Philology - Japanese and Korean

[james]

perhaps this has been discussed already but i couldn't find the relevant thread if it has. apologies in advance if this topic has been done to death already.

have very recently (about a week ago) started studying korean and find its similarities to japanese to be striking.

found this interesting short essay on the subject..

[hundefar]

Well, the article doesn't bring anything new to the table. Is it Altaic? Is it a creole language with an Austronesian substratum? Who knows?

[Samurai_Jerk]

When I was back in the States, I was the head teacher at an ESL program that was about 50% Korean so I was surrounded by Korean speakers all the time. I found that after awhile I could often catch the general meaning of what they were speaking about because so much of the vocab was very similar to Japanese.

It used to freak them out because they'd be talking about something in Korean and I'd butt in with own opinion in English. One time a guy asked me how I understood and I said, "I don't know, I just do.", which was true because I hadn't been trying to learn the language at all. If I didn't speak Japanese though, it wouldn't have happened. Now that I've been out of that environment for more than 4 years, I lost that ability unfortunately.

If I ever to ge to a point where I'm comfortable with my Japanese ability, I'll probably study Korean just for the hell of it since it'll be relatively easy to learn and I've already proven to myself I have the ability to pick it up.

[FG Lurker]

I studied Japanese full time for 1.5 years on a pre-college visa. The school was about 90% Korean, 8% Chinese, two whities, one guy from Congo, and one girl from Mongolia.

I knew before I started that Korean and Japanese were very similar and this was confirmed many times by the ease in which the Koreans picked up Japanese grammar. Not everything is the same, including how honorific language is applied, but the similarities are too close to be coincidence IMO.

The interesting thing was the Mongolian girl though. Once I could speak enough Japanese to actually communicate with her, what she had to say was quite interesting. Apparently Mongolian shares about the same level of grammatical similarity to Japanese (and Korean) as Japanese and Korean do to each other. In other words, the 3 languages are very, very close.

One theory regarding the origin of the people of Korea and Japan is that they migrated from Mongolia. I think this has been shown to be likely from a genetic standpoint, and the many grammatical similarities of the 3 languages seems to point this way as well.

On a related but different note, I have heard that some (many?) of the North American Native Indian languages are also grammatically similar to Mongolian/Korean/Japanese.

[Samurai_Jerk]

[Mulboyne]

I was always told by linguists that Korean, Japanese and Mongolian belong to different language families regardless of their grammar or vocabulary similarities.

[Samurai_Jerk]

I was always told by linguists that Korean, Japanese and Mongolian belong to different language families regardless of their grammar or vocabulary similarities.

I read somewhere that they used to be considered related but the current most widely accepted theory is that they're in different families. It's probably one of those things that will change back and forth over time but never be settled.

[Mulboyne]

It's probably one of those things that will change back and forth over time but never be settled.

Here is is one of the fights
Wikipedia isn't bad on this issue.

[james]

[Takechanpoo]

[Greji]

[amdg]

In Meiji era, Japanese imported hundreds of Western concepts and kanjinized those into new Japanese words. And modern Korean and Chinese vocabularies both consist of those kanjinized words made by Japanese and they just changed those pronounciation keys by their own ones. In other words, modern Chinese and Korean vocabularies both are colonies of Japan.

That can be true often. So if you want to look at whether two languages came from a common source, you're best off looking at really typical basic words that can't have changed much over time, like "mother", "home", "moon" etc.

[Samurai_Jerk]

In Meiji era, Japanese imported hundreds of Western concepts and kanjinized those into new Japanese words. And modern Korean and Chinese vocabularies both consist of those kanjinized words made by Japanese and they just changed those pronounciation keys by their own ones. In other words, modern Chinese and Korean vocabularies both are colonies of Japan.

Some gairaigo words like arbeit and cunning have made it into Korean too.

[cenic]

In Meiji era, Japanese imported hundreds of Western concepts and kanjinized those into new Japanese words. And modern Korean and Chinese vocabularies both consist of those kanjinized words made by Japanese and they just changed those pronounciation keys by their own ones. In other words, modern Chinese and Korean vocabularies both are colonies of Japan.

When I asked my University professor of Korean history why some vocabulary was similar this is the explanation he provided me. As Take points out, a lot of modern vocabulary was created during this period, which happens to be around the same period that Japan had colonized much of Asia.

[Samurai_Jerk]

When I asked my University professor of Korean history why some vocabulary was similar this is the explanation he provided me. As Take points out, a lot of modern vocabulary was created during this period, which happens to be around the same period that Japan had colonized much of Asia.

I think it was a two way street.

[FG Lurker]

I think it's much bigger that the grammatical structure of Mongolian, Korean, and Japanese are so similar. Even concepts like "keigo" exist in all three languages and the applications are very similar.

