The history of the Korean language is characterized by a discrepancy between its spoken and written forms and a pivotal shift from Chinese characters to the Hangul alphabet. However, this linguistic evolution has remained largely unexplored in NLP due to a lack of accessible historical corpora. To address this gap, we introduce the Open Korean Historical Corpus, a large-scale, openly licensed dataset spanning 1,300 years and 6 languages, as well as under-represented writing systems like Korean-style Sinitic (Idu) and Hanja-Hangul mixed script. This corpus contains 17.7 million documents and 5.1 billion tokens from 19 sources, ranging from the 7th century to 2025. We leverage this resource to quantitatively analyze major linguistic shifts: (1) Idu usage peaked in the 1860s before declining sharply; (2) the transition from Hanja to Hangul was a rapid transformation starting around 1890; and (3) North Korea’s lexical divergence causes modern tokenizers to produce up to 51 times higher out-of-vocabulary rates. This work provides a foundational resource for quantitative diachronic analysis by capturing the history of the Korean language. Moreover, it can serve as a pre-training corpus for large language models, potentially improving their understanding of Sino-Korean vocabulary in modern Hangul as well as archaic writing systems.

We analyze social media for detecting the suicidal risk of military personnel, which is especially crucial for countries with compulsory military service such as the Republic of Korea. From a widely-used Korean social Q&A site, we collect posts containing military-relevant content written by active-duty military personnel. We then annotate the posts with two groups of experts: military experts and mental health experts. Our dataset includes 2,791 posts with 13,955 corresponding expert annotations of suicidal risk levels, and this dataset is available to researchers who consent to research ethics agreement. Using various fine-tuned state-of-the-art language models, we predict the level of suicide risk, reaching .88 F1 score for classifying the risks.