I agree with you that the Sino-Korean or Sino-Japanese lexical items are
indeed part of the Korean or Japanese Language, although they may belong to a
distinct category from the native one in the respective lexicon. As for the
technical and other words, which are shared in the three languages you
mention, some people put more emphasis on which of the Chinese-character-using
countries was the first to form such expressions. Each country, on the other
hand, may want to appropriate these words as their own, as the words are based
on their native or nativized roots.

The "yaki" in "yaki mandu" is a straightforward case of language borrowing.
Since it is always written in hankul even when it is used, and in this case,
there is no "character" borrowing.

I am curious to know, however, if anyone did a study on real character
borrowing, e.g., (1) How many abbreviations made by the Japanese were borrowed
by the Koreans and/or Chinese; (2) How many new "Chinese" characters "made up"
by the Japanese were borrowed by the Korean and/or Chinese writers. I may
also ask the same questions concerning the Chinese characters abbreviated or
created by the Koreans.

Young-Key Kim-Renaud

>===== Original Message From Korean Linguistics <ICKL@...>,
Wednesday, March 05, 2003 8:56 AM =====

>Hello. I would submit to the group that with very few exceptions, all
>Korean words based on Chinese origin are just as "native" Korean as Japanese
>words of Chinese origin are "native" Japanese.
>However, there are some words that although, written in Korean, are
>pronounced in Japanese such as "Yaki" mandu instead of Kun-mandu. This is
>normally found primarily among the older Koreans that had the "exposure" to
>Japanese during the imperial days of Japan.
>Also, the majority of all technical words such as doctor and military terms
>are almost always identical in Chinese, Korean and Japanese, but with their
>own pronunciation.
>Roland Wilson

=====From ICKL <ICKL@...> , Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:48 PM

Hi, Bob,

You asked what Korean dictionary I found the Japanese version of the "tong"
of "notong" in. (I am top-posting to the exchange.)

I guess I will follow you in keeping the whole list in on this. How does
the saying go? "On the internet, no one can tell your face is red"?

I probably should have couched my remark much more circumspectly--or even
not have made it at all. To tell the truth, I don't remember ever seeing
the word written with that "tong" (the classifier is "person," rather than
"hand") either.

The original question made me wonder whether some kokuji might have been
adopted, and I wondered for instance about characters for measure words,
such as the ones the Japanese (used to) read and write for "mairu,"
"inchi," etc.; until this morning I had labored under the false notion that
they were kokuji. I decided to check only the character in question
because it is unusual in having a Sino-Japanese reading and thus being easy
to borrow with a Sino-Korean reading.

So I grabbed my trusty /Choysin kwukhan tay sacen/ (compiled by Munyensa's
[?] sacen phyenchanhoy in 4284-06-29; mine is officically marked up from
600 hoan to 800), and found the character on page 40 of the main
dictionary, where it is given as "[tong] il ham. tongcak." My suspicions
should have been aroused by the fact that no compounds are given for it.
Had I looked up the "lo" part of "nodong" in this same dictionary, I would
have found the other, inpyen-less, "tong" and not jumped to my now famous
false conclusion. My statement would have been correct had I said my
dictionary has the character with which the Japanese write "roodoo," giving
it the reading "tong."

I'm starting to think that maybe, just possibly, Korean /doesn't/ use a
thousand Japanese
characters! Or even one! (The question of what that one character was
doing in my dictionary remains.)


On 03-Mar-03, you wrote, re Re: Re: FWD: Question about Japanese
characters in Korean lang.:

RR> What dictionary is that, Bart? I've only seen the word written with the
RR> character for ugoku (without the hand radical used in the kokuji).
RR> Bob

RR> ----- Original Message -----
RR> From: "Bart Mathias" <mathias@...>
RR> To: <ICKL@...>
RR> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 5:12 PM
RR> Subject: Re: FWD: Question about Japanese characters in Korean lang.

RR>> A very trivial comment, but I think some Japanese-made hanca have been
RR>> in writing Korean. One that is listed in a small hanca sacen that I
RR>> have, for instance, is the "tong" of "lotong" = "labor."

RR>> Bart Mathias

RR>> On 02-Mar-03, Young-Key Kim-Renaud wrote, re FWD: Question about Japanese
RR>> characters in Korean lang.:

RR>>> Dear Corey,

RR>>> [...]

RR>>> I share your general opinion completely, but I am forwarding your
RR>>> to three different discussion groups I belong to, as various
RR>>> might have something to say about your questions (and my answers):
RR>> G> [...]