Talk:Konglish

message: Hi all. I am doing my PhD at Seoul National University in (Linguistic) Anthropology. I'd like to add some of my research papers to this site. I'm just afraid that the content is too large. Each paper is 10-15 pages. Is there a size limit or a average size for wiki editing? I'm really interested in the mixing of languages and I like the issues you guys are talking about.Cbrucelawrence (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we don't allow massive articles like that, and you can't just copy the papers word for word in to the article anyway. even if it was only a paragraph as we run into copyright problems. In addition to that we don't allow WP:original research on wikipedia, so if your research papers are peer reviewed and published by the the university they can be used as citations for information. Otherwise any content you add would have to be sourced to the original sources that you drew opinions and information from, so long as they are reliable sources and you're not actually performing any analysis of the synthesis or trying to put forth conclusions and opinions not explicitly stated by the sources.--Crossmr (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: OK. I'll scale it down. My work hasn't been published yet. It always has reliable sources with the exception of some websites I quote for public opinion. I'd like to add some things to wiki's site. There are some really cool issues regarding Konglish and Pidgins, Creoles, New Englishes and Sociolinguistics.Cbrucelawrence (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I recommend giving WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS a good read since you're talking about adding things that you've written during your educational career.--Crossmr (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: konglish phd thesis

message: To me this article does not cite it's sources and it seems like it's missing parts. Also there is a huge difference between "dialect" and "accent" Dialect is the within one language use of words. Such as BEV versus what people term as "Standard English". The article also contradicts itself, it says things like it borrowed from the soldiers, then it says it borrowed it from TV. However, from my understanding of Korean and taking Korean classes it's neither of those. The influence was from the opening of Korea's gates to the west and finding things like "highway"s which they didn't have in Korea. Most of the loan words are words that were not found in Korea at the time of this event. THEN there was the occupation from Japan. (There is also no source that the loan words are Japanese from English loan words, and in fact the hangul doesn't seem to support this idea either... so that needs a source from an objective non-Japanese source.) Then the advent of TV took place. But even then the majority of the loan words seem to be technology-based. Such as television, computer, highway, ice cream. (Note that North Korea is another issue since they are trying to get rid of loanwords completely.) This badly needs sources and someone who knows what they are talking about. For example a linguist studying Korean... I'll give this about a week before I slap on the this article doesn't cite its sources tag and ask one of the linguists to look it over. BTW, I took first level Korean and I'm aiming to major in Cultural Anthropology... --Hitsuji Kinno 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: dialect v. accent

message: dialect is a linguistic term for lexicon and syntax defined by social class or geography. Konglish is not defined by this, since Koreans in general use it. The article which is more academically written and more creditible since it cites its references says that Konglish is a sublanguage(Linguistics), i.e. part of the larger language, but unlike register, is not defined by a social situation. This article still seriously needs citations. That means footnotes, etc as per wikipedia rules. I re-put up the request for citations that I had in the last revision.
The guy who wrote Life In Korea article was missing citations which breaks the rules for credibility--he's not a linguistic professor or even a Cultural Anthropologist. Journalists are journalists, not trained scholars. (Also the argument about Fan fic was weird because there was no tracking or backing up to the statements made and seems entirely wrong to me.) There is also no proof that it comes from BEV (Black English Vernacular) either, which is why I support that cut.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:K-qT1oSOh-sJ:www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Doms5.pdf+origins+of+Konglish&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oYDEzPR4qhEJ:www2.kumagaku.ac.jp/teacher/~judy/gyoseki/36konglish.doc+origins+of+Konglish&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us&client=firefox-a
:On the other hand, both countries had a clear and steady favorable relationship with the US. Moreover, the continued presence of the US military meant that modernization came to be synonymous with westernization in both countries. Thus, both Korea and Japan continued to introduce loanwords directly through English.  In Korea, these newer borrowings clashed with the older Japanese ones, resulting in some linguistic confusion: 
::Many of the modern loanwords were borrowed through their Japanese renderings, but some of those have been given new versions taken directly from English. There remains considerable controversy over the standardization of current loanwords from English. The trend is to favor close imitation of American pronunciation of the words, rather than to follow Japanese patterns, as was sometimes done in the past.  But for words well established over several generations, the now traditional version is usually conceded. (Martin 1992: 94) 
is more reasonable (second link). It doesn't say the words "come from the US military and are military slang... but that the continued presence of the US military had the effect of Koreans wanting to borrow English. (As my Korean teacher put it, it became important to learn English.) So that mis-wording needs to be fixed because this shows there is no backing for those statements. (It also cites its references and doesn't put much weight on Scott Soper...) --Hitsuji Kinno 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added reference, sublanguage, not dialect

