Does Korean hanja usage correspond to Japanese kun'yomi and on'yomi kanji usage?


For those who are versed in both Korean and Japanese. To add a bit of context,
I've searched info on Korean hanja usage for some time, but none of the
sources clearly stated that hanja may serve the same purpuse as kun'yomi does
in kanji. As far as I'm concerned, modern hanja usage is limited only to
represent some ambiguous and/or homophonous vocabulary of Chinese origin (with
that corresponding to on'yomi) or abbreviations ("Sino-American Relations" and
so on).

* * *

In short, could or can hanja "encode" native Korean words? And if so, does
Korean have words which were rendered on Chinese model but have native Korean
pronunciation (like Japanese 宝籤｛たからくじ｝) or words which have mixed Chinese and
Korean phonetic parts (like Japanese 豚肉｛ぶたにく｝)?




_For ease of comparison, most Japanese Kanji text in this answer will be
rendered in[Kyūjitai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABjitai), which are
almost 100% identical to Korean Hanja._

* * *

**Short answer**

_No_ , [Korean mixed
script](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_mixed_script) (「[國漢文混用]{국한문혼용}」,
漢字ハングル混じり文) does not employ the equivalent of Japanese _kun'yomi_ (「[訓讀]{훈독}」,
_hun-dok_ ).

**Longer answer**

They do exist, but you wouldn't come across any of significance if you were
beginning to learn Korean in mixed script. Korean actually doesn't classify
these as such anyway, as all _Hanja_ readings for vocabulary that can be
written in _Hanja_ are classified as _on'yomi_ ([音讀]{음독}, _eum-dok_ ) **by
definition** , while Japanese would sometimes classify these as other
readings. These universally come from three sources, which are:

  1. Historical misreadings. For example, the counter「個」(equivalent to Japanese usage) has a reading of「개」( _gae_ ), which is really the reading of「介」; this misreading came from the confusion of「介」with「个」, which was a historical shorthand version of「個」. The proper 音讀 reading that fulfils Middle Chinese to Korean sound shifts would be「거」( _geo_ ), but this is not the standard reading in dictionaries so cannot be considered as 音讀.

  2. The Korean equivalent of _ateji_ , in the sense of phonetic loans for unrelated words. For example,「[寸]{촌}」( _chon_ ) is used throughout East Asia as a unit of distance measurement, while in Korean it has an additional meaning of _degree of kinship_ ;「[三寸]{삼촌}」( _sam-chon_ ) means _uncle_.

    * In [Chinese character classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters#Principles_of_formation), this is exactly the Korean situation of [假借]{かしゃく}. This is most likely a leftover from the Korean equivalent of [Man'yōgana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27y%C5%8Dgana), which is called 「[[吏讀]{이두}](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idu_script)」( _Idu_ ). 
  3. Phonological corruptions. The origins of this kind of vocabulary is shrouded in mystery, and may or may not be Chinese or "Korean"* at all, attested in extremely old proper nouns; for example, there are various hypotheses of the origin of two of the names of Korea,「朝鮮」and「韓」, both speculated to be of non-Chinese in origin.

    * Note that Japanese has this type of corruption too; 「うま」and「うめ」, although treated as _kun'yomi_ , are almost definitely cognate to Chinese「馬」and「梅」.

Regardless, there is one rule that is always applied to _Hanja_ without
exception, and that is each _Hanja_ is always one _Hangeul_ syllable block
long.

There is also the far more numerous case of Chinese-originated vocabulary in
Korean (「[漢字語]{한자어}」) **not** being rendered in _Hanja_ , which makes them
_anything but on'yomi_ . These are also phonological corruptions. For
example,「[김치]{キムチ}」( _kimchi_ ) comes from the _Hanja_ 「[沈菜]{침채}」( _chim-chae_
, meaning _soaked vegetables_ ), but is not written or pronounced this way
anymore.

* * *

音讀 and 訓讀 are exactly analogous between Korean and Japanese dictionaries for
漢字 entries. In both, 音讀 is treated as largely a Chinese-originated sound
gloss, while 訓讀 is treated as largely** a native-originated meaning gloss.
However, Korean 訓讀 does not extend outside of dictionaries, unlike _kun'yomi_
; only 音讀 can be written in _Hanja_ , while 訓讀 can never be written in
_Hanja_.

This also means that the misreadings and phonetic loans, and phonological
corruptions mentioned above are treated as 音讀, and all of the Chinese-
originated vocabulary not rendered in _Hanja_ are not treated as any kind of 讀
for _Hanja_ at all.

Lastly, as in Japanese, Korean spoken language and written language differ in
vocabulary usage; the former tends to use more native vocabulary while the
latter has a higher degree of 漢字語.

  * This means that sometimes when reading off a piece of text with _Hanja_ , 訓讀 may be used; for example,「[二時]{이시}」( _i-shi_ , same meaning as Japanese) may be read aloud as「두시」( _du-shi_ ), where「두」is the native Korean number for _two_. However, this probably shouldn't be considered as a proper way of reading _Hanja_.
  * This also means that, as the degree of technicality or formality increases in a piece of text, Korean and Japanese greatly converge in form. See, for example, the following [Sōshi-kaimei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dshi-kaimei) notice during the Japanese occupation of Korea, where it was only necessary to convert between _kana_ and _hangul_ , keeping all 漢字 the same:  
[![enter image description
here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Japanese_Name_Change_Bulletin_of_Taikyu_Court.jpg)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Japanese_Name_Change_Bulletin_of_Taikyu_Court.jpg)

* * *

*Quotes are put here because, unlike Chinese, the origin of the Korean (and Japanese) languages is extremely uncertain from ancient times.

** _Kun'yomi_ , even minus the readings from borrowings from western
languages, is not exclusively restricted to native Japanese vocabulary. There
are instances of Kanji where it is treated either as if (1) the _kun'yomi_
does not exist, or (2) the _kun'yomi_ is exactly the same as the _on'yomi_. A
common example would be「茶」.




_For ease of comparison, most Japanese Kanji text in this answer will be
rendered in[Kyūjitai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABjitai), which are
almost 100% identical to Korean Hanja._

* * *

**Short answer**

_No_ , [Korean mixed
script](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_mixed_script) (「[國漢文混用]{국한문혼용}」,
漢字ハングル混じり文) does not employ the equivalent of Japanese _kun'yomi_ (「[訓讀]{훈독}」,
_hun-dok_ ).

**Longer answer**

They do exist, but you wouldn't come across any of significance if you were
beginning to learn Korean in mixed script. Korean actually doesn't classify
these as such anyway, as all _Hanja_ readings for vocabulary that can be
written in _Hanja_ are classified as _on'yomi_ ([音讀]{음독}, _eum-dok_ ) **by
definition** , while Japanese would sometimes classify these as other
readings. These universally come from three sources, which are:

  1. Historical misreadings. For example, the counter「個」(equivalent to Japanese usage) has a reading of「개」( _gae_ ), which is really the reading of「介」; this misreading came from the confusion of「介」with「个」, which was a historical shorthand version of「個」. The proper 音讀 reading that fulfils Middle Chinese to Korean sound shifts would be「거」( _geo_ ), but this is not the standard reading in dictionaries so cannot be considered as 音讀.

  2. The Korean equivalent of _ateji_ , in the sense of phonetic loans for unrelated words. For example,「[寸]{촌}」( _chon_ ) is used throughout East Asia as a unit of distance measurement, while in Korean it has an additional meaning of _degree of kinship_ ;「[三寸]{삼촌}」( _sam-chon_ ) means _uncle_.

    * In [Chinese character classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters#Principles_of_formation), this is exactly the Korean situation of [假借]{かしゃく}. This is most likely a leftover from the Korean equivalent of [Man'yōgana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27y%C5%8Dgana), which is called 「[[吏讀]{이두}](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idu_script)」( _Idu_ ). 
  3. Phonological corruptions. The origins of this kind of vocabulary is shrouded in mystery, and may or may not be Chinese or "Korean"* at all, attested in extremely old proper nouns; for example, there are various hypotheses of the origin of two of the names of Korea,「朝鮮」and「韓」, both speculated to be of non-Chinese in origin.

    * Note that Japanese has this type of corruption too; 「うま」and「うめ」, although treated as _kun'yomi_ , are almost definitely cognate to Chinese「馬」and「梅」.

Regardless, there is one rule that is always applied to _Hanja_ without
exception, and that is each _Hanja_ is always one _Hangeul_ syllable block
long.

There is also the far more numerous case of Chinese-originated vocabulary in
Korean (「[漢字語]{한자어}」) **not** being rendered in _Hanja_ , which makes them
_anything but on'yomi_ . These are also phonological corruptions. For
example,「[김치]{キムチ}」( _kimchi_ ) comes from the _Hanja_ 「[沈菜]{침채}」( _chim-chae_
, meaning _soaked vegetables_ ), but is not written or pronounced this way
anymore.

* * *

音讀 and 訓讀 are exactly analogous between Korean and Japanese dictionaries for
漢字 entries. In both, 音讀 is treated as largely a Chinese-originated sound
gloss, while 訓讀 is treated as largely** a native-originated meaning gloss.
However, Korean 訓讀 does not extend outside of dictionaries, unlike _kun'yomi_
; only 音讀 can be written in _Hanja_ , while 訓讀 can never be written in
_Hanja_.

This also means that the misreadings and phonetic loans, and phonological
corruptions mentioned above are treated as 音讀, and all of the Chinese-
originated vocabulary not rendered in _Hanja_ are not treated as any kind of 讀
for _Hanja_ at all.

Lastly, as in Japanese, Korean spoken language and written language differ in
vocabulary usage; the former tends to use more native vocabulary while the
latter has a higher degree of 漢字語.

  * This means that sometimes when reading off a piece of text with _Hanja_ , 訓讀 may be used; for example,「[二時]{이시}」( _i-shi_ , same meaning as Japanese) may be read aloud as「두시」( _du-shi_ ), where「두」is the native Korean number for _two_. However, this probably shouldn't be considered as a proper way of reading _Hanja_.
  * This also means that, as the degree of technicality or formality increases in a piece of text, Korean and Japanese greatly converge in form. See, for example, the following [Sōshi-kaimei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dshi-kaimei) notice during the Japanese occupation of Korea, where it was only necessary to convert between _kana_ and _hangul_ , keeping all 漢字 the same:  
[![enter image description
here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Japanese_Name_Change_Bulletin_of_Taikyu_Court.jpg)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Japanese_Name_Change_Bulletin_of_Taikyu_Court.jpg)

* * *

*Quotes are put here because, unlike Chinese, the origin of the Korean (and Japanese) languages is extremely uncertain from ancient times.

** _Kun'yomi_ , even minus the readings from borrowings from western
languages, is not exclusively restricted to native Japanese vocabulary. There
are instances of Kanji where it is treated either as if (1) the _kun'yomi_
does not exist, or (2) the _kun'yomi_ is exactly the same as the _on'yomi_. A
common example would be「茶」.