I think the most likely explanation is the one that no Japanese or Korean wants to even contemplate: Migration from Mongolia 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, probably around the same time that Mongolian people migrated to North America. Post migration the languages were isolated and evolved on their own.

Maybe just a crackpot theory, but it's fun to wind up Japanese (and Koreans are even more fun) talking about it.

[Greji]

When I asked my University professor of Korean history why some vocabulary was similar this is the explanation he provided me. As Take points out, a lot of modern vocabulary was created during this period, which happens to be around the same period that Japan had colonized much of Asia.

Mine also held that the reason that the functions and rules of grammar in Japanese and Korean are so similar was for the same reason. Essentially, during that same time frame, it was felt that they need some grammatical system for the languages (to correspond with western systems) to gauge them with the other languages of the world. As a result both countries ended up forming their grammatical rules and structures at around the same time, and possibly with mutual assistance. I don't know of any sources that have bothered to research this too much, but my old Prof swore by it and it does make a bit of sense

[hundefar]

The thing is that no one has the stronger argument, which is why the debate is sort of stranded. There seem to be a lot of people arguing for the creole hypothesis, but even that is not very strong, because usually creole languages would not take on such a form as seen in Japan. In Jamaica for instance the creole language they use is still a form of English, even though a mangled one. In the Japanese Instance, if it were a creole language, it would be one were the mixture would be very equal. As far as I know, there are no known examples of such a language. Usually, as in the Jamaican example, one language will dominate. Hence you get the discussions/catfights among linguists who adhere to the creole hypothesis whether it is an Altaic language (and usually these include the Korean language) with a Austronesian substratum or an Altaic language with a Austronesian superstratum. Usually linguistic evidence is so weak, that linguists try to incorporate other forms of evidence, such as race or archeology, or they just go cherry picking in the lexicon.
The insecurity that is expressed through discussions such as the one mentioned above combined with the close connection between Korea and Japan as mentioned by Greji, makes it near impossible to determine if there is a genetic relationship between the two languages.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Mine also held that the reason that the functions and rules of grammar in Japanese and Korean are so similar was for the same reason. Essentially, during that same time frame, it was felt that they need some grammatical system for the languages (to correspond with western systems) to gauge them with the other languages of the world. As a result both countries ended up forming their grammatical rules and structures at around the same time, and possibly with mutual assistance. I don't know of any sources that have bothered to research this too much, but my old Prof swore by it and it does make a bit of sense

Either you misunderstood (or more likely have forgotter the details at your advanced age ) or your prof was a crack pot. The Koreans use the same terms for grammar as the Japanese wich was learned during the occupation but there is no way that in only 50 years of colonization the Japanese and Korean languages changed that fundamentally.

[Greji]

[quote="Samurai_Jerk"]Either you misunderstood (or more likely have forgotter the details at your advanced age ]

We were referring to Meiji I believe and as far as I know Queen Min "invited" the Japanese to come to Korea during the Meiji era. Both grammar systems developed during that time.

As far as that nasty remark about my kindly old Prof being a crackpot, I can only make one comment: How long have you known him? Must have been drinking alot with the old fart, 'cause you got him to a tee.

However, I do still hold they might have been mutually developed Again, I base this on the proximity of the two countries and the timing. I mean for two languages to come up with a grammatical system at roughly the same time frame and to be so similar, just sounds to strange to be coincidental.

[Mike Oxlong]

However, I do still hold they might have been mutually developed Again, I base this on the proximity of the two countries and the timing. I mean for two languages to come up with a grammatical system at roughly the same time frame and to be so similar, just sounds to strange to be coincidental.

You sayin' they might have shared more than just kings and craftsmen since the 8th century?

[Takechanpoo]

[Samurai_Jerk]

We were referring to Meiji I believe and as far as I know Queen Min "invited" the Japanese to come to Korea during the Meiji era. Both grammar systems developed during that time.

As far as that nasty remark about my kindly old Prof being a crackpot, I can only make one comment: How long have you known him? Must have been drinking alot with the old fart, 'cause you got him to a tee.

However, I do still hold they might have been mutually developed Again, I base this on the proximity of the two countries and the timing. I mean for two languages to come up with a grammatical system at roughly the same time frame and to be so similar, just sounds to strange to be coincidental.

What I meant was they may have the same system to classify and standardize the rule, but the grammar would have already been there. The exchange had been going on for more than 1000 years by the Meiji Era.

BTW, Takechinpo. It was Korean monks that first taught the Japanese kanji. Remember that.

[james]

As a Korean/Japanese linguist,

wow, there's a whole side of you that we didn't know, beyond the barnyard animals

just out of curiosity, in which language do you consider yourself to be more proficient?

[Greji]

[quote="james"]wow, there's a whole side of you that we didn't know, beyond the barnyard animals ]

Goat-go....

[Mike Oxlong]