[KS] Symbolism and Scientific nature of Korean Language revisited

[Chris& Soo]

Greetings,

Following up on a discussion about the "scientific" nature of Korean 
alphabet and its symbolisms, and as a Korean language student, I'd like to 
shortly share what we learned about Korean alphabet and its 'scientific' 
nature.

First of all, as it was mentioned in the previous postings, there is a 
philosophical interpretation of Korean vowel letters. Vowels are created to 
represent the three basic elements: heaven, earth, and human. Various 
graphical combinations of these three produce the other vowel digraphs. BTW, 
Korean cell-phones are so convenient to use for sending text messages 
because of that. They have only few basic alphabet  elements on the dial 
that do not overcrowd the overall design. I'm always impressed at the speed 
Korean kids type in their 'mun-ja's...

Now comes the symbolism. The consonants were made to symbolize the position 
of articulation organs that participate in their creation. So, the letter 
Ssi-ot is a picture of a tooth, the letter Mi-eum is a picture of a mouth, 
the letter Ri-eul is a picture of a tongue, and so on.

There is more to it, of course, but I think those two points are most 
important because they show the difference of Korean alphabet when compared 
to Latin or Cyrillic, and give some idea on why Koreans think their alphabet 
is of "the most scientific" nature.  I did a review of this after my Korean 
Language program graduation, you could find it at 
http://myhome.naver.com/koexpress/.

Hope this was a helpful contribution to the discussion.
Sincerely,
Konstantine Vasiliev
Graduate School of International  Studies
Korea University
Seoul






>From: Yuh Ji-Yeon <j-yuh at northwestern.edu>
>Reply-To: Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
>To: Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
>Subject: Re: [KS] NYTimes.com Article: Writing as a Block for Asians
>Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 09:01:48 -0500
>
>Shouldn't someone write a letter to the NYT and point out that Korean 
>hangul is an alphabet system with "abstractions" in which letters are 
>either consonants or vowels and do not represent syllables?
>
>I also have a question for linguists out there: on what basis can it be 
>said that a letter like A or B or like the hangul giuk is more abstract 
>than a Japanese syllable like ah or no?
>
>best,
>Yuh Ji-Yeon
>
>At 09:57 ¿ÀÀü 2003-05-05 -0400, you wrote:
>>Dear listmembers,
>>
>>since we have had quite some discussion on language etc. going on on this 
>>list, I think the follwing article might be of some interest. It is about 
>>the controversial connection between language and thought.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Ruediger
>>
>>
>>New York Times (www.nytimes.com)
>>
>>>Writing as a Block for Asians
>>>
>>>May 3, 2003
>>>By EMILY EAKIN
>>>
>>>A better understanding of Asian writing systems has not
>>>stopped Western experts from making grand claims about
>>>their virtues and limitations.
>>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/arts/03ASIA.html?ex=1053142398&ei=1&en=f1a3637a7f455b2a
>>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail