이방인 vs. 외국인

Flooooooooor

Senior Member
English - USA
Hi all,

외국인 is definitely the go-to term my friends use to mean 'foreigner' but I recently encountered 이방인 and am curious about its usage. 네이버 국어사전 gives 이방인 two definitions:

1. 다른 나라에서 온 사람.

(This seems pretty much the same in meaning as 외국인. For all I know, though, it may sound archaic or formal, or both! When will Korean people choose to say or write 이방인 instead of 외국인?)

2. <기독교> 유대인이 선민의식에서 그들 이외의 여러 민족을 얕잡아 이르던 말.

(Do Korean Christians use 이방인 to describe how relatively modern Jews have at times referred disparagingly to non-Jews? Or instead, is 이방인 the word Korean biblical texts use to refer to ancient non-Hebrew tribes like the Canaanites and the Moabites? The definition suggests this was a term used in the past, but I'm not sure how far back we're talking about!)

Any perspective, especially from someone familiar with Christian education in South Korea for definition #2, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
 
  • Kross

    Senior Member
    Korean
    We almost never use 이방인 for foreigners in everyday conversations. It is more like a religious term commonly found in Bible. As far as I know the word in the book refers to ancient non-Hebrew tribes.
     

    Rance

    Senior Member
    Korean
    It may be helpful to look up the definitions for 이방(異邦) and 외국(異邦).

    이방
    異邦[발음 : 이ː방]
    명사
    [같은 말] 이국(異國)(인정, 풍속 따위가 전혀 다른 남의 나라).
    외국
    外國[발음 : 외ː국/웨ː국]
    명사
    자기 나라가 아닌 다른 나라. [비슷한 말] 외방4(外邦)ㆍ이조7(異朝).
    외국 sounds a lot more neutral term while 이방 also implies different culture/language of different nation.
    But generally speaking, you will rarely hear people using 이방인 other than religious context.
    이국 is more popular than 이방 too.
     

    조금만

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Got it....thanks to you both!

    As an aside...

    TV drama addicts will recognize this word from the title of possibly one of the worst ever examples of the genre, perpetrated by SBS last year: 닥터 이방인 , officially "translated" as Doctor Stranger.

    The connotations of that title, completely lost in the translation "Stranger", are of someone disturbingly or suspiciously "alien", an "outsider" who evokes suspicion or unease on the grounds of "not being one of us". That makes it quite unacceptable to modern Koreans as a general purpose word for "foreigner".

    Previously, I'd only encountered the word in Psalm 137

    우리가 이방에 있어서 어찌 여호와의 노래를 부를꼬

    How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land?
     

    M.Disaster

    New Member
    Korean
    외국인: If the nationality in passport is officially not korean, he/she is 외국인 in Korea.

    이방인: If someone comes from another countries or regions and can not mix in a society cuz of cultural difference or language, then he/she is 이방인 there.
     

    Flooooooooor

    Senior Member
    English - USA
    Hi M.Disaster (and 조금만, to whom I have owed a message for some time now),

    Thank you for this additional information. I think I have a much better idea of how to use the word!
     

    CharlesLee

    Senior Member
    Korean
    Hej Flooooooooor,

    The old Jews considered others as 이방인, and our ancestors used the term too.

    Strangers in English fit with 이방인, while foreigners are 외국인.

    There's a reason why there are 2 words and 이방인 is not only a religious terminology but historical one.

    Thus, Rance's opinion isn't correct, while 조금만 English has got the right knowledge.

    You can use both terms because the word has been changed along with the New World.
     
    Last edited:

    CharlesLee

    Senior Member
    Korean
    Hello,

    I want to share the specific ideas more to help you.

    If you speak to me of '이방', it sounds like provincial and if you tell me that he's a foreigner, I feel like he's my neighbour.

    However, if I were in the ancient time, '이방인' would mean others, strangers. The range of the term periodically changes...

    '이방인' are those who have different culture, perception, language but there are not many 이방인 for Koreans when

    based on such a definition.


    Foreigner sounds like neighbours whom I should take care of and protect in Korean.

    Foreigner doesn't mean 이방인 nor 외국인 to me in Korean. Fundamentally historically it was, however, the term's

    meaning is different from the true origin.

    Oh, my Lord, please forgive me to use the power of God on here.
     
    Last edited:

    pcy0308

    Senior Member
    Korean
    Thus, Rance's opinion isn't correct, while 조금만 English has got the right knowledge.
    외국 sounds a lot more neutral term while 이방 also implies different culture/language of different nation.
    But generally speaking, you will rarely hear people using 이방인 other than religious context.
    이국 is more popular than 이방 too.
    Rance's opinion and interpretation of the two words are far from incorrect. Even disregarding how individuals' lexicons and their understanding of them differ and evolve through time, Rance and 조금만's interpretations are not mutually exclusive but rather reinforcing. Of course, 이방(인) can definitely be used outside the context of religions, but as Rance pointed out, its may, depending on different contexts, have negative connotations and insinuate "alienation" or other significant cultural differences.

    Aside from implying such cultural, religious, and philosophical differences, the term 이방 or 이방인 is more literal (which also explains why it wouldn't be used all too often colloquially) and is usually translated to "strangers". This is the case not necessarily in English but also in other languages, such as French (for example, Albert Camus' L'Étranger, which is translated to "The Stranger" and "이방인" in English and Korean respectively).
     

    CharlesLee

    Senior Member
    Korean
    Rance's opinion and interpretation of the two words are far from incorrect. Even disregarding how individuals' lexicons and their understanding of them differ and evolve through time, Rance and 조금만's interpretations are not mutually exclusive but rather reinforcing. Of course, 이방(인) can definitely be used outside the context of religions, but as Rance pointed out, its may, depending on different contexts, have negative connotations and insinuate "alienation" or other significant cultural differences.

    Aside from implying such cultural, religious, and philosophical differences, the term 이방 or 이방인 is more literal (which also explains why it wouldn't be used all too often colloquially) and is usually translated to "strangers". This is the case not necessarily in English but also in other languages, such as French (for example, Albert Camus' L'Étranger, which is translated to "The Stranger" and "이방인" in English and Korean respectively).
    "you will rarely hear people using 이방인 other than religious context." His words are wrong.

    Rance hasn't read our historical books and sounds like lack of ability to interpret our old letters.

    The word, 이방인 is an ancient term, while foreigner is a middle age word.

    The silly Korean program has considered foreigner as the same as 이방인, which sounds like stupid to me.

    I have an answer but cannot reveal it on here totally. I could ignore people's discussion but for the next generation,

    I changed my mind a bit to help people here but the more details aren't open to everyone.

    I may write about this before I'm reaching for heaven, to give probably to Koreans, and some American family.

    It would include English Americans, one Canadian family too but only to the specific family.

    They will choose whom they will share with.
     
    Last edited:

    pcy0308

    Senior Member
    Korean
    Rance hasn't read our historical books and sounds like lack of ability to interpret our old letters.
    But generally speaking, you will rarely hear people using 이방인 other than religious context.
    이국 is more popular than 이방 too.
    That is your assumption. I believe it is not your prejudged, baseless claim on Rance's "lack of ability to interpret our old letter", it is your inability to understand his point and acknowledge how these words are used in actuality, in nearly every facet of day-to-day life. You are entitled to your opinion, and I will not belittle yours just as you have done regarding Rance and his informative input, all the while completely misinterpreting the gist.
    If I were judging Rance's and your comments the same way you were, without a doubt, I'd assume that he is more educated in the Korean language than you are, given how he is the one making more comprehensible comment that is pertinent to how the word is actually used and understood by the general public, vis-à-vis your comments. We are all entitled to our opinion, no? :thumbsup:

    Since you seem to be more or less having trouble understanding English correctly (and what Rance wrote), let me help you out by translating it for you:
    "이방 also implies different culture/language of different nation."
    = "이방"이라는 단어는 또한 다른 나라/민족의 문화나 언어를 함축하기도 합니다.
    "But generally speaking, you will rarely hear people using 이방인 other than religious context"
    = 대게 종교적인 맥락 외에는 (사람들이) 쓰는 경우가 드뭅니다.
    Nowhere in his post is he implying or mentioning explicitly that "이방" is "a religious terminology". Him clarify and accurately so that "이방" is used more commonly in religious context does not equal him explicitly defining "이방" as a religious terminology. That is nothing but a conclusion you drew in your own head. Rance specifically said, "이방" implies different culture/language of different nation; clearly, he understands how the word can be used outside the religious context. Although I do not necessarily agree with it being used predominantly in some religious contexts, he is far from being incorrect and is in fact providing a much more accurate and concise response than yourself.
    Not to mention, neither what Rance or other people are saying in this thread do not necessarily cancel each other out. In fact, it is consistent and, to some extent, in line with what the other posters (Kross, M. Disaster, and even 조금만) are saying. The fact you've chosen to understand it that way does not necessarily alter what the posters actually meant.

    The silly Korean program has considered foreigner as the same as 이방인, which sounds like stupid to me.
    Your vague statement and generalization of things have contributed nothing. If anyone sounds "stupid", it is you. Again, if it helps, go back to what Rance posted and how other posters explained the word. You are making a value judgement here about "the [...] Korean program" which neither serves to validate your claim about Rance's interpretation being incorrect nor provide any constructive information.

    I have an answer but cannot reveal it on here totally.
    I changed my mind a bit to help people here but the more details aren't open to everyone.
    Whatever this "answer" is that you've been going on about. Please and by all means, keep it to yourself: you'd be doing everyone a favor by keeping it to yourself, so please, continue to do so and just refrain from "reaveal[ing] it on here totally". Be mindful of the fact that this is a language forum.

    I may write about this before I'm reaching for heaven, to give probably to Koreans, and some American family.
    It would include English Americans, one Canadian family too but only to the specific family.
    They will choose whom they will share with.
    Again, this is a language forum. Save such details for your journal entry.

    Hope this helps.
     
    Last edited:

    CharlesLee

    Senior Member
    Korean
    That is your assumption. I believe it is not your prejudged, baseless claim on Rance's "lack of ability to interpret our old letter", it is your inability to understand his point and acknowledge how these words are used in actuality, in nearly every facet of day-to-day life. You are entitled to your opinion, and I will not belittle yours just as you have done regarding Rance and his informative input, all the while completely misinterpreting the gist.
    If I were judging Rance's and your comments the same way you were, without a doubt, I'd assume that he is more educated in the Korean language than you are, given how he is the one making more comprehensible comment that is pertinent to how the word is actually used and understood by the general public, vis-à-vis your comments. We are all entitled to our opinion, no? :thumbsup:

    Since you seem to be more or less having trouble understanding English correctly (and what Rance wrote), let me help you out by translating it for you:
    "이방 also implies different culture/language of different nation."
    = "이방"이라는 단어는 또한 다른 나라/민족의 문화나 언어를 함축하기도 합니다.
    "But generally speaking, you will rarely hear people using 이방인 other than religious context"
    = 대게 종교적인 맥락 외에는 (사람들이) 쓰는 경우가 드뭅니다.
    Nowhere in his post is he implying or mentioning explicitly that "이방" is "a religious terminology". Him clarify and accurately so that "이방" is used more commonly in religious context does not equal him explicitly defining "이방" as a religious terminology. That is nothing but a conclusion you drew in your own head. Rance specifically said, "이방" implies different culture/language of different nation; clearly, he understands how the word can be used outside the religious context. Although I do not necessarily agree with it being used predominantly in some religious contexts, he is far from being incorrect and is in fact providing a much more accurate and concise response than yourself.
    Not to mention, neither what Rance or other people are saying in this thread do not necessarily cancel each other out. In fact, it is consistent and, to some extent, in line with what the other posters (Kross, M. Disaster, and even 조금만) are saying. The fact you've chosen to understand it that way does not necessarily alter what the posters actually meant.


