From: ywlee@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Youngwhan Lee)
Subject: Re: "Superiority" (Re: Representation of Korea in East Asian Studies)
Keywords: Korea, East Asian Civilization
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:41:55 GMT

This thread became uninteresting as it involved more trash talks and personal
attacks than constructive discussion. I hate to post anything on this 
thread....

js92@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Jungshik  Shin) writes:
>><The only similarity to Chinese is they both are 
>><grid-forms in outlook which is quite improper to argue one is based on 
>><the other. It's like arguing apple is from Watermelon because they are 
>><round. 
>>
>>I don't understand that last remark at all.
>    Why Not? 

>>But please tell me why the
>>Korean letters `m' and `r' are written as follows if not for Chinese
>>influence:
>>
>>	|	|----|	|----|
>>	|	|    |	|    |
>>	|	|    |	|    |
>>	|	|    |	|----|
>>
>>
>>	-----	-----	-----
>>	     |	     |	     |
>>	     	-----	-----
>>	     	 	|
>>			 ----

What does this mean? Are you refering the order of writing? Or the shape of 
the characters? It is unclear.

If the writing from left to right and from top to bottom were due to Chinese,
I'll call it totally improper for you to say Hangul is based on Chinese. 
Can writing order determine an argument, one is BASED on the other?

If you were saying the shape of 'm' and 'r' are similar to the characters
in Chinese, that's another ignorant statement. The 'm' and 'r' are designed
to mimick the shape of the sound organs (lips and tongue, respectively) 
to make the sounds. (No they are not from Chinese characters at all.)

>>Actually, many of the developers (of whom your belove`d King Sejong was
>>*NOT* one) of _han'gu<l_ were Chinese.

Huh, we had fairy tales saying they were 'indians.' Now we have another 
saying 'chinese.' Guess what, I believe I'm correct on this: there were 
eight scholors and I remember reading about these scholars' acitivity 
recorded in some refereneces including some excerpt of "Yi-Jo Silrok." 
The names I remember were Shin SookJu, Park Paeng-Nyun, Lee Gae and Sung 
Sam-mun among the eight. I probably can look up some references to tell 
you all eight names but I'm almost certain there were no Chinese and 
Indians mentioned at all. Tell me who were Chinese among the eight. Give 
me the names!

>><That is too much to argue without proper knowledge of it.
>>
>>You may or may not have proper knowledge of it, but I do.

I gave you four names of eight scholars. You give me four more and 
point who were Chinese than I'll say you have proper knowledge.

>><> They certainly took a long time
>><>to catch onto the idea, didn't they?  Probably longer than any other group
>><>in history.  And if it hadn't been for the Chinese, perhaps Koreans never
>><>would have had a written language!  

>   Once again, You have gone too far.  How can you be so sure that
>   without Chinese, Koreans never would have had a written language?
>   No historians can say such with so strong confidence as yours.

>><We Korean had writing system
>><long before King Se-Jong invented Hangul, called "Yi-Du."

>   This is a mistake made by your opponent. 'Yi-du' is something like
>   Japanese Kana and cannot be regarded as complete writting system.

I don't know much about Japanese Kana but I can't believe what this
person saying. Have you ever read the poem "Cheo-Yong" written in 
"Yi-Du"? It looks very close to Chinese but it was a complete Korean 
reading. If Yi-Du was not a complete writing system, what is "complete"?
Explain me what is "Kana" and what is similarity between those two?

youngwhan.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean