Talk:Hangul/Archive 1

message: Jamo order needs update. One listed in the article is actually South Korean order. Here's North Korean order:
ㄱㄴㄷㄹㅁㅂㅅㅇㅈㅊㅋㅌㅍㅎㄲㄸㅃㅆㅉㅇ
First ㅇ, if it represents sound /ng/. Second ㅇ, is zero. Note that ㄲㄸㅃㅆㅉ is placed *after* all other jamos, not just after their simple counterpart.
For vowels:
ㅏㅑㅓㅕㅗㅛㅜㅠㅡㅣㅐㅒㅔㅖㅚㅟㅢㅘㅝㅙㅞ
Again, ㅐ and ㅔ is placed after all basic vowels, not after ㅏ and ㅓ.
And the comment that Choi Sejin established the current order, is although correct, but misleading. What he decided is *basic jamo order*. Nothing about five glottalized consonants, or combined vowels. So South and Korea differ in these matters, but same in basics. -- 143.248.205.98
: A varied order is interesting. Thank you for the info. They have been added. --Menchi 10:30 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
::The reason the order differs is that the "glottalized" consonants were not part of the Korean language, and the compound vowels were still diphthongs, when the alphabetic order was set. It's common to add new letters at the end of an alphabet (such as Roman wye and zed), but it's also common to group them with similar letters (such as Spanish ene and eñe). — kwami 10:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jamo order 

message: Sewing, I'm curious about what you are doing with this conversion of Hangul.  Why are you doing it and where can we get more information on these two different coding systems?
Rschmertz 23:10, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Unicode has two different sets of Hangeul Jamo: "Hangeul Jamo" (starting with hex 1100/decimal 4352) and "Hangeul Compatibility Jamo" (starting with hex 3130/decimal 12592).  (There is apparently yet a third set, also called "Hangeul Compatibility Jamo," starting at hex FFA0/decimal 65440; these are half-width, as opposed to the full-width forms of the 3130 block.)  I switched simply because while I could view the 1100-block characters in Opera, I could not see them in Internet Explorer; whereas after the switch to the 3130 block, I could view the jamo in both browsers with no problem.  The explanation for the difference comes from Section 10.4 (p. 275) of the Online Edition of the Unicode Standard, Version 3.0, which says that the 1100 block can be used for composing syllable blocks, and is ordered in such a way as to enable sorting, with initial consonants coming first, then all the medial vowels, then the final consonants.  The 3100 and FFA0 blocks, on the other hand, are not designed for syllable composition or sorting--the initial and final consonants are merged into a single sequence, followed by all the vowels.  The 3100 block exists "solely for compatibility with the KS C 5601 standard," which apparently Microsoft follows....  Well, I hope that answers your question: sorry if my reply tends on the long side, but better more info than less, right?  --Yours, Sewing 14:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note: 4 years later) I'm reading this article for the first time and I noticed this issue with some of the obsolete jamo in the Jamo design section. The U+1100 range of Korean fonts in MacOS X 10.4 have none of the obsolete jamo, only the ones in current use. So I've replaced those few U+1100 characters with their equivalents in the U+3130 range. But I don't understand what ᇰ is supposed to be in the 2nd paragraph of that section. (The character doesn't display for me, but the Unicode spec says it's 옛이응 ㆁ.) The text describes “two elements, stacked one over the other” so it seems like it can't be ㆁ. MJ 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coding 

message: As an aside, some disambiguation-related matter: A hangul is also a red deer Cervus cashmiriensis from the Cashmere. This name has been mentioned six times from 1858 to 1970s (that's as recent as OED gets). Knowing how selectively OED chooses its quotes, that's relatively a lot. Maybe that's why one gets so many Google hits on Hangul, which also includes the deer. --Menchi 05:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have searched for Hangul and deer and Kashmir repectively and don't get many hits, though. Kokiri 12:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A hangul is a ''DEER''! 

message: "While Hangul writing may appear logographic to the uninitiated," -  What's the basis for this statement(assumption that Korean stuff is a version of Chinese stuff?)?
: No idea. Shall I add "probably"? --Puzzlet Chung 11:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I sure have encountered a lot of people who assumed that it was logographic.  I suspect that it's partly that they're not looking closely, partly that the individual graphemes are arranged into blocks, and partly by a false analogy with Chinese and Japanese.  -- Dominus 13:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logographic? 

