Jump to content

Talk:Hangul/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

straw poll

Move to hangeul   Keep at Hangul
7 7

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)

  • 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)
Also, Hangeul =! Hanguel
Change (sorry for the necropost): the deviation from any accepted transliteration is arbitrary and just confuses people. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2019 (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)

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)

Just a note to follow up: a Google search now has 858k pages hangul, with no other spelling, 137k pages hangeul and another 5k han-geul, and 6k hankul. However, when pages are not excluded for having multiple spellings, the weight shifts: 904k hangul, 1090k hangeul—plus another 6k han-geul. kwami (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • And Google Books has the following:

Badagnani (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

563 with han-geul. But goes up to 568 if hangul is excluded? Something's wrong. Hangul only drops to 1027 with hangeul excluded. kwami (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to hangeul. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've avoided specialized IPA symbols and have included approximate English sounds so that any careful reader can follow my discussion below.

When the French first came to Korea, they spelled Korean words to represent the closest sounds in the French language, according to the spellings used in French. So for example, in almost any other language "eu" would be two vowel sounds: [e] followed by [u] (roughly rhymes with "say who"), but in French this is a single sound, roughly like "book" in English (contrast with "boot"). So the French rendering of the Korean capital city "Seoul" is a little unusual, and violates basic conventions of international spellings of languages with non-Roman alphabets. Most English speakers don't realize that "Seoul" is a two-syllable word (Se-oul). The French pronounced the first syllable "se" (rhymes with "je" as in "je m'appelle [name]"), which was the closest sound they had to the Korean so (in English, roughly between the vowel in the word "son" and the first syllable of "August"). The vowel in the second syllable ("oul") was written "ou." (Remember that in French, "u" is a different sound, a high vowel with rounded lips.)

The Koreans assumed that since [u] was the vowel in the second syllable, the second syllable was being written "ul," and so the rest ("seo") must be the first syllable.

Summary: The French wrote "Seoul" (Se-oul) but the Koreans thought it was Seo-ul, so this common vowel should be written "eo". This MISTAKE became part of the official Ministry of Education system, in spite of the fact that no language anywhere in the world now or in the known past (with the possible exception of a spelling in Middle English) used "eo" for anything close to this vowel. There was a great deal of criticism, ridicule, and even an empirical study published in a top professional journal showing the inferiority of the Ministry of Education system by a wide margin. This system did not find favor anywhere outside of those the article described as "linguistically naive Koreans" - not with linguists, not with publishers of books on Korean topics in other languages, not with foreign residents living in Korea, etc. At first, it was not enough to make the obvious point that a Romanization system for Korean (or any language) is primarily for the sake of people who can't read the native script. The Ministry of Education seemed to want to keep their own system because of some combination of ignorance of linguistics and pride in a system they could call their own. Not long after the empirical study was published, the (perhaps embarrassed) Korean government finally in 1984 scrapped the Ministry of Education system in favor of the system that was used almost universally elsewhere in the world (among languages using the Roman alphabet), the McCune-Reischauer system. (A notable exception was Martin's "Yale" system for specialized linguistic studies.) The Korean government adopted a modified version of the McCune-Reischauer system - with, for example, Cho's hacek (optionally) rather than the breve. Unfortunately, a decision a few years ago by the Korean government revived the widely reviled Ministry of Education system with some modifications (but preserving the mistaken "eo" spelling, as well as other poor choices such as the French "eu" spelling) under the name "Revised Romanization".

Wikipedia editors need to get a little more information on topics about which they make decisions rather than just talking too much among themselves. One Wikipedia editor pointed out with pride that Wikipedia was one of the only places (besides those under the authority of the Korean government) that has adopted Revised Romanization (RR) system. It didn't occur to this RR supporter that there might be a good reason. Contrast this with pinyin for Chinese, which was immediately and pretty universally adopted.

