[KS] re uri

[Kyungmi Chun]

There are several Korean etymological dictionaries written in Korean. 
One way of finding them is to perform a keyword search for 'Korean 
etymology dictionaries' in FirstSearch (WorldCat). One of the 
dictionaries is:

Title: Uri mal ŭi ppuri rŭl ch'ajasŏ: Han'gugŏ ŏwŏn sajŏn (Chŭngbop'an)
Author: Paek, Mun-sik
Publication: Sŏul Tŭkpyŏlsi: Samgwang Ch'ulp'ansa, 2006

Its entry for '우리' on page 398 mentions that it is equivalent to 
Hyangch'al 吾里; Japanese wa[我, 吾], ware, udi; and Mongolian uru-q(親戚).

WorldCat also retrieves an English dictionary of Korean etymology. Since 
Stanford does not own the book, I did not check the contents.

Title: Studies in Korean etymology (2 vols.)
Author: Ramstedt, G. J.; Aalto, Pentti
Publication: Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura, 1949-1953


Kyungmi Chun
Korean Studies Librarian
East Asia Library
Meyer Library Bldg. 4th Floor
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6004
Tel.: 650-724-5934
Fax.: 650-724-2028
http://lib.stanford.edu/eal-korean


will pore wrote:
> 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
> 
>