message: Anyone interested in a photo of a building sign spelling 'Gardena' as Gㅏ디나, or is that too insignificant a use to bother with? kwami 2005 July 9 02:53 (UTC)
:I'd like to see it, but I'm not sure it belongs on this page. --Taejo|대조 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I'm no longer in the area. I'll see what I can do next time I visit. kwami 22:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed Latin-Hangul 

message: As his work is not yet widely accepted, inlcuding Ledyard's theory on the main article on Hangul is no different than including information about Garimto, Jindaimoji, and other scripts that are supposedly the models for Hangul. Ledyard's theory, in my honest opinion, should have its own article that is linked from the main Hangul article. - unregistered
: Well make that article first, you can't just mass blank information on a page unless it is unfactual or something. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:: There already is an article on Ledyard, which I've created. There is a link to it on Hangul:
:: "On the other hand, recent research by Gari Ledyard suggests that Hangul may have been derived from the imperial alphabet of the Yuan dynasty, Phagspa, but that the subsequent internal featural derivation (which was a Korean invention) obscured this relationship for all but a handful of consonants"
:: Exactly why is it so important to include his theory on the main article? - unregistered
:::In books I've seen on Hangul, such as the one edited by Kim-Renaud that was referenced in the article, two hypotheses are presented: the Hunmin Jeong-eum account and Ledyard's. There is also usually a mention of the popular idea that the jamo come from lattice shadows cast in the moonlight. The editors evidently didn't feel that any of the other hypotheses warranted mention. So I feel that, yes, the literature supports including Ledyard. If we relegate him to another article, we should also have a separate article on the Hunmin Jeong-eum account. At least the way it's currently written, it's presented as fact rather than just one possibility. kwami 00:53, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
:In the current revision of the article, Ledyard gets disproportionally large space for the fringe theory it is. It should be cut at least in half and the image removed. For those interested in the theory, the linked main article is adequate. --Himasaram (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ledyard 

message: i see this has been discussed a bit, but it seems to me this one theory is taking too prominent a role in this article. it's a very interesting theory, & i personally find in pretty convincing after reading this article, but there are at least a couple other theories about what the "ancient text" reference is about, & no theory has dominant support right now. would it be ok to summarize ledyard's thesis in this article, since the details are already in the separate ledyard article? or at least give this section a less conclusive & monopolistic feel? Appleby 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. (I wrote the section originally.) kwami 21:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ledyard account

message: Can anyone explain the relationship between these two in "Although some aspects of Hangul are shared with Phagspa (and thus Indic phonology)...". I cannot figure out why there exists this kind of relationship. Thanks in advance. Nguyen Thanh Quang 13:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one, they are both organized around consonants vs. vowels, rather than onsets vs. rimes. Also, the Indic scripts are organized so that homorganic consonants are associated, and that's basic to hangul. kwami 14:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Phagspa vs. Indic phonology

message: Can someone give me the hanggul (and hancha, if it exists) for "kyulmyungja," a type of seed used to make a medicinal tea in Korea that is believed to be good for the eyes?  I am going to make an article for this (species Cassia obtusifolia/Cassia tora) and want to list the Korean name accurately.  Thank you.  Badagnani 04:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 결명자 決明子 revised romanization would be Gyeolmyeongja Appleby 04:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help 

message: Hi, I find it interesting the note about double consonants being originally used to represent chinese muddy consonants.  Though, i'm not sure which consonants these are (I'm assuming this is talking about middle or old chinese).  Can someone please clarify?
Thanks
:"Muddy" is a calque from the Chinese. Sorry, there doesn't appear to be anything on Wikipedia for me to refer you to. They are generally transcribed as voiced stops (b, d, g, etc; which in Pinyin would be bb, dd, gg), but probably had some phonation other than modal voicing. They survive in Shanghainese, but there they aren't murmured, but slack, so that needs to be modified (assuming modern Shanghaiese has the same phonation that the Korean sources did). kwami 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese murmured/muddy consonants 