Keep "Hangul" spelling and treat the McCune-Reischauer system with at least as much respect as the inferior RR system, allowing it to have at least equal status on the English Wikipedia (we do this already for British and American English). -DoctorW 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Inferiority is subjective. It was my understanding the French origin of se-oul was not misunderstood, but that eo has turned into a logical back unrounded phonetic counterpart to back rounded o in a similar way e is a logical front unrounded phonetic counterpart to front rounded oe (even though eo e and o oe are not in the same vowel harmony group). I for one have gotten quite used to the Revised Romanization system, it being the first actual Korean romanization system I learned, and I use it extensively as the default romanization, with McCune-Reischauer (while I also know it) becoming increasingly obsolete and antiquated (if not yet useless). It's now become very hard not to think first of spellings like Baekje, Goguryeo, Incheon, Jejudo, Silla, Ulleungdo. Whereas Paekche, Koguryŏ, Inchʻŏn, Chejudo, Shilla and Ullŭngdo seem rather counterintuitive to me. In McCune-Reischauer, some of the specially-spelt vowels are digraphs (ae oe) while some are monographs (ŏ ŭ), when it would seem more logical not to mix them in the same spelling system. Also, it is my understanding (is it not?) that consonants such as initial [k] and non-initial [ɡ] are more or less allophones, whereas [k] and [k͈] are not, while the latter are both spelt k in McCune-Reischauer. Granted—they merge to allophones directly after an unreleased stop, but after a vowel they are not allophones (tʻaekwŏndo = [tʰɛk͈wʌndo]). I'm not saying Revised Romanization is totally perfect (the above example in RR is taegwondo because it's actually written 태권도, though the pronunciation would more indicate 태꿘도), but now makes far more intuitive sense than McCune-Reischauer, and I use Revised Romanization as the default in all Wikipedia mentions. It's been years, and Revised Romanization feels deeply-ingrained now. - Gilgamesh (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm abstaining from making an explicit vote since I don't want to see this poll opened again. But in response to the above comments.... First of all, DoctorW is correct in pointing out that Revised Romanization is inaccurate (some Korean linguists refer to it as "unhelpful"—for example, 것 kes in RR is pronounced more like [gʌt¬]　(pardon my funky diacritics, I'm at a computer which doesn't have all the fonts installed...that g is supposed to be voiceless, and the t unreleased)), although the linguistic accuracy of a spelling isn't really what's at issue here. The main thing is to have the article title under the name by which it is most commonly known to readers of this WP project—in other words, mostly English speakers, many Westerners, and certainly not mostly Korean people. As far as I know, in most of the Western literature on Korean linguistics and orthography, "Hangul" is used more commonly than "Hangeul" (I'd have to stop by the library sometime to give you specific names and book titles). If Hangul is the more common term amount our readers, then it's where the article should be located. Politizer talk/contribs 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As a non-Korean-speaker/learner, hangeul looks weird to me. Yes, I know it’s “correct,” I’m aware the second vowel is more complicated than that, but that’s easily how I'm more used to seeing it. Also, knowing it represents a single syllable, it’s hard to remember whether it’s supposed to be eu or ue (eww, wait; hanguel looks even weirder).
So, as pointed out in previous conversations, we’re really dealing with the English word hangul here, not just romanized Korean. Which is why I wandered over to the talk page in the first place; it’s only due to its normalized status that I guess it’s not POV to “take sides” having the article live here, slighting Chosongul. —Wiki Wikardo 19:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Move to hangeul - In my opinion, It personaly does not matter to me of how people use and write it. What matters to me is that Wikipedia does not use the CORRECT romanization of the word. I'm Korean, and I know that Korea's Government has officialy declared "hanguel" as correct romanization. Sure, it does not stop anyone from using previous romanization. But, Wikiapedia is official site right? shouldn't we/they/us keep up with what is happening around the world? Wikiapedia is for finding official informations, not how people want it to be.
