Talk:김

Transliteration

 * Hi all. Is there a way to introduce spaces, which are only used for transliteration purposes. We recently agreed on removing hyphens, so not sure if it's really a good idea. Anyway, should surnames, as in have a space between the surnames and the first names i.e. "Gim Jeong-eun"? I really hope Frank will be back with us! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * should work. It is better if there is no other option. Who is Frank, by the way? — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * T AKASUGI Shinji: Thanks, Shinji. The problem is with this approach is that the Korean text has a space, where it shouldn't. Frank is User:Wyang. He got very upset at the layout of WT:FW at some point and the way discussion went at Beer_parlour/2018/July and deleted his user page and user talk. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Various theories on pronunciation shift + origin of surname
Original version added by B2V22BHARAT‎:

Edited version by KevinUp with additional citations:

Additional comment: There is only one reading in Middle Chinese for  which has the exact same pronunciation as   in Middle Chinese. It can be observed that some regions use /kim/ for both and. KevinUp (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: So you just put the rebuttal to one of my hypothesis. Don't move it to the talk page. Just add the rebuttal in the below. It doesn't mean that rebuttal is right. Hypothesis is hypothesis and rebuttal is rebuttal. They are both opinions. 今 and 金 are unrelated; they are just pronounced in the same way as many other Chinese characters do. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No, of course 金 and 今 are not related at all. I'm only pointing out that both characters originally had the same pronunciation in Middle Chinese (reconstructed as or ), and that various Chinese dialects have these characters pronounced with the /i/ vowel. KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * By the way, it is probably not a good idea to add our own theories or hypotheses, which is why I moved these theories to the talk page here. Another reason is because the statement “silver is called in the northern barbarian dialect” has not yet been proven true by modern linguists — see Mongolian  for the modern word.

It's not my own theory or hypothesis. I'm just following what other editors have done in wiktionary in the past. Many editors including you have put a hypothesis in etymology section, saying "Perhaps related to~", etc. So that's what I did. I'm not putting my own hypothesis. I'm amateur, however I read various materials from youtube, 나무위키, google, naver, etc to create big data in my head. By the way, the phrase of mongolian silver was suggested by scholars, not me: https://blog.naver.com/dan11/220933897569 This hypothesis was made by 최채기, he is 한국고전번역원 수석연구위원. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are many bad edits on Wiktionary, particularly from edits before 2010, so it is not a good idea to follow what other editors have done. As a guideline for Korean entries, please consult entries that have already been edited by User:Wyang. Wyang has managed to clean up many Korean verb entries, but errors and bad formatting still exist on Korean nouns and single syllable Hangeul entries which have not been edited by Wyang before.


 * I know, but like you have mentioned before, there are very few Korean editors in wiktionary, and some of the information are so misleading that I could not just ignore them and pass by. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't recall ever adding something like "Perhaps related to" in my edits. So far, I've only added and  to Korean entries. I've also added  for cognates in European languages. Perhaps you are referring to edits done by other editors. Statements such as "Perhaps related to" is mostly applicable to languages that are part of a larger language family such as Category:Sino-Tibetan languages, Category:Indo-European languages but is not applicable for language isolates such as Korean or Japanese. Note that Category:Altaic languages was recently banned, so if you come across "possibly related to Turkic or Mongolian" in Korean entries, please remove these.


 * For etymologies, it is usually better to refer to etymological dictionaries that are widely used in academia, such as the "ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese" rather than using materials from YouTube, Google, Naver, etc.


 * I'm using only attested materials from Naver, Google, Youtube and 나무위키. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Websites such as Naver, Google, Youtube and 나무위키 can be used to find and add quotations. However, for etymologies, it is better to refer to printed publications. Here is a list of Korean etymological dictionaries prepared by Wyang in 2016: About Korean/references. KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know the suggestion "Mongol = silver" was suggested by 최채기 who is an expert in his field, but it's still a hypothesis. It is better to add well-established facts that have been verified by more than one scholar to the etymological section. Nevertheless, some findings may be flawed, as I've pointed out below based on citations from and . This is why the talk page exists for editors to discuss whether such theories can be included in the main entry. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, I was not able to find any literary work with the title 黃氏《閑中錄》 which was cited by, but I found a similar statement in Wikisource Chinese: by . KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comparing the two citations:
 * (Joseon, 18th century) → 黃氏《閑中錄》云：「北狄稱銀曰蒙古. 元之先國號蒙古，如淸之先國號金也. 」
 * (Ming dynasty, 16th century) → 黃溥著《閒中今古編》云：「北狄稱銀曰蒙古，胡元之先，國號蒙古者，因女真號國曰金，乃以銀號其國也. 」
 * It seems that (18th century) has slightly altered the original sentence to highlight the fact that the ancestors of the Qing dynasty  named their country as . Note that the Qing dynasty did not exist during the time of  in the 16th century. Unfortunately, the original work 《閒中今古錄》 by  in 1499 seems to be lost. Excerpts from the original work can be found in  but this does not contain the Mongol quote. KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

