Talk:Koreanic languages

Membership

To User:Kwamikagami： There seems to be a difference in recognition between you and me. What do you think about the phylogeny of ancient languages in the Korean peninsula and Japonic languages? My understanding is below.

• Fuyu languages (=Koguryoic languages)
  • Fuyu language
  • Goguryeo language
  • Ye-Maek language
  • Baekje language

• Koreanic languages
  • Silla language
    • Korean language
    • Jeju language

• Han languages

• Japonic languages
  • Japanese language
  • Ryukyuan languages

Koreanic languages is only Silla, Korean and Jeju. Not includes Fuyu and Han. The phylogenetic relationship between each other is controversial and can not be determined.--ABCEdit (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Han = Silla plus perhaps Gaya/Kara or Baekje ("Han-Paekche"). Modern Korean is a Han language. Indeed, the name "Han" is the Korean autonym.

Fuyu = Koguryoic + Japonic ("Fuyu" was Beckwith's name for it). This is controversial, because we do not know that the Japonic toponyms were in the Koguryoic languages. (Indeed, Vovin argues that they were not.)

According to Vovin, Koreanic includes all the attested languages of the Korean peninsula. He interprets all the Japonic toponyms are deriving from earlier languages, as Chinese records of the languages, and loanwords into Tungusic languages, do not include any words that look Japanese, but plenty that look Korean.

Vovin does not divide Koreanic into Koguryoic and Han. AFAICT, if Baekje is closer to Goguryeo+Buyeo, then that would be the Koguryoic branch. If Baekje is closer to Silla, that would be the Han branch. If there were two Baekje languages, then we have both branches. But it could be that Koguryoic is just Goguryeo/Buyeo as a single language, and Han is just Silla and its descendants, in which case we don't have a neat bifurcation.

If all the attested languages of the Korean peninsula are related to Korean, as Vovin and others quite convincingly argue, then both Koguryoic and Han are Koreanic. The only question in my mind is whether that's a legitimate division, or if it's an artefact of the analysis of Chinese records and toponyms. If it's an artefact, then it would be best to list all the languages as "Koreanic" without any further subdivision, except for e.g. Goguryeo and Buyeo being mutually intelligible and thus dialects of a single language. Also, in several cases (e.g. Baekje and Gaya) it's not clear if a language is Koguryoic or Han.

Thus this would be my classification:

• Koreanic
  • Goguryeo–Buyeo (Puyo-Koguryoic)
  • Baekje (possibly two languages, "Puyo-Paekche" and "Han-Paekche")
  • Silla >> Korean, Jeju

Unattested: Ye-Maek, Gaya ("pre-Gaya/Kara" = Japonic, but actual Gaya known by only 1 word), etc.

If Baekje is two languages, then we might have:

• Koreanic 2
  • Koguryoic (Puyo-Koguryoic?)
    • Goguryeo
    • Buyeo
    • Puyo-Paekche
  • Han
    • Han-Paekche
    • Silla >> Korean, Jeju

But I'd like to see better evidence before adopting that as our WP classification. If the division of Koreanic into Koguryoic and Han is untenable, then those articles should be merged into this article. If however RS's include Han but not Koguryoic in Koreanic, then perhaps we want to merge just Han? After all, Han might be restricted to a single language, Sillan, in which case there'd be little need for a separate article.

— kwami (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I recognize the word "Koreanic languages" as a proved (not hypothetical) language family included only Silla, Korean and Jeju. "Koreanic" you mentioned above is a hypothetical family by Vovin etc. I think it's a wrong use. If you want to remake the contents of Korean languages as a hypothetical language family, I think it should be renamed to Languages of ancient Korea.--ABCEdit (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That's like arguing Indo-European is a "hypothetical language family" because some extinct languages are poorly attested, and therefor it should be renamed "Languages of ancient Europe". It's fine to note that many of these Korean "languages" are poorly attested, or that there is controversy over whether they're actually Koreanic (if you have the sources to back that up). But excluding them would be irresponsible. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not oppose to include them in the article. But it should be written that they are hypothesis. And "?" is necessary in the Template to indicate that their phylogeny is hypothetical. It should be clear whether it is just a hypothesis or has been clearly proven.--ABCEdit (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there really any convincing dispute? Beckwith connects Koguryoic to Japonic based on toponymic evidence, but that would seem to be the more hypothetical approach, since he doesn't know that the toponyms weren't from earlier languages. Does anyone who works with the little vocabulary we have from the Koguryoic languages themselves (e.g. in Chinese records) dispute that they're Koreanic? — kwami (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As discussed in the article, the only secure members of Koreanic are Korean and Jeju, with extinct predecessors Middle and Old Korean. The scant evidence for Goguryeo and Baekje is insufficient to support a definite identification. This is particularly true for Goguryeo, especially if the placename glosses in the Samguk sagi are not accepted as representing Goguryeo, which seems to be an increasingly common position. Any "Ye-Maek language" is completely hypothetical. Kanguole 08:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

See for example Vovin in The Global Prehistory of Migration (2015): "The Korean language family consists of Korean proper and the Ceycwuto Island language, which is frequently mislabeled as a 'dialect'. ... The latter [Yukchin] should be treated as a distinct language ... There are also two historically attested languages, Old Korean (with only fragmentary attestation) and Middle Korean." Kanguole 09:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

whats the basis of this new revision?

So I've noticed that the subdivisions of "Koreanic" went from Koguryoic, Han, and Yemaek to Korean, Jeju, Goguryeo, Baekje and Yukchin. I've read the "cited sources" regarding these and absolutely nothing encourages or firmly establishes the changes and de-establishment of the previous foundation. The history and records show the seperate languages of the samhan period resolving into Silla, Gaya, and Baekje. Buyeo preceded Goguryeo so if any argument was to be made, then Buyeo trumps the Goguryeo language. Not to mention the establishment of Asadal/Gojoseon... what of their language? If anything the citizens/people of Asadal definitely didn't speak Goguryeo or Buyeo as they preceded them as well. So please... explain to me the de-establishment of the previous foundation as well as the BS behind this "Yukchin" language. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by AI135 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no such record of evolution of languages. There are no records at all of the Samhan languages, just partially-contradictory comments in Chinese histories about which of them were similar. There is nothing at all about languages of Asadal, Gojoseon, Yemaek, etc. Only one word is recorded for Gaya, and very little for Baekje.

There are references in the Yukchin section, and it is noted that only a few linguists see it as separate. Kanguole 16:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The source you've added is a poor one: it's a passing summary in a book about a different subject, and it doesn't actually say that the Puyŏ were Koreanic. But no matter: there are sources that address the issue directly, and make the statement you want, several of them already cited in the article.

The problem is that Lee Ki-Moon's Puyŏ/Han split, based on the description in the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms of the northern groups and the Samhan (as discussed in the "Early Chinese descriptions" section) is not accepted by all, and has been interpreted in different ways. For example, you seemed to suggest in your message on my talk page that the Samhan were ancestral to the Japanese, a view espoused by Vovin and Unger. In addition, Lee's view was partly based on his use of the placename glosses in the Samguk sagi, which are now widely believed not to reflect Goguryeo.

The most common was of presenting the family these days (e.g. in Cho and Whitman) is to give the current members, usually Korean and Jeju (though a few add Yukchin), and mention Baekje and Goguryeo (especially the former) as possible extinct members.

None of this justifies the inclusion of a Yemaek language, of which there is no evidence at all. Kanguole 21:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The two additional sources you've added are already in the reference list:

• Whitman (2015) p. 422 mentions Lee's Puyŏ/Han split, and then spends the rest of the paragraph talking about problems with the assumptions underlying it.
• Cho and Whitman (2019) p. 13 describe Koreanic as consisting of a Korean dialect continuum and a separate Jeju language, plus "extinct and poorly attested Koreanic languages, such as the language of Paekche".

Both would seem to argue against adopting Lee's Puyŏ/Han split as our classification. There remains no data on Yemaek. Kanguole 08:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As you haven't responded to the above, I have changed the children list to match Cho and Whitman (2019), as described above. Kanguole 08:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Whitman (2015) and Cho and Whitman (2019) hardly can be cited as supporting sources for the Puyŏ/Han-split proposed by Lee. The last revision of the infobox (Koreanic, Jeju, Baekje, Goguryo) best reflects the current state of modern scholarship as presented in several major sources. –Austronesier (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Presumably the reason that Cho and Whitman don't list Sillan as a member is that it is represented by its modern descendents. However, the infobox does have an |ancestor= parameter for the oldest attested form, for which the appropriate value would be Old Korean. Kanguole 15:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

so, you are suggesting that Buyeo a Koreanic Kingdom spoke what?... or what of the other smaller tribal kingdoms like Ye and Okjeo? what of Asadal?... Also... if Sillan is not listed as a subdivision... why is Latin listed as a subdivision of the romance languages? What of the Gaya confederacy?... a Koreanic Confederacy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't know what Asadal etc spoke, because their languages are completely unattested.

Vulgar Latin is not listed as a subdivision of Romance languages; it is given as an early form, just as Old Korean should be here.

As for Gaya, only a single word is attested (and that looks Japonic). Kanguole 16:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So Vulgar Latin is under the subdivision "Latin"... go check for yourself... and the Gaya Confederacy was of Koreanic origin in the 1st century... meaning Japonic has to be an offspring of Koreanic no? not the other way around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The infobox on the Romance languages page is as I've described it.

This is an article about linguistics, not history or national identity. It deals in attested languages. Reliable sources do not list Gaya among Koreanic languages, probably because that one word is insufficient evidence on which to decide the question. Kanguole 17:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

exactly... and Italian, French, Spanish ETC is under Latin or "Romance" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Also what of "Buyeo"?... as it predates Goguryeo... I do agree with you on everything else... not enough information on Ye-Maek, Gaya or the other 2 greater Tribal Kingdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The Romance languages are Italian, French, Spanish, etc. Vulgar Latin is designated as an "Early form" of Romance.

Reliable sources (e.g Cho and Whitman, which you pointed at) do not list Buyeo among Koreanic languages, probably because it is completely unattested. Kanguole 18:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay but my statement regarding Sillan... Korean and Jeju should not be subdivided along with Goguryeo and Baekje... Sillan does not directly equate to Old Korean on par with the other 2... so a better classification would be Sillan, Goguryeo and Baekje. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We can't just invent our own classifications. Here are some sources:

• Cho and Whitman (2019) p. 13 describe Koreanic as consisting of a Korean dialect continuum and a separate Jeju language, plus "extinct and poorly attested Koreanic languages, such as the language of Paekche".
• Vovin in The Global Prehistory of Migration (2015): "The Korean language family consists of Korean proper and the Ceycwuto Island language, which is frequently mislabeled as a 'dialect'." (He also raises Yukchin as a separate member.)

There is no mention of a Sillan language group. The child parameters in a language family infobox are supposed to be either single languages or groups of languages. Kanguole 21:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Some pages were not available, but I thoroughly read both sources. I could not find the statement that you mentioned in "The Global Prehistory of Human Migration" so maybe you can link it to me as there is a chance I could've missed it. In Korean: A Linguistic Introduction here are some key things that I read... the language of Jinhan (Sillan's predecessor) was different to that of Mahan (predecessor to Baekje). The language of Goguryeo was compared to the language of Buyeo (Goguryeo's predecessor) and establishes minor contrast with the Southern Han languages. It also goes on how Old Korean corresponds to the language of the unified Silla period and only in some cases extends to the pre-Sillan period which is established by the Jinhan language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Vovin's chapter in The Global Prehistory of Human Migration is called "Northeastern and Central Asia: 'Altaic' linguistic history". The relevant section is called "Korean languages and migrations".

The early comparisons they speak of are remarks in chapter 30 of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms, part of the section dealing with the kingdom of Wei. As they note, there are comparisons among the northern languages, and among the Samhan languages, but none between these two groups. (p. 15)

They say that Old Korean is the language of Silla, conventionally of Unified Silla, but sometimes extending to Silla in the (Korean) Three Kingdoms period (they don't say Jinhan). (p. 16) So having Old Korean as an "Early form" ought to cover that. Kanguole 11:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

also... in Alexander Vovin's "Korean as a Paleosiberian Language... he establishes that Korean descending from Sillan is established but in information pertaining to his book he clarifies that his beliefs are now set that Korean descends from Koguryoic and Jeju descends from Baekje. Another point I am confused on... is, Vovin (someone who is a trusted source from what it seems like on the references) solidly establishes that Korean is not Altaic and actually resembles the multi-grouped Paleo-Siberian languages... so why is Korean colored as Altaic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read a bit further in that paper, you'll find he's not actually claiming Korean is Paleosiberian, but spoofing the idea of using typology to determine affiliation of languages (which was apparently the theme of the conference it was presented at). But yes, the notion that Korean is Altaic, or even that Altaic is a coherent group with or without Korean, no longer has much support.

