User talk:Tibidibi/archive

Nice edits.
Good Korean content. I like it.

But one thing: The formatting at 川理 isn't the usual way to format quotes. See WT:QUOTE or Category:English terms with quotations. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! I'll take that into account.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

While you're here, could I humbly request that you check the Korean quotations at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:RQ:Junggan_Nogeoldae_Eonhae to see if I've done something horribly wrong? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the missing romanizations and fixed a few things. But all in all the romanizations were not at all problematic.


 * I have a more definitional issue, though; 1795 is Early Modern Korean, and not Middle Korean (defined as up to 1600), and the forms seem to represent EMK and not MK:


 * In 사ᄅᆞᆷ, 엇지 esci "how" is a product of eighteenth-century palatalization; the MK form was 엇디 esti.
 * In Citations:ᄃᆞ라나다, there's the Early Modern collapse of vowel harmony: 사ᄅᆞᆷ의 salom-uy instead of the expected MK 사ᄅᆞᆷᄋᆡ salom-oy.
 * In Citations:거즛말 we have 니ᄅᆞ니오 niloniwo, but this is incorrect; the Middle Korean form was 니르니오 niluniwo. This orthographic error is typical of the eighteenth century, when the glyph <ㆍ> no longer represented a separate phoneme as it did in Middle Korean, making people confused about which words had <ㆍ> and which words didn't.
 * In Citations:쟈 we have 지어먹고 cie mekkwo instead of expected Middle Korean 지ᅀᅥ먹고 cize mekkwo, representing the sixteenth/seventeenth-century deletion of Middle Korean /z/.


 * I'm not quite sure what to do about this. It's true that 긿, 사ᄅᆞᆷ, 거즛말, etc., are all Middle Korean forms, but they're all also Early Modern Korean forms, especially because Early Modern Korean did not have a spelling reform and so a lot of words were written like their Middle Korean ancestors even when they were actually pronounced like they are today.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so I've created a dilemma (；・∀・)
 * (It's also nice to know the reason behind the fluctuation between 의 and ᄋᆡ.)
 * One solution that comes to mind is abolishing the Middle-Modern distinction (which was discussed before, IIRC, along with something similar for Old/Middle/Modern Japanese). Or maybe revising Wiktionary's definition of Modern Korean? (Unless it's too blasphemous.) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a pretty thorny problem. I can't think of any good solution.
 * Korean-language dictionaries do actually abolish the Middle-Modern distinction and classify every Hangul form attested before the invention of Standard Korean in the early twentieth century as . This is probably the most intuitive way for native Korean speakers, but it seems quite unsatisfactory for non-Koreans and for general Wiktionary procedure.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it could work well if we properly use lb and q, making clear what stage is represented. Language is a continuum anyway. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * True that. I've made some preliminary edits to this end in 사ᄅᆞᆷ and ᄇᆡ호다, as you can see. I guess "Korean" + "obsolete" is the best way to represent EMK within Wiktionary parameters.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about Yale romanization and hangul renderings
I noticed recently in that you'd updated the Yale romanization to include  to stand for some kind of fricative. This fricative is completely missing from the hangul spelling. I've never run across Yale romanizations that diverge so much from the hangul. What is your basis for romanizing in a way that adds letters / sounds missing from the hangul? Does the hangul itself need updating?

Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll assume you can read Hangul with no problem.
 * Middle Korean orthography (with a very few exceptions, e.g. the treatment of ) is strictly surface forms-based. For example, we have 머그면 "if one eats" instead of the morphophonemic Contemporary Korean form 먹으면.
 * This brings us to certain issues. There are some MK terms like 몰애 "sand", 벌에 "bug", and so forth which are always written as such, and never as 모래, 버레, etc, which we would expect if the <ㅇ> were simply silent. Furthermore, every one of these problematic terms has a Gyeongsang variant with /k/: 몰기, 벌게이, etc. The issue is also visible in verbal conjugation. We have Middle Korean 먹거늘 "though one eats", but 살어늘 "though one lives". If we postulate a simple kenul~enul allomorphy, it's impossible to explain why the latter form isn't written 사러늘, as is the case for 머그면 "if one eats" (and not *먹으면, which is never attested in the MK period).
 * Accordingly, linguists believe that the consonant <ㅇ> had two values in Middle Korean. Word-initially, it was silent; when word-internally and followed by a previous syllable's coda consonant, it was /ɣ/, written  in Yale. Hence 어늘 in 살어늘 is actually /ɣənɨl/, which prevents the ㄹ from taking its intervocalic allomorph of [ɾ] and explains why Koreans so consistently wrote 살어늘 and not 사러늘. For the same reason, the correct Yale transcription of 벌에, 몰에, etc., is pelGey, mwolGey, and so forth.
 * Lee and Ramsey's A History of the Korean Language discusses this well in pp. 143—144.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the double ping, I just made a few edits and hoped you didn't miss them. I would also add an example of a -based minimal pair in Middle Korean: vs. .--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation, very clear and cogent. Much appreciated!
 * Presumably in syllable-initial position started out as, and lenited into silence?  Hangul as initially implemented appeared to be quite wonderfully regular and concise, and the inconsistency in phonetic realization of  in modern Korean has puzzled me.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response. Actually, word-initial is unlikely to have ever been pronounced.
 *  is part of a small family of MK fricative phonemes which consistently have cognates with plosives in the Gyeongsang dialect. The other two such fricatives are  /β/, which is consistently /p/ [b] in Gyeongsang, and  /z/, which is consistently /s/ in Gyeongsang. The MK verbal paradigm (with allomorphs like kenul~Genul, mentioned above) also strongly implies that the three fricatives are inter-sonorant lenited versions of /k/, /p/, and /s/ respectively.
 * So if initial was at some previous point, we should expect some evidence, either cross-dialectally or within MK itself, that connects an initial open syllable to /k/. But no such evidence exists, and there is strong evidence that initial  has never existed in the known history of Korean. Namely, the Chinese characters that have Sino-Korean reflexes with initial  had *ʔ-, *j-, *w-, or *ŋ- initials in Middle Chinese, while the actual Middle Chinese *ɣ~ɦ initial (the 匣 initial) usually produces Sino-Korean reflexes with initial.
 * It's a bit puzzling why a linguist as otherwise so capable as Sejong failed to make separate letters for silence and, but I suppose even monkeys fall from trees sometimes.
 * As for modern Hangul where is also inconsistently, that's because Korean writers began to not distinguish visually between the characters  (which Sejong intended for silence or /ɣ/) and  (which Sejong intended for ) after around 1600. You might have known that already, though.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I'm quite curious about the role of  as originally intended; it appears as a component in many of the other jamo, including  and, and obsolete combinations like .  I dimly recall reading somewhere that it may have served as a lenition marker, such that ,  →  .  I should get back to that at some point, not least as it's been so long that I'm sure the state of academic consensus has changed a bit.  Cheers!  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ㅱ and ㆄ are unofficial letters. Only ᄫ was used to describe middle Korean W.
 * See 나무위키 https://namu.wiki/w/%ED%9B%88%EB%AF%BC%EC%A0%95%EC%9D%8C%EC%9D%98%20%EC%88%9C%EA%B2%BD%EC%9D%8C?from=%E1%85%8B#s-5.4 ᄫ also represented Japanese hiragana は in the past. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , see also w:Origin_of_Hangul, which lists all three, and describes these as initially used to transcribe Chinese, before they fell out of use. Since these apparently had no use case for spelling Korean terms, perhaps that's why they are described as "unofficial"?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the kana chart is very interesting, thank you for that! I'm puzzled by the distinction between は ㅸㅏ and わ ㅇㅘ.  I see too that へ is transcribed as ㆄㅖ with initial ㆄ instead of ㅸ, and う is transcribed as ㅱㅜ instead of the expected ㅇㅜ.  Even ね seems odd, transcribed as ㄴㅕ instead of the expected ㄴㅒ or ㄴㅖ.  So far as I'm aware, ㅕ has never existed as a vowel sound for a single kana.  (Apologies for the uncomposed jamo -- I don't have a Korean IME installed and Wiktionary's editor only offers discrete jamo input.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's very interesting. I'm just telling you guys what linguists have written.


 * * https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/d4043bf8e7944078836df3188fa5b24f
 * * https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/7c3293a14401442e937aef7f382ef6e2


 * Hunminjeongum describes ㅸ as ㅇ 연서(ㅇ連書).


 * And another thing, Hangul is said to be created by King Sejong by himself, but I don't think so. I think Park Yeon made the Hunminjeongeum. There are plenty of circumstances to think so. But it's my personal opinion and I won't push it. What they believe is their freedom.


 * B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits at 有叱 and intended pronunciation
In, regarding the reconstructed pronunciation, do you mean "*jiʂ-" → = , or do you mean "*jiʂ-" → *? I assume the latter, given that the fricative onset in, doesn't match well with the modern Korean. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The latter is intended, yes.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The enigmatic poem of Nukata no Ōkimi
Greetings! I have seen your contributions to Old Korean and it looks promising.

Here's some background to this discussion: Alexander Vovin might have cracked the ninth poem of the  and the first lines seem to be in Old Korean. His book can be found at the References section of the Wikipedia article. Almost 700 years before, Sengaku somehow interpreted those first lines into the ancient Japanese, but only as a rough translation.

I had to edit that article under many IP addresses (was a tween back then) with some independent research, and had left it for a few years. When I came back, that Vovin reference has been put around 2017 or later by others. This is where your "expertise" might help. I was going to put this "phrase" here, but I didn't know where to start; either separately as parts, or the entire blob of Chinese characters.