message: Of course it would be quite possibly very boring to list all of the English words adopted by Koreans such as the terms for Western spirts (양주) like whiskey (위스키) and gin (진) or what have you now. But, it would be interesting to list the Konglish words which do not immediately transliterate into English. Examples would include: shutter man (셔터맨), gag man (객맨), and there are other examples I can't think of right now. Now, one can often guess the meanings of Konglish words if one thinks about it for a while, but others, such as my example of "shutter man," which is a term for a man whose wife runs a shop while he does not work (hence she is the chief bread winner of the family), and his "job" is to come to the shop to pick her up and close the shutter (hence, shutter man). There are other examples of words like this, but I'm sort of pressed for time. Anyway, it would be interesting/informative to get a list going on this page. 
Justin
I agree. There's an excellent doc here with a very long list and I'll link to that. But I'm aware of no other place on the web that highlights this interesting facet of konglish. Things like slippers and one piece can well confuse a native speaker. Worse a male talking about his panties might produce rude laughter from a westerner unfamiliar that the term is used in a unisex fashion. It would make this w/u valuable to list many of those.
Mindme (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not. Blogs and randomly hosted images fail WP:V anyone could go create a blog to demonstrate a "real world use". You need a reliable source using the word to indicate that its used, what the context is for meaning and its widespread enough to appear in a reliable source. Not to mention half of those references that you restored (even if they had come from a reliable source) didn't support what was being said.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they fail WP:V. However, there aren't a lot of WP:V sources being written on Konglish. These, however, are terms manifestly being used in Korea. We could leave them un-sourced or we could support them with real world usage from sources that appear to be authoritative. We can debate each source, whether or not say the gyopowife blog is a trust worthy source. Anyway, I'm calling for a consensus among interested editors. I vote Keep. Mindme (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there aren't a lot of sources about something doesn't mean you can ignore WP:V. Please go read the policy again there is no vote. If you want to keep the material you need to find sources which meet WP:V. There is already a consensus formed on the relevant policy page. No small group of editors here can overrule that. The only thing that can show these terms manifestly being used in Korea is reliable sources using them, nothing else. It shows both what the term is and the notability of therm.--Crossmr (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd also recommend reading WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. Just because someone makes up a konglish word and uses it on a self-published source like a forum or blog is no indication that the word is remotely notable. Having it appear in a reliable source is necessary to establish that. We are not a repository for all konglish words that someone cares to make up and toss on a blog.--Crossmr (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your input, crossmr. Anyway, I look forward to a consensus opinion on my suggestion. Mindme (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: there already is a consensus. you can't use unreliable sources to cite things on wikipeda, there isn't any exceptions to that. WP:V is a non-negotiable policy. After a week any entries in the section for which there haven't been any reliable sources provided will be removed. If you want to keep them I'd suggest you find those reliable sources and see the relevant section in WP:V under burden of evidence for people who want to keep and/or restore material to articles.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You may also wish to read WP:CONSENSUS consensus isn't formed by a vote, its formed by discussion. You haven't made a single compelling argument as to why unreliable sources should be used as citations on wikipedia. So this point your !vote doesn't have any weight. As well these sentences might be of particular interest to you Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right. and Polls are structured discussions, not votes.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made what I believe is a compelling case for using real world examples of a konglish term. Again, thank you for your input. I look forward to finding a consensus among editors of this write up. Mindme (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't remotely made any argument for ignoring WP:V and as I've pointed out policy forbids any local consensus on this article from overriding WP:V so you're waiting for something which can't happen. It seems like you're going out of your way to not get the point and at this point you're basically refusing to get the point. I've shown you 4 policies which do not allow what you want. WP:V requires everything to come from reliable sources, WP:NOT explains that wikipedia is not for random things just made up, WP:OR says you can't interpret sources to give meaning they don't (which was what was being done with some of those sources), and WP:CONSENSUS forbids any local discussion from making a change that would run afoul of any other policy. In addition to that you're treating WP:CONSENSUS like a vote, which it isn't. Consensus is a debate which you're refusing to engage in. I would suggest you go and find reliable sources for that content if you want to keep it in the article. I'm doing you a courtesy by leaving it in there while I give you a chance to find appropriate citation, but it seems you have no interest in actually doing that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith. Again, thank you for your input. Oh yeah, who put in the weird non standard romanization of the hanguel? Ugg. Mindme (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't assume good faith blindly. You've had the policies repeatedly explained to you. You can either find reliable citations or the content will be removed.--Crossmr (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no real interest in the subject, but IMO Crossmr is right here, you cant consensus your way out of verifiability. Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Konglish words 

