Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: How did Korean lose the tones?
Message-ID: <1995Jan11.015052.7766@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <1995Jan6.215248.9102@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> <1995Jan7.221246.28151@midway.uchicago.edu> <3esmmn$3o4@news.CCIT.Arizona.EDU>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 01:50:52 GMT
Lines: 51

In article <3esmmn$3o4@news.CCIT.Arizona.EDU> hlu@GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU (Hung J Lu) writes:
>Daniel von Brighoff (deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>
>: If you're asking if the use of Han'geul contributed to the loss of
>: tones, the answer is, "No"; there's absolutely no plausible way this
>: could have happened.
>
>Thanks. The new question is: why not?

Not nearly enough people used Hangul for it to cause this kind of
systematic phonological change.  In fact, it didn't come into 
everyday use in Korea until this century, long after the prestigious
Seoul dialect had already lost tonal distinctions.
>
>(My scenario was a tonal-speech people was conquered by
>an atonal-speech people. The newcomers learned Hangul, but did not
>know how to pronounce the correct tones because tones weren't
>marked in Hangul. This picture might be completely wrong  :-)  )

It is.  You might want to study some Korean history before you
start speculating wildly about Korean historical linguistics.

>Was Hangul used before or after the loss of tones?

Before (see previous post about marking tones in hangul).

>(Does anyone know when the tone change happened? I would
>guess it was associated with some major historical events...
>wars, change of dynasty/government...)

Why?  Like most linguistic shifts, it was gradual.  And, remember,
it hasn't taken place in all forms of Korean.

>In those areas where words are distinguished by tones, how do
>people avoid homonym problems? (I guess the degree of confusion
>must be very small anyway.)

I don't understand the question.  Why would they have more problems
with homonymns than other speakers?  After all, vowel length isn't
marked either.

>OK, someone mentioned Greek. 

And I explained that Greek was never a tone language, so we can
scratch this possible example.


-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
