Talk:Alphabet: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John Stephenson (but we should concentrate on the facts) |
imported>Ro Thorpe (→The Korean look: there are facts...and facts) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
''Pace'' John, to the untrained eye the Korean alphabet bears a lot more resemblance to Chinese ideograms than it does to any other writing system, including other alphabets: I think 'superficial resemblance' is just about right and interesting enough to be worth including. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC) | ''Pace'' John, to the untrained eye the Korean alphabet bears a lot more resemblance to Chinese ideograms than it does to any other writing system, including other alphabets: I think 'superficial resemblance' is just about right and interesting enough to be worth including. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
:It is also misleading. It implies that the two systems are similar, when they couldn't be more different. The only 'resemblance' is that in South Korea, a limited number of Chinese-derived characters are still used alongside alphabetic symbols. I don't think we should include information on how something appears to the uninformed; we should concentrate on the facts. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 02:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | :It is also misleading. It implies that the two systems are similar, when they couldn't be more different. The only 'resemblance' is that in South Korea, a limited number of Chinese-derived characters are still used alongside alphabetic symbols. I don't think we should include information on how something appears to the uninformed; we should concentrate on the facts. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 02:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
To me it's a fact that there is a superficial resemblance, which is the case in spite of etc. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 14:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:37, 3 July 2009
The Korean look
Pace John, to the untrained eye the Korean alphabet bears a lot more resemblance to Chinese ideograms than it does to any other writing system, including other alphabets: I think 'superficial resemblance' is just about right and interesting enough to be worth including. Ro Thorpe 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is also misleading. It implies that the two systems are similar, when they couldn't be more different. The only 'resemblance' is that in South Korea, a limited number of Chinese-derived characters are still used alongside alphabetic symbols. I don't think we should include information on how something appears to the uninformed; we should concentrate on the facts. John Stephenson 02:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
To me it's a fact that there is a superficial resemblance, which is the case in spite of etc. Ro Thorpe 14:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)