116 messages over 15 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 ... 14 15 Next >>
Organik
Diglot
Groupie
United States
Joined 5995 days ago
52 posts - 52 votes 
Speaks: English*, Japanese
Studies: Korean, Mandarin
| Message 73 of 116 24 September 2008 at 10:02pm | IP Logged |
ChrisWebb wrote:
Organik wrote:
Jiwon wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
My only real question would be if you actually need to know the Hanjas themselves to achieve this? Surely learning the various meanings in Hangul and how to recognise them in Hangul gets you pretty much everything that learning the Hanjas themselves does in terms of vocabulary acquisition?
Maybe I'm missing a trick here because I just can't see a real need to learn Hanja to learn vocabulary, in the same way, learning to read Greek to recognise the Greek components ( prefixes and the like ) in English would be overkill, it's enough to recognise them as they are written in English. |
|
|
That's something I've been trying to get across to the forum members for months. Unfortunately, not many of them share this viewpoint, and some tend to believe that learning Hanja for Korean is absolutely necessary while learning Greek and Latin word roots for English is not. |
|
|
I think the point you guys are missing is that the comparison of the English language and its Latin and Greek roots to Korean and its hanja roots is an imperfect analogy. While such analogies may be useful to some for providing a simplified account of hanja-based vocabulary's place in the Korean language, such analogies are insufficient for addressing this topic in a serious and scientific manner.
I am not a linguistic; however, I do find my point to be rather self-evident. |
|
|
And I think the point you are missing is that the analogy is not the point, it's only an imperfect illustration of the point.
If there really is some way that hanja helps in vocabulary acquisition beyond what knowledge of the roots gives I'd be grateful if someone could explain exactly how? So far I see no reason to believe it does. You speak of dealing with this topic in a serious and scientific manner so how about presenting some evidence or reasoned arguement. As I'm sure we both appreciate, science demands such a move from you here. Unfortunately claiming something is 'self evident' really doesnt cut it in serious scientific discussions. |
|
|
I am not myself personally interested in debating the extent to which hanja are relevant to Korean vocabulary (as I've stated several times previously, my experience with Korean is insufficient for me to properly address such a topic). As such, the question of:
Quote:
| If there really is some way that hanja helps in vocabulary acquisition beyond what knowledge of the roots gives |
|
|
Is rather irrelevant to the point I was making. What I am saying is that to compare hanja roots to the Latin and Greek roots of English is a clear oversimplification, and is therefore inherently deceptive; thus, irrelevant to scientific debate:
Quote:
| Linguistics The scientific study of language |
|
|
As such, I suppose my more general point is that it is far more useful to analyze the Korean language within its own context, rather than to compare it to western languages with which it has no genetic relationship (e.g. English, Greek and Latin).
Edited by Organik on 25 September 2008 at 6:50am
1 person has voted this message useful
| Volte
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 6440 days ago
4474 posts - 6726 votes
Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian
Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese
| Message 74 of 116 25 September 2008 at 5:50am | IP Logged |
TKK wrote:
What if Latin alphabet were replaced by Arabic alphabet from English or French.
What if special alphabet were replaced by Russian Cyrillic from Japanese or Korean.
What if reformed alphabet were replaced by Hebrew alphabet from Vienamese or Thai.
If above changes all happened, then Chinese character may be replaced by Latin alphabet.
Latin alphabet couldn't resolve some problems that can be well done by only Chinese characters.
If you're very good at Chinese languages, you'll soon understand what I'm trying to mean.Thanks!
|
|
|
I wouldn't call myself even a beginner of Chinese, but I think I understand your point. The rest of this post is sort of a reworking of what you said, with a couple of minor points thrown in - I hope you don't mind!