message: For example quebec french has a lexicon page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_French_lexicon
Please comment by Sept 6, 2008. If there's a consensus by then (or no dissenting comment), I'll move the list to its own page. Thanks.
Mindme (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Konglish words, own page?

message: geu-ree-shi (그리시; "greasy") - to describe a dirty or unshaven person.
That's not quite a Konglish word that has a unique meaning in Korea. In Canada we call dirty people "greasy". Mindme (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: geu-ree-shi

message: It seems to me demonstrating real world use of a konglish term (in say a blog) is a reasonable source. Mindme (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not. Blogs and randomly hosted images fail WP:V anyone could go create a blog to demonstrate a "real world use". You need a reliable source using the word to indicate that its used, what the context is for meaning and its widespread enough to appear in a reliable source. Not to mention half of those references that you restored (even if they had come from a reliable source) didn't support what was being said.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they fail WP:V. However, there aren't a lot of WP:V sources being written on Konglish. These, however, are terms manifestly being used in Korea. We could leave them un-sourced or we could support them with real world usage from sources that appear to be authoritative. We can debate each source, whether or not say the gyopowife blog is a trust worthy source. Anyway, I'm calling for a consensus among interested editors. I vote Keep. Mindme (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there aren't a lot of sources about something doesn't mean you can ignore WP:V. Please go read the policy again there is no vote. If you want to keep the material you need to find sources which meet WP:V. There is already a consensus formed on the relevant policy page. No small group of editors here can overrule that. The only thing that can show these terms manifestly being used in Korea is reliable sources using them, nothing else. It shows both what the term is and the notability of therm.--Crossmr (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd also recommend reading WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. Just because someone makes up a konglish word and uses it on a self-published source like a forum or blog is no indication that the word is remotely notable. Having it appear in a reliable source is necessary to establish that. We are not a repository for all konglish words that someone cares to make up and toss on a blog.--Crossmr (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your input, crossmr. Anyway, I look forward to a consensus opinion on my suggestion. Mindme (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: there already is a consensus. you can't use unreliable sources to cite things on wikipeda, there isn't any exceptions to that. WP:V is a non-negotiable policy. After a week any entries in the section for which there haven't been any reliable sources provided will be removed. If you want to keep them I'd suggest you find those reliable sources and see the relevant section in WP:V under burden of evidence for people who want to keep and/or restore material to articles.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You may also wish to read WP:CONSENSUS consensus isn't formed by a vote, its formed by discussion. You haven't made a single compelling argument as to why unreliable sources should be used as citations on wikipedia. So this point your !vote doesn't have any weight. As well these sentences might be of particular interest to you Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right. and Polls are structured discussions, not votes.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made what I believe is a compelling case for using real world examples of a konglish term. Again, thank you for your input. I look forward to finding a consensus among editors of this write up. Mindme (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't remotely made any argument for ignoring WP:V and as I've pointed out policy forbids any local consensus on this article from overriding WP:V so you're waiting for something which can't happen. It seems like you're going out of your way to not get the point and at this point you're basically refusing to get the point. I've shown you 4 policies which do not allow what you want. WP:V requires everything to come from reliable sources, WP:NOT explains that wikipedia is not for random things just made up, WP:OR says you can't interpret sources to give meaning they don't (which was what was being done with some of those sources), and WP:CONSENSUS forbids any local discussion from making a change that would run afoul of any other policy. In addition to that you're treating WP:CONSENSUS like a vote, which it isn't. Consensus is a debate which you're refusing to engage in. I would suggest you go and find reliable sources for that content if you want to keep it in the article. I'm doing you a courtesy by leaving it in there while I give you a chance to find appropriate citation, but it seems you have no interest in actually doing that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith. Again, thank you for your input. Oh yeah, who put in the weird non standard romanization of the hanguel? Ugg. Mindme (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't assume good faith blindly. You've had the policies repeatedly explained to you. You can either find reliable citations or the content will be removed.--Crossmr (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no real interest in the subject, but IMO Crossmr is right here, you cant consensus your way out of verifiability. Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Konglish References

message: I think I've found a more objective way to create a list of konglish words. Instead of grabbing a random selection of words that may not have exact meanings in English which doesn't really provide a lot of context, instead I've found a book of Korean vocabulary put together by a company that is based on word frequency. It is the 6000 most common words in Korean further broken down into 3 levels. The most common level has about 1000 words in it, and there is Konglish present. As such we could objectively say that these words are the most common Konglish used in Korean. I'm most of the way through the first thousand, and I can't give an exact count on how many entries are Konglish, but as a rough guess, I'd say it might only be around 3-5% Konglish. So not an overly large list, but split into a double wide column with definitions it could prove useful to understanding what words Koreans most commonly have adopted from English and other languages.--Crossmr (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More objective view on this

message: I'm doing some clean-up and citation on this article. I feel like massive parts of it will need to be removed as I'm not sure cites exist for it. There are a lot of "weasl" words being used in the article (many, commonly, etc) and without citations all those sentences are going to have to go away. I have managed to find several citations so far though.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I'm moving this to talk since I'm not sure I'll be able to find a reliable source on it:
In South Korea, the term Konglish is used to refer a variety of English spoken with a (strong) Korean accent.  Its pronunciation is closest to American English, influenced by American TV shows and movies.  This makes it the second Asian variety of English based on American English pronunciation after Philippine English.  But there are still some differences:
*Words ending with consonants, except b, d, g, and s, are appended with a schwa.
*Final consonant clusters add a schwa at the end, while at the beginning of the word, a schwa is inserted between the consonants.
*Voiced "th" (ð) like them is pronounced "d" and voiceless "th" (θ) like thrill is pronounced "s".
*l and r are allophones in Korean.  Final and initial r are sometimes pronounced as l.  Speech is sometimes non-rhotic.
*Fs are pronounced p or hw, since there is no widely used f sound in Korean.
*Vs are pronounced b, since there is no v sound in Korean.
*Zs are pronounced j, since there is no z sound in Korean.
*Rs are pronounced as alveolar flaps .
if sources are found I'll move it back into the article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation moved to talk 

message: I'm moving this to talk as well as I haven't come across cites for the majority of it: 
This phenomenon can be commonly seen in the culture of second generation Korean-Americans.  Here, the supplanted words are often loan words used to fill the gap of a limited Korean or English vocabulary.  These borrowings may be seen as being used to compensate for a deficiency (or perceived deficiency) in either English or Korean.
This behavior, referred to as code-switching by linguists, may be an expression of the speaker’s desire to be included in either the English or Korean speaking community even though this speaker lacks complete fluency in the respective language.  In this case the use of a mixed Korean Immigrant Konglish can be seen as an attempt to gain entry into the social group even though there may be something of a lack of language ability.
Another possible rationale for the use of English words in Korean sentences or Korean words in English sentences may simply be that these linguistic borrowings help the speaker to better convey their meaning than if only one language were used.  Because of cultural differences between American and Korean society, there may be no single corresponding word to concisely express an idea in the other language.  It may, for example, be simpler to merely say something such as “I helped my father because of hyo(효)” than to say “I helped my father out because of a deep sense of traditional Confucian filial piety”.  This is especially true when both the speaker and listener are familiar with the borrowed term.
Finally, this form of Korean Immigrant Konglish may be used between fellow Korean Immigrants who wish to express a unique identity that is neither wholly of the adoptive country nor wholly Korean, but a complex fusion of both.  These speakers should not be considered fully trilingual, however. They are generally unable to speak Korean, English, and this immigrant varient of Konglish with equal fluency.  Generally people who speak immigrant Konglish lack full fluency in either English or Korean.  Indeed, some fall short of fluency in either language.  It is, however, reasonable to assume that by speaking some from of Konglish (speaking neither English or Korean), these speakers are signaling their membership in a unique Korean Immigrant subculture.  In so doing, speakers of this type of Konglish act to exclude both monolingual Korean speakers who lack an understanding of English, and monolingual English speakers lacking the ability to comprehend Korean.  In this way, Korean Immigrant Konglish has become the unique language of this cross cultural second and third generation immigrant group.
If cites are found for all or parts of it, it can be moved back to the article with citations.--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean immigrant info moved to talk 