  • Though I personally favour the "Hangul" spelling, knowing that this really is only an issue of redirects be put in place, I say Move to hangeul. We had a similar issue with Ojibwe, where the question was to consolidate everything to "Ojibwa" or "Ojibway" or "Chippewa" but as this was only an issue of redirects, we chose the spelling used by in communities. Same can be said for this article. CJLippert (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Move to Hangeul - 한글 is used only by the Republic of Korea (usually known as South Korea), and it is written as "Hangeul" in the current Romanization and "Hangul" is not recognized as exception. There is no reason to keep hangul. --Yes0song (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Hangul (is this poll even open anymore?) Some things in Korea have kept their old spelling (call it simplified-McCune-R, I don't know) such as Pusan University. Note that Haansoft still uses the old spelling to name their word processor and EBS, too: http://timescampus.ebse.co.kr/kids_ebs.htm?NID=124&code=ebs_special - also, major English dictionaries use the old spelling. Many words enter the English language with odd spellings and it takes a mammoth effort to move them... Other romanized spelling changes such as Pinyin have the weight of the international linguistic community behind them. Wikipedia is supposed to rely on 'reliable sources' and not be a source itself. Darkpoet (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Leave it alone - hangul - To be honest, the Romanization of many Korean words is confusing. Adding "e" does not help a native English speaker very much in all the cases where it is used to modify a vowel sound, and may result in "han-Jul" or "han-gee-ul" pronunciation (I've heard these versions from beginners...) It comes up with "Seoul" too, I hear "See-ol" a lot but not the 서울 "So (as in "soft")-ool" that the "e" is trying to capture. I see it Romanized to "hangul" all over Korea. If they like it that way, maybe we should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 제이5 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to Hangeul- Clarifies the sounds and previous English spelling ignored Korean wishes and imposing Western ideas on Korea, so since there is an official Korean romanization, we should stick with the Korean-based romanization. With three systems, Wikipedia has also been leaning towards revised as the official as well for several other pages. The APA and Chicago also leans towards revised, as well, except for in names where it doesn't fit the wishes of the individual. The only refuge where McCune is used is in academic circles, though there is push back there as well with some academics leaning towards the official Korean government spellings--personally I think McCune is unwieldy and needs to be eliminated since it doesn't get closer to the actual sound representations it needs to be wiped out. The confusion with u in all romanization systems also causes issues for American speakers, and eu is a lot more clear than u. If Wikipedia leans towards using revised in all articles except for in names, then this article should also follow that convention.--KimYunmi (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Hangul (I don't think this poll is open anymore though) – The English word for the Korean alphabet is "hangul." This is already an established word in English – it does not have to be affected by South Korea's official romanization system. Should the English word "Korea" be changed to "Goryeo" just because "Korea" is from the Korean word 고려 (Goryeo)? Hell no. Likewise, the English word "hangul" does not have to be changed to "hangeul" just because "hangul" is from the Korean word 한글 (hangeul). --73.198.36.59 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hangeul is a Korea Government's official spelling.

