Talk:Korean phonology

message: I always have a hard time finding a language's stress pattern. What, if it exists, is Korean's stress pattern exactly? For example, English stress pattern is Trochaic, with footing in all heavy syllables (2 moras), then foot all the rest except for final feet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emelius7 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean stress pattern

message: As far as I can remember, Korean linguistic books always represented eu by  (high central unrounded), instead of  (high back unrounded).  The Korean version of this article (:ko:한국어 음운론) uses ɨ.  Can somebody verify this?
When I have time, I'll take a look at Korean books I have. Yongjik 06:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Handbook of the IPA uses a high back vowel, IIRC. Maybe this is a case of free variation? --Kjoonlee 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a similar thing with Vietnamese.  It probably has more to do with the preference of the author/linguist.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a strong tendency cross-linguistically for rounded vowels to be further back than unrounded vowels. For instance, in French and German, /y/ and /ø/ aren't really the rounded versions of /i/ and /e/, they're further back than that (though not quite central either). This is not universal, but is common enough that it's influenced transcriptions of, say, Vietnamese. If the Korean vowel were central, you might expect it to be slightly front of central, since it's unrounded. Instead, it's well back of central, and rather close to /u/, at least in the vowel diagram we're using in this article. kwami (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In my years of living here in Korea, I've always heard ㅚ as /ɥe/ or as /we/ from younger people. I HAVE heard it as /ø/ a few times, but nowhere near as commonly as the first two. Mexicocamboya (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "으" (eu) as a high back vowel? / "ㅚ" (oi/ø) as a front rounded vowel? 

message: In my exposure to Korean speech, initial ㅅ is aspirated [sʰ] while initial ㅆ is like a plain [s] or [sː], not tensed like the other double-consonants. I have always heard 살 pronounced [sʰal] and 쌀 as [sːal]. Whenever I pronounced such a ㅅ-word with an English s- my friends would say it sounded like ㅆ. Is this possibly peculiar to the Seoul dialect (which is the only one I’ve heard)? MJ (t • c) 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very possible that the acoustic effect of tensing a fricative is different that tensing a plosive, even if the articulation is the same. I've not seen anything that suggests the articulation itself is different, though of course it could be. kwami (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For lack of a better term, there's much more sibilance in ㅆ than in ㅅ. --Kjoonlee 05:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial ㅅ and ㅆ transcription 

message: Is vowel length the only thing that's left of Korean tone/pitch accent? Is it still found dialectically? Should be covered in the article. kwami (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tone/pitch is distinctive in Gyeongsang dialect IIRC. Gaji can mean eggplant, branch, or a conjugation of "gada" depending on high/low pitch. Details may vary depending on the variety of the Gyeongsang dialect. --Kjoonlee 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tone/pitch accent 

message: It's been suggested that we agree on a system for indicating the pronunciation of Korean words that have Wikipedia articles, so that there isn't inconsistency for example in writing "ㅡ" as  or . We could put up a key in Help space, and link to it from the transcriptions, the way we do now for Irish, Russian, French, Italian, Hebrew, etc. How does that sound? 
Since we're writing primarily for an English-speaking audience, I personally think we should have a phonetic transcription that makes distinctions English speakers tend to hear, such as intervocalic voicing and  vs.  (that is, things which are indicated in Wade-Guiles). However, I wouldn't want too narrow a transcription, which could just confuse people.
We would also need to decide on what to do with the round vowels which do not occur in all dialects. Perhaps Seoul pronunciation should be our guide in such cases.
It would also be nice to include vowel length, as we do in this article. 
Any comments/suggestions/objections? kwami (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What a good idea. Personally I'd say a "Seoul-dialect speaker trying his/her best to speak the standard dialect" sort of key with voice recordings would be fine. /me takes a look around him. --Kjoonlee 11:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: But I wouldn't bother with length; too much effort for too little gain. Maybe some examples for words like snow, eye, horse, speech would be nice, though. --Kjoonlee 13:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, take a look at Help:IPA chart for Korean. We can take up how to improve the key over there. I don't have any voice recordings to use, but it should be enough to give the reader a basic idea of what the IPA represents, and why there isn't a one-to-one correspondence with either hangul or RR. kwami (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean pronunciation key? 

