Vietnamese is sino-tibetan Part 2

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
Mark Andrew Williamson

Postby Mark Andrew Williamson » Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:07 am

Vietnamese is not Sino-Tibetan OR Tai-Kadai.

It is probably related to Muong,

It consists of a large Cantonese (?) superstratum imposed on a strong Vietnamese substratum resulting in modern "Sino-Vietnamese" language of Vietnam.

Strong example is the numerals.

Viet-Muong languages (North Mon-Khmer):

Vietnamese

Code: Select all

một hai ba bốn năm sáu bảy tám chín mười

Muong

Code: Select all

mộc hal ba bốn tam kháu bay sám chín mười

May

Code: Select all

moic hal pa pón dâm ráw pậy thám chín mɨèy

Thavung

Code: Select all

muut haal paa póon dam phalủ pih sáam chíin sip

Arem

Code: Select all

muty hei̛ pe puôn dhâm prau pơ thảm chín mươi


East Mon-Khmer languages:

Khmer

Code: Select all

múuey piir bèey bùuen pram pram-múuey pram-py̛l pram-bèey pram-bùuen dap


South Mon-Khmer languages:

Mon

Code: Select all

mòa bả pỏ̤ə po̤n pəso̤n kərao həpo̤h həcham həchit cho̤h


To compare, I will include some Sino-Tibetan languages too.

Middle Chinese

Code: Select all

iêt8 ñzhi6 sâm2 si6 nguo4 lyuk8 tsˈyet7 pwat7 kyəu4 zhyəp7


Classical Tibetan

Code: Select all

gchig gñis gsum bzhi lnga drug bdun brgyad dgu bchu


Tangut

Code: Select all

ləw nɨⁿ sɔ ƚɪr ngghʉ̲̀h tshhiew shɑ ʔyar nggʷɨⁿ ʔyir


Classical Burmese

Code: Select all

tac hnac sùm lè ngà kˈrok hnac hrac kò cˈay


And also, just for good measure, some other Asian languages.

Proto-Tungus

Code: Select all

*ämün *zhör *ilan *dügün *tuñga *ñöngün *nadan *zhapkun *xüjägün *zhuwan


Proto-Yukaghir

Code: Select all

*ərq *kil *yal *yaleql *ekonsh-kumneldh *meldhal *pirskiy *maldhaleql *kildh *kumneldh


Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan

Code: Select all

*ennan *ngighaq *ngeghoq *ngeghaq *melhengen *enna-melhengen *ngigha-melhengen *ngegho-melhengen *ngeghaq-melhengen *mengyetken


Ket

Code: Select all

qogd inang doong siing qaang as ons inaem-bynsang-qus qusaem-bynsang-qus quus


Nivkh

Code: Select all

ñi mi ce nə tho ngax ngamg minr ñəñben mxo


Korean

Code: Select all

hana tul set net tasöt yösöt ilgop yödöl ahop yöl


Proto-Ainu

Code: Select all

*siné *tu: *dé *iiné *aski *iihdan *adéhdan *tupédhdan *sinépéhdan *hdan


Proto-Japonic

Code: Select all

*p'tö *p'ta *mit *yöt *itu *mut *nana *yat *kökönö *töwo
(I didn't consider Ryukyuan languages much in this reconstruction, it's just Old Japanese and some Okinawan but not much else like it should be)

Hmong

Code: Select all

ib ob peb plaub tsib rau xyaa yim cuaj kaum


Proto-Tai

Code: Select all

at22 ji:h22/15 sa:m15 si:h22 xè:51 xok44 chet44 pɛ:t11 kao22/51 dzhip44


Some of these look conspicuously close to Sino-Tibetan: Proto-Tai for example closely mirrors Sino-Tibetan numerals.

qrasy

Are Numbers reliable?

Postby qrasy » Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:14 am

If you say that numbers are the most reliable nouns, aren't you saying that Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien are sino-Tibetan?
Also, the 6 of Mon-Khmer languages seem to come from Sino-Tibetan **C-ryuk, C is an unknown consonant.
Look at Khmers there are no 6-10 in their language. So probably 6-10 come from Sino-Tibetan.
And Vietnamese 3 are also Miao-Yao. If you relate these, do you assume that they are all
Furthermore, a good example is Pou-Ma, which takes Sino-Tibetan 1-10 as their language.

The main stratum of Vietnamese are not Chinese/Cantonese but Viet-Muong itself. Sino-Vietnamese are just loanwords, and it's already been stated in this topic several times.

Mark Andrew Williamson

Re: Are Numbers reliable?

Postby Mark Andrew Williamson » Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:00 pm

If you say that numbers are the most reliable nouns, aren't you saying that Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien are sino-Tibetan?

I don't know about Hmong-Mien, that is difficult to say, but I think yes, there is a "Sino-Tai" family which is indicated in other ways as well.

Also, the 6 of Mon-Khmer languages seem to come from Sino-Tibetan **C-ryuk, C is an unknown consonant.

sáu, kháu, ráw, phalủ, prau, (Khmer uses a base-5 number system), kərao, vs Cryuk? I see little if any resemblance.

Look at Khmers there are no 6-10 in their language. So probably 6-10 come from Sino-Tibetan.

You are obviously not very familiar with linguistics. Different languages often use different counting systems. Sakhalin Ainu uses a base 20 system, in the same vein Khmer uses a base-5 system. This doesn't say anything about Khmer having loans from Sino-Tibetan.

And Vietnamese 3 are also Miao-Yao. If you relate these, do you assume that they are all

Again, I just don't see the resemblance. And a single, monosyllabic number which seems to resemble another one distantly is easily a chance resemblance, until you get to three or so similar digits which indicates a possible relationship.

Furthermore, a good example is Pou-Ma, which takes Sino-Tibetan 1-10 as their language.

Puyuma uses, iirc, a native counting system. Where are you getting this data?

The main stratum of Vietnamese are not Chinese/Cantonese but Viet-Muong itself. Sino-Vietnamese are just loanwords, and it's already been stated in this topic several times.

That's what "superstratum" means. It indicates that it is foreign, and more recent, but that it constitutes a larger part of the entire vocabulary than the native vocabulary. Notice the "strong" Vietnamese substratum, indicating that it's not like French where the Gaulish substratum is only a few words, but that instead it's strong and has a large presence.

qrasy

Postby qrasy » Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:57 am

I don't know about Hmong-Mien, that is difficult to say, but I think yes, there is a "Sino-Tai" family which is indicated in other ways as well.
There are some who make a family of "Tai-Kadai+Hmong-Mien+Sino+Tibetan", and some say that this is outdated. Or are you thinking this as one of "Sino-Xenic" languages?

sáu, kháu, ráw, phalủ, prau, (Khmer uses a base-5 number system), kərao, vs Cryuk? I see little if any resemblance.
I see *phraw, and from the tone we can guess that there are some glots here. It comes to be *phrawʔ
My source: Alves_Vietnamese_Vietic_Monkhmer.pdf of http://www.geocities.com/malves98/publications.html , page 6 and 11.

You are obviously not very familiar with linguistics. Different languages often use different counting systems. Sakhalin Ainu uses a base 20 system, in the same vein Khmer uses a base-5 system. This doesn't say anything about Khmer having loans from Sino-Tibetan.
But I know that in Korean there are native-20. I also know that there are some languages that has different counting system from Chinese, especially those which have the proper word for '100.000' and '20' (Lao).
I'm not saying that there are no counting system other than 10. Of course they may have different system, they are even very distant to each other and belonging to different family.
I'm only saying that if there were really proto-Mon-Khmer, it should either have 5-counting system or

10-counting system. If you have 10, then it's impossible for you to have 5 in the same language. If there are more, it's not from Proto-Mon-Khmer (or can you suggest how it possibly was?)

And Vietnamese 3 are also Miao-Yao. If you relate these, do you assume that they are all

Again, I just don't see the resemblance. And a single, monosyllabic number which seems to resemble another one distantly is easily a chance resemblance, until you get to three or so similar digits which indicates a possible relationship.

Furthermore, a good example is Pou-Ma, which takes Sino-Tibetan 1-10 as their language.

Puyuma uses, iirc, a native counting system. Where are you getting this data?

yeah, if you say that this source may not be true. http://www.zompist.com/asia.htm
3 from Miao-Yao languages:
Hmong mod. orth. peb; Hmong Njua pé; Bunu pe; White Meo pe; Hmong Chuanqiandian pe; Hmong NE Dian pi (?) (this one, the author might 'mix up and reverse' the value of '3' and '5'), Hmong Qiandong pi; Hmong Xiangxi pu; Mien(Yao) puo; Mien mod. orth. buo; Mun po: ; BiaoMin pau; Zaomin puh; Xiaoban po; Banyao pu; She pa; Jiongnai pa
Pa is the closest, Ruc also says "Pa".
It says that: leun song sam si ha hok tiet piet kao sip , closer to Tai than anything else. Maybe when the person was asked "1-10" he replied not in his/her language. If you say that these are not the original numbers of Pouma, then what are they?
A list of numbers that are possibly loans (just find it using Ctrl+F)
10 of Thavung, 4&10 of Amwi, 1-10 of Pou Ma (This can be wrong), 5-10 of Khmu', 7 and 9 of Mal, 10 of Khmer, many of Aslians, 7&8 of some Mundari Languages
Seeing that Mon and Katuic numbers are similar only to its group, and 5-10 are not similar to each other, I may say 5-10 are loans.
If you are careful, you can find some Tibeto-Burman using Indo-European large numbers (>7)
Indo-European sample: "ath" "nan" "das"
Malay: Satu dua tiga empat lima enam tujuh delapan sembilan sepuluh
http://www.zompist.com/sino.htm

It consists of a large Cantonese (?) superstratum imposed on a strong Vietnamese substratum resulting in modern "Sino-Vietnamese" language of Vietnam.

I don't know what you are thinking about "Sino-Vietnamese", I only know that there are Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary but I don't think there are "Sino-Vietnamese", "Sino-Japanese" or "Sino-Korean" languages.

That's what "superstratum" means. It indicates that it is foreign, and more recent, but that it constitutes a larger part of the entire vocabulary than the native vocabulary. Notice the "strong" Vietnamese substratum, indicating that it's not like French where the Gaulish substratum is only a few words, but that instead it's strong and has a large presence.

But are those Chinese loanwords very important? If we say the basic words, than it would be few to find.

Code: Select all

iêt8 ñzhi6 sâm2 si6 nguo4 lyuk8 tsˈyet7 pwat7 kyəu4 zhyəp7

*'iêt(D-) *ñzhi(C+) *sâm(A-) *si(C-) *nguo(B+) *lyuk(D+) *tsˈyet(D-) *pwat(D-) *kyəu(C-) *zhyəp(D+)
(These tones have been tested by comparisons with Sino-Viet and Mandarin)
Your tones:
Ping Shang Qu Ru
A B C D
- 1 3 5 7
+ 2 4 6 8
From the tones, it should be:
iêt7 ñzhi6 sâm1 si5 nguo4 lyuk8 tsˈyet7 pwat7 kyəu3 zhyəp8

DarkGhost
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:43 am

Postby DarkGhost » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:54 am

Vietnamese is not a Sino-Tibetian language. Vietnamese words that are similar to Cantonese and other Chinese dialects were adopted by the Vietnamese during Chinese rule. Before Chinese rule, the Vietnamese spoke a language totally unrelated to Chinese, but instead related to Khmer (and possibly Thai), hence the classification: Mon-Khmer.

Despite the similarities, Vietnamese is still very different from Chinese, grammar wise. For example: a Vietnamese would say "person Vietnamese" (ngoi Viet nam), while a Chinese person would say "Vietnamese person" (Yuenan ren).

You can compare it to English and French. The Brits adopted lots of French words, but that didn't change their language family - English is still a Germanic language and French is a Latin one.

qrasy

Postby qrasy » Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:02 am

DarkGhost, Sino-Tibetan is at the same level as Indo-European, being the level of "Family". "Germanic", "Latin" are subfamilies of Indo-European. In a level of family, there's no need to be in the precise order, like French and English.

Oh, or are you making a new kind of classification? Tell me so.

Viet words that are similar to Cantonese are of course the "Sino-Vietnamese" words, it has been said several times that they are only loanwords.

Person in Vietnamese is "Người" (notice the "u")

Mark Andrew Williamson
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:58 am
Location: Arizona 鳳凰城
Contact:

Postby Mark Andrew Williamson » Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:11 am

There are some who make a family of "Tai-Kadai+Hmong-Mien+Sino+Tibetan", and some say that this is outdated. Or are you thinking this as one of "Sino-Xenic" languages?

I tend to agree with the Sino-Tai-Hmong grouping. It's not entirely solid, but it makes sense. And no, I am definitely not thinking of Sino-Xenic languages.

I see *phraw, and from the tone we can guess that there are some glots here. It comes to be *phrawʔ
My source: Alves_Vietnamese_Vietic_Monkhmer.pdf of http://www.geocities.com/malves98/publications.html , page 6 and 11.


I don't know - it's a single number, so it could be chance resemblance. But then again, there is always the possibility that it is a loanword or that they share a common origin.

But I know that in Korean there are native-20. I also know that there are some languages that has different counting system from Chinese, especially those which have the proper word for '100.000' and '20' (Lao).
I'm not saying that there are no counting system other than 10. Of course they may have different system, they are even very distant to each other and belonging to different family.


Not nessecarily. It is common, in language change, for a number system to shift to a different one. For example, in "Proto-Ainu", a duodecimal (base 20) system was used. In modern Sakhalin Ainu, a duodecimal system is still used, but in Hokkaido Ainu a decimal system (base 10) is now used.

In Old Divehi (Divehi is the national language of the Maldives), there was a duodecimal counting system (if I recall correctly), but in modern Divehi this has shifted, again, to a decimal system.

In many languages, the change is instead from a duodecimal to a vigesimal (base 5) system. This usually includes the switching from distinct words for 6-10 to words that are "5 plus 1", "5 plus 2", or "10 minus 4", "10 minus 3", etc.

I'm only saying that if there were really proto-Mon-Khmer, it should either have 5-counting system or 10-counting system. If you have 10, then it's impossible for you to have 5 in the same language. If there are more, it's not from Proto-Mon-Khmer (or can you suggest how it possibly was?)

As I noted above, such reduction is common. Khmer uses a vigesimal system, but all related languages use a decimal system, even though all number systems are obviously interrelated and bear little resemblance to neighbouring language families'.

yeah, if you say that this source may not be true. http://www.zompist.com/asia.htm
3 from Miao-Yao languages:
Hmong mod. orth. peb; Hmong Njua pé; Bunu pe; White Meo pe; Hmong Chuanqiandian pe; Hmong NE Dian pi (?) (this one, the author might 'mix up and reverse' the value of '3' and '5'), Hmong Qiandong pi; Hmong Xiangxi pu; Mien(Yao) puo; Mien mod. orth. buo; Mun po: ; BiaoMin pau; Zaomin puh; Xiaoban po; Banyao pu; She pa; Jiongnai pa
Pa is the closest, Ruc also says "Pa".
It says that: leun song sam si ha hok tiet piet kao sip , closer to Tai than anything else. Maybe when the person was asked "1-10" he replied not in his/her language. If you say that these are not the original numbers of Pouma, then what are they?
A list of numbers that are possibly loans (just find it using Ctrl+F)
10 of Thavung, 4&10 of Amwi, 1-10 of Pou Ma (This can be wrong), 5-10 of Khmu', 7 and 9 of Mal, 10 of Khmer, many of Aslians, 7&8 of some Mundari Languages


*cough*. 1. The proper English terms are "Amis" (not amwi), "Puyuma" (not pou ma), and "Rukai" (not ruc). 2. I suspect the list of Puyuma numbers is actually the result of a misunderstanding. They seem not even a loan but a direct recitation of Chinese. 3. Some Mundari languages used to be in direct contact with Chinese, and have lots of Chinese loans, so this cannot be ruled out as a source for the possible loans.

Seeing that Mon and Katuic numbers are similar only to its group, and 5-10 are not similar to each other, I may say 5-10 are loans.
If you are careful, you can find some Tibeto-Burman using Indo-European large numbers (>7)
Indo-European sample: "ath" "nan" "das"
Malay: Satu dua tiga empat lima enam tujuh delapan sembilan sepuluh
http://www.zompist.com/sino.htm


Uhh... I think there are vast resemblances in the 5-10 of Mon / Katuic and other Mon-Khmer languages.

It is very very possible that Tibeto-Burman languages have loans, for larger numbers, from Tocharian, or an Indo-Iranian language, or perhaps an extinct Indo-European language from the steppe that was never recorded.

I don't know what you are thinking about "Sino-Vietnamese", I only know that there are Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary but I don't think there are "Sino-Vietnamese", "Sino-Japanese" or "Sino-Korean" languages.

By "Sino-Vietnamese", I mean the modern language which has the Southern Chinese superstratum and the strong Vietnamese substratum, as opposed to the pure language "Vietnamese".

There is indeed a "Sino-Japanese" language, and it is used more than the "Japanese" language in Japan. This means it uses many, many Chinese loanwords that even in daily conversation they come up a lot. However, some people occasionally try a sort of linguistic excersise or language play which they call "Speaking in Yamatokotoba" ("Yamato" is a native rather than Chinese way of referring to Japan; "kotoba" is the native word for language rather than Chinese way "go" [as a suffix] or "gengo"), where they replace all Chinese loanwords with more Japanese ways of saying. Sometimes there is a simple alternative, but other times what is one Chinese loanword takes up a whole clause or a few words in Yamatokotoba.

I don't know for sure, but I speculate the same sort of game exists in Korean.
--Mark Williamson (金俊書)

Chhiáⁿ tho̍k-su án kóng-chhiò siu-chi̍p:
http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us ... chhi%C3%B2

DarkGhost
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:43 am

Postby DarkGhost » Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:26 am

qrasy wrote:DarkGhost, Sino-Tibetan is at the same level as Indo-European, being the level of "Family". "Germanic", "Latin" are subfamilies of Indo-European. In a level of family, there's no need to be in the precise order, like French and English.

Oh, or are you making a new kind of classification? Tell me so.

Viet words that are similar to Cantonese are of course the "Sino-Vietnamese" words, it has been said several times that they are only loanwords.

Person in Vietnamese is "Người" (notice the "u")


I see I made a wrong comparison, my bad.

AlexNg

Postby AlexNg » Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:37 pm

People here always argue that since the adjective comes after the noun, it should not be sino-tibetan. May I draw an analogy :

sino-tibetan = indo-european (language family)

sinitic branch = germanic branch (sub- branch)
tai = latin branch (sub-branch)
tibetan-burmese = indian branch (sub-branch)

I don't quite agree that a language affiliation should be based just by looking at the numbers alone. How do you know which set of numbers and the so-called sino-vietnamese set is the original set ?

Speaking of tai language, its numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are very similar to cantonese but it is not placed under sino-tibetan by some linguistics !!!

You should look at the general characteristics of the language like tonal, monosyllabic, classifiers etc. For someone new to vietnamese, they would think that after hearing it, it would sound more similar to cantonese than a khmer language !

Mark Andrew Williamson
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:58 am
Location: Arizona 鳳凰城
Contact:

Postby Mark Andrew Williamson » Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:05 pm

I don't quite agree that a language affiliation should be based just by looking at the numbers alone.

Numerals are some of the most simple words and they are more unlikely than most words to be replaced entirely with words from other languages. The only cases I have seen so far of a direct loan of all numbers is in Sino-Xenic languages, but they also kept the native system and have two ways of saying numbers.

How do you know which set of numbers and the so-called sino-vietnamese set is the original set ?

Because it is.

Speaking of tai language, its numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are very similar to cantonese but it is not placed under sino-tibetan by some linguistics !!!

Some linguists believe Thai is a Sino-Xenic language that lost its native numeral system, but I don't think that's very sound of an opinion because other Tai-Kadai languages share the same resemblances to Sino-Tibetan.

You should look at the general characteristics of the language like tonal, monosyllabic, classifiers etc. For someone new to vietnamese, they would think that after hearing it, it would sound more similar to cantonese than a khmer language !

Do you know any Mon-Khmer languages? All of them are tonal, monosyllabic, and all of them have classifiers. The simple fact is, Vietnamese is not Sino-Tibetan and to insist that it is, is a rediculous excercise in tomfoolery.
--Mark Williamson (金俊書)



Chhiáⁿ tho̍k-su án kóng-chhiò siu-chi̍p:

http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us ... chhi%C3%B2

qrasy

Postby qrasy » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:20 pm

Not nessecarily. It is common, in language change, for a number system to shift to a different one. For example, in "Proto-Ainu", a duodecimal (base 20) system was used. In modern Sakhalin Ainu, a duodecimal system is still used, but in Hokkaido Ainu a decimal system (base 10) is now used.

In Old Divehi (Divehi is the national language of the Maldives), there was a duodecimal counting system (if I recall correctly), but in modern Divehi this has shifted, again, to a decimal system.

I think the 20 is going to be abandoned, since the languages around are mostly decimal.
Do you have the Khmer word of 20?

In many languages, the change is instead from a duodecimal to a vigesimal (base 5) system. This usually includes the switching from distinct words for 6-10 to words that are "5 plus 1", "5 plus 2", or "10 minus 4", "10 minus 3", etc.
I didn't know these, but I did know that there are "10min2", "5+1to4"

As I noted above, such reduction is common. Khmer uses a vigesimal system, but all related languages use a decimal system, even though all number systems are obviously interrelated and bear little resemblance to neighbouring language families'.

If you see the Khmer writing, in the unicode database there are the proper names of the number (moy, bar, pram-buon, etc.) and it is very old, stating that this reduction might not happen recently.

*cough*. 1. The proper English terms are "Amis" (not amwi), "Puyuma" (not pou ma), and "Rukai" (not ruc). 2. I suspect the list of Puyuma numbers is actually the result of a misunderstanding. They seem not even a loan but a direct recitation of Chinese. 3. Some Mundari languages used to be in direct contact with Chinese, and have lots of Chinese loans, so this cannot be ruled out as a source for the possible loans.

***ukh ukh ukh*** You are referring to Taiwanese aborigins? I say Southeast Asian dwellers. The names may be similar, but they refer to different ethnic. Like "Yao" this word is also an ethnic group of Africa.
Munda in direct contact with Chinese? Can you give examples?

By "Sino-Vietnamese", I mean the modern language which has the Southern Chinese superstratum and the strong Vietnamese substratum, as opposed to the pure language "Vietnamese".
The core is not South Chinese, but rather Middle Chinese. Are you sure? What is the "Viet substatum"? Is morphology one part of substratum?

There is indeed a "Sino-Japanese" language, and it is used more than the "Japanese" language in Japan. This means it uses many, many Chinese loanwords that even in daily conversation they come up a lot. However, some people occasionally try a sort of linguistic excersise or language play which they call "Speaking in Yamatokotoba" ("Yamato" is a native rather than Chinese way of referring to Japan; "kotoba" is the native word for language rather than Chinese way "go" [as a suffix] or "gengo"), where they replace all Chinese loanwords with more Japanese ways of saying. Sometimes there is a simple alternative, but other times what is one Chinese loanword takes up a whole clause or a few words in Yamatokotoba.

The Japanese do not use more Sino-Japanese than native vocabs. Kanji does not mean Chinese readings. There are Kun readings that are not Chinese anyway.

Numerals are some of the most simple words and they are more unlikely than most words to be replaced entirely with words from other languages. The only cases I have seen so far of a direct loan of all numbers is in Sino-Xenic languages, but they also kept the native
system and have two ways of saying numbers.

Of course it is hard, but it's still possible. The possibility is not 0%

Some linguists believe Thai is a Sino-Xenic language that lost its native numeral system, but I don't think that's very sound of an opinion because other Tai-Kadai languages share the same resemblances to Sino-Tibetan.
Can't some languages be replaced at the same time? Or they are replaced at their proto-Age?

Do you know any Mon-Khmer languages? All of them are tonal, monosyllabic, and all of them have classifiers. The simple fact is, Vietnamese is not Sino-Tibetan and to insist that it is, is a rediculous excercise in tomfoolery.
***ukh ukh hahaha*** Are you kidding? Mon-Khmer are mostly atonal. Only a few are tonal (if you believe Viet is one). Even Tibeto-Burman is not perfect tonal language group. Classifier is a very common thing in Austro/Sino languages. You may not come into a conclusion by this.

I don't know for sure, but I speculate the same sort of game exists in Korean
You need not to speculate, since it really exists. Did you read the previous posts?

Mark Andrew Williamson
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:58 am
Location: Arizona 鳳凰城
Contact:

Postby Mark Andrew Williamson » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:17 pm

I think the 20 is going to be abandoned, since the languages around are mostly decimal.

Most "major" languages are, but then again most major languages come from a small number of different language families - Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Uralic, Altaic, Austro-Asiatic, Austronesian, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan. That isn't very diverse.

If you see the Khmer writing, in the unicode database there are the proper names of the number (moy, bar, pram-buon, etc.) and it is very old, stating that this reduction might not happen recently.

"Old Khmer" does not date back to 100000 years BC... it dates back to perhaps 700s AD, while divergence of Mon-Khmer languages is placed at 5000 BC... that's a lot of time it has for the number system to collapse to a vigesimal system.

The core is not South Chinese, but rather Middle Chinese. Are you sure? What is the "Viet substatum"? Is morphology one part of substratum?

So, Vietnam directly borders Shanghai? Or do you mean Middle Chinese, as the time period? Still, even if you mean the time period, it is Southern rather than Northern - it is attested that even in Middle Chinese times, there existed Northern speeches.

"substratum" and "superstratum" refer to vocabulary only. Morphology is entirely separate from all lexical strata. In this case however the morphology is clearly Mon-Khmer.

The Japanese do not use more Sino-Japanese than native vocabs. Kanji does not mean Chinese readings. There are Kun readings that are not Chinese anyway.

Yes, they do. Random sentence from Yahoo! Japan: デジタル家電の新製品、お買い得商品が満載! ("New digital appliances, loads of bargains!"). All kanjis in there with exception of 買 use a Chinese reading. My attempt at Yamatokotoba of this is 指使い的家稲妻物の新しく売り物、お買いやすく商い物が数々あります! (literally, "New selling-things of finger-using home lightningbolt-thing, we have many easy-to-buy trading-things" - it sounds horrible in English but it makes more sense in Japanese), I had to resort to one Chinese word 的 as a suffix to turn 指使い (finger-usage) into an adjective (finger-using -> digital).

Of course it is hard, but it's still possible. The possibility is not 0%

True. But remember that in the Swadesh list, numbers rank among the most static of all words, especially "one" and "two" iirc ("five" as well I think?), and are very very very unlikely to be replaced by loanwords.

Can't some languages be replaced at the same time? Or they are replaced at their proto-Age?

It could be possible, but the nature of the resemblances (ie, phonetical correspondences between Tai-Kadai languages that match the rest of the language too, not just numbers) and the geographical distribution (some of these languages had no contact with Sino-Tibetan speakers) make it unlikely - that they weren't replaced at all, but in fact are related.

***ukh ukh hahaha*** Are you kidding? Mon-Khmer are mostly atonal. Only a few are tonal (if you believe Viet is one). Even Tibeto-Burman is not perfect tonal language group. Classifier is a very common thing in Austro/Sino languages. You may not come into a conclusion by this.

Khmer has tones, as does Mon... Not as strong as Vietnamese, but there is also a happening in Sinitic languages which shows that tone degradation is relatively common : Wu ends up with 8 (arguably 10) tones, Dungan ends up with 3, and Canadian Youth Cantonese ends up with 0. (I don't know if there is a detailed explanation of CYC on the internet, so I will provide it: The children and grandchildren of Cantonese-speaking immigrants to Canada, especially in Ontario and B.C., have a high level of native language retention - most speak Cantonese well as their first language and are bilingual in English or French. However, there is an anomaly which is that when they learned the language from their parents, they did not pick up on the tone, and in playgroups and other minglings of Chinese-Canadian kids, this atonality was reinforced by their peers. In most cases, it can be figured out by context, but if it is ambiguous they will use a disyllabic word instead of a monosyllabic one, or a trisyllabic word instead of a disyllabic one. The grandparents complain that it is very difficult to understand, but the kids have no problem talking to each other in it)

You need not to speculate, since it really exists. Did you read the previous posts?

The game of using only native Korean words where one would normally use Chinese and other foreign words? Or the huge number of loanwords from Chinese? I know many loanwords exist in Korean from Chinese, but I found nothing in this thread about such a game as I explained for Japanese.
--Mark Williamson (金俊書)



Chhiáⁿ tho̍k-su án kóng-chhiò siu-chi̍p:

http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us ... chhi%C3%B2

qrasy

Postby qrasy » Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:00 am

Most "major" languages are, but then again most major languages come from a small number of different language families - Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Uralic, Altaic, Austro-Asiatic, Austronesian, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan. That isn't very diverse.

"Old Khmer" does not date back to 100000 years BC... it dates back to perhaps 700s AD, while divergence of Mon-Khmer languages is placed at 5000 BC... that's a lot of time it has for the number system to collapse to a vigesimal system.

But with only Indo-European, Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan (need not to add the remaining), you can even make 2000+ languages (and the population using them is very large, it may be larger than 40% of total human population). It "isn't very diverse" compared with all several-thousand languages, but it's very diverse, even Sundanese and Indonesian of Austronesian are appreciably different.
About the age, may be you're true, but in 5000 BC I think that even the proto-Austroasiatic had not existed (and the name "Khmer" in that age was very dubious). In that time may be we can still recognize "old-time-families" that now has become "Superfamilies".

So, Vietnam directly borders Shanghai? Or do you mean Middle Chinese, as the time period? Still, even if you mean the time period, it is Southern rather than Northern - it is attested that even in Middle Chinese times, there existed Northern speeches.

"substratum" and "superstratum" refer to vocabulary only. Morphology is entirely separate from all lexical strata. In this case however the morphology is clearly Mon-Khmer.

Oh, I meant Middle Chinese times. Northern speeches are speeches modified by Altaic languages. Yet, it comes out to be the standard language now. The base system of Middle Chinese is also used in Korean and Japanese. You can see that Sino-Korean and Sino-Vietnamese (also Sino-Japanese) are more similar to each other if compared with Mandarin. Also, in that age it's the "Middle/Central" speech. If you consider "now", it's true that this kind of language is "Southern Chinese".
If the stratum does not contain Morphology, then it means that Sino-Viet is 100% Chinese in stratum. Morphology of Viet does not really match either Mon-Khmer or Cantonese. The "v", "f" reading are not found in non-Viet-Muong Mon-Khmer (of course in southern Viet "v" is not found"), and "no p" this also doesn't match either. "No p" matches Arabian but there should be no correspondence with it. The voiced initials may match Wu languages, but I don't really know about them. If you want to compare majority of Mon-Khmer~Viet~Chinese, you can have more Chinese morphology than Mon-Khmer morphology. But that doesn't really matter. Some Tibeto-Burman languages' morphologies are as complex as Khmer.

Yes, they do. Random sentence from Yahoo! Japan: デジタル家電の新製品、お買い得商品が満載! ("New digital appliances, loads of bargains!"). All kanjis in there with exception of 買 use a Chinese reading. My attempt at Yamatokotoba of this is 指使い的家稲妻物の新しく売り物、お買いやすく商い物が数々あります! (literally, "New selling-things of finger-using home lightningbolt-thing, we have many easy-to-buy trading-things" - it sounds horrible in English but it makes more sense in Japanese), I had to resort to one Chinese word 的 as a suffix to turn 指使い (finger-usage) into an adjective (finger-using -> digital).
You may know that most(I think) new (modern) things in Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese uses Chinese readings. Examples: điện thoại "telephone", thanh kiệt "clean". Lots of these words can be found at random Vietnamese speech. Go to www.vny2k.net and see lots of Chinese words. I know that Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese use less Chinese in daily speech.
I don't really know Japanese verb grammatization, but 指使い can surely by changed into adjactive without using "的". Usually the "-teki" is used after a loaned Chinese word, making it "loaned with grammatization", but after that the compounding uses non-Chinese formula. I've never seen "Kanji"+"Kana tail"+"Kanji again" in single, suffixed VERB.
The "grammatized-loans" also exist in Vietnamese, where they have to use Chinese grammar in compounding some words.
One thing that many does not realize (of course, not including you): Kanji can be read very differently from Chinese readings. Non-infix languages can be written with Kanji+special script, despite the readings would be 99.9999999% different ("Cut" and "Burn" are also read similar to Chinese.)

