Talk:꿈을

꿈을
Noun + particle. We're still down on these, right? -- Visviva 12:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We keep declined forms in other languages. I say keep. —Stephen 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But as I'm sure you know, nouns don't technically decline in Korean, any more than they do in Japanese; they simply take a range of particles. Just as English has no possessive case, Korean has no accusative case. -- Visviva 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete if I understand correctly that the particle attaches to a noun phrase or other nominal, and not necessarily to an individual noun. (Otherwise no vote: I see no obvious benefit to such entries, but no obvious harm in them, either, and am happy to let y'all sort it out at About Korean.) —Ruakh TALK 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Japanese, like Chinese, Thai, and Khmer, does not use word spaces, so it is debatable whether the postpositions and particles are suffixes or separate words. Most authorities treat them as separate words. In Korean, they are suffixes, exactly like the case endings in Turkish, Mongolian, and Finnish. If it were not for the traditional parsing of Japanese as noun+postposition, these Korean words would probably be considered noun cases. And while having terms such as 꿈을 does no harm, on the other hand they are useful because they yield a useful result when you search for them. If you don’t know Korean and search for 꿈을, and if the only entries are for 꿈 and 을, you would not know what the word meant. —Stephen 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This last is a valid point; I've been vaguely thinking that we should have a standard usage note (or sidebar, or something) that notes the more frequent (and semi-irregular) particles, so that the 꿈 entry would also appear prominently in searches for 꿈이, 꿈을, 꿈과, etc. On the one hand, AFAIK Korean grammarians are unanimous in regarding particles (조사) as separate words.  The standard South Korean orthography (한글맞춤법) specifically notes particles as an exception to the principle of words being separated by spaces.  Samuel Elmo Martin and others even write them as separate words; thus in Yale, this would be transliterated as kkwum ul.  So for us to treat something like 꿈을 as a word would be a serious exercise in OR.  On the other hand, our target audience cannot be assumed to be familiar with the finer points of Korean grammar, so a templated usage note seems to me like the best approach. -- Visviva 09:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. We treat Korean particles as separate words, consistent with standard Korean grammar, so this is just a multiple word phrase with no linguistic value beyond the sum of its parts.  Rod (A. Smith) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate you people. If it looks like a word it should be treated like a word. It's just mean to say "Oh sorry, technically it's not one word according to standard Korean grammar, come back to wiktionary after you've learned it". It's even worse than screwing people on English possessives, at least the 's gives a visual clue. Kappa 10:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's bad to be mean, but it's also bad to be wrong. Ideally we can find a way to be neither.  To this end, I've created  and added it to 꿈.  Does this address your concerns?
 * FWIW, I was once of the same opinion regarding the major Korean particles (see the early revisions of Template:ko-noun), but was eventually persuaded of the error of my ways. -- Visviva 10:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A search for 꿈을 only finds that page, it does not find the 꿈 page. The only way to get to 꿈 from "꿈을", if 꿈을 is deleted, is if you know enough about Korean and Korean grammar to try dropping the last syllable when searching. This puts Korean generally out of reach to most Americans. —Stephen 00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's my input. As someone who knows nothing about Korean, I have to say that the difference between 꿈을 and 꿈, or rather the lack thereof, is thoroughly confusing. When does one use a particle, and when not? How many particles are there, and how many attach to this word? (Abstain of course.) DAVilla 05:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kept for no clear consensus as Google gets more than 10 million hits when searching the compounds together.--Jusjih 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)