User talk:KYPark

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search






On etymologies[edit]

Hi. Welcome to the Wiktionary! I notice you have added Korean words to the etymology sections of several English words. I can't see why you would do so because no linguist considers the English and Korean languages to be related. Well, there's the Nostratic hypothesis, for example, but conclusions drawn from it should be marked as such. Pointing out loanwords is okay, I think. | hyark 13:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Hi, thank you for your contributions. A point with regard to Korean: here we are following the w:Revised Romanization of Korean of 2000. This means that 락 is transliterated "rak", etc. —Stephen 00:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Steve. I'm so sorry to have caused you so much trouble to correct all my unfortunate Romanizations. I understand Wiktionary should adopt a certain Romanization system, say, RR instead of MR and others, however damaging it might be. Unfortunately, however, all such systems so far mainly aim to romanize Korean proper names in isolation rather than agglutinating or conjugating words in context. They adopt a radical reductionism, ignoring linguistic dynamism of the Korean language. Such is not linguistics, I am afraid. As a result of RR, you have to bother explaining why garak should suddenly become garag before /e/, for example. Such stupid transliteration should and could be avoided easily! I'm not quite sure, but RR already has such an allowance, as suggested here. Anyway, I hate any Roman transliteration more ambiguous than Hangul. Simply it is hard for me to accept why rag (락) and rak (랔) should be the same, whatever each may be. Whatever would insist so would be rubbish, I should say.
The w:Revised Romanization of Korean doesn’t seem to suffer from that defect. While a final "ㄱ" in Korean does not change form in different environments, the transcription of it does change. For example, 한국 = hanguk, but 한국어 = hangugeo; 벽 = byeok, but 벽에 = byeoge. Some letters have other transcriptions; e.g., 고맙습니다 = gomapseumnida (not gomapseubnida). The Korean stops are only written with "p-t-k" when they are NOT followed by a vowel or semivowel: e.g., 밖 → bak, 밖에 → bakke; 부엌 = bueok, 부엌에 = bueoke. —Stephen 17:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The Wiki article you suggest, Revised Romanization of Korean, is not fully informative. So, to supplement yours, I previously suggested another article, Korean romanization#Examples, whose third column "RR (RR transliteration in brackets)" suggests the strict transliteration rather than normal transcription provision, from the least ambiguity perspective! This exceptional but rational provision is exactly what Wiki should adopt, I insist. Or, I resist. The following is excerpted from The Romanization of Korean by its originator, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, RoK:
(8) When it is necessary to convert Romanized Korean back to Hangeul in special cases such as in academic articles, Romanization is done according to Hangeul spelling and not pronunciation. Each Hangeul letter is Romanized as explained in section 2 except that ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅂ, ㄹ are always written as g, d, b, l. When ㅇ has no sound value, it is replaced by a hyphen may also be used when it is necessary to distinguish between syllables.

집 jib  
짚 jip 

밖 bakk 
값 gabs 

붓꽃 buskkoch 
먹는 meogneun 

독립 doglib 
문리 munli 

물엿 mul-yeos 
굳이 gud-i 

좋다 johda 
가곡 gagog 

조랑말 jolangmal 
없었습니다 eobs-eoss-seubnida 

--KYPark 09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the only reason for this special case is to allow easy and accurate retransliteration into Korean. Here in Wiktionary, the Korean Romanizations are always accompanied by the actual Korean spelling, and therefore we do not have any need to worry about or allow for re-Koreanization. The Romanization that you like to use is needed when the actual Korean spelling is absent, but here we always give the Korean letters. The very same problem crops up with the transcription of almost every script (Russian, Arabic, Amharic, Greek, etc.), but we completely avoid the problem here by always giving the word in its correct script, and so we only need a Romanization that is easy to type and that is helpful with the pronunciation. —Stephen 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You are supposed to support user-centrism as the mainstream in most disciplines, not to mention postmodernism claiming "the death of the author." We will not confine ourselves to the explicit literal meaning. Implicitly, we are allowed to apply the exact transliteration whenever we need it indeed. It would be very unwise for Wiktionary to presuppose for what the reader should use the Romanization, say, for somewhat easier pronunciation. Korean words may always be shown together with the Romanization, as you said. Nevertheless, all the readers may not read them for one reason after another. Some of them may even try to learn Korean relying on the Romanization only, not without reason and feasibility, at least in the beginning. Phonetically speaking, Hangul is not perfectly consistent, though very well designed for Korean in general. The consonants sound different depending on the context. Transcription is one thing, and the actual pronunciation is another, to be precise. Of course, the Romanization needs to help pronounce Korean as easily and correctly as possible. But that should not be the whole story, I should say. Such an insistence may sacrifice so many other crucial things, e.g., enormous confusion and ambiguity caused by inconsistent Roman spelling in agglutination and conjugation. It reminds me of the Western "phonocentrism" Jacques Derrida criticized and even ridiculed so bitterly. One more regrettable thing worth remembering is that English is great not because of the most irregular transcription. Native English speakers may not understand how much others love an easy if not easiest transcription. Please help the Romanized Korean not to look crazy! --KYPark 09:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have explained to you the transliteration that we are using here for Korean, and I have explained why. I am not going to argue anymore about it. If you don’t use the approved system as I have described it, your transcriptions will all have to be changed, which is double the effort. —Stephen 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

False cognates[edit]

Another important point: A false cognate is a word that appears to have a shared linguistic origin to a given word, but which is, to people’s surprise, quite unrelated. The False Cognate with some translations of water that you listed are not false cognates. Nobody believes that they are linguistically related. They are simply words in various languages that have vaguely similar sounds to some Korean words, but they do NOT appear to be cognates. That’s like saying "Al" (Albert) is linguistically related to Arabic "Ali" or "Allah". Nobody thinks they are cognates, and therefore they cannot be considered "false cognates". They are simply words in other languages that are completely unrelated to a similar-sounding Korean word.

These words are NOT cognates with are Korean word, nor are they FALSE cognates:

—Stephen 00:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again I am very sorry but my understanding of false cognate is not so sofisticated as yours. Certainly you can define it in your own way, whether I or anyone else agree or not. To be fair, I would refer you to false cognate. --KYPark 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The article at false cognate is very well done and I agree with it. The thing is that I am familiar with almost all of the examples listed in that article, because there have been quite a few educated people over the years that have believed those examples were really cognates. Books have been written about how universally shared words such as me, mama and dada are proof that all languages sprouted out of a single ancestral language around 5600 years ago. But I have never heard of anyone who thought 바다 and water were cognates. The distinction is between "not cognate" and "false cognate". In all fairness, I could be mistaken about this particular word, and perhaps there is a significant number of linguists who claim a genetic relationship. I have not encountered this claim before, but it’s possible. If there really is a significant group of people who suggest it’s a cognate, then the thing to do would be to add an ===Etymology=== section at the beginning of the article and trace the word back as far as possible, and that’s also where you would indicate that it’s a false cognate with English water, if in fact it is a false cognate rather than simply not cognate as I believe. —Stephen 11:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Truth in itself is of itself, independent from the popular belief and knowledge, and mostly hidden implicit and tacit. Five centuries ago, all believed geocentrism. The Indo-European language family used to totally ignore the sharing of linguistic heritage with the others. The least would be with the Far Eastern, and particularly Korean. Such Eurocentrism has been much harder to overcome than geocentrism.
In Anglo-American academia, the Eurasiatic or Proto-world hypthesis was raised just a few decades ago by the later Greenberg. He was just knocking at the door, which was and still remains tightly closed. This state of affairs appears so strange and absurd, as the single linguistic ancestry is widely accepted in the Western Christianity.
You strongly suggest that some established cognates later turn out to be false cognates. Simply such is not the case. From the beginning, the Far Eastern were never regarded as such cognates. It would be reasonabe to approach the other way around, from false to true cognates, as etymology makes progress.
Dolmens are found almost all over the world, and half of them in Korea! Why should she be limited to them? She may have inherited lots of linguistic genes of very old origin from the single ancestry or Eurasiatic. Such hypotheses opened up the possibility of Korean cognates with the Indo-European, while no cognate whatsoever could be proved as such. Nevertheless, the more Korean false cognates with the Indo-European, the higher degree of belief and coherence as the major truth condition.--KYPark 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen -- why shouldn't "bada" and say, "wada" (a stone's throw from "water") -- be related? Just because no-one has considered it before does not mean it is not a real connection. You give no real supporting claim.

Second -- just as Spanish has its "v"/"b" conversion -- perhaps Korean has something like it, as well. --Cofee Mapps, 12:26, 27 February 2011

Korean indexes[edit]

Hello. I've just mashed those index pages together to make them comform to the new style (when they were moved from the Wiktionary: namespace to Index: namespace). Feel free to change them to anything you feel serves better their purpose. Cheers, — Vildricianus 14:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your visit and encouragement. Perhaps I will try soon. --KYPark 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks pretty well-done. I myself don't know anything about Korean (unfortunately, yet, too little time), but I'm sure it's useful to those who do. I don't think we've had many editors interested in the language - we have only about 600 Korean entries. Keep up the good work! — Vildricianus 12:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


I have been working on formatting the single Han character (hanzi/kanji/hanja) entries. We have two templates that I have been using; {{ko-hanja}} and {{ko-pos}}. The first is for the single characters, displays them in the correct font, shows the Hangeul, the Eumhun reading, and the romanizations in 3 systems. {{ko-pos}} is for words, formats the line and categorizes the words. Robert Ullmann 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Derived terms[edit]

This section is reserved for words in the same language as the entry. When the words are in a different language, we use the section header "Descendants". See the ELE --EncycloPetey 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Hiya. I've reverted your change to the etymology here, as I can't find any use of the OE word cliewen. What's your source? Widsith 09:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think M-W are mistaken, or at the least they have picked a very unusual form of the word. The word is almost always spelt cliwen in OE, occasionally cleowen. I can't find any use of cliewen. The OED agrees with me, as does Widsith 10:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Related terms[edit]

This section is for etymologically and morphologically related terms, so mew is not a related term for the common gull. It should be listed under See also. --EncycloPetey 07:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your "See also" suggestion. Meanwhile, I understand a mew is exactly the same as a gull, or as related as the same genus Larus, while a common gull is simply Larus canus, sometimes even called mew gull as noted in w:Common Gull. In addition I tend to be generous about "Related terms" anyway. --KYPark 07:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the animals are related, but the words are not. See WT:ELE regarding "Related terms". For example, under lion, we could list as "Related terms" lioness, antlion, leonine and so forth because the words are related. We would not list Felis or cat as related terms because they come from different word roots. Does that help? --EncycloPetey 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I barely agree with your examples of Related terms to lion, which would better be Derived terms. Contrarily, lion would be one of Related terms to the entry lioness. Synonyms to the entry cat would include either puss or Felis rather than Related terms, vice versa. --KYPark 08:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Check their etymologies. Neither lioness nor leonine comes from lion. Lioness comes from a separate Old French root, not from lion. The word leonine comes from a different French word as well. The etymology of antlion is sometimes said to be obscure, sometimes transparent. --EncycloPetey 09:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
leonine may better be under Related terms, while lioness and antlion Derived terms as presently shown under lion. The feminine lioness may have been derived either from Old French lionnesse, as you allege, or from lion, as priestess from priest, for example if ok. Let's leave it open. The point here is not to make clear etymology of any example, but the principle that lioness for example should be under Derived terms from lion iff etymology so grants. --KYPark 12:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but back to my original point. The word mew is neither derived from the word common gull, nor is it related to that word. They only share a meaning, not an etymological relation. --EncycloPetey 17:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, as regards mew again, I welcome your "See also" suggestion, as was the very opening word of my reply. Good point. --KYPark 04:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


the term in the article is maybe wrong info. i can't find it at amy dictionary. have you any souce to prove it? and if you are korean, please answer in korean. i'm net good at english.. 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

'갈'은 '칼'의 옛말 맞습니다 맞고요. 옛말이 많이 실린 사전을 찾아 보시기 바랍니다. 예컨대
  • 금성교과서(주) '뉴에이스 국어사전'은 작아도 쓸만하고,
  • 교학사 '교학 고어사전'은 더욱 쓸만합니다.
인터넷에서 손쉬운 국립국어원의 표준국어사전에는 예컨대 갈(刀)도 뫼(山)도 안나옵니다.
``우리에게 친숙한 생선인 `칼치`는 `갈치`가 바른 말이다. [...] 방언으로 널리 쓰이고 있는 `칼치`는 그 모습이 칼처럼 생겼다 해서 한자로 도어(刀魚)라 불리기도 한다. `칼(刀)`의 옛말 `갏`에서 `ㅎ`이 탈락한 뒤 물고기나 물고기 이름을 나타내는 접미사 `치(넙치.날치.꽁치.버들치)`가 붙어 만들어진 `갈치`가 표준어 자리를 차지하고 있다.`` [출처 : 중앙일보] --KYPark 14:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Finnish translations deleted[edit]

See : User_talk:Hekaheka#Removing_Finnish_translations

--KYPark 12:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


I am writing to explain the reasonings behind your one day block. First of all, let me say quite emphatically that the vast majority of your contributions are top-notch and are very genuinely appreciated. However, there are a number of issues which have been raised before that need to be addressed. The first (and most important) is your continuing persistence in pushing the theory of a genetic relationship between Korean and certain European languages. While it's possible (albeit unlikely) that historical linguistics may one day validate this, the fact remains that current theory considers this postulate to be absurd. As Wiktionary strives to be a respected dictionary, we simply cannot afford to have this on our site. Please desist in noting European cognates for native Korean words, and please go back and remove any you have inserted in the past. Secondly, Stephen has discussed with you the transliteration format for Korean entries, and you have chosen to ignore this. If you believe there is a better way to transliterate Korean words than the current standard, by all means bring it up in the Beer Parlour. However, until a different method is chosen, the method which Stephen has noted is the community standard, and should be adhered to. It is my hope that these issues can be resolved, as further behavior of a similar nature will result in longer blocks, and we do not want to lose such a valuable contributor to Wiktionary. Atelaes 05:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

my rely

Thank you so much for granting me such a one-day break that I absolutely needed indeed.

Recently I have edited a few Etymology sections, all related to a common Finno-Ugric root *walke, whence especially Finnish valkea, clearly suggesting possible ("arbeit unlikely" as you said) cognates with Korean 밝다 "to be bright" and 박쥐 "bat," from the Ural-Altaic perspective. Elsewhere I have seldom edited such sections to claim such cognates between European and Korean, but surely offered comparative data to serve for pure curiosity rather than cognate claim. I am far from being convinced why such pure, goodwill information, especially without any clear etymological claim, should be blamed for being "absurd." You can blame me as far as you remain reasonabe; otherwise you are to blame. May I refer you to the meaning of absurd as follows:

  • "ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous"
  • "having no rational or orderly relationship to human life"

Surely I am personally interested in restoring the possible ("arbeit unlikely" as you said) Eurasian, especially Euro-Korean, connection that, perhaps together with paganism, may have been unfortunately disconnected self-deceptively by Roman Christianity. India is a highly convincing link that yielded both Indo-Europeanism and Bhuddism that has much affected Korea almost two millenia. No one could sanely deny some possibility of Euro-Korean cognates. The current total denial is thus most absurd and ridiculous, likely meddling with w:Christianity, w:Eurocentrism and the like, suppressing the opposing views by all means. This may be called, and due to, the Western premium, I am afraid.

The theory of single linguistic ancestry originated from the Bible. It is quite mystic but still influential. The idea of Proto-Indo-European and the like simply looks like a narrowed version. The worst seems to be self-contained, self-sufficient, self-sustaining, self-deceiving, and even self-defeating. How would it be possible for Indo-European to remain unaffected by the external forces, including Semitic Abrahamism. I wish PIE not to contribute to such a myth as pure IE. Instead, languages need be compared both within and without a family, say, beyond PIE! Simply I like to get such a missing job done. Nonetheless, I would like to remain cool and refrain from hurriedly claiming any congnates. My job is just to offer comparative data, while cognate judgment belongs to scholors. The [citation needed] tag or the like would be enough for readers to know that my data are not warranted by scholars.

The balance between action and reaction in the widest sense, or w:Yin and Yang, is indeed a cosmic nature in autonomy. Blocking or the like would serve as a shift, right or wrong. Most theses or theories are to be counter-balanced by anti-theses or anti-theories, hence "Conjectures and Refutations" (1963) in w:Karl Popper's terms, and the similar philosophy such as found in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962) by w:Thomas Kuhn, and "Against Method" (1975) or "Anything goes" by w:Paul Feyerabend. All these mainstream philosophers of science, especially Feyerabend, ask justice to be done to the minority theses. Most theories begin to emerge and evolve from such a minor state.

May I seriously ask here if Wiktionary would deny to do justice to the minority views so as to promote the majority only in view of its neutrality and respect? Then it would look like sort of totalitarianism that is so awkward in the free world now, I fear. And I would definitely like to fight against such an ahistoric monster. Even paganism is coming back, fortunate or not, from which Wikipedia would be the last to face away. It was regarded as such a monster and destroyed. Still it remains such, suffering minority.

Please leave the Wiktionary neutrality to the autonomy of pros and cons of editors, rather than the dictative blocking of any side. My edits, however problematic, is always subject to counter-edits. I cannot avoid. This is the royal road how Wik keeps neutral or balanced, and how it makes itself best of all, I guess. On the other hand, administrators may be so dictative as to be compared to the problematic traditional system of referees, as usual in academic journals, probably doing harm to the Wiktionary spirit and respect. Academics may be so familiar and happy with such a screen, designed to protect their own interest rather than readers' freedom of information. Wikipedia was born the very opposite, I guess.

Wiktionary is supposed to adopt the w:Revised Romanization of Hangul, and have much difficulty in suppressing the other systems. This would be because of the Wiktionary justice to the minority on the one hand and the editorial autonomy on the other. However, my own system, if any but not published, for example cannot be used here. Since Stephen, I have accepted his way and added it next to mine, which is not really mine but also derived from a special provision or requirement at the end of the RR, supplemented and inevitably contrasted to the general that he solely insists. My way is not without reasons, but to let Romanized roots always remain as such, that is, unchanged in actual uses as far as possibe. By doing so, I could do justice to those who ignore Hangul and read Roman letters only. Should I stop, or be blamed for, being kinder, serving more information of potential use than other editors?

Lastly, personally I do wish for a far better system for Korean Romanization. And I am sure it should be possible, depending on the needs in mind. The traditional systems paid too much attention to phonetics that most foreigners can pronounce Korean words closest. This objective is not so bad but tends to ignore orthography. Within Wiktionary, this could be better achieved by the phonetic signs than Romanization. On the other hand, Romanized orthography may be needed in addition to Hangul, however excellent and lovable it may be. Suppose such is a reasonable objective that we have to design a new system. I myself drafted one. And I would like to bring it to Beer Parlor, should Wiktionary be really interested in having a better system for its own sake.

--KYPark 09:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, in Middle Ages naive scholars tried to "prove" that Latin and Ancient Greek somehow "descend" from Hebrew (which was termed as "Adamic langage" or "God's language"), by applying ad-hoc invented arbitrary permutations/elisions/additions of letters. Even when Sir William Jones discovered remarkable similarities between Avestan, Middle Persian, Sanskrit and old Europe's classical languages (in which he was educated), some still blindly claimed that "dirty Brahmins derived their own speech from Greek" (not the exact quote, but you get the point).
The term cognate strictly refers to already established genetic relationship; when there is none, similarly sounding words whose semantic field partially overlaps are either borrowings, or arose by chance. You cannot claim that obvious borrowings like word for gong and menu are cognates, or try to masquerade it under the "Euro-Korean" category. Establishing a genetic relationship between languages requires a lot more than lists of words with similar phonetic values: it requires identifying isoglosses that were a result of common development, and cannot be explained away as borrowings or an areal feature (convergence/contact). No common development = no genetic relationship.
I strongly advise you to abandon any kind of Uralo-Altaic speculations in etymologies, justifying them as "minority views that need attention". They're not some "minority views", they're complete 19th century rubbish, just like are modern Sumero-Turkic, Albano-Illyrian and similar theories (notwithstanding the fact that they've been advocated by people with Ph.D.s). For a particularly fun side of these, see e.g. WT:RFD#Turkish loanwords from Serbian. Dušan is obviously not stupid, and knows his stuff, but his "Xur-Bel-Gon human speech formula" is just insane.
Historical linguistics is not an w:exact science, and communis opionio is essential for filtering nonsense.
Please don't push forward labeling obvious borrowings and similarly sounding words as "cognates", for it will result in blocks. --Ivan Štambuk 21:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)



Please see reply at User Talk:AutoFormat. Robert Ullmann 12:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion there is getting way off the page topic (what AutoFormat does).

If we want to have entries for every useful precomposed block, we can do a lot better than generating them by hand; I have the code I used to generate (and update) all the Mandarin pinyin syllables (with diacritics; BD2412 has been doing the others.) But either way, they have to follow wikt format. Robert Ullmann 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good news :-) after harsh screaming :-(. Actually I've been planning to ask you to help with that sort of things, after resolving the troubled question between us. I hope you would not too much be annoyed here --KYPark 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi KY. Where did you see this word? I've never seen it spelt this way. Widsith 09:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Widsith. See dogga after expanding the image by clicking on the down right corner. Cheers. --KYPark 10:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK mate, thanks. I might change it to an {{alternative spelling of}}, do you mind? Widsith 10:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that template. But you go ahead. Then I'll see what's the difference and if I should mind. --KYPark 11:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some help with Korean entries for religious terminology?[edit]

Your help would be much appreciated in creating entries for the terms listed in the template for belief systems on the Korean Wikipedia. There are 30 in all, but some may not yet be terms defined in Wiktionary, so any of those probably need not be bothered with at this point. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow, actually that's far better than what I had hoped for - really I just want to see a basic entry on each of the Korean terms in the template, with the proper translation/pronunciation (and perhaps plug those into the translation sections of the corresponding English articles). But the derived terms and related terms sections are great additions as well. Thanks! bd2412 T 06:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi, what's the difference between 일신교 and 일신론? Cheers! bd2412 T 05:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of speech for 있다[edit]

Hi, KYPark. In this edit, you changed the 있다 entry to say it's an adjective instead of a verb. Since 있다 conjugates as a verb, appears at the end of sentences as a verb, and has an English definition that's a verb, I'm not sure why you changed it. Does it have something to do with the recent linguistic literature that posits that Korean adjectives and stative verbs are the same class of word? Rod (A. Smith) 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Das taugt nicht. (That is of no use.) In this case, the German verb taugen "to be fit, useful" is not a real but so to speak adjectival verb. Latin also has the like, but the Modern English has not, corruptedly or not. Most if not all Korean adjectives are such verbs but rather called adjectives instead. They conjugate almost like verbs, but not exactly. Remarkably, they use the infinitive as the present tense, while verbs don't. (The present tense of the infinitive verb 가다 "to go" is 간다.) So do the verbial 이다 "to be," and 있다 "to be, exist," so that these also would better be regarded as adjectives. Cheers. --KYPark 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a good analysis, but if 있다 were in the same class as other Korean words commonly called adjectives, it would be ok to modify a noun by preceding it with *있은. Since that's non-grammatical, though, it seems there are four relevant Korean parts of speech to consider in order to determine how best to map Korean words to verbs and adjectives:
  1. standard verbs (an open class that includes 가다 and the words we use to translate most English verbs)
  2. the copula 이다 and its antonym 아니다
  3. the existence verb 있다 and its antonym 없다
  4. adjectives, a.k.a. adjectival/descriptive/stative verbs (an open class that includes the words we use to translate most English adjectives)
So, unless there's anything else to consider, I'll just add the relevant usage notes to 있다 and call it a day. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Though your initial question was the existential verb 있다, may I ask you to forget it for a moment as it is so special as English be? What we have to focus on at the moment would be whether verb or adjective, English or Korean. Korean verbs and adjectives are morphologically similar but soemwhat different. --KYPark 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It's much more important to determine the POS to apply to #4 above (the open class that includes the words we use to translate most English adjectives. I believe we both agree that "adjective" is a better POS to apply. They seem very much like "い adjectives" in Japanese. Last year, I think we decided that the best way to classify them is as adjectives, with a category to differentiate them from "な adjectives". In Korean, that differentiation doesn't seem necessary, so we should probably just call them "adjectives". Right? Rod (A. Smith) 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Now let me show you some more types, perhaps making your life a little harder. ;-) Japanese い-adjectives are both attributive and predicative, while な-adjectives are only attributive. Either is morphologically and grammatically quite simple. In contrast, Korean adjectives are much more diverse and complex, as partly suggested in the following. Except for the last category "Past or perfect tense," the present tense is the same as the infinitive, which is the sure sign of adjectives in contrast to verbs.

