[brilliantcode]

Interesting stuff. The Korean language is considered one of the most scientific language on the planet. I'm puzzled why that NASA guy would push Sanskrit to be an actual application language. In my opinion, an HN'er should be able to read and write Korean in about an hour. I don't know if that's true for Sanskrit.

Taking a look at Sanskrit, it looks very cool. I think it's aesthetically better looking than Korean alphabet.

http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/sanskrit_cons.gif

[umanwizard]

> The Korean language is considered one of the most scientific language on the planet.

It's considered that by lay people, largely due to Korean patriotism, not by real linguists (can you provide a source?)

> an HN'er should be able to read and write Korean in about an hour.

So, you're talking about the alphabet used to write the language, not the language itself. At best you've proven that Korean has a highly regular writing system. But I'd argue that the average HNer could learn to read, for example, Spanish in about two minutes.

[brilliantcode]

> It's considered that by lay people, largely due to Korean patriotism, not by real linguists (can you provide a source?)

I didn't say the MOST, it's among the more scientific languages. I'm not pushing for Korean patriotism, that's just your own assumptions.

> So, you're talking about the alphabet used to write the language, not the language itself. At best you've proven that Korean has a highly regular writing system. But I'd argue that the average HNer could learn to read, for example, Spanish in about two minutes.

Hangul is the writing system that is uniquely different from a latin based system like Spanish. Your argument is moot.

[jdmichal]

You really should be more precise. I'm sure you meant "orthography" in every usage of "language". And yes, Hangul is a relatively "shallow" or "transparent" orthography -- though it is becoming less so over time. But so is Spanish's use of the Latin alphabet, Japanese hiragana and katakana, and yes Devanagari.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthographic_depth

[kwillets]

Ha, this is exactly the other language that came to mind when I saw this article. I love Hangul, but a lot of its "scientific"-ness comes from it being so recent that the spoken pronunciation hasn't drifted from the written form. There just a few rules for changing sounds, and they're quite regular.

Unfortunately the people in charge of the Revised Romanization decided that these rules should be applied to the Roman alphabet as well, so we have execrable constructions like "Daegu" or "bibimbab" which can't be pronounced from English spelling rules.

[Nadya]

I challenge that most could learn to read and write Korean within 15 minutes [0]. At most, stumbling over some of the vowels. It really is a marvelously simple language. Of course - reading it at speed will still take more practice but I feel one could become quite proficient at reading (without any comprehension of what they are reading) within a few weeks of practice.

[0] http://www.ryanestrada.com/learntoreadkoreanin15minutes/

[0xcafecafe]

If ^ makes the 's' sound in summit, why is ^| = "she" and not "see"?

[mrout]

>one could become quite proficient at reading (without any comprehension of what they are reading)

If you can't comprehend what you're reading, you're not reading. Learning the Korean alphabet is not learning Korean.

[raingrove]

Korean alphabet, not language.