message: I thought that the July 2002 revised romanization for this word was "HANGEUL", no? Are we making an exception here? If so, I am afraid that detractors of Korean Studies and all-things-Korean will have more ammunition against us. This makes those who look at Korean Studies from the outside somewhat dismissive of our work and makes our work appear to lack credibility. Do we want to give the impression that anything goes in Korean Studies? "Pick any old romanization, or better yet make your own! It doesn't matter!" I feel uncomfortable with these things and I think consistently using the same romanization, or both systems, is the ONLY way to go. best wishes to you. 한국학 만세!  Mumun 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hangul" is the English spelling. "Seoul" has retained its spelling despite changes of romanization elsewhere, and "hangul" is similar. So have "kimchi" and the names of Korean leaders. kwami 23:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for clarification's sake, Hangul is standard spelling of the English word Hangul, which is pronounced . Hangeul is the Revised Romanization of the Korean word 한글, which is pronounced . The relevant Wikipedia style conventions are to use English when there are English words. Hangul appears in several major English dictionaries, so its status as an English word is well-established. If it bothers you that this article's title appears "wrong", remember that this article uses the English word Hangul, not a romanization of the Korean word 한글. Nohat 04:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lest anyone be confused, let me correct the above and point out that the Korean word 한글 is actually pronounced . --Iceager 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hangul is the established spelling of the word in English. This article is titled with the English word Hangul. Romanization schemes do not apply to English words, because they are already written using roman letters. If the spelling Hangeul ever becomes the dominant spelling in English, appearing in English dictionaries with that spelling, the article can be moved then. Nohat 08:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hangeul, not HANGUL? 

message: Why is hangul always capitalized? It doesn't seem like a proper noun to me, any more than hiragana is. -220.52.172.2 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merriam-Webster says "often capitalized", and the American Heritage Dictionary spells it with a capital H. Nohat 04:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it capitalized? 

message: sorry to delete so much content, but it was way to detailed and out of proportion to this article, imho. perhaps there should be a separate article on this person or position? imho, one or two sentences to sum up the position would be sufficient, probably replacing or integrating with existing explanation of scholarly opposition of the time. Appleby 20:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the material to Choe Manri's own page.  I hope this is all right. – Kaihsu 20:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Choe Manri

message: Can somebody rewrite that section in a more unbiased way?
:“[T]he blocks make Hangul efficient to read, as each syllable has a unique shape”
This is like claiming an English syllable/word doesn't have a unique shape.
Concerning the 20th century morphophonemic spelling, this is nothing that couldn't be implemented in linear hangul or an alphabet (see here for an example). The way the section is written, it sounds a bit as if each syllable block represented a morpheme.—Wikipeditor 10:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed most of that section. The flow wasn't very logical, I guessed it wasn't worth a rewrite. --KJ 15:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is some anecdotal evidence that Hangul is easier for dyslexic (natives) to learn than is the roman alphabet - and the assumption is that it is due to the unique/block character.  On the other hqad as a  myopic non-native mildly dyslexic learner of Korean, I find Hangul difficlty, due to the incredibly tiny bits of some "letters" in the compound blocks, due to the disappearance of some parts of some of these on cheaper printers (e.g., the horizontal bar on ㅓ ) and mirror image "letters" such as  ㅓ/ㅏ , ㅑ/ㅕ  and ㅜ/ㅗ . Kdammers 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linear Hangul 

message: any experts here want to share your comments at Talk:Hanja, about difference between hanja, hanmun, hanja-eo, sino-korean, etc, & possible reorganization of content? thanks. Appleby 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  need comments on hanja/hanmun 

message: Hi, well, the answer is: Hanmun. Let me quote from the Hunmin Jeongeum article:
:Because our language is different from China's, it is not communicable with [Chinese] letters. Therefore, when the simple people wish to communicate something, many cannot achieve their intent. Because I am saddened by this, I have made 28 letters, which may be easily learned by everyone and be convenient in daily use.
The yangban did not write in Korean, they wrote in Classical Chinese. Commoners didn't write at all; Hyangchal and Idu were dead by the reign of King Sejong, only to be rediscovered in modern times. --KJ 14:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was used before Hangul? 