Some languages have writing systems that suit them well, and suit others poorly. Abjads are usable for 3-root-consonant languages with vowel mutation, but a questionable fit for other languages - like the Indo-European Persian (this is not really so different from having English or French use Arabic writing, and it does work, even though it's a hurdle for learners). Using a syllabary only works with languages with a simple syllable structure, like Japanese's (C)V(C); languages with large consonant clusters, such as Russian (or English) can't practically use one without modifications - perhaps 'suppressing' unused vowels, as is done in some Indic scripts, would be the best solution.
Similarly, the current Chinese writing system has some huge advantages for Chinese: differentiating homonyms, and allowing people who speak mutually unintelligible languages to communicate via writing. It also has a rich cultural history, and parts of this simply wouldn't survive a transition to another script. So, while it would be possible to switch the script that Chinese uses to one that suits it less well - other languages have done so - the result would be awkward and introduce new problems.
2 persons have voted this message useful
| ChrisWebb
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 6264 days ago
181 posts - 190 votes
Speaks: English*
Studies: Korean
| Message 75 of 116 25 September 2008 at 4:29pm | IP Logged |
Organik wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
Organik wrote:
Jiwon wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
My only real question would be if you actually need to know the Hanjas themselves to achieve this? Surely learning the various meanings in Hangul and how to recognise them in Hangul gets you pretty much everything that learning the Hanjas themselves does in terms of vocabulary acquisition?
Maybe I'm missing a trick here because I just can't see a real need to learn Hanja to learn vocabulary, in the same way, learning to read Greek to recognise the Greek components ( prefixes and the like ) in English would be overkill, it's enough to recognise them as they are written in English. |
|
|
That's something I've been trying to get across to the forum members for months. Unfortunately, not many of them share this viewpoint, and some tend to believe that learning Hanja for Korean is absolutely necessary while learning Greek and Latin word roots for English is not. |
|
|
I think the point you guys are missing is that the comparison of the English language and its Latin and Greek roots to Korean and its hanja roots is an imperfect analogy. While such analogies may be useful to some for providing a simplified account of hanja-based vocabulary's place in the Korean language, such analogies are insufficient for addressing this topic in a serious and scientific manner.
I am not a linguistic; however, I do find my point to be rather self-evident. |
|
|
And I think the point you are missing is that the analogy is not the point, it's only an imperfect illustration of the point.
If there really is some way that hanja helps in vocabulary acquisition beyond what knowledge of the roots gives I'd be grateful if someone could explain exactly how? So far I see no reason to believe it does. You speak of dealing with this topic in a serious and scientific manner so how about presenting some evidence or reasoned arguement. As I'm sure we both appreciate, science demands such a move from you here. Unfortunately claiming something is 'self evident' really doesnt cut it in serious scientific discussions. |
|
|
I am not myself personally interested in debating the extent to which hanja are relevant to Korean vocabulary (as I've stated several times previously, my experience with Korean is insufficient for me to properly address such a topic). As such, the question of:
Quote:
| If there really is some way that hanja helps in vocabulary acquisition beyond what knowledge of the roots gives |
|
|
Is rather irrelevant to the point I was making. What I am saying is that to compare hanja roots to the Latin and Greek roots of English is a clear oversimplification, and is therefore inherently deceptive; thus, irrelevant to scientific debate:
Quote:
| Linguistics The scientific study of language |
|
|
As such, I suppose my more general point is that it is far more useful to analyze the Korean language within its own context, rather than to compare it to western languages with which it has no genetic relationship (e.g. English, Greek and Latin). |
|
|
I'm baffled, the posts you directly replied to dealt specifically with hanja and vocabulary acquisition, no one made any general comparison between Korean and any European language, only an analogy to help illustrate a point, perhaps you need to read a little more carefully before you go off attacking what is essentially a classic strawman.
If you have a point to make about hanja and vocabulary aquisition please make it with a reasoned arguement or some kind of meaningful evidence, if not I am not clear why you imagine anyone will be convinced. I'm also not clear why you feel it's reasonable to imply people are not treating the question seriously or scientifically when you yourself seem to be anything but thorough and scientific in your own approach. I am not the one trying to evade a reasoned discussion afterall, in fact if there is a good reason why hanja ( rather than simply the word roots ) is of benefit I am genuinely interested to hear it. I cant help but note that no one has actually put anything forward so far though.
