ppk:
Have things really evolved in the last 2000 years? Just because some mutant gene popped up to make homo sapiens, doesn't mean that the rate of evolution sped up much faster at an exponential rate. Unfortunately, most humans are still the same as they were thousands of years ago. If you want an example, just look at history...
In response to
http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 961&t=1350
It wouldn't be bad if the Chinese decided to take into consideration a seperate Champa republic, in opposition with the VietNamese government, because that should mean that they'd allow the Cantonese to have their independance....
Cantonese originally not Chinese???
-
ppk
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
again, sum, give me the numbers, how large a portion is 'most humans'? and its not only genetic composition we are talking here. if we look no more beyond that, then all humans are at least 98% genetically identical, so why not we have a single nation on earth instead of so many different countries? u see the contradiction? on one hand u say evolution is slow, so homo sapiens remain more or less the same as before, on the other hand, u say we should divide countries based on the little 'differences' of this slow evolving homo sapiens, isnt it ridiculous? if u would agree that vietnamese and chinese had evolved into something distinctively different, then why wouldnt u agree that ancient viets will evolve too? especially when there is a sudden influx of foreign chinese blood. to what extent can u be sure tht present vietnamese is exatly the same with ancient viets living in canton area?
for the case of china, and also most asian countries under the chinese influence, to be 'chinese' or 'vietnamese' or 'thai' or 'singaporean' doesnt rely on genetic differences at all. it is more on cultural recogniton, and in present day, what passport u decide to hold. this is especially true for china. a person can be ethnic mongol or ethnic tibetian, but if he decide to take up chinese culture and a chinese passport, he's a chinese, no matter what race he is. same thing, the people in canton decide to take up a chinese identity, no matter what racial/ethnical background they came from, so they are chinese.
if u dont agree to the above statement, thats bcos again, u missed the point totally. why? cos again, looooong time ago, i already stated that 'chinese' in the political sense isnt a genetic distinction, its not a race, but a collective description of people living in china carrying a chinese passport. like americans, singaporeans, vietnamese, its just about 'nationality', not race. tell me, who can be considered an american in america? the aborigins? white europeans? american chinese? or was it american africans? in fact, they are all americans if they carry an american passport and accepted the american culture and way of life. if u dont understand that, then we are not talking about the same thing and i see no point in further discussion.
if u would like to divide country according to racial/ethnical differences, please show us a standard, on how u would judge who is what race and who isnt what race, in order to validate ur point. u cant simply point ur finger at anyone and say 'he's not a chinese'. i remember during the time of nazi occupation everyone have to provide documentations for at least 3 generations of ancestors to prove that they have no jewish blood, so that they an escape prosecution. so does the 'cantonese' have to do that too? u wanted a 'cantonese' republic, therefore u must hve a definition on cantonese. but dont forget, i am cantonese(in fact quite a lot of people here are) and u are not, ur definitions have to accomodate our distinctive features.
regarding the champa republic, dont u realise it was a sarcastic remark? as if u and i talking here would change the thinking of the vetnamese and chinese govt, as if it is up to us to decide which govt should do what, u must be kidding. even if the govt would agree, do u think that the common vietnamese, chinese and cantonese will agree to that? hey, its not up to some people sitting in front of the computer all day to decide who's what race.
for the case of china, and also most asian countries under the chinese influence, to be 'chinese' or 'vietnamese' or 'thai' or 'singaporean' doesnt rely on genetic differences at all. it is more on cultural recogniton, and in present day, what passport u decide to hold. this is especially true for china. a person can be ethnic mongol or ethnic tibetian, but if he decide to take up chinese culture and a chinese passport, he's a chinese, no matter what race he is. same thing, the people in canton decide to take up a chinese identity, no matter what racial/ethnical background they came from, so they are chinese.
if u dont agree to the above statement, thats bcos again, u missed the point totally. why? cos again, looooong time ago, i already stated that 'chinese' in the political sense isnt a genetic distinction, its not a race, but a collective description of people living in china carrying a chinese passport. like americans, singaporeans, vietnamese, its just about 'nationality', not race. tell me, who can be considered an american in america? the aborigins? white europeans? american chinese? or was it american africans? in fact, they are all americans if they carry an american passport and accepted the american culture and way of life. if u dont understand that, then we are not talking about the same thing and i see no point in further discussion.
if u would like to divide country according to racial/ethnical differences, please show us a standard, on how u would judge who is what race and who isnt what race, in order to validate ur point. u cant simply point ur finger at anyone and say 'he's not a chinese'. i remember during the time of nazi occupation everyone have to provide documentations for at least 3 generations of ancestors to prove that they have no jewish blood, so that they an escape prosecution. so does the 'cantonese' have to do that too? u wanted a 'cantonese' republic, therefore u must hve a definition on cantonese. but dont forget, i am cantonese(in fact quite a lot of people here are) and u are not, ur definitions have to accomodate our distinctive features.
regarding the champa republic, dont u realise it was a sarcastic remark? as if u and i talking here would change the thinking of the vetnamese and chinese govt, as if it is up to us to decide which govt should do what, u must be kidding. even if the govt would agree, do u think that the common vietnamese, chinese and cantonese will agree to that? hey, its not up to some people sitting in front of the computer all day to decide who's what race.
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
KP:
I do find it strange that there is no Dong Son culture in GuangDong, even though the political structure among the aborigins in VietNam and GuangDong were the same. In "The Birth of Vietnam", and my source on the Zhuang culture (http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/resources/z ... tents.html), what they both tell about clan leaders (Lac Lords), and the political structure does correspond. Another interesting to note, while looking at the weapons used by the Yue, there was a section in the paper, entitled, "THE XI OU AND THE INFLUENCE OF CHU" which said that there were no Chu tomb sites were found in GuangDong, even though Chu was the "Southernmost Chinese nation" during the Warring States period.
I do find it strange that there is no Dong Son culture in GuangDong, even though the political structure among the aborigins in VietNam and GuangDong were the same. In "The Birth of Vietnam", and my source on the Zhuang culture (http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/resources/z ... tents.html), what they both tell about clan leaders (Lac Lords), and the political structure does correspond. Another interesting to note, while looking at the weapons used by the Yue, there was a section in the paper, entitled, "THE XI OU AND THE INFLUENCE OF CHU" which said that there were no Chu tomb sites were found in GuangDong, even though Chu was the "Southernmost Chinese nation" during the Warring States period.
-
KP
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
SUM WON:
Thanks for the link......seems to be a very informative site.
So how far north did dong son culture exist in China? Wasn't GuangDong controlled by the Bach Viet during the Warring States period? Maybe the Qin destroyed all Chu tombs when they went south?
Thanks for the link......seems to be a very informative site.
So how far north did dong son culture exist in China? Wasn't GuangDong controlled by the Bach Viet during the Warring States period? Maybe the Qin destroyed all Chu tombs when they went south?
-
Sum Won
"VietNamese: The Unknown Nomenclature" & &quo
Since most of you don’t understand my distinctions between the proto-Cantonese and the VietNamese, and what I mean by “VietNamese being a nomenclature”, and insist upon being spoon-fed, very well...
First, if you look at Keith Weller Taylor’s theories on how the “Yue” of the south got their names: He claims that the tribes known as the “Yue” (right under the central plains, but not as far south as what would become “LingNam”), pushed their way southwards, when the Chinese took their land. In turn, they conquered these people, set up their forms of government, and these people also became known as the “Yue”. (He also provides footnotes to Western examples of such incidences happening, where a small minority of people, attack a majority, winning, and then setting themselves up as the elites of the society…) Hence, his view follows tightly with the view held by Chinese historians, only with a minor twist. Then if you read on, he basically says the “Lac” of “Lac Viet” took on the term “Viet” for themselves, because Lac was something only used by their own people, and wasn’t at all familiar to the Chinese. So, to be recognized in Chinese politics, they took on the nomenclature “Viet”.
Although this isn’t a bad idea, this is my theory on how the nomenclature of "Yue" came about for the proto-Cantonese and the "Yue" north of them...
First of all, if you look at the definition of 越...
"越:Traverse, exceed"
Obviously, the Chinese were very clear on something that was "outside" their boundaries. Now remember, Chinese interaction with these cultures were quite limited (aside from a few trades of goods and whatnots). So what they understood was quite vague, except for the fact that these people had tattoos, and different hairstyles. When the Chinese conquest of the south began, they began to notice more differences between these people, however there were still those "underlying similarities" between these people, that they perceived all to have originated from the same 越 (Yue) culture. Here's the tricky part:
A (what the Chinese believe): The Yue were either sinicized completely, or displaced by the Chinese away from their homeland. Seeing this, the "Yue" began to bundle further south (Hence, that whole "Hundred Yue"["Bach Viet"] idea pops up).
B (What most likely happened)- As the Chinese successfully sinicised the people who were in these regions, they slowly became assimilated, and you begin to see the assimilation in a "trickle down" affect. Granted, there may have been some people who escaped this fate and did as the Chinese claimed, most likely, they weren't displaced, allowing huge waves of "Yue" crowding up space. (Most likely, this "fleeing model", must have been thought to be something universal by the Chinese, since they always seem to do it often, to avoid conflict).
So in other words, without knowing who these people were, they just called them something, and the name stuck.·*
This "fleeing model" is constantly used throughout China's conquest in the south, in belief that these people all shared the same culture, and fled to each other in face of Chinese expansion. If this fleeing model were true, "Where exactly did the 'Yue' in VietNam flee to when the Chinese took their land?" Obviously, these people must have stayed behind, or else they wouldn't have been able to put up vigorous fights against the Chinese government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well then, how did the VietNamese come about with taking the term 'Viet' (Yue) to identify themselves?"
Now, going back to Keith Weller Taylor, remember that the VietNamese called themselves the "Lac". To which, when heard by the Chinese people, must have remarked "What's a 'Lac'?" So, we can either follow Keith Weller Taylor's model of taking up the nomenclature for political reasons, to be recognized, or we could go back to my "Indian nomenclature model"·*, where the Chinese were dead-sent upon naming these people such, that the name actually grew upon them.
·* Similar to Christopher Colombus landing in America (thinking he'd arrived at India) and calling the Natives, "Indians" --to which this nomenclature still sticks with these people, even among themselves. This term has stuck so strongly with them, that sometimes, they make it "half politically correct", calling themselves, "American Indians", instead of "Native Americans". <--"Indian-nomenclature model"
First, if you look at Keith Weller Taylor’s theories on how the “Yue” of the south got their names: He claims that the tribes known as the “Yue” (right under the central plains, but not as far south as what would become “LingNam”), pushed their way southwards, when the Chinese took their land. In turn, they conquered these people, set up their forms of government, and these people also became known as the “Yue”. (He also provides footnotes to Western examples of such incidences happening, where a small minority of people, attack a majority, winning, and then setting themselves up as the elites of the society…) Hence, his view follows tightly with the view held by Chinese historians, only with a minor twist. Then if you read on, he basically says the “Lac” of “Lac Viet” took on the term “Viet” for themselves, because Lac was something only used by their own people, and wasn’t at all familiar to the Chinese. So, to be recognized in Chinese politics, they took on the nomenclature “Viet”.
Although this isn’t a bad idea, this is my theory on how the nomenclature of "Yue" came about for the proto-Cantonese and the "Yue" north of them...
First of all, if you look at the definition of 越...
"越:Traverse, exceed"
Obviously, the Chinese were very clear on something that was "outside" their boundaries. Now remember, Chinese interaction with these cultures were quite limited (aside from a few trades of goods and whatnots). So what they understood was quite vague, except for the fact that these people had tattoos, and different hairstyles. When the Chinese conquest of the south began, they began to notice more differences between these people, however there were still those "underlying similarities" between these people, that they perceived all to have originated from the same 越 (Yue) culture. Here's the tricky part:
A (what the Chinese believe): The Yue were either sinicized completely, or displaced by the Chinese away from their homeland. Seeing this, the "Yue" began to bundle further south (Hence, that whole "Hundred Yue"["Bach Viet"] idea pops up).
B (What most likely happened)- As the Chinese successfully sinicised the people who were in these regions, they slowly became assimilated, and you begin to see the assimilation in a "trickle down" affect. Granted, there may have been some people who escaped this fate and did as the Chinese claimed, most likely, they weren't displaced, allowing huge waves of "Yue" crowding up space. (Most likely, this "fleeing model", must have been thought to be something universal by the Chinese, since they always seem to do it often, to avoid conflict).
So in other words, without knowing who these people were, they just called them something, and the name stuck.·*
This "fleeing model" is constantly used throughout China's conquest in the south, in belief that these people all shared the same culture, and fled to each other in face of Chinese expansion. If this fleeing model were true, "Where exactly did the 'Yue' in VietNam flee to when the Chinese took their land?" Obviously, these people must have stayed behind, or else they wouldn't have been able to put up vigorous fights against the Chinese government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well then, how did the VietNamese come about with taking the term 'Viet' (Yue) to identify themselves?"
Now, going back to Keith Weller Taylor, remember that the VietNamese called themselves the "Lac". To which, when heard by the Chinese people, must have remarked "What's a 'Lac'?" So, we can either follow Keith Weller Taylor's model of taking up the nomenclature for political reasons, to be recognized, or we could go back to my "Indian nomenclature model"·*, where the Chinese were dead-sent upon naming these people such, that the name actually grew upon them.
·* Similar to Christopher Colombus landing in America (thinking he'd arrived at India) and calling the Natives, "Indians" --to which this nomenclature still sticks with these people, even among themselves. This term has stuck so strongly with them, that sometimes, they make it "half politically correct", calling themselves, "American Indians", instead of "Native Americans". <--"Indian-nomenclature model"
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
I'm not sure exactly how far north the Dong Son culture went. However the possibility that the Qin destroyed all of the Chu tombs, couldn't happen. If they did, they missed quite a number of tombs in those other areas, so it wouldn't make sense to only destroy the ones in GuangDong, unless there was some type of ulterior motive, we can't find...
You also have to remember that a few of the states in the Warring states period, were identified to be as "Yue" states (the Kingdom of Wu and Yue, are the only two examples I can think of, I can't remember if there are anymore). These in turn, were conquered by the Chu.
You also have to remember that a few of the states in the Warring states period, were identified to be as "Yue" states (the Kingdom of Wu and Yue, are the only two examples I can think of, I can't remember if there are anymore). These in turn, were conquered by the Chu.
-
Hung Dao Dai Vuong
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
".....I think that Cantonese originally weren't Chinese....."
I think we originally weren't apes either!
I think we originally weren't apes either!
-
Hung Dao Dai Vuong
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
I believe the Vietnamese calender started in the year 2879 B.C!
-
JP
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
please note that cantonese and mandarin developed differently and modern cantonese only have six tones
eg: for the word foo in the six tones can mean (wife, father, wealth, bitter, husband, and the yellow piece of paper that you write spells on to ward of evil spirits)
cantonese developed over 2000 years ago but mandarin has only been around for about 800 so years
so when the japs came to china during the tang dynasty mandarin wasn't even around
in japanese 'kanji' usaully have two types of readings called
1. on- this is the ancient chinese pronunication of the character and is used in sophisticated 'kanji' compounds
2. kun- the native tongue 'yamato kotoba' and is used when pronunicing 'kanji' by itself or in simple 'kanji' compounds
eg:
the 'on' reading of the word for metal/steel in jap is "tetsu"
in canto is "tit" very obvious that the japs tried to inherit the silent "t" at the end of "tit" but due to limitations of the japanese language they added the "tsu" on the end
eg: for the word foo in the six tones can mean (wife, father, wealth, bitter, husband, and the yellow piece of paper that you write spells on to ward of evil spirits)
cantonese developed over 2000 years ago but mandarin has only been around for about 800 so years
so when the japs came to china during the tang dynasty mandarin wasn't even around
in japanese 'kanji' usaully have two types of readings called
1. on- this is the ancient chinese pronunication of the character and is used in sophisticated 'kanji' compounds
2. kun- the native tongue 'yamato kotoba' and is used when pronunicing 'kanji' by itself or in simple 'kanji' compounds
eg:
the 'on' reading of the word for metal/steel in jap is "tetsu"
in canto is "tit" very obvious that the japs tried to inherit the silent "t" at the end of "tit" but due to limitations of the japanese language they added the "tsu" on the end
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
Maybe it's about time that I scrapped this thread, and started an updated one on my theories...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JP:
You are correct that the reason Japanese and Cantonese sound so similar, is because Cantonese retains most of the MC Chinese, which is what the Japanese borrowed from. However, there was one thing that went unanswered...
http://safeproxy.org/cgi-bin/nph-proxy. ... 1149&t=400
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, that idea isn't so bad, because this one is so tainted with politics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JP:
You are correct that the reason Japanese and Cantonese sound so similar, is because Cantonese retains most of the MC Chinese, which is what the Japanese borrowed from. However, there was one thing that went unanswered...
http://safeproxy.org/cgi-bin/nph-proxy. ... 1149&t=400
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, that idea isn't so bad, because this one is so tainted with politics.