Talk:배꼽

Problem in your transliteration
In here https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/예일_로마자_표기법, 한글 자모로 번역할 때 혼동이 있을 수 있는 경우 구두점을 붙여 앞의 글자와 뒤의 글자 사이의 경계를 구분한다. 소리가 바뀌는 현상을 표시하기 위해서도 사용한다. nulk.un : 늙은 kath.i : 같이(가치)

늙 is a one word, so period is placed after nulk. Also 같 is a one word, so period is placed after 같. The same applies to ᄇᆡᆺ복. The period is placed after ᄇᆡᆺ, not ᄇᆡ.

Hence, your edit of adding period after poy, not poys, is an error. Please check. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be poys.pwok, not poy.spwok. Thank you for correcting these. You can correct these minor typing mistakes without informing me. The dot is meant to differentiate between ᄇᆡᄲᅮᆨ and ᄇᆡᆺ복. KevinUp (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, ᄇᆡᄲᅮᆨ and ᄇᆡᆺ복 are different ancestral words of 배꼽. However, you told me to list the oldest etymology, so that's what I did. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%8B%A0&oldid=54280525


 * ᄇᆡᆺ복 is the "first" attested form(1459) while ᄇᆡᄲᅮᆨ is the later form which was attested in 1608 in 언두 상:50ㄴ. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've updated the entry. I mentioned "only list the earliest date", not "only list the oldest etymology". So, if it has a different spelling at a later date, you may add it to the etymology. The correct order for native Korean words is Korean (1900-present) > Modern Korean (1600-1900) > Middle Korean (900-1600) > Old Korean (0-900 AD) > Proto-Korean. KevinUp (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By "only list the earliest date" I meant that if the term has multiple attestations with the same spelling from the same time period, only the earliest date is necessary. Also, if the spelling remains unchanged such as 신, there is no need to use . KevinUp (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I know that. What I pointed out was that the distinction between Middle and Modern Korean is not clear and varies depending on scholars and since ᄇᆡᄲᅮᆨ displays forms frequently found in Middle Korean, it is wrong to put it in front of ᄇᆡᆺ복. One of the main characteristic of Modern Korean is the loss of  and ᄇᆡᆺ복 obviously contains 아레아 at the bottom and hence cannot be seen as Modern Korean. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the distinction between the period of the two languages is one that is debatable. If I'm not mistaken, usage of in written works persisted after the 16th century even though the sound has been merged into either  or  because it was not officially abolished until  was announced in 1933. See File:The letter of King Sukjong.djvu for example, which is displayed on the Korean Wikipedia page for Middle Korean . Note that King Sukjong of Joseon reigned from 1674 to 1720, but  is still used in the letter. The continued usage of  in works written after the 16th century is analogous to the continued usage of  and  in 21st century Korean (the sounds of these two syllables are not distinguished by most speakers, but are distinguished in written form). Perhaps it is not a good idea to use  as a cut-off point between Modern Korean and Middle Korean, because it is still used in works such as  (是日也放聲大哭) published in 1905. KevinUp (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * According to, the phonetic value of started to disappear after the 17th century. https://www.korean.go.kr/front/onlineQna/onlineQnaView.do?&mn_id=&qna_seq=11773&pageIndex=13251 One of the articles that I read explained that the main difference between the Middle Korean and Modern Korean is the loss of , which appears to be inaccurate information. http://blog.daum.net/_blog/BlogTypeView.do?blogid=0EMgu&articleno=10186259


 * Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the distinction between the period of the Middle Korean and Modern Korean is obscure and therefore ᄇᆡᆺ복 should be placed in ahead of ᄇᆡᄲᅮᆨ in a chronological order as you did in this edit: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%8F%98%EB%8B%A4&oldid=54314135 B2V22BHARAT (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the phonetic value of started to disappear after the 17th century but no one knows exactly when it disappeared completely from speech. Written forms of Korean may preserve older spellings that do not reflect the actual phonetics of contemporary speech, so it is not easy to determine whether a text is Middle Korean or Modern Korean using that criteria.
 * For now, the order of words doesn't really matter. If you noticed that a particular spelling is used more often in Middle Korean compared to other spellings, then it can be listed first. KevinUp (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not an expert in this field, so I will humbly reference this site when putting etymologies of Korean words. https://dict.naver.com/ Also, I think that it is important to align the ancestral words in a chronological order so that people can see how words have evolved throughout time, as you can see in the historical information header at the bottom of this page. https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/718ea659bd914b6088d7be7c37072561 Please check that the etymology is separated by each century and listed in chronological order. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem in your edit
First of all, see https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%8F%98%EB%8B%A4&oldid=54187944 where you have listed the old order first. Next, the distinction between the Middle Korean and Modern Korean varies depending on scholars.