  1. Typical adjectives
  2. -하다
  3. -있다, -없다
    • 있다 / -없다 to taste good / bad
    • 쓸모있다 / -없다 to be useful / useless
    • 다름없다 there to be no difference
    • 있다 to be well, in a good condition
  4. -이다
  5. -이다 (analogy)
    • 다 to be (as brutal as) a dog
    • 여우다 to be (as sly as) a fox
  6. -같다 (simile)
    • 같다 to be like a dog
    • 여우같다 to be like a fox
  7. -롭다, -스럽다
  8. Past or perfect tense

--KYPark 09:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those examples. Can you recommend a text describing Korean grammar from a Korean standpoint? I'd like to list the parts of speech in WT:AK, create templates for each, and perhaps describe them in an appendex. Unfortunately, my little Korean-English dictionary does not include Korean parts of speech. Rod (A. Smith) 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The best text would be 교육인적자원부, 고등학교 문법, 대한교과서주식회사 (Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development, High School Grammar, state-run textbook publisher). But the trouble is you could not buy it from Interpark or the like shopping mall. I have no idea how you could at the moment. A second-hand copy may be available somewhere.
I have also found no Korean-English dictionary including POS, perhaps to avoid disparity between Korean and English. So you have to consult the Korean-Korean dictionary like 표준국어대사전, word after word. Or, from this site you can download the Excel file of the basic Korean vocabulary listing of 6000- words in Hangul (plus Chinese characters for Sino-Korean) and POS!
In addition to WT:AK or whatever, I do wish that using this file you could let a bot make 6000- basic entries without definition for the moment (as Chinese characters did for CJK languages). Romanization is automated as you would know. I have seen such almost blank entries (in German or French), which may make editors' lives easier though perhaps some frustration to readers. If you agree with my proposal, we may better talk a little more later. Cheers! --KYPark 01:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Korean cleanup[edit]

Could you help? Mutante has been working to trim down our list of uncategorized pages, and this has led to a cleanup of those pages. There are 32 Korean entries with no category. Would you be able to remedy this? --EncycloPetey 14:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished categorizing and editing 26 out of 32 pages. The remaining 6 pages are inflectional or conjugational, hence unworthy of a separate page, I fear. In this regard, I don't like the so many red links involved in the verbial or adjectival conjugation chart. --KYPark 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Category:Euro-Korean words[edit]

I've replied to your comment on User_talk:Dmcdevit. Conrad.Irwin 11:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Can someone else please be the bad guy[edit]

I thought you should be made aware of this conversation. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Korean "false cognates"[edit]

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 <any Indo-European language> 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 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)


Dear Kypark, you were just blocked for 1 week due to your repeated trolling on Talk:기린.

There were times when I thought you'll sooner or later be convinced by sane reason that PIE is not just "another theory", not a "model of thought" comparable to world's religions, not some "hypothesis comparable to any other", but "enforced by Euro-centric linguists" (not your exact wording, but these were all your points).

Valid scientific evidence the supports the most widely accept reconstruction of PIE (not just the lexemes themselves, but the phonology and morphology as well, and these other things are much more important) that was built by word's foremost linguist in the last 2 centuries is in no way comparable to unsupportive "theories" (the word theory means different things in science, and in colloquial speech - this term is so often manipulated, especially by creationists and similar breed) like the Indo-Uralic that you pushed several times on the ===Etymology=== sections in the main namespace entries, and your IE-Korean relationships based on some vague phonetic correspondences that are simply a product of your imagination.

You should know that the prehistorical PIE etymology is not the history or etymology per se of words. Anyone can reconstruct anything like PIE anyway

Dear Kypark, Indo-European language family can be validly established only by looking at 4 basic kinship terms (mother, father, brother, sister), numerals up to 10 and the verbs "to be", "to stay, "to bear" and "to give", but the real evidence is much, much more abundant than that. It is not "some other theory" comparable to any other (like those that you like or like to fancy). Glottalic theory has gained a lot of ground in the last 2 and a half decades (and is still very strong at Leiden school), but these alternatives are not conflictive with respect to the end result. They give different means to explain how daughter languages have inherited the actually attested forms. It's like two physics theories - both give different theoretical interpretation of the phenomena that is observable in only one way.

It's fun how people who don't like the idea of PIE like to emphasize it being "hypothetical". Most of the theoretical sciences sooner or later bump into some kind of the practical limits, but in linguistics these have much more concrete consequences as soon as the conclusions collide with what people like to imagine to be their "real" history (usually - that they are ethnically and linguistically indigenous) There was a while ago a Greek nationalist that claimed that all PIE languages descend from Mycenaean Greek, since it's the earliest attested one (which is not, Old Anatolian languages are, and so is the Mitanni Indo-Aryan). He also liked to emphasize the "hypothetical" part - cf. [1] ^_^

Also, your comparison of modern Korean and modern IE (French, German - your common targets) reminds me of other pseudoscientific linguists, who ignore ancient and extinct languages either deliberately or out of sheer ignorance, and compare modern ones. I just read the other day on sci.lang (where he's achieved almost cult-like status ^_^) an alleged relationship between what mr. Dušan Vukotić likes to call "Serbo-Slavic" oblak and modern English egg - so much fun. Vukotić has also a long (almost 2 year) IP record here on Wiktionary - but it consists mostly of removing valid etymologies that he doesn't like on nationalist grounds (Serbian words derived from Ottoman Turkish), and adding protologisms and neologisms coined in the 19th century into translation tables.

I did nothing on these pages and I entered Wiktionary (for the first time) a fiew days ago, when I saw that someone is abusing my name and some parts of my writings.
Please, stop misusing my name.
Dušan Vukotic --Vukotic

Yes, PIE looks like nine-headed monster, but that nine-headed monster is a valid scientific theory which is accepted by most of the world's linguists, and more importantly, by all relevant world's linguists. Everything else would be highly-speculative, and would amount to original research which is forbidden. You must understand this part. I and no one else here wants to discuss with you how much the PIE theory itself is tenable or not. Please stop your attempts to bash it, because your theories are irrelevant and we don't care about them.

This block is rather symbolical than 100% purposeful, for I have no desire to actually stop you from contributing useful content on Korean entries. However, seeing the amount of effort you've put into bashing PIE in the last month, it seems that you're not that much interested in Korean entries, unless they can be used to promote your convictions (like the entry on 기린 and others mentioned in BP). I'm very sad that this is the case.

If you can firmly agree to finally let go of this anti-PIE thing, just drop me (or any other active administrator) a message or e-mail, and it will be removed ASAP. Pushing it further on mainspace talk pages will be treated as just another vandalism. Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk 16:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


You have recently added Finnish and Estonian words as allegedly one of the etymological sources for Yule, when en effet the oldest notion, wherefrom all of its forms in other Germanic (and not only) languages stem, is the Old Norse jól (not in my opinion, but according to one of the most illustrious dictionaries in Scandinavia). Unless you provide an explication for the claims of Estonian-Finnish origin, when in fact they are borrowings, I intend to deprive the article of them, or, lest it diminishes in volume, to move them to the "Translations" section. Bogorm 21:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, silently belittling (same edit) the Old Norse origin by sustituting "influenced by" with "cognate with" is reprehensible and not conducive to the amelioration of the article. Bogorm 21:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)



Some of the entries you've added as "reduplication" are not. For example, chick flick is not an example of reduplication. Yes, the parts rhyme, but they were both separate existing words prior to the formation of the compound. Reduplication is the creation of a phrase by repetition (with modification). --EncycloPetey 03:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The exact definition would be as debatable as any other concepts. Thus, the "creation of a phrase by repetition (with modification)" may be redefined as a creation of a reduplicative phrase by repetition such as:
  1. simply repeated, acute-null-accented : bye-bye
  2. high-low-voweled, acute-grave-accented : bric-a-brac
  3. head-rhymed, acute-acute-accented : boogie-woogie, chick flick, etc.
Isn't chick flick more reduplicative than girl film, lady movie, chick picture, as it were, etc.? The admittedly separate origin of chick and flick would not prevent their com-pounding from co-sounding reduplicative in effect. This effect is a poetic or onomatopoeic rather than etymologic emotion.
This is a cradle year of this category in Wiktionary. My role as of now is not supposed to exact it but get more and more together, right or wrong, for your reference and discussion. And I confess I'm using this webpage. --nemo 05:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The combination of two words in a poetic rhyme is not reduplication. I'd say the page you are using contains some errors. It also doesn't seem to distinguish between words that originated by reduplication in English from words that originated by reduplication in pre-Latin languages, then were adopted into English. That's a huge difference. --EncycloPetey 14:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence isn't quite clear to me. But I agree if you mean to say that reduplication should apply to recursive or established compounds, e.g., chick flick, rather than casual combinations of any two rhymed words. I wonder if you still insist chick flick is not. I agree the page is not an authority but easy reference. I expect other experts to correct one error after another as per the Wikt way of doing. And, I also wonder if this category should exclude foreign reduplications such as bric-a-brac. --nemo 00:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Please do not invent speculative etymologies that incorporate unattested words. There is no evidence of a Latin verb *undulare. --EncycloPetey 03:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Invent? You could or should say that only when you're as omniscient as God. So you're supposed to invent the meaning of invent. For your fallibility at least, refer to Essence Dictionaire Francais-Coreen, Minjungseorim, Seoul, Korea, 1992, reading:
onduler ... [lat. undulare < unda (=onde)].
Sorry this Korean stuff may be unavailable to you. Should you believe me, however, you could do without your making reference. And please be convinced I never invented it. Is it fair enough? At the moment I would not go beyond that hard evidence.
By the way, I like you to answer my last comment in the #reduplication, especially as regards why you deleted chick flick again. --nemo 04:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
At Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Invented etymologies, just before the following short off-centered and irrelevant response to my first rely, as above, EncycloPetey prompted other administrators of his kind to support him in blocking me unreasonably and unseasonably indeed. He just unjustly ignored the hard evidence that I never invented Latin undulare but adopted it from the (perhaps best) French-Korean dictionary. Is this adoption enough for me to be blocked at all? From the beginning, he and his "community" no doubt had little intention to discuss with me reasonably. All the more, then, he could never avoid apologizing to me for accusing me of inventing undulare. The sooner the better. Instead, however, he fatally insisted my source is in error. He may be too foolish to know what may result from his wrong tongue, perhaps even damaging the Wiktionary proper, I fear. All the so-called community of administrators should not shy away from your fools doing evil. "Don't be evil" is a good policy, if not the best. "Destroy shamelessness" again! -- This right-aligned passage is now inserted, so as to help understand the state of affairs, by KYPark, aka, --nemo 08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not delete anything, as you can see the entry still exists. It is a valid word. However, as I explained to you before, it is not an example of reduplication. Rather, it is a compound term. --EncycloPetey 04:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh my! By "you deleted [it] again" I meant as such "from Category:Reduplication" by virtue of again, as you did indeed! Sorry anyway if I was wrong to use "delete" in this goddam tongue.
Far more importantly, I was waiting for your reply on the main point here, relating to your undoing of Etymology of undulate and gondola. --nemo 05:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You do not have to curse in correspondence. That is rude. I already told you why I reverted the etymology. It included a portion that erroneously claimed the word comes from a Latin word which, in fact, did not exist. Your source is in error.
Further, you went beyond the error in your source, and included speculative cognates that are not cognates. Cognates almost always belong to the same part of speech and represent the same word as handed down from a parent language that contained a source words from which both descendants evolved. However, in this case the putative source word did not exist. The root word unda was modified in French to create a verb, and that word then passed into English. The first portion of the word undulate may be cognate with a pportion of the word gondola, but the two words are themselves not cognates. (See cognate in The Oxford Companion to the English Language.) --EncycloPetey 12:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This time you are supposed to invent the meaning of cognates such that:

they should "belong to the same part of speech"

or such that:

"The first portion of the word undulate may be cognate with a pportion of the word gondola, but the two words are themselves not cognates. (See cognate in The Oxford Companion to the English Language.)"