message: I suggest if some-one wants to move this back again, that instead we ask for an outside party to evaluate the issue. Kdammers (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning makes no sense and runs contrary to WP:CITE An inline citation is a citation next to the material it supports, which is provided to maintain text-source integrity. The citation is to come after the material it cites not before. This is where most people would expect it to come. If you are having trouble seeing the number at the end of the section, I suggest you see an optometrist. Edit warring it back then insisting on a 3rd party isn't going to get your version kept.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COOL and WP:LAME are also helpful here. And let's not get personal. 
Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  location of superscript 

message: This word is translated as "note" if I understand the talbe correctly.  How-ever, I have never heard it used to mean "note."  In my experience, it means "note-book."  On the other hand, Google.translate gives "notes" as the translation and E-Mart sells 노트북s.  Does any-one have an authoritative source? Kdammers (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search on naver shows it being used in many situations meaning "note" and not "notebook".--Crossmr (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 노트 is not quite equivalent to "note" as in, per say, [Your boss left a note on your desk], where note means a notification. In Korean, 노트 is more associated with notebook; and what's funny is, 노트북, which is the direct translation of notebook, is closely related to notebook computers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.19.45 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  노트 

message: I took all those words and sentences directly from the Korean wiki article; I don´t think that is what is our policy on Original Research is trying to prevent (the policy was instituted back in the day to deal with physics quacks), but I'll just cite a reliable dictionary source anyhow because it is true that in a perfect article everything should have a citation. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absolutely what it addresses. If you keep adding unsourced material to the article, it will be seen as disruptive. You've already been told to provide sources once. The sources attached to those entries are not sources for the claims being made. They source that those words exist. They do not source that the words are common and unique to Korean. For example Handphone is apparently widely used in Singapore, so that hardly makes it unique to Korean. You need a reliable third party source which makes this determination, like a news article that calls these words common and unique. That's a violation of WP:OR.--Crossmr (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now I see what you mean. I will remove the unsourced claims that those words are "common" and "unique to Korean." (Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which now makes the list useless to the article. So what if they're "other" terms. There are thousands of konglish terms, and that many examples are pointless. Lists in articles are used when the items presented have some kind of significance, like in the case of the existing list as being the most common based on frequency. The point of the article is not to make an unending list of every konglish term ever thought up. If you have a reliable source which calls out certain konglish terms for a certain reason, say being what they'd consider "the best/worst" konglish terms, or if a new source creates a most common list or something like that, that would be a good list to add to the article. All that section does now is create a drive-by section for people to endlessly add things to without actually contributing to the article itself. We add content to improve the article and with 50 or so other Konglish examples there, what case are you making that adding these terms in a whole new section does to improve the article or further the understanding of Konglish?--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I disagree that adding those terms is "useless" to the article, and unilaterally and repeatedly removing properly cited content without reaching a community consensus on the talk page could be considered disruptive. But I agree that we do not want  an unwieldy list of every single Konglish term anyone has ever heard. We can calmly discuss which (cited) terms to include and reach a consensus on the talk page. As I mentioned, I took those terms directly from the Korean wiki, which is not a reliable source proving the terms exist but does indicate that actual Koreans editing that article over months have chosen to keep those terms as representative examples; I did not choose those terms at random based on my own original thinking and personal experience. If we have a list of less than a dozen terms, all properly cited, and another editor adds an uncited term or one that we conclude on the talk page to be too insignificant for inclusion, then we can calmly remove said term on a case-by-case basis after reaching consensus. Currently, the article only contains examples that are transliterations into Korean; Konglish is also those words invented by Koreans that native English speakers don´t use, and we need to have at least some examples of those. The "Other" terms  were all properly cited as existing in the Korean language; a reliable source that says "these are The Ten Most Common Korean-invented Konglish Words" is only necessary if we make that claim (which we aren't). Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Other wikis, including other wikipedia projects are not reliable sources. Nor are the choices they make there. We really don't know how they reached the decision to include that list. The point of lists in articles is to provide a distinct compact example. It isn't to just add words for the sake of adding words. In all that, nowhere did you explain what adding further examples would do for the article. The current list is a list that is well defined, extensive, has a unique criteria and gives examples of very common in-use Konglish based on word frequency. The fact that those are mostly transliterations is beside the point. For compound konglish words, we have the example of officetel in the article. You still haven't really gotten at what it is you think can be better explained by adding further random examples to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with "The fact that those are mostly transliterations is beside the point"; the word "Konglish" only exists  because native English speakers needed a word that means "Korean words invented by Koreans based on non-standard English usage" like 커닝 and 디카; if Konglish consisted solely of easily-understandable transliterations like 샤워 and 초콜릿 then the word "Konglish" never would have been invented. Every language has to transliterate names like 러시아 and 캐나다, just like writing kimchi or Daegu in English letters. 
I think 원룸, for example, is used far more often in daily Korean life than several words in the National Academy of the Korean Language list. I agree that we absolutely do not want any uncited terms or terms cited from unreliable sources, but we do need at least a few Konglish terms of the variety that native English speakers do not readily understand. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

