they are, the text would be more readable.

Woods wrote:So not better if you add the stroke at the bottom and leave it out at the top (if you like older features like me)?

where you said that your ideas would make the text "more readable" and asked if Karavinka did not agree with you that adding the stroke would make it "better". To say that something would be "better" or "more readable" is to say that these features would improve it.

Furthermore, along with asking if Karavinka agreed that doing it your way would make it "better", you also twice claimed that you are right and we are wrong or misunderstanding you, when you said this:
Woods wrote:
Karavinka wrote:I'm almost on the verge of saying f-word.

Yeah, hold your horses. Usually people who react like that later come back saying "sorry man, I didn't get you, I wasn't right."

and this:
Woods wrote: As long as somebody's getting pissed off because of his misunderstanding and not because of what I actually said, I don't give a f***.


So, yeah, you did say your ideas were improvements on the Korean writing system, and then claimed we'd eventually agree that you are right and we are wrong. You say you're just asking questions, but when the answers you get are "no, it's not better" or "no one does that, it's viewed as a typo", you don't accept those answers. (And "accepting" them could be commenting on it, asking follow-up questions based on the new information or just moving on with no comment at all.) But instead of doing any of those things you claim that we're just not understanding you and that we'll come back later apologizing to you for having "misunderstood" you and not having agreed. So no, you aren't "just asking questions" either. You keep arguing about it until - what? Until someone finally says "oh, you're right, now I get it, Woods, that's a great idea!"?? It's not going to happen.

Woods wrote:
Linguaphile wrote:This is common notation in linguistics. It means consonant + vowel + optional consonant. So, here, it means that each syllable must start with a written consonant so when there is no syllable-initial consonant, you must put ㅇ in its place.

What do you mean common notation - which other language writes in syllable blocks with consonants at the top or top left, vowels in the middle or right or bottom (if I've understood correctly) and an optional third consonant also at the bottom?

I mean that when you see linguists writing anything with capital C's and V's together, the capital C refers to "consonant" and the capital V refers to "vowel" and if it's in parenthesis it means it might be there or might be omitted. It has nothing to do with the positioning of the letters on the page, but with the sequence of sounds. We can do this with any sound pattern in any language. For example in English some CVC words are cat, dog, fox, rat, mat, hat, bed, and so on. If I had written it as CV(C) I could then include words that have no final consonant along with those that do, like to, go, he, my, be, and so on.
So in other words whether it is English or Korean or some other language, CV(C) means "words that begin with a single consonant followed by a single vowel, which may or may not also have a final consonant at the end."
A key point in this case is that when it is written as CV(C) it means that the first consonant is *not* optional, it must be written, and that is why we have to write the null consonant as a placeholder in hangul.
Ajalik inimene ei jõua oma keelerännikul kunagi pärale. Osa teeharusid jääbki inimesel elu jooksul keeles avastamata. - Valdur Mikita

A mortal person never reaches the end of his language journey. Some forks in the road remain undiscovered throughout the course of a person's life. - Valdur Mikita

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 902
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Woods » 2022-11-28, 1:21

Linguaphile wrote:
Woods wrote:
Linguaphile wrote:when you claim to have found a way to "improve" a language they speak natively or fluently and which you don't speak.

If you can point out where I've claimed that, I would side with you and admit to being the most ignorant and inconsiderate mother****er in the world.

(Let's stick to this thread though, cause if you refer me to what I've said about Spanish or Swedish I may have to admit right away 👼)


Sure. For one thing, there was this:
Woods wrote:If you want to learn Korean, you have no choice. It's okay to analyse, like or dislike and sometimes even improve features of the languages you're speaking though.

It was pretty easy to understand you were referring to yourself

Nope, I was generalising.

Every time someone criticises me about something and I explain myself to them, I tell myself that instead I should have said "Yes, dumbass - you are totally right!" It becomes especially apparent I've made a mistake by not doing so when other people infer from what I replied something about me by assumption and association.


Linguaphile wrote:where you said that your ideas would make the text "more readable" and asked if Karavinka did not agree with you that adding the stroke would make it "better".

You don't get my logic at all. You completely misinterpret and misunderstand what I'm saying and why I'm saying it and so much so that after having had similar discussions more than once, I don't think it makes any sense to explain this time. If you would accept a personal piece of advice for me: try not to infer anything about a person's intentions or personal qualities by their statements and opinions - first of all it's not necessary, and second of all - you are really bad at it sometimes.

Honestly at some point what you're writing about me becomes so absurd that I don't want to read it any further. You should go over it and seriously reconsider. I'd be happy to hear you don't work as a judge cause God knows how many people you'd jail for cannibalism because of eating potato chips by inferring that potatoes are round so they must be humans!

User avatar
Karavinka
Posts: 2359
Joined: 2004-04-24, 4:00
Location: Montréal
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Karavinka » 2022-11-28, 2:25

Linguaphile, I admire your patience, but this troll isn't worth feeding.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

Linguaphile
Posts: 4805
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Linguaphile » 2022-11-28, 4:10

Woods wrote:
Linguaphile wrote:where you said that your ideas would make the text "more readable" and asked if Karavinka did not agree with you that adding the stroke would make it "better".

You don't get my logic at all.

I really don't. Neither do you get mine. For one thing, to me it seems obvious that if someone says something is "more readable" or "better", that's the same as saying those things are improvements.

Woods wrote:If you would accept a personal piece of advice for me: try not to infer anything about a person's intentions or personal qualities by their statements and opinions

I was trying to help you understand why people react the way they do. You've seen it over and over and we've discussed it before. In a thread like this one, it's not a language I have a personal connection to so I can step back and look at the discussion from outside, or with more patience as Karavinka said, and then I tried to explain to you the way your words sound to others because as I see it that's the reason why these discussions disintegrate into insults and foul language. You keep saying it's not how you mean it but if it really isn't, then you might want to change the way you express it so that people don't take it that way. I'm not saying it to attack you but to help you understand, and for some reason I thought that if I did that again you'd see the connection between this situation and similar ones in the past and understand better what I'm trying to say. It's obviously not working, and so I'll stay out of it from this point on. There's really no point in trying anymore.

Woods wrote:Honestly at some point what you're writing about me becomes so absurd that I don't want to read it any further. You should go over it and seriously reconsider. I'd be happy to hear you don't work as a judge cause God knows how many people you'd jail for cannibalism because of eating potato chips by inferring that potatoes are round so they must be humans!

And this. You posted recently something similarly bizarre about someone else in another thread, in response to a thread on the Spanish forum that hasn't had any other posts in six months. It's bizarre. I know you don't want me to "infer anything about a person's intentions or personal qualities by their statements and opinions", but this kind of post (especially in that other thread, where you were reviving a discussion which as far as the rest of us were concerned had ended six months ago) makes me think you just want to get a reaction out of people in order to continue the argument. I'm not going to. I'm done.
Ajalik inimene ei jõua oma keelerännikul kunagi pärale. Osa teeharusid jääbki inimesel elu jooksul keeles avastamata. - Valdur Mikita

A mortal person never reaches the end of his language journey. Some forks in the road remain undiscovered throughout the course of a person's life. - Valdur Mikita

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 25460
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby linguoboy » 2022-11-28, 19:11

Woods wrote:
Karavinka wrote:I'm not even going to bother respond to each and every piece of bullshit, I'll just stress this again.

1. Nobody fucking writes that way.

Thanks for the insults 👍

That's not an insult, it's just profanity. If you take every use of profanity as a personal insult, damn, I can't imagine how you deal with the world.

Woods wrote:
Woods wrote:I am asking if it will still be readable if one does so and if anyone has tried doing that somewhere (for example in some newly-styled fonts, logos, whatever comes to your or anyone else's mind.)

Of course he's not obligated to answer anything, but it's literally strange he'd spend more time criticising me about what he thought I might be than on providing his opinion of the question, which is actually valuable.

That's literally the question that Karavinka answered!

I feel like you keep approaching languages with an engineer's brain: If we take this away, does it break? But languages aren't machines or software and they don't lend themselves to be comprehended as if they were.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 902
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Woods » 2022-11-28, 22:29

Linguaphile wrote:
Woods wrote:You don't get my logic at all.

