[KS] Does this (initial N and R) bear on the DPRK's language reforms at all?
Afostercarter at aol.com
Afostercarter at aol.com
Tue Mar 11 08:47:45 EDT 2014
Fools rush in....
Dare I ask whether any of this fascinatimg thread bears at all
on North Korea's language reforms? - since these include
reinstating initial ㄴand ㄹ(eg Nyongbyon, Ryugyong etc).
Pyongyang's edict naturally encompassed Chongryon too.
Since most Koreans in Japan hail geographically from southern
Korea, I'm told it was awkward to remember that from now on
suddenly you were no longer Yang, say, but Ryang.
Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Sociology & Modern Korea, Leeds
E: _afostercarter at aol.com_ (mailto:afostercarter at aol.com)
_afostercarter at yahoo.com_ (mailto:afostercarter at yahoo.com) W: _www.aidanfc.net_
Skype: Aidan.Foster.Carter Twitter: @fcaidan
In a message dated 11/03/2014 12:31:17 GMT Standard Time,
hoffmann at koreanstudies.com writes:
Apologies -- just now noted that there is a logical inconsistency in my
thought as presented in the last posting:
Let me rephrase:
*If* Professor Ledyard's assumption is correct (the ㄴ tended to be
dropped in both, the Korean vernacular and Sino-Korean), then this
means a generic change of pronunciation in southern Korea that can be
seen independent of strengthening nationhood trends.
*If*, however, Professor Sasse's note is correct that that this was a
phenenomen in Sino-Korean terms only, then we could hypothetically link
that to generic changes in what we might call pre-modern
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:18:09 -0700, Frank Hoffmann wrote:
> Werner Sasse wrote:
>> I should have said more precisely: "this problem arises only
>> in Sino-Kor words in contemporary Korean as spoken in South Korea."
> Gary Ledyard's point was different. QUOTE:
>> I'm pretty sure that the process of dropping ㄴ(and also ㄹ) did not
>> originate in Sino-Korean. Rather it must surely have started in
>> ordinary vernacular Korean speech.
> These are *both* interesting assumptions.
> As a convinced non-linguist, I am again intrigued by the question that
> this brings up about script, culture, and POSSIBLY even pre-modern and
> modern state formation. This last point is, agreed, a quite a bold and
> ambitious hypothesis (depending on the answer to the above).
> To simplify the question:
> *If* Professor Ledyard is correct and this late Chosŏn period "trend"
> of dropping the initial ㄴ (and ㄹ) did not discriminate between pure
> Korean and Sino-Korean, given that the Chinese pronuciation of 年 (in
> THIS example) was/is nien in Chinese and that Koreans *emulated* that
> Chinese pronunciation by trying to get close (as they did with all
> other characters also) by pronouncing it more or less like nyŏn 년, and
> if in the later Chosŏn period they started to drop the initial n ㄴ,
> then is this not an indication of a "Koreanization" of Sino-Korean that
> comes exactly at the same period we see nationalization trends in art
> and literature? Pre-17th century painting styles, for example, are hard
> to differentiate from Chinese ones, but that changes in the later
> Chosŏn period, some styles take on a more distinctive Koreanness.
> As I said, this is a very bold assumption -- a thought I would
> appreciate to get your feedback on. So, before you raise your hands,
> this is indeed no more than a thought and a question by someone only
> interested in getting the tasty juice out of linguistics (while I
> happily leave the squeezed skin to you).
> Frank Hoffmann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Koreanstudies