For instance, see <김석득(1983) 우리말 연구사>.

1. 조선조 국어학 - 1446년 훈민정음 해례가 나온 때부터 갑오경장(1894)까지

2. 근대 국어학 - 갑오경장(1894)으로부터 1950년까지

3. 현대 국어학 - 1950년부터 1980년 현재까지

Also, some scholars even divide the Middle Korean into early and late period. See https://www.happycampus.com/report-doc/5050696/ B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * For, I would like to point out that it is not uncommon for Middle varieties of other languages such as Middle Mongolian, Middle Persian, Middle Chinese, Middle French, Middle English, etc to have multiple spellings for the same word. For example, light has alternative spellings while the Chinese character  also has many different forms. So for the etymology of , there is no guideline whether the oldest spelling in Middle Korean or the earliest spelling in Middle Korean should be listed first. Usually, the spelling that is used most frequently would be listed first while other forms would be considered as "alternative forms". However, works written in Middle Korean are scarce, which complicates the situation. Perhaps  from 1465 is a misspelling of  from 1447, rather than a sound change, which is why I think  should be eliminated entirely to avoid confusing other readers. The usage of  is experimental. What do you think?
 * The distinction between the timeline of Middle Korean and Modern Korean is debatable so I'm not going to comment whether "ᄇᆡ 턍만ᄒᆞ고 귀 소개 돋고 ᄇᆡᄲᅩᆨ 소개 돋고 갈증과 즈츼기 긋디 아니코" from 언두 (1608) is written in Middle Korean or Modern Korean because I am not an expert on this matter. As explained above, usage of is not ideal to determine whether a work is written in Middle Korean or Modern Korean. Yes, Middle Korean can be divided into Early Middle Korean and Late Middle Korean. For example,  (鷄林類事) is a transcription of Early Middle Korean while other works published after the invention of Hangeul is written in Late Middle Korean. I think there is a need for etymology language codes for Early Middle Korean, Late Middle Korean as well as Modern Korean for proper documentation and categorization. KevinUp (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a historical information of the Korean word at the bottom of this page https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/718ea659bd914b6088d7be7c37072561. It appears to be written by Korean language experts. I think we can refer to this site when adding etymology of Korean words.


 * Also, note that Middle Korean and Modern Korean is not distinguished when explaining the transformation of the Korean words at the bottom: https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/718ea659bd914b6088d7be7c37072561 Maybe it's not that important issue, since the spelling or sound change was a common phenomenon at that time.


 * I agree with your idea that using can sometimes emit error and should be cautious when using it. After all, we do not know the exact publication date of some works, such as  (飜譯朴通事). B2V22BHARAT (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a good site. We could refer to it. KevinUp (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because written forms of Korean don't always reflect existing sound changes, other criteria will be needed to decide whether a text is in Middle Korean or Modern Korean. Perhaps the cut-off year could be extended to 1700 (beginning of 18th century) for less ambiguity. KevinUp (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe deciding the cut-off year itself could be a controversial issue since as you have pointed out, is even found in  which was published as late as 1905/11/20. I think we should use the Middle Korean template for all the words that exhibit Middle Korean traits, such as, , ,  and . What do you think? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be a good idea. Also, I will be removing from etymologies because it is supposed to be used for definition lines such as the entry for 양반, not for etymologies. KevinUp (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Could this template be used for English word heart and Ancient Greek word κῆρ then, which originally meant heart as in one's mind sense, not organ that pumps blood into the body? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am not familiar with English and Ancient Greek etymologies. You'll have to ask someone else. KevinUp (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. That's fine. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)