OK, now from the previous debates, I believe most (if not all) acknowledge that the Cantonese were ORIGINALLY not Chinese. Now, to go on researching exactly how their culture was, language will play a big role, because langauge is a part of culture, yet can sometimes influence.
Can anyone help me list as many Cantonese colloquial phrases and/or grammar exceptions that're present in Cantonese, compared to other Chinese dialects?
Cantonese originally not Chinese???
-
ppk
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
nope, the fact is, there was another group of people living in the present canton area. after china taken over canton since qin dynasty, there was a change in population content. people from central china and the locals married to give us wad we know as cantonese. they are 'chinese' in terms of nationality cos since the day they were born they are under chinese ruling. in terms of race, they are the mix-blooded offsprings of chinese and baiyue. the original race either stayed with the chinese conquerers and went under chinese ruling, or moved southwards to present vietnam.
-
ppk
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
if u are talking about the aborigins in canton area, they used to live there but they no longer exist. maybe they are the forefathers of modern vietnamese or cambodian. but this is different from, for example, india or hong kong as british colonies. in india or hong kong previously, u can say that all indians and hong kongers are british subjects, but by race they are indians and chinese originally, they are not europeans. in canton, however, the locals and foreigners had merged to form a totally new group of people, the cantonese, under chinese ruling. it was not china ruling over a group of foreign race and called them chinese. that is to say, there will only be people of bach viet(baiyue), and no cantonese at all if qin china had not conquered canton area. the cantonese were chinese oringinally, but not the aborigins that were once living in canton area.
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
You can't basically say because the Cantonese culture was wiped out by the Chinese culture, that the descendants of this mixed race is necessarily "just Chinese". Because, "blood-wise" (excuse me for not using the correct term, if there is one), we have both Chinese and Cantonese blood in us. So if we have both bloods, why only promote one culture, instead of two?
-
ppk
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
u still havent got the point. there is NO cantonese before qin dynasty. there is only bach viet. if u want to consider the blood factor, cantonese have chinese and bach viet blood since the beginning. in ancient china the race is decided by the paternal side, since qin sent 500 000 troops to bach viet and left them there to intermarry the lacals, i can say that they are chinese. besides, after so many yrs, the bach viet blood should be, by right, diminished to a very low level cos cantonese probably married more to chinese than to viets. if u want to talk about culture, the cantonese culture is similiar to the other parts of china. i can safely say that they used the same writings, and wore the same costumes, and follow the same traditions, and was ruled by the chinese govt since 2000yrs ago. wad else u need to prove that they are chinese? anyway in ancient times the ppl being conquered got no say in politics regarding their identity. maybe u can say that the scots are british but u dun say all british are scots.
again i say, there were other tribes living in canton area. by race and tradition they should be non chinese.(thou chinese mythology says they are oso the descendants of huangdi, cos some of huangdi's son had migrated ther with their people. if u wanna be really really sure i can tell u that archaeology findings proved that the ancient cultures in bach viet showed similar traits as southern china cultures, so they may be from the same ancestors. but i'll take them as non chinese for now). but after qin conquered that place the cantonese appeared and they are chinese descendants. the bach viet culture was almost wipe out, not the cantonese culture. the cantonese culture is similar to chinese.
again i say, there were other tribes living in canton area. by race and tradition they should be non chinese.(thou chinese mythology says they are oso the descendants of huangdi, cos some of huangdi's son had migrated ther with their people. if u wanna be really really sure i can tell u that archaeology findings proved that the ancient cultures in bach viet showed similar traits as southern china cultures, so they may be from the same ancestors. but i'll take them as non chinese for now). but after qin conquered that place the cantonese appeared and they are chinese descendants. the bach viet culture was almost wipe out, not the cantonese culture. the cantonese culture is similar to chinese.
-
Chaseme
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
Just remember people, that there are both Chinese and Japanese readings for Kanji (chinese characters in Japanese). When the Japanese came to China, the center of culture and education was in Beijing, so it would seem natural to borrow from the Beijing dialect which is MANDARIN! Also look at the the Chinese pronunciation of most Japanese Kanji like DAI (Large in Japanse), DA (Mandarin), SUI (Water in Japanese) SHUI (Water in Mandarin), SHOU (small in Japanese) SHOW (spelled phoenetically, in Mandarin), TEN-KI (Weather in Japanese) TIAN-CHI, (Weather in Mandarin).
Of course the list goes on and on, but I think you get my point. While some Cantonese pronounciations are exactly the same as the Japanese readings BIG for example is DAI in both Cantonese and Japanese, (DA in Mandarin), BUT the frequency of Mandarin words, mirroring Japanese Kanji readings is much, much greater than Cantonese.
Anyway, my point here is that there are no coincidences here. Asia is made up of a group of people decended from the same race. Korean also used Chinese characters until just around 60 years ago, (with a great deal of Chinese loan words) and there is not much similarity between the spoken language of Korean and Chinese, just as there is not much similarity between the spoken language of Japanese and Chinese. HOWEVER if you look back in history, you see the common ground that every language started with, and you see that you can't possibly say that the people of the Cantonese provinces are are not part of the same race of people as people from any other part of any other province in China, or the rest of Asia for that matter. It would be like me, (a mixture of Irish and Swedish), saying that just because I don't have strait, blond hair and a natural tan (I have dark brown hair and a reddish face), that I don't have Swedish blood in me. I can't deny my heritage.
Of course the list goes on and on, but I think you get my point. While some Cantonese pronounciations are exactly the same as the Japanese readings BIG for example is DAI in both Cantonese and Japanese, (DA in Mandarin), BUT the frequency of Mandarin words, mirroring Japanese Kanji readings is much, much greater than Cantonese.
Anyway, my point here is that there are no coincidences here. Asia is made up of a group of people decended from the same race. Korean also used Chinese characters until just around 60 years ago, (with a great deal of Chinese loan words) and there is not much similarity between the spoken language of Korean and Chinese, just as there is not much similarity between the spoken language of Japanese and Chinese. HOWEVER if you look back in history, you see the common ground that every language started with, and you see that you can't possibly say that the people of the Cantonese provinces are are not part of the same race of people as people from any other part of any other province in China, or the rest of Asia for that matter. It would be like me, (a mixture of Irish and Swedish), saying that just because I don't have strait, blond hair and a natural tan (I have dark brown hair and a reddish face), that I don't have Swedish blood in me. I can't deny my heritage.
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
Once again, let me say that I'm not using the exact technical of Cantonese. When I say Cantonese, I mean the people of bach viet. Just like there are many tiny tribes of the Cheyenne Native-American nation. Sorry for not clarifying that.
Now to use myths to prove your point, would be a a little shaky. We're not sure whether or not these myths are true for one thing. Another is, we wouldn't exactly know how they came about. Maybe they were used to justify the assimilation. For example, if your mom told you to "finish that bowl or rice, or else you'll grow up looking ugly!" It sounds silly, but the point in doing so would be to convince you to "finish your bowl of rice". Now, as for the archaeological studies. Are they material items that were traded by the Chinese? Because that would be a reason for finding Chinese items in the bach viet regions. If they were buildings of some sort, maybe they could've been trade outposts. I think you also know that LingNam was a major area of trade route, and was the most prosperous port in Tang times (Note: It was known as the "Silk Sea-Route"). So, when the Chinese took over, they must've had a very good trading port.
Now to use myths to prove your point, would be a a little shaky. We're not sure whether or not these myths are true for one thing. Another is, we wouldn't exactly know how they came about. Maybe they were used to justify the assimilation. For example, if your mom told you to "finish that bowl or rice, or else you'll grow up looking ugly!" It sounds silly, but the point in doing so would be to convince you to "finish your bowl of rice". Now, as for the archaeological studies. Are they material items that were traded by the Chinese? Because that would be a reason for finding Chinese items in the bach viet regions. If they were buildings of some sort, maybe they could've been trade outposts. I think you also know that LingNam was a major area of trade route, and was the most prosperous port in Tang times (Note: It was known as the "Silk Sea-Route"). So, when the Chinese took over, they must've had a very good trading port.
-
ppk
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
if u are talking about bach viet then i have already said, they are not really chinese by race or by govt. and i already said that thou there were myths, i prefer not to say that they are same race as the chinese, cos there is still unsolved problems. but the earliest cantonese are at least 50% by race and fully by govt that they are chinese. i dun think trading is very popular 10 000-40 000 yrs ago, and i dun think the abundance of similar relics justify the little trade 10 000-40 000yrs ago. using the same kind of measurement system as shown in the tomb of the king of nam viet further prove that they were under same govt. and u have to understand that 'chinese' race appeared almost the same time as the cantonese race.
after qin conquered china and bach viet, and later han taken over power and the land, then 'han ren', or 'chinese' came into the picture. chinese in its very early definations included all the ppl ruled by the han dynasty, including the cantonese. to say that cantonese is not chinese is to cut away a portion of land of the han empire, this is altering history. remember, the chinese national identity begins in the han dynasty and that defination includes all under the han empire, including canton. and there is no 'pure chinese race' cos 'chinese' itself is a mixture of many races to start with. huangdi and yandi, the earliest chinese leaders are from different tribe, represented 2 races among them. qin is the western barbarian, who conquered sichuan, so another mixture of 2 races, chu is the southern barbarian, conquered part of bach viet, again 2 races, plus state of qi, yan, wu, yue(wu and yue probably same race as the bach viets) etc. the chinese race is a mixture of many races.
japanese and koreas dun share the same ancestors as the chinese in race or language. their race and language is more mongolian based. the language problem. the centre of culture and education is not beijing when the japanese and korean came to china. it is xi'an. and mandarin at that time is more like present day fujian/min'nan and chaozhou dialects. the present mandarin/pu tong hua only appear 700 yrs ago and is itself a dialect too. therefore the japanese and korea kept the pronounciation of middle-ages chinese(1300-1500yrs ago), which sounds like fujian/chaozhou dialects. my korean fren told me that korean kept the pronouciation of ancient shandong area. besides foreigners dun necessarily pick up pronouciation from the centre of arts. america was called a-mei-li-jian/'阿美利坚'and later shortened to meiguo/ ‘美国’, cos it was first translated in cantonese. 'tea' was called 'tea' in the west and not 'cha' in mandarin/pu tong hua cos tea was exported to the west from the port of quanzhou, which is in fujian province. and tea in fujian is called 'theh'. i think the french still keep this pronouciation. so is why amoy is called amoy instead of 'xiamen'. cos in fujian amoy is called 'eh-mengh' and the westerners made a close translation as amoy.
