Korean hangul: a relatively useful 9gag image

[sirdanilot]

[linguoboy]

"Brook" as an example word for [ɯ]? Really?

[Whimemsz]

"Brook" as an example word for [ɯ]? Really?

That seems like the best English equivalent to me -- I mean, when you're trying to make the description as simple as possible. What would you suggest?

I dunno maybe I'm biased because my "/ʊ/" is barely rounded at all anyway.

[----]

"Brook" as an example word for [ɯ]? Really?

I pronounce that word with an unrounded vowel something like [ɯ].

I thought the explanation of doubled consonants was another problem. 'Stressing' isn't quite what's going on there from what my Korean friends have told me. But I suppose without using any linguistic terminology it's the best they could do.

Also it seems like they describe 애 and 에 as [æ] and [ɛ] respectively, while from every speaker I've heard it's [ɛ] and [e].

[linguoboy]

Also it seems like they describe 애 and 에 as [æ] and [ɛ] respectively, while from every speaker I've heard it's [ɛ] and [e].

Yeah, but there's no good way to get the average English speaker to say those vowels without having them end up as something like [ɛ] and [eɪ]. Moreover, most speakers I've met don't even distinguish them (a Gyeongsang feature which has spread to Seoul speech). The same speakers generally also merge ㅡ and ㅓ, so an alternative to using "brook" is to tell them /ʌ/ for both vowels.

[Rui]

They don't even go over how consonants change at the end of a syllable, except for ㅅ .

What about how ㅎ ㅈ ㅊ also become unreleased [t] syllable-finally? Or how stops become nasals before a nasal? etc.

Also, where in Korea is 시 pronounced "see"?

[linguoboy]

Also, where in Korea is 시 pronounced "see"?

I think some Hamgyeong varieties lack palatalisation. (Admittedly, not a dialect you'll run into much.)

[Nooj]

They don't even go over how consonants change at the end of a syllable, except for ㅅ .

I knew it wasn't going to be pretty when the guy said that 'they always sound the same'.

[Skomakar'n]

After this picture, the Korean alphabet is still just as stupid to me (stupid for an alphabet consciously intended to be simple). They seriously still have to be remembered like pictographic representations of each kind of combined syllable, like Japanese kana, to be read fluidly, even though the system behind makes them easier to remember or figure out when stumped.

[Shm Jay]

Is that posted from somewhere else, or is it original to that 9gag site?

[finlay]

After this picture, the Korean alphabet is still just as stupid to me (stupid for an alphabet consciously intended to be simple). They seriously still have to be remembered like pictographic representations of each kind of combined syllable, like Japanese kana, to be read fluidly, even though the system behind makes them easier to remember or figure out when stumped.

That's a ridiculous opposition to have... we do exactly the same thing with the Roman alphabet. We're just not conscious of it... but we most certainly remember words as units and don't read every letter.

I'd say this is a decent groundwork for Korean; the other oddities in the script can be smoothed over if one tries to learn more about the language. And I'd point out that the transcription of Batman on Wikipedia is 배트맨 – yeah, it's not the same as the one this guy gave, but it uses the same vowel.

[Skomakar'n]

After this picture, the Korean alphabet is still just as stupid to me (stupid for an alphabet consciously intended to be simple). They seriously still have to be remembered like pictographic representations of each kind of combined syllable, like Japanese kana, to be read fluidly, even though the system behind makes them easier to remember or figure out when stumped.

That's a ridiculous opposition to have... we do exactly the same thing with the Roman alphabet. We're just not conscious of it... but we most certainly remember words as units and don't read every letter.

I'd say this is a decent groundwork for Korean; the other oddities in the script can be smoothed over if one tries to learn more about the language. And I'd point out that the transcription of Batman on Wikipedia is 배트맨 – yeah, it's not the same as the one this guy gave, but it uses the same vowel.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's a bad script or that it's not good for Korean. I just think that it failed to reach it's design goal, if it was to make a very simple script. It's kind of simple, but it's not what it could have been.

[Gray Richardson]

Thanks for posting this! I had heard the Korean writing system was simple and well constructed; however, I had never had it explained to me before. But now I get it. The graphic is extremely helpful and the system is actually pretty cool! I think I really have learned to read it in about 15 minutes.

[Shihali]

Also it seems like they describe 애 and 에 as [æ] and [ɛ] respectively, while from every speaker I've heard it's [ɛ] and [e].

When did 애 and 에 raise to [ɛ] and [e]? I went back and looked at the FSI Basic Course from 1968, and it describes the vowels as [æ] and [ɛ]. It is entirely possible the authors are using a pronunciation that was archaic then, but I'd be surprised if they completely misheard the vowels.

Otherwise, the image seems to do what it set out to do, which is bring English-speakers from confusing hangul with Chinese to crudely sounding out hangul syllables in 15 minutes. That's not a lot of time left over to teach foreign sounds.

[zompist]

After this picture, the Korean alphabet is still just as stupid to me (stupid for an alphabet consciously intended to be simple). They seriously still have to be remembered like pictographic representations of each kind of combined syllable, like Japanese kana, to be read fluidly, even though the system behind makes them easier to remember or figure out when stumped.

Huh? That's absurd. You are never going to run into a hankul syllable you can't figure out-- it's an alphabet.

It's probably true that fluent readers will come to read the syllables as units-- but that's true of English words too. You don't sound out every word in a language you know well.

[Vuvuzela]

After this picture, the Korean alphabet is still just as stupid to me (stupid for an alphabet consciously intended to be simple). They seriously still have to be remembered like pictographic representations of each kind of combined syllable, like Japanese kana, to be read fluidly, even though the system behind makes them easier to remember or figure out when stumped.

The Roman alphabet is stupid. I mean, each series of letters must be remembered, like Japanese kana, to be read fluently, even though the system behind them makes them easier to figure out when stumped.

[----]

Also it seems like they describe 애 and 에 as [æ] and [ɛ] respectively, while from every speaker I've heard it's [ɛ] and [e].

When did 애 and 에 raise to [ɛ] and [e]? I went back and looked at the FSI Basic Course from 1968, and it describes the vowels as [æ] and [ɛ]. It is entirely possible the authors are using a pronunciation that was archaic then, but I'd be surprised if they completely misheard the vowels.

Well, it's probably relevant that all of the native speakers I talk to are around the age of 17 or 18. I'm guessing it must have been a pretty recent development.

[brandrinn]

About 애 and 에 :

Yes, they are merged and/or raised in many dialects, including most local varieties in and around Seoul. I still recommend learning them as /{/ and /E/, however, since it makes it easier to spell them correctly, and these are still the values used when transliterating English, and in many dialects they may still have these values in speech.

Of course this infographic is going to sound stupid to us, because we are language nerds, and the infographic tries deliberately to avoid linguistic precision that would make it even the slightest bit less accessible to a layman. The statement at the beginning, for example, that assures the reader that Hangeul is not ideographic sounds to us like the writer ensuring the audience that the world is not an egg on the back of a giant turtle. But you'd be amazed how many people come to Korea and refuse to try to learn the language because "I'll never remember all those characters." I'm not even joking.

So for all its faults, I think this image hits its target. It explains the basics of hangeul in a way that most people with no linguistic knowledge can not only understand, but use. The goal is to give practical knowledge that can immediately be useful, and it does that.

[Nooj]

and in many dialects they may still have these values in speech.

It'll make you sound very old-fashioned or dialectical though. Every Korean I've met and everyone in my family have merged those two vowels, right down to our grandparents.

[brandrinn]

and in many dialects they may still have these values in speech.

It'll make you sound very old-fashioned or dialectical though. Every Korean I've met and everyone in my family have mergedthose two vowels, right down to our grandparents.

Then you probably know that people from Pusan speak unintelligible moon language. The dialectal variation in Korean is huge.

[Nooj]

Then you probably know that people from Pusan speak unintelligible moon language.

My mum is from Busan. So her dialect isn't unintelligble, even to a heritage speaker like me. But in Gyeonsang-do, the vowels have merged...it's actually the reason why it's merged in Seoul.

[Torco]

lol 9gag for the win

After this picture, the Korean alphabet is still just as stupid to me (stupid for an alphabet consciously intended to be simple). They seriously still have to be remembered like pictographic representations of each kind of combined syllable, like Japanese kana, to be read fluidly, even though the system behind makes them easier to remember or figure out when stumped.

I'd argue that all scripts require the memorization of most common wordform as lexemes [?], that is, as an autonomous unit, in order to achieve proper fluecy. Hangul's advantage is that, like alphabets, unfamiliar words can be read, which makes learning easier.

[finlay]

lol 9gag for the win

After this picture, the Korean alphabet is still just as stupid to me (stupid for an alphabet consciously intended to be simple). They seriously still have to be remembered like pictographic representations of each kind of combined syllable, like Japanese kana, to be read fluidly, even though the system behind makes them easier to remember or figure out when stumped.

I'd argue that all scripts require the memorization of most common wordform as lexemes [?], that is, as an autonomous unit, in order to achieve proper fluecy. Hangul's advantage is that, as an alphabets, unfamiliar words can be read, which makes learning easier.

Logographies are this taken to its logical extreme...