When you're ready, feel free to reply to this discussion, this will get interesting. Thanks! ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 04:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Vovin's translation is very promising, but I'm not sure anything from the verse itself is a fit for Wiktionary. The entire verse isn't a dictionary item, of course, and the orthography is quite atypical of the OK orthography used in all items so far added to Category:Old Korean lemmas. This isn't that surprising; Baekje and Silla are known to have had different orthographic traditions and modern knowledge of Old Korean orthography comes nearly entirely from the latter tradition, while Japan was probably much more influenced by the former.
 * A better fit for the information might be Wikipedia's entry on Princess Nukata, where the Poem 9 section is quite a mess.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Cool stuff, ! I'm curious, in the WP article at Princess_Nukata, where did the poem text come from?  There are some substantial differences in character choice from what I see in the UVA version at http://jti.lib.virginia.edu/japanese/manyoshu/Man1Yos.html#9.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * the characters are copied verbatim from Vovin's book, and the manuscript/character variants are explained on the Commentary section (pages 39-41, if there is a reading limit try clearing/refreshing your broswer). The aforementioned:
 * 莫器圓隣之大相七兄爪湯氣吾瀬子之射立爲兼五可新何本
 * ...versus the Genryaku kōhon (the one in the UoV corpus), which has the replaced with . Some have also replaced  →  and  →, in which he called them innovations. Anything else?
 * This discussion was supposed to be a suggestion to add either that very phrase (as a Wiktionary entry) or the parts of it (entries), like those undetermined lemmas. Didn't know about these "orthographic traditions" though, can you summarize? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 00:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: the spellings, I find that variation quite odd, as those aren't just alternative forms but rather wholly different characters. Some might be scribal variation, especially considering that this portion of the poem was probably opaque to most copyists.  For instance,  has a meaning of  and an on'yomi of ki and a Middle Chinese reading of, while  has a meaning of  and an on'yomi of kyō or gō and a Middle Chinese reading of probably something like.
 * Looking just at the last two characters of the mystery segment, I find Vovin's reconstruction inexplicable -- how does he get /mut/ from 湯? I'll have to see if I can access his text.
 * Re: orthography, I think Karaeng is referring to idu conventions. Presumably Baekje and Silla spoke different dialects, so it stands to reason that their usage of idu characters would also differ.
 * Given that the 12-character phrase here is 1) two stanzas of poetry, not a lexical item, 2) of uncertain language (Silla? Baekje? something else?), I'm not sure how we'd create an entry for it. Perhaps an Appendix namespace might work, but I don't think this is appropriate for a mainspace entry.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Silla Old Korean orthography fairly consistently applied two rules which scholars now call 訓主音從 and 末音添記.
 * The first means that content morphemes with clear Chinese equivalents (mostly nouns and verb stems) are written with their Chinese logogramic equivalents, while functional morphemes are written with phonograms. The second means that even when content morphemes are written with their Chinese equivalents, Old Korean scribes wrote the final syllable or consonant of the Old Korean word with a phonogram in order to allow readers to distinguish which of the multiple readings of a given Chinese character was being intended.
 * For example, here's two typical verses of Silla poetry, with phonograms superscripted:
 * 於內秋察早隱風未此矣彼矣浮良落尸葉如
 * enu AUTUMN-sol EARLY-n WIND-may THIS-uy THAT-uy FLOAT-a FALL-l LEAF-ti
 * The leaves that will float and fall here and there by a certain autumn's early wind
 * So effectively all meaningful words are written with logograms. By contrast, in Vovin's interpretation we have the following logogram-phonogram pattern:
 * 莫器圓隣之大相七兄爪湯氣
 * EVENING-ko-s tolali thi-ta-SEE-n-isy-a-ca-mut-ke
 * After [I] looked up at the evening moon, [I] did ask
 * The logogram-phonogram balance here is obviously very different from the conventional Silla orthography above. A more typically Silla way of writing the above sentence might have been:
 * 莫支叱月羅理之如相隱有良沙問氣
 * EVENING-ko-s MOON-la-li thi-ta-SEE-n-EXIST-a-ca ASK-ke
 * While Vovin's interpretation seems probably the most correct answer so far, the lines very likely not being Japanese, its orthographic differences suggest it came from a much more phonogram-heavy tradition of writing Korean. Perhaps not coincidentally, recent archaeological finds tentatively suggest that seventh-century Baekje scribes did use entirely phonogramic sequences, which were shunned by Silla writers.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

, But perhaps there really is a space for items like these in the Appendix, at least? I was mulling this over again, and the came to mind. Then there's of course 秀支替戾岡, 僕谷劬禿當, the only known sentence from the. And I'm sure there are similar cases from all over the world.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Another potential entry for this sort of "unknown verse" appendices could be the verse in the fourteenth-century Korean poem 履霜曲 Isanggok, which is clearly not written in Middle Korean and might be in some form of Mongol.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I like this idea, but I'm uncertain as to how best to implement. I've started a thread over at [[Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/September]].  Cheers!  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks to this thread, I had a minor "aha" moment, captured over at [[:w:Talk:Nara_(city)]]. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yin, yang and Middle Korean ᄂᆞᄆᆞᆶ and 나모
Curious if these are an ablaut / apophonic pair?

Also curious if the final that appears in Middle Korean from 나ᇚ might be reflected in the final  in ᄂᆞᄆᆞᆶ?

Any idea what that final element might derive from?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * These are not a yin-yang pair, because both ㅏ and ㆍ are yang vowels.
 * There could still be some form of ablaut relationship. ᄂᆞᄆᆞᆶ implies an Old Korean form that was something like *나ᄆᆞᄅᆞᆨ, since MK final is from OK ; see, e.g., the dialectal reflexes at  or the attested example of . This is quite similar to the standard OK reconstruction  for, enough that one could posit a root  with  and  being some kind of suffixes.
 * This is all quite speculative, of course.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

바다
So where is the actual historical record behind it? The Gyerim yusa states that Korean word for sea is 把剌(Bharat), so I presume the old Korean should be similar with this form. But you're saying that ancient Korean was pronounced as Badak, without showing actual historical evidence. How can you be so sure that the old Korean for sea was 바닥, not 바랗? You're just guessing, right? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * From Vovin's Koreo-Japonica, emphasis mine:
 * Middle Korean exhibits consonantal lenition of p > W, t > l [r], k > G, and s > z... Since the t/l alternation involves /l/, which also exists as a separate phoneme, it is virtually impossible to decide which intervocalic -l- in nouns may be a plain /l/, or the result of the t/l alternation, unless we have doublets, e.g., pàtáh ~ pàlól ‘sea’, where it is obvious that -l- in the second variant is a result of the t/l alternation.
 * And of course MK final -h implies OK final -k.
 * The reconstructed Old Korean here is exactly that, reconstructed on the basis of comparative evidence (in this case, the existence of both and  in Middle and Modern Korean and quite overwhelming evidence—based on Jilin leishi evidence, internal evidence from verb stem behavior, and just the general directionality of sound change—for the latter being the innovative form). There is no Old Korean source that gives the form *바닥.-Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * . I don't think the old Korean form of 바다(sea) is 바닥, because 바닥 means floor in Modern Korean, and the middle Korean form of 바닥(floor) is 바다ᇰ or 버터ᇰ. Just like English words See and Sea are unrelated, they are just pronounced similarly. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the word for "sea" came from the word for "floor". Perhaps the Old Korean word for "floor" was something entirely different. All I'm saying is that the only reconstruction compatible with the modern dialectal variation of is *바닥:
 * Korean dialects diverge on whether the consonant in the middle is ㄷ or ㄹ, and an intervocalic ㄷ > ㄹ sound shift is attested and obvious even in modern Korean, e.g. 걷다 > 걸어라, while the contrary sound shift is unknown
 * Korean dialects diverge on the coda consonant, but most of the alternatives (nothing, ㄱ, ㅇ, or ㅅ) are only one sound shift away from *ㄱ
 * Cheers,--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. It seems that you have logic behind your argument. I'm sorry I doubted you. I tend to doubt things that are not on record. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

발음
Hi. On your edit(https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EB%81%9D&oldid=60598141) on September 27, 2020, you omitted the standard pronunciation of a word by putting down only the regional pronunciation of a word. Dialects cannot take precedence over standard pronunciation. Nowadays, vowel length in distinguishing meaning of a word is disappearing especially among younger generations. Therefore, it is not that important to describe pitch tone, etc. See the article here and the book chapter here. The Standard Korean Language Dictionary has these marked in the dictionary, so you may refer to it but it's not that important and standard pronunciation of a word(IPA) should come first. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1.1 pronunciation section already gave the standard IPA for both Etymology 1 and Etymology 2, and the pitch accent applies only to the word 끝 and not the Hangul syllable itself. Hence the original organization of the entry. You're right that it's potentially confusing, so I've unified the pronunciation sections into a subsection of Etymology 2 in my most recent edit on 끝.
 * The idea that "it is not that important to describe pitch tone" isn't true, as you'd notice immediately once you cross the 문경새재. Vowel length is disappearing (in S. Gyeongsang it was already gone before Seoul), but the Gyeongsang pitch accent is independent of vowel length and is preserved completely intact even by speakers born in the 2010s. As my cousins in Busan could testify.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeap. It's much better now. I would appreciate it if you could correct any of the edits you made in the past containing only regional pronunciation written under etymology 2 or above, because it can confuse people. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * And for the Middle Korean entry, you are right. The examples should be listed under MK word template, not under the Modern Korean template, just like KevinUp have pointed out in the past. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This was quite tedious but the pronunciation sections have all been relocated to reduce the confusion. Cheers,--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. I also made a mistake in hanja entry in the past, so I went back and fixed it. So I know how it feels. Cheers. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

부아
Hello. I have recently been watching your edit and I would like to ask because there is a part where your editing doesn't fit the standard Korean dictionary. I am bringing with me the concepts listed in the dictionary of the National Institute of Korean Language with the scholars of the Naver Corporation. But you try to keep writing based on your thoughts and your own theories. I think this is wrong. Also, for ,I honestly have never used as a word for lung when I graduated from middle and high school in Korea, but the dictionary says that  is synonymous with pulmonary and therefore I only wrote it as it is. But you insist that it is not a commonly written example and insist on your own opinion, which is different from the one listed in the dictionary of the National Institute of Korean Language.
 * The NIKL dictionary of Korean (which is the same thing as the Naver dictionary in this case, since Naver ports from other dictionaries) has strong prescriptive tendencies in recording Korean (e.g. the or  or  fiascos), which in many cases means that it lists obsolete terms that no Korean would ever use while not listing or listing as proscribed terms that every Korean would know. This is why this dictionary has independent Criteria for inclusion, and things like Appendix:English dictionary-only terms.
 * I have not found a single result (out of the three required) that shows people using instead of  or . Not mentioning it in a dictionary or in a newspaper's etymology section, which fails WT:CFI, but actually using it for what it supposedly means. I've been searching for "부아가", "부아를", "부아는" and all results are about anger, a Thai restaurant, or things like this, which is strong evidence that NIKL is simply wrong to list this as a normal word in Modern Korean.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/ca0b1fec63f44cb89cbd0d2f486800a2, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, dictionaries do not count as attestations, nor do compound words (see cranberry morpheme). Not to mention that itself is a very rare word. On a cursory search it seems to be used primarily in linguistic contexts, which strongly suggests to me that it's a nationalistically motivated neologism just like  and its ilk. But at least you can probably find three independent attestations for it, which is more than you can say for any non-obsolete "lung" meaning of .--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * According to (Korean-French dictionary) published in 1880,  is listed for meaning lung. However, modern word has changed its form to, and  as meaning for lung I couldn't find it. But its definition for meaning lung is still listed in Standard Korean dictionary.  B2V22BHARAT (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, dictionaries do not count for our purposes, the intuition of the general community of native speakers (here Koreans) does.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... Okay. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rare word does not mean that it is archaic or obsolete. It appears that as a definition for lung is still alive. Take a look at these words., .  as a pure Korean word for lung is still alive and  widely used in a compound word with  to indicate.
 * To repeat myself, some people working in the field of Korean linguistics are prone to using strange native neologisms because of a pervasive ideology of . Some, like, are almost ungrammatical according to the language's own rules! This does not mean that the compounds they use are any more "alive" than cran in cranberry. Do you have any example of people using the word as a word in itself, and not in these ivory tower neologisms?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's vote. 부아 as archaic term or dated term for lung. Can you help me how to do that? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/October
 * I think archaic is right, because 바른손(right hand) I never use it. Same with 부아. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