So don't put too much effort in relating 金 with 今. 김씨(Surname Kim) has been 金 from the beginning and will be in the future. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The table above compares only the pronunciation of and  across various Sinitic dialects. I did not state that both characters are related or etymologically related. Both characters are actually homophones of one another. KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. But it kinda implied so. I hoped you can clarify sentences more in the future. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is important to note, as I did in wikipedia page of 김, why 김 is pronounced as 김, not 금. So please move it back to the etymology section of proper noun(surname) Kim(김). B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that the material discussing possible theories on the origin/pronunciation shift of the surname is more of an encyclopedic nature and would be more appropriate for Wikipedia. Etymologies on Wiktionary are usually more concise and consist of statements such as "derived from language X" or "first attested in work Y".
 * I think that usage notes is mostly used to described how a word is used in a particular language and not used to elaborate possible theories about changes in pronunciation. I think this would be more appropriate as a usage note: KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"The hanja has two readings, and . The reading  is related to the sense 'gold; metal; money' while  is only used as a proper noun."


 * Oh I agree with your statement. But I think I saw someone explaining etymologies in the usage note before. Again, I'm only mimicking what other editors have done in here. Do you want actual link? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is probably one of those badly formatted entries that have not been cleaned up. For future reference, please refer to Korean entries that have already been edited by User:Wyang from 2015 onwards and don't mimic the format of entries that were edited by User:KYP--k (name omitted) from 2012 and earlier. If possible, please provide the link to the entry that has some etymology written in the usage notes. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Also regarding User:KYP--k, I don't think it's righteous to condemn the past users who don't contribute to wiktionary anymore. I think a true leader should be the one who can embrace every people for their conduct. Also, I already saw 3 times you mentioning past users, like KYP--rk already. And it's uncomfortable to keep seeing it. Please refrain from mentioning past users who have made mistakes. Because you KevinUp, were also once a beginner,too. Because to me, it kinds makes me feel that you're going to talk about me in a bad way, too in the future.. Please stop doing this.. Again, true leader should be the one who can embrace someone's fault in a kind way like you did in my talk page. I think you're a very talented user, but please don't talk behind people's backs anymore. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * To me, it looks like User:KYP--K was trying to contribute to Korean wiktionary page in a good motives, but since there were very few Korean editors, this lack of competition made him to behave in a sort of monopolistic way. I don't know about him, but it's not a good idea to talk about other editors who made mistakes in the past. And of course, I understand that there are many bad-edited pages across wiktionary, but still pointing particular person't nickname is not a good idea and makes someone(like me) uncomfortable to watch.. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh by the way, your comment on 今 and 金 is interesting, because they are both pronounced and written as 금 in Korea, but you're saying that they are pronounced and written as Kim in Hakka and Minnan. I think the second etymology written by 권인한 is then, more closer to the answer. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * (Researches on Manchu Origins, ) has a compelling theory on the origin of the surname :
 * Regarding the origin of the Jin dynasty, the Kangxi Dictionary (compiled during the Qing dynasty) has the following quotation under the entry for : “《金史·太祖紀》國有金，水源產金，故號大金. ” (Translation: The country has gold. The water source produces gold. Hence the title "Great Jin"). However, I could not find this quotation in its original source, the History of Jin.
 * Note that the quotations above contain my own translations. Literary Chinese texts does not contain any punctuation, so interpretations may vary. KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the quotations above contain my own translations. Literary Chinese texts does not contain any punctuation, so interpretations may vary. KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As 이 page was left with false orders (mixed etymology) for more than decades, no one stepped in to even touch it or correct it. It is important for someone like me to revise and correct the false information. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%9D%B4&diff=52370089&oldid=52370040 Cheers. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for revising and correcting the information. However, I don't think it is a good idea to change the order of the etymologies because some editors use  to make things clearer. Whenever possible, try not to rearrange the order of etymologies. I would prefer for the etymologies containing "Korean readings of Chinese characters" to be placed as the last etymology of single syllable Hangeul entries because many of these characters are not actually used in the Korean language. KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

이 page, before I edited, was mixed with wrong etymologies. 이 are combined notes of 니,리,and 이 in South Korea, so it should have been separated into different etymologies. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%9D%B4&diff=52370089&oldid=52370040 So for 이 page, order is extremely important because 이(this, number 2 and various words starting with '이'), 리(李 and various words starting with '리') and 니(tooth, various words starting with 니), although they are now written as '이', each have completely different origin(etymologies) with one another. So someone(like me) has to arrange orders properly in a way like this: 이/이/이/리/리/리/니/니/니... not 니/이/리/리/이/니/니/이/이..(This is very henious action). B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, not a good idea to rearrange the order of etymologies because some editors use  and it will cause some problems if the order is changed. Most Korean dictionaries have etymologies prioritized based on words that are more commonly encountered. I think we should use the same convention here because readers who don't know any Korean would probably want to look for the "teeth" sense, which is the most common native Korean sense at the top of the page.
 * Looking at the May 2011 version of, I can see that the entry only had six etymologies at that time. I don't think there is a need to change the order of the etymologies. The important thing is to state whether the particular sense of was originally derived from  or . In English, there are many homographs such as  but editors usually list the more common definitions first. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I know what you're saying, but pure '이'(which has been 이 from the beginning) and transferred '이'(which has been from 1933) are different, right?(Just like Harvard freshman and transferred Harvard undergraduates are different) Wouldn't it be right for '이' to be placed in front of 리 and 니, since this is a 이 page? Also mixing 이,니 and 리 is also a bad idea since each etymology is different from one another.B2V22BHARAT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page of, for single syllable Hangeul entries, I would prefer to see native Korean words first, followed by Sino-Korean words, and finally "Korean readings of Chinese characters". And of course, pure will be listed first before  that is modified from  and . So I suggest the following order:
 * Native Korean that is original
 * Native Korean that is modified from
 * Native Korean that is modified from
 * Sino-Korean that is original
 * Sino-Korean that is modified from
 * Sino-Korean that is modified from
 * Literary Chinese readings of that is original
 * Literary Chinese readings of that is modified from
 * Literary Chinese readings of that is modified from
 * What do you think? There is a lot of cleanup for single syllable Hangeul entries which will take some time to edit. I think is not that mixed because the etymologies have already been separated. A mixed etymology is something like this which confuses the hanja for  with  (I have already corrected it). KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this order is better since this is a page.
 * Native Korean that is original
 * Sino-Korean that is original
 * Literary Chinese readings of that is original
 * Native Korean that is modified from
 * Sino-Korean that is modified from
 * Literary Chinese readings of that is modified from
 * Native Korean that is modified from
 * Sino-Korean that is modified from
 * Literary Chinese readings of that is modified from


 * The etymology order of and  can be reversed, but we should leave original  in the first place, since this is a  page, not  or  page. For  and  page, I think we can leave it as it is because nobody wants to transfer to  and . B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your opinion. I think you have a valid reason for wanting to list original before modified  or modified . Since you mentioned transferring  and, I would like to propose another solution.
 * In Wiktionary, it is considered bad practice to have the same information duplicated across different entries due to minor variations in spelling variations, e.g. compare and . The standard practice is to have only one form as the main entry.
 * For example, in Chinese, there are two different writing systems. Mainland China uses Simplified Chinese characters from 1956 onwards while Taiwan/Hong Kong/Macau still use Traditional Chinese characters.
 * To prevent duplication of the same etymology, definition and other information, the template is used to redirect the simplified forms back to their traditional forms (see 马 for example). Japanese also has a similar template,  to redirect hiragana forms of Sino-Japanese words to kanji forms which is considered the main form.
 * I think a similar template, can also be created for Korean entries affected by . However, editors will have to decide which spelling is going to be considered the main form. If the original pre-1933 spelling is preferred, then  will be redirected to . Note that this will also affect many common words in South Korea such as  which will need to be redirected to its pre-1933 form,.
 * Because this is a major change, it will require the community to vote on this matter. I'll take a neutral stance since I am the person that first suggested this. By the way, I'm not good with Lua modules so other programmers will have to create . KevinUp (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I'm not saying that we should move all the words that have been affected by to pre-1933 spelling. What I'm trying to say is that we should maintain the current format, but just change the order of etymology. To be specific, I think words that have been used consistently for a long time are different from words that have suddenly gone through consonant shift and have been incorporated into  since 1933, like surname Lee(李). In fact, 1933 is an important year because the language of the South and North Korea is completely divided into two in this year. Therefore, it is important to align the pure words at the top, which are common in both North and South Korea. Because pure words are used in the same way in North Korea. I hope you can catch what I'm tring to say.(sorry if my English is bad) In this way, readers can know the history of a certain word(like a financial statement). It's just changing the order of etymology to reflect the original meaning and nature of a word while keeping the current format. I'm afraid that mixing the order of etymology might distort the common meaning in both North and South Korea. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, affects mainly the spelling of Sino-Korean words. Although some native Korean words such as  underwent a shift from  to, this phenomenon is closely related to  but is not directly caused by it. In some compound words such as , North Korea uses the spelling  instead and this cannot be explained by . KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, can be explained by . According to the  published in 1920, which was Japanese colonial period, tooth  is shown to have two spellings,  and . This was not the case in  which was published in 1890. In  published in 1890,  is shown to have only one spelling: . This is the same for  which was published in 1880. Therefore, we can suspect that shift(or drop) of consonant value from  to  was caused by Japanese colonial period(1910~1945) and both North and South Korea might have adopted the spelling of  as the meaning of tooth after emancipation. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * So although as the meaning of tooth was not directly caused by, it was the reason why  was established. It is assumed that people's pronunciation changed during the Japanese colonial period. Therefore,  should be regarded as a reflection of the phonetic changes that occurred during the Japanese colonial period and tooth is one of them. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * was made in order to make pronunciation sound smoothly. For teeth(니), Can you find historical quotes that used 이, instead of 니, before 1933? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to historical Korean dictionaries or historical Korean newspapers, but if you can upload images of historical publications to Wikimedia Commons which show teeth being spelled as from 1900-1933, that will be useful as a primary source. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * affected mainly the spelling of Sino-Korean words and "surname" . I understand the tooth part, it is true that some pure Korean words underwent consonat shift for the ease of pronunciation, but that is natural phenomeon which has been happening from the past, unlike which artificially modified the common phoneme of words among Chinese, Japanese and Korean. For example, . Japanese:"L"en ai, Chinese: "L"ian ai, Korea: "Y"eon ae. I can't give you definite answer for  as a tooth part. We need to thoroughly investigate all the materials and go through the historical usage of  as a tooth and see what has happened. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * One possible theory is that tooth as already went consonant shift before 1933, when  was established. We need to know the exact year, because  has been attested in the Dongnip sinmun 獨立新聞 (Independence Newspaper) as  in 1896. But  later changed to  in 1933 when  was established. Or it might be the case that tooth as  was caused by  and when North Korea abolished this rule in 1948, they didn't revived the original phoneme of . The third possibility is that there has been mixed usage of  and  as meaning of tooth, so people were uncertain of spelling. South Korea made the spelling solid in 1933 and North Korea in 1948, so it depended on each of two countries' decision. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

For the first etymology, I advise you to put it in the etymology section, because it might be true. Along with your rebuttal. I have revived the second etymology because you seem to be agreeing with it. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I see that you have restored the usage notes to the main entry. Thank you very much for doing so. Just a quick reminder, please use for Korean quotations in Literary Chinese or  for Chinese quotations (the translation is optional). This is because  has automatic output in Simplified Chinese and transliteration using Pinyin which is more appropriate for Chinese entries. Generally, it is not considered good practice to borrow language-specific templates for other languages. KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also KevinUp, you highlighted this phrase, 此說恐非, which is translated into English as "Not true." right? However, all the wiktionary and wikipedia editors are required to be in neutral position. So highlighting this phrase which can put a weight on another side of opinion can be criticized. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's highlighted only here on the talk page so that other editors may openly discuss this 16th century statement. This statement has not been added to the usage notes previously, but thank you for adding it to the main entry without the highlighted statement. means "this theory is feared to be incorrect". KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The answer might be both. The shift in Chinese consonants might have been influenced by the Jin dynasty or Mongolia. So the answer can be either shift in Chinese sounds or the external forces, just like Cambridge changed from River Granta by Norman or Viking. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a possible theory. The Khitans, Jurchens and Mongolians also affected the pronunciation of the northern Chinese dialect, which is why the pronunciation of modern Mandarin which is based on the Beijing dialect is different from other Chinese dialects such as Cantonese, Hakka, Min Nan, etc. This article (written in Chinese) describes the linguistic developments of the Chinese language across the centuries and phonological features that are still preserved in southern Chinese dialects. KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, be aware that Mongolian leader, Chinggis Khan, his surname is, or borjigit in English. Cheers. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This isn't directly related to the discussion on the Korean surname but thanks for the information. The Jurchens founded the  dynasty (1115–1234) while the Mongols founded the  dynasty (1271-1368). KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

TLDR : The material above contains various theories regarding the origin of the Korean surname. I think usage notes is about how to use a word and not about theories regarding surname origin or pronunciation changes. KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated note, should be removed? The sense "gold; metal; money" from Middle Chinese  is associated with  and not  in the Korean language. Are there any quotations in Middle Korean with  being used for the sense "gold; metal; money"? KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No. is only used as a surname, seaweed and vapor. And only  is used as a meaning for money or metal. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this whole discussion is about, but the 'silver' = 'Mongol' obviously stems from the confusion between and.
 * Also I'm against indiscriminately removing "Perhaps related to X", Altaic as reconstructed by Moscow school is bunk, but there is much we don't know about the history of these languages, and cognacy, through borrowing or even by genetic descent cannot be easily discounted. Crom daba (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out a possible confusion between and . In 1499, the Ming dynasty scholar  stated that "silver is called  by the ". It seems likely that the scholar may have confused  with  because of the similar sounds. KevinUp (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding, the removal of statements containing "Perhaps related to X" in Korean entries, most of these were added by a user who tends to make up his own etymologies. See this 2008 edit of which was later removed in June 2018. Cleanup of Korean entries with such statements is still ongoing. KevinUp (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Why do you guys think that scholars were confused between and ? I think that there's a possiblity that the name Mongol itself derived from, and it can be a possibility. You guys think that they were confused, right? However, I believe that the name Mongol derived from . It's just my thought. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * For example, Amercia derived from "Amerigo" Vespucci(surname). Britain dervied from Birttania? Korea derived from 고려(Goryeo). I think there's a big possibility that Mongol derived from . Also, although it might not be true, as "K"evin Up is arguing, it might be true. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If this theory turns out to be true, it means that silver beat gold and that is what this fuss is all about. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I found another scholar saying Mongol derived from 'silver': B2V22BHARAT (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Written by 彭大雅 of the Song Dynasty in 1237, the name Mongol derived from 'silver', which is Mongolia in Dali language.

Please compare with my original hypothesis:

Given the fact that people in different times, in different countries, left exactly the same records, I think it is very likely that the pronunciation of as a surname was changed from  to  because Goryeo served the Jin dynasty(Great Jin) as their great power. In other words, it was closely related with the naming taboo,. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Message to various senior editors regarding usage notes
Hi, would any of you be interested to check the usage notes of ? I think that the current material which discusses possible theories regarding the origin/pronunciation shift of the surname is more of an encyclopedic nature and would be more appropriate for Wikipedia.

I think that the statement below would be more appropriate as a usage note. Opinions are much welcomed. KevinUp (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC) "The hanja has two readings, and . The reading  is related to the sense 'gold; metal; money' while  is only used as a proper noun."


 * Perhaps it could be part of the Etymology section. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 22:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For Chinese surnames, we don't usually include this information. Wikipedia links are provided instead. KevinUp (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. Also calling . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Etymologies and historical sound changes must be explained in the etymology section, not in usage notes or Wikipedia. That said, I would rather remove the current explanation. You shouldn’t explain something in detail that is proven to be false. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, Takasugi Shinji, this hypothesis was not made by me; I'm amateur, I never bring statements that aren't backed up by scholars. https://blog.naver.com/dan11/220933897569 This hypothesis was made by 최채기, he is 한국고전번역원 수석연구위원. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I also think that the quotations from Yi Ik ( suggesting "silver = Mongol" is slightly flawed and should be discarded. The other statements quoted below can be moved to the etymology section, as suggested by Suzukaze-c:

"It is said that the pronunciation of as a surname was changed from to  because of the change in Chinese consonants. For more information, please refer to this link." "However, there is other theory explaining the shift of spelling from to as one of the naming taboo phenomenon during Goryeo's subjugation to the Jin dynasty."
 * By the way, it's a vowel shift, not a consonant shift. KevinUp (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oops. Yeah it's vowel shift. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I deleted the Usage notes section. Anything like that would belong in the etymology section- if it belonged anywhere.
 * @B2V22BHARAT: There are several problems with the content:
 * "It is said" is a classic example of weasel wording. It prompts the question: "who said?" (not to mention the question of how "the change in Chinese consonants" only affected the vowels and not the consonants). Referring English Wiktionary readers to a Korean-language document for that information is a very bad idea: this isn't Korean Wiktionary, so you can't expect readers to know Korean.
 * [Added later: Part 1 of improperly split comment- signature copied here for clarity]
 * Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Many other quotes(Chinese, Japanese) I encountered are made without proper English translations. Don't be too harsh on me only Chuck Entz. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Quotes without translations on Wiktionary are acceptable because not all of us are professional translators and historical quotes tend to be harder to translate. I think what Chuck was pointing out is that it is not so useful to provide links of academic works written entirely in Korean as readers that are not able to speak or read Korean will not be able to benefit from it. Of course, you may provide the link in your edit summary. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is true that I have written "It it said~", but Chuck Entz is implying like I have not put who the author is. That's not true. I have put who the author is. "According to Hwang's Han Joong-rok~ B2V22BHARAT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * When you say "it is said", you are implying that the person or persons saying it are different than those you have identified. If you say "According to Hwang's Han Joong-rok~" followed by "it is said", the obvious implication is that Hwang is repeating what other people have said, and readers will have to go to the Korean language text to find out who those other people are. That's what I was objecting to. I have no problem with summarizing points made in a non-English text and linking to that text as a reference. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyway, the title "Han Joong-rok" (《閑中錄》 itself is problematic. There is another work with the exact same title known as the Memoirs of Lady Hyegyeong ( in Korean). Adding the quotation from "Han Joong-rok" to the usage notes would confuse readers even more. I did my own research and found that the actual title is 《閒中今古錄》 written by Ming dynasty scholar in 1499. However, the original work is lost and only some excerpts of it exist. KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a dictionary, and everything should be concise. Discussing in detail a disagreement between two scholars two centuries ago is not concise. Explaining theories based on trying to guess what people were thinking a thousand years ago in the absence of any evidence from that period is not only not concise, it's pointless. There's nothing in the isolated pieces of information that you've assembled to suggest that they have anything whatsoever to do with each other. It's like dumping random jigsaw-puzzle pieces from a box and expecting people to be impressed by the picture.
 * [Added later: Part 2 of improperly split comment. Signature copied here for clarity]
 * Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope. You're wrong Chuck Entz. You're wrong. This hypothesis was not suggested by me. It was suggested by 최채기. https://blog.naver.com/dan11/220933897569 Again Chuck Entz, I'm amateur, I never make guesses. I never do such stupid things like that. I watch various materials from youtube, google, naver before I put something in wiktionary. I only use "useful" materials. However, if it turns out to be garbage, I'm going to discard it. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is usually better to add well-established theories to the etymological section that has been verified by more than one scholar. For example, someone recently suggested that the Voynich manuscript is actually written in the "Proto-Romance language" The media was really excited about this, but this theory is actually flawed as pointed out here:  and  KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read the article here, you will think that this theory is correct because it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, if you read this Ars Technica post, you can see that this theory has been dismissed soon after the article has been published in the journal. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Compare the following two sentences:
 * The Voynich manuscript is written in the Proto-Romance language. See here for more information.
 * Cheshire (2019) asserts that the Voynich manuscript is written in the Proto-Romance language. However, this theory has been refuted by J.K. Petersen, founder of the Voynich Portal who has studied the manuscript extensively since 2013. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, I have diverged from the initial discussion on, but my main point is, wording and phrasing can alter the meaning of a sentence. Sentence one is not incorrect, it just does not give a complete description what is actually going on. Wikipedia also has a well written article regarding words to watch, so please read it when you have the time. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, that is a really good example. I got what you mean. But, as you can see in the ㅂ page, someone has put Gary Ledyard's theory of ㅂ in ㅂ's etymology, and nobody was tackling or anything so I thought the standard was not so strict. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the first time I've heard about Gari Ledyard's theory. Wikipedia has a detailed explanation of this theory at the page for Origin of Hangul. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Mongolian or the Phags-pa script so someone else will have to look into this. KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I never said that it was you that was "trying to guess what people were thinking a thousand years ago", though I can see that it looks like I did. My point was that the theories presented come across as idle guesswork. A professional linguist would first look for parallel situations to see if similar changes occurred in those cases, and there are other ways that such theories could be supported. As for explaining that they're not your theories: as the one presenting them, you make editorial choices as to which theories are presented, and how they're framed- the overall presentation is yours. There's nothing wrong with ""- just make sure that the shoulders you try to stand on aren't too far apart. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As a side note: referring to "the northern barbarian dialect" leads me to think you have no idea what you're talking about. A dialect is a subdivision of a language. What language? What is meant by "northern barbarian"? There are people here like who study languages in the area. We have entries in many of them. There's no need for vagueness like this.
 * [Added later: Part 3 of improperly split comment]
 * Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, that statement was not made by me. You also have no idea what I'm doing. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There better not be an edit war because of this. User:Chuck Entz is a senior editor that has been editing entries on Wiktionary since August 2010 and has over 115,000 edits. The quote literally means "the non-Han people living in northern China named silver as Mongol". There is no mention of a "northern barbarian dialect". KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not edit warring. I only elaborated what you wrote and put it back to usage note. But Chuck Entz reverted, saying that it should belong to etymology section, so I didn't touch it anymore. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Next to none of my edits are in Korean entries, except to revert vandalism and to deal with additions that are wrong due to bad formatting and other reasons that don't require knowledge of Korean. This is one of those. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's good to ask other editors to check on the formatting and sentence flow. Formatting is important to ensure consistency across all entries. I've pointed out some of these mistakes and I hope B2V22BHARAT will continue to improve. KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chuck, for the detailed explanation above. Yes indeed, everything should be concise because this is a dictionary. Another concern I have is regarding multiple first attestations. I think the Middle Korean attestation in 1447 is sufficient. I don't think it is necessary to mention another work from 1511.


 * I believe Suzukaze-c made "also~ attested by.." form. You know this Kevinup. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, Suzukaze-c and I were both cleaning up Middle Korean quotations added to the etymology section that were poorly formatted. See comparison here. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ko-etym-native&diff=prev&oldid=52653621 Don't you remember Suzukaze-c added "also~ format? I remember you told me to follow this format from next time. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * After checking the revision history, I found that the "also" parameter in was added by another editor in Sept 2016 but I haven't really seen anyone using it. I recommend using the etymology format in  because the Middle Korean quotations have different conjugated forms. However, I don't think it is a good idea to add additional first attestations for words that have the same spelling. KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons why Korean entries list out first attestations in the etymology section:
 * Korean is a language isolate. Besides the Jeju language, other Koreanic languages such as the Goguryeo language is now extinct, so it is not easy to reconstruct a Proto-Korean language.
 * Most native Korean words were not recorded before Hangeul was invented in 1446. Other systems such as the Idu script which uses hanja also existed, but the pronunciation or meaning is not easy to decipher.
 * Unlike Korean, other languages don't have these limitations, so the parent language or a reconstructed term would usually be included in the etymology section. KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One more thing, the cutoff point between Middle Korean and early modern Korean is somewhere around 16th/17th century, so some works added to such as 國韓會話 / 국한회화 (1895) may not be suitable as a "first attestation". KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's really a great point! I'm impressed by your knowledge. I also think that it's wrong to put "first attested by~ for 1895 records, but are there any alternatives?? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * By the way, the original quote mentions only the . It does not mention a language or dialect. KevinUp (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to deal with the situation of multiple first attestations. For this I'll have to refer to - Would you mind taking a look at ? That entry has six first attestations in Middle Korean from 1617 to 1883. I think there should only be one first attestation, but I'm not sure how to deal with the other Middle Korean quotations. Perhaps those can be moved to the citations namespace instead. KevinUp (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * TBH they should be moved to the Middle Korean entry (unless we take some sort of "unified" approach), but Category:Middle Korean lemmas is pretty darn empty. 🤷　—Suzukaze-c◇◇ 03:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like this page exists: Appendix:Middle Korean deleted entries (created from Middle Korean entries that were deleted due to a lack of citations). KevinUp (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that Hangul wasn't introduced until just before the end of the Middle Korean period, so only a small percentage of Middle Korean usage is in Hangul. For whatever reason, people aren't creating Middle Korean Hanja entries. Ideally, mainspace entries should be in the script they were attested in. We had someone who created lots and lots of of Goguryeo and Baekje entries in phonetic spellings that they got from a book about rather than in the languages. That would be like having Old Chinese lemmas in the notations of the various modern authors. They've been since deleted en masse, and their creator blocked after refusing to stop.
 * IMO we should create everything pre-Hangul as Hanja with readings in the pronunciation section, like we do for Old Chinese Hanzi entries. Do the academic references on Middle Korean give the Hanja spellings?
 * As for the attestations: the first attestation should be mentioned in the Etymology section, but the others should be either after the appropriate sense or in the citation section as quotes or quote-request templates- not mentions. Here again, massive chunks of disorganized content is being shoehorned into the wrong place, which looks bad and crowds out the content that's supposed to be there. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There are various pre-Hangeul systems such as the Idu script which uses hanja for notation, but the pronunciation and meaning of literary works using these systems are hard to decipher. These systems were abandoned after some time and Korean scholars continued to write using Literary Chinese instead. Even after Hangeul was invented, Literary Chinese continued to be used for official works such as historical records.