Edited by ChrisWebb on 25 September 2008 at 4:32pm
1 person has voted this message useful
| Organik
Diglot
Groupie
United States
Joined 5995 days ago
52 posts - 52 votes
Speaks: English*, Japanese
Studies: Korean, Mandarin
| Message 76 of 116 25 September 2008 at 5:12pm | IP Logged |
ChrisWebb wrote:
Organik wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
Organik wrote:
Jiwon wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
My only real question would be if you actually need to know the Hanjas themselves to achieve this? Surely learning the various meanings in Hangul and how to recognise them in Hangul gets you pretty much everything that learning the Hanjas themselves does in terms of vocabulary acquisition?
Maybe I'm missing a trick here because I just can't see a real need to learn Hanja to learn vocabulary, in the same way, learning to read Greek to recognise the Greek components ( prefixes and the like ) in English would be overkill, it's enough to recognise them as they are written in English. |
|
|
That's something I've been trying to get across to the forum members for months. Unfortunately, not many of them share this viewpoint, and some tend to believe that learning Hanja for Korean is absolutely necessary while learning Greek and Latin word roots for English is not. |
|
|
I think the point you guys are missing is that the comparison of the English language and its Latin and Greek roots to Korean and its hanja roots is an imperfect analogy. While such analogies may be useful to some for providing a simplified account of hanja-based vocabulary's place in the Korean language, such analogies are insufficient for addressing this topic in a serious and scientific manner.
I am not a linguistic; however, I do find my point to be rather self-evident. |
|
|
And I think the point you are missing is that the analogy is not the point, it's only an imperfect illustration of the point.
If there really is some way that hanja helps in vocabulary acquisition beyond what knowledge of the roots gives I'd be grateful if someone could explain exactly how? So far I see no reason to believe it does. You speak of dealing with this topic in a serious and scientific manner so how about presenting some evidence or reasoned arguement. As I'm sure we both appreciate, science demands such a move from you here. Unfortunately claiming something is 'self evident' really doesnt cut it in serious scientific discussions. |
|
|
I am not myself personally interested in debating the extent to which hanja are relevant to Korean vocabulary (as I've stated several times previously, my experience with Korean is insufficient for me to properly address such a topic). As such, the question of:
Quote:
| If there really is some way that hanja helps in vocabulary acquisition beyond what knowledge of the roots gives |
|
|
Is rather irrelevant to the point I was making. What I am saying is that to compare hanja roots to the Latin and Greek roots of English is a clear oversimplification, and is therefore inherently deceptive; thus, irrelevant to scientific debate:
Quote:
| Linguistics The scientific study of language |
|
|
As such, I suppose my more general point is that it is far more useful to analyze the Korean language within its own context, rather than to compare it to western languages with which it has no genetic relationship (e.g. English, Greek and Latin). |
|
|
I'm baffled, the posts you directly replied to dealt specifically with hanja and vocabulary acquisition, no one made any general comparison between Korean and any European language, only an analogy to help illustrate a point, perhaps you need to read a little more carefully before you go off attacking what is essentially a classic strawman.
If you have a point to make about hanja and vocabulary aquisition please make it with a reasoned arguement or some kind of meaningful evidence, if not I am not clear why you imagine anyone will be convinced. I'm also not clear why you feel it's reasonable to imply people are not treating the question seriously or scientifically when you yourself seem to be anything but thorough and scientific in your own approach. I am not the one trying to evade a reasoned discussion afterall, in fact if there is a good reason why hanja ( rather than simply the word roots ) is of benefit I am genuinely interested to hear it. I cant help but note that no one has actually put anything forward so far though. |
|
|
From my limited knowledge of Korean and Chinese, it is strongly my impression that hanja knowledge does provide essential incite into Korean Sino-based vocabulary, and that the Chinese writing system is embodied by numerous intricacies and complexities which an alphabetic script simply cannot replicate.
