so Chinese are taking other brotther 's nations ?
On May 12, 5:54=A0pm, mkao <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 12, 4:32=A0am, the =A0****ing Boudha <voivodv...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>
>
> > the =A0Chinese =A0language =A0has =A0nothing =A0to do =A0with =A0Indo-
E=
uropean
> > languages.
>
> > Chinese =A0language properly =A0speaking =A0only =A0involves =A0those
=
=A0from
> > North =A0China ,
> > because =A0south =A0China =A0was =A0originally =A0not Chinese =A0but
=A0=
Yue tribes
> > which
> > included =A0Vietnamese =A0,
> > =A0Muongs ,
> > Miao,
> > Taiwanese Aborignes ,
> > Malays,
> > Thai ,
> > Mien =A0Nan ,
> > Chao-Chou
> > and =A0Shanghainese ,
>
> > the =A0Vietnamese lived =A0as =A0far =A0north =A0as =A0Hang Chow in
5000=
=A0BC
>
> > 5000 years =A0ago, there was =A0no =A0such place =A0as =A0South
=A0China=
,
> > because =A0South =A0China was Yueh or =A0Viet =A0territory which
include=
d
> > the =A0Thai -Kadai
> > language , and =A0the language =A0of the =A0Aborigenes =A0of =A0Taiwan
w=
ho
> > migrated =A0to =A0Nairu aand =A0to =A0New =A0Zealand.
>
> > That =A0is =A0why =A0people =A0speak =A0about =A0the =A0Austronesian
lan=
guage
> > because
> > Austral means =A0south , and Austronesian =A0means south =A0language ,
w=
hich
> > means
> > the =A0language =A0of the south =A0people which means =A0lands
=A0below =
the
> > Changjiang =A0rever,
> > because the =A0Changjiang River =A0was
> > =A0the =A0dividing line =A0between tthe =A0Chinese who were
=A0notherner=
s
> > living north =A0above the Changjiang river
> > and =A0the =A0non-Chinese =A0tribes =A0of =A0South land =A0 of the
Yueh
> > territory =A0which was
> > =A0 south =A0of the Chanjiang River .
>
> > the =A0Chinese =A0north =A0of the =A0Chanjiang river invaded Yue
territo=
ry in
> > 4000 BC
> > =A0 because =A0of =A0copper =A0mines in Jiang- Xi =A0province , south
of=
> > the =A0Chinagjiang =A0river ,
> > just like the =A0Chinese =A0had =A0invaded =A0Malaysia =A0because
=A0of =
=A0tin in
> > Malaysia.
>
> > the Chinese =A0needed =A0copper =A0to =A0make =A0bronze =A0wine
=A0vesse=
ls =A0during
> > the =A0Shan =A0Dynasty .
>
> > the Chinese drove away =A0native =A0tribes =A0of =A0South =A0China ,
whi=
ch
> > originally was =A0called =A0Yue Territory,
> > the =A0native =A0tribes =A0moved =A0west =A0to mountains,
> > during the =A03 kingdoms =A0period ,
> > there was a =A0struggle =A0in the =A0south =A0Austro land by the
=A0nati=
ve
> > people =A0to
> > maintain their original =A0language =A0 during =A0the =A03 =A0kingdoms
=
=A0period
> > of history ,
> > if the =A0Wu =A0kingdom =A0had =A0won against the =A0Wei =A0kingdom
=A0f=
rom the
> > north =A0China,
> > during the =A03 =A0kingdoms =A0period ,
> > south =A0China today =A0would =A0not =A0be =A0speaking =A0Mandarin ,
> > but
> > Shanghainese =A0or =A0Muong languages.
>
> > the =A0Chinese =A0language ,properly =A0speaking is =A0Mandarin ,
> > not =A0Mien Nan,
> > not =A0Muong ,
> > not =A0Miao .
> > not =A0Thai -Kadai,
> > not Vietnamese of =A0Austronesia.
>
> > the =A0Lao and the =A0Khmer =A0language is =A0Mundy =A0origine =A0from
w=
est India.
>
> > On May 12, 10:39=A0am, Barbie <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > Origin of Chinese spoken languages
>
> > > Part 1.
>
> > > Around the world, spoken languages eventually leaded to development
of=
> > > various writing systems. An exception is Chinese spoken languages.
> > > Contrary to other spoken languages, they were generated and evolved
fr=
om
> > > a writing system, called Hanja or Hanzi, and not vice versa.
>
> > > Chinese spoken language is probably unique in that they were evolved
f=
rom
> > > written languages. It is comparable to a hypothetical scenario where
a=
> > > spoken language is evolved from mathematical expressions, which is
> > > universal. Despite language barriers, scientists and mathematicians
> > > around the world can communicate with mathematical equations,
although=
> > > the pronunciations of the mathematical symbols may be radically
differ=
ent
> > > depending on their spoken languages. This is why Chinese people can
> > > communicate by their unique writing system, but may not understand
eac=
h
> > > other by different spoken languages called Chinese dialects.
>
> > > I have been curious about the origin of Chinese spoken languages,
They=
> > > are radically different from neighbouring languages, especially
Altaic=
..
> > > The Chinese grammar is more similar to Indo-European rather than
Altai=
c.
> > > How could this have happened?
>
> > > Several years ago, I read a very interesting article on the origin
of
> > > Chinese language:http://www.discover.com/issues=A1=A9/mar-
> > > 96/features/empireofunifo=A1=A9rmi715/
>
> > > In this article, the author attributed the uniformity of current
spoke=
n
> > > Chinese languages (low diversity) to the political unification ever
fi=
rst
> > > achieved by the Chin emperor (221 BCE). He speculated that there
once
> > > were far diverse spoken languages in the current Chinese continent.
He=
> > > cited Europe as an example, where far more diverse spoken languages
st=
ill
> > > are existent, despite the similar area comparable with the modern
> > > People's Republic of China.
>
> > > I am not saying his idea is entirely wrong. I agree that it may
partia=
lly
> > > explain the uniformity in modern Chinese spoken languages. However,
th=
e
> > > major factor was the unification by the writing system called Hanja.
> > > Hanja has been pronounced differently among groups, but could be
> > > understood by writing. This is possible because Hanja has been
> > > ideographic. Today, Koreans and Japanese also use Hanja, but
> > > pronunciations are different. In summary, the Hanja was a kind of
> > > universal symbols in the ancient Far East Asia, which is comparable
to=
> > > modern mathematical symbols, but more complex in the sense that they
c=
an
> > > be used beyond simple scientific representations to be adopted as a
wa=
y
> > > of representing spoken languages at least partially.
>
> > > I hypothesize that Chinese spoken languages were evolved based on
the
> > > Hanja writing system, not vice versa. I speculate that once there
were=
so
> > > many spoken words in ancient Chinese continent but most of them were
> > > perished as the unification proceeded. In modern Korean and Japan
> > > languages, there are hundred-thousand onomatopoeic/mimetic words
> > > existent. In Chinese spoken languages, they even do not have a
charact=
er
> > > (or word in spoken Chinese) representing basic concepts, not to
> > > mentioning lack of onomatopoeic/mimetic words. For example, 'sorry',
> > > 'girl', 'boy' are a kind of basic words found around the world, but
> > > Chinese characters simply do not have it. Once they had them, but
they=
> > > perished by the unification enforced by the unique writing system.
>
> > > Part 2.
>
> > > Chinese spoken languages are actually written languages, because
they
> > > were evolved from an ideographic script called Hanja or Kanji. I
provi=
ded
> > > an additional evidence: tones in Chinese spoken languages.
>
> > > Is there anybody who dares to argue that so much diverse tones found
i=
n
> > > modern Chinese existed before the invention of Hanja? It is obvious
to=
me
> > > that tones have been developed to differentiate homonyms of Hanja
> > > characters. Chinese people did not develop any writing system or
modif=
ied
> > > Hanja to denote tones, again suggesting that Hanja was not evolved
fro=
m
> > > spoken languages, but that Chinese spoken languages were modified
and
> > > changed to accomodate the Hanja scripts by sacrificing their
diversity=
> > > (or entropy in the sense of information capacity). The Hanja has
molde=
d
> > > Chinese spoken languages into current forms of Chinese dialects. The
> > > entropy of spoken Chinese words greatly decreased but the entropy of
> > > tones increased pro****tionally.
>
> > > Part 3
>
> > > Monosyllabic, isolating spoken language could not exist.
>
> > > Would it be just a coincidence that Chinese spoken language is
isolati=
ng
> > > exactly the same way as the Hanja scripts? People and so-called
lingui=
sts
> > > want to believe that Hanja scripts represented so well ancient
Chinese=
> > > spoken languages to be 100% isolating as we see now. This defies our
> > > common sense. Spoken languages in the world are typologically
categori=
zed
> > > as 1) inflectional, 2) agglutinative and 3) isolating languages.
Chine=
se,
> > > Vietnamese, Cantonese, Cambodian, and possibly Riau Indonesian
belong =
to
> > > the isolating languages. Except the last, the isolating feature is
> > > related with Chinese influence. Thus, the Chinese spoken language is
t=
he
> > > unique isolating language in the world. Because of their enormous
> > > population size, linguists probably had no choice but to include
their=
> > > language as a major category of spoken languages. But, it is nearly
> > > impossible that 100% isolating language could ever exist. As we see
in=
> > > Vietnamese and Tibetan, a certain degree of inflection is needed to
> > > function as a spoken language.
>
> > > Another unique feature of Chinese is being 'monosyllabic' according
th=
e
> > > definition of a Chinese syllable. Vietnamese also has been
traditional=
ly
> > > considered to be a monosyllabic isolating
> > >
languagehttp://www.geocities.com/SoHo/=A1=A9Den/5908/language/intro.ht=
ml.
>
> > > However, Vietnamese shows a pronounced tendency for using bi- or
> > > polysyllabic structures. And some suggest that once Vietnamese were
> > > polysyllabic. This Vietnamese example suggest that it is quite
possibl=
e
> > > that at least some of current Chinese dialects were once
polysyllabic.=
>
> > > Now, Chinese languages have two idiosyncratic features: monosyllabic
+=
> > > isolating. Is it possible that "monosyllabic" + "isolating"
languages
> > > could ever have existed in ancient time before an invention of
writing=
> > > system? My answer is definitely "No". But, I agree that it could
exist=
> > > for very, very primitive societies. But, if any society evolved to a
> > > degree of sophistication to invent any writing system, monosyllabic,
> > > isolating languages were simply unimaginable. Even with just
isolating=
> > > features, it is difficult to figure out syntax structure, but anyway
> > > Chinese people now live and speak with that isolating languages.
>
> > > How could ancient people could understand a syntax by monosyllabic
AND=
> > > isolating languages? To express meaning and syntax together, we need
a=
> > > certain degree of entropy in the sense of information capacity such
as=
> > > 16-bit or 32-bit computer processors. You can not edit a movie or
song=
s
> > > with 8-bit processors. The entropy
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
