Talk:때문

Is there record of a dialectal form 땐? I have a friend from Busan who uses that form (IIRC). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can't find any record of this form (either in academic sources or online); it might be a mispronunciation of maybe? My relatives in Busan use .--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Query re: connection with JA tame
had an RFE for details, musing “Sounds similar to Japanese, but probably coincidence?”

I can't give anything definitive, but circumstantially, these seem unrelated.


 * 🇨🇬 appears in the oldest Japanese texts in the early 700s, first recorded in as,.
 * 🇨🇬 isn't recorded until 1880, over a millennium later.
 * Phonologically, the Japanese ending -məj and the Korean ending -mun are very difficult to reconcile.
 * 🇨🇬 has the archaic spelling . The initial  might be the genitive infix, suggesting that the etymon might be something like.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Revisiting this, is there any chance that the Korean etymon might have been a verb, and the final -n is the determiner ending? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The determiner ending -n does not allow particles such as -에, -으로 to be attached after, but we see instances of "때문에", "때문으로" around the same time 때문 is attested in its earliest form, in the late 19th century. Additionally, at that time, "...-ㄴ 때문" was more common than "...-기 때문", which also does not bode well with the verb origin theory.
 * I suspect it's a grammaticalized noun, similar to 바람 ("wind", later also "reason, because" in the construction "...-ㄴ 바람에"). However, exactly which noun it is is unclear to me. Chom.kwoy (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a simpler example for the use of 때문입니다
This is one of the examples on how to use the word 때문: 제가 베트남어를 공부하는 이유는 베트남이 동남아 국가들 중 가장 발전 가능성이 크다고 생각하기 때문입니다.

Such a long and complex sentence is probably useful only for people with good understanding of the Korean language, who most likely already know how to use that word in the first place. Fede.B.82 (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There are many other examples. If you have trouble following them, then maybe it's not worth even trying?
 * The beginning of the first example, starts with "because of work...".
 * The last example "... because I think ..." demonstrates a nominalized clause, as defined in the header.
 * You don't need to understand the full sentence but the usage. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is no clear downside to providing simpler examples. Examples help understand when definitions are not clear enough to the reader. Using a complex sentence as an example where the complexity is in a part of the sentence that is not related to the word in question is unnecessary and counterproductive.
 * Your statement "If you have trouble following them, then maybe it's not worth even trying?" is inappropriate, to say the least.
 * I'm providing feedback as a Korean learner with beginner skills. I don't think anyone should be recommended not to use wiktionary because of their language skills. Feedback should be embraced, since that's what makes content better. And definitely vanity should be set aside. Fede.B.82 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am a learner myself in many instances. It certainly makes sense not to make usage examples too long but it's unfair to ask for even a simpler usage example on an entry with FOUR of them and each sentence is heavily hyperlinked. You clearly misunderstand the purpose of usage examples. Can't you take the relevant portion of a sentence and analyse it? Wiktionary is not only providing words but also patterns/constructs and particles. It is an effort on you. I already gave you hints above on what parts are relevant to demonstrate both the senses and usage. In this case a simpler example is just shorter, no-one will appreciate shortening already simple sentences to "because of that" or "because I believe". Your feedback would be more constructive if you said, this or that word/pattern/particle doesn't have an entry.
 * The Korean grammar is not easy at all, especially for an absolute beginner. I would recommend a book - Tuttle's Learner's Korean-English Dictionary but sentences there would be even harder with no hyperlinks. Try a simpler textbook first, such as "Talk to me in Korean", "Integrated Korean" or "Sogang Korean". Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am indeed using books to learn Korean. I use "Korean Made Simple", and I also use content from "Talk to me in Korean". I will take your recommendations.
 * The only point I was making was about the sentence "제가 베트남어를 공부하는 이유는 베트남이 동남아 국가들 중 가장 발전 가능성이 크다고 생각하기 때문입니다". That is the only example that uses 때문 as the sentence's main verb. I just thought it was too long of a sentence for someone who has a basic Korean level. I thought people who don't know how to use the verb 때문입니다 likely have Korean skills such that the rest of the sentence will probably be confusing to them. Myself included. I understand people may disagree, it was just a suggestion based on my own experience. Fede.B.82 (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)