message: I gather this term comes from Middle Korean. If so, what is the ㅅ doing in there? As far as I am aware, ㅅ can be either
# a honorific genitive, which is probably not the case if the term “children's script” was understood as discrediting, or
# a genitive for what is inanimate, which accounts for the ㅅ in “바닷물”.
Did those who wrote “아햇글” think of children as things? Wikipeditor 14:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whence the 사이 시옷 in “아햇글”? 

message: Is this script a syllabary or an abugida? — Yom 04:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an alphabet. :) Consonants and vowels are composed into syllabic blocks. You could argue that it's a syllabary with 11,172 syllables, but IMHO it's much more elegant to just call it an alphabet. Definately not an abugida. --KJ 13:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a syllabary at all, according to the logic of Bill Poser of Language Log. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002529.html --Kjoonlee 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Abugida]]??

message: for such an important article, there should be references.--Dangerous-Boy 18:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some references? 

message: I think it should be in small caps just like "kanji".--Sir Edgar 06:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see above, apparently capitalized in dictionaries. but i don't understand the inconsistency either. Appleby 06:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Japanese is the word for the Japanese writing system. Isn't it that "kanji," and the others are "subgroups" of the Japanese writing system? Hangul is just Hangul. Oyo321 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Korean writing consists of hangul and hanja. But scripts like Taana and Nagari are also capitalized. kwami 21:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "hangul" capitalized? 

message: i just removed a dozen or so useless "  " entries. i know of no article in wikipedia that demands a citation after virtually each and every sentence. i have read the history section, it is accurate. the info in this section is common knowledge for folks who study korea. it may be easilly found on the internet with searchs.
who ever is in charge of the "article needs citation" labels, please remove it from this article. thank you. Hongkyongnae 02:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of citation needed label 

message: Please don't readd this info to the article. It might belong in the Chinese edition of Wikipedia, but not here. --Kjoonlee 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hangul in Hanzi 

message: Quoted from article:
*Pronunciation and translation:
:
:a person who cannot do it
*Phonemic transcription: 
:모타는사라미 
:
*Morphophonemic transcription: 
:못하는사람이
:
Morpheme-by-morpheme gloss:
     	못-하-는               	사람-이
                    	mos-ha-neun         	saram-i
                    	cannot-do-[modifier]	person-[subject]
These descriptions are correct (AFAIK) and don't need to be "corrected."
#모타는사라미 is an example of phonemic transcription, where you write in phonemes, as close as you can. If you hear <독립문> or <버스> being pronounced and you write "동님문" or "뻐쓰," then you're doing phonemic transcription.
#못하는사람이 is an example of morphophonemic transcription, because you can see all the morphemes in their original forms. You can choose either  or  to write , because they're allophones of the same phoneme, the 리을 phoneme. --Kjoonlee 12:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription 

message: Hi, I think McCune-Reischauer needs to be used for all North Korean stuff in the article (Alternate names for ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅅ, ㄲ, ㄸ, and ㅆ, for example). --Kjoonlee 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCune-Reischauer 

message: WHAT IS A FLAG OF JAPAN DOING NEXT TO "HANGUL"????????????????
:I don't see what you're talking about.  Where do you see this? --Rschmertz 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was simple vandalism, chill. Revert the vandalism, warn/block the vandal, carry on as before. Mithridates 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The answer to your question is that it was put there by an anonymous vandal a few minutes before you removed it again. -- Dominus 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Hangul first appeared in 漢城周報 from 1886 (previously called 漢城旬報 from 1883 to 1885).
The first newspaper written in Hangul(mixed hanja-Hangul) was 漢城周報(previously called 漢城旬報). 漢城旬報 was funded by Fukuzawa_Yukichi. Fukuzawa_Yukichi also personally helped many Korean students such as Kim_Okgyun. Fukuzawa_Yukichi had a great impact on Korean modernization especially in terms of building the educational system in Korea.
Fukuzawa_Yukichi told his ex-student Inoue Kakugorou (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%95%E4%B8%8A%E8%A7%92%E4%BA%94%E9%83%8E)
"It is neccesary to publish newspapers in Korean language in order to educate Korean people and for the independence of Korea". 
Inoue Kakugorou became the editor and the translator of the newspaper. It was Inoue Kakugorou who started using Hangul font for the first time.
We cannot talk about modern Hangul without talking about Inoue Kakugorou and Fukuzawa_Yukichi. They, in fact, started the use of today's Haungl in Korea. 
Sadly, most Korean people believe that Japan took away Hangul(and everything! sigh) from Korea, but it was Japanese who re-introduced Hangul to Korean people... This is the one of so many distorted history and causing anti-Japan feeling in Korea today.
I could give you refs, but I need someone who can read and verify the source in Japanese. This link ja:Fukuzawa_Yukichi has some info as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjoyfuga (talk • contribs) 
--Tahon 07:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first newspaper written in Hangul 

message: Hangul has never been officially banned by Japan(ese). Please show evidences that Japan banned the use of Hangul. There are so many evidences (eg. school text books in Hangul, Newspapers in Hangul, pictures of students learning Hangul, etc) that shows Hangul has been taught in schools and widely used.
At some point, it depends on the schools, however, Hangul(Korean language) became a required laungage to a selective laungage class. Childrens had a choice to learn hangul in school. Besides, some principals were Koreans. It was natural (because Korea at the time was Japan) for children to learn Japanese as well at the time. But please make it clear that Japan has never banned Hangul.
There are newspapers in Hangul at the time. A radio staion broadcasted programs in both Japanese AND Korean language. Even if the use of Hangul declined over the time, it was because Korea at the time was Japan after all.
This is a common misconception that Japan banned the use of Haungl (in fact, the Korean goverment leading this. eg teaching school) in Korea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjoyfuga (talk • contribs) 
:Actually, check out the "Country Studies" by the Library of Congress of the United States, for South Korea, under the section "The Media": 
:"At annexation in 1910, the Japanese governor general assumed direct control of the press along with other public institutions. Following the March First Movement in 1919, Japanese authorities loosened their overt control over cultural activities and permitted several Korean newspapers to function while maintaining some behind-the-scenes direction over politically sensitive topics. During the 1920s, Korean vernacular newspapers, such as Tonga ilbo (East Asia Daily), and intellectual journals such as Kaebyok (Creation), conducted running skirmishes with Japanese censors. Japanese authorities prohibited sales of individual issues on hundreds of occasions between 1926 and 1932. Japan's war mobilization in the ensuing years ended any semblance of autonomy for the Korean press; all Korean-language publications were outlawed in 1941."
:I don't know how to properly format the citation, but somebody should integrate this public domain reference into this article and other articles too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.28.115 (talk) 01:44, November 5, 2006
::75.7.28.115.  That has nothing to do with the banning the use of Hangul. Even today, South Korea still regulate politically sensitive topics, such as communism, North Korea and Pro-Japan.
::Hangul, Spoken language and freedom of speech are three different topics.
:::The last sentence says "all Korean-language publications were outlawed in 1941" 70.49.104.32 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the said newspaper image. That newspaper's articles are using both hangul (phonogram) and Chinese characters (ideogram). Even today, Koreans often do this (though, much less Chinese characters tend to be used these days). It is like Japanese people using Kana and Kanji. So, this is not at all related to the education of Japanese language. No Japanese Kanas are there. And thus, it is clear that newespapers written in Korean language were published and read daily in 1940.Red Balor 05:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said before, banning Hangul is not the same thing as banning Korean. You didn't have Korean textbooks written in hanja and kana, but only Japanese textbooks, correct? It's fine to say that Hangul went out when the Korean language itself was banned, but to only say that Hangul was banned is misleading: it implies that the Korean language was not banned. kwami 08:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hangul has never been banned after 1910 

message: Hi. I just visited the article page in hopes of finding an article.Where is it? :P Now, joking aside, do you guys think it would be possible to adjust the layout and implementation of tables/info-boxes so that we don't have an entire page of whitespace before the article begins? Dxco 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What browser are you using?  Looks fine to me on FF, but I have nothing else at hand ATM. --Rschmertz 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good point Rschmertz. Im seeing the problem (screenshot above in my original comment) while using IE6.Dxco 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix this by moving some templates located at top to later sections. I hope this does not break another browser.  I checked FF and IE6. --Kusunose 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, you're referring to this change. Well now I see a huge block of whitespace to the right of the table of contents, under the one template that's up there, in FF.  I guess that's better than what Dxco reports seeing in IE, but not ideal.  First question is, do you think the new locations of the templates make more sense than where they were? --Rschmertz 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I was not logged in on IE6 when I made that change (I use FF mainly). For locations, I think locations of Korean name templates make sense. I'm not sure the location of the Alphabet template is ideal, though I don't think it's bad. --Kusunose 05:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, much better! Dxco 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitespace at Top of Article 

message: Vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean family names (2nd nomination). Badagnani 05:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Korean family names]] nominated for deletion 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Almost no citations.
¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: statements like "...perhaps IPA..." or "...Presumably pronounced as IPA ..." are essentially original research as they're expressing the unsourced opinion of an editor who is drawing a conclusion and putting forth a theory on what they think something sounds like. Unless someone can find a reliable source putting forth these opinions they need to be removed.--Crossmr 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not OR if they're paraphrasing the published consensus. No one knows how MK vowels were pronounced, and the various reconstructions conflict, as the scholars themselves describe. kwami 15:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in obsolete jamos 

message: The article says that Korean consonants have two-syllable names, but the audio pronunciation examples at ZKorean.com are obviously putting the vowel ㅡ at the end, making 3 sylablles. Which is the correct pronunciation? --RisingSunWiki 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in Korean language#Phonology, only seven allophones are found at the end of utterances. This means that "밖" and "박" are homophones, unless you say "밖이" or "박이". This is relevant because when you say "쌍 기역" you can't tell the reader how ㄲ is pronounced at the beginning/end of a syllable. The sound samples are three syllables, yes, but they are in the form of "기역, 그" and "쌍 기역, 끄". --Kjoonlee 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kjoon, now I understand. --RisingSunWiki 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of letters 

message: The article states that arae-a can be found in modern use in brand names. Does anyone have a photo they could post of such use? That would be intriguing. And what pronunciation does it have? kwami 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The definitive example is Haansoft Corporation's HWP. You can see HWP's logo at Haansoft's website. Other examples pop up at an amusing rate (심심치 않게), but I can't remember any of them off hand. :ko:ㆍ links to some examples, though. --Kjoonlee 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The pronunciation is always the same as 아. The arae-a is used for its look, rather than its pronunciation. Think "Ye Olde Shoppe." --Kjoonlee 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but it would be nice to have an illustration for the article. kwami 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only word I can remember was where some brand used the letter on plastic bags of 찹쌀, with ㆍ replacing the first ㅏ, but I didn't have a camera with me when I saw it. Are you concerned about licensing issues preventing us to use (parts of) Haansoft logos from their website? Wikipeditor 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's perfect. Sorry, I missed that paragraph! It would be nice to have both the san-serif and calligraphic versions of their logo; the calligraphy is quite pretty. kwami 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo modern arae-a? 

message: No one's responded to an editorial comment in the article:
:The following paragraph came without references from Wikibooks Korean/Alphabet. Anyone can confirm this? 
::"and the number of characters taught in schools has fallen from a required 12,000 in 1956, to a now non-compulsory 1,800 in the 1990s. North Korea reinstated Hangul as its exclusive writing system in 1949, and banned the use of Hanja completely."
I believe it is now 1800, though I don't know about its being voluntary. Don't know about a required 12,000 in 1956; that seems a bit extreme. kwami 07:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of hanja 

message: I think that this article should be renamed Hageul, because 'eu' is the correct way of transliterating 'ㅡ' in the revised romanization of Korean. Please consider changing the title of this article to the correct form. Amphitere 07:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed previously (#Move_page_back_to_Hangul, #Hangeul.2C_not_HANGUL.3F) and rejected. This article is titled 'Hangul' because that how the word is spelled in English. Nohat 08:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title.