Jongseong

Linguists must be rolling their eyes at this study. If you want to study language evolution, phonemes are the last thing you should look at. Languages change, fast, and the sounds of a language change drastically over generations. Compare modern Icelandic and Old Norse (by which we usually mean Old Icelandic)—Icelandic is supposed to be one of the most conservative languages and is still quite close to Old Icelandic in spite of centuries of separation in areas like syntax and vocabulary. But if you compare the pronunciations, they are quite different. The sounds of a language are among its least stable aspects.

Similarities in pronunciation between languages spoken over the same region are part of a phenomenon well known to linguists and do not imply that the languages are related. For example in terms of a pronunciation feature called coda devoicing, Slovene dialects near the Austrian border will pattern with German, those near the Croatian border will pattern with Croatian, while Standard Slovene will have something in the middle. Slovene and German are only very distantly related.

There may be something there about closely related population groups ending up using similar sounds even if their languages are not closely related, but I doubt the researchers even thought about that and used phonemic distance as a shorthand for actual linguistic distance.

Sorry for the late reply as I didn't see this until now.

There is no reason for there to be a difference in English loanword usage in North Korea between the border area and the far far North. Remember, the DMZ is a tightly sealed border and there has been virtually zero cross-border exchange that would influence the language since the Korean War. If we were talking about normal national boundaries with some cross-border linguistic exchange then there would be a gradient of linguistic features taken from the neighbouring state near the border and diminishing as you move away from it, but with the DMZ there is no such thing.

찍개 is a recent South Korean neologism for 'stapler'. There is no reason that North Korea would use the same word. I don't know what they call staplers in North Korea, though.

Once again, the point is that English loanwords were being used in Korean before the division of the peninsula, and afterwards, North and South Korea followed completely separate paths of linguistic evolution. There was no way for people near the border regions to be influenced by what people were speaking on the other side. You might flip the question and ask whether South Koreans near the DMZ are more likely to use pure Korean words due to North Korean influence, and again the answer is no for the same reasons.

도꾜 is the traditionally common spelling for Tokyo that is based on maximum phonetic similarity. In South Korea, the spelling was reformed to 도쿄 to conform to standardized rules about how to write Japanese loanwords, where all non-initial "k" sounds were to be mapped to ㅋ. So this is more of a phonemic spelling. Roughly speaking, "phonetic" refers purely to the sounds, while "phonemic" goes into the more abstract level of grouping the sounds that are considered mere variations of a single sound to the speakers of that language. However, due to widespread resistance, the South Korean reform didn't go all the way in making it phonemically regular—otherwise, we would be writing 토쿄 instead, using ㅌ everywhere for "t" (in concession to the traditional practice, we write ㄷ for initial "t").

This reform took place in the 1980s in South Korea, and didn't affect North Korea, which still writes 도꾜 for Tokyo. It has nothing to do with Russian pronunciation. If we imitated Russian pronunciation, it would come up as something like 또끼오 or even 또끼워.

I am well aware of the language situation in Italy, and I hesitated a bit before using it as an example. I probably should have qualified my use of the word "dialect" as you rightly point out. I do remind people from time to time that the regional languages in Italy are languages in their own right, and indeed the "dialects" spoken in Italy don't form a natural subgroup of the Romance languages, either (Piedmontese and Lombard are probably closer to the subgroup of the Western Romance languages that includes French rather than the one that contains Italian). But for my point here the distinction between languages and dialects is not important. The point is that in all of Italy, regardless of the local dialect or regional language, people are taught standard Italian. If we divide Italy, the Southern half is not going to switch to, say, Neapolitan, or the Northern half to Lombard, in spite of the rich literary traditions of these regional languages.

The situation in Korean is not qualitatively different, either. For instance, the Jeju "dialect" (now sadly moribund) is definitely not mutually intelligible with other dialects of Korean some authorities would insist on classifying it as a separate language. Even the mainland dialects (as they are traditionally considered as opposed to distinct languages) are considerably different from each other, not just in lexical items but in the existence of different grammatical categories (e.g. distinguishing between yes/no and wh-questions), morphology (the conjugation of verbs and adjectival verbs is all different), and phonology (different consonant and especially vowel inventories, different stress/pitch systems), to the degree that I wonder how much communication would be possible if it had not been for the imposition of standard Korean.

I used Italy as an example instead of the U.S., because it is a stretch to say that the U.S. has different dialects as the speech is quite uniform across the vast country compared to what you see in Korea; or the U.K., where the existence of Scots complicates the analogy. I did not intend to minimize the diversity of regional languages in Italy.

Are you talking about loanwords from English in the Korean used in North Korea? Korean was already borrowing words from English decades before the division of the peninsula, as you can see in writings from the Japanese colonial period. So North Korea inherited a lot of these same loanwords. It has nothing to do with South Korean influence, if that's what you're suggesting, as the language communities of the North and South have been effectively cut off from each other since the war.

However, there are often differences in the spelling of such loanwords between the North and the South. So you have 프로그람 (p'ŭrogŭram) in the North but 프로그램 (p'ŭrogŭraem) in the South for "programme", 텔레비죤 (t'ellebijyon) in the North but 텔레비전 (t'ellebijŏn) in the South for "television", and 미싸일 (missail) in the North but 미사일 (misail) in the South for "missile". This is due to the fact that the standardized spelling of loanwords (a problematic and much debated area of Korean orthography) was frequently reformed in South Korea, and probably in the North as well, so the principles of spelling have turned out quite differently between the two. Also, as North Korea uses a lot of loanwords from Russian, even loanwords originally from English tend to be absorbed in the Russian pronunciation, such as 땅크 (ttangk'ŭ) for "tank" or 뜨락또르 (ttŭrakttorŭ) for "tractor" as opposed to SK 탱크 (t'aengk'ŭ) or 트랙터 (t'ŭraekt'ŏ) which is closer to the English pronunciation.

The official language policy in both the North and the South tends to discourage loanwords from English, but it seems a bit more successful in the North, especially when it comes to post-1945 loanwords. If you only focus on the differences between the North and the South, then you see many cases where North Korea uses native Korean words whereas South Korea uses loanwords from English. But you can't extrapolate from that and conclude that North Korea doesn't use loanwords from English at all. This would be a misconception, just like the false notion that North Korea doesn't use Sino-Korean words.

Actually, they do teach Chinese characters in school in North Korea; it is a common misconception that they don't. They teach 3,000 characters, which is numerically even more than the 1,800 characters taught in South Korea in school. But as you said, in North Korea you don't even see the very limited usage of Chinese characters in newspapers that you see in South Korea, so it is not much beyond a subject you learn in school. You could say the same about the situation in South Korea, though, since the usage of Chinese characters is really, really limited, mostly to certain newspapers.

The notion that North Koreans say 얼음보숭이 (ŏrumbosung'i) for "ice cream" is a bit of a myth. The authorities in North Korea did indeed introduce this word as a part of a linguistic purification effort, but it doesn't really seem to have caught on. A 1962 North Korean dictionary only has 아이스크림 (aisŭk'ŭrim) "ice cream", just as in South Korea. A 1981 edition of another dictionary and a 1984 encyclopedia introduce 얼음보숭이 (ŏrumbosung'i), but the official dictionary that appeared in 1992 again has 아이스크림 (aisŭk'ŭrim) "ice cream" and not 얼음보숭이 (ŏrumbosung'i). The 1992 dictionary also has 에스키모 (esŭk'imo) "eskimo", which in North Korea is a popular everyday word for "ice cream" which comes from a name of a brand that was popular there.

You have plenty of examples of South Korean language authorities introducing "purified" (often pure Korean) words to replace loanwords, which don't necessarily catch on. For "stapler", the official South Korean dictionary has the pure Korean translation 찍개 (jjikgae), for instance. But I have never seen this term in the wild—instead, people say 스테이플러 (seuteipeulleo) "stapler", or more commonly, 호치키스 (hochikiseu) "Hotchkiss". There is a limit to how much official language policy can dictate actual usage, whether it is in North or South Korea.

You've got the gist, but North Korea does use tonnes of Sino-Korean words, which are like words of Greek and Latin origin in English. You can't simply eliminate such words from the language altogether. What you can do is to favour pure Korean words over Sino-Korean when coining new terms or standardizing terms for technical usage. So North Korea might use a bit less Sino-Korean than the South (I'm not even sure though, because there are other factors such as loanwords in South Korea displacing Sino-Korean words there). But this makes barely a blip on the language as a whole since so many basic words in Korean are Sino-Korean. Even most North Korean terms you're ever likely to hear are Sino-Korean: Juche, Son'gun, Chollima, Rodong missiles...

From what I've seen in the South Korean media, no one is talking about North Korean involvement in this separate hacking incident of nuclear reactors. The codes seem to be different from those used in previous attacks blamed on North Korea.

Note that linguistic evidence doesn't come into this, just as one wouldn't usually be speculating about which English-speaking country a hacker was from simply based on the code.

To understand the language situation in Korea, let's imagine that we divided the Italian peninsula in half just north of Rome. Does it follow that now there are two dialects, North Italian and South Italian? No. Italian has a bewildering variety of regional dialects, and our arbitrary line doesn't correspond to a genuine dialect border. Similarly, the DMZ cuts across the central dialect region in Korea.

More importantly, Italians will continue to write and be taught in Standard Italian, which was developed based on the Tuscan dialect long before our artificial division of the peninsula. It won't be as if they would start from scratch and create new standard languages based on the Milanese dialect in the North and the Roman dialect in the South. Even independent countries such as Germany, Austria and Switzerland find it useful to use the same standard German as each other, even if it's not necessarily based on a dialect spoken wothin their borders. There will inevitably be differences in vocabulary and spelling, but the differences will be far less than if we imagined a naïve model where each country creates its own standard (which is what basically happened in Scandinavia).

I'm dismayed that this piece is repeating Marc Rogers's gross misportrayal of the linguistic situation of the Koreas, saying that "Korean language in the code also suggests a Korean origin, though not necessarily a North Korean one, since North Koreans use a unique dialect." First of all, North Korean doesn't have "a unique dialect" but a number of regional dialects, just like South Korea, and like the situation in many languages. But again as in many major languages, a supra-regional, standard Korean language came into being, based on the central dialect region around Seoul which was the capital for many centuries. Before that the capital was Kaesong, which is in the same central dialect region as Seoul though it is now in North Korea. This happened before the division of the peninsula. Even today, the standard Korean taught and spoken in North Korea is based on this common standard with the South. The differences between regional dialects within either North or South Korea are far greater than the difference between the standard Korean spoken in the North and the South. The difference is mainly in words (especially any technology-related vocabulary introduced after the end of WWII) and spelling, and it's a lot like the differences between British and American English. You're never going to say that something written in English can't have been written by Americans because they have a unique dialect.

Also, as far as I know the codes didn't contain any Korean. Instead, what they found was that it seems to have used Korean text encoding, like EUC-KR. People have pointed out that this is a South Korean encoding, but North Koreans also use it since you hardly find any software that supports the official North Korean encoding. Again, if someone uses a British English locale, that isn't proof that it can't be an American. When it comes to text encoding and locale, you usually use whatever is available that lets you type in your own language.

Never underestimate the usefulness of plausible deniability, one of the main advantages of cyber warfare. It doesn't even have to be cyber warfare. North Korea still denies that it was behind the 2010 sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean naval vessel. Conspiracy theorists still dispute the conclusion of an international inquiry that North Korean torpedoes were to blame. It's quite useful from the North Korean regime's point of view to sow that seed of doubt in the mind of the international audience and to encourage mistrust of official narratives.

It's certainly possible, but I don't know if there is unambiguous evidence for contact between the Inuit and the Norse in Canada. Norse objects and technology in Inuit possession in Canada could easily have been obtained first in Greenland, where the Norse settlements were. There are Norse objects that have been discovered in places the Norse never visited like Ellesmere Island, indicating that they reached there through trade between Inuit groups.

The Greenland Norse probably sent expeditions to the Canadian islands and coast to get timber for a few centuries at least. An Icelandic document records that in 1347, a ship that was returning from "Markland" came off course and ended up in Iceland. Markland along with Helluland and Vinland is one of the Norse names given to regions in the North American coast and islands. So there could well have been opportunities to encounter Inuits who expanded to Northwest Canada by the 13th or 14th centuries. But even the Norse themselves haven't left many records about such expeditions or encounters with other peoples.

Please see my other comments, but we don't have direct proof of face-to-face contact between the Dorset and the Norse but ample proof of prolonged periods of contact between the Inuit and the Norse.