Talk:Goguryeo language

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

Languages C‑class Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"烏" vs. "鳥" in transcriptions of Old Korean and Middle Korean

I have personally performed extensive research into the usage of Chinese characters in transcribing Old Korean and Middle Korean word forms, and I have found that what appears as 烏 (/ʔo/, "crow; black") is almost always an error for 鳥 (/tjo/, later /tɕo/, "bird"). Reading instances of 烏 /ʔo/ as 鳥 /tjo/ makes many of the forms in the table on the Goguryeo language page plainly recognizable as the ancestors of various modern Korean words. For example, the Goguryeo form 烏斯含 (*/ʔo.sʌ.hɔm/) would become 鳥斯含 (*/tjo.sʌ.hɔm/) and be readily comparable to Proto-Turkic */tavısgan/ ("rabbit, hare") and Korean /tʰokki/ ("rabbit, hare"). In a similar manner, Early Middle Korean 烏子蓋 (*/ʔo.tɕʌ.kɔj/ "ax") makes much more sense when read as 鳥子蓋 (*/tjo.tɕʌ.kɔj/), which would clearly be the ancestor of the Late Middle Korean forms 돗귀 /tos.kuj/, 돗긔 /tos.kɨj/, and 도최 /to.tɕʰɔj/. Ebizur 11:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite interesting, and sensible. I think this sort of thing is an IAR situation- while it might be original researchy and kind of like synthesis, it makes a lot of sense for there to be transcription errors. That said, it would of course be a lot better to find a source that actually says 烏 should generally be interpreted as 鳥. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting point, on the other hand if you look at the middle korean version of rabbit,'토끼'

it was written '톳기': 토+ㅅ+기. If this 토 is just the hanja 兎 we get a 兎ㅅ+기. So Tokki could be a mixed word from hanmun and Korean. Prior to the 15 century there was no hangul and korean has alot of such mixed words 93.216.219.21 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of citations by an IP user

I have to report an anonymous user 125.54.251.167 (125.54.251.185) whose referenced contributions on this article, were different from the relevant data in the source paper of Itabashi Yoshizo(2003),板橋義三 (2003)「高句麗の地名から高句麗語と朝鮮語・日本語との史的関係をさぐる」"Research on the historical relationship between the Goguryeo language and the Korean/ Japanese languages through the Goguryeo toponyms."「日本語系統論の現在」 "Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language."

By altering deliberately the cited data taken from the paper of Itabashi, her/his referenced contributions were different from the information of the original source[1], [2](upper and middle one), [3] [4](the lowerst one), and by adding a cited contribution whose relevant data is in fact not existent in the paper of Itabashi Yoshizo at all. [5](lower one) By this I would like to make it clear that this is not the complaint of misrepresentation of sources, since this user altered the data given the Itabashi’s paper citied by this user.

Basically, this user strongly tends to change, remove and correct her/his previous own edits. Therefore the correctness and accuracy of her/his contributions cannot be guaranteed at all. So I have been monitoring this user, correcting her/his wrong edits. Considering her/his attempts to maintain false referenced edits despite my four times warning. (See also my Edit summaries) [6], [7], [8], [9], I would like to request all scrupulous users to keep constantly an eye on this user in order to prevent her/his further wrong edits in bed faith.

False citations made by this user are listed below:

False quotation	Original source	notes
ɣapma 盒馬 (山 : mountain)	ɣapma 盒馬 (大山 : big mountain)	Initially, I corrected this wrong contribution made by this user, based on the academic research. After a while, s/he insisted on her/his previous wrong edit once more by making citation. So I had to correct her/his edit based on the source s/he cited for it.
mi₁ra (蒜 : garlic)	mi₁ra (韮 : garlic chives)
kuət-・ιəi	kur'iy	The reconstruction of the pronunciation of the Goguryeo word.
kata- (tough, firm)	Not existent in the original source	I removed the false reference note.
kari (犁 : plow)	kar- (刈る : to cut off)
so₂ɸo(赤 : red)	so₂ɸo (赤土 : red soil)	I corrected this edit made by this user, based on the source s/he cited for her/his contribution. After a while, s/he tried to insist on her/his previous wrong edit again removing her/his own citation. So I had to undo her/his unexplained deletion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagello (talk • contribs) 2008-11-29T11:37:40 (UTC)

The removal of a whole table

Some of entries in the big and large table are referenced, so the reason for the removal should be answered here first? --Caspian blue 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing interest on this article. I’m simply puzzled at why such blitz action was taken without any prior discussion. This doesn’t seem a proper avenue for resolving the problem. Jagello (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general idea behind the removal was that the large table was too large to be really helpful to non-linguists. While I'm not sure outright removal is the right step, I think we should strive to integrate the examples or comparisons into a prose text as much as possible. One which serves to illustrate why various differences in comparison to the minority languages is significant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Please, bring it back. That table was very useful. I was always checking it and I'm not a linguist. Are you just saving bytes?--Quinceps (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more about making the article accessible to everyone, in my opinion. By this I mean, the article needs to be helpful to anyone who wants to learn some basic information about this language. An appropriate, encyclopedic treatment of the vocabulary of the Goguryeo language need not be exhaustive to sufficiently address the important points. If, of course, it's deemed that there's so much information available that the vocabulary section dwarfs the rest of the article, it may be appropriate to branch out into another article with this article containing a summary style explanation of the most important points. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's not really a matter of saving bytes- after all, the version with the table is still available here if you need it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translating references

Noting that the refs aren't in English, I'm giving translation a shot.

後漢書東夷列傳第七十五挹婁 = Book of the Later Han, "Historical biography on Dongyi" (or just "Dongyi Liezhuan"), #75 on the Yilou (predecessors of the Mohe)
魏書捲一百列傳第八十八勿吉 = Book of Wei, "roll" (volume?) 100, Historical biography #88, on the Wuji (also predecessors of the Mohe)
北史捲九十四列傳第八十二勿吉 = History of Northern Dynasties, "roll" (volume?) 94, Historical biography #82, on the Wuji

Anybody more familiar with the subject matter want to correct these? Should probably also be in ref templates. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constant re-addition of that huge damn table

Looks like this article was subject to some unfortunate revert warring that resulted in a block for an editor interested in this topic. While it's true, the edits reintroducing the table weren't strictly vandalism, I think that there's a consensus here that the huge damn table should be omitted as potentially being original research or synthesis. Whether that consensus has changed is open for debate. I personally doubt it, and feel the article may merit semi protection to prevent the user who kept reintroducing it from doing so without discussing, as they are using multiple IPs and new accounts to do so. Any other thoughts? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

It appears tobe vandals keep on editing the article with ridiculous information.--Korsentry 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Goguryeo japanese language connection

http://books.google.com/books?id=tkF3qkwLzvQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=FgaUF46o1UQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

74.67.16.190 (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Goguryeo language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some records that Goguryeo language and Baekje language are different from Old Japanese language.

There are records in the Japanese history book that the Goguryeo language and the Baekje language (possibly according to Vovin, Unger's language of Baekje's ruling class) from the late 6th to early 7th centuries differ from the Old Japanese language.

http://nihongo.hum.tmu.ac.jp/~long/longzemi/hosaka.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no statement in the article that Goguryeo language was the same as Old Japanese, but which items in which history are you referring to? (The link seems to be to a student essay.) Kanguole 09:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The recent addition is misplaced, repeats material already discussed in greater detail in the article, and misrepresents the sources it cites.

The article covers the available evidence under three sections:

The first section discusses contemporaneous descriptions of the language, inclluding Lee & Ramsey's view of these. The only descriptions dating from the time of Goguryeo are in Chinese histories. No Korean or Japanese histories date from that time. Nor do the later Korean and Japanese histories contain any descriptive remarks about the languages of the Three Kingdoms.
The second section discusses the placename glosses in the Samguk sagi, including the views of Lee & Ramsey, Whitman and Toh, which are misrepresented in the above edit.
The third section discusses other data, including the views of Vovin and Unger.

Regarding Lim Byeong-jun, it should be stated whether the words he refers to are from the Samguk sagi glosses (which Toh, Vovin and Whitman say do not reflect Goguryeo), or somewhere else. Also, "Predicate + object" makes no sense. Kanguole 23:10, 4 May 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

Changes to lead

I have reverted recent changes to the lead, for the following reasons:

The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, per MOS:INTRO.
The ancient Chinese histories are mentioned in the article, but they should not be used are citations, per WP:PRIMARY. These texts require expert interpretation by modern experts, of whom several are cited in the body of the article, including Lee Ki-Moon, a recognized authority in this area. Also, the Book of Wei says nothing about the Goguryeo language – it says the Mohe language was unique, but turning that into a statement about the relationship with the Goguryeo language is original research.
The changes misrepresented the sources cited and the sourced text of the article body. For example, "Lee and Ramsey also look broadly to include Altaic and/or Tungusic." is both vague and not what they actually say. Kanguole 09:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support this. MOS:INTRO and WP:PRIMARY are fundamentals (especially when the primary source is not primary research written in the framework of modern scholarship, but ancient historical records). Faithful representation of sources obviously is a must too. –Austronesier (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Chinese histories" is the correct term for the Records of the Three Kingdoms, Book of the Later Han, etc. And the fact that Buyeo, Okjeo and Ye are all unattested is relevant. Kanguole 15:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]