Cantonese originally not Chinese???
-
HKB
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
sum won, the character for Yue in discribing cantonese is not the same yue as vietnam. not "traverse" it's different word all together. I don't have cHinese software, so if someone does would they write the correct word for sum?
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
HKB:
The Yue describing the Cantonese, has an ancient meaning of "Dangerous" (or something to that affect), while the "Yue" (Viet) in VietNam means "beyond". This same word was used to describe all tribes south of the Zhou dynasty Chinese border indiscriminantly, with much disregard as well. How the term " (Dangerous) Yue" came to describe the Cantonese is a mystery to me... Why don't you (or anyone else for that matter) try explaining that?
The Yue describing the Cantonese, has an ancient meaning of "Dangerous" (or something to that affect), while the "Yue" (Viet) in VietNam means "beyond". This same word was used to describe all tribes south of the Zhou dynasty Chinese border indiscriminantly, with much disregard as well. How the term " (Dangerous) Yue" came to describe the Cantonese is a mystery to me... Why don't you (or anyone else for that matter) try explaining that?
-
HKB
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
coz we were probably dangerous. cantonese soldiers and combat regiments were always the most feared by China's enemies. Recall General Yuen Sung Wun or the 72 martyrs, etc. we R dangerous. 
-
KP
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
The "Yue" in VietNam meaning "beyond" is obviously a contemporary Chinese concept. In the past, the Vietnamese have referred to themselves as "Dai Viet" or "Tai? Yue" as well as Nan Yue/Nam Viet. I know many of you don't think much of the people who once lived in this region....but you believe they would name themselves as "the Great Beyond" or "South Beyond"?
More likely..and definitely less sino-centric is that the "Southern" peoples, including present-day Vietnamese referred to themselves as "Viet/Yue".
More likely..and definitely less sino-centric is that the "Southern" peoples, including present-day Vietnamese referred to themselves as "Viet/Yue".
-
KP
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
"coz we were probably dangerous. cantonese soldiers and combat regiments were always the most feared by China's enemies. Recall General Yuen Sung Wun or the 72 martyrs, etc. we R dangerous. "
Your explanation of Cantonese Yue are in fact "dangerous" doesn't hold well........as history will tell you that the Cantonese Yue aren't nearly as dangerous as the Yue in Nothern Vietnam.
"Your explanation of Cantonese Yue are in fact "dangerous" doesn't hold well........as history will tell you that the Cantonese Yue aren't nearly as dangerous as the Yue in Nothern Vietnam.
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
Regarding the word "Yue", for "Viet", I've already provided an explanation here:
http://safeproxy.org/cgi-bin/nph-proxy. ... 1995&t=400
Come on KP, HKB was just playing around! Besides, the only reason the Northern Viets were more successful against the Chinese, was because the Cantonese softened them up! LOL!
http://safeproxy.org/cgi-bin/nph-proxy. ... 1995&t=400
Come on KP, HKB was just playing around! Besides, the only reason the Northern Viets were more successful against the Chinese, was because the Cantonese softened them up! LOL!
-
quangtrunghoangde
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
I believe most of the 290,000 soldiers who invaded Vietnam in 1789 were mostly Cantonese!
-
KP
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
Sum Won:
The only way your aguement holds is if you are dead set in believing that the term originally sounding like "Viet" in Chinese has evolved to sound like "Yue", "Yuet", whatever... over the past 2000 years.
Again, as far as I can tell.......there is no archeological findings that show the Viets have referred to themselves as the "beyond" correct? Is there evidence that shows that they used to call themselves "Lac", but later accepted the term "Viet" to appease the Chinese? Or is that merely "Chinese" train of thought? Without evidence, that is an extremly sino-centric statement.
Are there other instances of ethnic groups throwing away their own names and adopting the term coined by the Chinese? The Qiang? NanMan(Did they actually call themselves that?)? Mongols? XiongNu?
Honestly, I don't think HKB was kidding.
Some one else said from looking in a dictionary that the modern character for "yue" in Cantonese translates more to "cautious".....not "dangerous". Besides, you are surely aware that both the Cantonese and Vietnamese Yue(s) were both controlled for over 1000 years, but in the end, it was only the Vietnamese that got their independence. If anything, it was either a combined force of Northerners and their sinicized "Cantonese" or mostly the Cantonese alone that tried to stop the Vietnamese from gaining independence. So your reasoning of softening up....doesn't count!! MUHAHAH!!
The only way your aguement holds is if you are dead set in believing that the term originally sounding like "Viet" in Chinese has evolved to sound like "Yue", "Yuet", whatever... over the past 2000 years.
Again, as far as I can tell.......there is no archeological findings that show the Viets have referred to themselves as the "beyond" correct? Is there evidence that shows that they used to call themselves "Lac", but later accepted the term "Viet" to appease the Chinese? Or is that merely "Chinese" train of thought? Without evidence, that is an extremly sino-centric statement.
Are there other instances of ethnic groups throwing away their own names and adopting the term coined by the Chinese? The Qiang? NanMan(Did they actually call themselves that?)? Mongols? XiongNu?
Honestly, I don't think HKB was kidding.
Some one else said from looking in a dictionary that the modern character for "yue" in Cantonese translates more to "cautious".....not "dangerous". Besides, you are surely aware that both the Cantonese and Vietnamese Yue(s) were both controlled for over 1000 years, but in the end, it was only the Vietnamese that got their independence. If anything, it was either a combined force of Northerners and their sinicized "Cantonese" or mostly the Cantonese alone that tried to stop the Vietnamese from gaining independence. So your reasoning of softening up....doesn't count!! MUHAHAH!!
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
KP:
Actually, this is evident in terms of Chinese as well. To the rest of the anglo-phone world, everyone universally knows the Chinese people as "Chinese". They don't know them as "Zhong Guo Ren" unless they are explained to about it. Of course, nowadays, most people will have the understanding, and be considerate enough to call the Chinese people "Zhong guo Ren", if they wanted to. However, since the Chinese all accept themselves as "Chinese" to the rest of the world, they don't even bother taking this initiative. If you don't see a correlation to this, and the example I've given within the link from my prior post, I can't help you...
Now, thankyou for the correction on the "dangerous" and "cautious". I will admit, I took it one step further in interpreting the fact that they [whoever named the Cantonese] labeled us "Cautious", because they had to be "cautious of us". Why they'd need to be afraid of us, could either be the feirce fight the proto-Cantonese put up against the Chinese, hence "softening them up", or maybe its from our eating habits:
"If it lies, walks, crawls, flies, the Cantonese will eat it!" (I forgot the EXACT quote, so anyone may correct me on this...)
Now, on the use of Cantonese people trying to prevent the VietNamese from their independance...
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/aspac/papers/s ... arlow.html
Read on, and you'll find out that the so-called "Yue" tribes were used as mercenaries to fight wars early on. Why they would help the Chinese, I'll have to take examples from the US:
"WWII, Apaches, and other native-American tribes who fought for the US, even though their own land had been taken away just a generation or two ago, by the very government they work under."
Actually, this is evident in terms of Chinese as well. To the rest of the anglo-phone world, everyone universally knows the Chinese people as "Chinese". They don't know them as "Zhong Guo Ren" unless they are explained to about it. Of course, nowadays, most people will have the understanding, and be considerate enough to call the Chinese people "Zhong guo Ren", if they wanted to. However, since the Chinese all accept themselves as "Chinese" to the rest of the world, they don't even bother taking this initiative. If you don't see a correlation to this, and the example I've given within the link from my prior post, I can't help you...
Now, thankyou for the correction on the "dangerous" and "cautious". I will admit, I took it one step further in interpreting the fact that they [whoever named the Cantonese] labeled us "Cautious", because they had to be "cautious of us". Why they'd need to be afraid of us, could either be the feirce fight the proto-Cantonese put up against the Chinese, hence "softening them up", or maybe its from our eating habits:
"If it lies, walks, crawls, flies, the Cantonese will eat it!" (I forgot the EXACT quote, so anyone may correct me on this...)
Now, on the use of Cantonese people trying to prevent the VietNamese from their independance...
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/aspac/papers/s ... arlow.html
Read on, and you'll find out that the so-called "Yue" tribes were used as mercenaries to fight wars early on. Why they would help the Chinese, I'll have to take examples from the US:
"WWII, Apaches, and other native-American tribes who fought for the US, even though their own land had been taken away just a generation or two ago, by the very government they work under."
-
KP
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
I was well aware that the "Chinese" have given up their traditional ethnic term to appease the westerners, that is why I left them out. However, if you notice, that is not the case of the Vietnamese. I do notice that you ignored everyone on my list:
"The Qiang? NanMan(Did they actually call themselves that?)? Mongols? XiongNu?"
Nice play on words there....however..we both know it just doesn't swing that way. Previously, you used the term to the descibe the Cantonese as "dangerous"....not to be "dangerous of us". Now you admit that the more correct translation is "cautious". Using your previous phrase, the Cantonese are now "cautious", NOT as in to be "cautious of us[Cantonese]".
Regarding the article.........which part are you referring to when you say:
" 'Yue' tribes were used as mercenaries to fight wars early on"
I don't doubt that Yue tribes have been used in the past, but I just don't see that part in the article. I did sorta skim over it.......but the article mostly has to do w/ the time period of 1000 AD. I assume by that time, the ancient YUE tribes have been pretty much ethnically defined by the Chinese. Now, I can see the Chinese referring to the Nong as "dangerous".....so do you claim that the Cantonese claim descendency from the Nong? I'd bet that most of the Cantonese around here would call you crazy and would rather be associated w/ the Han Chinese than the Nong. In the end however, the result is the same, the Yue, whom I claim descendency from held on to their language and customs for 1000 years of Chinese occupation.......while the Yue whom you claim descendency from are now fully "sinicized".
Anyways.......it seems you have finished Taylor's book. What did you think? I've only read about 25% of the book...just don't have the time. Plus I have about 5 other books I'm trying to finish as well.
"The Qiang? NanMan(Did they actually call themselves that?)? Mongols? XiongNu?"
Nice play on words there....however..we both know it just doesn't swing that way. Previously, you used the term to the descibe the Cantonese as "dangerous"....not to be "dangerous of us". Now you admit that the more correct translation is "cautious". Using your previous phrase, the Cantonese are now "cautious", NOT as in to be "cautious of us[Cantonese]".
Regarding the article.........which part are you referring to when you say:
" 'Yue' tribes were used as mercenaries to fight wars early on"
I don't doubt that Yue tribes have been used in the past, but I just don't see that part in the article. I did sorta skim over it.......but the article mostly has to do w/ the time period of 1000 AD. I assume by that time, the ancient YUE tribes have been pretty much ethnically defined by the Chinese. Now, I can see the Chinese referring to the Nong as "dangerous".....so do you claim that the Cantonese claim descendency from the Nong? I'd bet that most of the Cantonese around here would call you crazy and would rather be associated w/ the Han Chinese than the Nong. In the end however, the result is the same, the Yue, whom I claim descendency from held on to their language and customs for 1000 years of Chinese occupation.......while the Yue whom you claim descendency from are now fully "sinicized".
Anyways.......it seems you have finished Taylor's book. What did you think? I've only read about 25% of the book...just don't have the time. Plus I have about 5 other books I'm trying to finish as well.