for japs they've got more kanji words that pronouced the same as major dialect than pu tong hua. 'seikai' for world, same as fujian/chaozhou, 'jikan' for time,'sikan' in fujian/chaozhou, 'daimyo' for lords, 'daimia' in fujian/chaozhou, 'shimbun' for news, 'simbun' in fujian, 'sengbun' in chaozhou, 'benli' for convenient, 'bianli' in fujian, 'biangli' in chaochow. 'bun gaku' for literature, boon hak in fujian/chaozhou. 'haksen' for student, 'haksih' or 'hakseng' in fujian/chaozhou.
after qin conquered china and bach viet, and later han taken over power and the land, then 'han ren', or 'chinese' came into the picture. chinese in its very early definations included all the ppl ruled by the han dynasty, including the cantonese. to say that cantonese is not chinese is to cut away a portion of land of the han empire, this is altering history. remember, the chinese national identity begins in the han dynasty and that defination includes all under the han empire, including canton. and there is no 'pure chinese race' cos 'chinese' itself is a mixture of many races to start with. huangdi and yandi, the earliest chinese leaders are from different tribe, represented 2 races among them. qin is the western barbarian, who conquered sichuan, so another mixture of 2 races, chu is the southern barbarian, conquered part of bach viet, again 2 races, plus state of qi, yan, wu, yue(wu and yue probably same race as the bach viets) etc. the chinese race is a mixture of many races.
japanese and koreas dun share the same ancestors as the chinese in race or language. their race and language is more mongolian based. the language problem. the centre of culture and education is not beijing when the japanese and korean came to china. it is xi'an. and mandarin at that time is more like present day fujian/min'nan and chaozhou dialects. the present mandarin/pu tong hua only appear 700 yrs ago and is itself a dialect too. therefore the japanese and korea kept the pronounciation of middle-ages chinese(1300-1500yrs ago), which sounds like fujian/chaozhou dialects. my korean fren told me that korean kept the pronouciation of ancient shandong area. besides foreigners dun necessarily pick up pronouciation from the centre of arts. america was called a-mei-li-jian/'阿美利坚'and later shortened to meiguo/ ‘美国’, cos it was first translated in cantonese. 'tea' was called 'tea' in the west and not 'cha' in mandarin/pu tong hua cos tea was exported to the west from the port of quanzhou, which is in fujian province. and tea in fujian is called 'theh'. i think the french still keep this pronouciation. so is why amoy is called amoy instead of 'xiamen'. cos in fujian amoy is called 'eh-mengh' and the westerners made a close translation as amoy.
for japs they've got more kanji words that pronouced the same as major dialect than pu tong hua. 'seikai' for world, same as fujian/chaozhou, 'jikan' for time,'sikan' in fujian/chaozhou, 'daimyo' for lords, 'daimia' in fujian/chaozhou, 'shimbun' for news, 'simbun' in fujian, 'sengbun' in chaozhou, 'benli' for convenient, 'bianli' in fujian, 'biangli' in chaochow. 'bun gaku' for literature, boon hak in fujian/chaozhou. 'haksen' for student, 'haksih' or 'hakseng' in fujian/chaozhou.
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
Actually, trade was common between ancient people. However, 10,000-40,000 years ago --if my memory serves me correctly-- is about the time when homo erectus/Neanderthals were present. So obviously, trade (if any) would be on a person-to-person basis, and would be rare, since their culture would be a hunter-gathering society. Now, some believe people believe that the Bach Viet had contact with the Chu country (Warring States/Spring-fall period). If this were true, trade between these two nations were very possible --Just like the "civilized" colonists of America trading with the "primitive" culture of the Native-Americans, as Terence might put it. Spice trades were commonly conducted, and spice was a very important tool in preserving meat in the old days before refrigerators were invented, because ice was hard to find in the summer, and if you did, you'd have to stay up in the mountain (assuming if they still had ice), and couldn't bring it down upon the plains, where it would've melted by the time you got to the ground (assuming if it didn't melt on the way)...
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
...Now, I didn't state earlier, that contact with the Chu people and bach viet came wwwaaaayyyyyy later in time, so trade seems more likely at this time period. Just like in ancient Mesopotamia, even though several people came about, they all conducted trade with each other, and on the side, even warred against each other. Now, since Mesopotamia is the "Birthplace of Civilization", yet they traded many things; obviously, trade between the bach viet and the Chinese (the European Expansionist term, which is a miswritten form from Ch'ing, sorry again for not using the technical term) can't be merely "little" when even the people of Mesopotamia traded.