[KS] re uri

[johnfrankl at yahoo.com]

This is very interesting, but I am not certain it provides any sort of etymology:

"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)."

The Hyangch'al "ori" is just an attempt at representing the word "uri" before Korea had its own writing system. 
 
The parts about Japanese and Mongolian are only telling if some context is provided. Does the work posit that "uri," "ware," "udi," and "uru-q" are cognates? If so, is an origin posited?
 
JMF
--- On Thu, 6/24/10, Kyungmi Chun <kyungmic at stanford.edu> wrote:


From: Kyungmi Chun <kyungmic at stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [KS] re uri
To: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 4:39 PM


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
> 
> 




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20100624/2415d1bc/attachment.html>