As regards the colour, according to the documentation for {{Infobox language family}} it's just a convenience for languages in the area. There is no mention of Altaic in what is displayed. Kanguole 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

so let me quickly establish...

Ye-Maek... not enough evidence to include Buyeo... not enough evidence to include Okjeo... not enough evidence to include Ye... not enough evidence to include Goguryeo... included Jinhan/Sillan... not included Mahan/Baekje... included Byeonhan/Gaya... not enough evidence to include — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Baekje (not Mahan) is included as an extinct relative by authors like Cho and Whitman, though they call it "poorly attested". The case for Goguryeo is weaker, especially if the Samguk sagi glosses are not considered to be Goguryeo, but some authors lean to including it. Old Korean (Sillan) is marked as an "Early form". There is one word from Gaya, and the others are unattested. Kanguole 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

so why is Old Korean marked as the early form of Koreanic?... Sillan was not ancestral to Goguryeo or Baekje in anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No, but it is an early form. Kanguole 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

... right... an early form of Korean... not Goguryeo and Baekje — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC) In early forms of KOREANIC it is listed as OLD KOREAN which refers to the period that Silla unified the peninsula. Having Goguryeo and Baekje classed the same as Korean and Jeju is ridiculous. Goguryeo would predate that period by at least 500 years if anything and Baekje predates Korean by hundreds of years as well. if OLD KOREAN or SILLAN refers to the ancestor of Korean and ultimately Jeju than it should not be within the same class as Goguryeo and Baekje. The classifications should be Old Korean (Sillan), Goguryeo, Baekje and or Jeju. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.165.22 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Having Old Korean in the "Early form" slot seemed mildly useful, but I'm not extremely attached to it. But it certainly doesn't belong in the children list, because it is neither a leaf language nor a language group. There we should follow the treatment in the sources and not create our own classification. The widely accepted members of this family are Korean and Jeju, with some including the extinct and poorly attested Baekje and (less commonly) Goguryeo. Kanguole 23:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion of the referenced text on Yukchin. There is substantial agreement that Yukchin should be treated as a separate dialect group from Hamgyong, though only a few scholars (as the article says) would describe it as a separate language. I have also reverted the unreferenced insertion of Paleosiberian, which is not even a language family, and has not been seriously considered. (Vovin's spoof doesn't count.) Also, "demonstrated origins of the Korean people" is an overstatement. Kanguole 07:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of the acceptance of Yukchin as a separate dialect group from Hamgyong can be found in such general surveys as Lee and Ramsey's The Korean Language and Brown and Yeon's chapter on dialects in the Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Kanguole 07:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Romanization of 륙진?

@Kanguole:

Yukchin is the Mccune-Reischauer form of the South Korean pronunciation of the place name [juk̚dʑin], referring to the bend of the Tumen River where the variety in question is spoken. The North Korean form should be Ryukchin (not Ryukjin, which was a mistake), as the North Korean standard preserves initial l- in Sino-Korean forms.

The reason that Yukchin is prevalent in scholarship is because Korean studies use 1) South Korean forms and 2) Mccune-Reischauer, but is this the correct form for Wikipedia? MOS:KO only says "Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea," but there's no information on whether we should use North or South Korean pronunciations (as opposed to romanization schemes) for the historical name of a region now located in North Korea. To make things more confusing, virtually all historical Korean articles currently use Revised Romanization.

I'm not convinced that we should just go by the most common term in scholarship because then we have situations like Ryesong River, which in historical contexts is more often referred to as Yesŏng, the southern pronunciation, but in modern contexts as Ryesŏng.

Might be worth taking to Talk:MOS?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that this is the dialect name, which is of course taken from the place name. These often diverge in English usage, e.g. Burmese language vs Myanmar.

Further down in the same section of MOS:KO it talks about using names common in English-language sources, giving the example of Taekwondo. Kanguole 09:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is similar to an earlier discussion in Talk:Puyŏ languages#Requested move 18 September 2019. We should use the spelling that is prevalent in the linguistic literature written in English. For the dialect, this is "Yukchin"[1] (or "Yukjin"[2]), not "Ryukchin"[3]. –Austronesier (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole: @Austronesier: I think it's worth noting that both Yukchin and Puyŏ are just M-R transcriptions of South Korean pronunciations, because that's still the most common way of transcribing Korean in English-language academia—and not an English loan from Korean like kimchi or taekwondo, where the stipulation that we use English names would apply. The de facto Wikipedia policy is, however, that we use RR and/or M-R of North Korean pronunciations even for academic topics where South Korean M-R is absolutely dominant, presumably for the sake of consistency between academic and popular topics. Using M-R for linguistic topics and the other Romanization schemes for all other Korea-related topics could well lead to confusion on readers and newer editors.

For example, for Puyŏ languages (M-R), we have the corresponding historical article Buyeo (RR), even though the dominant academic romanization is actually "Puyŏ" for both. Similarly, I'm planning on writing a brief start-level article on Ryukchin, which would be the preferred romanization of 륙진 per my understanding of precedent WRT North Korean place names. These Romanization inconsistencies could easily confuse or mislead non-Korean speaking readers and editors.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:KO talks about the common name used in English-language sources (per WP:COMMONNAME), rather than loans. But it certainly does seem that practice in Korean articles has been different, placing the consistency criterion above all others. It's a strange consistency though, e.g. the territory of Buyeo isn't in South Korea.

By the way, a Yukjin dialect article has recently appeared, though with plenty of room for improvement. Kanguole 14:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole: My impression is that there was nobody with academic training in Korean studies in the first few years of Wikipedia, so most articles that should have used M-R were created by South Koreans using the Romanization that was familiar to them, i.e. RR. The end result was that everything not directly related to North Korea is in RR (and you can see that in practice with the new Yukjin dialect too, which is romanized in South Korean RR despite MOS:KO mandating some form of M-R).

Now it's a bit late to change things because literally thousands upon thousands of RR articles would have to be manually moved to M-R and all their proper nouns manually changed. Given the apparently restricted number of people in WP:KOREA not doing K-pop, this would probably take at least weeks of very tedious work. Admittedly I'm not actually super attached to changing Yukchin to the consistent, if rarely actually used, form, in this article or anywhere else—I just thought it was worth noting for future reference.

I'll take a look at the new Yukjin dialect article. There are some Korean-language monographs on Yukjin but I don't currently have them on hand.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole: FYI I've added some preliminary information to the Yukjin dialect article, and also linked directly to the PDFs of King 1987 and 1992 (both made freely available on Seoul National University archives). Hopefully the two PDFs will allow any English speaker to expand the article to decent standards without having to dig for sources.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you'd already included the links! NVM.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

External relationships

@Kanguole: I am not sure that Koreanic-Japonic and Altaic theories have more support than the Eurasiatic theory. I think Koreanic-Japonic and Altaic are mostly rejected while Eurasiatic is at least sort of pending, even if Korean–Japanese–Ainu and Altaic subgroups can't be postulated within it as in the Greenberg's original version and even if Japonic has to be removed. While the Eurasiatic theory might look like a stronger claim since this grouping is larger, Koreanic-Japonic and Altaic are in a way stronger since they are more specific and assume tighter relationships. I think Japonic is of Southeast Asian origin and is completely unrelated to Koreanic except for areal influences. By the way, Uralo-Siberian theory might be similar to Eurasiatic but it doesn't really mention Koreanic. Wpoeop (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to mention that earlier some Korean-related pages mentioned specific Koreanic-Turkic connection, Koreanic-Nivkh and Koreanic-Paleosiberian connections but these mentions seem to be removed now. Wpoeop (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Koreanic-Japonic and Altaic are proposals with a long academic tradition, and originally came out of the mainstream of comparative linguistics, although for more than 20 yrs, the majority of researchers rejects these two proposals and prefers to explain shared features as a result of convergence (→ sprachbund). However, some researchers (e.g. Robbeets, Blažek and the Moscow school of long-rangers) still support the genetic hypothesis.

On the other hand, Eurasiatic until now remains a fringe hypothesis, which is not widely supported even among long-range comparatists. While Altaic is based on genuine correspondences, even if these are best explained as the result of borrowing/convergence, Eurasian is built on resemblance sets that are dismissed by most as a product of chance. –Austronesier (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Considering the coverage in general introductions to Korean:

• Sohn (1999): Altaic (7 pages), Austronesian and Dravidian (4 pages), Japonic (7 pages)
• Lee Iksop & Ramsey (2000) considers only Altaic and Japonic
• Lee Ki-Moon & Ramsey (2011): Altaic, especially Tungusic (11 pages), Japonic (4 pages)
• Cho & Whitman (2019): considers only Altaic and Japonic

Recent surveys tend to say only Altaic (especially Tungusic) and Japonic are treated as serious candidates.

The Koreanic-Paleosiberian/Nivkh connection was sourced to an article "Korean as a Paleosiberian language" by Vovin, but he says (on page 243) that this is a spoof on the idea of inferring genetic relationships from typology (the theme of the conference it was contributed to). Kanguole 10:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole: I'll note that Koreanic-Paleosiberian/Nivkh connection was mentioned not only by Vovin but also by Kang Gil-un and Juha Janhunen: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_language&oldid=867326457 . The specific Koreanic-Turkic connection is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages#Korean . Wpoeop (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vovin can't be used in this connection at all, because he explicitly says it's a spoof. Janhunen did not suggest a Koreanic-Nivkh connection: he said that Goguryeo was not Koreanic, but it might be related to Nivkh. Kanguole 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Vovin does not support a genetic relationship of the Koreanic language family to any others, but does classify the Goguryeo language as a Koreanic language based on (the albeit sparse, but existing) lexical evidence outside of placenames as well as the historic context of the legacy of Goguryeo reemerging after the collapse of Silla as a source of legitimation for the new Kingdom of Goryeo. The stance of other linguists be it Altaic (Robbeets) or non-Altaic (Unger) are that of it being a dialect of Old Korean (Robbeets) or a entirely separate language in the Koreanic language family (Vovin, Unger). Janhunen according to Robbeets hinted at Goguryeo being a potential link between Korean and Japanese. TempestAnarchist (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes to this and related articles

I have reverted the recent changes, for the following reasons:

• The language classification used seems to be based on traditional historiography, rather than the linguistic literature. Yemaek is not a group of languages. Indeed, since it's completely unattested, its affiliation is impossible to prove.
• This wikipedia is written in English, and so refers to things by names usually used in the English-language literature, e.g. Yukchin.
• There is broad acceptance that Jeju should be treated as a separate language. A similar treatment of Yukchin is very much a minority position.

Kanguole 18:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, Middle Korean was a language, not a language group, so it should have {{infobox language}}, not {{infobox language family}}, and should be placed in the |ancestor= field, not |fam3=, etc. Kanguole 21:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have partially reverted recent changes for the following reasons:

• Lee and Ramsey (2011) do not present a classification. They say (p34) that Chinese histories suggest three groups of languages in eastern Manchuria and the Korean peninsula in the 3rd century: Sukshin, Puyŏ and Hán, and go on to suggest (p44) that "Koguryŏan was related not just to Korean or Japanese, but to both."
• There is no basis for asserting Kaya was Koreanic. Lee and Ramsey (2011, pp67–47) say a single word is attested, and that looks Japonic.
• It is the consensus view that Middle Korean and later varieties are descended from the Old Korean of Silla (Sohn p40, Cho & Whitman p10, Lee KM & Ramsey pp48, 50, Lee IS & Ramsey p274).
• The Goguryeo stele inscriptions are written in Chinese, though some authors believe that they have features indicating a substrate influence.
• "It is also suggested" is an unnecessary weakening.

Kanguole 00:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Japonic section

I have mostly reverted a recent edit for the following reasons:

• Loans are not a subclass of cognates, but rather an alternative explanation.
• Vovin (2002) does not say any of what it is cited for.
• Vovin's arguments should be attributed to him, instead of being presented in Wikipedia's voice.
• Serafim (2008) and Vovin (2017) do not say the bit about mostly agricultural-related vocabulary. Janhunen (1996) and Whitman (2011) make broader statements.
• Whitman (2011) does not say the bit about the Three Kingdoms period. Indeed the attempt to delimit the period of contact does not reflect the sources.

Kanguole 12:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Tone (linguistics) has an RfC

Tone (linguistics) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Malerisch (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)