Should Oxford so dictate indeed, we'd better throw it into the wastebasket. And, by typing "cognate" into the search slot and click the Search button, you could be convinced otherwise of Wiktionary practice. The spirit of cognates requires little or no more than more or less genetic inheritance from the same ancestry. Hence, gene, genetic, generic, generate, degenerate, etc., are all cognate or simply akin, regardless of parts of speech. So are akin, kin, kind, Kindergarten, etc. Again, so are queen, quean, gynaecological, and perhaps cunnilingus, cunny, or coney (as of "No money no coney" also rhymed with honey), etc.

You seem to admit LL. undulatus ("undulated"), which looks like nothing but the past participle of undulare, which in turn even the guru only next to God could not dare to declare does not exist, unless an evil or arrogant conspiration requires it do no more. Such may be the case with *gondolare, which would be in principle hardest to falsify. Our poor degree of assurance in practice gives rise to the starred or assumed such as *undula ("wavelet"), which unlikely gave birth to French onduler, whence English undulate hardly stemmed, not to mention German undulieren.

I neither uttered nor intended any curse whatsoever. Remember it is rude indeed to say someone is rude who is not in fact. But you were rude enough to suggest as if I had invented something cunning. --nemo 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

KYPark, please, no more "cognates" among borrowed terms, or terms that were subsequently coined. gene, genetic, generic etc. are not cognates. Perhaps "akin" or "related" (they should be listed in ====Related terms====), but not cognates. queen and quean are cognates, but queen and gyna- in gynaecological are not. The word cognate should only be used for words that are inherited from common ancestor language (so that you can observe regular sound changes, [i.e. sound correspondences] on them), and not for words that were borrowed in later historical periods, or even worse coined on the basis of some Latin or Greek lexical roots. --Ivan (ⰃⰎⰀⰃⰑⰎⰅⰞⰉ) 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The following section #cognates, kins or relatives should be inserted here for reading chronologically. -- KYPark, aka, --nemo 08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
KYPark. You are now flatly lying. You used the word "goddam", which is cursing. If you do not know what you are saying, then perhaps you should pause longer this time and reflect before formulating a reply. Yes, there is a Classical Latin word undulatus, but it is an adjective formed from the noun unda (or undula). The fact that it "looks" like a perfect participle is because it's an adjective, and these two sets of words share the same endings. This does not mean that a verb must have existed in Latin. No Latin sources exist containing the verb *undulo. No Latin dictionary I have checked contains the word *undulo. If you believe that a Latin verb undulo exists, then please provide a quote from a Latin source that uses the verb. A dictionary of French that erroneously hypothesizes the existence of the word does not demonstrate that the verb ever existed. Unsupportable theological speculation is fine for personal essays, but it is not appropriate for Wiktionary. You do not get to claim that an undocumented word exists, then support it with theological ramblings. We want evidence. --EncycloPetey 04:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Flatly lying? This is offensive indeed rather than rude, you know. Didn't the biblical story on the Tower of Babel suggest all human tongues were god-damned or "confused" in other words, as per the biblical exegesis, to my and most Christian regret? But be advised I'm atheist. Whether goddamned or not, language is always all confusion. To taste how I regret it, just have a look at the opening quote from Lao Tzu on my page w:User:KYPark. My wording "this goddam tongue" indicates nothing but English that is so easy to speak while so easy to hear confused, as if it had been damned by God. The curse, if any here, was not caused by me but by God many milennia ago, believe it or not. I shifted the cause of your confusion or misunderstanding to such a goddam tongue, including my likely fault! To be honest, however, you strangely misunderstood the meaning of deleted in the passage "you deleted chick flick again". The blue link suggests it is NEVER deleted, and "again" suggests it is AGAIN deleted from Category:Reduplication by you. I greatly regret all this waste of our time and energy.
You seem to definitely deny *undulo but favor *undula, even though both possibilities may be equally assumed, hence no record whatsoever so far. English verbs rhyming /-late/ are mostly if not entirely derived from Latin past participles rhyming /-latus/. The derivation of undulatus from nothing but *undula is too "hypothetico-deductive" to be reasonable and seasonable. It is simpy impossible and dictative, though it may be similar to the PIE's way of doing or reverse engineering. It also looks like human creation of, and belief in, a god. Should we hypothesize from scratch something most likely to explain Latin undulatus and all its Descendants, it would be much better to assume *undulo ("to wave") than *undula ("wavelet"). --nemo 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The administrator User:EncycloPetey have not reasonably discussed here and elsewhere at all, but unreasonably and unseasonably blocked me for a day benevolently instead of 2 weeks or forever. Via Wiktionary:Feedback#undulate, I appealed to the community for his apology to me, without hiding myself or attempting to be anonymous. Advise me why it should be strictly so. User:Robert Ullmann imposed another blocking on me for hinting I'm KYPark, not conforming to the strict formalism of hiding or protecting oneself in anonymy. Then User:EncycloPetey imposed still another longer on me. Now he would do the ultimatum. I never fear that but wish that he and his kind be well aware they benefit little from their shameless injustice. "Destroy shamelessness" again! -- KYPark aka --nemo 08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This is related to Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Where is Wiktionary going at all?. -- KYPark aka --nemo 09:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

cognates, kins or relatives[edit]

This is an extension to the previous section, aiming for easy edit.

  1. The noun life, as in "she lived a happy life," is called the cognate object with respect to the verb lived. Both are cognate or akin to each other, regardless of their part of speech and priority to the other.
  2. In 1973 I bought the first print in 1973 of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Ever since I have got used to its etymology and kinship (in terms of "akin to") rather than cognation, if different. I have no idea what ought to be the difference between them, on what grounds, in Wiktionary.
  3. It sounds silly to say the tenses of a verb, say, lives and lived are cognate, because their relation is more specific than, and inclusive of, cognation.
  4. In contrast, such is not the case with the various parts of speech in a family of cognates, such as life, live, lively, alive,etc. It is often unclear which is really prior or parallel, say,
    • English life and live (even if not, suppose as such),
    • German Gondel ("gondola") and gondeln ("to wave"),
    but clear that both are cognates, kins, relatives, or the like! Thus, one entry of them lists another in Related terms. See:
  5. In general, when the entry is prior, more or less ancestral, its derivatives within the language are listed in Derived terms, those without in Descendants, and the rest of the relatives (of similar, clear or unclear priority) in Related terms.
  6. For the time being, please avoid introducing and confusing the borrowing with the cognation or kinship, unless sophistication or complication is intended, as the former is hopelessly slippery, and there appears no formal place for it here in Wiktionary. Should it be unavoidable, then, as a prerequisite, please take the giraffe for example and make clear either borrowing or cognate relations among its equivalents or translations in all major languages, East and West. --nemo 03:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a useful distinction, though of course in many cases we can't tell the difference. See my comments above: there appear to be conventions to consider borrowings as cognates as well as to exclude them as cognates. Thus it is not a matter of incorrect usage so much as which convention would be more useful to our purposes. kwami 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymologies and stuff[edit]

Dear Kypark,

I still stumble upon from time to time to the remnants of the Uralo-Altaic theory you've fervently left traces of in numerous entries, e.g. the other day on kori. It's no problem at all to see it - and terminate it on sight. You were told that we don't want fringe theories in Wiktionary etymologies, and you finally stopped adding them, after more than a year-long tradition of doing so, intelligently camouflaged under numerous "positive" edits. Good!. That shows good faith and the ability to reason the circumstances. I have no doubt that you firmly believe that all of those word you list on your userpage are somehow deeply related (cognate, akin, or whatever you'd like to call it), but the general etymological science does not, and we must respect that.

However, you still seem happen to regularly run into some kind of trouble. I won't get into the details of undulare (for which to me appears there is some evidence in Medieval Latin documents, at least from which I skimmed on - it doesn't matter at all now: what it matters is that you learn a lesson from the way the general community has been responding to the some of your "problematic" entries.

My advice is this:

  • If your edit is reverted by some of the regulars don't even think of adding it back. Instead, open the discussion on the talkpage and list it in our Etymology Scriptorium so that others can see it and provide additional input. If you discuss on on the bunch of talkpages it becomes very difficult to follow the line of argumentation, and rarely will anyone have the patience to look more closely into it all.
  • If your etymology cannot be verified in any paper dictionary, and is purely a result of your intellectual cogitation, don't even think of adding it on the mainspace entries. List it on your userpage or a some other user subpage of your choice. We have WT:LOP to channel all the protologisms users happen to add, we can create some Appendix:List of Korean pseudoetymologies or something (unless you'd be offended by the title :) The only real usefulness I see in your etymologies (and that some of the other users also noticed), and which all seem to be based on some vague phonetic resemblance, is as mnemonic for language learning. We can create an appendix for those if you wish.
  • Please, no more drama! You're aggravating people more and more with your tiresome self-victimizing monologues. I know that you are firmly convinced that an injustice has be done, and that your arguments were valid, but you're doing no good by resurrecting the old spirits of frustration on topics that have been dealt with long time ago. Simply, go and find some other word to deal with. There are countless other ways that you can contribute. For once, you need to demonstrate the ability that you can easily cope with being "wrong", that it is not the end of the world if your etymological proposal is not accepted, and that it doesn't matter all that much to you.

You also must realize that others don't have infinite amount of time and patience at their disposal to deal with the highly-disputed stuff you could be ardently pushing, and that sooner or later, if you'd continue to draw ("waste") too much community time with no real benefit resulting from the ongoing discussion, you could easily be blocked for simply be a disruptive community factor.

I'd to ask you to stop editing ===Etymology=== at all but I somehow doubt you'll listen ;) But rest assured that you could easily be forbidden to edit ===Etymology=== at all, as that would (at lest IMHO) be a very good way to find out the real nature of your presence on this project.

Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 12:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There are ancient Korean-English cognates[edit]

Dear KY Park, I came upon your comments. Please see: BobOtis

Why can't there be Korean-IE cognates?[edit]

Dear KY Park,

For several years I have been collecting words that appear to me to be cognates of English or other IE languages. While I am not a linguist and while I do not want to get into silly arguments with people whose notions of language superfamilies are set in stone from 19th Century European assumptions, I will say that we know this:

1. the Indo-Europeans came into Europe from the East, with the Germans and Slavs appearing last. Where did they originate from exactly? Who pushed them west? When? Why?

2. The aboriginal Europeans include the ancestors of the Basques (likely the "Iberians," such as those who created the interestingly Asian-looking Lady of Elche statue see: There are other genetic traits in Western Europe that appear to be East Asian, such as the so-called "Black Irish" (black hair, light skin, hooded eyes). Similar traits appear in Scandinavians (such as Icelandic singer Björk (, in Slavs, (such as geopolitical analyst Zbigniew Brezinski), journalist Jim Hoagland ( Finns, Sami, and other Uralic peoples of Europe also frequently exhibit Asian characteristics. While racial or facial features do not definitively prove language connections, they definitely prove that our automatic assumptions about Europeans and Koreans being sort of polar opposites racially, historically, and linguistically, is really based on 19th Century pre-Nazi race theories than on acknowledgement that Eurasia is, and has been, very mixed. Korea included. As any visitor to Korea could see, there are Koreans who, being "100% Korean" (ie, not mixed recently with other races), look Eurasian. I recall meeting one older gentleman who looked Italian. His daughter also looked Eurasian. They came from a very old, yangban family (Kimhae Kims). Mixture means borrowing, mixture means kinship. We do not know exactly where the "Asiatic Europeans" or the "European-looking Koreans" exactly came from, but there existence is real. Something happened long ago. People moved long distances. So when we say "Slavic" are we really talking about the language of a person who is "IE" or really part Mongol or Turkic? So when we say "Celtic language" do we want to ignore that the person speaking it looks Eurasian?

It would be nice if people and languages and histories all fit nice and neatly into comfortable little boxes, so that once they are classified, we don't have to think again. BUT THIS IS NOT THE REAL WORLD! Classifications of languages, races, etc. are only TOOLS, hints, indicators of certain relationships or characteristics. They are not the be-all and end-all of all discussions.

3. The most easterly Indo-Europeans were the Tocharians, who settled about as far east as eastern Uzbekistan. Paintings of the Tocharians frequently display Caucasian features or Eurasian features, particularly light eyes and red hair (red hair = black hair mixed with blond hair; hence, prominence of red hair in Ireland, where blond Norse intermarried with black haired Irish) The current population of Afghanistan still includes some people with these features. But isn't this shocking to hear or see, when we are taught that they really should be sitting somewhere in Switzerland, not somewhere between Tajikistan and China! The fact that they still exist should tell us that we ought to open our minds and ears to connections between even far-flung languages like Korean and English. After all, the ancestors of the English were somewhere in the Urals not really too long ago.... The Koreans' ancestors were somewhere south of Mongolia only around 5,000 years ago.

4. The Korean language today is largely derived from Shilla dialects, with remaining words not of Chinese origin being of Baekje, Gaya or Goguryeo Korean dialects. History tells us that for the most part, at least the founders of the Korean kingdoms and their clans migrated from somewhere in Manchuria. Lore or extrapolations (ie, best guesses) suggest various connections to earlier kingdoms, states or groupings in Manchuria or Inner Asia, such as Gojoseon, and perhaps Xiongnu. While we cannot know for sure the names of these ancestor peoples, we do know that the KOREANS HAD TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE before entering the Peninsula. They did not come from Japan, as Japan was in the stone age. They did not come from America. They came from the West, from somewhere in Inner Asia. If they went eastward to the Peninsula, from whence did they originate?

While developments in the modern Korean language even make connections with modern Japanese seem to some to be "unproven," (actually because they do not look hard enough into regional dialect vocabularies and for political reasons in JP)it can be harder to show obvious kinship to languages such as Mongol or Manchu, although these connections most certainly can be done. So what's the point here? A LOT OF TIME HAS PASSED BETWEEN THESE LANGUAGES, and even more time between Korean and Indo-European. When we speak of Korean cognates to Indo-European languages, what is there to take offense at? We are not saying that Korean is an Indo-European language or that it is a member of the Indo-European "family" of languages. We do not have to say that. We are merely saying that these neolithic peoples - the ancestors of Germans,Latins,Celts, Greeks, Slavs, etc.,and the ancestors of the Koreans - were possibly speaking the same language or similar enough languages that, after say, 5,000 or 10,000 years, 20,000 years, WE STILL CAN SEE OBVIOUS LINKAGES BETWEEN THESE PEOPLES.

Should one want to call them "false cognates"? Why? Because their existence is inconvenient to earlier theories or artificial groupings of languages? This is just silly.

5. Suggesting that Korean-IE cognates do not exist because Korean is not a member of the IE family is simple minded. If someone discovered that the skeleton of a cow and that of a walrus are shown to be from the same ancestry, isn't that interesting enough? Does the cow have to swim underwater or does the walrus have to graze on a pasture for us to accept such a discovery? Is academia and intellectual thought in the 21st Century to be straightjacketed to follow every recipe and classification made by 19th Century minds? We should find that these K-IE are NOT "false cognates," but rather that they are at least "possible cognates" with IE. Will this overturn the entire sacred classification of IE languages? Nope. It just makes life more interesting to think that maybe - just maybe - people existed before the charting of the IE family of languages. And yes, that maybe there was some kind of language that joined Korean with Indo-European. Is this really so unacceptable to the authorities here???

6. I am reminded here of my days in college. It went something like this: I am reading a book in 1978 that was written in 1968, assigned by a professor who has taught nearly the same course from the same notes since 1958. His notes for the course were based on his classes, during the early 1950's, which were taught by professors formed in the 1920's, who were raised on texts largely written in the 19th Century. And in 2010, with this basis of knowledge, weighed down with the burden to keep these often flawed or incorrect teachings sacredly hoisted above my shoulders as ABSOLUTE TRUTHS, I am expected to look at the world in a bold new way? No. This does not happen if one allows oneself to be trapped in the texts and formulas of one's professors' professors. It only makes us sub-human, as ciphers repeating what we are told and being reminded that there is no need to think because it all has been thought out for us already.

Why is this so important in regard to this topic? Because until very, very recently, perhaps in the 1980's, there was almost no usable discussion in the West of Korea, of Korean history, of Korean linguistics, etc. The Japanese tried to extinguish this people's culture and when they could not do that, they did everything that they could after WWII to influence Western academia to disregard Korea, Koreans and their language. This is a sick pathology of the post-Meiji Japanese educational-political-wartime machine, and western "scholars" have been easily bought, bribed or pandered to by the Japanese militarists, and that is why only in the 21st Century is there a bit of frankness about the discovery that the Koreans founded Yamato, settled Japan, and tungusicized the Austronesian language of the Cipangans. I suggest that the main reason why it seems so unacceptable on this forum to accept a simple list of Korean-IE cognates or possible cognates is that many of the commenters here have been frankly brainwashed into undermining Korea, Koreans, and their role in world civilization. Also, as far as linguistics classification theories go, the field has been dominated by Europeans, some of whom cannot accept non-European linkages to their own peoples. (You know who you are....)

Mr Park, I have been randomly collecting words that I felt were K-IE cognates and I will call them so, because that is what they are. Is there ever going to be evidence of the super-super family that brought Korean together with Indo-European? I doubt it. I am amazed that there are still some trace evidences of Gothic, Etruscan, and Tocharian, which all have been very much more recent that our expected K-IE connections. I stumbled upon your website and this discussion following a web search, and I hope that you continue your work. What you see IS evidence of a common language. The words that you and I have noted are not words like semiconductor or street car or nucleic acid. These aren't "false cognates" or borrow words. These are basic words that people wandering Eurasia in very ancient times might have used so regularly that even thousands of years later they did not need to change them. Words like apa (father) and eoma (mother). Are these not cognates to English pa and ma? I have noted that words like gae (dog) are cognate to IE canine, cão (PT), etc. They are not cognates?

Please keep up the good work. If you wish to communicate, please write me at Best regards and great success! Bob Otis




??? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

why not x-templates??? --nemo 11:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
They are going to get deleted if you don't tell us what they are for. SemperBlotto 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps there was an edit conflict. Gone was what I wrote last, roughly reading "They are used in πλεύμων#Descendants," in response to SemperBlotto. --nemo 12:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC) (minutes earlier than this)
Is correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Remind me again why you're not indef blocked for intimidating behavior/harassment? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Mglovesfun, I don't understand at all why you mention "indef blocked for intimidating behavior/harassment" intimidatingly. Is it so disruptive for me to try to create some templates? --nemo 12:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
SemperBlotto, my edit had got deleted before I told you (as you asked above) "what they are for." --nemo 12:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
My edit 11:27 - 11:36
Ask why 11:49 (SemperBlotto)
Deleted 11:52 (Mglovesfun) --nemo 12:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


Long lists of synonyms -- help differentiating[edit]

Hello KYPark --

I've noticed your changes to the entry, thank you for your work there! One request I'd like to make of you is, when adding a list of synonyms where there is more than one synonym for a single sense, that you add a gloss after the term to help differentiate. For instance, I can tell from the list you gave that (, bo), (, ru), 堡壘 (보루, boru), (, sae), 要塞 (요새, yosae), and (, chae) all mean fort, but I have no way of telling these terms apart without clicking through to each individual page. This is not terribly difficult, but it is less than optimal for usability. Something like the following would be very helpful. I'm not sure if I have the meanings correct, but hopefully this illustrates the format:

