Talk:eumhun

Competitive definitions
Reading the sound (eum) and meaning (hun) of a hanja together A lexicographical rather than practical pair of the semantical (hun) and the phonetical (eum). While the former is an implicit definition mostly in canonical native Korean, the latter is not only an explicit pronunciation or phoneme but also a somewhat crude sememe in itself.
 * The old
 * The new

--125.128.159.25 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The "old" is definitely better, since it is readable. The "new" is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". --EncycloPetey 16:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indubitably it is undoubtfully the older version that leaves little doubt about its undoubtfulness. Jcwf 16:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No hun but kun reading
Simply, no hun but kun reading!

The eum is not only phonetic
The eum is not only phonetic but also semantic in itself.

Dictionary definitions
See : Talk:음훈

Feedback

 * Multiple eumhun pairs for a hanja
 * See also: eum, hun


 * 1) The hanja or Han ideogram  is simply a Chinese word (though pronounced in a corrupt or dialectal way) that makes one or more senses like the words in any other natural language, hence one or more eumhun pairs per hanja.
 * 2) The "Eumhun" of, as shown in 穴, is unwittingly designed to display just a single (at best primary) sense. This is unnecessarily self-limiting, not to mention the meaninglessness of the mere Sino-Korean pair without relating to the English equivalent.
 * 3) Therefore, this "Eumhun" part should better be disabled as soon as possible so as to encourage listing multiple eumhun pairs, each relating to each English definition, as suggested in 穴, as seen in most Sino-Korean lexicons, 옥편.
 * 4) The resulting well-done Sino-Korean-English semantic web is three times thicker than the single Sino-English web, you see.


 * You could use, you know. Not that I would especially recommend it, since the definitive status of an eumhun reading drops off quickly as one moves away from the core lexicon, and most of the finer-grained readings are simply invented by individual dictionaries -- that is, they are not materially different from definitions, and thus copying them en masse would violate copyright.  But that template could be used, in the few cases where it might be wise to do so. -- Visviva 07:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Visviva, I may not be smart enough to understand what you are talking about.

By applying the template somewhat like this: I get:

What is this at all? It is even worse than, if not a joke, to apply or adapt it to the definition of multiple senses as follows (no worry about copyright! or so given at least):


 * 1) (구멍 혈, gumeong-hyeol): hole, hollow
 * 2) (구덩이 혈, gudeong'i-hyeol):  pit, ditch
 * 3) (굴 혈, gul-hyeol): cave, cavern, cavity; den, burrow, sett
 * 4) (움 혈, um-hyeol): dugout


 * Please show up your way below.


 * Sure, like so:




 * But in the vast majority of cases it would be far better to just put the most prominent eumhun in the inflection line and use normal definitions otherwise. The only real reason to have the eumhun is when it is used to identify the character as such.  It is easy to compare  (7710 hits) with  (47 hits), and see that the secondary readings are seldom used to refer to the character.  A little more looking shows that  (41400) hits is even more common (with almost all hits being in reference to this character).  Thus, if a non-native speaker of Korean needs to describe this character in Korean, there is no doubt that "굴 혈" is the best choice.


 * And we just define it like anything else on Wiktionary:


 * hole, hollow
 * pit, ditch
 * cave, cavern
 * dugout

I will grant you, is pretty awful. I've always hated using it. But I think the solution is to make it smaller, not bigger. -- Visviva 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)