muckefuck | K is for Korean

Entry tags:

amharic2zulu

K is for Korean

Korean-English dictionary. Martin, Samuel E. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1967

I found this entry hard to write in the same way that you might find it hard to compose an encomium for one of your best friends. It's quite possible that I've logged more time with this one dictionary than most of my others combined. (The nearest contenders would likely be my Oxford-Duden and my Enciclopèdia Catalana Diccionari català-anglès.)

Not this particular copy, of course. For years before that happy day when I stumbled upon it in the Hyde Park Powell's, I had an intimate relationship with the copy in the UoC East Asian Library.

monshu can tell you just how intimate: I sleep with my most beloved books. Sometimes, they are the last thing I hold before I fall asleep and the first thing I reach for when I awake in the morning.

How do you spend countless hours of your spare time with a dictionary? I'm the wrong person to answer this question, because of course my answer is How do you not? I've had to ban myself from opening any of them after 10 p.m. on a school night because otherwise I'm doomed. It goes like this: You look up a word you're curious about, and it makes you think of another word. Are they related? Look at the etymologies and find out! Wait, how would I say that in this other language? That's another dictionary, another ten minutes. Before you know it, this treasure hunt has kept you up past midnight.

After forty years, Martin's work can't help but be a bit dated, but I still haven't found a more comprehensive work for translating Korean into English. Among its most useful features are indications of vowel length (phonemic, but not shown in the script), cross references for all common conjugated forms, and complete lists of the Hanja corresponding to any given syllable. Among its disappointments are a scattershot approach to etymology and archaicisms.

Mere cavils, of course, when you consider what is packed into those 1,920 pages. Most of the Korean literature I own is equally dated, so as long as Ch'ae Man-shik and Hwang Sun-wŏn don't get too heavily into dialectal spellings, I'm good. Not that I really read much Korean these days, but it's comforting to know I could. Even now, despite all the online resources available, Martin is my final authority when I'm baffled by some twisted bit of grammar.

Since I picked up his Reference grammar of Korean, it's no longer the only book of his on my shelves, but it will always be "Martin" to me. Old friends earn their affectionate nicknames.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I saw his reference grammar in Borders, and thumbed threw it. It was something that seemed too much to stomach for me. Are there any others, or is this the only one I should get?

And I didn't know about his dictionary; I'll have to look for that. I've used one of the books that teach the language. And if I remember correctly, it was in that dreaded Yale romanization that I know you love to use.

Yeah, I never bought the textbook because I couldn't stomach one completely devoid of Han'geul (a.k.a., in dreaded Yale, /hankul/). His dictionary has all entries in Han'geul followed by Yale, which is much more palatable.

I won't call the reference grammar pretty to look out or easy to use, but it is the most comprehensive one I've seen so far. There are a number of descriptions of the language out there (e.g. Homin Sohn's Korean and The Korean language, Lee & Ramsey's The Korean language, etc.) but none delves so deep into the nitty gritty. He even has Middle Korean morphology in there! Just the ticket if you want to read 용비어천가 in the original!

Your experience with dictionaries reminds me about Wikipedia and myself.

Chuck

I'm glad someone else essentially sleeps with their books. I do it all the time. There's also nothing more delicious to me than waking up with a book open on your chest, having fallen asleep that way the night before.

The books that I have to stay away from late at night are my atlas and my copies of the SFE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_science_fiction) and its companion fantasy volume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Encyclopedia_of_Fantasy). Oh, and Bartlett's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartlett%27s_Familiar_Quotations). Oh, and.... :)

Feb and March, I was away from my books during a house move, they were all in storage. Prior to moving I was addicted to the computer - surfing day and night, mostly for information, as I love information... but in the rental cottage while house-hunting I missed my books so much. Now we've set up a room in the new house, as a small library and... the computer lives in it too! So I am online hunting info when I am not burying my head in dictionaries and other factual books. And I'm like you - I dare not get started on a dictionary at night. Mind you, Roget's Thesaurus has the same appeal. I got a new edition of it and don't like it. Went back to the old one that my dad gave me when I was a child. It's falling apart, but I love it.

I had to come in and have a look at your LJ. Interesting!

Not that I really read much Korean these days, but it's comforting to know I good. Even now, despite all the online resources available, Martin is my final authority when I'm baffled by some twisted bit of grammar.

Like, say, "it's comforting to know I good"?

교정했어!

I'm sure I deserve that, whatever it is :-)

Relax and vide supra.

BTW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X76ZIGQgBWg

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only