I consider myself an enthusiastic student of East Asian languages; however, with the exception of Japanese, my knowledge is not such that I feel confident in commentating on the intricacies of the languages which I study. Thus, I have largely sought to leave this task to more qualified posters, while attempting to contribute my incites where I can. My point (I will state again) was that comparing hanja roots to Latin and Greek roots of English is an oversimplification, and does not provide the full picture. In considering hanja in this way, you are in fact deceiving yourself.
What you seem not to realize is that we are dealing here with difficult questions, for which there are few easy answers. I would encourage you to pursue your questions by studying the issues with which you are dealing, as I feel that self-discovery is really the best way to learn about difficult subject matter.
Edited by Organik on 25 September 2008 at 5:14pm
1 person has voted this message useful
| ChrisWebb
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 6264 days ago
181 posts - 190 votes
Speaks: English*
Studies: Korean
| Message 77 of 116 25 September 2008 at 6:44pm | IP Logged |
Organik wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
Organik wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
Organik wrote:
Jiwon wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
My only real question would be if you actually need to know the Hanjas themselves to achieve this? Surely learning the various meanings in Hangul and how to recognise them in Hangul gets you pretty much everything that learning the Hanjas themselves does in terms of vocabulary acquisition?
Maybe I'm missing a trick here because I just can't see a real need to learn Hanja to learn vocabulary, in the same way, learning to read Greek to recognise the Greek components ( prefixes and the like ) in English would be overkill, it's enough to recognise them as they are written in English. |
|
|
That's something I've been trying to get across to the forum members for months. Unfortunately, not many of them share this viewpoint, and some tend to believe that learning Hanja for Korean is absolutely necessary while learning Greek and Latin word roots for English is not. |
|
|
I think the point you guys are missing is that the comparison of the English language and its Latin and Greek roots to Korean and its hanja roots is an imperfect analogy. While such analogies may be useful to some for providing a simplified account of hanja-based vocabulary's place in the Korean language, such analogies are insufficient for addressing this topic in a serious and scientific manner.
I am not a linguistic; however, I do find my point to be rather self-evident. |
|
|
And I think the point you are missing is that the analogy is not the point, it's only an imperfect illustration of the point.
If there really is some way that hanja helps in vocabulary acquisition beyond what knowledge of the roots gives I'd be grateful if someone could explain exactly how? So far I see no reason to believe it does. You speak of dealing with this topic in a serious and scientific manner so how about presenting some evidence or reasoned arguement. As I'm sure we both appreciate, science demands such a move from you here. Unfortunately claiming something is 'self evident' really doesnt cut it in serious scientific discussions. |
|
|
I am not myself personally interested in debating the extent to which hanja are relevant to Korean vocabulary (as I've stated several times previously, my experience with Korean is insufficient for me to properly address such a topic). As such, the question of:
Quote:
| If there really is some way that hanja helps in vocabulary acquisition beyond what knowledge of the roots gives |
|
|
Is rather irrelevant to the point I was making. What I am saying is that to compare hanja roots to the Latin and Greek roots of English is a clear oversimplification, and is therefore inherently deceptive; thus, irrelevant to scientific debate:
Quote:
| Linguistics The scientific study of language |
|
|
As such, I suppose my more general point is that it is far more useful to analyze the Korean language within its own context, rather than to compare it to western languages with which it has no genetic relationship (e.g. English, Greek and Latin). |
|
|
I'm baffled, the posts you directly replied to dealt specifically with hanja and vocabulary acquisition, no one made any general comparison between Korean and any European language, only an analogy to help illustrate a point, perhaps you need to read a little more carefully before you go off attacking what is essentially a classic strawman.
