Welsh to Korean: respectful address involves more than translating chi
Welsh politeness is a starting clue, not a Korean pronoun selection rule
Welsh ti and chi give a translator useful information about an interaction. The WALS Welsh record identifies ti as familiar singular address and chi as the regular polite singular form. The Welsh Foundation grammar also has separate ti and chi verb forms. When a Welsh message uses chi, preserve the respectful relationship, but do not assume that one Korean word will carry the whole distinction.
A Welsh request addressed to one customer and an announcement addressed to several customers can both contain chi. Before choosing Korean wording, distinguish the number of listeners from the degree of formality. Those are separate decisions: making a request more courteous does not make its recipient plural, and addressing a group does not by itself establish an intimate relationship.
Korean honorific expression extends beyond the second-person pronoun. The Seoul National University chapter explains that titles can replace pronouns and that speech style matters independently. For a Welsh letter to a teacher, therefore, the Korean form of address and the sentence ending need to work together. Retaining an explicit equivalent of every Welsh you can make the translation less appropriate even when its grammar is understandable.
Why 당신 is not an automatic equivalent of chi
The National Institute of Korean Language dictionary gives 당신 several distinct senses. These include address between spouses and a disparaging use toward a listener, alongside polite uses. A dictionary match labelled you consequently does not establish the social meaning of a particular sentence. Context can change how the same visible Korean word is understood.
This matters when translating Welsh service messages. A courteous chi in a booking request provides no evidence that the writer and recipient are spouses, and it supplies no reason to introduce a confrontational reading. Select an established title or an appropriate construction for that relationship rather than repeatedly inserting 당신 simply because the source repeats chi.
The reverse mistake is treating every ti as permission for intimate Korean speech. Welsh familiarity establishes something about the original exchange; the intended Korean audience may have a different relationship to the writer. A dialogue between friends and a public explanation quoting that dialogue need different treatment of who is speaking to whom.
The writer and the person being discussed also matter
The Korean chapter contrasts 나, ordinary first-person reference, with 저, its humble counterpart. Welsh i identifies the speaker without making that same lexical choice. A Welsh introduction therefore requires a Korean decision about how the speaker presents themself, in addition to the decision about addressing the listener. Merely changing the translation of chi leaves that part unresolved.
The chapter also illustrates repeated reference to an older sister instead of replacing each mention with a third-person pronoun. A Welsh passage using hi can consequently need a Korean kinship term or another clear reference. Repeating a noun is not automatically redundant. Preserve who is being discussed while allowing Korean to organize reference differently from the Welsh sequence of pronouns.
Language references