 * There are not many academic references on pre-Hangeul systems using hanja spellings. Old Japanese also has a syllabary system using Chinese characters known as Man'yōgana. Currently, Old Japanese quotations are placed within modern Japanese entries because some editors are in favor of a unified Japanese section. KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have created Citations:김 as a temporary fix for the additional first attestations. Regarding Middle Korean, we need an actual linguist who is familiar with the language to create such entries. I really don't like the idea of someone creating Middle Korean entries based on what is written in books or online websites. KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Korean words for hips: The part that attaches when you sit on chair is called '궁둥이' and is part of '볼기'. The upper part of 볼기 is called 엉덩이. 엉덩이 is a new term compared to 볼기 and 궁둥이 because 엉덩이 was first attested around late 19th century, I believe. Perhaps this link would help you: https://synapse.koreamed.org/Synapse/Data/PDFData/0107KJPA/kjpa-30-113.pdf B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Same with 발바닥. It's a combined form of 발(foot)+ 바닥(bottom). B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think of hips as 볼기 because 엉덩이 is not where it is touched when you sit down. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussions started by Kevinup should be moved to Talk:볼기 because this place deals with 김. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Discussions on talk pages sometimes diverge from the main topic. Back to the main topic, I think the 1447 attestation of in  is sufficient. The 1511 citation from  can be moved to the citations namespace instead.
 * The main reason why we have "also attested in ..." in Korean etymology is because Korean is an agglutinative language and verbs may have different conjugated forms. However, for nouns, I think the first attestation in Middle Korean is sufficient if the spelling is the same (the Middle Japanese quote in 김 does not count). I have not come across an English etymological dictionary that has multiple first attestations, e.g. first attested by Author A in 1500, also attested by Author B in 1600. In most dictionaries, only the earliest written record is mentioned, as well as subsequent modifications of the word. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have created Citations:김 as an example. I hope you can use this format as well. The additional first attestations in entries such as, can also be moved to their respective citations pages.
 * For, I have included the 1447 and 1511 quotations to the citations page but the 1447 quotation can still be kept in the main entry because the earlier 1301 quotation in Middle Japanese has a different spelling. KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The same goes with 발바닥. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how this discussion extended towards . KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it is important to note in the etymology section why 金 is pronounced 김 in surname. Chuck Entz eradicated the entire etymology part. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, there had better not be any edit warring because of this issue. Since Korean is a language isolate, pronunciation changes are harder to explain because the comparative method in linguistics cannot be applied here. The lack of quotations written in native Korean before Hangeul was invented in 1446 also makes things a lot more complicated. For Korean entries, I would like to see either, or first attestations in Middle Korean in the etymology section and nothing else. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't do edit warring.. I just elaborated what you wrote on talk page and put it back to usage note and after that Chuck Entz reverted it and that's it. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The theories regarding why is pronounced as  has already been included in this talk page, so other users can still refer to these theories if they are interested (click on the [ Expand ] button in the "Extended content" section at the beginning of this talk page). Also, please remember that Wiktionary is a dictionary, so encyclopedic statements such as theories and explanations of a certain concept ought to be included in Wikipedia instead. KevinUp (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we'd better put a link in the etymology section that goes directly to this talk page. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe the usual practice is to include (a concise and coherent version of) material like that of the usage note in the etymology section, but use a template to collapse it and mark it as something like "speculative theories about sound changes". That way, people won't have to wade through all of that unless they're interested.


 * While I'm at it: never put replies inside of another person's comment. It makes it look like they left a bunch of unsigned comments, or, worse, leaves it unclear as to whose comment it is and when it was written. For the record, I don't consider you to be a vandal or editing in bad faith. You just make some bad, but sincere decisions when it comes to how you approach things, especially as far as presentation. I'm guessing it's at least partly due to the added burden of working in a second language- though the complete lack of language-background information on your user page makes it hard to be sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean, but it is difficult to edit the usage page. If I know how to do this easily, I would. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, not a good idea to split somebody's comment. Anyway, I'm good with the current entry. I don't think there is a need to restore the previous usage notes to the etymology section. Readers who want to find out more about the 18th century theory can refer to this talk page instead. Also, we don't usually link talk pages to the main entry. KevinUp (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I see. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Or 금(Geum)---> 김(Gim) might have been affected by Chinese way of reading 金. In Chinese, 金 is Jin and vowel is i(out of a,e,i,o,u) so Chinese vowel(-i or ee) might have affected Korean way of reading 金(금(geum)-->김(G"i"m). B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)