Neither do you get mine.

Yeah but I've never made assumptions about you personally, about your intentions, about your opinions etc. because of that - and especially negative ones, it's against my morals to do so!


Linguaphile wrote:I was trying to help you understand why people react the way they do.

First of all, you were not supposed to do that. Second of all, you could be an example of one of those people, when I mentioned that when somebody insults me or accuses me of something, admit to having been wrong. Example: that time when I asked why there were so many Saami languages and you sided with a group of people calling me a racist. Then you admitted to having misunderstood that I was genuinely asking a question. I could point out other examples too if I go back, but I don't want to.

I would never discuss about myself or somebody's accusations of me like that in real life. The only reason I'm doing so is because I appreciate your opinions and the discussions we have on other topics, but again - when you talk about me it is extremely annoying. People must stop calling other people things when they can't convince them. And if you're going to make assumptions about anyone, always make positive ones.


Linguaphile wrote:as I see it that's the reason why these discussions disintegrate into insults and foul language. You keep saying it's not how you mean it but if it really isn't, then you might want to change the way you express it so that people don't take it that way.

I'm working on it, but I am not the one making negative assumptions, calling the other person names and thus disintegrating those discussions.


Linguaphile wrote:There's really no point in trying anymore.

You try again when you have a point to make. What's your point in this - to explain how much of an asshole I am, to say that I'm not allowed to question anything, or that it's okay for people to make negative assumptions about other people?


Linguaphile wrote:
Woods wrote:Honestly at some point what you're writing about me becomes so absurd that I don't want to read it any further. You should go over it and seriously reconsider. I'd be happy to hear you don't work as a judge cause God knows how many people you'd jail for cannibalism because of eating potato chips by inferring that potatoes are round so they must be humans!

And this. You posted recently something similarly bizarre about someone else in another thread

Well I'm trying to reproduce your logic, hoping that it would make you realise what I mean, but it's not working - so you see it as bizarre.

I ask if Hangeul would be readable without initial circles and if someone has tried it (by that phrasing it should be apparent that I what mean is on purpose - which excludes typos). After being told an interesting fact I didn't know by Karavinka - that there is an alternative shape with an extra stroke because ㅇ and ㆁ used to be two different letters, I also ask him if it would look nice if I write the first shape at the top and the second one at the bottom (like it used to be) and if there are fonts that specifically do that.

Many things are falsely inferred and I challenge you to prove one of your statements, which is that I "claim to have found a way to "improve" a language (I) don't speak." You go:

"when you said things like this: "it appears to me that if we take away those circles and keep the remaining parts of the characters where they are, the text would be more readable." ; "So not better if you add the stroke at the bottom and leave it out at the top (if you like older features like me)?"

You conclude: "you said that your ideas would make the text "more readable" and asked if Karavinka did not agree with you that adding the stroke would make it "better". To say that something would be "better" or "more readable" is to say that these features would improve it. 😳

So I tried to be creative and come up with a completely made-up situation where a more obviously wrong (hopefully) conclusion can be made when making negative assumptions about someone to the detriment of understanding what actually happened.

Compare:

You are the judge at a court hearing where someone is being tried for cannibalism. A few people have been missing, so there is high pressure on you to come up with a verdict. The police have arrested a man carrying a bag that could easily fit a human carcass near the house of one of the people who went missing. The man was taken into custody, the bag carefully examined and it was discovered that it had contained several kilogrammes of potatoes. You weigh in the facts:

Human heads are round and so are potatoes! Potatoes grow underground and humans can also dig holes (have you heard of mining?) It is perfectly obvious by the suspect's statements and intentions that if humans dig holes, so do potatoes when they grow underground, and therefore they are obviously little humans. The court concludes that by eating chips, Mr or Ms has committed cannibalism, which according to article.. of the.. act, is // years of prison or in some juristictions - death sentence.

People must be a lot more careful!

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 25460
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby linguoboy » 2022-11-28, 22:43

That analogy makes no sense.

