Hello... Just happened to read your postings on loveNfriend: love vs. sa-rang and friend vs. chin-gu. I tried to see it in the cultural point of view, not lingustic. In no way of denying that direct scrutiny on words is important, however they are of human affairs, it is also true and "intelligent point" to cogitate the interpretations on "human" of West and East (China, Japan, and Korea). The word, "in-gan," reveals efortlessly how the East perceived it: one in relation (space). Recently I read a Korean scholar translating it in English as "interject," opposed to the Western idea of individual and subject. If my memory serves me correct, Alfred N. Whitehead said, Western philosophy is nothing but a footnote of Plato; cynically pointing the obsession over "bifurcation" of Western thought. The love you make is not the true one, but true love is "there" as a pure form (reality vs. phenomenon ?). You as subject look at her as object; and we are individuals. No wonder the concept of "contract" has been well-developed in Western. Contracts relate individuals. Contrarily, our ancestors saw things in relations. Concepts like mind and body are weird because they can't exist separately. Things in "Nature" are all connected and influence each other as a whole; things circulate/cycle. Though "sa-rang" represents "love," and "chin-gu" does "friend," feelings from them are obviously different; nuance or color (?), I mean. It's just like the case of the English translation of "ja-yeon." There hasn't been any concept of "ja-yeon" in Western (at least, not popular). Before you decide to marry, you ask for his family back-ground. Just thought it could be same, when you thought of "words." Thank you for reading (this far...). ----------------------------------------- Mountain is mountain, water is water. --------------------------------------- J jhan@ucsd.edu