Talk:Tamna

Stop please

Princepsofeurope and Future Perfect at Sunrise, stop deleting things I put which are correct, Tamna’s name means island country, and Guernsey Is an island country, and the rest were actual ancient countries. Vecnussybadussy (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, Vecnussybadussy, please stop putting those things there. Saying that something is both "a state ... based on an island" and "an island country" is useless pedantry at best, even more useless tautology at worst. Same for all those additions of "an empire and a country" in other articles. None of those additions are of any value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, Future Perfect at Sunrise, if it’s useless pedantry than why do you allow people to describe Jersey and Isle of Man as island countries and that’s not useless pedantry?? Also you told an editor to “f off” before. FavonixanIsMyFavorite (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Also I don’t know who Vecnussybadussy is but I don’t know how you can call one thing pedantry and another thing not pedantry. FavonixanIsMyFavorite (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Tamna rulers needs citations

Will look into this, but we can't get any verification yet on the list of Tamna rulers (Which is extensive and doesn't seem the most reliable). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

At least a good chunk of it is listed on Samguk Sagi, to my knowledge Miffedpenguin (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

“Vovin 2007” is not an adequate source.

Please update Koreanstudies (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Correction: 2017 Koreanstudies (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Did Tamna have a flag or a banner?

I do not know if Tamna once had a flag or a banner or not. Americaball23 (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge no, though it could certainly be possible. I'll try delving into this Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be no flags Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ignorance

Vovin’s interpretation of Tamna/Tammora largely frames the evidence through a Japanese lens, which restricts the scope of his conclusions. Common sound shifts, such as S ↔ T, are well-documented across language development—for example, in English and German. Applying this understanding to the meaning of “island settlement,” the element Tam is more plausibly related to the Korean Seom (“island”), reflecting this type of shift.

Similarly, the element Kam, which Vovin associates with Japonic roots for “deity,” aligns more closely with the indigenous Korean Geom (“deity” or “divinity”). This demonstrates a parallel pattern in sound shifts: Tam → Seom, Kam → Geom.

Examining Vovin’s other comparisons further highlights the limitations of his approach. The word Gulle, a colloquial term, is more plausibly linked to the Sinitic root Gu. Meanwhile, Mura seems to reflect a Japonic imposition. If we consider the Hanja used in historical texts, the character is read as “mo” in Korean but “mu” in Japanese. One other point to consider is Tamna’s commonality with Silla, particularly when taking into account the Hanja as well as Silla’s alternative name, Syera/Seora, which highlights a Koreanic parallel.

Vovin’s choice of mura emphasizes solely Japanese phonetic resemblance. At the same time, it largely overlooks Korean cognates such as Maeul (“village”), Muri (“crowd/group”), Moeum (“gathering/collection”), and Mukkeum (“bundle”), and other Koreanic sound shifts.

Finally, Vovin’s interpretation of Tam as “people” becomes less tenable when the island-settlement reading is considered, particularly given the lack of supporting evidence. Overall, these points suggest that Vovin’s proposed Japonic comparisons for Tamna lack a solid foundation, and that a Korean linguistic framework provides a more coherent explanation. Similar patterns of overextension are apparent in his broader work on Koreanic and Japonic relationships. 2A02:3100:A416:C300:386E:4CC4:3E7:9AB0 (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you have sources to back up these claims? This seems like a lot of original research which is frowned upon/banned from Wikipedia. From what I understand it seems Vovin's theory that proto-Koreanic speakers from Puyo and spread southwards and co-mingled with what was left of the Japonic speakers in the south is the mainstream accepted theory. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Original research? That’s an odd way to frame common sense. I advise you re-read what I wrote and do so from a neutral perspective. Now, you claim Vovin’s theory is what’s accepted by the mainstream. I’d love to see the sources for that. A simple search will reveal that his hypothesis is actually rejected by the majority in mainstream Korean scholarship. 2A02:3100:AE07:1C00:2D94:9262:B3C0:55EE (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not imply that your position is "common sense" and that mine isnt and also please do not imply that I am asking you from a lack of a "neutral perspective" when you were unable to back up your claims with a single source so far. You say that his beliefs were rejected by the majority of mainstream Korean scholarship when you have not provided a single academic source to defend your position, or support your point that his position is in the minority. You had ample time to disprove my point but I have yet to see a single academic article or book citation. You made your entire initial post without any academic sources, and then when pressed simply doubled down.

Sources on how Vovin was regarded, such as Brill which describes him as "Besides Japanese and Mongolic, Alexander is also well-known for his research on Ainu, Korean, Tungusic, and Turkic languages, as well as on transcriptions partially attested in Chinese and other languages of Inner Asia." As well as many other eulogies that call his work remarkable and etc.

Vovin and James Unger's works suggest that Proto-Korean emerged from Puyo, with Koguryo as the director ancestor of Korean based off the lack of Japonic influence on Koguryo, to the Korean peninsula. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the spelling correct?

In the very first sentence (and even in the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tamna.png) it says Tamna (탐라), but the Korean characters actually transliterate into Tamra. Tamna would be 탐나, so I am a bit puzzled what is going on. Maybe the romanization is meant to be the pronunciation, in which case it makes sense, since 탐라 is spoken as 탐나. Tessus (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tessus My understanding is that it reflects the pronunciation. The "Tamra" spelling is also sometimes used, although anecdotally much less often. CMD (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thx for the reply. The romanization often confuses me, because seeing romanization and hangul next to each other does not always provide a clear 1:1 mapping.

So sometimes the romanization is written as the hangul is pronounced, but sometimes it is not. I am not talking about the different systems (like RR, RM, Yale, ...), but within the same romanization system.

Thus I never know how to exactly go from one to the other. Tessus (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There are lots of niche aspects of the general romanization rules, not an unusual issue. CMD (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I should stop reading (or trying to make sense of) romanization altogether. ;-) Tessus (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)