Open Thread #300

Hamilton (#17):

Insooni was once my partner on an SBS variety show called “Show, Seoul, Seoul,” back before she married. She was really friendly and takative. In fact, we were reprimanded a couple of times for talking while other performers were singing.

She seemed to want to get married at the time and told me that all her friends were telling her to marry an American because of the prejudice in South Korea.

Q wrote (#32):

She would not marry an American ’cause her American father left her family in Korea. She is more Korean in her heart than American.

She told me she was open to marrying an American. In fact, I got the feeling she was hitting on me.

After going through my son’s 6th grade “Elements of Language” textbook, I have come to suspect that the reason many Americans have such a hard time in Freshman College English is that they were not paying enough attention during 6th grade English class, which seems to cover almost everything the average person needs to know about English grammar and more. Or maybe they were paying attention, but their teachers just did not cover it well enough.

My son had an “A” average in 6th grade English, but while reviewing 6th grade grammar with him this summer, I have discovered that there was much he did not know or did not know well.

I am not sure what my son will learn in 7th and 8th grade, but I have a feeling that much of it will just be review of what he was taught in 6th grade.

For Koreans wanting to learn English grammar, I would recommend an American 6th grade English textbook, which probably has most of what you need to know.

Hamel wrote (#40):

I don’t suppose that 2 million plus hits that suggest this construction is already common would persuade you?

No, it would not persuade me. It only shows me, once again, that Koreans are screwing up their language.

A “noun” or “pronoun” should follow 발견하는, not an adverb. 즉시 is an adverb.

What seems to have happened is that the Chosun Ilbo writer is confusing “발견하면 즉시” (if you discover…., then immediately) and “발견한즉” (on discovering…).

Again, can you show me “V는 즉시” in a Korean dictionary?

And please do not try to obfuscate the discussion by giving me examples of misuse in the English language.

Kuiwon wrote (#45):

I think it’s more proper to say 즉시 (卽時) is treated as a noun rather than an adverb here. So, 발견하는 즉시 -> “at that very time (즉시) when (-하는) [they are] discovered (발견).”

That is the problem, Kuiwon. Many Koreans are now using 즉시(卽時) also as a noun instead of just as an adverb, as it is listed my dictionaries.

In Donga’s Prime dictionary, published in 1998, 즉시 is listed as an adverb meaing the following:

“at once; immediately; instantly; without delay; right away (off); directly

My dictionary does not say anything about it also being used as a “noun.” When did it switch from being an adverb to being a noun?

Baduk (#47),

My views on “Dokdo” are neutral, not “pro-Japanese.” It just happens that the Japanese are telling the truth about “Dokdo.”

Baduk wrote (#46):

“발견하는 즉시” =when you find a defector or as you find a defector (on the spot) kill him.

If should be 발견하는 대로 (즉시). Koreans often add 즉시 after 하는 대로 to modify the verb that follows (for emphasis), but some Koreans have started dropping the “dependent noun” 대로 and leaving only the adverb 즉시, which is just wrong.

Korean grammar mistakes are being accepted too easily, many within just a few years. It is almost as if the standards for correct usage of the Korean language have been thrown out the window, and few seem to care.

Q (#54),

No, she did not say anything about “making 떡,” but I could tell she liked me. I can be quite charming when I want.

Anyway, don’t let it gnaw at your innards. It’s history.

Sorry for all the mistakes in the above post. It is late here. I am willing to talk about this more tomorrow, but for now, “Good night.”

Hamel wrote:

I don’t know if you have the Yonsei “big dictionary” in your possession. I bought a copy in 1999, and my wife has a large black dictionary whose title escapes me because I am not at home now. Both of these paper dictionaries that are well over 10 years old give 즉시 as a 부사 (adverb) first, but then go on to descrive its 명사적 용법 (usage as a noun)!! Will you accept it or not, Gerry?

No, I do not have the Yonsei dictionary, but I like the way that it seems to be dealing with the problem. According to you, the Yonsei dictionary classifies 즉시 as an “adverb,” but adds that there is also “usage” of it as a noun. In other words, 즉시 is an adverb that some Koreans also misuse as a noun.

즉시 seems to be another example of the growing misuse of a word gradually being accepted by authorities.

The people at 국립국어원 wrote that one of the reasons they classified 즉시 as a “noun” was that it could be used with the demonstrative adjective 그 (that), as in “that instant” (그 즉시), but that is not good enough. Can it also be used with the other demonstrative, 이 (this), as in “this instant” (이 즉시)? No, so that should be a red flag.

On the other hand, 순간, which is a noun, can be used with both 이 and 그, as in “지금 이 순간” and “그 순간.”

So, why not simply use 순간 for “an instant” and 즉시 for “instantly”? Why do people have to make things so complicated?

Hamel wrote (#136):

Actually, that is not what it means “in other words,” but it is interesting that you assert it does. This shows to me either an inability to understand, or intellectual dishonesty, or some other kind of blockage.

You said that the Yonsei Dictionary classified 즉시 as an “adverb,” but also said that there as usage of it as a “noun.” What do you think that means? It means that some people are using an adverb as a noun, which is a misuse of the word. According to you, it classified it as an “adverb,” not as both an adverb and a noun. However, if the misusage continues, they many decide someday to go ahead and classify it as both an “adverb” and a “noun.”

Hamel wrote:

But seriously, what I see from this Gerry is your complaints stem not from an interest in linguistic purity (as is the case with the Academie Francaise, for instance) but with the frustration of a second language learner who does not want to see the language as a living language that moves and shifts, but as an ossified relic that can be studied.

No, I just like to follow the “rules.” Is that the excuse these days for grammar mistakes? “Hey, Teach, gimme a break! It’s a living language, dude.”

Hamel wrote:

On another note, I am surprised that you have consistently not responded to my (and now Geoffrey Hodges’) attempts to make arguments by analogy with learning and teaching English. Why don’t you either rebut them, or disarm them and show why the same situation doesn’t apply in the case of Korean? Your deliberate ignorance of them becomes conspicuous.

Are you saying that Korean from a decade ago is analogous to Early Modern English? If you are, then that is an silly analogy. Now, if you want to compare 후기 근대국어, then I am ready with my 이조어사전, in spite of my ignorance of Early Modern English.

As Baduk said, it is silly for 국립국어원 to classify 즉시 as a “noun” when it is obviously used as an adverb.

Hamel wrote (#177):

My gosh, Gerry. You have just defined [hubris] for me. Extraordinary.

Neither you nor the people who write Korea’s dictionaries are gods. Besides, I did not mean to “shame” or “humiliate” you.

I am simply debating the usage of a Korean word, which helps me learn.

Seoul is in a “quandary over Japanese lawmakers” who want to visit the Dokdo Museum on Ulleungdo.

Japanese media reported Friday that the LDP lawmakers plan to visit Korea on Aug. 1-4. They want to meet Korean lawmakers on Aug. 1 and board a ferry to Ulleung the next day, where they plan to spend the night and visit the Dokdo Museum.

Korean lawmakers were up in arms. Special Affairs Minister Lee Jae-oh tweeted, “If their visit aims at supporting their country’s groundless territorial claim on Dokdo, it’s tantamount to encroachment of Korea’s sovereignty. I will use all means to stop them landing on the island.”

LINK

Regarding Comment #204:

It seems strange that Korean lawmakers would be “up in arms” over Japanese lawmakers’ planned visit to Dokdo Museum, considering that the museum supposedly has evidence that supposes Korea’s claim to “Dokdo.” Wouldn’t they want them to see that evidence?

Hamel wrote (#208):

Rule 1:
당신이 틀렸다는 것을 누군가가 증명하는 즉시 주제를 바꿔라!

I would correct your “Rule” as follows:

당신 말이 틀린 것을 누가 보여주면 즉시 주제를 바꾸라.

The Korean for “someone” is 누가. Also, the -라 ending is more common than -어라.

As for 즉시, you have already stated above that your two dictionaries confirmed 즉시 as an “adverb,” not as a noun, which means that its usage as a noun is “non-standard.” The expression 명사적 용법 implies “non-standard” usage because it is not a noun.

As for the 국립국어원 dictionary, it is irrational for it to classify 즉시 as a noun when it is overwhemingly used as an adverb. In fact, the online dictionary is so lame that it does not even mention its usage as an adverb.

I have made my arguments above, so I see no reason to keep repeating them or continuing the debate, unless you have something new to add.

Hoju_Saram wrote (#217):

Language is not a law, it’s a template for communication.

I assume you meant “Grammar is not a law.” Anyway, you are right; you will not get a ticket for bad grammar, but you will not get an A, either. Good grammar helps to ensure clear communication.

Hamel wrote:

Hamel has pointed out (and proven with examples) that the word in question is widely used in the manner in which he applied it. He’s also shown that several dictionaries accept the usage.

Listing its usage does not mean “accepting its usage.” If they accepted the usage of 즉시 as a noun, they would also classify it as a noun. What Hamel has shown is that 즉시 is widely “misused” as a noun.

Hoju_Saram wrote (#235):

No, I meant what I wrote. And you clearly didn’t grasp anything I said.

So, you were saying “language” is a template for communication, not grammar?

As I mentioned before, your obsession with adhering to grammatical formulae has rendered your writing wooden and charmless.

Personally, I prefer wood over cheap, shiny plastic.

Baduk wrote (#269):

니들 다시 즉시 가지고 싸우면 즉사한다!

Ok, no more about 즉시, so let’s talk about 성씨(姓氏).

I wonder how long Koreans have been using 성씨(姓氏) as the polite form of 성(姓), which means “family name” or “surname.” I have a feeling that 성씨 did not start out as the “polite form” of 성, but evolved into it over time.

Separately, 성(姓) and 씨(氏) each mean “family name,” so why put them together? I think they may have been put together in spoken Korean to distinguish between 성(姓) and 성(性). The first 성 means “family name,” and the second mean “sex.”

When Koreans say, “그의 성이 뭐예요?” do they mean “What’s that person’s family name?” or “What’s that person’s sex?”