Does hangul looks uglier than japanese or chinese writing?

>>76947106
yes

Hangul is Cyrillic alphabet of Asia and Chinese (characters) is Latin alphabet of Asia.

But I don' care.

File: IMG_4160.jpg (120KB, 834x605px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 834x605px

I think Hangul are wonderful pronunciation symbols.
But it's guessed from the surrounding context, so to understand a homonym when also not using a kanji, I also think it isn't efficient.

This is a textbook in the time when Japan was governing Korean Peninsula.

>>76947183
No it is most scientific and beautiful characters on earth

hangul looks better, when its with chinese characters. look at those old newspapers, they look more open minded and intelligent, like korea was willingly sharing such cultural and historical aspects with japan and china for sure

File: img_1.jpg (248KB, 883x870px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 883x870px

like this one. i aesthetically like these more than hangul exclusive ones.

>>76947106
i think hangul is cool.Very original and recognizable .

When Japanese inputs Japanese by a keyboard, we understand that the previous (the Roman alphabet) and that we do pseudonym kana-kanji conversion of are same as a Hangul alphabet.
It inputs a vowel and a consonant by an alphabet and is changed to the sentences one intends by a pseudonym kanji mixture.

>>76947545
It came on 1982. Not so old. But for now, over 60% of koreans can't understand it.

>>76947732
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TU9fh1gqFp4

When Japanese and a Korean discuss, I know a board more appropriate than here.

http://kaikai.ch/board/15273/

>>76948540
Thank you very much.
A Hangul can't be read, but I understand that a change procedure to a kanji is akin to Japanese well.

>>76947106
Hangul looks like logical chinese characters to me.

Slightly less pitoresque but none the less more modern looking.

>>76947106
I prefer Hangul aesthetic.