Something of note, Hangul was generally rejected among the literate elites in Korean society for centuries, which were mostly men. However, it found unexpected life as a written language for women, who otherwise didn't have opportunities to learn Chinese script. While some written material exists of Hangul being used to communicate between a man and a woman (usually a husband and wife), evidencing that men could read and write Hangul as well -- which is not surprising as it's fascinatingly easy to learn to read -- most ancient Hangul documents we find were written by some for women.
It wasn't until the 20th century, partially as a counter occupation rise of national and ethnic identity against the Japanese colonizers that Hangul became modernized and accepted as the general script for Koreans.
In North Korea, as further assertions of national identity, all remnants of Chinese characters were purged and many loan words were provided with "preferred" native Korean words. In the South, Chinese characters were/are still seen as a prestige study and was even commonly mixed in with Hangul in newspapers but the use of Hanja is rapidly declining in print.
It's interesting to see what Old World cuisine looked like before the spread of New World ingredients.
Editing in a quote from the article for repliers: 'Notably, there’s no mention of gochugaru, the staple spice of Korean cuisine. Although gochugaru, made from New World chile peppers, became available during Lady Jang’s lifetime, “the book is really about the royal cuisine of her ancestors, when gochugaru was not available,” notes Lady Jo.'
Perhaps, but this article is celebrating an ancient cookbook from Korea and not England.
Not only that but: "Some historians even believe it could be the first cookbook written by a woman in all of East Asia."
I am not familiar with the sexual politics/subtleties surrounding food, let alone writing about it, in East Asia. I suspect, given what I know from these parts (England), that women in East Asia had few opportunities to express themselves in any form, let alone a book that comes down through the centuries to today.
I suggest that Jang Gye-hyang did remarkably well and ought to be thought of as one of the fore-founders of a part of modern food. Here in the UK we have Mrs Beeton as a similar example (albeit rather later.)
I suspect, given what I know from these parts (England), that women in East Asia had few opportunities to express themselves in any form, let alone a book that comes down through the centuries to today.
Although for Korea, you need to understand that women had much better treatment in the Goryeo Dynasty than in the Joseon Dynasty (which came after it, and is perhaps the most well-known because of its proximity to modern Korea and the cultural effects it has on today). Women had equal inheritance rights with men, and brothers/sisters had almost equal status within families. It is the Confucian ideals that came with the leaders of the Joseon dynasty that kinda ruined all this. This will probably blow your mind: women had more inheritance rights in the 10th century than in 1990 (until, the laws were amended in 1991)
I consider that a non-sequiter. I'm not trying to be rude but you have taken my comment, said nowt about it and then produced a The Tale of Genji which is nothing to do with food or the region we are discussing.
A cook book is on show here and not a novel.
You might like to investigate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf which is a poem written about the same time as The Tale of Genji. It isn't a novel as such. It's an epic in poetic form which is basically a long story with a lot of baggage!
Beowulf, I feel, helps to tie England to its roots and there are a lot of roots. A lot of roots, not to mention a tangled thicket above ground!
I think it took me a while to understand (after being told by native speakers) that Korean and Japanese are a bit of a linguistic evolutionary puzzle, especially if you thought that because their characters look like Chinese, their spoken languages are related to Chinese.
They are not. The languages must have come first / evolved independent of China, and then a wave of foreign commerce / scholarly / government influence over centuries propagated Chinese writing to them.
So the spoken language uses Chinese based characters to record the sounds in writing, but it may not necessarily have relation to what the sounds are in Chinese if someone were to read the characters as if Chinese. And the spoken language is not at all related to Chinese (aside from some imported words). As if someone encountered English alphabet words being spoken with totally different sounds assigned to them.
That was very interesting to finally understand -- if I've even gotten it all correct...
A close analog to the place Chinese has with Koreans and Japanese speakers is the place ancient Latin and Greek have today with English speakers. Lots of loan words, many of which aren't even recognized as such by native speakers, and uses in prestige modes like philosophy, science, etc.
One difference is that Rome fell and the Normans brought a highly changed Romance language with them into England. While Korea and China had an ongoing relationship going back millennia. As Chinese changed over time different words from different eras also crept in to the language.
On top of that, Korean itself also changed, harmonized dialects, dropped and added sounds and features and other things. The Korean written in the first book on Hangul by King Sejong the Great is both not only not pronounceable by modern Koreans, but less understandable than Chaucer might be to modern English speakers.
You are right that Japanese as a language existed before Chinese writing system was introduced. Learning details of how this happened is fascinating when you know some Japanese, it explains many of the quirks of the language, and why it's so complicated. I will try to make a summary.
Chinese language was introduced mostly between 4th and 7th centuries [1]. Japanese had no writing system at that time, so they adopted Chinese ideograms (hanzi) and vocabulary, but changed the pronunciation to fit the much (much!) simpler Japanese phonetics. They also started to use the ideograms for words that already existed in Japanese, with their Japanese reading. That's why Japanese ideograms (kanji) have two kinds of readings: Chinese readings (onyomi) and Japanese readings (kunyomi). To make it even more complicated many kanji have multiple readings, and you have to learn which to use depending on the context or the word it's part of.
Later some ideograms started to be used purely for their phonetic, ignoring the semantics, to better match Japanese grammar. With time these ideograms were simplified and they became two different syllabaries: hiragana [2] and katakana [3]. These are not ideograms, but letters that represent a full syllable. Hiragana is used for grammar particles, to spell out kanji and for some words. Katakana is used for borrowed foreign words, or sometimes as a sort of "italics", to emphasize words.
Take all the west European languages and how they're littered with loan words from Roman Latin or from French/Spanish/Italian which are descended from Latin. Now imagine if French/Spanish/Italian were all still called Latin and the Roman empire existed into the modern era. That's the influence Sinitic has on East Asian languages.
The modern Korean writing system (hangul) is unrelated to Chinese.
Also, it's quite common for languages to be written in scripts originally developed for completely unrelated languages. Maltese is related to Arabic but written in the Latin (English) alphabet, Mongolian uses Cyrillic (Russian), Thai/Lao/Khmer derive from South Indian scripts, etc.
> The modern Korean writing system (hangul) is unrelated to Chinese.
This is true, though newspapers and some other written texts make use of mixed hanja-hangul script (hanja honyong) where Chinese characters (Hanja) are interspersed with Hangul in the same piece of Korean text in order to disambiguate homonyms.
Interestingly, you could argue this is attempting to solving the flip-side of the problem that Furigana in Japanese solve (where a reader may know the phonetic reading of a word but not the Kanji that are used to write it -- though native-level Japanese speakers don't need Furigana to read the vast majority of text since Kanji represent more conceptual information than Kana).
The Mongolian Cyrillic one is quite a trip. As a native Russian speaker, it just looks so odd. Like a broken website encoding from early days of the internet.
Hangul is a syllibary where each character is formed from a consonant and a vowel symbol being merged in a consistent way. Even if a few of those symbol fragments are similar to chineese, the structural differences are stark enough that calling the whole thing based on chineese is misleading and deceptive.
> So the spoken language uses Chinese based characters to record the sounds in writing, but it may not necessarily have relation to what the sounds are in Chinese if someone were to read the characters as if Chinese.
Sort of as an example, educated persons in what is now Tajikistan formerly used the arabic/persian derived script. Tajik is mututally intelligible with the Dari spoken in Kabul and is a dialect of Persian. Most of the area was historically part of the greater persian empire at one point in time.
After the Russian influence and Soviet Union grew much stronger, the education system in Tajikistan was forcibly switched to using the cyrillic alphabet to write down the sounds of spoken Tajik Persian.
Now there is a movement to revert to the Farsi writing system as is used in Afghanistan.
Korean Hanja (chinese character - 汉子) words mostly had their taken pronunciation taken from Middle Chinese. Modern Cantonese preserved more Middle Chinese pronunciation than modern Mandarin.
Also, Japanese kanji (汉子) often have both onyomi (foreign) and kunyomi (native) readings, where the onyomi pronunciation comes again from Middle Chinese.
This is because the introduction of Chinese characters also brought with it the introduction of many Chinese loan words which were then adapted to the sound system of Korean (ditto for Japanese). However, words that already existed in native Korean and Japanese were simply assigned 漢字 (Hanzi/Kanji/Hanji) based on their meanings -- this is one of the reasons why in Japanese, Kanji usually have many more readings than the corresponding Chinese Hanzi (Japanese adopted the Chinese onyomi, but they also had to have their own kunyomi readings which were just reverse-engineered based on the existing Japanese word and the assigned Kanji writing).
There's a handful of kanji called kokuji[1] created in Japan, and a few of those became used in China too. And I can't think of any off-hand, but there's a few interesting mistakes, like a kanji for a species of fish assigned to a different species in Japan.
The Chinese characters in Korean are absolutely just Chinese, the old Korean dynasties modeled many things after the chinese imperial court, including the writing system. However chinese letters are largely inaccessible to the common folks, that's why Sejong invented Hangul, a phonetic writing system that's easier to learn.
Before hangul was invented, there were several uses of Chinese characters for written communication that differed significantly from Chinese imperial use, including a form that encoded Korean sounds and another one that used Chinese as a base symbology, but reworked the grammar to align with Korean. Both were quite unintelligible to the average literate Chinese reader.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Words can independently change and evolve over time, while still using the same base.
As a Chinese speaker, Korean very much sounds closeish and Japanese is often similar enough to realize a distant split.
It is important to remember that all branches of a tree grow. China has thousands of dialects all co-evolving and we don't know which the others could have split from and how far either has changed
His conclusion is sound while yours is not. Korean is not a dialect of Chinese, which seems to be your implication. Neither is it a "branch" of a tree of which Chinese is the trunk. In linguistic terms it is called a "language isolate". In the past, linguists tended to group Korean and Japanese together; I believe largely for political reasons they have been separated--but that's another topic.
Korean uses many Chinese loan words (in the same way that English uses Greek loan words) but the sentence structure, pronunciation and grammar are totally different. You would not say English is a dialect or branch of Greek for the same reason.
I speak both Korean, Japanese and am currently studying Chinese. Korean does not sound like Mandarin at all because it is not a tonal language. It does sound similar to Mongolian and Manchurian. That is not surprising because the roots of Koreans (and probably their current language) come from the area north of Korea near Manchuria.
In fact, Greek and English, being both Indo-European languages, are more closely related than Korean and the various Chinese languages.
There is a controversial theory that Korean, Mongolian, and Machurian, are all a part of an Altaic superfamily — along with Japanese, Turkish, and a number of others. This was broadly accepted fifty years ago, and less so today.
Given that we have writings from Indo-European speaking empires since 1000 BC that we can mine for phonological clues and trace evolutionary changes with while the languages of supposed Altaic only began to be written after 700 AD, it's not surprising that there's less evidence to be found and not enough for a hypothesis bold enough to link those disparate cultures together. The idea that Hindi, Persian, Latin, Russian, and English are linked together is already very surprising.
That is not my implication, just as humans are not evolved from gorillas. The likely share a common base.
That may have been 500, 1000, or more years ago and each continuously absorbed neighboring language features from trade or due to local social structures.
Although there are a tremendous number of borrowings out of Chinese into both languages, there aren't many structural similarities between Chinese and Korean or Chinese and Japanese.
For example, Chinese has no system of verb conjugation, whereas Korean and Japanese both do, conjugating for the past and present, among other aspects. Chinese also does not have a system of adjective inflection, whereas Korean and Japanese do. Adjectives in these languages inflect to indicate speech level as well as to indicate tense (which is to say, adjectives have a "past form", kind of like verbs).
There are many other structural differences of note.
Beware of arguments based on things we don't know, technically "argument from ignorance". That we don't know which one they might have split from is no reason to believe that this is actually happened! What we don't know didn't happen can't go in place of what we do know did happen.
The null hypothesis we use in the absence of proof reflects our cultural assumptions, and I think this is a case where Chinese and European assumptions collide. From the European standpoint, "we don't know the origin of this language, so our null hypothesis is that it developed independently" contrasts with China's "we don't know the origin of this language, so our null hypothesis is that it's related to another language nearby." Given the long documented history of various Chinese languages and culture in East Asia and the lack of competing origins with equally dense documented history, it's quite common for a laymen to assume that everything is linked in some way to Ancient China. Old Chinese has records dating back to 1000 BC, while Old Japanese and Old Korean both have their oldest writings from post 700 CE. That's a 1700 year gap for our null hypothesis to fill. In a 1700 year gap where we only have records of Chinese, then suddenly we start getting records of Korean and Japanese, the idea that there's some kind of cross pollination from Chinese we aren't aware of in that undocumented period isn't too big of a leap.
Another language origin could have been nomadic peoples to the north traveling across the Eurasian steppes, and frankly I'm more inclined to believe that's where Korean and Japanese actually originate from. However, despite the growing study of these peoples that have been neglected in traditional Chinese historiography, they don't leave behind enough archeological evidence for us to prove something like the Altaic language family convincingly, so we're back to null hypothesis and cultural assumptions.
The logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance" is not about a null hypothesis or culturally accepted default. It's a way of reframing things to lend credibility to any hypothesis without actually providing evidence in support of it.
When we look at the grammar of Chinese, Japanese and Korean, it raises a lot of doubts about the possibility of lineal descent -- about the idea that Japanese and Korean are a kind of Chinese. These differences provide positive support for the idea that Chinese bears no especially close relationship to the other two, while discouraging the idea that they are close descendants. Evidence is often like that: supporting what is true while disconfirming what isn't.
Let's leave aside whether Chinese, Japanese, and Korean are related because I think we're both in agreement they're not.
My point is that what the "unsupported hypothesis" is depends on your cultural viewpoint. It could be that "not descended from Chinese" is the unsupported hypothesis if you grew up in an environment where most things you experience are descended from Chinese.
Or as another example, if we got into a discussion about whether the sun will rise tomorrow, it's expected that I would have to prove that sun won't rise tomorrow instead of proving that the sun will rise tomorrow. There's no evidence either way until tomorrow arrives. But our baseline assumption is that the sun will rise tomorrow because that's what it's done every prior day. Our null hypothesis are informed by everyday experience, and that's very much a part of our cultural background.
In the structure of an argument from ignorance, the unsupported hypothesis is the one that someone is trying to support with negative information, which is to say, with an argument like "We don't know that <hypothesis> isn't true...". It's a form of argument that we should be wary of.
The unsupported hypothesis in argument from ignorance doesn't have to be any particular hypothesis, or a culturally supported hypothesis. Argument from ignorance is a way to frame any hypothesis for which we're not offering positive evidence in a speciously credible way.
The form of an argument is the opposite of semantics. If someone made an argument like "Korean has an independent origin from Chinese. You might doubt it, but what evidence do you have that it's not true? If we don't know that it's not true..." then that would be argument from ignorance, as well: notice how no supporting evidence is mustered for the hypothesis.
P1: "Korean has an independent origin from Chinese."
P2: "I don't believe this is true" (because my background assumption is that things originate from China)
P1: "What evidence do you have that Korean isn't independent of Chinese"
P2: "None, we have no evidence from this time period."
P1: "Therefore, Korean has an independent origin from Chinese."
P2: "That is argument from ignorance."
P1: "Here are differences between Korean and Chinese."
P2: "I don't believe this is sufficient evidence to enough to revise my doubt about your hypothesis." (because of the strength of my belief in my background assumptions)
What I'm pointing out is that P2's background assumptions and strength of belief in such is inherent to his culture and life experience. This could have easily gone
P1: "Korean has an independent origin from Chinese."
P2: "Okay" (because my background assumption is that things have independent origins.)
Or in an alternate universe
P1: "Korean originates from Chinese."
P2: "Okay" (because my background assumption is that things originate from China)
Up to where P1 says, "Therefore, Korean has an independent origin from Chinese.", that is indeed argument from ignorance.
Where P1 offers some discussion of differences between Korean and Chinese, that's where we start to get into a discussion based on evidence that can be evaluated. If P2 doesn't find it convincing, then we can ask why; this allows P2 to muster evidence which can be evaluated. That's a fine and constructive direction. A finite conversation like that doesn't necessarily end with a solid conclusion and everyone being convinced of the same thing.
What you're pointing out with regards to the perceived strength or weakness of certain assumptions is not what we're talking about with argument from ignorance: argument from ignorance is about the form, not the semantics.
even more amazing when you realize this was just the first one in the newer Korean script, and they had much older ones in the traditional Chinese script that was widely used by Koreans until recently.
It still blows my mind how recent in history humans have been able to pass information into the future or across great distances. It’s amazing we know anything.
It was a very important part in the Indian culture.
From what I have experienced writing was important yes, but what they usually say is to have a teacher or a Guru.
Whenever I read/recite the stotras/mantras the interpretation and the recital of it is so important that I feel a Guru is very important to understand the deeper meaning even though a description of it is present. In the modern world I listen to youtube to get the recitals/rythm right.
This is the same with cooking. My Grandmother had I think just one cookbook all her life. All that she learnt was practical by doing it from a very young age. All measurements and learning was from memory and if there were variations it would be derived from her already base cooking knowledge. Her memory of all these would be refreshed periodically because of the necessity to celebrate festivals with different types of dishes specific to the festival. For this it would not be one person slogging but a group of women get together to make the dish and information exchange would happen.
I've been thinking about that a lot lately (mostly in terms of my own memory) and a fun random thing I've been thinking of is that it's really impossible (at least to me) to visualize something with any meaningful fidelity. I can describe a scene, but that's just my description, it's so blurry.
When I hear a song I like, I can pretty much repeat it note for note when I whistle, and it conveys really the same feeling and meaning, but it's also a bit blurry on account of the details getting fuzzier like lyrics, specific instruments etc... but it feels a lot more authentic to the original memory/experience than anything I can ever visualize.
What I'm saying, is that I wonder if there's something special about how spoken/vocal memory sticks vs other kinds of memory.
I noticed that there is something there about vocal compared to visual. Some years ago while messing around memorizing/reciting pi, I always thought I imagined the numbers visually and recited from there. I'm bilingual and a friend asked if I can do it in my mother tongue. It was weird, I was surprised I was struggling. I definitely recite(in my head) in English, then I visualize the numbers than I translate.
It was surprising because when I was even younger I thought I had a photographic memory, I noticed it got weak over time and with memorizing some of pi I thought I was bringing it back. And here I find it was mainly vocal. With the points brought up here for oral tradition, it makes sense that vocal memory has stayed strong.
I wonder if it’s mostly about the cardinality of the options.
Songs are made up of only a few discrete notes, but strung together, but visual memory doesn’t really have a good analog. Pixels? That’s not how we think. Maybe there is a way to remember a visual scene, the closest I can think of is the memory palace technique, and it’s just damn hard to hone, but it really is effective.
I think the trickiest thing is error correction. In a song, a missed note is a riff, and likely close to the real note, in memory palace, there’s a risk it’s just way off and even that being way off fucks up the next step in recall, with no way to repair it.
I immediately caught myself, because I worked on a project that made great use of noise to do science. Hmm.
I’m not convinced more because there is no public, long term effort to save this information outside of closed warehouses.
I have a hard time finding proof that I existed and worked in tech in the 90s, if Google is any standard for the persistence of data, and tbh, I’m not sure what else would be. Archive.org is not super accessible for exploring - I can’t find my old site because it was on a sub domain I forget. Anyways, I think humans will mine our convos, but won’t need the prior, maybe because the social context doesn’t apply in the future as well I dunno.
Shit, what if someone puts this comment into whatever they call textbooks in the future.
Check my soundcloud Adding emoji to make it more annoying to parse. Heéhë (HN didn’t include my multi-code point flexing arm emoji)
> she describes how the noblewoman would look down at the village during dinnertime, to see which homes did not have smoke rising from the kitchen, meaning the household had no rice to cook. She would then invite families in need to work on her land so she could feed them.
What a wonderful person. I’m glad her work is being preserved and honored.
>In one of Lady Jo’s many anecdotes about Lady Jang, she describes how the noblewoman would look down at the village during dinnertime, to see which homes did not have smoke rising from the kitchen, meaning the household had no rice to cook. She would then invite families in need to work on her land so she could feed them. “Even the term ‘superwoman’ is not enough to describe Grandma Jang,” Lady Jo says.
I'm extremely confused by this take. Nobles have an obligation to not let their cattle starve to death. This excerpt makes it sound like she's being charitable by letting her peasants plant, grow, and harvest the food that is then used to compensate them for their labor.
You're assuming that Korean political/economic system was the same as the one of Europe. It was not.
Nobles didn't own all the lands or people around them. Some of non-noble people owned their own lands, others didn't and had to rent lands from landlords.
So the story that you quoted means that Grandma Jang was generous to poor people who have neither lands nor money to rent lands, and allowed them to work on her lands.
Those who worked not just did the work but also got paid. That's what I assume. I don't really know what the truth was (nobody would know), but the intention of the story is that she provided a "job" to those poor people.
It wasn't until the 20th century, partially as a counter occupation rise of national and ethnic identity against the Japanese colonizers that Hangul became modernized and accepted as the general script for Koreans.
In North Korea, as further assertions of national identity, all remnants of Chinese characters were purged and many loan words were provided with "preferred" native Korean words. In the South, Chinese characters were/are still seen as a prestige study and was even commonly mixed in with Hangul in newspapers but the use of Hanja is rapidly declining in print.