- 19 May 2006
- Reaction score
and why do you hope that?
I hope the S. Korean government and people realise the importance of Hanja in the children's development of vocabulary. Around 60% of Korean vocabulary is sino-compound
I am no expert on the Chinese language or the Korean language, but what I know about Chinese tells me that Chinese characters fit the Chinese language like a glove, and other languages like a thick woolen mitten two sizes too large.
For example, the Chinese character for medicine is 薬 (correct me if I am wrong). It consists of a leaf over relaxation, fun, or ease. But the thing I want to draw your attention to is the leaf. This character plants an image in your mind of a leaf as medicine, and I suspect that image appears in the mind of users of Chinese characters. But in my mind, I think of pills and liquids in vials to be administered by syringe. In other words, my image is more up to date, because the word "medicine" comes with no pre-packaged imagery for me to absorb. I match what I see in the real world to the word, not what some guy stuck in there a thousand years ago.
Are you saying that the Chinese language do not have compound words? I would find that highly surprising.A simple way is adding two farmiliar worlds together. The result of this is English is getting much longer and longer.
Korean is a second language to me. However, I don't really have much of a problem in confusing 2 similarly spelled words, since the context usually provides the answer.
if it lowers literacy and historically added to the division between social classes?
Hanja is China's cultural heritage, not Korea's. I say leave it to the scholars and historians, and leave the common citizens alone.
The literary rate in both Taiwan and Japan is higher than S.Korea
Hangul should be thought of a temporary replacement and pronunciation aid for Chinese character like furigana, not a replacement.
Or so it is claimed. I have my doubts.
Hangul is an awesome system and I think it can and should stand alone.
We have. But most of the time, Chinese compound words are not so long as English. Because a Chinese character have 4 level of structures to show information.Are you saying that the Chinese language do not have compound words? I would find that highly surprising.
Hangul only transform sound to paper, Latin alphabet can do this "sound recording" function much better.
We have. But most of the time, Chinese compound words are not so long as English.
Japan self-reports its literacy rate as 99 percent, and I am supposed to just believe it? Once again, Japan does not fail students. Its always a show here. Anything that can be a facade, is a facade.
The latin alphabet might be more generally applicable, but it seems to me that Hangul fits Korean just fine.
I am pretty sure no government's education department will regard any opinions on JREF. It's no like we can influence anyone. Why bother posting?