message: "/ɰi/ ㅢ is the only true diphthong in the Korean language"
Can someone explain the reasoning behind this? Is it maybe /ɯi̯/ and this is the only falling diphthong? kwami (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, deleted. kwami (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  diphthong 

message: I am confused on the usage of stress markers as in /ɕiˈdʑaŋ/ vs. /ˈɕiːdʑaŋ/ since Korean stress is still highly debatable and according the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America -- November 1995 -- Volume 98, Issue 5, p. 2893, stress primarily relays on the phrase depending on the number of syllables in the phrase, syllable weight, and the position of the phrase in the sentence.
I would like to how how you incorporated these stress markers, because I am working on a linguistic project that has to differentiate between short and long vowels, and I am wondering if it has something to do with the syllabic stress in duosyllabic and polysyllabic words.   
Thank you Finitoultero (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's any long vowel or else ultima. Presumably that only holds in citation form. I'm removing the stress marks until someone can come up with a source. kwami (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let you know if I find anything in citation form as well, as I am currently looking.  Thanks for your input Finitoultero (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Are you sure?  I looked again and it doesn't put  for ᅥ.  It puts  for short and  for long. - Gilgamesh (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short Vowel Vs. Long Vowel Transcription 

message: This article has /wi/ ㅟ listed as a diphthong; some books I have (mostly from the mid-90s) I have list that vowel as the monopthong /y/.  Does anyone know if there's an accepted conclusion about this?  Or is it something that hasn't been agreed on yet? —Politizer talk/contribs 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not covered here, check out hangul. AFAIK ㅟ is /y/ for some of the older generation in Seoul, and perhaps dialectically. Its standard value is /wi/. kwami (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  /wi/ ㅟ as a diphthong or monopthong? 

message: The table of consonant "phonemes" uses pipes, presumably because these are actually morphophonemic.  My question is: what, then, are the consonant phonemes of Korean?  How do they differ from the morphophonemes?  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad! Those *are* the phonemes. However, they'd been made equivalent to hangul letters, which do not represent phonemes. ㅅ stands for several phonemes, such as /s/, /t/, and /n/. In the notes too it's clear that the things in pipes are simply phonemes, so my edits to the table are inconsistent. However, if we use the proper slashes in the table, the hangul would be incompatible. Would it be acceptable to delete the hangul? kwami (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at least in that table.  We'll have to go through the article to strike an appropriate balance between orthography and phonology, obviously we should have at least some of the former to be clear about the relationship but not at the expense of properly covering the latter.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Morphonemes and phonemes

message: First impressions:
#A lot of the combinations seem unattested.
#*Some syllable-final clusters are only found in certain verbs or nouns derived from them.
#**"Syllable-final" ㄲ is only found in 볶다, 묶다, 볶음, 묶음, and so on. Verb conjugation would not use ㄹ. Proper names with ㄹ would not use ㄲ.
#**Same for "syllable-final" ㄵ, which is only found in 얹다, 앉다, 얹음, 앉음, and so on.
#Some combinations seem very unfamiliar.
#*k+kk seems like a long kk (with a long stop before the release) to a Korean's intuition. (부엌 가 is practically /부어 까/, BTW.)
#Some combinations are not clear-cut.
#*김밥 is either /김빱/ or /김밥/ depending on speaker.
--Kjoonlee 03:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some rules that aren't so clear to me.  I'll enumerate the ones I can think of.
*I read that ; metastasizes (at least in some cases), and becomes  or , so that if I understand correctly,  is ,  is , etc.  And  is , correct?  But how does a preceding  affect tense or aspirated stops?  Do both also become ?  And to be clear, word-final  is , right?
*Does  metastasize in the same way, becoming ?
*Do combinations like  become  or ?  Do  regularly collapse to ?
Many of my confusions surround  as well as consonant clusters (especially three consonants in a row). - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: What about ᆳᄀ?  Is that  or ?  And "Kjoonlee" is 큔리, right? - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an obsolete combination only found in 돐 (baby's first birthday party), which is written 돌 nowadays. In the old days, 돐 금반지 would have been 돌 금반지. Kjoonlee is meant to be 케이준리, BTW. ;) --Kjoonlee 06:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keijulli... - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it's lexical. 날짐승 is 날찜승 but 길잡이 is 길자비. --Kjoonlee 06:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But which is more regular?  Or are they both about as regular as /ow/ is in English?  (show, cow, mow, now, throw, plow, low, sow, stow, brow...) - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't be comfortable with assuming some of those values. Also the second row is mislabeled: It's a vowel coda, not just any coda. kwami (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  The unassumable values can be greyed out.  Which ones?  I think I know some already—I'll grey those out. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've also got Kjoon's concern that not all of these are actually found. We might be able to predict what they should be, but I'm not sure we should be telling our readers what they are. I can find attestations for many of them, but certainly not all, and I could never be certain that I'd found were the productive rather than lexicalized values. kwami (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that's a sensible concern.  Some of the more pedantic readers and editors like me, however, tend to crave orthogonal presentations that are as complete as possible. X3 The main reason I was asking all these questions was because I was programming a Hangeul generator in JavaScript/DOM, which also disassembles the hangeul result to parallel Revised Romanization of Korean and International Phonetic Alphabet.  As complete a table as possible was needed for a project like this. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Charts and rules

message: So, based on all this, we can probably postulate:
1↱2   	#coda 	ᄀg- 	ᄁkk-  	ᄃd- 	ᄄtt-  	ᄂn-  	ᄅr-   	ᄆm-   	ᄇb- 	ᄈpp-  	ᄉs-   	ᄊss-  	ᄋvowel 	ᄌj- 	ᄍjj-  	ᄎch- 	ᄏk- 	ᄐt- 	ᄑp- 	ᄒh-
# init	 	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
vowel 	 	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᇂ-h   	()    	    	 	    	 	     	 	 	    	 	      	 	       	    	 	     	    	    	    	
ᆨ-g   	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆩ-kk  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆿ-k   	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆪ-ks  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆰ-lg  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆼ-ng  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆮ-d   	      	    	      	    	      	(ll?)	(ll?) 	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᇀ-t   	      	    	      	    	      	(ll?)	(ll?) 	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆺ-s   	      	    	      	    	      	(ll?)	(ll?) 	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆻ-ss  	      	    	      	    	      	(ll?)	(ll?) 	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆽ-j   	      	    	      	    	      	(ll?)	(ll?) 	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆾ-ch  	      	    	      	    	      	(ll?)	(ll?) 	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆫ-n   	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆬ-nj  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆭ-nh  	      	    	 	    	 	     	      	      	    	 	      	 	       	    	 	     	    	    	    	
ᆯ-r   	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆳ-ls  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆴ-lt  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆶ-lh  	      	    	 	    	 	     	      	      	    	 	 	 	       	    	 	     	    	    	    	
ᆷ-m   	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆱ-lm  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆸ-b   	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᇁ-p   	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆹ-ps  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆲ-lb  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
ᆵ-lp  	      	    	      	    	      	     	      	      	    	      	      	      	       	    	      	     	    	    	    	
 Correct? - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be comfortable with assuming some of those values. Also the second row is mislabeled: It's a vowel coda, not just any coda. kwami (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  The unassumable values can be greyed out.  Which ones?  I think I know some already—I'll grey those out. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've also got Kjoon's concern that not all of these are actually found. We might be able to predict what they should be, but I'm not sure we should be telling our readers what they are. I can find attestations for many of them, but certainly not all, and I could never be certain that I'd found were the productive rather than lexicalized values. kwami (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that's a sensible concern.  Some of the more pedantic readers and editors like me, however, tend to crave orthogonal presentations that are as complete as possible. X3 The main reason I was asking all these questions was because I was programming a Hangeul generator in JavaScript/DOM, which also disassembles the hangeul result to parallel Revised Romanization of Korean and International Phonetic Alphabet.  As complete a table as possible was needed for a project like this. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: chart

message: Just curious where is the source for Hangeul sounds and their IPA equivalent? Is there an official source or anything? Also does anyone know the exact difference between a tɕ sound and an English J (ʒ) sound? Just curious since ㅈ is a tɕ and not ʒ. Thanks --Bluesoju (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you're the first person to ask about the source on the IPA transcriptions, so we should probably provide inline citations for that.  The source is the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association.  I've answered your second question at Talk:Voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official IPA list 

message: In Talk:Jeju dialect and Talk:Ulsan.  I don't expect them to really get answered for months if not years, unless mention them in a place with more watchers. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unanswered questions 

message: I'm curious where the vowel length distinction comes from? I have not conducted a thorough search of references, but in the 5 papers I've read on Korean vowels, none mention a length distinction. From Swan & Smith 2001, Lee's article on Korean speakers actually specifically states that there is no distinction between long and short vowels - "Instead of a long/short vowel distinction, Korean uses rising and falling intonation and the pause."
Flexlingie (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be marked in hangul, and is still marked in Korean dictionaries, though it may be more robust regionally than in Seoul. Google Books has several good refs. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

text: This has a nice account of the loss of distinction in younger speakers. However, it doesn't appear to consider dialectical variation. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Currently doing research on this righ tnow, check out this book: http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/990-0808/990-KIM-0-0.PDF (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vowel length citation? 

message: Does Korean have any kind of stress? The article doesn't mention anything about it at present. Pokajanje|Talk 22:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have pitch accent, depending on dialect and generation. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stress 

message: I've noticed that kwami changed the transcriptions in the table to more accurately represent the way the vowels are pronounced in Seoul (Standard) today, but AlexanderKaras has reverted most of these saying that they're too narrow and that "these are just minimal pairs". I'm guessing he means that we don't need to worry about narrowly transcribing anything other than the vowel in question. Anyway, I think that it would be better to have two tables: one in line with Lee (1999), and another one after vowel/length mergers. — Lfdder (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monophthong transcriptions 

message: I've adjusted the description of ⟨◌͈⟩, the diacritic for tense consonants. It may resemble an (ASCII} "double straight quotation mark", as the text had it, but its Unicode name is "". I've made it explicit that this is merely resemblance, and added the Unicode code point and name into the explanatory note that was already there. 
To discuss this with me, please  me. Thnidu (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Unicode name is irrelevant for both Korean phonology and the IPA. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA tense diacritic 

message: So is it followed by the high tone, like aspirates, or the low tone, like plains? 195.187.108.4 (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The sibilant /sʰ/ has behavior of both the plain and aspirated stops" 

message: So, I see that there be a lot of confusion here as to certain vowel's qualities, and I came across an interesting possibility as to why that occurs. It basically says that /o/, /ʌ/, and /ɯ/ are the same as /u/, /a/, and /i/, aside from the back of the tongue being lowered, which is there to explain the spread lips of the /ɯ/ and the extra rounding of the /o/. Of course, I don't know how valid it is, especially since it is just a draft, but it seems like a good explanation, even if it fails to address the evolution of the Korean vowel system, such as the previous distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/. The author admits in a different article that he does not have the ability to properly test such hypotheses, which does make them a bit more sketchy, on top of being merely drafts. They can also be found on academia.edu, for what that's worth. I don't really want to edit it in without consulting others, but do y'all think that it be worth mentioning in the article, especially to address the issue of other vowel qualities being assigned to the same phoneme?
--Blanket P.I. (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Vowel Explanation? 

message: In the IPA table and the IPA notations for different examples n + m are regularly given as m͊ + n͊. These superscripts are not explained here and I did not find an explanation for them on the IPA article either. - They should be explained. What is the difference  between n + m and m͊ + n͊? Is it for nasalisation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.111.187 (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s very hard to make out on my screen, but it’s a “combining not-tilde above”, U+034A, indicating denasalization – thus the (m~b) and (n~d) notations. This is explained in the 3rd-to-last paragraph under Consonants. MJ (t • c) 23:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superscript on m and n!? 

message: In Korean phonology, the alveolar fricative s () is considered a "plain" consonant (or yesasori ), along with b (), d (), g () that show moderate aspiration. (These stops are transcribed as , ,  and never as , ,  between slashes, especially since another voiceless set called geosensori (), namely p (), t (), k (), are transcribed as , , .) Unlike , , , the alveolar fricative shows no aspiration word-medially. Also, the alveolar fricative s is often realized as a voiced fricative . (e.g. gamsahamnida () /kam.sa.hap.ni.da/ realized as [kɐm.zɐm.dɐ]) Cho, Jun, & Ladefoged (2002) states that "The plain /s/ generally undergoes intervocalic voicing word-medially, in contrast to what has commonly been assumed. About 47% of the tokens have fully voiced /s/ and about another 40% of the tokens are voiced over more than half the frication period." It is well known that Korean /p/, /t/, /k/ often undergo intervocalic voicing whereas , ,  do not. I suggest the alveolar fricative s () should (at least between slashes) be transcribed , not . --Vindication (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  alveolar fricative ''s'' ({{lang|ko|ㅅ}}) as {{IPA|/s/}}, not {{IPA|/sʰ/}} 

message: The affricates j (), jj (), ch () are transcribed as , , . The sounds are indeed palatalized in modern Seoul Korean and other South Korean dialects, but is it also the case in North Korean dialects? They may be , ,  unless preceded by a palatal (semi-)vowel. --Vindication (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is distinctive of Pyongan dialect phonology (King 2006), and not part of standard 문화어. All the DPRK news broadcasts I've seen have fairly thoroughly palatalised j (), jj (), ch (). Michael Ly (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affricates and North Korean dialects 

message: Seoul Korean vowels have undergone a variety of changes. Vowel length is reported neutralized, /y/ and /ø/ diphthongized, /e/ and /ɛ/ merged, /o/ raised, /ɯ/ fronted, and so on. Vowels of North Korean dialects have also undergone some changes, towards different directions. The article needs updated vowel charts, preferably illustrating both North and South Korean vowels. I'd also like to know if I need 's permission to replace the current charts she/he/they made with new (not-yet-existing) ones. --Eumseonghakdo (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No permission needed, . The vowel charts are under the same license as other wikipedia content. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 00:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the reply. --Eumseonghakdo (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

text: The problem is that, as far as I can see, the current vowel charts are based on the ones in the Handbook of the IPA. We shouldn't update them but make entirely new ones from scratch and only if there's a reliable source that features such charts. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that is the problem. Kang, Schertz, & Han (2015) (It is a program abstract of the 169th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America) offers a relevant chart (uploaded by the first author; It is perhaps the full document that the abstract summarizes), but the dots cannot be located (at least I can't locate them) in the new (still-not-yet-existing) chart without the full data (in figures), which are not presented in the above document. I've been waiting to see if some new relevant articles come up. --Eumseonghakdo (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That source offers formant vowel charts, rather than cardinal vowel charts such as those that we use in the article. I think we can have both in the article, following Norwegian phonology. Just be aware that they're two different things, and it would be WP:OR to create a cardinal vowel chart based merely on the formants. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , completely agree! It would be a great idea to have both formant (acoustic) and cardinal (articulatory) vowel charts in the article, if  can add them. It'd also be worthwhile to point out the age of the primary source for the current chart. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 02:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Sure. I'm aware of the difference, and thank you. When adequate numeric data or resources are available, I'll put a chart (or hopefully two, showing the vowels of both North and South Korean dialects) together with the existing one. --Eumseonghakdo (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The vowel charts need to be updated. 

message: Does anyone have information on this? The sources I found seem to claim that Korean vowels are always voiced. However, I also found some videos that seem to show otherwise. For example in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unzE1XNZWvY;
pay attention to the following syllables - the text has captions, so it's easy to follow: time index 0:25 아픔에 (first 2 syllables); 0:29 얼마나 (first syllable); 1:35 그사연은 (first syllable); 1:36 가슴에 (first 2 syllables); 1:40 오늘도 (first syllable); 2:04 외로운 (first syllable). Is this a dialect variation? The entire vowels/syllables seem to be voiceless, not just aspirated. Selerian (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think that was a stylistic feature of the singer and/or the performance more than the language. If you listen to this version you'll hear a different approach to the same song.  Michael Ly (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voiceless (de-voiced) vowels 

message: This article doesn't mention the n-insertion at all, which is a common phonological phenomenon in Korean. It generally occurs between two morphemes if the second one begins with /i/ or /j/. If the first morpheme ends in a vowel, it's indicated in writing with the addition of 'ㅅ' (사이시옷: sai siot). For example:
* 색연필 (saek + yeonpil) [생년필] (saengnyeonpil)
* 막일 (mak + il) [망닐] (mangnil)
* 나뭇잎 (namu + "s" + ip) [나문닙] (namunnip)
Hzb pangus (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see this morphophonology (including 사이시옷) added too - what would be the clearest way to do it? A new section under consonant changes? Michael Ly (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

text: It's not insertion. It's actually dropping /n/ before /i/ and /j/ word-initially. Etymologically those words have /n/ -iopq (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

text: You might be able to analyze the last two examples as n-dropping based on Middle Korean, but it's definitely an insertion for Sino-Korean words such as 색연필. 연필(鉛筆) etymologically doesn't have an initial /n/ or /l/. Hzb pangus (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean n-insertion

message: The fact that having many allophones is 'not specific to Korean' is very obvious. That sentence doesn't imply that Korean is unique in that aspect, but that readers should be aware of the difference between slashes and brackets. That's literally the only purpose of that sentence. The 'context' tag is also inappropriate, as the sentence is self-explanatory. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I've noticed that there are a lot of allophones that are mentioned either on the Wiktionary pages, like 어울리다, or Wikipedia pages about consonants, like Alveolo-palatal consonant or Palatal nasal (which often direct one to Korean phonology, even though said page says nothing on the matter). Additionally, I've noticed that the semivowel /j/ (and probably /w/ and /ɰ/ too, if I'm hearing correctly) tends to combine with the preceding consonant phonetically (so /hjʌŋ/ turns into [çʌ̹ŋ] not [çjʌ̹ŋ], much like /hjud͡ʒ/ turns to [çud͡ʒ] in most dialects of English).
Now, the latter part I have no basis other than my own hearing (which is insufficient for our purposes), but I'm wondering if at least the allophones mentioned on Wikipedia and Wiktionary have a reference we could use to add that information to this page. I'll also note that there was (but is no longer) something in the article for Palatal lateral approximant which made /ɭ.ɭ/ (which Wiktionary uses over /l.l/, and seems to be all I've heard, including when asking a friend of mine where his tongue ended up at the end of /maɭ/) turn into [l̠ʲ.l̠ʲ] before /i/, so that might be worth researching into, too. Anyway, here's a potential table, with the emboldened allophones being ones I'm sure I've seen on one of these two websites:
Standard                	Before /i,j/                       	Before /ɯ,ɰ/	Before /o,u,w/
/k/                     	[kʲ] or [gʲ] (possibly [c] or [ɟ]?)	[k] or [g]  	[k] or [g]
/k͈/                    	[k͈ʲ]                              	[k͈]        	[k͈]
/kʰ/                    	[c͡ç]                              	[k͡x]       	[kʰ]
/t/ (morpheme internal) 	[t̠ʲ] or [d̠ʲ]                     	[t]         	[t]
/tʰ/ (morpheme internal)	[t̠ʲʰ]                             	[tʰ]        	[tʰ]
/t/ (morpheme final)    	[d͡ʑ]                              	[d]         	[d]
/tʰ/ (morpheme final)   	[t͡ɕʰ]                             	[tʰ]        	[tʰ]
/s/                     	[ɕ]                                	[s]         	[s]
/s͈/                    	[ɕ͈]                               	[s͈]        	[s͈]
/h/                     	[ç] or [ʝ]                         	[x] or [ɣ]  	[ɸʷ] or [β] (why not [βʷ]?)
/ɭ.ɭ/                   	[l̠ʲ.l̠ʲ] (might also be [ɭ.l̠ʲ])  	[ɭ.ɭ]       	[ɭ.ɭ]
/n/                     	[n̠ʲ]                              	[n]         	[n]
There may of course be others. I believe two consonants in a row will both be palatalized if they're the same consonant (so 안녕 is [an̠ʲ.n̠ʲʌ̹ŋ]), but again, I don't have any source to back up my claim.
I think it might also be worth mentioning that when the syllable 의 is preceded by a syllable ending in a consonant then the /ɰ/ is sometimes still pronounced, such as in 논의, which is oft pronounced phonemically /no̞.nɰ̜i/. Additionally, /kj/, /k͈j/, and /kʰj/ often simply drop the /j/.
Feel free to add to that table!Blanket P.I. (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary/IPA Allophones 

message: The aspiration of Korean phoneme /sʰ/ is very distinct and should never be ignored. The aspiration often makes /sʰ/ sound like [tsʰ]. I don't know why someone keeps deleting this. Mteechan (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: While /s/ is aspirated in word-initial position, it typically functions like a lax consonant, not an aspirated one.  This can be seen in the fact that it is not aspirated word-medially.  Furthermore, the aspiration of /s/ is more slight than that of the aspirated series.  Additionally, it appears that it is beginning to become voiced word-medially, though I don't know if this is common outside of Seoul (as I have never heard it).  The page does mention the aspiration of /s/, and notes that there is some controversy over whether it should be considered aspirated or lax.  I also would not consider [sʰ] similar to [t͡sʰ], seeing as the affrication is more prominent than the aspiration (at least to my ears).  Blanket P.I. (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspiration of /sʰ/ 

message: The "Vowel" section says that short and long vowels have mostly merged.  Which is the merged form of ㅓ more like, [ʌ] or [ɘː]?  The article should make this clear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.135.13 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult to say which one of [ʌ] (more open, more back) or [ɘː] (more close, more central) is more "correct", as 어 is a very wide-ranging vowel. Phonetically, 어 is often rounded to /ɔ/, and is being raised quite a lot in Seoul Korean [F1 = 470 Hz, F2 = 1370 Hz], approaching /o/ (causing a chain shift eventually, which is kind of happening now). In Pyongyang too, 어 is being raised, especially in female speech, as well as shifting back in the mouth. Michael Ly (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another q on vowel length 

message: Have ㅞ and ㅙ merged along with ㅔ and ㅐ?  Also, ㅖ and ㅒ. The diphthong table indicates not.  The explanatory text should make it explicit one way or the other.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.135.13 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the diphthongs have also merged. Additionally, ㅞ and ㅙ have also merged with ㅚ (into /we/), in casual speech in Seoul especially. Michael Ly (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have ㅞ and ㅙ merged?   Also, ㅖ and ㅒ 

message: There is no evident explanation as to why some entries in the table are shaded, and why others have black borders.  Please add an explanation, or remove the inconsistent formatting.  —DIV (1.144.107.59 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vowel table formatting 

message: to put Phonotactics befor the section of Consonant assimilation - because the assimilation is superseding on the phonotactical adjustments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:46AA:A200:F183:E34E:4D11:977C (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  It could be useful - 

message: There were a few changes in this table without any source cited.
* s~z to s (Link) by User:Mochimkchiking
* and then to s: (Link) by 175.223.2.235
* Aspirated consonants are geminated (Link) by 175.223.2.235
I reverted these changes. Please discuss these issues before edit. -Benzenekim (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted a few changes in the table Positional allophones