True. But remember that in the Swadesh list, numbers rank among the most static of all words, especially "one" and "two" iirc ("five" as well I think?), and are very very very unlikely to be replaced by loanwords.

It could be possible, but the nature of the resemblances (ie, phonetical correspondences between Tai-Kadai languages that match the rest of the language too, not just numbers) and the geographical distribution (some of these languages had no contact with Sino-Tibetan speakers) make it unlikely - that they weren't replaced at all, but in fact are related.

There were some that use very different terms from the others, and the terms are not very similar to Sino-Tibetan or other Tai languages.
Thai "Song" is related with "Shuang1". But "Neung" doesn't seem related with Sino-Tibetan.

Khmer has tones, as does Mon... Not as strong as Vietnamese, but there is also a happening in Sinitic languages which shows that tone degradation is relatively common : Wu ends up with 8 (arguably 10) tones, Dungan ends up with 3, and Canadian Youth Cantonese ends up with 0. (I don't know if there is a detailed explanation of CYC on the internet, so I will provide it: The children and grandchildren of Cantonese-speaking immigrants to Canada, especially in Ontario and B.C., have a high level of native language retention - most speak Cantonese well as their first language and are bilingual in English or French. However, there is an anomaly which is that when they learned the language from their parents, they did not pick up on the tone, and in playgroups and other minglings of Chinese-Canadian kids, this atonality was reinforced by their peers. In most cases, it can be figured out by context, but if it is ambiguous they will use a disyllabic word instead of a monosyllabic one, or a trisyllabic word instead of a disyllabic one. The grandparents complain that it is very difficult to understand, but the kids have no problem talking to each other in it)
Those are called 'registers' rather than tones. I never heard Mon or Khmer language, but I speculate that they make some different pitches but these are unlikely to be called tones. (Refer to my posts at the transition of Part 1 and Part 2 of this topic)
'Deregistration' occurs in some Mon-Khmer languages.
Well, I thought that detonalisation would be a very hard thing to do, but again there was some probability. But the detonalisation of Modern Chinese languages would result in lots of homonyms.

The game of using only native Korean words where one would normally use Chinese and other foreign words? Or the huge number of loanwords from Chinese? I know many loanwords exist in Korean from Chinese, but I found nothing in this thread about such a game as I explained for Japanese.
Of course I mean a huge number of loanwords. But this does not mean that Korean do not use them in daily speech. But nowadays they ususally don't write the loanwords in Kanji.

alexNg

I beg to differ

Postby alexNg » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:57 pm

I was in canada for several years. Their cantonese is still tonal although in a slightly different tones than the hongkongers but that is normal considering when people migrate they will develop slightly different dialects.

In malaysia, the cantonese here is also slightly different in tones than hong kong.

The tones are necessary to distinguish the words of meaning. Sometimes you cannot judge based on the context alone. For example, yan yuin and yan yuin has 2 different meanings but can be used in the same context.


As for the claim that mon-khmer languages are tonal, please go to
http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_austroasia.html, if I am not mistaken, i read somewhere that khmer language originates from india and we know that most languages in india are not tonal . As for the claim that vietnamese developed tones under chinese influence, that is debatable, because it is easier to lose tones than to gain 8 tones !

Dylan Sung

Re: I beg to differ

Postby Dylan Sung » Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:50 pm

alexNg wrote:As for the claim that vietnamese developed tones under chinese influence, that is debatable, because it is easier to lose tones than to gain 8 tones !


The issue of whether tones developed because of Chinese may be hard to answer, however dismissing that tones can develop in an otherwise non-tonal language is an idea worthy of dismissal in itself. Actually, the Ru tone is an artifice of Chinese philology. They single out syllables with clipped endings but in all Chinese dialects which have Ru tones, they can be distributed amongst the other tones according to their tone contour. For example, Cantonese credited with 9 tones only has six tonemes. The loss of tonal distinction is does not arise when Cantonese is written with only six distinguishing tone markers.

The Ru tone readings of characters that are "lost" in Mandarin are distributed amongst the four tones, principly the two Ping tones, the Qu and Shang.

As we see with Sino-Viet, the associated Ru tones are in fact merged in to the tones associated with the Qu upper and lower tones. So it has six tonemes, rather than the artificial eight as you continually suggest.

Dyl.


Return to “Cantonese language forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests