[KS] re uri

[Robert Ramsey]

Oops.  Wrong Chinese characters for gogensetsu in my last posting: It should
have been語源説.  Apologies!

Robert Ramsey


On 6/24/10 7:39 PM, "Kyungmi Chun" <kyungmic at stanford.edu> wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>