text: That's your opinion, and unless you had a reliable source to back it up, it's original research. This is based on word frequency analysis. Prior to the collapse of the soviet union, Koreans referred to the country as 소변. America is 미국, germany is 독일 and England is 영국. Not all names are transliterations. Most native speakers wouldn't readily understand most transliterations anyway due to the way the words are pronounced. While a few stand-out as being easy to interpret, a great number of them aren't as quickly picked up because of the mangled pronunciation. Can you cite any reliable sources which agree with your definition of Konglish? I've found plenty of reliable sources referring to Konglish as many different things. Combo words being one of them, which is present and cited in the article. None of those combo words make it into the 1000 most common Korean words. A couple of modified shortened ones do though, like the word for air conditioner. As I said, if you want to include further examples, they can't be arbitrary. A reliable source, be it a newspaper, academic source, etc. should identify whatever examples you want to include as significant. Anything arbitrary creates various issues.--Crossmr (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I never claimed that all names in Korean are transliterations; you are turning my words into a straw man argument. (And 소변 means urine! The abbreviation of "Soviet Union" is 소연.)   The National Academy of the Korean Language essential vocabulary list is designed for people learning Korean and is not a purely frequency-based list with no editorial alteration; how can we know that Lee Jae-wook did not specifically exclude Korean-invented Konglish when he compiled this list? We don't have access to his statistical analysis. His list is a reliable source, but not the only reliable source. It is not the Be-All, End-All, Final Word on Konglish, and I think you should consider discontinuing treating it as such. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a typo on my part, its also not 소연, is 소련 (蘇聯). And how do you know that he did do that? Now you're just speculating to try and dismiss it. Have you ever considered that the kind of Konglish is just not as common as you think it really is? It's easy for our perceptions to be skewed. Just because you see it a lot on signs or advertisements doesn't mean it's used as much in speech or publications. That's what word frequency is. I only took the konglish from the first level of frequency. Not the entire book. There is plenty more in there. I'll check if your examples fall under lower levels of frequency. It may not be the only source out there, but right now it's the only source we have that puts any Konglish words in any kind of prominence to give an indication that they are useful examples of Konglish--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Konglish terms unique to Korean 

message: *I got a 404 error notice when I tried http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200001/200001140271.html
but I didn't remove it just now as a ref in case the old URL may help us find the current address of the article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Second one works fine.--Crossmr (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The first was caught in google cache here .--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

text: scratch that, archive.org got the actual page here . not sure why the bot didn't get that and add it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I believe this external image adds value to the article and should be included. What does everyone else think? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What value? What does it demonstrate that isn't already sufficiently addressed in the article? Remember that someone viewing an offline copy of the article or a printed version is unable to see that content which is why featured and good articles rarely, if ever, contain those kinds of links.--Crossmr (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don´t believe that lack of links to external images is a criterion for GA status. Where is that written?  Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External image 

