User talk:KYPark/Korean false cognates

Korean "false cognates"
Talk:매다, Talk:띠앗, Talk:마니다 - When you say that these are "false cognates", you're indirectly saying that there could be possible cognates, which of course there is none because there's no genetic relationship between Korean and the listed IE languages, at least not in the time frame the lexemes you're listing were coined in actual speech (unless you want to promote your Indo-Altaic theory). So if you don't mind, I'll delete those, and I advise you not to create more of this kind --Ivan Štambuk 23:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ``So if you don't mind, I'll delete those....``


 * In response to what you said as quoted above, I say I do mind indeed. But you have deleted them already. So you have to get them back right away. I am annoyed by your word and deed that never match.


 * I have still another very good reason for asking you to do so. My recent edits on those three talk pages are in complete agreement with Rod who said here at last of you all.


 * Did you delete them in accordance with the admin consensus, while in discordance with Rod? Or your personal decision?
 * Should I ever struggle against the hydra, the nine-headed monster?
 * Do you insist I should take boundless responsibility for the boundless implications of my word and deed such that "false cognates" may suggest "possible cognates"? Isn't it possible for the sun to stop shining tomorrow? Yes, anything's possible, without my talk!


 * Would Appendix:List of Korean false cognates satisfy you? --Ivan Štambuk 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not too bad, though it was already said before. Should I accept it, someone else would say something else to tire me out. So, may I ask you to answer me as I asked you as above, because this should be meaningful and responsible discussion? --KYPark 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you ask: 1) it was my personal decision to delete those 2) no comment 3) I'd suggest generally that you refrain from usage of words cognate, Korean and  in the same sentence, because it's highly disturbing given your already known agenda in the past of pushing IE-Korean "cognates".
 * If you'd like to, create that appendix and I'll move the material from deleted pages onto it. --Ivan Štambuk 03:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Something highly disturbing or highly hypersensitive


 * The content I lately edited on the talk pages you deleted was mostly shown up during that bloody long BP discussion so that anybody could focally argue for or against any part of it. Specially I asked it to be answered above all. But it was mostly ignored or unanswered. You should have argued against it at that time. Reasonably, therefore, you have to undo your unreasonable overdone deletion, first of all, especially based on your "personal decision."


 * From your personal point of view, you are highly likely to infringe the reader's, especially Korean, freedom of information as well as my legitimate freedom of expression, while ascribing my contribution as highly disturbing. Highly disturbing whom, but for the hypersensitive? For example, no average reader has blamed me over a year even for my hottest etymological edits on the Finno-Ugric entries you recently reduced to a minimum at will.


 * Without enough evidence beyond the reasonable doubt, you blame me for pushing IE-Korean "cognates", which I have done little, as I have made it very clear again and again. Don't you know at all what might result from such repeated false charges and personal attacks?


 * It is quite clear that by "false cognates" by definition I am not pushing IE-Korean "cognates." The hypersensitive may believe as if "false cognates" were to suggest or imply "possible cognates." I should not be responsible nor blamed for their twisted or wicked interpretation and judgment from unlimited implications. You did not answer the question (3) properly. Your blaming me for highly disturbing is highly disturbing me. You look like drawing the sword to cut a mosquito.


 * It is highly hypersensitive, twisted or wicked to take "false cognate" for "possible cognate," for which I am definitely not responsible. Should the term "false cognate" be highly disturbing anyone indeed, I should and would just refrain from using it, as you suggest. In fact, I hate the term cognate, true or false, as its judgment belongs to scholars I hate. What I love is to guide the reader to English and often European words as compared with Korean words. The ==Korean== section is essentially to compare a Korean word with a number of English words at best. Whenever useful for better definition and understanding, I like to refer her even to European words. What is so "highly disturbing"?


 * If you reasonably ask me to reconsider and change the ==Korean false cognates==, I am well prepared to do so. But you did not do so, but completely deleted even my talks based on your personal decision. This is definite vandalism. You should apologize for this violence and undo what you did immediately! And discuss very persuasively why my comparison of Korean words with English and often European words is "highly disturbing" anyone sane. --KYPark 10:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no need to suppress mentions of "Korean false cognates" on talk pages. Discussion about interesting aspects of words belongs on the words' talk pages, so I have restored them. Rod (A. Smith) 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be utter waste of wikispace, and an invitation to more crackpots like Kypark to promote their "theories". Every comparison of Korean-IE etymons is a false cognate, and there is absolutely no usefulness in the comparison tables Kypark generates.
 * Fine, let him post it to talk pages, I hope you will personally like patrolling them, for I surely won't. Just to keep that nonsense out of the mainspace, for somebody might event think that there some value in it. --Ivan Štambuk 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "False cognates" is an accurate description of these terms and does not imply any genetic relationship. They can be useful mnemonics, so they're neither an "utter waste of wikispace" nor "nonsense".  You should apologize for your personal attack against KYPark (calling him a "crackpot").  Rod (A. Smith) 17:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Falso cognate" is certainly NOT an accurate description of these terms. False cognate is not the same as "not cognate". A false cognate implies that there is or was a significant number of people who believed the words were cognates. Examples of false cognates are English dog and Mbabaram dog; English mama and Quechua mama. I don’t believe anybody thinks 매 is related to English mow, or that -다 is related to English do. They are not false cognates, they simply are not cognate. To label them false cognates means that there is a group of people who think, or once thought, that they were cognate. —Stephen 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I insert a link to my new BP talk. Thanks. --KYPark 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keeping in mind that the "false cognate" label is in the talk pages, and that our definition of false cognate: says nothing about "a significant number of people", what description would you prefer to give these learning aids? Rod (A. Smith) 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So comparing Korean to Proto-Germanic, Gothic and Latin has now suddenly become a "learning aid"? I'd rather call them intentionally misleading, with next-to-none inherent educational value. --Ivan Štambuk 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rod, you are seriously delusioned if you don't see in Kyparks IE-Korean etymologies/mnemonics anything beyond first-class pseudoscientific crackpotry, which he subtlely tries to masquerade in various ways, promoting his (transparently obvious) agenda. Let me remind you that he was the one that tried to 1) invalidate scientific methods ("anything goes", equalizing science with "system of belief" of religions - that was insultive to atheist like myself) 2) accuse his opponents of "censoring" or promoting "Euro-centrism". He know blabs about "freedom of expression" and accuses me of cutting down his "hot etymological edits" on the etymologies of Finnish entries which contained comparisons to Korean "cognates" with references to 19th century rasist crap called "Ural-Altaic".
 * I don't really feel like I've "insulted" him, at least nothing less than he's insulted the minds of everyone who tried to reasonably discuss with him in BP. --Ivan Štambuk 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not speculate about whether KYPark has a nefarious agenda. The comparisons are no longer being made in the main namespace etymology sections, so we seem to be making some headway.  Adding "false cognates" to talk pages doesn't seem like a deletable offense, so I restored them.  If you were insulted, that's a shame, but it would be best not to inflame the situation with further insults.  Rod (A. Smith) 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)