Timeline for What's the difference between '탕' and '국'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2017 at 1:47 | comment | added | Taladris | I will not comment more on that topic because it is beyond my knowledge. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 1:45 | comment | added | Taladris | (1/2) I took the honorific bit from the article. Note that it says "has been used as honorific" instead of "is used" as I initially wrote (I edited), so it may represent different social considerations. I guess it is not 'honorific' as 진지/밥 but I was told that using a Sino-Korean word is considered as more 'formal', or more higher level of language (in the sense that speaking Chinese and knowing Chinese characters is a sign of elites and educated people), so it is (improperly?) called 'honorific' in the article because using Sino-Korean words honors the reader. Just my guess. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 1:35 | history | edited | Taladris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Feb 9, 2017 at 23:03 | vote | accept | Memming | ||
| Feb 9, 2017 at 8:57 | comment | added | Catomic | If we got all things that are called either 국, 국밥, or 탕 and lined them up in order of substance, viz. whether it alone could serve as a meal, the modified hypothesis (to account for 국밥) would predict that 국 would be on one side and 국밥 and 탕 on the opposite, with some area of 'fading in' in the middle. If the prediction came true, an explanatory theory might suggest that the 밥 element in 국밥 is the 'substance bearer' as it were, as 국 certainly isn't (from its distribution to the wrong side).--All this is meant to be funny if that didn't come through. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 8:45 | comment | added | Catomic | Not suggesting that it was. / I find strange the whole idea of 탕 being an 'honorific' for 국 (as found in the article you link). For x to be an 'honorific' of y, they should have the same meaning (denotation) but respective usages that are subject to social considerations. For example, '진지' is an honorific for '밥' because you say '진지 드세요' to an elder and '밥 먹어라' to a child (and mean the same thing). No such relationship exists between any 'N국' and 'N탕' pairing. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 8:32 | comment | added | Taladris | AFAIK, 국밥 is not a honorific for 국, but simply means "rice inside the soup". | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 8:10 | comment | added | Catomic | I am not wedded to my hypothesis, but one may argue that 돼지국밥 was not a counterexample, but rather a confirmation, by noting the presence of 밥 in it. The thing is a meal in itself--the argument goes--and too substantial to be called 국; hence 국+밥, a grander appellation than even 탕. / Another datum may be there being no 탕 made wholly of vegetables, if that is the case. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 7:53 | comment | added | Taladris | Please feel free to correct my approximative translation of the Korean Wikipedia in the note. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 7:52 | history | answered | Taladris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |