<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en-gb"> <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/app.php/feed/topic/660" /> <title>Chinese languages</title> <subtitle>Chinese languages</subtitle> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/index.php" /> <updated>2005-02-04T03:42:35+00:00</updated> <author><name><![CDATA[Chinese languages]]></name></author> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/app.php/feed/topic/660</id> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-02-04T03:42:35+00:00</updated> <published>2005-02-04T03:42:35+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13385#p13385</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13385#p13385"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13385#p13385"><![CDATA[ This forum has suddently changed format and the old link to Part II of this thread is now dead, the new link is:<br><br><a href="http://www.chinalanguage.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=664&sid=86e930ca9d7a02e8312e625b30d15cb7" class="postlink">http://www.chinalanguage.com/forums/vie ... 5b30d15cb7</a><p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Fri Feb 04, 2005 3:42 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-02-02T00:32:22+00:00</updated> <published>2005-02-02T00:32:22+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3482#p3482</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3482#p3482"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3482#p3482"><![CDATA[ Note: AlexNg has moved this thread to: "Vietnamese is sino-tibetan Part 2" <br><br>and the URL is: <br> <br><a href="http://www.chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3503#3503" class="postlink">viewtopic.php?p=3503#3503</a> <br><br>It's part of the "Cantonese language forum" and its URL is:<br><br><a href="http://www.chinalanguage.com/forums/list.php?f=1" class="postlink">http://www.chinalanguage.com/forums/list.php?f=1</a><br><br>Accordingly, all new posts should go to the new thread; the original should be read of course...<br><br>And yes Alex, you're welcome... :- )<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:32 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-31T09:19:44+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-31T09:19:44+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3481#p3481</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3481#p3481"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3481#p3481"><![CDATA[ Hahahahah! I've never heard of people not being born without skin!<br><br>This thread ought to cease, and a new thread started. Takes too long to download.<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:19 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-31T05:20:15+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-31T05:20:15+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3480#p3480</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3480#p3480"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3480#p3480"><![CDATA[ Most pure chinese either south or north doesn't need skin whitening lotion !<br><br>They just stay out of the sun and will maintain their natural white skin, we are talking about the skin when they were born....<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:20 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-31T03:57:28+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-31T03:57:28+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3479#p3479</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3479#p3479"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3479#p3479"><![CDATA[ "And do you watch Hong Kong drama? The Hong Kong actresses are all so fair. Are they pure south Chinese?"<br><br>--don't forget that Asian women, particularly Hong Kong, and other S.E. Asian countries are using skin lightening chemicals. This is terrible in my opinion. In America, Black women use it. And that freak Michael Jackson uses it to the point where he is now whiter than WHITE! It is never openly discussed but the social pressures for black women to lighten their skin is pretty significant. Black-owned companies selling this stuff are making a killing at it. The pressures are of course much greater if a black woman wants to get into the entertainment industry. Just look at rap videos. Hong Kong actresses are probably under similar pressures. To what extent Asian women are using skin lightening chemicals is, I don't know, but CNN did a story on it a few months ago. Although they treated it in a genteel way adding that while Asian women were lightening their skins to get that milky white look, white women were tanning to get that bronzed look.<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:57 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-29T12:13:49+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-29T12:13:49+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3478#p3478</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3478#p3478"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3478#p3478"><![CDATA[ MrFez,<br><br>I agree with you that Mandarin, Cantonese etc... Are different languages, most splits from Middle Chinese.<br>If the Hakkas had not merged shang ands qu, their language would be more similar to Middle Chinese than are Cantonese.<br>There are some Old Chinese words found in Vietnamese and there are not many people that realise them.<br>They are more similar to native Viet than the Middle Chinese loans (the Sino-Vietnamese) so they are often called Vietnamized Chinese.<br>These Vietnamized Chinese are also loanwords.<br><br>However, we must look into Tibetan/Burmese-like words in Vietnamese. They are even more "unrealised". But I don't think these are loanwords.<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:13 pm</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-26T03:58:39+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-26T03:58:39+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3477#p3477</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3477#p3477"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3477#p3477"><![CDATA[ First of all it Cantonese, Hokkien, and Mandarin are all languages not dialects. They are all mutually unintelligible. They all came from one language a long time ago, but now they split off and are mutually unintelligible. American and British English are dialects, but Cantonese and Mandarin are as different as Spanish and French.<br><br>Also, the similarities between Vietnamese and Cantonese are due to the fact that when Vietnam was ruled by China, the mainstream Chinese language was much closer to Cantonese than Mandarin. Therefore all borrowed words maintained their Middle Chinese characteristics.<br><br>As for the language family issue, whether it is Sino-Tibetan or not is still up for debate but has anyone considered the possibility that Khmers borrowed some basic words from the Vietnamese instead of vice versa? Also noun-adjective order is not the defining thing in ordering languages. Just look at English and Spanish; they're both Indo-European. There is also a more "Chinese" way to count in Vietnamese (which has fell into disuse).<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:58 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-22T03:27:28+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-22T03:27:28+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3476#p3476</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3476#p3476"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3476#p3476"><![CDATA[ About these Characteristics<br>>>1. Tonal<br>It was greatly possible that proto-Sino-Tibetan was also atonal, or even as late as proto-Chinese. Notice that outside Asia there are also tonal language, and even in Austronesian there tonal variants of Cham.<br>>>2. Monosyllabic<br>The words are MOSTLY monosyllabic not all. Perhaps the proto-Sino-Tibetan was perfectly monoyllabic, but this may not hold any longer.<br>example: Dimasa: Sini "Seven"<br>Also, tonal languages tends to be monosyllabic, they are many reductions in Phan Rang Cham compared to atonal Chams<br>>>3. No verb changes, 4. No noun changes <br>But there could be some verb<->noun change.<br>example: Mandarin: Broom "Sao4" <-> Sweep "Sao3"<br>>>5. All nouns have a grouping.<br>Since this is also shared by Indonesian, this does not contribute anything to our discussion since this is shared by all Southeast Asians.<br><br>>>Do Thai and vietnamese fall under this family language then ?<br>>>Can anybody who is an expert on these 2 languages contribute ?<br>>>I have always wondered why thai is in a different language family, I know it is tonal but is it monosyllabic ?<br>I know that Thai and Miao-Yao perfectly matches the description, and Phan Rang Cham fails on the 4th description. Unfortunately I am not an expert. Those "experts" will add something more at the descriptions like "adjective changes" or "noun phrase order" but if you add these descriptions you will make too small a group, and this would be "Branch" instead of "Family". <br><br>>>Do thai and vietnamese sound alike or do cantonese and vietnamese sound more like each other ?<br>Thai, Vietnamese, Cantonese and Teochew hears the "same" to one who don't understand.<br>If you hear Japanese, Indian, Arabian, Mongolian, you could also say that they are the "same". <br>This is due to pitch & pace.<br>In FAST speech, the atonal languages I listed lowers the average pitch in every fragment, so every fragment hears "555444333222111". Only between each fragments and at the end of a sentence there are a considerable pitch change. (Maybe in slow speech there also exists)<br>The tonal languages I listed shares 1 same feature, the pitch rises and falls very often, since they have >=5 tones.<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sat Jan 22, 2005 3:27 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-17T00:18:57+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-17T00:18:57+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3475#p3475</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3475#p3475"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3475#p3475"><![CDATA[ Grasy,<br><br>If you look at <br><br><a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0861106.html" class="postlink">http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0861106.html</a><br><br>it says that vietnamese belong to the tai subfamily of sino-tibetan language family.<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Some considered tai as separate language family just like vietnamese:<br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai-Kadai_languages" class="postlink">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai-Kadai_languages</a><br><br>-------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>The only thing to resolve all these ambiguities is to list down the characteristics of the language family like what I did.<br><br>Do thai and vietnamese sound alike or do cantonese and vietnamese sound more like each other ?<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:18 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-16T11:37:15+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-16T11:37:15+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3474#p3474</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3474#p3474"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3474#p3474"><![CDATA[ The topic has grown very large. It has more than 100 replies. This is the 101st reply.<br><br>There are some links that say that Thai is Sino-Tibetan and not separate family.<br><br><a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0848333.html" class="postlink">www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0848333.html</a><br><a href="http://www.lib.umt.edu/guide/lang/sinizhuh.htm" class="postlink">www.lib.umt.edu/guide/lang/sinizhuh.htm</a><br><a href="http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_sinotibe.html" class="postlink">www.krysstal.com/langfams_sinotibe.html</a> <br><a href="http://www.gurunet.com/" class="postlink">www.gurunet.com/</a> t1-method-4-dsid-2040-dekey-SinoTibe-prodid-basic-curtab-2040_1<br><a href="http://www.flw.com/languages/thai.htm" class="postlink">www.flw.com/languages/thai.htm</a><br>lakrabo.tripod.com/thai.htm<br>reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/T/Thailang.html<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:37 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-16T01:44:11+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-16T01:44:11+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3473#p3473</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3473#p3473"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3473#p3473"><![CDATA[ The characteristics of the sino-tibetan group not sinic branch are as follows:<br><br>1. Tonal<br><br>That means the same sound can have different meanings by speaking in different frequency.<br><br>This does not include those languages (english, french) where you can OPTIONALLY raise the tone as a question. Because that applies to the whole sentence and not the word itself.<br><br>2. Monosyllabic<br><br>That means each sound by itself has its own meaning usually represented by an ideogram, and that the combination of 2 different ideogram modifies the meaning slightly. <br><br>This does not include those languages who has a few so-called monosyllabic words such as the english "fit" because most english words are still polysyllabic. <br><br>3. No verb changes<br><br>Verbs are not modified according to the time (present, past, future tense) or the person doing the action,<br>The sense of time is always expressed in terms of "in the future, before, after, in the past".<br><br>4. No noun changes <br><br>The plural form of noun is the same as the singular form. There is also no noun gender too as in latin languages.<br><br>The noun does not change by adding an "s" to the end or repeating the noun such as "bird bird".<br><br>5. All nouns have a grouping.<br><br>For example, a "piece" of paper, a "bunch" of people.<br><br>This would also exclude those languages in which the grouping is missing for a lot of nouns such as english (a computer etc)<br><br><br>Do Thai and vietnamese fall under this family language then ?<br><br>Can anybody who is an expert on these 2 languages contribute ?<br><br>I have always wondered why thai is in a different language family, I know it is tonal but is it monosyllabic ?<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:44 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-09T18:12:40+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-09T18:12:40+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3472#p3472</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3472#p3472"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3472#p3472"><![CDATA[ I have not read the article "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_dialect" class="postlink">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_dialect</a>" but I have guessed that Shanghainese distinguishes rising and falling tones. They are /34/ and /53/, both would be considered high in Japanese. Pitch: >3=High; <3=Low<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:12 pm</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-09T18:06:14+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-09T18:06:14+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3471#p3471</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3471#p3471"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3471#p3471"><![CDATA[ Eng Wai:<br><br>>>>Perhaps we don't need to jump to language groups if we can't even agree on the language family of Vietnamese. Here, my "language family" consists of language groups.<br><<< Well, not everyone agrees the grouping of the groups. There are still questions like "Is Tai-Kadai or/and Miao-Yao a family or just groups?".<br>But when we jump to groups, it will be easier.<br><br><br>Dylan Sung:<br><br>>>>Shanghai dialect is one of the Wu dialects of Chinese. It is said that it's tones behave more or less by pitch only, thus not really tonal in that sense. <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_dialect" class="postlink">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_dialect</a><br>Can Shanghai be called a dialect of Wu? The similarity with standard Korean and Gyeongsandgo is on the same par, IMO.<br><<< Who says that Shanghai are not tonal? Even though the contour may not be constant, it does have PITCH DIFFERENCE IN ONE SYLLABLE. Shanghai tones depend in pitch change, distinguishing "Raising" and "Lowering" tones. Japanese do not have it, Japanese will consider Na54 the same as Na45 (both are the same: High pitch"), while Shanghai not. I think even most Chinese will not distinguish contour 25 with 15.<br><br>>>>Ethnicity does not decide what language a person speaks. Conversely, a language cannot be defined by the ethnicity of the speaker alone. Linguist take the careful step of eliminating ethnicity from their consideration. Only the words in the vocabulary, it's pronunciation, and it's syntax and grammar are necessary to analyse the language.<br><<< If I considered ethnicity, I would put Burmese outside Sino-Tibetan, but I didn't so. I only think that Vietnamese is not very similar to Mon-Khmer.<br><br>AlexNg:<br>>>>If vietnamese is really belongs to mon-khmer, then why is it that the vietnamese and khmer people are so different in looks ? They are genetically not from the same ancestors.<br><<< This could match nil relationship, but it can also match"Substituting" or "Mixing" hypothesis.<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:06 pm</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-09T14:52:04+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-09T14:52:04+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3470#p3470</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3470#p3470"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3470#p3470"><![CDATA[ If vietnamese is the original language of the ancient vietnamese people then ethnic relationship is involved.<br><br>Languages involved from a common ancestors and through migration in different parts of the world, slight modification of the original language occurs resulting in language family.<br><br>If vietnamese is really belongs to mon-khmer, then why is it that the vietnamese and khmer people are so different in looks ? They are genetically not from the same ancestors.<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:52 pm</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2005-01-09T04:21:00+00:00</updated> <published>2005-01-09T04:21:00+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3469#p3469</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3469#p3469"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Vietnamese is sino-tibetan ?]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3469#p3469"><![CDATA[ OK, there is something I forgot to write.<br><br>AlexNg:<br><br>>>>Different word order alone does not mean it belongs to different family.<br>In fact, cantonese has some word order different from mandarin, eg.<br>male chicken is "kai kung" and not "kung kai". The same order as vietnamese, so I believe it is an influence from the bai yue people.<br><<<Days ago we discussed this, French are reverse to English but they are both Indo-European, although with different group. Do you know the reverse order can often mean "the same" or "different but pointing to the same thing"? Japanese: Koneko--> Ko=Child (one more Vietnamese word?), Neko=cat-->Koneko=Kitten. <br>But this does not mean Japanese is Modified-Modifier language, since Koneko can also be translated "Small Cat"/"Young Cat"/"Childly cat" not "Cat's Child". They could make different sense, but pointing to the same thing.<br>"Kai Kung" could be thought to be "noun adjective", but it can also be translated "noun noun"<br><br>Eng Wai:<br><br>>>>Otherwise Vietnamese must be classified as creole.<br><<<well, this is not creole, "a language which is based on another language, but with their own pronunciation and limited vocabulary".<br><br>>>>So we can only debate this, austro-asiatic, miao-yao and sino-tibetan.<br><<< How about Tai-Kadai, can we debate this?<br><br>>>>iii) Are the modern Vietnamese (etnhic, not nationality) direct descendant of ancient Veitnamese? Who are the ancient veitnamese?<br><<< Modern Vietnamese (etnhic, not nationality) are seemingly direct descendant of "Ancient Vietnamese". (What I mean here is the Bai-Yue, not the past dwellers of Vietnam.)<br><br>>>>Here, my "language family" consists of language groups. And one language family cannot be related to other language family, while language groups are related.<br><<<but in <a href="http://www.paul-raedle.de/vtrain/db-xx-info.htm" class="postlink">www.paul-raedle.de/vtrain/db-xx-info.htm</a> I read: "Today we know much more about the etymology of languages. Languages with a common origin are grouped into families. In turn, families can be grouped in stocks, and stocks in phyla [pl. of "phylum"]. Finally, phyla can be grouped in macrophyla."<br><br>>>>the sinitic vocabularies are generally agreed to originate from sinitic languages and the non-sinitic languages are frequently linked to mon-khemr.<br><<< OK, actually there are many non-sinitic but tibeto-burman words found in the Vietnamese. It also appears at different Mon-Khmer languages. (note that even though these words seems not linked to sinitic, most of tibetan words in Mon-Khmer is also linked to Sinitic). It is suspicious since usually not more than 8 languages of Mon-Khmer has it. I think it could be a loan which was not distributed thoroughly. Seeing the forms you can say that this is very old.<br><br>>>>however, are they similar to mon-Khmer or any other Austro-Aisatic languages, or any other families languages, eg miao-yao?<br><<<I am confused with Miao-Yao languages. Some are SOV, some are SVO. Some are Md-Mr, some are the reverse. It seems that it is between Tibeto-Burman, Tai-Kadai and Sinitic. Here we should consider special grammars ("grammatical peculiarities"). "Poetic expressions" like "the eye of sky" (sun), adam's apple sometimes can spread, so it is often unreliable.<br><br>Dylan Sung:<br><br>>>>Even in English, you can change pitch to infer different meaning.<br><<<You know that pitch difference means the "Punctuation" of the sentence in an atonal language.<br><br>>>>For example, the word 'nose' and 'flower' in Japanese are written using the syllables hana. What distinguishes the two is the pitch difference between them. Another pair is chopsticks and bridge, both written hashi, but distinguished by tone the first High-Low the latter Low-High pitch changes.<br><<< how about "kami" (above, god, hair, paper)? "Me" (Eye, Woman, seaweed, sprout)? Certainly there will be some "perfect" homonyms in its vocabulary. This is just "pitch", not contour tone.<br><br>>>>The hangeul writing of Sejong's day showed it had clearly defined symbols for tones (bang jeom), and was able to distinguish three different tones. These tone marks are incorporated in modern Unicode,<br><<< Where can I find this "bang jeom" in Unicode? Also, I read in <a href="http://www.paul-raedle.de/vtrain/db-ko-info.htm" class="postlink">http://www.paul-raedle.de/vtrain/db-ko-info.htm</a>:<br>"Word and sentence build-up is much like in Japanese, but, like French, Korean no longer uses accent to distinguish words." What is this accent? Is it tones or just registers? Notice that Korean is "Like French", which abandoned their "accent". If this "accent" is "tone" then French was tonal.<br><br>>>>Chinese mama, baba, are words which can be found in languages across the world, but one would not say they are of a Chinese origin solely. The term is faux-amis false friends. They are words which look similar but may have independently different origins.<br><<<but there are too many words which is "claimed to be Mon-Khmer in origin but they are very similar to Sino-Tibetan". There are more than 40 basic words.<br><br>Lang:<br><br>>>>Though I'd love to say that Vietnamese are ethnically/linguistically similar to the people of Canton, the truth isn't necessarily so.<br><<< Somewhere in this discussion there are words that explain that linguistic relationship could be different from ethnical relationship. I think Vietnamese is not very similar to Cantonese in language, but some persons here said that they are ethnically very similar.<br><br>>>>Vietnamese is a Mon-Khmer language. <br><<< We are not sure about this so we are discussing it here.<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:21 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> </feed>