MK Romanization for Hanja
Hi,

I was wondering which MK (or modern?) Hanja reading you use for the MK Romanizations. I can't seem to notice a particular version to follow. I wanted to add quotations and expand some MK entries but couldn't figure this out :(

Also, how does the 방점 for at the end of verbs and adjectives work? From examples, they seem to be marked with a single dot. So I wonder If that's the way to mark for all others as well. Thanks! — LoutK (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just use Hunmong jahoe forms (or what the HJ forms would reasonably have been, since the HJ doesn't have that many character readings), but if I can be frank I'm mostly going off memory WRT MK hanja readings so I've probably made mistakes haha.
 * The dictionary citation suffix -다〮 is uniformly high-pitch. Actually, most verbal suffixes are high-pitch and Middle Korean's pitch accent irregularity focuses more on the pitch of the verb stem itself.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that you corrected a lot of my mistakes on MK Hanja readings subsequent to this, so thanks for this!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Demonstratives
Curious if you've run across anything regarding possible cognacy between 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬 on the one hand, and 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬 on the other. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Whitman made a connection between and  and between  and, but it's not been very widely accepted, the latter especially.
 * Just a note on the latter the initial MK only merged into a fricative in the eighteenth century to produce 저, so the phonological similarities between Modern Korean and Japonic are deceptive. The more appealing comparison for the Korean form is, rather, 🇨🇬.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Failed to notice that 🇨🇬 traced from, and ya, that initial  would certainly seem to rule out any connection.
 * Re: the 🇨🇬, the closest Japonic term I can think of would be 🇨🇬, but then again this derives from ancient *ta ("who") + demonstrative nominalizing suffix -re. This *ta and descendants have meant  throughout the course of written Japanese, and it seems unlikely to have originated from a  demonstrative, unless we posit something much older.
 * Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

About Korean etymology edits
안녕하세욥!! I edited like two entries, where I added etymologies from Naver 국어사전. I was wondering if 표준국어대사전, 우리말샘, 고려대한국어대사전, since Naver contains mainly these. I'll be adding etymologies. I've already added two for,. However, for the latter, I actually don't know how to go about giving a good etymology. It comes from middle korean 오래, which comes from 오라다 plus -이 (부사파생접미사), but the 오라다 is now 오래다 so like... ye its like a maze idk. Thank you for your answer in advance. -Solarkoid (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, I've reformatted both and, hope this helps. Middle Korean etymologies that are no longer synchronically apparent should be explained as a Middle Korean derivation no longer transparent nowadays, as I have done in these two entries.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Korean abbreviations of book titles for Middle Korean sources in 표준국어대사전
Is there a list of these abbreviations and their expansion? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't have a list for the NIKL dictionary but these are the abbreviations used by the Korea University dictionary, which should be . The abbreviations on the NIKL dictionary come from a loosely defined standard across Korean-language academia because the full titles are a mouthful.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, I was wondering what 언두 was, but it's not on that list :P Hopefully it's good for other titles though! —Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Having checked with other NIKL-published sources, 언두 seems to be 언해두창집요 / 諺解痘瘡集要 (1608), which the KU dictionary abbreviates as 두창언. It's a book about treating smallpox that apparently includes a part about what foods smallpox patients should eat or avoid, so it seems right for .--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @Suzukaze-c, Karaeng Matoaya: See 02 of 조사 문헌 on the left tab of 표준국어대사전's 일러두기. --39.122.78.101 09:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh! Nice. Now it seems so obvious that it would be there >< —Suzukaze-c (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorting 국한문혼용체
Hello,

I was wondering your thoughts on how to sort and lemmatize certain words or particles found almost exclusively in older 국한문혼용체 writings such as the. Particles such as 此, 其, 玆, 諸 and 又 or words such as 有하다, 無하다, and 吾等/吾人 are well found in these texts, but wouldn't make much sense to be written in Hangul-only texts in its bare Hanja reading and Hangul spellings of these words could only be found in Hangul-only transliterations of these style of older writings.

The NIKL lists (not all of these are listed) these in their Hangul spelling for obvious reasons (although with the 문어체/한문투 label). As such, some of those words have been listed in their Hangul spelling, but rather it should be Hangeul form of [hanja] as they are only found in Hangul transliterations.

So far, for the particles, I've been putting them under Hanja with a "literary" label, thanks to the flexibility of the Hanja section. But I think I might be better to list them under their proper function (pronoun, affix, etc.) with a better label (currently, the "literary" label seems to encompass contemporary literary Korean all the way to Korean Classical Chinese(!!)).

I thought of including these in the newly created 한문투 label, but I'm not sure if that conforms with the label's purpose. It might be more intuitive to create a separate 국한문혼용체 label and allow all entries on there to be lemmatized in its the Hanja form as the main entry with a Hangeul form of entry as well.

But I'm not sure If it's useful for the modern language policy to apply to late 19th century to early 20th century mixed-writing like the treatment of modern mixed-writing.