Hangeul is a Korea Government's official spelling. Hangeul(O) Hankeul(X) Han-gŭl(X)


http://www.korean.go.kr/09_new/dic/rule/rule_roman.jsp

There are two search boxes. In the below box, search a word "한글". --Gnulinux (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The English word for the Korean alphabet is "hangul." This is already an established word in English – it does not have to be affected by South Korea's official romanization system. Should the English word "Korea" be changed to "Goryeo" just because "Korea" is from the Korean word 고려 (Goryeo)? Hell no. Likewise, the English word "hangul" does not have to be changed to "hangeul" just because "hangul" is from the Korean word 한글 (hangeul). --73.198.36.59 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hangeul is a Korea Government's official spelling. (2)

OK, so when the country Kampuchea decided to rename themselves Cambodia, everyone in the world just accepted their right to name their own country whatever they like. Now that Korea has decided to discard a ridiculous western system of romanization in favor of a more logical one for their own language, some retards think they are wrong and just want to keep using Hangul because it would be a real pain in the ass to actually let Koreans decide the name of their own language. Nice one. I especially like the "official names" box that lists the official south korean name as "hangul". You go Wikipedia! You tell those Koreans how fucking stupid they are trying to name their own language!

So, please pull your heads out of your ass and realize that the official name is Hangeul, as declared by the country that actually uses that language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouFrackingRetards (talk • contribs)

This has already been discussed. Also, please review Wikipedia's naming policy, and in future messages please refrain from personal attacks. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually, it was in the 1970s that the Khmer Rouge wanted the rest of the world to call the country Kampuchea, but the rest of the world ignored them. Meanwhile, in Cambodian the name has been Kampuchea all along. So before you demean other people's intelligence, consider what you're demonstrating of your own. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The English word for the Korean alphabet is "hangul." This is already an established word in English – it does not have to be affected by South Korea's official romanization system. Should the English word "Korea" be changed to "Goryeo" just because "Korea" is from the Korean word 고려 (Goryeo)? Hell no. Likewise, the English word "hangul" does not have to be changed to "hangeul" just because "hangul" is from the Korean word 한글 (hangeul). --73.198.36.59 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It is beyond time for hangul to be changed to hangeul

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to keep on promoting an outdated romanization. By keeping the name hangul in use, we are going against the official English romanization of Korean that is promoted by the South Korean government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Romanization_of_Korean

It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the new system. Actually, calling it new is odd in and of itself as it's been around since 2000. It's the official way to romanize Korean, so it's time for a Wikipedia wide change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleenik (talk • contribs) 12:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The English word for the Korean alphabet is "hangul." This is already an established word in English – it does not have to be affected by South Korea's official romanization system. Should the English word "Korea" be changed to "Goryeo" just because "Korea" is from the Korean word 고려 (Goryeo)? Hell no. Likewise, the English word "hangul" does not have to be changed to "hangeul" just because "hangul" is from the Korean word 한글 (hangeul). --73.198.36.59 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Why ㅈ as j? Why not z? - ounbbl Oct 24, 2018

Please do not revert 'Hangeul' into 'Hangul'. It is NOT A TYPO.

By the 'Revised Romanization' system, introduced in 2000 by the South Korean government, the romanization 'Hangul' has reverted into 'Hangeul'.

Please note that all the official websites of South Korean government, companies and etc has converted Hangul into Hangeul since the year 2000.

Following the introducing the 'RR' system by the South Korean government, the unicode for Hangeul has also been revised.

All though, the word processor of South Korea; Hangul has been published back in the 1990s, so the word processor Hangul should have its spelling remained. DoomeyAhn (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing the South Korean government's standard on the romanisation of Korean with what is is usually called in English, i.e. Hangul. The argument has been had many times before, so you need to achieve consensus here for the change before changing the page. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The English word for the Korean alphabet is "hangul." This is already an established word in English – it does not have to be affected by South Korea's official romanization system. Should the English word "Korea" be changed to "Goryeo" just because "Korea" is from the Korean word 고려 (Goryeo)? Hell no. Likewise, the English word "hangul" does not have to be changed to "hangeul" just because "hangul" is from the Korean word 한글 (hangeul). --73.198.36.59 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

'Hangul' should be changed to 'Hangeul'. Because 'Hangul' is sounds 한굴 or 한걸 in Korea. However, 'Hangeul' is sounds 한글. --Dkxz (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. See 73.198.36.59's comment above. --60.246.130.83 (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Keyboards and cellphones

Being interested in these topics, I expected to find some sections on data entry and input methods. Maybe there is already an article somewhere not listed in the see also. Xref input method editor. Can anyone oblige? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No need, I have found it. Korean language and computers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"뻸" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 뻸 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 8#뻸 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 00:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hangul supremacy merge

I find it highly dubious that Hangul supremacy is sufficiently notable to deserve its own article, so I've merged it into Hangul#Hangul supremacy theory. With that said, I am also unconvinced that the section has much merit in the first place; perhaps it should be deleted entirely. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to merge. However, I don't see an issue with lack of neutrality or merit. The paragraph does need some editing and more sources, perhaps, but I don't think deleting it is a sound idea.
Adding to the merit of the theory, here's an interview of linguist James McCawley of Chicago University claiming that "Hangul is the most ingeniously devised writing system that exists". UnsortedBuffoon (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment I think the term "supremacy theory" is very dubious. It is unnecessarilt emotive. What should be said is that Hangul is (almost?) unique among standard writing systems, in having been designed, rather than evolving from a mishmash of previous ideas. There is a chapter in Geoffrey Sampson's book "Writing systems" (my micro-review), in the first paragraph of which he quotes Reischauer "perhaps the most scientific system of writing in general use in any country" and Vos "the world's best alphabet". So there is no question that there is something here, and it would benefit from having emotive language removed. (I was sitting on a park bench in Seoul in 1978, trying to decipher the label on a Coca Cola bottle (코카콜라) when a young student came up and gave me an enthusiastic 40-minute lesson. Despite almost no practice, I can still read Korean, at about 60% reliability. It really is amazing. At the same time, it is a beautiful fit to Korean phonology, thus useless for anything else, although the vastly bigger vowel inventory of Korean cf Japanese makes the rendering of English loan words vastly more convincing.) Imaginatorium (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Well said—the diction is indeed unnecessarily emotive. But, given the plethora of expert opinions advocating some form of uniqueness of Hangul and its scientific structure, it would be wrong to delete the section entirely as @BalinKingOfMoria suggested.
Being a new Wikipedia editor (I joined specifically to participate in this discussion), I am not entirely sure how to best go about tidying up the section and making it fit under Wikipedia's standards. I'm happy to try if someone could give me some pointers (WKEDT 101: Introduction to Editing on Wikipedia (?)), but I'm also perfectly glad to let someone else go for it. UnsortedBuffoon (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleting Extraneous Whitespaces

I want to delete some extraneous whitespaces, like any extra newlines and extra
. Blahhmosh (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"Obsolete letters" factual accuracy?

This Reddit post (for what it's worth) argues that this section is just speculation/original research, and almost certainly incorrect at that. I don't know enough to evaluate their evidence, but IMO it's definitely worth a look if there's a chance that a massive section of this page is self-obviously wrong. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Bramic origin of Hangul

@Blaze Wolf I added a question mark to the family tree of the script. 27.3.1.196 (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Phagspa has Brahmic origin and hangul is derived from Phagspa infer Hangul also has Brahmic origin. Bridging !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.3.1.196 (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Source? Yue🌙 21:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Yue The Brahmi Family of Scripts and Hangul 27.3.1.40 (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hangul is Brahmic script

@Yue Hangul is Brahmic script. / Source Here27.3.1.40 (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@27.3.1.40 I've reverted your latest edits, since that source doesn't seem reputable. The description on that webpage says, "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." I don't think this meets the WP:RELIABILITY standard.
BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@BalinKingOfMoria I put a question mark next to the Phagspa to let everyone know it's controversial. The essence of Hangul is also a Brahmic script but Korean scholars have not want to admit this because of their national pride. Hangul is the only Brahmic that is not Abugida. The recognition of Hangul of Brahmic origin is as controversial as the recognition of Brahmi script origin of Semitic origin. If you compare Hangul with some Brahmic letters like Devanagari, you will see some similarities. Please refer:
Hangul and Devanagari
Hangul and Tibet, Gupta 27.3.1.40
I hope you keep my edit because I put a question mark. 27.3.1.40 (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily arguing that Hangul isn't Brahmic—I'm just trying to say that a strong assertion like that needs strong sources to back it up. However, both the pages you provided are either blogs or reprints of blogs, which suggests that they don't (as far as I know) meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria.
Are there, for example, peer-reviewed sources that state Hangul descends from Brahmic scripts (or at least reference that the controversy exists)?
Finally, I've reverted the page back to its original state, since I think we should all reach a consensus on this issue before making a significant change like this. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@27.3.1.40 Also, I think we are getting close to the three revert rule; to avoid an edit war, I really think we should discuss this change before making it. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be an IP pushing their own fringe theory with no good evidence. The "book" in the first comment in this section was autogenerated from Wikipedia content. This change should not be accepted in the article, certainly not as the IP has done so. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@BalinKingOfMoria and Walt Yoder: It is one committed vandal jumping across several IPs (same IP range from Vietnam) to push their own fringe theories. They do this every couple weeks. I would not even call it original research because they have stated before that their edits are based on their own observations of the scripts and not external research. They have been notified and warned of their behaviour so many times; I personally would not waste my time entertaining them any further and affording them good faith that they clearly do not deserve. Yue🌙 04:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization

Ultimately, it's a slightly arbitrary style convention, but are there any systematic reasons why 'Hangul', 'Chosŏn'gŭl' and 'Hanja' tend to be capitalized, while 'hanzi', 'kanji', etc. are not? It does not appear to be because 'Han' is a proper name, because that's also the case in the latter examples. Enlighten me? Remsense (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't claim to know the exact reason why, but maybe I can add some insight to this discussion.
For 'kanji' and 'hanzi', these names can also be used to refer to a single character from each system (e.g. "I wrote three kanji on the chalkboard"). When used as such, they aren't proper nouns, so they aren't capitalized. I'm guessing mixing of the "writing system" sense and "single character" sense led to both senses converging on the lowercase spelling.
'Hangul' doesn't have this alternate sense of the word -- I don't think I've ever heard 'hangul' used to refer to a single character in the writing system ("I wrote three hangul on the chalkboard" sounds wrong). I'm guessing this difference is probably why 'Hangul' and 'Chosŏn'gŭl' remain capitalized more often than 'kanji' and 'hanzi'.
I haven't observed capitalization of 'Hanja' much so I don't really have any insight into why it is the case there. I could be totally wrong :)
Pencels (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
that's a keen insight, thank you! Remsense聊 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"괌섬" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 괌섬 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 9 § 괌섬 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"미국령 괌" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 미국령 괌 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 9 § 미국령 괌 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"괌도" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 괌도 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 9 § 괌도 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There's like 7000 redirects to this page

HOW 2603:7080:17F0:9160:7969:1688:5FB5:F007 (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone in like 2012 (iirc) decided to make every valid Hangul character (and some questionable words that are just written in hangul) redirect to this page. I have seen multiple admins decide to try and clean it out, only to get flustered or intimidated and just leave them alone, save for the actually potentially disruptive ones (like the korean name for 'guam' written in hangul redirecting here, for example) Remsense留 13:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skunkkyuu, GijeongLee (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Somali listed among languages?

Somali is listed among the languages which use Hangul, but the page for Somali has no information on Hangul being used to write Somali, and there appears to be no source for the claim. I don't want to remove this entirely because it would be really interesting if there is documentation of Somali being written in Hangul, but does anyone have a source? Jdragsky (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It was recent vandalism, it overwrote a valid entry (Cia Cia). The same editor similarly vandalized Hanja. I've removed it. Largoplazo (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 8 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mokshita jain (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sun Snow Bear (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Renaming the article to "Korean alphabet"

Given how the writing system has a different name in North and South Korea, wouldn't it be better to use the neutral term "Korean alphabet"? Marmartoo (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Under the guidelines here, we'd decide that based on prevailing usage in reliable English-language sources. 10:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the "prevailing usage"? No doubt in technical texts people use hangul, but this is a technical term, and not really an English word. In non-technical contexts, I bet the overwhelmingly most common is to say "the Korean alphabet", and in a newspaper article, for example, then tell readers that it is known as "hangul". Frankly I think it is a bizarre idea to have topics in an English-language encyclopedia which will not be known to the typical reader who is out to learn something. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
See the relevant guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME, as well as all the previous discussions on this very matter in the archives, starting with Talk:Hangul/Archive 2, so you can see what arguments for and against changing the title have been made before and how they've been judged to be consistent with the guidelines. By the way, your last sentence is weird—we should show readers who are out to learn something only things they already know? Largoplazo (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
My last sentence is intended to illustrate the problem, and on the contrary, your last sentence is weird - consider someone who wants to know the Korean (or "technical") name of the Korean alphabet. OK, I will try to be more pedestrian: "Frankly I think it is a bizarre idea to have topics in an English-language encyclopedia identified by names which will not be known to the typical reader who is out to learn something." The ordinary reader of English does not know the word hangul (nor vast numbers of other WP article titles, even though they may appear in some dictionaries). Notice, incidentally, that by tradition the WP article for TOPIC starts something like "The TOPIC is .... known as ...". You can identify the TOPIC of this article that way. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
In addition to hangul being the COMMONNAME, phrasal descriptors often redirect (as Korean alphabet does) for a reason. No one is trying to type in Korean alphabet and walking away disappointed because they don't know the name hangul. Remsense诉 04:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Expanding on Remsense's observation, titles are based on the terminology most used by sources that discuss the topic, not on the most likely guess or generic description from someone who doesn't know the topic. Titling and searching are two different things, and the latter is covered by redirects. Largoplazo (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 Original research from me! Not to undercut my own point, but we careen startlingly quickly into unsettled philosophical controversies if we tug on this thread too hard, i.e. "what is a name". I'm hoping my preferred causal theory of reference is logically consistent for my case here. Remsense诉 11:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I simply don't agree that "Korean alphabet" is the COMMONNAME over hangul. People who don't know it's called hangul might not know to call it an alphabet either. Remsense诉 04:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Obligatory ngrams (to be taken with a grain of salt, as always) Remsense诉 04:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, in my view, if we're going to call the page Hangul, we should have more details on its applications in Jeju. Compare Arabic script vs. Arabic alphabet. AG202 (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Theknightwho (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Remsense诉 09:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't argue with that. Largoplazo (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Changing example

I don’t really like the current example (꿀벌) of the correct way to write Hangul. I think we should change it either to 조선글 or the word for either “line” or the first person singular pronoun, both of which are only one syllable. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:95D5:228D:3A88:24BC (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you give any explanation at all of why you do not like the honeybee? I can't see any obvious reason to want a single syllable; but I can see that a simpler example might be better, 서울 for example. It is definitely a bad idea to use the topic itself as an example word. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I just prefer 조선글 over 꿀벌 for the longer ones. For shorter ones, we could possibly use the first person singular pronoun (나). 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:1946:E2D:F45:B356 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Would it be OK to change to 서울? I think so. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:1946:E2D:F45:B356 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I have now changed 꿀벌 to 서울. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:FD4C:A8C1:338A:A961 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we capitalize "hangul" on this article and elsewhere?

As title. Currently "Hangul" seems to be capitalized throughout this article. Is this "preferred" practice for this and other articles?

I guess it's possible that either capitalization is fine and that intra-article consistency is what matters, but considering that this article sets an implicit standard for how we capitalize "hangul" in other articles, I think it'd be nice to establish a consensus here about what's "better".

Some relevant Wikipedia pages:

  • MOS:CAPS Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.
  • MOS:PEOPLANG
  • Talk:Hangul/Archive 4#Capitalization (interesting point made here)
  • Talk:Hangul/Archive 3#capitalization

A poll of dictionaries:

Other evidence:

  • Upper: Ency Britannica, ngrams (Take with grain of salt; probably counting occurrences at beginning of sentence)

Not a reliable source, but Wiktionary seems to consider wiktionary:Hangeul to be canonical.

