Won-i (real name Jung Won-i), a member of the popular idol group Lysenne, recently became embroiled in an Ilbe controversy after saying "museopno" (scary) on her own YouTube channel. Ilbe (Ilgan Best, a far-right online community) has been at the center of the dispute. The allegation was triggered by a post that Kim Hyun-ji, a producer at Gyeongnam MBC, left on social media, but it has spread into the political arena as figures including former Rebuilding Korea Party leader Cho Kuk have joined in one after another to pile on. Following the recent case of Baejae High School students, who face a six-month suspension over the "Starbucks slogan" controversy, voices are now emerging that it is inappropriate for politicians to intervene and blow the matter out of proportion using a 22-year-old idol who has only just begun to gain popularity as a pretext.
Appearing on the YouTube channel "Hello This Is Won-i Nice to Meet You" on the 28th of last month, Won-i, who is from Geoje in South Gyeongsang Province, said as she entered a house with the lights off, "Museopno, the lighting is scary too." Regarding this, questions were raised, mainly on social media, that Won-i's "museopno" remark was an Ilbe expression demeaning former President Roh Moo-hyun. The claim was that the expression does not fit ordinary Gyeongsang Province speech patterns, and that an expression used with demeaning intent on Ilbe had been used mechanically.
Politicians preoccupied with the "Ilbe controversy" also intervened immediately. On the 5th of this month, former leader Cho wrote on his social media: "There are people who defend Ilbe's practice of attaching 'no' to the end of interrogative sentences to mock President Roh Moo-hyun, and who claim it is used that way in Busan and Yeongnam as well." He added, "'Na' is used when confirming yes or no, while 'no' is used when requesting an explanation of a specific situation." According to Cho's argument, the usages of "na" and "no" are divided into only two branches: yes-no questions and explanatory questions.
However, the prevailing view is that "dialect" usage is not uniformly fixed. Numerous studies and papers related to dialects state that "na" or "no" is used even in cases that are not questions. One paper included content stating that the realization of "-na/no/ga/go" is determined by the grammatical category of the preceding element, and that "-na/no" is used after verbs or adjectives.
In addition, other studies related to the Southeastern dialect note that "no" sometimes appears in sentences without interrogative words. There are cases where "no" is used in "rhetorical questions" that require no yes-or-no answer. Because rhetorical questions pragmatically carry an exclamatory function, cases can be found where "no" is attached after an adjective when it is repurposed as an exclamation. It is found mainly in exclamatory endings where a strong sense of unexpectedness appears, and examples cited include "matitno" (delicious), "jakno" (small), and "nawabojido anno" (doesn't even come out).
There are also numerous cases in Korean literary works where "no" is used in situations other than the "requesting an explanation of a specific situation" that former leader Cho mentioned. Ahn Tae-hyung, a professor at Dong-A University's Institute of Korean Language and Culture, once appeared on a broadcast and said, "In the Southeastern dialect, 'no' has an interrogative form, but it is used in an exclamatory sense in things like talking to oneself, lamenting, or monologue." There are also papers stating that dialect usage differs between the older and younger generations over time. The coexistence of numerous claims and analyses regarding the usage of the Yeongnam regional dialect means that, contrary to Cho's argument, dialect usage cannot be pinned down. This was a matter that could generally have ended as a linguistic issue, or simply as an incident, but politicians stepped in and escalated the conflict.
This is not the first time that a social issue that could be sufficiently resolved even without political intervention has had its essence obscured by politicians' remarks. The case of Baejae High School, embroiled in the "Starbucks slogan" controversy last month, is a prime example. The actions of the Baejae High School baseball team students cannot be justified for any reason, but the argument is being raised that this is a problem to be solved through education, and that the butterfly effect caused by politicians' calls for harsh punishment was unnecessary. After voices were raised in the political arena—including Lee Gae-ho, a Democratic Party lawmaker, who argued the previous day that "we should even consider disbanding the Baejae High School baseball team to root out anti-historical hate behavior"—the Baejae High School baseball team received a heavy disciplinary measure of a six-month suspension from national competitions. Regarding this, People Power Party figures also issued messages calling it "excessive and violent."
The situation has escalated socially to the point of legal complaints. The civic group Seomin Minsaeng Countermeasures Committee (Seomin Committee) submitted a complaint to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency against association officials on charges of coercion and obstruction of business. Another civic group, the Free Korea National Defense Corps, also submitted a complaint of a similar nature to the Seoul agency. The front gate of Baejae High School became a stage for a political generational battle, with critical funeral wreaths sent by progressive groups and supportive wreaths set up by conservative groups intermingled. That day, Baejae High School visited Gwangju to offer an apology, but the controversy once amplified by politicians has not subsided.
Experts believe that politicians, biased toward ideological logic alone, are failing to focus on the essence. Park Chang-hwan, an adjunct professor at Jangan University, said, "As politicians respond to each and every issue with excessive ideological bias or black-and-white logic, they are failing to show wise problem-solving." He added, "When a problem arises, they should help the side working to resolve it, but the problem is that they are deliberately amplifying issues capable of self-correction and obscuring the essence." He continued, "It is not inherently bad for politicians to offer opinions on national issues, but it is not right to view problems that could be resolved within their respective domains through a political lens and overreact."