But again, There needs to be a standard for which words are "mixed-writing only" and which could also surface onto Hangul-only writing, so I might be very conservative as to what is a "mixed-writing only" word (mostly particles), but this would be subjective and arbitrary in nature. So I wanted to hear what you think about this. Thanks! — LoutK (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I think your idea of putting them under their proper POS in the Chinese character sections, with a new label for 국한문혼용체 and a Hangul form of template, will really work very well. Formal Korean writing before the early twentieth century is all on a spectrum from very Chinese to very Korean:


 * 學而時習之하면 不亦悅乎아
 * Chinese or Korean? Probably Chinese.
 * 其人이 宛爾而笑하고 唯唯而退하더라
 * Chinese or Korean?
 * 秋霜에 一雙秋鴈은 向南飛를 하더라
 * Chinese or Korean? After all, even if you take out all the Korean, it still works as a Chinese sentence.
 * 秋山이 秋風을 띠고 秋江에 잠겨 있다. 秋天에 秋月이 뚜렷이 돋았는데, 秋霜에 一雙秋鴈은 向南飛를 하더라.
 * This is the full context for the quote above; so does it change language mid-sentence? Frankly I'm not really sure any more.


 * So an arbitrary line does need to be drawn somewhere, I think being subjective and arbitrary to some extent is inevitable—so yes, I think you definitely should go ahead with your ideas! :) --Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's certainly difficult to draw the fine line between what's Korean or Chinese in those texts. So, I'll probably go after the single character terms (mostly pronouns) that fell out of use after said style became obsolete. Still Not sure how to handle the [漢字]-하다 ones, but they probably just deserve a Hangul entry instead (with the "literary" or 한문투 label). But including words any longer will probably over-complicate this, deciding if the Hanja form is truly Korean or if it's "mixed-writing only" would be confusing and unstandardized. For those, the "literary" label and Hanja form of [Hangul] should suffice for now. Thanks for the insightful reply! — LoutK (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Special:diff/61097060
Then, please use w:South Korean standard language instead of w:Seoul Dialect. 39.122.78.101 18:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet, but add Korean dialects in Module:accent qualifier/data as below, then ko-IPA will working as you say.

labels["Busan"] = { link = "Gyeongsang dialect", display = "Busan" }

39.122.78.101 05:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

공책에다가 받아쓰세요
Hi,

Could you please help me understand the grammar of the sentence, specifically the 다가 part? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, in this context 에다가 is an emphatic synonym of the locative particle 에 when referring to spaces/locations/directions, etc., which can only occur with transitive verbs:
 * 침대 옆에다가 컵을 놓았어: I placed the cup besides the bed. (transitive verb, grammatical)
 * *건물에다가 사람이 적더라 (adjective, ungrammatical)
 * *침대 옆에다가 컵이 놓였어 (intransitive verb, ungrammatical)
 * There is also a non-locative use of 에다가 with the meaning of "in addition to" which can occur with intransitives (e.g. 밥에다가 빵까지 먹었어, 파리에다가 모기까지 생겼어) but you might know about it already.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! No, I wasn't aware of other usages either, so I couldn't figure out that is a standalone word. I have made a stub for it, please add a definition, if it's OK. I have used your usage example in the entry :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

MK Hanja glosses
Hi,

便 had me thinking how to place MK readings. I've been placing each MK reading with their direct phonological descendant reading, even if the MK gloss doesn't match the Modern Korean meaning. This makes sense when no glosses were provided.

But as I started adding these glosses, I'm starting to think the glosses should take precedence over the readings in determining which etymology to place it in. This way, it better represents the differences that might have existed in the MK stage.

As for 便, I think your theory is correct. My Hanja dictionary states that "편" is from both 平聲 and 去聲 and "변" is only from 去聲. So, the divide isn't from MC, nor one of them is a 俗音. So it's most likely that "편" and "변" were once used for both senses, and eventually solidified into each reading to differentiate the senses, especially to avoid the 'excrement' sense like you said.

Thanks for creating the links for the eumhuns. Hanja-ety is still at its experimental stage (well, besides my terrible code). So, I didn't think of adding those. Ideally, the individual source templates (using these takes up too much space just introducing the reading) would be ditched in favour of embedding all of them in the single template and giving more emphasis on the glosses (including the Romanization for those as well). I think the template can increase accessibility to many Middle Korean entries, especially those without a direct Modern Korean descendant. — LoutK (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

변변찮다/변변치않다
Hi,

Is a form of ? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I got it now, after Googling. 변변치 is apparently a contraction of 변변하지. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Vovin
Alright, I managed to send him an email. It would be quite an honour if he responds and it were to mark the beginning of an enduring correspondence
 * , I've also emailed him WRT the etymology for "mole". It would be truly wonderful if he were to become a contributor here, haha.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick question: Can you verify the 둗거비 attestation in the 四聲通解: '蝦 今俗語 癩蝦蟆 옴둗거비'?
 * , I don't have the time right now to check exhaustively myself but the attestation is being claimed by several secondary sources (another example) so I'm inclined to believe it more than not. OTOH one dictionary may have made a mistake and everyone else might have followed their lead, which is a thing that happens.
 * Apparently, there is another pre-hangeul attestation of the word for "toad" as 豆何非 in the thirteenth-century Hyangyak gugeupbang; this word is used to gloss Chinese in that text. This form would appear to imply  assuming that Sino-Korean readings for these characters did not change in the meantime.
 * This is probably the earliest clear attestation of the word, and while it doesn't match perfectly with either post-Hangul form ( or ), I don't think it's compatible with Vovin's proposed etymology.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Pulleyblank 1991 reconstructs Early Mandarin *xɔ < LMC *xɦa for 何, so I'll have a look whether the vocalism is corroborated by any other example in the 鄕藥救急方. I'm also curious whether the initial is ever used to transcribe k, since a handful of Sino-Korean readings do have it (e.g. 酣, 匣).
 * , elsewhere the Gugeupbang transcribes with 加, so IMHO it seems more likely in this case that the transcription really does intend  or something similar.-Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, if my counting is to be trusted, the character 何 appears exactly once, in this word. So unless it can somehow be found in the 高麗史, this hypothesis remains purely speculative, especially as the 鄕藥救急方 uses native character readings, unlike the Jilin Leishi. If the vowel is indeed a, based on LMC, then I can only wonder what implications this might have for Korean reconstruction.
 * . Yes, 何 only appears in this word. But the vocalism is corroborated not just by LMC but by Middle Sino-Korean itself, where the reading of this character is given as 하 in Sinjeung yuhap, Gwangju cheonjamun, and Seokbong cheonjamun (as is to be expected from finals). I think it's possible that 허 was intended, as an ablaut pair and because the few existing Sino-Korean characters for this syllable are rather semantically loaded  such that they may be inconvenient or confusing to use them as phonograms. Certainly, such a vocalism would work better with the Middle Korean reflexes. Still, it would be methodologically best to try and work with the orthography given IMO.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I was not assuming that Early Mandarin became the mainstream reading tradition, so my proposal only involved short term linguistic diffusion, but your hypothesis might be marginally better since it does not require external factors. Still, I am not convinced that semantics would be a significant enough obstacle, and there are other suitable characters, regardless: 吁, 喣, 呴, 噓 ‘to sigh, exhale', 魖 'a kind of bad spirit' etc. Apparently 남풍현 1981: 借字表記法 treats it as a spelling error based on LMK data, but doesn't offer any solution. The 'h' is still elusive, but two ideas crossed my mind:

1. It is an irregular remnant of the TH cluster: *twuhAp < *twuTHep < *twutVhep < *twutVkep, immediately after syncope (or, in other words, before the aspiration process was completed). A better candidate from a purely phonetic point of view would be our proposed pre-lenition syncopated form *twutkep, but I am curious whether swuh ~ swuph ~ swup ~ swuphwul 'forest' (all attested in the 15th century) could serve as evidence for the aspiration scenario.

2. It is a dissimilative reduction of the identical syllables in **twutwukep, followed by lenition.

Anyway, I hope you've had a wonderful holiday season and may 2021 bring you happiness and good health.

Old Japanese Shiraki and Korean Silla(h)
Given our past discussions about an apparent Old Korean locative suffix -k → Middle Korean -h, I'd appreciate any improvements you could make at 新羅, particularly etym #2. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Automatic vote counting
FYI, your vote in Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2021-02/User:PUC for admin is not showing up in the automated total in Votes/Active because Module:votes looks for a signature on the same line as a support or oppose template. This is probably just a cosmetic problem because a human will review the votes. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of 'Korea', Mandarin.
Hi I wonder if there're more articles supporting that the word 'Korea' is from 'Mandarin', not from any other Sinitic languages. I found a description, 'from Chinese Gao li', given by etymonline, but since there's no reference list on the website, I don't think this can fully show it's from 'Mandarin', although 'Gao li' is certainly a Mandarin pronunciation. I want to ask you if you can help me find other clues. I'm really curious about this. Sorry for bothering you. --Echewen (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the relevant Early Modern European sources are here, courtesy of Sogang University. The first work is the Itinerario of, which in the same section gives "Chausien" for , which is almost certainly Mandarin.--Tibidibi (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply with full details. It really helped me. I just wonder if we can't assume 'Core' or Medieval Latin 'Caule' is not from Mandarin, and Linschoten wanted to 'correct' the actual name of the 'island' called 'Core' is 'Chausien', which he directly heard from a Mandarin speaker. Just an assumption. --Echewen (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , "Caule" must be from Mandarin because he learned the word from the Mongols (given the fact that he also reports the native Mongol word for Korea), and the Mongols did not at that point control any area of China that does not speak Mandarin. For "Core", it's more disputable. Van Linschoten says he learned the word from the Portuguese, so it could be Mandarin but (though probably less likely given the clearly Mandarin form of "Chausien") also other varieties of Chinese spoken in southern China which the Portuguese happened to hear. I've hedged the etymology at Korea a bit, adding the sentence at "less likely from a non-Mandarin variety of Chinese with similar pronunciation". A non-Chinese etymology seems unlikely to me.--Tibidibi (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I find the latest revision you modified is more comprehensible. I agree that the word is 'perhaps specifically' from Mandarin although I still think it could be from other Sinitic languages (less likely, though). I learnt a lot here. Thanks a lot. Stay safe and have a nice day --Echewen (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I summarised the etymology of Korea but I made a typo in the edit summary so I again write a message here: I'm not sure if I summarised it too much so I want to ask what you think of it. --Echewen (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the summary, which I've largely maintained. I've restored a few things, mainly with the idea that it's important that readers understand that the specific word "Corea" (with "r" and not "l" in the middle) actually appeared in the sixteenth century during the Joseon/the Age of Discovery, not during the actual Goryeo period.--Tibidibi (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

좋다
됴ᄒᆞ다 is probably the older form, cf. >, > . This is a compound of the unknown element , potentially a Chinese character that underwent semantic nativisation given that this syllable does not occur in initial position in any native Middle Korean word, and the adjective-deriving light verb , modern.

Are there any solid grounds for this claim!? Alexander Vovin believes this word is related to the Goguryeo language.
 * I have responded on your talk page.--Tibidibi (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.
Leaving Eastern Buyeo, Jumong was known for his exceptional skill at archery. His original Goguryeo name, variously transcribed as "Jumong", "Jungmo", or "Domo", translated to "good archer". The first component can be reconstructed as "tywoh-(:둏; 'be good')".

Then, apart from the claim of the Chinese character etymology of the Korean vocabulary'tsot (jot)', do you agree with Professor Vovin's opinion!?

FVS characters
Hi. I noticed that you created this Manchu entry which contains FVS character. Thanks for your contribution but I am afraid the letter you used for this word is wrong. I created a new one that has no FVS character. They may look the same in this case, but using FVS characters actually results in a wrong letter shape. For example, the characters di that you used in are displayed as  when isolated, while the corrected form should be. The one with FVS has a notch above the first letter d, but in Manchu orthography this shape is only used in and. For vowels a, o and i, the correct forms are  and. Next time when you created Manchu entries, could you make sure if there is any FVS characters in the words? Thank you! Bula Hailan (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the notice, and thank you also for your contributions to Manchu entries. I'll be more careful from now on.--Tibidibi (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

KO 아침 and JA 朝
Thinking about the JA term itself, there appears to be a potential connection with, with an everyday sense of , close to the surface, but also a sense of not much time has passed: still early or recent.

Are there any Koreanic terms of similar sound shape to that have any similar senses of shallow? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the earliest traceable KO word for "morning" was probably, a dialectal word which is attested only from the seventeenth century but appears to be the precursor of 🇨🇬 ; I have added relevant phonological information to the entry at . But itself looks like a suffixed form, so the original root may have been . This has been connected to 🇨🇬, and also looks like a very good fit for the Japanese because Old Japanese lacked affricates.--Tibidibi (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, hmm, interesting. I cannot think of any instances where an affricated  is borrowed into Japanese as an, however.  I'll do some digging as time allows, see if I can find any analogous cases.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is for example >, where the Middle Chinese transcription and the 🇨🇬 makes it clear that  in the Japanese  approximates the affricate .--Tibidibi (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good find. I note that this 支 is regularly found as  in Japanese sources, with the exception of its use to denote  in, perhaps hearkening back to its Old Chinese initial consonant, or reflecting a dialectal variant (I note that modern Min Nan reads this as ki).
 * The following vowel for 支 is consistent as in almost all modern Chinese reflexes and in all the borrowed CJKV terms.  What would account for OKM  or  corresponding with JA, and what of the final  in the Korean?
 * Are there any Korean terms that demonstrate metathesis over time? Specifically, any chance that the  initial in àcík or acyek might have evolved from earlier, where the  would be the root?
 * , there is a fairly convincing recent argument that OKM, which is the single most common diphthong in the language, actually comes from an ancient monophthong . If so, Early Modern Korean would anciently have been , which somewhat resolves the issue of the second vowel. There is also modern dialectal , , which suggest an OKM variant form.
 * For the final, it's probably a suffix. There's a not terribly common Middle Korean diminutive suffix which is probably unrelated. It's also worth noting that , modern 🇨🇬 looks like  + unknown suffixes  (< ) or , which could be a variant of the same suffix we observe in.
 * Metathesis is not common in Korean, and IMHO is particularly unlikely to be a result of metathesis because it behaves as a discrete phoneme, not as a consonant cluster.--Tibidibi (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Korean/hoL and OJP 日 (pu)?
This might be a long stretch, but the potential may be there.

Modern Japanese remains in a few fossilized terms as Old Japanese pu, notably in  from older kepu, literally ke "this" + pu "day".

There's also Japanese, which appears in fossilized terms and a few ancient texts with the readings po and pu. I've long wondered if there might be overlap with Korean. And there is a small handful of terms that evidence ↔  correspondences, such as  and, both of which were formerly mayo.

→ This leads me to wonder if there might have been any po reading for Japonic "day", which would bring this term within throwing distance of the Koreanic etymon.

→ That said, the Japonic initial doesn't match very well with the Koreanic initial. I note too that the hard sound reconstructed for Chinese is often reflected in Japanese as.

Curious as to your thoughts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I'm a bit skeptical because the Japonic shift occurred after the main period of contact between the two languages, and Koreanic has had no such shift (Korean  in this position is more likely to come from ). In addition, it is also important to note that Yale romanization  here really represents eighth-century Old Korean  based on Sino-Korean reflexes of Middle Chinese.--Tibidibi (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I figured this was probably a stretch too far, but I'm less familiar with Koreanic phonetic shifts and was curious enough to reach out, at least to find reasons to shut down further (unproductive) speculation. :)  Cheers!  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you following Ito (2007) to reconstruct *ə for MK o? Because I'd rather go with Whitman (2015) based on Miyake (2018 etc.) to reconstruct *e > LMK ye, and keep *ə > LMK e and *ʌ > LMK o.
 * I was indeed following Ito and some other analyses of Middle Sino-Korean, but recently I've become more convinced otherwise. In either case, my main point here for Eirikr was that Yale orthography is deceptive and o would not have sounded like Japanese .--Tibidibi (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)