    Your vague statement and generalization of things have contributed nothing. If anyone sounds "stupid", it is you. Again, if it helps, go back to what Rance posted and how other posters explained the word. You are making a value judgement here about "the [...] Korean program" which neither serves to validate your claim about Rance's interpretation being incorrect nor provide any constructive information.



    Whatever this "answer" is that you've been going on about. Please and by all means, keep it to yourself: you'd be doing everyone a favor by keeping it to yourself, so please, continue to do so and just refrain from "reaveal[ing] it on here totally". Be mindful of the fact that this is a language forum.


    Again, this is a language forum. Save such details for your journal entry.

    Hope this helps.
    As I mentioned the word, you do NOT know the origin of the word. Rance and you just know the definition of the word in the current

    dictionary. Isn't it??? The word is an ancient term written and said many times in historical ways rather than religious ways.

    I have no religion and Rance said that's used religious ways but I use it too.

    In addition, the middle age jargon, Foreign was coined, but these days, most people are more frequently using it than 이방.

    That's true due to the frequency of the word choice.

    But you will rarely hear people using 이방인 other than religious context.

    It's written in the history book. Are you claiming that I or other Koreans learnt the word because of 'Religion' really???

    We use 이방인 historical context 1000 times more than a religious way. Koreans will definitely agree with me.

    I could ignore the way people think of currently, but I changed my mind a bit as I said above.

    To use the word, foreigners are no problem for me, because it sounds like warmth and kindness.


    Foreigners might be curious about the word. Please tackle me after reading my intention.

    But your touch up of my English grammar would be fine. I have no problem with the way.

    Because I know that you have more competence of the English grammar than have I. I didn't doubt about it.
     
    Last edited:

    pcy0308

    Senior Member
    Korean
    As I mentioned the word, you do NOT know the origin of the word. Rance and you just know the definition of the word in the current
    dictionary. Isn't it??? The word is an ancient term written and said many times in historical ways rather than religious ways.
    I have no religion and Rance said that's used religious ways but I use it too.
    Decide what you will be commenting and critiquing on before laying out your argument so that your writing reads more logical and coherent. Are you talking about the origin of the word? Are you talking about whether the term is a historical one or religious one? Are you critiquing Rance or me for allegedly saying "이방인" merely is a religious term?
    1. Here is a question for you: how many times must I break it down to you that nowhere in either Rance's or my argument is there specific - or even implicit - designation of the term "이방인" as a mere religious term. Again, for the third time now, no one is simplifying the word "이방인", its meaning and usage to solely religious ones; the only person fixated on it is you, and like I said, why is this is the case is beyond me. Read other's posts carefully before calling them "incorrect", "lacking in ability", etc. (if you are having hard time understanding the arguments written out because of your English proficiency, I can clarify them in Korean: Rance 유저분 또는 본인의 지문 어디에도 "이방인"이라는 단어가 오직 종교적 용어라는 지정은 없으며 심지어 간접적으로라로도 함축되어 있지 않습니다. 정확하게 지문의 어느 부분에서 이런 유추를 하셨는지 모르겠지만, 완벽하게 잘못 추정, 지레짐작 하셨으며, 근거없는 논지에 의거해서라도 Rance 유저분의 답변을 "부정확하다(incorrect)", "관련 서적을 읽지 않아 지식/능력이 부족하다(lacking in...)", etc., etc. 라고 (다시 한번) 이렇게 허위주장 및 지레짐작 하는 것은 낯뜨거울 정도라 사려됩니다. 다른 유저들의 게시글을 조금 더 잘 이해하시고 답변하신다면 오해의 소지도 없어질 뿐만 아니라 본게시글/질문 작성자에게도 현실적으로, 실용적으로 더 도움이 되는 (논지에서 벗어나지 않는) 건설적 thread가 될 것입니다.) Back to my point, even OP (Flooooooooor) started out by specifying two possible interpretations of "이방인' from a dictionary. For the second time here, I implore you to read Rance's comment again, without second guessing or assuming what is not said:
    외국 sounds a lot more neutral term while 이방 also implies different culture/language of different nation.
    Clearly, he understand how the word can be used outside the religious context. He never said the word is used only in religious contexts; that is your assumption, not even remotely close to his claim.
    2. Yes, I understand very clearly what the word "이방인" means whether it is used in a contemporary context or in "an ancient context". While "이방인" can be used in a biblical, religious context to address non-Jews, it is more often than not used to describe a stranger or an individual from a different nation, all the while putting emphasis on his/her different cultural background, dissimilar psychology, and, to some extent, just his/her overall "alien nature". Of course, "이방인" is not limited to portraying a foreign national; it could very well be used to refer to someone (from the same country) who is unable to, for example, acclimate to and associate with the existent customs and norms, or a rapidly changing society, etc.
    I have no religion and Rance said that's used religious ways but I use it too.
    3. "I have no religion, and Rance said that's the term is used in religious ways, but I use it too, though I have no religion."
    Seriously? Your presumption again is borderline comical. How did you manage to irrationally conclude and presume that Rance was implying only those with religion would use the term "이방인"? The incorrect assessment and understanding is rather on your part, not Rance's.
    Please tackle me after reading my intention.
    How ironic this is coming from you.
    It's written in the history book. Are you claiming that I or other Koreans learnt the word because of 'Religion' really???
    Although I do not necessarily agree with it being used predominantly in some religious contexts, he is far from being incorrect
    I am quoting my previous post here as I do not agree with Rance saying the word is used predominantly in religious contexts. Though I disagree with him on this matter, it still does not make his input incorrect and invalid; expressing what probably is his personal experience with the word and saying that the word is used mainly in a religious context is not equal to a statement on how the word is socially constructed, taught and learned by people with the passage of time. Seriously, he is not saying "religion" is the only domain where the usage of the word "이방인" is permitted or deemed appropriate. If Rance were negating completely how the term can be used in a cultural and historical context, it'd be a different story, but he hardly was doing so. For users like myself, 조금만, M. Disaster, "이방인" certainly has had many connotations other than biblical/religious ones, but such experience is not universal, and some, such as Rance and Kross, may have come across it more frequently in religious contexts. I myself speak and write Korean on a daily, hourly basis, and I cannot even remember when the last time I used "이방인" in an actual conversation was. However, such experience of mine is unique only to me and it alone does not dictate how the word is or should be interpreted. Along these lines, you cannot at all speak for all the Koreans. No, you can't: how individuals "experience" languages and how different words, expressions, their meanings, nuances, and usages shape people's understanding and are shaped in return with the passage of time cannot be simplified by the dichotomy of what is "correct" or "incorrect" (unless, of course, some astoundingly absurd claims are made, haha). Yet here you are again, conveniently generalize things - this time the entire Korean nation - while ranting about some vague personal belief that, like I said, should be saved for your journal post (be mindful of the fact this is a language forum).

    According to google.com, the word "외국인" is listed on approximately 60,500,000 pages online, and "이방인" 4,970,000; according to naver.com, thd word "외국인" is registered in 10,282,684 pages, and "이방인" 866,989. Without going through the trouble of checking every single one of these pages, any sensible individual will understand that it is simply nonsensical to assume all the words "이방인" in nearly 5 million pages are used in some religious contexts. Just think of the example of Albert Camus' L'Étranger I've provided. Do you honestly believe Rance or any other users are oblivious to this fact? I highly doubt that. Why are you so quick to assume others' (alleged) ignorance and "lack of ability"? The only reason for such behavior, I'd say, may be rooted in your own inability and ignorance. Again, no one - even Kross - is saying "이방인" is a strictly religious term; no one is saying it is impossible to come across "이방인" used in cultural, historical, and psychological contexts; no one is saying "이방인" is wholly understood and passed down over time in biblical/religious contexts. These were nothing but your premature conclusions, which reflects a very clear failure on your part to understand what the other posters are saying all the while ever so conveniently generalizing things, assuming and conjuring up some unsaid things, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

    Hope this helps.
     

    CharlesLee

    Senior Member
    Korean
    Decide what you will be commenting and critiquing on before laying out your argument so that your writing reads more logical and coherent. Are you talking about the origin of the word? Are you talking about whether the term is a historical one or religious one? Are you critiquing Rance or me for allegedly saying "이방인" merely is a religious term?
    1. Here is a question for you: how many times must I break it down to you that nowhere in either Rance's or my argument is there specific - or even implicit - designation of the term "이방인" as a mere religious term. Again, for the third time now, no one is simplifying the word "이방인", its meaning and usage to solely religious ones; the only person fixated on it is you, and like I said, why is this is the case is beyond me. Read other's posts carefully before calling them "incorrect", "lacking in ability", etc. (if you are having hard time understanding the arguments written out because of your English proficiency, I can clarify them in Korean: Rance 유저분 또는 본인의 지문 어디에도 "이방인"이라는 단어가 오직 종교적 용어라는 지정은 없으며 심지어 간접적으로라로도 함축되어 있지 않습니다. 정확하게 지문의 어느 부분에서 이런 유추를 하셨는지 모르겠지만, 완벽하게 잘못 추정, 지레짐작 하셨으며, 근거없는 논지에 의거해서라도 Rance 유저분의 답변을 "부정확하다(incorrect)", "관련 서적을 읽지 않아 지식/능력이 부족하다(lacking in...)", etc., etc. 라고 (다시 한번) 이렇게 허위주장 및 지레짐작 하는 것은 낯뜨거울 정도라 사려됩니다. 다른 유저들의 게시글을 조금 더 잘 이해하시고 답변하신다면 오해의 소지도 없어질 뿐만 아니라 본게시글/질문 작성자에게도 현실적으로, 실용적으로 더 도움이 되는 (논지에서 벗어나지 않는) 건설적 thread가 될 것입니다.) Back to my point, even OP (Flooooooooor) started out by specifying two possible interpretations of "이방인' from a dictionary. For the second time here, I implore you to read Rance's comment again, without second guessing or assuming what is not said:

    Clearly, he understand how the word can be used outside the religious context. He never said the word is used only in religious contexts; that is your assumption, not even remotely close to his claim.
    2. Yes, I understand very clearly what the word "이방인" means whether it is used in a contemporary context or in "an ancient context". While "이방인" can be used in a biblical, religious context to address non-Jews, it is more often than not used to describe a stranger or an individual from a different nation, all the while putting emphasis on his/her different cultural background, dissimilar psychology, and, to some extent, just his/her overall "alien nature". Of course, "이방인" is not limited to portraying a foreign national; it could very well be used to refer to someone (from the same country) who is unable to, for example, acclimate to and associate with the existent customs and norms, or a rapidly changing society, etc.

    3. "I have no religion, and Rance said that's the term is used in religious ways, but I use it too, though I have no religion."
    Seriously? Your presumption again is borderline comical. How did you manage to irrationally conclude and presume that Rance was implying only those with religion would use the term "이방인"? The incorrect assessment and understanding is rather on your part, not Rance's.

    How ironic this is coming from you.


    I am quoting my previous post here as I do not agree with Rance saying the word is used predominantly in religious contexts. Though I disagree with him on this matter, it still does not make his input incorrect and invalid; expressing what probably is his personal experience with the word and saying that the word is used mainly in a religious context is not equal to a statement on how the word is socially constructed, taught and learned by people with the passage of time. Seriously, he is not saying "religion" is the only domain where the usage of the word "이방인" is permitted or deemed appropriate. If Rance were negating completely how the term can be used in a cultural and historical context, it'd be a different story, but he hardly was doing so. For users like myself, 조금만, M. Disaster, "이방인" certainly has had many connotations other than biblical/religious ones, but such experience is not universal, and some, such as Rance and Kross, may have come across it more frequently in religious contexts. I myself speak and write Korean on a daily, hourly basis, and I cannot even remember when the last time I used "이방인" in an actual conversation was. However, such experience of mine is unique only to me and it alone does not dictate how the word is or should be interpreted. Along these lines, you cannot at all speak for all the Koreans. No, you can't: how individuals "experience" languages and how different words, expressions, their meanings, nuances, and usages shape people's understanding and are shaped in return with the passage of time cannot be simplified by the dichotomy of what is "correct" or "incorrect" (unless, of course, some astoundingly absurd claims are made, haha). Yet here you are again, conveniently generalize things - this time the entire Korean nation - while ranting about some vague personal belief that, like I said, should be saved for your journal post (be mindful of the fact this is a language forum).

    According to google.com, the word "외국인" is listed on approximately 60,500,000 pages online, and "이방인" 4,970,000; according to naver.com, thd word "외국인" is registered in 10,282,684 pages, and "이방인" 866,989. Without going through the trouble of checking every single one of these pages, any sensible individual will understand that it is simply nonsensical to assume all the words "이방인" in nearly 5 million pages are used in some religious contexts. Just think of the example of Albert Camus' L'Étranger I've provided. Do you honestly believe Rance or any other users are oblivious to this fact? I highly doubt that. Why are you so quick to assume others' (alleged) ignorance and "lack of ability"? The only reason for such behavior, I'd say, may be rooted in your own inability and ignorance. Again, no one - even Kross - is saying "이방인" is a strictly religious term; no one is saying it is impossible to come across "이방인" used in cultural, historical, and psychological contexts; no one is saying "이방인" is wholly understood and passed down over time in biblical/religious contexts. These were nothing but your premature conclusions, which reflects a very clear failure on your part to understand what the other posters are saying all the while ever so conveniently generalizing things, assuming and conjuring up some unsaid things, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

    Hope this helps.
    본인의 주장이 도대체 뭐죠?

    본인의 지식이 뭐죠? 이상한 사람이네. '방'자가 나라 '방'자인데 이 무식한 사람은 글자도 해석 못하면서 취지도 뭔지도 모르겠고,

    종교를 왜 갖다부치는 지? 저 용어 만든 사람은 황족 문관 출신 이상인데 누가 만든지도 모르고 아는 척 나불대고 있으니 한심하네.

    당신이 만드셨수? Foreigner도 무슨 말인 지 알지도 못했을 거 같은데. 참고로 그 명문 문관 후손들과 과거 왕족 자손들 다 살아계시니

    당신이 하는 헛소리 보면서 비웃고 있을듯. 그들이 말해주지 않아서 내가 양심에 찔려서 자진해서 알려준건데 계속 헛소리하지 마시고요.

    그 쪽의 지식을 한 번 나열해보쇼. 위에 글 읽어보면 당신의 지식은 없어요. 그냥 번역가임?

    Internet이 없으면 퍼다나를 지식도 없지않소? 그대가 하는 말은 그냥 적혀 있는 거 퍼와서 나한테 내가 알고 있는 것을 계속 우기는 거임.

    일례를 들어 왜 영어로 Shut up이 Shut up인 지 설명할 수 있소? 모르시면 제발 그 입 다무시오.
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top