[HN Gopher] Korean as a Concatenative, Stack-Oriented Language (...
___________________________________________________________________
Korean as a Concatenative, Stack-Oriented Language (2017)
Author : zdw
Score : 125 points
Date : 2023-04-16 16:27 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (m.post.naver.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (m.post.naver.com)
| boringuser2 wrote:
| Is there is a general obsession in every culture with fetishizing
| things perceived to be foreign or inscrutable, or is it just
| Western culture?
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| Yes, this occurs in every industrialized culture that is
| decently connected to the rest of the world. Anglophone
| cultures just do it in the most prominent and cringey way
| possible.
| rippercushions wrote:
| This seems less like fetishizing and more like someone applying
| the only hammer they have (programming languages) to the wrong
| nail (human languages).
| zztop44 wrote:
| Kind of? Certainly many countries "fetishize" American culture,
| to a degree. Same with French and Italian culture (especially
| as it relates to fashion and food). Some stuff is just popular?
| Certainly things related to Korean and Japanese cultures are
| popular throughout Asia, as they are in the West, right now.
| eska wrote:
| Do you mean to say this article is fetishizing Korean culture?
| [deleted]
| turtleyacht wrote:
| Korean characters "stack" on top of each other. I wonder if an
| array-oriented language like APL could be coaxed out of such a
| "dense representation."
|
| Examples: * , a, an * , o, wae
| solidsnack9000 wrote:
| There might be something to this, but the way the author diagrams
| it all is almost incomprehensible.
| carabiner wrote:
| I know RPN and found it pretty clear what he's getting at. The
| stack and parentheses are pretty common way of expressing it
| order of ops. Don't know Korean though.
| wobby_sobby wrote:
| This is going to make a great r/badlinguistics post
| posterboy wrote:
| Perhaps that's because it is not inherently Linguistics?
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| >Perhaps that's because it is not inherently Linguistics?
|
| I can admit that linguistics is a specific field of knowledge
| and has certain methodologies associated with it that are not
| always fitting or practical for all forms of analysis, but I
| think it's still inappropriate to say that any investigation
| into the operation of (spoken) language is not in some way a
| form of "linguistics."
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| Exactly. This should be re-titled "agglutinative languages
| explained in programming terms".
| neom wrote:
| Having spent the last 5 years learning Korean, I've grown to find
| it an incredibly efficient language.
|
| maegju han jan juseyo Beer one please
|
| hwajangsileun eodieyo? Toilet where?
|
| waipai isseoyo? wifi is here?
|
| You can process and even start answering someone before they've
| finished their sentence. By contrast in English, I'd say "Could I
| have another beer please?" - tell me what you need up front!
| retinaros wrote:
| hum... there is a saying in korean hangugmaleun ggeutggaji
| deuleobwaya handa that literally translate to the opposite you
| are saying << You should listen to Korean until the end<<
| malodyets wrote:
| Maybe such a saying is needed in Korean more than in other
| languages?
| retinaros wrote:
| well its also true for turkish as well or any sov language
| okdood64 wrote:
| English can be pretty much as efficient... It's up to the
| social context on how much you want to dress it up.
| og_kalu wrote:
| No it really can't. It's somewhat hard to explain without
| going hard into grammar but if someone tried complex
| communication in English, how you would in Korean,
| communication would break down very quickly.
|
| In Korean, Plural markers basically don't exist, Articles
| don't exist and possessive determiners are very few and only
| typically inserted when determining the meaning would be
| difficult otherwise.
|
| Strictly speaking cingu isseoyo ? means Friend Have ?
|
| And you would say exactly that for any of these English
| equivalents
|
| "Do they have friends ?"
|
| "Do you have a friend ?"
|
| "Do you have friends ?"
|
| "Does he have a friend ?"
|
| And so on.
|
| If you wanted to say,
|
| "I have a friend"
|
| "He has friends"
|
| "They have a friend" etc, you'd simply remove the question
| mark and change the tone of the last syllable (when
| speaking).
|
| cingu isseoyo.
|
| The exact meaning would have to be divided from surrounding
| context.
|
| Lots of composability that simply doesn't exist in English.
