I know that the central vowel in ᄉᅻᆯ ( if it doesn't render as a single syllable) is archaic. I know that Hangul/Korean has over the years simplified itself greatly, sometimes getting rid of redundant letters, sometimes getting actually changing the pronunciation of words. I'm not sure which case these double vowels are.

I see a lot of ieungs in Korean, e.g. 서울, which could be eliminated using an archaic double vowel or sometimes a double consonant. I'm not sure if that's strictly equivalent, though.

Is eo-ieung-u equivalent to the archaic eo-u vowel?

2 Answers 2


No, ᄉᅻᆯ would not be equivalent to 서울 even if it somehow was used in modern Hangul. ᄉᅻᆯ is one syllable, 서울 is two. Korean is a syllable-timed language, so a single syllable and two syllables are pronounced differently. So 우울하다 is different from 울하다, 미인 is different from 민.

That archaic vowel was never used to write down Korean. As far as I know, that vowel was only used to transcribe vernacular Chinese(Mandarin) in language learning books. Here's a page from 노걸대언해 from the 18th century(Notice ᅸ, ᆣ, etc):

enter image description here

The Hangul used in this book is not Korean. It's Chinese pronunciation of each character written in Hangul. That's why there are vowels that are not used in Korean. The left pronunciation is the "literary pronunciation" and the right is "vernacular pronunciation", both variants of Chinese pronunciation.


First of all since ᄉᅻᆯ is unprintable by the normal Korean computer keyboard, it is NOT a Korean syllable, hence has got no pronunciation,(I GUESS YOU GOT THE SUPER KEYBOARD).. even if you wanted it to be a slang for 서울 it wouldn't sound. For example 솰(swal) and 쏼 (sswal) they are printable in the Korean Computer Keyboard and have got pronunciation but they have no meaning..

In general Korean alphabets and vowels have limits and are fixed when are joined to form syllables

  • It renders fine on my phone. I did mention that it was an archaic character; I know it can't be easily typed. I was wondering if it was removed due to it being redundant or because the sound wasn't necessary anymore. From the other answer it seems to be the latter. May 10, 2017 at 18:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.