[KS] re uri

[will pore]

Dear List:

For the several fine replies I received regarding my inquiry about the
Korean pronoun 'uri,' in particular those of Jim Thomas, Ross King and
Alison Tokita, I am very grateful for the detailed and useful comments they
supplied. While familiar with the similar usage of the inclusive "we" in the
unrelated Chinese language and the usages in modern Japanese, the only reply
from a list member to mention a lesser known, but, assumedly "related"
language's similarity (Mongolian) was by Balazs Szolontai. There is much
more, therefore, that I wish I knew. It is truely unfortunate that an
etymological dictionary, as far as I know, does not  exist for Korean.

In conjunction with my query, and as only an amature historical linguist, I
must mention by comparison the outstanding work of the French linguists who
long ago investigated and have written intriguingly on such topics as the
origin on tones in Vietnamese. According to their research, Vietnamese,
historically a non-tonal, Mon-Khmer language, became tonal in about the
thirteenth century under Thai influence. There is that and really much more
that seems to have been authoratatively investigated about Vietnamese and
other Southeast Asian languages than I am aware existing on the many topics
on Korean that historians I think should find useful.

Regards,

Will

-- 
William F. Pore
Associate Professor
Global Studies Program
Pusan National University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20100623/131f107a/attachment.html>