If you have a point to make about hanja and vocabulary aquisition please make it with a reasoned arguement or some kind of meaningful evidence, if not I am not clear why you imagine anyone will be convinced. I'm also not clear why you feel it's reasonable to imply people are not treating the question seriously or scientifically when you yourself seem to be anything but thorough and scientific in your own approach. I am not the one trying to evade a reasoned discussion afterall, in fact if there is a good reason why hanja ( rather than simply the word roots ) is of benefit I am genuinely interested to hear it. I cant help but note that no one has actually put anything forward so far though. |
|
|
From my limited knowledge of Korean and Chinese, it is strongly my impression that hanja knowledge does provide essential incite into Korean Sino-based vocabulary, and that the Chinese writing system is embodied by numerous intricacies and complexities which an alphabetic script simply cannot replicate.
I consider myself an enthusiastic student of East Asian languages; however, with the exception of Japanese, my knowledge is not such that I feel confident in commentating on the intricacies of the languages which I study. Thus, I have largely sought to leave this task to more qualified posters, while attempting to contribute my incites where I can. My point (I will state again) was that comparing hanja roots to Latin and Greek roots of English is an oversimplification, and does not provide the full picture. In considering hanja in this way, you are in fact deceiving yourself.
What you seem not to realize is that we are dealing here with difficult questions, for which there are few easy answers. I would encourage you to pursue your questions by studying the issues with which you are dealing, as I feel that self-discovery is really the best way to learn about difficult subject matter. |
|
|
If i am deceiving myself then please explain why? There is little point in constantly insisting someone is somehow in error whilst simultaneously dodging any question directed at discovering why you believe that to be the case.
So I repeat the question in a slightly new form, just what precisely do you believe it to be that I am missing here? Statements of blind faith are of limited interest, if your belief is not based on reason I cannot really see why you imagine you should question others who are simply asking a rather obvious question that so far seems to lack a reasonable answer.
That the people who insist hanja is somehow doing something in terms of vocabulary acquisition over and above the knowledge of the roots it provides cannot actually give any indication of what that something may be is strongly suggestive that the belief itself is simply irrational ( ie without logical warrant/not based on logical reasoning ). If your belief is in fact irrational I will note that the tone of your posts seem less than consistent with your own practise.
1 person has voted this message useful
| Deecab
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5962 days ago
106 posts - 108 votes
Speaks: English, Korean*
Studies: Mandarin
| Message 78 of 116 25 September 2008 at 6:49pm | IP Logged |
ChrisWebb wrote:
If you have a point to make about hanja and vocabulary aquisition please make it with a reasoned arguement or some kind of meaningful evidence, if not I am not clear why you imagine anyone will be convinced. I'm also not clear why you feel it's reasonable to imply people are not treating the question seriously or scientifically when you yourself seem to be anything but thorough and scientific in your own approach. I am not the one trying to evade a reasoned discussion afterall, in fact if there is a good reason why hanja ( rather than simply the word roots ) is of benefit I am genuinely interested to hear it. I cant help but note that no one has actually put anything forward so far though. |
|
|
It's pretty much self-explnatory as to why Hanja is needed. The same way Japanese need Kanji except that Kanji's even more needed for their small sound inventories. Regardless of that, you need to know Hanja if you want to be able to fully understand the meaning of the vocab.
How does it help with your vocab? You get to know the meaning behind the word. I already gave you an example behind. If the author gave you the word oosang, most Koreans would automatically think it means "idol". However, with given Hanja, you can tell what kind of oosang they're talking about since sino-Korean words are compound vocabularies: There is no limit to them so in the long run, you need to know Hanja to be able to read and know your vocabularies right away.
That said, I don't know why people bring Greek/Latin into this, since I don't see what that really achieves. Was English ever used with Greek/Latin to clarify meaning and help better understand vocab? Didn't think so.
1 person has voted this message useful
| ChrisWebb
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 6264 days ago
181 posts - 190 votes
Speaks: English*
Studies: Korean
| Message 79 of 116 25 September 2008 at 6:54pm | IP Logged |
Deecab wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
If you have a point to make about hanja and vocabulary aquisition please make it with a reasoned arguement or some kind of meaningful evidence, if not I am not clear why you imagine anyone will be convinced. I'm also not clear why you feel it's reasonable to imply people are not treating the question seriously or scientifically when you yourself seem to be anything but thorough and scientific in your own approach. I am not the one trying to evade a reasoned discussion afterall, in fact if there is a good reason why hanja ( rather than simply the word roots ) is of benefit I am genuinely interested to hear it. I cant help but note that no one has actually put anything forward so far though. |
|
|
It's pretty much self-explnatory as to why Hanja is needed. The same way Japanese need Kanji except that Kanji's even more needed for their small sound inventories. Regardless of that, you need to know Hanja if you want to be able to fully understand the meaning of the vocab.
How does it help with your vocab? You get to know the meaning behind the word. I already gave you an example behind. If the author gave you the word oosang, most Koreans would automatically think it means "idol". However, with given Hanja, you can tell what kind of oosang they're talking about since sino-Korean words are compound vocabularies: There is no limit to them so in the long run, you need to know Hanja to be able to read and know your vocabularies right away.
That said, I don't know why people bring Greek/Latin into this, since I don't see what that really achieves. Was English ever used with Greek/Latin to clarify meaning and help better understand vocab? Didn't think so. |
|
|
Please answer why I need the hanja to help with vocan acquisition if not simply for root knowledge? If you cannot do so I'd suggest you go away and have a think about your position or maybe read the thread and realise we are speaking about specifically vocabulary acquisition in this particular tangent.
Edited by ChrisWebb on 25 September 2008 at 6:56pm
1 person has voted this message useful
| Deecab
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5962 days ago
106 posts - 108 votes
Speaks: English, Korean*
Studies: Mandarin
| Message 80 of 116 25 September 2008 at 7:11pm | IP Logged |
ChrisWebb wrote:
Deecab wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
If you have a point to make about hanja and vocabulary aquisition please make it with a reasoned arguement or some kind of meaningful evidence, if not I am not clear why you imagine anyone will be convinced. I'm also not clear why you feel it's reasonable to imply people are not treating the question seriously or scientifically when you yourself seem to be anything but thorough and scientific in your own approach. I am not the one trying to evade a reasoned discussion afterall, in fact if there is a good reason why hanja ( rather than simply the word roots ) is of benefit I am genuinely interested to hear it. I cant help but note that no one has actually put anything forward so far though. |
|
|
It's pretty much self-explnatory as to why Hanja is needed. The same way Japanese need Kanji except that Kanji's even more needed for their small sound inventories. Regardless of that, you need to know Hanja if you want to be able to fully understand the meaning of the vocab.
How does it help with your vocab? You get to know the meaning behind the word. I already gave you an example behind. If the author gave you the word oosang, most Koreans would automatically think it means "idol". However, with given Hanja, you can tell what kind of oosang they're talking about since sino-Korean words are compound vocabularies: There is no limit to them so in the long run, you need to know Hanja to be able to read and know your vocabularies right away.
That said, I don't know why people bring Greek/Latin into this, since I don't see what that really achieves. Was English ever used with Greek/Latin to clarify meaning and help better understand vocab? Didn't think so. |
|
|
Please answer why I need the hanja to help with vocan acquisition if not simply for root knowledge? If you cannot do so I'd suggest you go away and have a think about your position or maybe read the thread and realise we are speaking about specifically vocabulary acquisition in this particular tangent. |
|
|
For instance, you can definitely know what the word 'prologue' means if you know the word 'pro' in it and the other branch. Once you memorize the prefix and suffix in English, you will easily learn vocabs in more efficient way.
You seem to oversimplify root knowledge. Roots form the compound vocabularies. If you want to argue that it doesn't help with your vocab, that's another point but you can't deny that it is necessary to some extent.
Edited by Deecab on 25 September 2008 at 7:12pm
1 person has voted this message useful
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.4220 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|
Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages
Printable version