| creamyhorror wrote:
| Similar story in Japanese, which is also high-context and
| encodes less information explicitly. Listeners have to do
| more interpretation using context than in English, since
| sentences out of context can mean more things.
| localplume wrote:
| especially when you have great words like
|
| nunmul = nun + mul = eye + water = tears mulgogi = mul + gogi =
| water + meat = fish (although this only means the animal, not
| the food, which is weird. saengseon is the fish meat like cow v
| beef) dwaejigogi = dwaeji + gogi = pig + meat = pork etc.
|
| there is a lot of other examples I'm forgetting but its cool.
|
| The modification of the verb root to denote tense and formality
| as well is pretty intuitive. Korean is a great language. The
| problematic things IMO are the counting of items and the uses
| of the Korean v Chinese number systems, plus the random Hanja
| here and there.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| Isn't English (and other Germanic languages) very similar in
| its propensity for noun+noun compounds? There is crab meat,
| horse meat, shark meat, etc. And if it weren't for the Norman
| Conquest, pork would probably be called pig meat. After all,
| it is simply called Schweinefleisch in German.
| schwartzworld wrote:
| All these can be said as succinctly in English though. "one
| beer please" is enough to place an order, and the rest is just
| decorative.
|
| Does Korean not have more complex / ceremonial speech patterns?
| og_kalu wrote:
| Yeah....It gets a lot more sparse
|
| Strictly speaking cingu isseoyo ? means Friend Have ?
|
| And you would say exactly that for any of these English
| equivalents
|
| "Do they have friends ?"
|
| "Do you have a friend ?"
|
| "Do you have friends ?"
|
| "Does he have a friend ?"
|
| And so on.
|
| Plurality as a special marker doesn't really exist.
| Possessive and Article Determiners don't really exist either.
| Articles don't exist at all. Possessive markers are few and
| only used when surrounding context might not be enough to
| convey the needed information.
|
| You might ask, well how would you know which of those
| equivalents cingu isseoyo means ?
|
| It's context. Korean is highly context dependent. There is no
| way to tell before reading or hearing the surrounding
| context.
|
| >Does Korean not have more complex / ceremonial speech
| patterns?
|
| Oh boy. Let's just say formality and politeness is baked into
| the language.
|
| Words and sentence/phrase suffixes change depending on your
| age and relationship with who you're taking to.
|
| cingu isseoyo (meaning I have a friend/They have friends etc
| without the question mark) becomes cingu isseo speaking to a
| close friend and cingu ibnida speaking to someone much older
| than you (or in a formal setting with say your boss)
|
| There are also on how to address people you refer to in a
| sentence separate from rules on how you address people you
| speaking to.
| airstrike wrote:
| _> And you would say exactly that for any of these English
| equivalents_
|
| _> "Do they have friends ?"_
|
| _> "Do you have a friend ?"_
|
| _> "Do you have friends ?"_
|
| _> "Does he have a friend ?"_
|
| Seems like there's a lot of room for ambiguity, then
| og_kalu wrote:
| Yes there is a lot of ambiguity that is only resolved by
| surrounding context.
| yongjik wrote:
| Oh, and there's one really succinct way of expression that's
| not found in English:
|
| One can say something like nan ramyeon - literally "I am
| ramen" (or something like that - it's a bit fuzzy because the
| "be" verb is omitted). It would be a ridiculous sentence by
| itself, but if your friend just asked "I'll have noodles, how
| about you?" then it's a perfectly fine response.
|
| Similarly you could even say nan peurangseu ("I am France")
| if the question was "I visited New York this summer, it was
| really nice, did you go somewhere?"
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| Isn't nan just na (I) + n ( _topic marker_ )? So it seems
| like nan ramyeon should be translated more or less as "As
| for me, ramen" and nan peurangseu as "As for me, France".
| yongjik wrote:
| You are absolutely correct - I oversimplified. On the
| other hand, nobody says "As for me, ramen" in English
| (it's not even shorter than "I'll have ramen"), so
| there's that.
| creamyhorror wrote:
| You could just say "Ramen", "Ramen for me", "I want ramen",
| or maybe even "Me, ramen". But I get your point - it's more
| common in English to use a longer sentence. The same thing
| is pointed out about Japanese too - "watashi wa ramen" for
| "As for me, ramen" - it has the same topic-comment
| structure as Korean.
| l3000 wrote:
| I may want to add that as a person who had a lot of
| exposure to Korean (but is not native). Directly
| translating for instance "naneun ramyeon" with the example
| context you mentioned, feels like ,,in my case, Ramen". The
| neun/eun is describing the na in a way that is contrasting
| whatever was said in the current context. It is certainly
| used for saying something that is different from the other.
| ,,Well in MY case, it is ...", but it may work for other
| cases too, I am not totally sure.
| hydrok9 wrote:
| In English you could say I am FOR salmon though!
| aeternum wrote:
| It does, many words have different age-based / status-based
| suffixes which adds a lot of unnecessary complexity. Numbers
| are also annoying as the counting numbers vs. quantity.
|
| From an information theory POV, we should really look at not
| just the complexity but the information density of a
| language. English has a lot of foolish rules, but the large
| vocabulary provides a much higher bandwidth than other
| languages.
|
| https://medium.com/oscar-tech/information-density-of-
| differe...
| gibolt wrote:
| Compared to many European languages, sure, but English
| still has plenty of filler. Chinese, for example, can be
| extremely information dense.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > English has a lot of foolish rules, but the large
| vocabulary provides a much higher bandwidth than other
| languages.
|
| I think that it's the grammar rules that make English
| fairly efficient, and also effectively add to its
| vocabulary, because word order in English is so strong that
| it twists whatever word you put in a particular position
| into whatever part of speech it needs to be. In less order-
| based languages you have to learn a bunch of elaborate
| formulas to change the word; in English, it's basically
| just Subject, Verb, Object and a few mathematical rules
| about commas, prepositions and conjunctions to make that
| basic structure recursive or flowery. All of English's core
| vocabulary is horrifyingly irregular, and you can ignore
| almost all of that irregularity, prefixes and suffixes, and
| still make yourself pretty easily understood.
|
| I think the massive vocabulary of English makes it _less_
| dense. We have a _lot_ of words that mean exactly the same
| thing, but that we pretend mean different things. We find
| ourselves arguing about the innuendo around words or the
| "actual definitions" of words almost more than material
| issues, constantly invoking contradictory authorities.
| We're also constantly repeating ourselves and pretending
| like we've understood because using obscure words is a sign
| of intelligence, and not understanding them a sign of
| stupidity.
|
| Romance languages seem to have a lot fewer words with
| specific meanings, and do most of their playing with
| grammar (making a lot of sentences into horrifying mazes.)
| And irt the center and north in Germanic Europe, the most
| interesting thing about "Uncleftish Beholding" is that to
| English speakers it reads like stupid cavemen talking about
| magic, but it's basically a unit-by-unit direct translation
| of how Danes, Norwegians and Swedes really talk. English
| speakers never use the common word for anything if they
| want to sound like they know what they're talking about.
|
| an aside: I've always heard that Vietnamese is the most
| efficient by syllable. IIRC some paper came up with a
| metric where it was about 1.4x more efficient than English.
| There was also someone who figured out that universally,
| human languages expressed ideas at the same _rate_ , but
| the people who spoke less efficient languages _just talked
| faster._
| neom wrote:
| How would would you say "where is the toilet?" more
| succinctly with the context up front in English? If someone
| came up to me in English and said "toilet where?" I'd presume
| they're either rude or English isn't their first language.
|
| There are formal and informal ways to say thing in Korean,
| for every day stuff it's often just a matter of changing the
| suffix, for some stuff it's a different word, for example
| gamsahabnida Kamsahamnida is thank you to anyone, but gomaweo
| gomawo (thanks) only to a friend.
| [deleted]
| lalopalota wrote:
| > How would would you say "where is the toilet?" more
| succinctly with the context up front in English?
|
| "Restroom?"
| neom wrote:
| We're talking(the article) about forming sentences, not
| just saying words at people.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| While I agree "restroom?" Is perfectly valid, you could
| also say "the restroom is where?" Which puts the
| important noun first and makes it a question later. It's
| not particularly formal, which in America at least is
| completely unnecessary for day to day life.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| "Restroom?" is a valid english sentence.
| Google234 wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_rising_terminal you
| can raise the pitch to indicate that you are asking a
| question
| wizofaus wrote:
| "The toilet - where would I find it?"
|
| But arguably putting the key information at the start of a
| sentence is not ideal as it gives the listener no time to
| context switch. If I ask a busy waiter in a restaurant
| "where would I find the toilet", they may well not fully
| hear the "where would... " but they'll know for sure what
| I've asked by the end of the request. Which is presumably
| why we often prefix statements with "excuse me, but..." and
| the like...I assume that must happen in Korean too.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| "The toilet, where is it?" is also grammatical in
| English, and with the right tone "The toilet is where?"
| gets the point across.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| juseyo doesn't actually mean "please". It's just the
| conjugated version of "to give".
|
| So it's more like saying "beer, one, give me" in a polite
| way. And it's cool, not because of the English translation
| (which yes, is just as simple), but as a showcasing of the
| composability of Korean.
|
| Replace juseyo (joo-se-yo) with any other verb and the
| sentence works.
|
| For example, masida (ma-si-da) is the verb[0] for "to drink",
| so when you drop the "da" and conjugate it with the polite
| present tense "yo", the sentence now becomes maegju hanjan
| masiyo, or "I'm drinking a beer".
|
| And then as another show of Korean's flexibility, don't
| change anything about that sentence, but add a question mark
| and "maegju hanjan masi?" For it to mean "would you like a
| beer?".
|
| Very cool and succinct.
|
| [0]- you can identify Korean verbs because they all end in da
| (da). You can easily conjugate them to present tense by
| dropping the "da" and replacing it with "yo". You'll also
| notice that each block of characters in Korean maps to
| exactly one syllable, with no exceptions -- pretty cool!
| yongjik wrote:
| Korean has a crapload of complex speech patterns (degree of
| politeness - that's sheer madness) but the nice(?) thing
| about it is that it all comes at the end. So you can start
| your sentence without even deciding if it's a statement or a
| question.
|
| E.g.,
|
| oneul geu sigdang yeoleoyo Today that restaurant is open.
|
| oneul geu sigdang yeoleoyo? Is that restaurant open today?
|
| oneul geu sigdang yeol geos gatayo. I guess that restaurant
| is open today.
|
| oneul geu sigdang yeol geos gatdago deuleosseoyo. I heard
| [someone] saying that restaurant is probably open today.
|
| oneul geu sigdang yeol geos gatdago deuleusyeossdamyeonseoyo?
| I heard that you heard that the restaurant is probably open
| today, is that true?
|
| oneul geu sigdang yeol geos gatdago malhan buni nugunji
| cajaseo jom ddajyeoyagesseo! I'm going to find whoever told
| me that the restaurant would open today, and set the record
| straight!
|
| oneul geu sigdang yeol geos gateul riga eobsjanhayo! There's
| no way the restaurant is even open today!
|
| In fact, learning English as a native Korean speaker, one of
| the greatest difficulty was asking questions - you can't just
| start your sentence and make it a question later, you have to
| mentally pause, construct your question in your head, and
| then invert the first word! It took me years.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Is there the Korean equivalent of very formal language,
| such as:
|
| "Dear honoured sir, may I humbly beg for your indulgence in
| a meagre glass of beer?"
| og_kalu wrote:
| Formality and politeness is baked into Korean and you are
| basically always speaking at the right formality unless
| you ignore the rules.
|
| Your relationship to who you're speaking to (and who you
| are referring to if you speak about anyone else) changes
| the grammar of the sentence.
|
| The grammar changes mostly manifest in different suffix
| endings.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| How do noble or formal titles work then?
|
| It seems very unlikely to just be a suffix ending.
| og_kalu wrote:
| The rules for how you speak to people and how you address
| people you are speaking about are different.
|
| The whole thing is a bit more complex than suffix changes
| alone especially with more out there titles but generally
| speaking,
|
| I think you've seen a bit on how the endings would change
| depending on your relationship to the hearer.
|
| For the latter(addressing people you're speaking about)
|
| For instance, You would basically never call an
| acquaintance just by name
|
| Take the name gimyeongceol
|
| If you were on relatively equal social standing, you
| would generally address gimyeongceol as gimyeongceol ssi
| or yeongceol ssi
|
| If you wanted to take it a step further in respect, you
| would replace ssi with nim
|
| For a senior in age or experience in say the workplace,
| it would become seonbae but this can be used to address
| the person on its own without the name attached.
|
| There are also different words for how you would address
| different members of the family. Unlike in English, you
| would basically never call an older brother or sister by
| their actual name. It's more a generic brother or sister
| word that changes depending on if the speaker is male or
| female.
|
| obba - female referring to older brother
|
| hyeong - male referring to older brother
|
| nuna - male referring to older sister
|
| eonni - female referring to older sister
|
| For royalty, there'll be different titles for different
| members of the royalty.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Forgot to mention. The brother/sister words don't
| necessarily need to be referring to an actual brother or
| sister.
|
| They can be used endearingly to refer to older
| males/females you are close to.
|
| obba can be used somewhat flirtingly/romantically as well
| devonkim wrote:
| Using the wrong register is a form of humor as well just
| like in English and other languages but with different
| impact due to the politeness level being so important to
| the syntactic structure just like in Japanese. Being
| overly polite or using too low of a register works much
| better than sarcasm for comedic purposes for reasons I
| can't quite explain. In English sarcasm is commonly how I
| joke around and involves an intonation cue but it doesn't
| really work in Korean even with intonation (possibly
| because intonation and vowel lengthening is used for a
| lot of word distinction perhaps although homonyms exist
| in basically all languages) and if you try it native
| speakers will oftentimes have trouble telling if you're
| serious or not. Although these days due to Western
| influences IMO most Koreans understand sarcasm as a style
| of humor and can apply it for all languages although for
| older generations it's going to be less natural. The
| country's had massive, massive social and economic
| changes in the past 100 years, it's kind of wild
| KMnO4 wrote:
| There are many levels of honorifics, from very low form
| to very polite form. Most aren't used on a daily basis
| though, just like how most people don't speak like
| they're a lawyer addressing a courtroom.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_honorifics#Address
| ee_...
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| I tried translating it with a tool:
|
| "jongyeonghaneun gagha, maegju han janman deusige
| haedalrago gyeomsonhi butagdeuryeodo doelggayo?"
|
| Does that sound about right?
| jinwoo68 wrote:
| Close. But deusige is not correct in that place because
| its an honorific form given to yourself when you're
| trying to honor the other person. And I'd rather use
| gamhi instead of gyeomsonhi, which can be roughly
| translated into "dare to"
|
| "jongyeonghaneun gagha, maegju han janman masige
| haedalrago gamhi butagdeuryeodo doelggayo?"
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > In fact, learning English as a native Korean speaker, one
| of the greatest difficulty was asking questions - you can't
| just start your sentence and make it a question later, you
| have to mentally pause, construct your question in your
| head, and then invert the first word! It took me years.
|
| Thank you, you've answered a question I've had about
| different languages for years as a monolingual English
| speaker! I've always suspected that it might feel
| significantly different to construct sentences in languages
| with different word ordering, and I think that confirms
| that.
| hashmush wrote:
| > In fact, learning English as a native Korean speaker, one
| of the greatest difficulty was asking questions - you can't
| just start your sentence and make it a question later, you
| have to mentally pause, construct your question in your
| head, and then invert the first word! It took me years.
|
| This is quite interesting to hear, but I assume you mean
| that you always knew if you were going ask a question
| before you asked it. So the issue was the actual
| construction of the sentence itself?
|
| If not, there are plenty of ways to bail out of a statement
| midway through a sentence.
|
| - Korean is more efficient than English... right?
|
| - Korean is more efficient than English, isn't it?
|
| - Korean is more efficient than English? (raising
| intonation at the end)
| yongjik wrote:
| In a sense, sure I guess my brain almost always knows
| whether I wanted a question or not - after all, native
| English speakers have no problem asking questions.
| However, it's hard to get used to it, when I've never
| done it before.
|
| It's like a habit. Imagine you make coffee every morning
| - after a while it becomes second nature and you don't
| even think about what you're doing, you just get up and
| mindlessly start the coffee grinder. Once in a while your
| girlfriend visits, and she wants milk in the coffee, no
| problem, I'll pour some milk on her cup at the end.
|
| And one day you have a different girlfriend, and she
| doesn't like coffee at all, so when she's visiting you
| have to make tea! So you just get up, start grinding the
| coffee, and half a minute later, "Oh damn, not again!"
| Even though making coffee and making tea take about the
| same effort, it just throws a wrench in your morning
| routine until you get used to it, which make take a long
| time.
|
| > If not, there are plenty of ways to bail out of a
| statement midway through a sentence.
|
| Sure you can also do it in English, but you can't do it
| as _gloriously_ as in Korean, where you can start the
| same sentence and end up with:
|
| hangugeoneun yeongeoboda deo hyoyuljeogibnida. Korean is
| more efficient than English.
|
| hangugeoneun yeongeoboda deo hyoyuljeog...(read the room,
| oh no, bail out)...iraneun heossorireul haneun sarami da
| issdeoragoyo hahaha! => I found an idiot saying Korean is
| more efficient than English, ha ha!
| burnished wrote:
| I suspect they meant what they said - you're probably
| used to deciding that your statement is going to be a
| question because you must in English. You are probably
| forgetting all of the times you have started saying
| something only to realize that you werent sure of what
| you were talking about.
| steele wrote:
| Item specific counting suffixes are a pain though
| posterboy wrote:
| All I learned from reading this is that your translation skills
| are abysimal.
|
| I only know the script and can tell that the encoded
| information is a little more complex.
|
| > You can process and even start answering someone before
| they've finished their sentence
|
| That would likely break the Curry-Howard-Correspondance. So I
| can only concure, it is "incredible".
|
| Good on you if you reached a point where you don't notice the
| difference.
| freshbakedbread wrote:
| On the other hand, the question template build up can be useful
| when initiating contact with someone. They have the space of
| "Could I have..." or equivalent in other languages to get tuned
| in to the fact you're asking a question. Much of speech
| comprehension is being able to anticipate what's coming.
| y7 wrote:
| Yes, or just getting attuned to the specific voice patterns
| of the speaker.
| rcme wrote:
| In English you can say "One beer please."
| photonbeam wrote:
| Or "Beer me".
| bee_rider wrote:
| This definitely is the one that comes to mind. It is a
| special case though, it would be unusual to say "soup me."
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Verbing. It's a thing.
| [deleted]
| mirthflat83 wrote:
| Or "Beer".
| hinkley wrote:
| NORM!
| ummonk wrote:
| "You have wifi?"
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| Anyone can argue that any language is efficient based on some
| ability to express a (relatively) complex idea in (relatively)
| few words.
|
| In Sanskrit, for instance, one can express entire
| metaphyiscal/philosophical systems in a single word, using
| compounds, and in philosophical commentaries this is actually
| quite frequent (which is what makes reading philosophy in
| Sanskrit so difficult, because everything is so condensed). The
| compounds can be of an arbitrary length, and feature
| extraordinarily complex syntactic system that allows for such
| complexity of expression. See the Wikipedia article below, for
| more.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_compound
| badrabbit wrote:
| The phoenetic aspects of Hangul makes it just about my favorite
| language. It just feels so natural to say the words and phrases.
| French, german russian feel so unnatural on the other hand and
| english accents in england feel like I am pretending to be rich
| or of a higher class lol. Hangul is peculiar for me because
| japanese and mandarin both have close cultural influence and ties
| on Korea but it sounds very different.
| melony wrote:
| Turkish is another dreadfully regular language, would make for a
| great programming language
| jfk13 wrote:
| ...except that the `uppercase` function would be wrong for
| everyone else.
| keithjl wrote:
| The Korean graphic designer Ahn Sang Soo played around with
| linearizing the alphabet: https://www.we-find-
| wildness.com/2011/05/ahn-sang-soo/img_00...
|
| What's nice is that it's immediately legible if you already know
| how to read, but you also realize how inherently slower it is.
| One of the nicest parts of Korean (and other east asian
| languages) is that each block is always a single syllable.
| posterboy wrote:
| I'm not sure if that's inherent.
|
| One problem is that Korean syllable structure is not as easy as
| one os lead to believe, from what I heard. And whether syllable
| is a meaningful unit is debatable.
| terrorOf wrote:
| [dead]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-16 23:00 UTC)