Talk:Korean count word

Add the korean words, then add this in the list :

goeon (...) : books
gelu (...) : trees

In this article the word "beoseu" (bus) is used. I have only seen "ppeoseu" in writing, though. And on a sign in Chibeuro (The Way Home). Unfortunately, I have never been to the land of the morning calm, so I don't know which is correct/used. --Taejo 13:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

버스 is vastly more common, at least in South Korea. Google the two forms if you don't believe me. The ㅃ form may have been chosen in the movie -- I'm just guessing -- as a way of highlighting the backwardness of the area. I believe -- and again I may be wrong -- that 뻐스 results from rendering the katakana for "bus" into hangul, while 버스 is a direct hangulization from English. The two count words you mention are already in the list, as gwon and geuru. -- Visviva 02:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<버스> is the standard way of writing it in Korean (so it's probably what we should use at Wikipedia), but actual pronunciation tends to be [뻐쓰], regardless of how it's written. It's similar with <가스> and <카페> which are actually pronounced [까쓰] and [까페]. I agree with Visviva. It was probably written that way to convey the atmosphere of the place.

It's unrelated to the katakana though.

([짜장면] is a special case. It's usually written <짜장면> and pronounced [짜장면], but prescriptivists advocate <자장면> and [자장면]. The prescriptivist spelling and pronunciation looks and sounds very nitpicky or posh to me.) --Kjoonlee 05:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"measure words"[edit]

The Chinese article on this subject is similarly named, but the Japanese equivalent is Japanese counter word. Personally, I have never heard the phrase "measure word" before. In fact, it often makes no sense: when you say "kae tu-gae" (dogs two-things/two dogs) you aren't measuring dogs, you're counting them. Both "Taehak Hangugeo/College Korean" and "Declan's Korean HakGyo", as well as Langenscheidt's pocket Korean dictionary call them "count words". --Taejo 12:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good point. I agree with you. My Korean study book that I have also uses the word "count" and not "measure". I propose a name change for this article. Masterhatch 11 July 2005

I believe the technically correct term is numeral classifier; though the general article is currently at measure word. Nevertheless, most reference works I checked (for Korean) use count word, thus I moved. Kokiri 09:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usage[edit]

This article states that Native Korean numerals are used with counter words. Is this true? What about 십 개월 - This does not mean december, it means ten months. Any thoughts? Also, could we make the body of the text a bit clearer? For instance instead of 'paper-like material' something that captures the flatness of 장 (paper-like material at first read is a bit misleading; plastic cards can certainly be counted with 장 as well). Zippyt 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, -gaewol is -個月. It's a bound morpheme made of Hanja, so it goes together with 십. --Kjoonlee 05:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still somewhat confused. Aren't all counter words bound morphemes? 장 as well has Hanja, 張, however we say 한 장 and not 일장. I guess part of my confusion lies in the English wording-- do we consider 장 a counter word and 개월 not, and how do we make this distinction? Thanks for any input =D Zippyt 09:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very confusing matter; pardon me for not being clear. I'm not really an expert on this matter, although most of the anonymous edits on this article was probably done by me. ;) If my explanation was incorrect or confusing, I humbly suggest you ignore it. ^^;;

BTW, I'm sure most people are unaware that 장 (or even 개!) are actually made of Hanja.

Back on topic, most measurements of time/space/temperature is done using Sino-Korean numerals. Maybe this makes more sense? 삼 미터, 십오 분, 사십 리터, 삼십 도. The exceptions seem to be 한 시간 and 한 시. --Kjoonlee

And also 한 달. --Kjoonlee 11:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is this confusing, perhaps we could add something on the article page that helps those unfamiliar with Korean measure/count words determine when to use which system?Zippyt 01:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO that would more likely fit Wikibooks or Wikiversity, rather than Wikipedia. If people were to add new info themselves, it would be against WP:NOR unless they cite reliable sources. This article was made (AFAIK) when Wikipedia didn't put such a heavy focus on WP:NOR. --Kjoonlee 02:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are reliable sources; we should probably cite some. On the matter at hand, the rev. ed. of Koh & Nam's 표준국어문법론 (p. 91) divides count words into four classes: native Korean counters that are used only with Korean numbers, Sino-Korean counters that are used with Korean numbers (장, 개,잔, etc.), Sino-Korean counters that can be used with either Korean or Sino-Korean numbers (척,명,평), and Sino-Korean counters that can only be used with Sino-Korean numbers (분,원,리). So basically Korean counters only go with Korean words, but hanja-based counters can (and often do) go either way. They also note (p. 92) that Western units are generally used with Sino-Korean numbers. -- Visviva 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Particles[edit]

Can somebody explain where the count words are placed with respect to particles? For example, with 이/가 is it 종이 한장이 있어요 종이가 한장 있어요 Jettabebetta 03:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the first; the counter is attached to the thing it counts. You *could*, I think, also say 종이는 한장이 있어요, but few would bother. -- Visviva 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Korean speaker and measure/count(er) word enthusiast here[edit]

This article, as compared to its Chinese and Japanese equivalents, seems rather disorganised and incomplete. Later today I'm gonna try to copy some of the chart codes from the Japanese article and try to put it together in that. I'm also gonna recommend that we put up - just due to possible interest from speakers/learners of Japanese/Chinese - the Chinese characters for these count words.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.224.109 (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]