message: As Koreans emigrate to English speaking countries,  Konglish has also come to refer to single Korean words being used in English sentences by native English speaking Koreans to succinctly state a Korean cultural concept that has no adequate single word translation in English, such as Hwabyeong, Han or Hyo.
I know this is true, but, alas, we do need a proper citation. Does anyone have a source for this? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need sources 

message: Here are a random selection of totally awesome Konglish examples from flickr:
*Old fish, old oil and oid friend are the best.
*Please come freely.
*cocks Now Loading
*Hotel Manhattan: Small Hope, Big Service
*Crap cake
*Not allowed to pregnant
*White lover
I think we can upload flickr images to Commons because they are Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We can, but articles are not galleries. The amount of photos used has to be inline with the article size and of course the usefulness of using more photos which are more or less the same thing. This article already contains over 50 examples of Konglish, so if further examples are to be added to the article there has to be a good case made for doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I didn't do it because I knew you'd immediately remove any image straight-away. <sigh> Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I don't support endlessly stuffing articles with repetitive examples. That isn't how good articles are made. At least 2 of those images are not NC-SA 2.0. 2 of them are copyright reserved. You might want to double check anything before you even remotely consider uploading it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not "remotely considering" adding any of them here because you  own this article and if anyone has the temerity to attempt to even slightly alter this article they will find their clearly disruptive edits reverted in this epic battle of Good against Evil. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't, but as you're free to make edits to the article, so am I. You've now crossed over into assuming bad faith. It's quite clear you aren't even paying attention to what you were trying to push into the article were you? . You just took this list from earlier, without examining it all and continually tried to add it to the article with various rationales. Had you bothered to do so, you would have noticed that two of the entries on it are already in the list above. You also would have noticed that most of the examples in that list are also just transliterations, White shirt, mishing (from japanese, which likely comes from English), burberry coat (which is just a brand name, no different than a country name), or shortenigs like remotecon and autobai which are no different than the couple of shortenings we already have as examples in the previous list. All 디카 is is an abbreviation for a transliteration which hardly makes it unique. So really out of that entire list, only a couple would even demonstrate anything different than what is already in the article. Hardly worth a section all to their own. Especially with no sources calling them out as good examples of this kind of Konglish creation. if you don't want content you've added to the article to be removed, I suggest you actually look at it before doing so and make sure it is inline with a quality article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  flickr.com 

message: An IP just noted that the image had been poorly transcribed, this occurred here: . The word on the sign is 정통, not 전통. 정통 does not translate as "traditional".--Crossmr (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to replacing this, due to the previous bad translation, any editor translating a sign and identifying it as Konglish is original research. There are tons of Konglish examples given in various reliable sources. Any new photo should be of one of these examples given in a reliable source and cited with it. This might be a sign of the word "Fighting!" at a Korean sports event, or any other examples that appear in any reliable source as an example of Konglish.--Crossmr (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of photo 

message: I believe one item in the article is mostly wrong. Most words in [List of most common Konglish] are not what most people would identify as a Konglish. If what I understand is correct, Konglish does not represent these - rather, Konglish represents broken English, strewn with common mistakes Koreans make - or, distorting English words into forms that we English-speaking people do not use would fit the bill as well. That list does not contain any of these. They are called 외래어 (外來語) in Korean - meaning, [Words whose origin is foreign]. (Koreans do acknowledge them in their own way.) 
Moreover, some terms were imported words from Japan - most notably, 에어컨. (Curiously, the list omits 리모콘, which is also of same origin.) They come from Japan, after Japanese folks cut it down from Air Conditioner to AirCon, which is what 에어컨 is. (Same with 리모콘, which is contracted from Remote Controller -> RemoCon) Believe it or not, Apartment belongs to that group as well. (I suggest you look for the words like: エアコン (Air Conditioner）, リモコン (Remote Controller) and アパート（apartment). You may even find some here on Wikipedia. 
Other than these, the list contained coarse transliteration of English words into Korean phonetics. I seriously doubt if that alone is enough to qualify as Konglish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.19.45 (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of most common KONGLISH??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Konglish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100117091424/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr:80/www/news/nation/2008/01/117_18210.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/01/117_18210.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 21:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment