[KS] Symbolism and Scientific nature of Korean Language revisited

Wed May 7 10:26:44 EDT 2003

Chris& Soo wrote:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Following up on a discussion about the "scientific" nature of Korean
> alphabet 
 The Korean alphabet is a way to render the 'sounds' of a
language/languages (Korean and Sino-Korean) by bringing the numbers of
both the graphic devices and their elements down to their minimum (e.g.,
by not providing graphical devices to mark phonetic variants that, at
least in the ears of native speakers, are of a purely positional nature
and are therefore produced spontaneously). The Korean alphabet is
scientific because it does what science, as a particular field of
intellectual effort, is after: to find the minimum of means to achieve
an end (contributing to the solution of a problem by finding the minimum
of means needed satisfactorily to comprehend it).
Yours,
Dieter Eikemeier

o

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 오전 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