I'm sure you know the old saying, "If one person tells you you're drunk, tell them to fuck off. If five people tell you you're drunk, go home and sleep if off." Well, we may not be up to five yet, but we are at a least three. I came away with the same interpretation of your comments as both Linguaphile and Karavinka. At some point, if everybody reads your remarks the same way, and that's not how you want them to be read, you need to take responsibility for not communicating your meaning properly. We're not leaping to wild conclusions about cannibalism here; we're reading what's there and interpreting it accordance with common conversational maxims and other pragmatic rules. Learning those rules is part of learning how to use a language.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Karavinka
Posts: 2359
Joined: 2004-04-24, 4:00
Location: Montréal
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Karavinka » 2022-11-28, 23:02

I've learned my lesson.

When talking to Woods, don't bother supplying extra details, make it as clear as possible that the answer is HELL NO and end convo right there.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts: 25460
Joined: 2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name: Da
Location: Chicago
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby linguoboy » 2022-11-28, 23:12

Karavinka wrote:When talking to Woods, don't bother supplying extra details, make it as clear as possible that the answer is HELL NO and end convo right there.

Back on topic, I remember reading that during the early 20th century when scholars were debating how best to reform the Han'geul script, there were proposals to write it linearly, in imitation of Western languages--rather than in syllabic blocks. What I don't remember, however, is whether this would have entailed keeping ㅇ in vowel-initial words or not. Have you ever heard of such a proposal? Do you recall any details?
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Karavinka
Posts: 2359
Joined: 2004-04-24, 4:00
Location: Montréal
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Karavinka » 2022-11-28, 23:42

linguoboy wrote:
Karavinka wrote:When talking to Woods, don't bother supplying extra details, make it as clear as possible that the answer is HELL NO and end convo right there.

Back on topic, I remember reading that during the early 20th century when scholars were debating how best to reform the Han'geul script, there were proposals to write it linearly, in imitation of Western languages--rather than in syllabic blocks. What I don't remember, however, is whether this would have entailed keeping ㅇ in vowel-initial words or not. Have you ever heard of such a proposal? Do you recall any details?


Image
Choe Hyeonbae's proposal

Such proposals were primarily for typewriting convenience, and it never gained much traction. The syllable-initial ㅇ is not used in this exemplar, but as you can see you might as well say it's a new conscript. It even has capital and lower case.

Image
From top to bottom: Chang Bongseon, Ju Si-gyeong and Korean Language Society proposals

Whether the initial ㅇ is used or not depended on who proposed it. The top one keeps it, the bottom two drop it. It should also be noted that these early 20C proposals were later rejected by the people who made them in the first place: Ju for example was a key linguist and lexicographer who laid the foundation of Modern Standard Korean grammar and orthography, where he used the combined/featural writing instead.

And the whole thing became a moot point once we figured out how to make a typewriter that can write Hangul as they should be.

Woods, don't even try to ask if anyone wants to revitalize these proposals and take them more seriously or if any of these would improve legibility. The answer is already NO and I'm not answering your "questions."
Last edited by Karavinka on 2022-11-29, 0:25, edited 1 time in total.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

User avatar
Karavinka
Posts: 2359
Joined: 2004-04-24, 4:00
Location: Montréal
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Hangeul without initial circles?

Postby Karavinka » 2022-11-29, 0:05

Also, it should be noted that the Hangul vowels are featural where diphthongs are combined together. (Some vowels like ㅔ are monophthongized but originally they were diphthongs.) Syllable-initial ㅇ serves to break the syllables apart, for example:

오이 cucumber
어이 hey!
나이 age

Take these three words. Without ㅇ, they'll be

ㅗㅣ
ㅓㅣ
나ㅣ

which will be difficult to distinguish them from:





and then they will be interpreted as:

외 other than
에 at
내 my

These are the kinds of reasons why proposals violating the initial design ultimately failed. Yes, experiments were made, and they didn't get any traction for good reasons. Unless you're completely redesigning a new set of consonants and vowels (good luck gaining any momentum), Hangul is fine as it is.
Last edited by Karavinka on 2022-11-29, 0:21, edited 2 times in total.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A


Return to “Korean (한국어)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest