"빨강하고 하양하고 파랑"
Translation:Red, white, and blue
And Korea (North and South), Australia, The UK, France, Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Iceland, Laos, Liberia, Luxembourg, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Russia, Samoa, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Taiwan and Thailand. I may be missing a few.
If anyone is interested, people of North Korea prefer to use words 붉은 and 푸른 for red and blue respectively when referring to their flag.
Also, 붉은 (not 빨간) is the color of communism and all associated symbols, such as 붉은별 (red star) or 붉은 기발 (red banner, in NK orthography; down South banner is written as 깃발).
National flag of North Korea is sometimes called 람홍색공화국기발, which stands for "navy-and-red banner of the Republic". In this case, sino-korean coluor names are used (濫 and 紅).
In English, the standard way to say "thing 1 and thing 2 and ... and thing n" is "thing 1, thing 2, ..., and thing n". Using "and" in between each noun would usually be considered awkward and redundant unless you're attempting to convey a specific nuance or emphasis, which would also have a very distinct vocal emphasis in most cases. But, without that vocal emphasis, most native speakers would understand what you mean, and at worst, it would probably sound like you didn't think or remember to include each subsequent noun until you already said the other nouns. The reason is that "and" normally comes only before the last noun in the list, so if you say "and" earlier, it sounds like the noun after "and" is intended as the last noun, so if you say "and" again, it sounds like you are adding to a thought that had been intended to be complete as it was. For example, if you say, "streets and houses and signs", then a native English speaker will probably think your list of objects is finished as soon as you say "streets and houses", so when you say "and signs", it sounds like you must not have thought of the signs until you had already said "streets and houses" (because if you thought of the signs from the beginning, an English speaker would expect you to say, "streets, houses, and signs"--"and" signals the last item, and not using "and" signals that there is still more in the list).
But, using "and" in between every word can indicate emphasis. In some cases, it could be used to intentionally play on the hearer's sense that a thought was complete. So, if I said, "There were men and women and children", with either a particular vocal emphasis/stress on the second "and", or a pause after "women" before that second "and", I might be implying that the hearer expected the men and the women but would either be surprised by the inclusion of the children or at least that the inclusion of the children is more noteworthy.
In a list longer than 3 nouns, you have even more options. For example, if I said, "At the Vatican, I met Italians, Germans, Frenchmen, and Spaniards, [pause] and Chinese", then it implies that it was surprising or noteworthy to meet Chinese at the Vatican, while "Italians, Germans, Frenchmen, and Spaniards" forms a complete thought that is not noteworthy because it's expected that you'd meet all those at the Vatican. Similarly, if I said, "At the Vatican, I met Italians, Germans, Frenchmen, and Spaniards, [pause] and Chinese, Africans, Vietnamese, and Japanese", then it probably means that "Italians, Germans, Frenchmen, and Spaniards" form a complete list of what is considered expected or unremarkable, while "Chinese, Africans, Vietnamese, and Japanese" is an entire list of people that are surprising or noteworthy that I met them in the Vatican.
Whereas, if I said, "At the Vatican, I met Italians, Germans, Frenchmen, and Spaniards, Chinese, Africans, Vietnamese, and Japanese", then I'm not drawing attention to any specific group of people as surprising or noteworthy to meet at the Vatican. And if I said, "At the Vatican, I met Italians and Germans and Frenchmen and Spaniards and Chinese and Africans and Vietnamese and Japanese", with "and" between every noun, then I am probably emphasizing how many different kinds of people I met at the Vatican, rather than emphasizing any particular kind of people.
I could only find online that both are correct. I was taught that's wrong in English. The only difference I can see between 'and' in English and 하고 and such in these languages is that 'and' is at least sometimes if not always recursive. ~하고 is like + ~, '~ and ~' is like (~ + ~). A recursive 'and' twice is ambiguous without a comma: "red and white, and blue" is like ((red + white) + blue) but "red, and white and blue" is like (red + (white + blue)) . . .