User talk:Jisok

Welcome to Wiktionary
--Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jisok (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Korean translations
Hi,

Thanks for your contributions. Korean transliteration is now 99% automatic. You only need to provide it for rare cases like, otherwise just let templates do the job. Please see my changes to Korean translations at [[euphemism]]. If you really need to add hanja, perhaps it can be done in the brackets, not directly in "tr=", e.g. like this 완곡어법 (婉曲語法). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Automatic tr? I see. Wan-gog* seems overly hyphened in a translation section. '완곡한' is wangokan, not wangokhan.
 * I know many Korean/hanja translations are in that parens-after-parens style. And it looks odd to me, a dictionary user. Template:t is a tool for editors (with tr= for "whatever we put in the parenthesis"), and is just a substitute for  transl (additional infos, if any) . - Jisok (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I find the current Korean transliteration good and consistent. In any case, it's not a good idea to introduce individual transliteration scheme when other entries/translations are done differently and it's a waste of time, IMO. The hyphen in wan-gog... is important for distinguishing "ng-o" vs "n-go", two different pronunciations. You can discuss the methods with User:Wyang, the main developer of the Korean transliteration module. Perhaps "wan-gokhan" can be changed to "wan-gokan", I'm not so sure at the moment. Well, the tr= parameter is only for transliterations, not for alternative scripts or comments. BTW, with one can create new Korean entries easily, so the hanja forms can only be kept in entries for etymological reasons. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My edit is consistent with other entries in each page. You are viewing from an editor's perspective. To a user, it's strange with parens by parens.
 * And I don't get what you mean by individual transliteration scheme. I'm not inventing one. Are you saying about hyphenation? Hyphens are optional and no hyphen is default. I'd like to point out that a translation section is not for pronunciation (WT:ELE).
 * Lastly, do you mean that hanja of Sino-Korean is not required in an English translation section? If so, I'm OK. - Jisok (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying your edits are not consistent with your edits :) but you'll find that 99% of Korean entries use automatic transliterations (a bot has removed most manual transliterations in translations as well lately). Those that do not use standard templates are getting fixed. Entries should match translations from English.
 * Not sure what you me by "strange" but tr= is only used for one purpose and I'm having a Korean dictionary on my desk that has hanja in square brackets [ ]. No, it's not about pronunciation /ˈwa̠ːngo̞kʰa̠n/ but about consistent transliteration. I have just created (a simple entry, which needs expansion), which uses automatic transliteration. If you're not happy about the resulting transliteration, you can discuss it on Module talk:ko-translit but it's now being used by almost all entries. That's why I mentioned consistency. Besides, no single transliteration scheme is perfect and is liked by everybody but this module is a consensus.
 * Hanja is optional in English translation sections but tr= is not the right place for it. Pinging also . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Mr Anatoli T., I'm not saying my edit is consistent with mine. Mine is consistent with other editors' in a page. Wiktionary mainly uses one Korean transliteration and it's RR, isn't it? RR has optional hyphens, and it's consistent with and without hyphens: both wangokada and wan-gokada. Korean pronunciation should be given in each Korean entry. An English translation section is for quick and short look, and can have hyphen or not; and you call one right and the other wrong?
 * And if tr= is only for Latin transliteration, then it's time to change the param name (or drop out of the template entirely). - Jisok (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 완곡한 should be wangokhan (common) or wan-gokhan (rare). The Romanization Standard indicates that a noun should keep h of ㅎ. Currently, is acceptable but  isn’t. The latter must be japida. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. The mentioned rule only applies to nouns; it isn't applied to adjectives derived from nouns. (And actually, wangok (완곡 婉曲) is not a noun; it is not a word. Wangok is just the root of the adjective wangokada.) Jisok (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there is no explicite rule to keep morpheme boundaries (ex. before -hada) even though it seems natural, you may be right. As for 완곡, it apparently shows a nounness in 완곡법, 완곡 표현, etc. You cannot use 깨끗 of 깨끗하다 in that way. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Word roots often have that power to form new terms. The above rule is not confined to boundaries. E.g. a noun jiphap (집합) and its verb jipapada (집합하다) at odds. (Probably because of RR's mainly targeting proper names.) -Jisok (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If we strictly follow the rule of nouns vs. verbs, 집합하다 is jipapada while 집합 하다 will be jiphap hada. It is okay to ignore the morpheme boundary but it is odd enough to change the spelling of the radical. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The official rule says "발음상 혼동의 우려가 있을 때에는 음절 사이에 붙임표(-)를 쓸 수 있다." and gives four examples (중앙 Jung-ang, 반구대 Ban-gudae, 세운 Se-un, 해운대 Hae-undae), which is why the module generates "wan-gok" not "wangok". Module:ko-translit aims to be a pure transliteration module, i.e. a tool which predicts transliteration solely from spelling, assuming the absence of any semantic information. As a consequence it is slightly different from the official Revised Romanisation, as it is impossible to predict whether a word is semantically cheeon or not without a priori knowledge of its semantic information. Plus the han part in 완곡한 came from the verb root ha-. My interpretation of the "‘ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅂ, ㅈ’이 ‘ㅎ’과 합하여 거센소리로 소리 나는 경우" rule is that it applies to two circumstances: 1) when there is morphologically a -h- suffix (such as the passive suffix -hi-) in the inflecting word; and 2) when the inflecting word has a consonant stem ending in -h. Wyang (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rule 3-2 is an optional one; defaults are Jungang, Bangudae, &c with hyphened versions for the confused.
 * Rule 3-1's upper four items are some elaboration of Rule 1-1; they're parts of the general Korean pronunciation system, and aren't confined to morpheme boundaries. -Jisok (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We could use even more phonetic transliteration, such as Jisok uses, like merging kh, ph, th into k, p, t, etc., ignoring morpheme boundaries. Tuttle Learner's Korean Dictionary I have uses a much more phonetic form of RR but it ignores hyphenations too and shows gemination in transliterations. It even uses phonetic transliteration in phrases when words are linked to each other. In any case, as I said, there's no single transliteration system, which will suit EVERYONE but we should use the automatic transliteration wherever possible. Any disagreements should be dealt with not forced. (I'm not saying that Jisok forced his transliteration, it seems he/she didn't even know that the automatic transliteration exists.) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)