tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post8270921568433452952..comments2024-03-23T01:31:13.502+01:00Comments on Jabal al-Lughat: The Tyranny of MorphologyLameen Souag الأمين سواقhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00773164776222840428noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-12028488470590008772010-01-18T22:18:57.370+01:002010-01-18T22:18:57.370+01:00mashallah you have done a great job and good resea...mashallah you have done a great job and good research to and i was delighted to find such a nice and resourceful blogtajweed quran onlinehttp://www.learningquranonline.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-2077010345663909302009-03-12T18:55:00.000+01:002009-03-12T18:55:00.000+01:00Totally off topic, but the use of dutzen brought b...Totally off topic, but the use of dutzen brought back a vivid memory from my German childhood. We used it to describe easter egg battles at Easter. We kids would attack another's egg with our own and try to crack it. The one whose egg cracked was the loser. I have no idea if this verb has any other sense in German.nycguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02799769428539687855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-1546321570795450872009-02-24T23:48:00.000+01:002009-02-24T23:48:00.000+01:00What I appreciate most is how it can provide great...<I>What I appreciate most is how it can provide great insight into interpersonal relationships in just a few seconds without resorting to reading body language.</I><BR/><BR/>Great point -- but, on the other hand, learning to <B>use</B> a honorific system when <B>speaking</B> must be utter horror.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-4549255555325518942009-02-23T23:09:00.000+01:002009-02-23T23:09:00.000+01:00Tsk, tsk. With z, not tzI shall smack myself upsid...<I>Tsk, tsk. With z, not tz</I><BR/>I shall smack myself upside the head forthwith.<BR/><BR/><I>And how, exactly, can one love a honorific system? ~:-|</I><BR/>Um, truly, madly, deeply? :) What I appreciate most is how it can provide great insight into interpersonal relationships in just a few seconds without resorting to reading body language. Now that's one language I'll never get the hang of.bulbulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505565281151328789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-43816291710736221432009-02-23T23:02:00.000+01:002009-02-23T23:02:00.000+01:00Dutzen and SietzenTsk, tsk. With z, not tz, becaus...<I>Dutzen and Sietzen</I><BR/><BR/>Tsk, tsk. With z, not tz, because it follows a long vowel.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't, or at least not yet :) I won't be lost on the streets of Seoul (or in the offices of Samsung in Galanta), but I'm nowhere near fluent.</I><BR/><BR/>That's called British understatement.<BR/><BR/>And how, exactly, can one love a honorific system? ~:-|<BR/><BR/>The absence of relative pronouns seems to be more widespread. It's shared by Mandarin, where you have to turn everything you want to relativize into an attribute.<BR/><BR/>And yes, the alphabet is pure genius!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-15169319005534348282009-02-22T22:32:00.000+01:002009-02-22T22:32:00.000+01:00"went(-si-) or went(plain)."I see, thanks. I have ...<I>"went(-si-) or went(plain)."</I><BR/>I see, thanks. I have trouble imagining a sentence where one would even attempt that. That would be like mixing Dutzen and Sietzen.<BR/>The way I understand it, -si and verbal endinds in Korean are governed by the holy quadrity of sociolinguistics: who speaks to whom about whom and who else is around. So it's actually a tyranny of morphology and pragmatics.<BR/><BR/>David,<BR/>relax, I don't, or at least not yet :) I won't be lost on the streets of Seoul (or in the offices of Samsung in Galanta), but I'm nowhere near fluent. I love just about everything about Korean - from the script through the absence of realative pronouns and the ideophones to the honorific system. And now that Lost is back on and - spoiler alert - Jin is alive, I'm doing some catching up :)bulbulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505565281151328789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-17050470501342435532009-02-22T01:09:00.000+01:002009-02-22T01:09:00.000+01:00GAAAH! bulbul speaks Korean, too!!! It's slowly ge...GAAAH! bulbul speaks Korean, too!!! It's slowly getting scary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-45695652236894211832009-02-21T11:14:00.000+01:002009-02-21T11:14:00.000+01:00I mean a disjunction of verb politeness levels whe...I mean a disjunction of verb politeness levels where you say he "went(-si-) or went(plain)." Interesting about the hearer-orientation of -si - I hadn't gotten that impression from the talk.Lameen Souag الأمين سواقhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00773164776222840428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-86281728292316586012009-02-21T02:00:00.000+01:002009-02-21T02:00:00.000+01:00I'm told that a disjunction of politeness levels, ...<I>I'm told that a disjunction of politeness levels, like *"The teacher went(honorific) or went(unmarked) away", is totally unacceptable.</I><BR/>Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that combinations of noun-HONORIFIC (-nim) and verb (without the honorific affix) are not permitted? Because at least according to my limited understanding, this is not necessarily the case. '-nim' can also be used to indicate closeness or special relationship of the subject to the speaker, but -si (like other verb suffixes) is to some extent hearer-oriented and its use depends on who you're talking to and who else is around. So for example if you were to speak to your sister about your father, you would certainly call him 아버님 <I>abǔ-nim</I>, but the verb could very well take the -yo suffix without -si, especially if he's not within earshot.<BR/>Chapter 2 of <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Using-Korean-Guide-Contemporary-Usage/dp/0521667887/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235176685&sr=1-1" REL="nofollow">this guide</A> does a pretty good job of covering the ins and outs of the use of -si.<BR/>If you're referring to a situation where the subject is also the hearer, then of course you're right.bulbulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505565281151328789noreply@blogger.com