-- TIA (thanks in advance), Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eirikr! In principle, I agree on your "request" for the semantic as well as genetic (e.g., "Derived" and "Related") relations to be "optimal for usability" or for the cross-references to be as informative as possible. In practice, however, such may not be the case here in general, I fear.
  • The idea of {{sense}} sounds plausible and well founded according to the senses enumerated in the Definition.
  • Hanja has lots of synonyms which are mostly hard to be made different. I at least have little idea how to explicate them, say, and in 堡壘 and and in 宇宙 in preciser terms than "fort" and "house" respectively.
  • Such compounds as 堡壘 and 宇宙 are done so often tautologically in synonymic pair perhaps to avoid homonymic rather than synonymic confusions, I suspect.
  • English serves as a metalanguage here in explaining and making different the hanja ideograms. Thus, such numerous synonymous ideograms for "moat" as , 垓字, , , 城濠, , 城池, 城下池, etc., could be done so in no better than English terms of moat, ditch and fosse, which in turn make little difference, however different the former may be.
--KYPark (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Understood, thank you. Perhaps you could mark the most common Korean term for the listed sense, then?
For instance, English fosse is only very rarely used, and in fact I'd never heard the word before; meanwhile, moat is restricted to meaning "a wide and deeply dug barrier, usually filled with water, that surrounds a fortification", and ditch generally means something smaller than a moat, and could be something dug by a single person and only 30cm across.
So for an entry related to castles and fortifications, the moat entry would be the most commonly used term, and should probably come first; the fosse entry would be possibly the least commonly used term, and should probably come last.
Would it be possible to reorder the KO synonyms in a similar fashion? -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I mostly agree with your so-called first things first principle, though views may diverge diverse as to which come first and next. In the beginning, I followed my dictionary's order of senses in Definition as "1. inner wall..., 2. outer wall...," etc.
  1. Then I've reordered them so as to begin with the generic perspective or overview, say, "defensive wall" which serves as the core or common factor among the many senses that follows.
  2. The second one may not accord with the Korean but Western and Japanese perspective!
  3. The third may be worth the second in Korea, but ...
Priority ordering of terms within a sense in Synonyms and the like appears so complicated and perplexing, at least to me. I'm not so finely tuned, I'm afraid. It varies from case to case anyway, as suggested there from section to section. I'd say it's art! (^^)
BTW, I do wonder how well the three Etymologies of wall are founded and ordered from the first things first perspective. For me, the last be the first, and the three may better merge into one or two from the Occam's razor perspective. Please take care of it.
BTW again, do you like or mind me sandboxing 屯#Korean on the subpage Talk:屯/Korean?
--KYPark (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No trouble at all with transcluding this thread. Though I suspect you mean that you've transcluded onto Talk:城? The Talk:屯/Korean page doesn't seem to exist. Also, I changed the technical details of partial transclusion to use mw:Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusion instead -- using <onlyinclude> breaks subsection editing, so the only way to edit this "Long list of syns" section was by editing the preceding "x-templates" section. And one last issue, if you ever archive your Talk page, it would probably be best if you simply copied (i.e. copy-paste, not transclude) this thread directly onto the Talk:城 page. Otherwise, the link on the Talk:城 page won't work anymore, and this thread will seem to vanish.
  • I'll have a look at wall#English, though I confess I'm less certain about lexicographic standards for English entries here at EN WT, simply because I've spent most of my time so far working with and on JA entries.
  • And understood about how you're ordering the KO syns. Thank you for the explanation.
-- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your extra trouble with the sectional transclusion. Yet your change strangely doesn't work. To avoid such transclusion along with the links likely broken by archiving, I'd get this section transcluded from the steady, stationary, archival subpage User talk:KYPark/城. Quite happily, I've tested this way of getting the section Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium #Copenhagen and many others transcluded from the steady subpage Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/Copenhagen. (BTW, I miss your talks there, for the agenda yet to be agreed or concluded!) How glad I am that everything is a holon, that is, part-cum-whole, 一部全部, confusingly, concurrently, cooccurrently! This is also where I wish to use the stationary subpage Talk:屯/Korean "camp, station" as the sandbox-cum-source (of transclusion) for Talk:屯#Korean. Lastly, thank you for taking my reasons for the synonymic disorder for granted.
Cheers --KYPark (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I am utterly baffled by what's going on with labeled-section transclusion (LST) on your Talk page. It worked just fine earlier today when I made the change, and then checked at Talk:城, but it's not working now.
I quite like the idea of using sub-pages for more stable linking and to obviate the need for archiving. If you do use sub-pages of entry Talk pages, I only request that you transclude the subpages into the main Talk page, a bit like how Wiktionary:Requested_entries:Japanese transcludes sub-pages. That way, everyone can see the sub-page content (and edit it) on the regular Talk page. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
PS -- I may chime in at Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/Copenhagen later; I'm a bit busy with other things at the moment.  :)
Agreed. Cheers! --KYPark (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Location of sandboxed entries for creating / editing draft versions[edit]

Hello again --

I apologize for my previous confusion about Talk:屯/Korean, I didn't understand at the time what you intended. Now that I see that page, I think the content is mostly good, but that kind of drafting would be better done on a subpage of your own. I suggest using a page such as User:KYPark/Sandbox. I've set up my own group of sandbox pages, such as User:Eirikr/Sandbox, User:Eirikr/Sandbox2, User:Eirikr/Sandbox3, and even User:Eirikr/Scratchpad, for just such drafting and testing. Once I have finished creating or editing the content, I copy the source from my sandbox page and paste it into the intended destination page. Then (when I'm being smart) I delete the content from my sandbox page.

Recycling one's own user sandbox this way requires less resources on the server, and doesn't clutter up the server history and page indexing.

If you don't mind, I will move the Talk:屯/Korean page to User:KYPark/Sandbox. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • It's always very hard in practice to give (you) all the background information. In retrospect, I felt a little guilty when I overcrowded the revision history of . So I wanted to draft or sandbox 屯#Korean on the Talk:屯/Korean which as a sandbox could be deleted someday. I could feel free to do it on my User:KYPark/屯 from the beginning. (No need to move it on User:KYPark/Sandbox.) But I just wanted it to be more public and talked to you. It should be alright, I guess!
  • Wikis like users experimenting with new ways. Thus it would be unjust and even rude for Chuck Entz and Ruakh to have deleted Talk:屯/Korean of a provisional sandbox kind and Talk:屯, respectively, immediately without the RfD or Talk to me. On such occasions, I feel like being (treated like) a ruthless vandal. Don't you?
  • Most vital and fatal, however, is Chuck Entz's reason for deletion reading "encyclopedic, better kept on user subpage" contrary to your view "the content is mostly good," hence an unbearable prejudice of his! He should talk how improperly "encyclopedic" it is at all. It's his duty of honor, I guess.
  • BTW, to delete the used-up sandbox at last is more economical storage than to keep all the entry revision history as usual, isn't it?
  • BTW again, from the quotation of Definition #2 of Talk:屯/Korean, I wonder if you have noted the "communal village meeting house (dinh)" perhaps worth comparison with thing and Ding. This might annoy some people!
--KYPark (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • For my part, I do think that folks here sometimes rush to action without talking to others first, which is probably the biggest failing of the Wiktionary community in general. I can sympathize to some extent, as we are generally all quite particular about things (one must be particular, in order to enjoy working on a dictionary ^_^ ), and when we see something out of place, our first instinct is generally to fix it, to the best of our understanding of what "fix" means for that situation. However, impatience and haste can lead to unfortunate results; I know I've been hasty in the past, and it's something I must be aware of and careful of in my own actions.
  • Thinking about Chuck's comment about "encyclopedic", I think that arose not because of any strong prejudice on his part, but probably for two other reasons -- 1) I don't think he's spent much time working with CJK language entries, and so is not familiar with the large numbers of synonyms, compounds, and senses that such entries often have; and 2) the quote about "The conquest of Champa" is out of place, as a) this is a quote in English, not Korean (example quotes must generally be in the language of the entry term), and b) this quote describes use of the term in Vietnamese. The quote is also quite long, and it does come across as a short encyclopedic entry about Vietnamese don dien.
Blue Glass Arrow.svg To fix these issues, I would strongly suggest that you find a quote that is 1) in Korean, 2) shorter, and 3) uses the term in context, rather than just describing how the term is used. If you cannot find a suitable quote, it would be better to have no quote instead of the quote in English about usage in Vietnamese.
  • About deleting sandboxes, once a page is created, that revision history and data is kept by the server, even if the page is deleted. I think deleting a page might also entail a heavier server load than just emptying the content. I'm no expert, but what I've read suggests that keeping one or a couple of sandbox pages and recycling them is less resource-intensive (for the server) than using individual sandbox pages and deleting them.
  • About "crowded" revision histories, no worries -- I really don't think that's a problem.  :) If it still concerns you, one thing that I have sometimes done is to use a separate text editor on my PC to compose pages, and then I will copy from the text editor window into the Wiktionary edit screen.
  • About Vietnamese dinh and German Ding and English thing, that's certainly interesting, but without knowing more about the etymologies of all three words and more about historical sound shifts in all three languages, I'm not sure how significant this is -- the human mouth can only make so many sounds, so it is inevitable that there will be some overlap.
Sometimes the overlap is for historical reasons of sound shift or word composition: for instance, modern Korean 팥소 (patso, bean paste) seems similar to modern English paste. However, 팥소 (patso) is a compound of (pat, red bean) + (so, stuffing?), while paste ultimately derives from Greek παστός (pastós, sprinkled with salt, salted).
Sometimes the overlap is for biological reasons: for instance, a number of speech researchers have put forward the hypothesis that the physical constraints of a baby's mouth and the physical motions of a baby's mouth are a large part of why sounds like ma / mama / ama / ba / baba / aba / pa / papa / apa etc. are so common in words referring to mother and/or father or some other parental relation in various languages around the world.
Sometimes there is no overlap in the sounds of words in modern languages, even when the words come from the same original root. For instance, modern English wheel is cognate with (i.e. has the same ancient root as) the modern Greek κύκλος (kýklos) and the modern Hindi चक्र (chakra).
To put it another way, similarities in the sounds of modern languages can obscure different roots, or origins in biological processes. Meanwhile, differences in the sounds of modern languages can obscure identical roots. Without knowing the history of sound changes in a language, and without knowing more about the ancient forms of a word, the sound shifts involved, and the semantic history, we cannot tell whether a word in one language is related to a word in another language.
So for Vietnamese dinh and German Ding and English thing, that's interesting, and merits further research, but the resemblance alone is not enough to say anything definitive.
-- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to move leftmost...
"the biggest failing of the Wiktionary community" 
Absolutely! It breaks the community and "drives out the good." Five years ago, I stopped contributing in Korean, as some pages I created were even deleted without any Talk. Who were "the bad money"? Conservatives of invested interests, I suspect. Those, if any, who blamed me for making my edits a "laughing stock" are to blame for making many Korean entries and translations afterwards as such in effect, I fear.
"Chuck's comment about "encyclopedic"" 
I wait for Chuck making clear "encyclopedic" comment for himself rather than any speculation. You see this is a mere draft, and if the very quotaion is not worth a proper quotation, it could be included either in Usage notes or Footnotes, and that in the Vietnamese entry. It is another matter of formality to add Korean quotations proper. I wonder why such a mere matter of formality matters seriously enough for a rude deletion.
I would respect whether your or Wiktionary's urge of formalism such that the quotation be in the entry language. In turn, I would ask you to respect my urge such that my edits be more informative anyway than as usual and the very Viet case in English be included either in Usage notes or Footnotes, if proper as a quotation in neither Korean nor Vietnamese entry. You see this information is for English readers as likely strangers to the historical oriental "frontier farm" (屯田).
Above all, to put another way, this quotation is vital or critical enough for English readers to understand well, definitely centering around the frontier farm (屯田) on the one hand and the rarely-documented assembly ("dinh") on the other. It is an assembly, colony, community, flock, folk, horde, troop or the like in itself!
"About deleting sandboxes" 
"About "crowded" revision histories, no worries" 
"About Vietnamese dinh and German Ding and English thing"
Now this has become an open question. Meanwhile, there appears an absolutely resolute will to deny all the open questions, say, all the East-West coincidences. Such appears absolutely overdone and ill done, I regret most. What looks like a tiger is likely to be a tiger, hence an open question that should remains so until fully falsified, whether in theory or in practice. This is a way to science proper!
English cycle and perhaps wheel via OE hweogol likely derived from Greek via Latin is said to be a frequentative such as Japanese ころころ from ころがる cognate to くるま and Korean 구르다 as well so that part if not all of these East-West words may be cognate, that is to say, worth an open doubt, no doubt!
What if it is or were not a frequentative at all? Then it may be seriously suspected of kinship to Korean 귀골 (gwuigol) (珥#Korean) that was so widespread in ancient Korea.
Honestly, I take specially seriously as likely cognate to:
  • ang: dun "hill, mountain"
  • eng: dune "hill, sand-dune"
  • eng: down "hill"
  • eng: town "fortified settlement"
  • deu: Zaun "fence, hedge"
  • dut: tuin "garden"
  • non: tun "enclosure," etc., etc., ...
All these European senses happen to be those of . The thing adds up to all these, hence such a great statistical consilience, as specially noted since Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge in 1998 after Sociobiology: The New Synthesis in 1975, the very year of World Brain Revolution, as it were, believe me or not! You'd better take it very seriously!

--KYPark (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC) --KYPark (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I do take it seriously: I take it seriously enough to look at the histories of Vietnamese dinh and Chinese-derived and PIE-derived town / Zaun / tuin etc.
In looking into those histories, I see evidence of convergent semantic evolution, but divergent origins:
  • I do not know any Vietnamese, and I do not know what diacritics might be needed to find the version of dinh that means "communal village meeting house". I do see that Vietnamese dinh is notably not listed as a reading for , suggesting that these two words are unrelated. I also see that the EN WT is missing any Vietnamese noun entry with spelling similar to dinh (see Category:Vietnamese_nouns), whereas the ZH WT has a zh:dĩnh entry, linking to several different possible hanzi, none of which seem to have a meaning similar to "communal village meeting house".
  • Chinese as a character was apparently composed from two elements, radical with a single additional stroke across the top. means sprout, and if I understand it correctly, the explanation at zh:𡳾 suggests that the character arose from the idea of sprouting together, perhaps from there leading to ideas of groups and grouping.
  • European-language terms town / Zaun / tuin etc. apparently derive from the common root of Proto-Indo-European *dheuh₂, *dhuh₂ (to finish, come full circle), strongly implying the idea of "finished" rather than "sprouting > beginning".
Consequently, in the absence of new discoveries of older linguistic data, I am left with the conclusion that Chinese only resembles European-language terms town / Zaun / tuin etc. as the result of historical accident. -- Kind regards, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Communal house in the village" is đình, Sino-Vietnamese of ("court") and ("yard"), as in 조정(朝廷), 법정(法庭). Both go back to Old Chinese liquid consonant initials: *l̥ˁeŋ, *l̥ˁeŋs, not *d/t/tʰ-. 22:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

호미로 막을 것을 가래로 막는다[edit]

The images you used in this entry show that you don't have the difference straight between a w:Hoe (tool) and a w:shovel, which leaves me to wonder if you're translating the native Korean terms correctly. A hoe is a blade mounted on a handle, usually at an angle to it. The hoe is used for breaking up the soil or displacing it without removing it, as well as for chopping things like weeds. A shovel is a blade mounted in line with the handle, used to dig the soil by thrusting into the ground and lifting some of the soil on the wide blade. There's some overlap in the uses of the two, but the basic function of each is quite different. I'm not familiar with the term "power hoe", but that would imply to most English speakers something analogous to a hoe, but driven by a motor. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Following your comment, I weeded out the snake's legs or sajog (사족, ), that is, "long-handled power hoe" but for "shovel" with which 가래 begins and ends with the ploughshare. Nevertheless, it may well mean something between the common shovel and the ploughshare, that is, such a special shovel as powered by two or four co-workers in front dragging both sides of the blade, like the ox(en) dragging the ploughshare, as suggested by the image here.[2]
호미 / 괭이

가래 /   

These are the commonest soil handling tools in Korea. Some 5 years ago, I must've created some, if not all, of them, which in turn someone must've deleted rather than counter-edited, hence a definite injustice done not only to me but also the community at large! May I take this opportunity to ask you to restore, and counter-edit if needed, them? Thanks in advance.
Sorry to be late to reply. I had some wireless connection trouble, and then had to work on the relevant hanjas in advance. --KYPark (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked through your "deleted contributions" (Special:DeletedContributions/KYPark, probably only visible to admins), but it doesn't look like any Korean entries you created have been deleted, except a few wrong-script ones like areum. I can't find anything related to any kind of digging tool. Perhaps another admin can check that I'm not missing something. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Literal translations.[edit]


In ====Translations==== sections, when you list a Korean translation, please don't give a literal re-translation back into English. That belongs only in the ===Etymology=== section of the Korean entry. (See Wiktionary:Entry layout explained#Translations.) Thanks!

RuakhTALK 03:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I see many other such translations out there, regardless of the relevant rule. That's just why I've so done so often so far. So sorry.... --KYPark (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No need to apologize. Thanks for stopping. :-)   —RuakhTALK 04:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries when section editing.[edit]

When you edit a section named, for example, ====Translations====, you'll get a preloaded edit-summary that looks like this:

/* Translations */

you can then add the rest of your edit-summary after that:

/* Translations */ Korean

this way, the edit-summary will begin with a link to the relevant section, with an appropriately-placed colon:

(Translations: added Korean)

By contrast, if you add your edit-summary into the middle of the /* ... */ part, you get a broken link, and a strangely grayed-out summary:

/* Translations - Korean */
(Translations - Korean)

This isn't really a problem — if you want to keep doing it the way you have been, there's no rule against it — but it kind of defeats the point. I thought you might want to know. :-)

RuakhTALK 03:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How many year old bad mindless foolish habit of mine! I wonder why i've never ever been checked so long. Thanks a lot for your nice advice. Hope you remain as nice as this. ;-) --KYPark (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Korean transliteration[edit]

We use Revised Romanization (w:ko:국어의 로마자 표기법) as the standard for all Wiktionary transliterations of Korean. That means that every time a syllable ends in ㄱ, it needs to be transliterated as k. For example, see this diff. Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  • My way of transliteration has mattered so long, as discussed with User:Stephen G. Brown in 2006, as long as #Transcription.
  • He strongly denied it, though the Revised Romanization explicitly requires it be used for the academic purposes of exactness.
  • So ironically, you'd be so surprised at this edit by Stephen himself last year:
낮 말은 새가 듣고 밤 말은 쥐가 듣는다
naj mal-eun saega deudgo bam mal-eun jwiga deudneunda
  • You may better discuss his new, as well as my old, way with him than me, as he is one of the most admired here. Cheers!
--KYPark (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I am definitely surprised that Stephen made that mistake, but that is beside the point. I would be happy if you, at least, agreed to use RR (yes, I know it's not as good as 한글, but it's official in the South Korean government and widely used by linguists). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Please ask him (if possible, to say formally) if he "made that mistake" accidentally indeed, or if he made that decision depending on a new situation evolving. That is, in the beginning or at the moment of that discussion, there was no phonetic device yet but for romanization, which thus just had to do with orthoepy at the cost of orthography. Now, the situation is upside down, as Stephen and you would agree. Don't suggest as if "my way" were outside of RR. It is the academic part thereof. It isn't the point to compare simply, but to communicate bilaterally, that with hangul. A very small script for my way of consistency would completely free the editors from romanization of Korean forever! Isn't this strikingly attractive? --KYPark (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC) One more vital thing is that the way you say is too complicated for me indeed, honest. --KYPark (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding the above translit., I also wonder why is transliterated "naj", not "nat", 말은 is "mal-eun", not "mar-eun", 듣고 is "deudgo", not "deutgo". Was that an intentional mistake? My Korean is not great but I use the RR when I add Korean translations (planning to improve my Korean). KYPark, I noticed you use too many hyphens. Why is that? I reserve hyphens for vowel disambiguation, particles and when syllables start with . --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! Your wondering above are not directly mine but Stephen's; I just quote his to suggest it's originally what I've claimed as absolutely legitimate within RR, while it was unfortunately deadly denied here! Stephen was most responsible for this, I fear. But ironically indeed, he himself now practices my way he vehemently denied. "Was that an intentional mistake?" I'd say yes! It's because the situation has changed upside down. To be sure, however, don't ask me but him. And, yeah, perhaps I use more hyphens than essentially needed, but I do so in case of the Hanja string that is quite syllabic in contrast to native Korean. Unconsciously, I may be discriminating Sino-Korean from native Korean words. In a nutshell, I admit my hyphenation may be unprincipled after all. Regards. --KYPark (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
감사합니다, KYPark, I wouldn't take transliteration differences too personally. It often helps people reading who are slightly familiar with the script or struggling to read it quickly, like myself. For people who don't know the Korean script, which method is used, doesn't really matter, as long as it's consistent (followed) and understood (people understand all changes and problems with reverse transliteration). I read your discussion with Stephen. Don't worry, Korean is not the only language where different letters may result in the same transliteration or they change sounds if they are followed by something else. It's normal. People should focus on the NATIVE script when learning, transliteration is minor. I prefer RR because it's now standard and will become even more widely used. Please continue your good work, we need more Korean contents. Perhaps we should write up the transliteration policies in more clearly and in more details in WT:AKO. The Wikipedia articles doesn't cover many cases and assumes knowledge of MR. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your concern and encouragement. --KYPark (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But as the situation stands RR is still our standard, and as Anatoli says, it should be "consistent (followed)". If you want us to use a different system, bring it up at WT:BP, but until consensus in reached, please use RR. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to you again and again that I have used nothing but RR. Upon your repeated request, however, I'll only very reluctantly use the very worse way of RR you suggest. In effect I feel like being pressed so hard by triviality, you know. --KYPark (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Beer Parlour subpages for new topics[edit]

We don't use them. You know that yet you persist on creating them. Beer Parlour discussions take place on the Beer Parlour. Consider my block lenient in the extreme given your history. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a subpage Wiktionary:Beer parlour/What is the WT way of RR?, though. It is an archive in advance, and I've found it very efficient to avoid edit conflicts. I wonder why such subpages are illegal in Beer Parlour where there are lots of them in fact other than mine and usual archives. --KYPark (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


This is the process of making a new form from an old one by repeating part of the old form. Having more than one occurrence of a letter or even of a syllable in a word doesn't make it a reduplication. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You may or may not be right. Frankly, I'm not terribly sure of my new additions, such as pipe, teeter, totter, tread, trot, being reduplications but frequentatives, the category of which is not yet available. Do you mind us having Category:English frequentatives to contain the above instead of Category:English reduplications? --KYPark (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think w:Frequentative is what you want, either. While reduplication is strictly a matter of manipulating form (with some influence on meaning), a frequentative uses a derived form to change the action from a single instance of the action to a repetitive version of the same action: drip vs. dribble, flit vs. flitter, etc. I don't think teeter or totter are frequentatives, though teeter-totter is a frequentative-based noun. I have no idea what pipe, tread or trot have to do with any of this- they're neither reduplicated nor frequentative, nor do they have reduplicated or frequentative derived forms. What quality of these words leads you to treat them as a group? Maybe I can find a term that does apply. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Requesting definitions[edit]

Please use the template {{rfdef}}. Thanks, Chuck Entz (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


This 청어 (靑魚) should not be confused with the homonym 청어 (鯖魚), that is, 고등어 "mackerel."

Given that the headword is , shouldn't it be "This 청어 (鯖魚) should not be confused with the homonym 청어 (靑魚)"? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, vice versa, I think. --KYPark (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


Please do not redirect traditional forms of Mandarin entries. On Wiktionary we have separate entries for both forms. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Etymology scriptorium[edit]

Like some editors, I think your pseudoetymological musings should no longer be posted to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium. Posting them to your talk page would be much preferable. Alternatively, instead of inventing crackpot theories supported by European-continental relativistic and anything-goes-isting pseudophilosophy, you may choose to expand English Wiktionary with high-quality Korean entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your harsh private talk opposing or denying my freedom of posting to the open forum would sound a threat far more than its public version. Do you mean it? By yourself, your view is your freedom. Otherwise, it should be morally or socially tested.
I think it silly to inform or post those facts to my talk page, as you ask me; I have to do them publicly just for popular reference. They are not speculative "crackpot theories" I invent at all, but just objective observations no one can deny. In this regard, you are simply one of those who have repeatedly invented strawman arguments to harass me. I wonder what the "crackpot theories supported by European-continental relativistic and anything-goes-isting pseudophilosophy" are precisely.
--KYPark (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems more that it's you who's making straw man arguments. This has nothing to do with freedom of posting, and Wiktionary is not an open forum (see WT:NOT). I agree with Dan Polanski that you shouldn't be posting things in ES unless there is something concrete you want to improve about Wiktionary's content. Etymology Scriptorium is not for discussing etymologies, it's for finding ways to improve the etymology sections of Wiktionary entries. In other words, don't insinuate or imply, don't just say "how amazing is it that these two words are so similar" because that isn't of any use to Wiktionary. Suggest a concrete improvement, suggest a change to a specific entry. Anything else has no place on ES and only clutters it up, it should go on your own user page. And don't complain that you're being censored. You ARE being censored, just like everyone else on Wiktionary is being censored. Instead of trying to act like a victim, why don't you actually listen to what people say to you and try to improve your behaviour? Trying to act like you're right and everyone else is suppressing you won't get you anywhere, it will just breed more resentment and people will have no more sympathy for you (they already seem to have lost a lot of it, judging by the reactions I've seen). And as you know, Wiktionary operates by consensus, so I hope for your sake that you don't get people so frustrated about you that there comes a consensus to get you banned. It's up to you. —CodeCat 18:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This sounds a classic w: appeal to spite.
While referring me to WT:NOT as to the "open forum" unclearly, refer yourself to that as to the following clearly --KYPark (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) :
What Wiktionary is not
8. Wiktionary is not a battlefield. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly (1), calmly and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult (2), harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. Do not create or edit entries just to prove a point. Do not make legal or other threats against Wiktionary, Wiktionarians or the Wikimedia Foundation. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban (3). [my numbering to refer to the following explicitly]
  1. civilly: Wiktionary:Civility
  2. insult: Wiktionary:No personal attacks
  3. ban: Wiktionary:BLOCK

More etymological speculation[edit]

I see you have not ceased posting implausible etymological speculation to Etymology scriptorium. Recently, you have posted the following, in diff:


From wiþ ("?") + -ig ("-like"). Cognates may include:

This is what I meant when I spoke of your inventing crackpot theories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You have now posted this: "Contrary to God's eye view, every human view is more or less speculative in itself." in diff. This is what I referred to as relativistic and anything-goes-istic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
w: Cultural relativism

Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."


a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements.

Relativism goes so far as neither one thing (absolutist, monist) nor "anything goes" but our karma or culture goes. Then, your favorite phrase "relativistic and anything-goes-istic" is quite an oxymoron. Should you be unconvinced, you might be a helpless hence hopeless crackpot yourself, I fear. --KYPark (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Korean entries from new user[edit]

Hi KYPark, but I noticed from watching Special:RecentChanges that you sometimes work on Korean entries, so I was wondering if you're interested in taking a look at some recent pages by a new editor: Special:Contributions/Retorik. I think the user does not know the correct templates to use with Korean entries. The same user also added some Japanese pages, which I have checked over and revised. The definitions were OK, but corrections to the formatting were necessary. Just thought you might be interested. --Haplology (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

  • 16:12, 28 April 2013 Atelaes (Talk | contribs) blocked KYPark (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) (Irritating everyone)

View full log

After Yes check.svg "Do you think you could sum [it] up in a simple sentence?"
at WT:Beer parlour/2013/April #Template term and lang parameter

There I wished them (CodeCat, Ungoliant, and Chuck Entz) in silence to reflect on themselves in silence, what'd be legally, fatally wrong with their conduct as referenced there, possibly a collective criminal offense, namely, bullying. Explicitly or tacitly, if not arbitrarily, backed by that irrational conspiracy, CodeCat deleted or removed a number of my agendas away from the global readership and editorship for little or no reason, daring to deny the human freedom of information as well as expression, public as well as private. Regardless of my will, anyone might charge them all anytime anyway, I fear. To avoid the worst, they'd better UNDO ASAP what they'd done unjust to me as well as this blocking, I guess. Or they'd likely collectively do harm to WT that should rule out such disruptives positively. I wish to be informed here of unblocking ASAP, before I finish my appeal.

--KYPark (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What sense of charge do you mean in “anyone might charge them all anytime anyway”? — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps they're deludedly imagining some kind of legal "charge" being given by someone...? User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it'd depend on the degree of your bullying in fact. Anyway it'd be up to you what sense you make to your benefit, after The Death of the Author. --KYPark (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You are alive, so please answer: are you suggesting that any legal action can be brought against CodeCat, Chuck Entz and me? — Ungoliant (Falai) 12:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

KYPark, as you have noticed, it was me who blocked you, as I have done in the past, and, I fear, will do in the future. You have the capacity to become an extremely capable and useful editor, if you would simply set yourself aside and work for the good of the project, according to the will of the community. All previous experience seems to predict that you will not, which is unfortunate. Please recognize that if you persist in wasting everyone's time, your next block will likely be permanent. Please also recognize that you are unlikely to convince anyone to undo my block, and you certainly won't convince me. I have successfully garnered community support for blocks against you in the past, and have reason to suspect that I can do so again. I will not respond to gibberish like the lines above this one. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

May I also note that I actually warned you that this would happen? In a discussion above, I noted:
Trying to act like you're right and everyone else is suppressing you won't get you anywhere, it will just breed more resentment and people will have no more sympathy for you (they already seem to have lost a lot of it, judging by the reactions I've seen). And as you know, Wiktionary operates by consensus, so I hope for your sake that you don't get people so frustrated about you that there comes a consensus to get you banned. It's up to you.
And it seems like that is exactly what has happened. You've frustrated enough people that one of them blocked you, and there is nobody left who still has enough sympathy for your cause to unblock you. All I can say is, you'be brought this on yourself, and I hope that you take this time off to reflect on what you could improve. But one word of advice: if at any time you start to ask what the community has done wrong to you, then you're not doing it right. If you continue to blame others, that just tells everyone else that the block was right because you still don't get the point. Humility can go a long way in improving the situation, but it's not up to us to be humble, it's up to you. —CodeCat 13:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A guide for the perplexed[edit]

WT:Beer parlour/2013/April #Is German infinitive ending -en considered a suffix?
Google: "infinitive suffix"    
"About 72,900 results"
w: German verbs #Simple infinitives

The infinitive consists of the root and the suffix -en. With verbs whose roots end in el or er, the e of the infinitive suffix is dropped.

-en #Etymology 6
Etymology 6

From Middle English -en, a blending of Old English infintives -an and -n, from Proto-Germanic *-aną

  1. (obsolete) Used to form the infinitive of verbs.
-en #Dutch
Etymology 1

A merger of various infinitive suffixes: ...

  1. (obsolete) Used to form the infinitive of verbs.
West Germanic infinitive suffix - Wiktionary

... The infinitive suffix -en in German .... Originally, the infinitive suffix was just -ną in Proto-Germanic. Various vowels would appear before that suffix depending on the type of verb, giving -aną (...), -janą (...), -ōną (...), -āną (...), -janą (...), -naną (...). .... But ... all of the suffixes fell together into a single common -en and were no longer distinguished. So the answer to "what is the origin of the German infinitive suffix -en" is "all of them!".

—CodeCat‎11:25, 6 October 2012

All the underlines above are mine.
My view
  • The German infinitive ending -en is a suffix. It is also known as infinitive suffix, and calqued into 接尾辞 and 접미사 (jeommisa), as simply translated back into "suffix".
  • No vernetzen without Netz and the two affixes so that the etymology, ver- +‎ Netz +‎ -en, by way of {{confix|ver|Netz|en|lang=de}} is valid.
  • The negative views need be formally, explicitly made void by Longtrend, CodeCat, and Chuck Entz themselves, though they may informally or personally carry them on in spite of the above proof, so that this discussion could be concluded from the given than hidden, and the global readers and editors could be conserved from being perplexed any longer.

--KYPark (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone may be kind enough to copy and paste this section at the end of the relevant section as referenced above. Thanks in advance. --KYPark (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC) -- The third point rephrased --KYPark (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC) -- Underlined --KYPark (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My discussions[edit]

CodeCat arbitrarily removed a number of my WT:ES agendas from the public -- global readership and editorship -- to the private User:KYPark subpages, as shown below. What would be CodeCat's objective criteria of such selective removals at all? This doubt, unless cleared up, may best explain why I came to be blocked after all. These arbitrary removals should be undone ASAP, together with this sudden and specious blocking.
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013

After I made reference to WT:Beer parlour/2013/March #Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/March 2013, which contains a specious conspiracy against me and ill or well leads to the CodeCat's removal of my agendas as mentioned above, Atelaes suddenly blocked me for the reason that I "irritate everyone". So dubious is if he knows enough what's been going on around me at WT:ES for the last 13 months in his entire absence therefrom.

That conspiracy failed in figuring out what's wrong with my agendas and discussions, and why they should be removed from WT:ES, from the public. This failure is a clear measure how arbitrary CodeCat's removals of mine were.

--KYPark (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Text revolution[edit]

I'd coin simply "text revolution" for all the revolutions since 1974, including digital revolution, internet revolution, world wide web revolution, hypertext revolution, communication revolution, information revolution, cognitive revolution, or the like.

The "text revolution" sounds closest to "hypertext revolution," which in fact would be fairly said to have empowered:

  • the world wide web revolution (ironically rather too) narrowly, and
  • the Internet revolution (practically rather too) widely.

Anyway, wikis may definitely and deeply relate to such historical revolutions, perhaps very proudly. How proud are you? What's your merit anyway?

--KYPark (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

convex, concave etc.[edit]

I have undone your edits for two main reasons (other than putting the Han gyph into the English entry, which I presume was just a typo).

  • Concave/convex implies a smooth curve. The example you have given is, for want of a better term, nondifferentiable, and so is really not a good example.
  • Secondly, you are presuming the picture is being looked at from the top down. This is not immediately obvious - you need a note, viewpoint or some sort of surface indication.

I would suggest you look on Commons for some pictures of, say, convex lenses, and use them - they are more obvious, and 'real-world'. Cheers. Hyarmendacil (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This is our first encounter, isn't it? Frankly, anyway, I deeply regret your bold, perhaps too bold, counter-edit. Frankly again, I admit that I am bridging East and West, perhaps to the strange agony of some Western people, which has become my point of departure around here. Almost my last decade looks like a blockade by them against me, as well documented here and elsewhere.

In real life, at your age, I was a mechanical engineering student, too. And I'm still living by a mechanical engineering worldview, that is, Newtonian or Einsteinian determinism and Einsteinian "hidden variables," implicit, unknown or obscured, which may make our will look like being free, the world like being indetermined!

Meanwhile, I take it very seriously that we greatly suffer from ignorance and obscurantism. Say, in this case, I am uncertain which is really wrong with you, to be ignorant or obscurant.

Please google "convex" or "concave" and then select the "Images" option on top. And rethink your claim that "Concave/convex implies a smooth curve."

Partly, I agree that my concave/convex figuration may be "really not a good example" as "nondifferentiable," from the absolute or objective perspective. Partly, however, I disagree with you from the following perspectives at least:

  • not only the Eastern 凹 and 凸, namely, concave and convex, or, yin and yang,
  • but also the Western and , namely, cup and cap, or, concave and convex,
  • as well as the equation with (ultimately, Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife, figured as the Holy Grail, in point!) and , respectively, by Dan Brown The Da Vinci Code, Doubleday, 2003. (The #1 New York Times Bestseller).
  • Regardless, our subjective optical illusion may mainly cause us to see rhombus-concave.png as concave and rhombus-convex.png as convex.

Objectively or theoretically, both the concave and convex sides stem from the Great Oneness, or Taiji, embracing both yin and yang. Simply, the lower concave side is lesser, while the upper convex side is greater, than the 180 degrees.

convex, curved out,
cap, male, or yang
concave, curved in,
cup, female, or yin

Subjectively or practically, however, we are cognitively biased to see either side rather than both at the same time, say, ∪ and rhombus-concave.png as concave, and ∩ and rhombus-convex.png as convex.

Cheers. --KYPark (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My concave and convex figures, after Dan Brown, would be the simplest of the kind, perhaps too simple or ambiguous, as you are afraid. But such ambiguity would be mostly reduced by aligning

rhombus-concave.png with 凹, ∪, cup, riverbed, etc.
rhombus-convex.png with 凸, ∩, cap, mountain, etc.

--KYPark (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Hyarmendacil: This response of his should tell you all you need to know about him, but see his block history for more.
@KYPark: Those edits are unhelpful in distinguishing the meanings of the words and the use of Han characters there was inappropriate. If you make a similar edit again I will block you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Concavity, my personal background, and the Da Vinci code? I'm not going to attempt an argument. See descriptivism. Cheers. Hyarmendacil (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)