Does anyone know how the linguistics literature capitalizes it? So far common capitalization practice seems unclear to me. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In my library (focusing on sinograms and East Asian writing at-large) usage is literally split 50/50, right down the middle. I've opted for lowercase in Chinese characters for congruence with direct cognates like kanji, and related terms generally being lowercase. I don't think that has to apply elsewhere though. Remsense诉 04:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I think Korean linguistics books almost always capitalize it, but with a variety of romanization methods (though they seem to have converged on "Hangul"). Here's a survey of some "general" reference works on Korean:
  • A Reference Grammar of Korean (1992) by Samuel E. Martin: uses "Hankul"
  • Korean (1994) by Ho-min Sohn: uses "Han'gul", although the term itself doesn't appear very often in the book
  • The Korean Language (1999) by Ho-Min Sohn: uses "Hankul"
  • The Korean Language (2000) by Iksop Lee and S. Robert Ramsey: uses "Hangŭl"
  • The Korean Language: Structure, Use and Context (2005) by Jae Jung Song: uses "Hankul"
  • A History of the Korean Language (2011) by Ki-Moon Lee and S. Robert Ramsey: uses "Hangul"
  • The Handbook of Korean Linguistics (2015) ed. Lucien Brown and Jaehoon Yeon: uses "Hangul"
  • An Introduction to Korean Linguistics (2016) by Eunhee Lee, Sean Madigan, and Mee-Jeong Park: uses "Hangul"
  • Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar, 2nd ed. (2019) by Jaehoon Yeon and Lucien Brown: uses "Hangul"
  • Korean: A Linguistic Introduction (2019) by Sungdai Cho and John Whitman: uses "Hangul"
  • The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics (2022) ed. Sungdai Cho and John Whitman: uses "Hangul", "Hangŭl", "hangul", and "hangŭl" (a few occurrences)
I also looked through Google Scholar, and it seems like "Hangul" is usually capitalized in linguistics papers. That said, it's possible that usage is more mixed outside of specialized sources. Malerisch (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I would opt against capitalising, on the basis that there's nothing in the manual of style that suggests we should be capitalising, really. I could potentially support italicisation on the basis of MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, though. Theknightwho (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
MOS:CAPS, as the OP mentioned? The question is whether the consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources criterion is satisfied. Malerisch (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the OP; based on the comments from Remsense and Malerisch, it's unclear to me that there's a clear consensus, although it may lean towards the capitalized "Hangul" per Malerisch's comment.
Until more research is conducted, I suspect we'll stick with intra-article consistency for now, although de facto leaning towards "Hangul" because of this article's convention. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hanja for "Hangul"

Logging a related discussion about this article that happened here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#SPA. I don't think "글" has a formal Hanja analog; some might think it's "㐎", but to quote an edit comment by 218.158.10.163: see the 한글 entry in Standard Korean Language Dictionary: [1]/ compare with this entry, which *actually* has hanja: 단어(單語) [2].

This Naver Dictionary article also seems to support the claim that "㐎" was a later invented transcription. [3] seefooddiet (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

My point in raising this was that the SPA was not a neutral editor saying "No need to mention the 㐎 character, for which there is certainly an argument -- rather the SPA ranted that this was "nonsense", and simultaneously made various romanisation changes. The absence of something in a dictionary pub. by the Korean govt. is no evidence at all: such sources are all tainted in that they seek not to tell us the facts, but what they believe the facts ought to be. I believe there is a WP decision in particulr to call it 'Hangul', because this is factually the more widely used spelling within English texts, rather than the 'Hangeul' which the Korean government believes ought to be the most widely used, or just "Korean-government-correct".
I do not know much about Korean, but most of it closely parallels Japanese, in which characters like 㐎 are called kokuji, i.e. "Han characters made in Japan". The element -gul (글) had no Chinese character, so they made one up. I guess it is essentially not used at all, so could be omitted for this reason, but the Korean govt counterfactually demands that it does not exist. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
While the editor is a rough communicator, I still agree with their point.
Naver Dictionary is not operated by the South Korean government. No Hanja given here either: [4]. Compare to "Hanja", which has Hanja: [5]. Same case for Daum Dictionary: [6][7]. These two dictionaries are major (by far some of the most used nowadays) and are aggregators of other dictionaries too.
Also, "Hangul" is the WP:COMMONNAME and also a word in English. English-language dictionaries list the word using that spelling. [8] seefooddiet (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hangul/Archive_4&oldid=1259153091"