[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.
Aidan FC
Aidan  Foster-Carter 
Honorary Senior Research Fellow in  Sociology & Modern Korea,  Leeds 
University,  UK 
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 
nation-building  developments.


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).
>  Best,
> Frank
>  --------------------------------------
> Frank Hoffmann
>  http://koreanstudies.com

Frank  Hoffmann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20140311/1dfc1a9f/attachment.html>

More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list