Japan of 2,000 years ago
muchan
homepage.
I don't know if we can read article of past, so instead of writing URL
I'd
quote it here.
Copyright of LOUIS TEMPLADO (Asahi shinbun). -- quoted without
permission. :(
muchan
==============================================================================================
Lessons of the past
An exhibition of Yayoi Period artifacts shows that the Japan of 2,000
years ago was remarkable because of its
cultural diversity.
By LOUIS TEMPLADO
Asahi Evening News
If there are two things Japan's extreme nationalists proudly squawk
about most, they are the nation's long history
and the supposed homogeny of its people: The misty Japanese archipelago
is populated by a unique race descended
from Amaterasu, the goddess of the sun. So the legend goes.
"Shin Yayoi Kiko" (New perspectives for the Yayoi), a new exhibition at
the immense National Museum of Japanese
History in Sakura, Chiba Prefecture, makes the case that the Japan of
2,000 years ago was remarkable exactly
because of its cultural diversity.
For most of this century researchers believed the culture of the time
moved in an unbroken line from the Jomon
Period (10,000 B.C.-300 B.C.) to the Yayoi (300 B.C.-300 A.D.) and Kofun
Periods (300 A.D.-710 A.D.). The show
reveals, however, that ancient Japan was at once less wild and more
woolly than the experts originally thought.
The exhibition contains dioramas and 2,000 items from 400 mostly Yayoi
Period sites throughout Japan, but the
first thing to impress visitors are a collection of official Han Dynasty
(206 B.C.-220 A.D.) seals from China.
These and other items show how all things in Japan were measured against
the Chinese: They were already stamping
written edicts, clanging bronze bells and using eco-friendly bathrooms
(an outhouse built over a pig sty) while
the residents of Japan, still clad in sacks of flax, were slowly
settling down from hunting to farming
communities.
A metal sword with a lacquer scabbard set near a shabby hoe shows how
the gap between the people of the mainland
and the people of this archipelago was as incongruous as a Walkman in
the home of a New Guinea tribesman.
The marvels of technology brought by immigrants from the mainland may
have spurred the Yayoi to change, but not
all changed at once.
Most ideas about the period have come from Kyushu area digs that showed
the Yayoi moved from hunting and gathering
to farming, metal craft and early politics. Others developed farming but
never chiefdoms, while in tropical
Okinawa and snowy Hokkaido, people clung to older ways, as different
from each other as they are different from
Japanese today.
A great emphasis in the exhibit has been placed on Yayoi eating habits
(this being contemporary Japan, after all).
Two laughably modern examples of primitive meals accompany the ancient
pottery shards and shell ornaments.
Northerners presumably feasted--in one sitting--on such delicacies as
snow crabs, wakame seaweed soup, smoked
salmon, seal steaks and walnut cookies, while southerners picked at
intricately carved tropical fish sashimi,
roasted boar ribs, sea turtle soup and conch cooked in the shell. (The
spreads are a marked contrast to an
unrelated display elsewhere in the museum showing a typical commoner's
lunch in the Edo Period: a bowl full of
barley--most people couldn't afford rice--with a side of pickle.)
An equally fascinating comparison of burial practices hints that
different Yayoi communities may also have had
different ideas about the soul: In Okinawa, the dead were buried in
stone along with seashells, while in Kyushu
and elsewhere the dead were buried in jars and later dug up again.
So which of these people are the ancestors of today's Japanese?
Large photographs of the smiling, deep-lined faces of contemporary
farmers hang among the items on display and
hint at that question. A viewer-activated, three-dimensional
installation that projects features onto
2,000-year-old skulls is there too, but when you push the button the
face that stares back at you is that of a
distinctly modern Japanese manga character.
***
"Shin Yayoi Kiko" continues until May 9 at the National Museum of
Japanese History (043-486-0123),
located a 15-minute walk from Keisei Sakura Station on the Keisei Line,
Sakura, Chiba Prefecture.
Open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Closed March 23, 29, April 5, 12, 19,
26 and May 6. Admission is
1,300 yen for adults, 900 yen for students.
Dylan W.H. Sung
muchan wrote in message <36F275BE...@promikra.si>...
:I found the articlke below in yesterday's Asahi shimbun (English)
:homepage.
:I don't know if we can read article of past, so instead of writing URL
:I'd
:quote it here.
:
:Copyright of LOUIS TEMPLADO (Asahi shinbun). -- quoted without
:permission. :(
:
:muchan
:An equally fascinating comparison of burial practices hints that
:different Yayoi communities may also have had
:different ideas about the soul: In Okinawa, the dead were buried in
:stone along with seashells, while in Kyushu
:and elsewhere the dead were buried in jars and later dug up again.
:
The last part sounds familiar. Chinese burials also occured in two stages
(at least until recently in the part of the world my ancestors came from).
The body of the deceased was burried and left until nature reduces the
remains to bones, maybe 7 or more years. A prospitious date was chosen to
open the grave and exume the remains, then the bones were cleaned with paper
money (not real money!) and a large earthen ware pot was used to hold the
bones. (The bones are called 'gold' and the jars are then 'gold jars' or
"gim ang" in Hakka.) The bones of the ancestor was placed so that the bones
were roughly in a sitting position, and then the remains re-interred and an
elaborate seat like grave was built over it, several meters wide, and
roughly circular. There is a platform on which the descendents congregate
and make their offerings at the appropriate times of the year (around abouts
the Spring and Autumn equinoxes).
There are plenty dotted around the hillsides in HK. If anyone visits the New
Territories, you won't miss these often massive structures perched on
hillsides.
:So which of these people are the ancestors of today's Japanese?
Can't say.
Dylan.
Mike Wright
It's still done that pretty much that way in Taiwan, though I'm not familiar
with the details. My wife went back to Taiwan when her mother was re-interred.
I wonder if the Chinese north of the Yangtze River do/did that?
Then there's the Plain of Jars in Laos: "Excavations at the Plain and at two
smaller sites nearby yielded bones enclosed in ceramic urns, or in burial pits
covered by tombstones. The jars may have been used as sarcophagi for the initial
interment of important citizens, who were subsequently buried in the ground near
the jars."
< http://www.mekongexpress.com/laos/articles/dc_0697_museumexhibition.htm>
That's a pretty good stretch, from Laos through southern China to Kyushu. It
could represent the movement of pre-Han people in both directions from southern
China. Or, it could just be a coincidence.
> :So which of these people are the ancestors of today's Japanese?
>
> Can't say.
Both? Either? Neither?
--
Mike Wright
http://www.mbay.net/~darwin/language.html
_____________________________________________________
"China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese."
-- Charles de Gaulle
Mike Wright
Coincidence seems to be looking good.
A quick Web search for "burial jars" turned up mention of burial jars in Greece,
Sardinia, Vietnam, Borneo, Thailand, the Philippines, and Egypt. In many cases,
the use of burial jars seems to have been limited to children.
http://www.qal.berkeley.edu/arf/newsletter/5.1/jomon.html has info about a Jomon
site, Sannai Maruyama in northern Japan, that includes 800 burial jars for children.
Gerald B Mathias
: "Dylan W.H. Sung" wrote:
: >
: > muchan wrote in message <36F275BE...@promikra.si>...
: > :So which of these people are the ancestors of today's Japanese?
: >
: > Can't say.
: Both? Either? Neither?
I'll bet half of my up-coming first social security check that it is one
of those three providing someone gives me even odds.
Bart
aladdinsane
your
questions. It will be in two parts due to its length, this being part one:
DISCOVER Vol. 19 No. 6 (June 1998)
Japanese Roots
Just who are the Japanese? Where did they come from and when? The answers
are
difficult to come by, though not impossible--the real problem is that the
Japanese themselves may not want to know.
By Jared Diamond
Unearthing the origins of the Japanese is a much harder task than you might
guess. Among world powers today, the Japanese are the most distinctive in
their culture and environment. The origins of their language are one of the
most disputed questions of linguistics. These questions are central to the
self-image of the Japanese and to how they are viewed by other peoples.
Japan's rising dominance and touchy relations with its neighbors make it
more
important than ever to strip away myths and find answers.
The search for answers is difficult because the evidence is so conflicting.
On
the one hand, the Japanese people are biologically undistinctive, being very
similar in appearance and genes to other East Asians, especially to Koreans.
As the Japanese like to stress, they are culturally and biologically rather
homogeneous, with the exception of a distinctive people called the Ainu on
Japan's northernmost island of Hokkaido. Taken together, these facts seem to
suggest that the Japanese reached Japan only recently from the Asian
mainland,
too recently to have evolved differences from their mainland cousins, and
displaced the Ainu, who represent the original inhabitants. But if that were
true, you might expect the Japanese language to show close affinities to
some
mainland language, just as English is obviously closely related to other
Germanic languages (because Anglo-Saxons from the continent conquered
England
as recently as the sixth century A.D.). How can we resolve this
contradiction
between Japan's presumably ancient language and the evidence for recent
origins?
During the Ice Ages, land bridges (striped areas) connected Japan's main
islands to one another and to the mainland, allowing mammals--including
humans--to arrive on foot. (Map by Nenad Jakesevic)
Archeologists have proposed four conflicting theories. Most popular in Japan
is the view that the Japanese gradually evolved from ancient Ice Age people
who occupied Japan long before 20,000 B.C. Also widespread in Japan is a
theory that the Japanese descended from horse-riding Asian nomads who passed
through Korea to conquer Japan in the fourth century, but who were
themselves--emphatically--not Koreans. A theory favored by many Western
archeologists and Koreans, and unpopular in some circles in Japan, is that
the
Japanese are descendants of immigrants from Korea who arrived with
rice-paddy
agriculture around 400 B.C. Finally, the fourth theory holds that the
peoples
named in the other three theories could have mixed to form the modern
Japanese.
When similar questions of origins arise about other peoples, they can be
discussed dispassionately. That is not so for the Japanese. Until 1946,
Japanese schools taught a myth of history based on the earliest recorded
Japanese chronicles, which were written in the eighth century. They describe
how the sun goddess Amaterasu, born from the left eye of the creator god
Izanagi, sent her grandson Ninigi to Earth on the Japanese island of Kyushu
to
wed an earthly deity. Ninigi's great-grandson Jimmu, aided by a dazzling
sacred bird that rendered his enemies helpless, became the first emperor of
Japan in 660 B.C. To fill the gap between 660 B.C. and the earliest
historically documented Japanese monarchs, the chronicles invented 13 other
equally fictitious emperors. Before the end of World War II, when Emperor
Hirohito finally announced that he was not of divine descent, Japanese
archeologists and historians had to make their interpretations conform to
this
chronicle account. Unlike American archeologists, who acknowledge that
ancient
sites in the United States were left by peoples (Native Americans) unrelated
to most modern Americans, Japanese archeologists believe all archeological
deposits in Japan, no matter how old, were left by ancestors of the modern
Japanese. Hence archeology in Japan is supported by astronomical budgets,
employs up to 50,000 field-workers each year, and draws public attention to
a
degree inconceivable anywhere else in the world.
Why do they care so much? Unlike most other non-European countries, Japan
preserved its independence and culture while emerging from isolation to
create
an industrialized society in the late nineteenth century. It was a
remarkable
achievement. Now the Japanese people are understandably concerned about
maintaining their traditions in the face of massive Western cultural
influences. They want to believe that their distinctive language and culture
required uniquely complex developmental processes. To acknowledge a
relationship of the Japanese language to any other language seems to
constitute a surrender of cultural identity.
What makes it especially difficult to discuss Japanese archeology
dispassionately is that Japanese interpretations of the past affect present
behavior. Who among East Asian peoples brought culture to whom? Who has
historical claims to whose land? These are not just academic questions. For
instance, there is much archeological evidence that people and material
objects passed between Japan and Korea in the period A.D. 300 to 700.
Japanese
interpret this to mean that Japan conquered Korea and brought Korean slaves
and artisans to Japan; Koreans believe instead that Korea conquered Japan
and
that the founders of the Japanese imperial family were Korean.
Thus, when Japan sent troops to Korea and annexed it in 1910, Japanese
military leaders celebrated the annexation as "the restoration of the
legitimate arrangement of antiquity." For the next 35 years, Japanese
occupation forces tried to eradicate Korean culture and to replace the
Korean
language with Japanese in schools. The effort was a consequence of a
centuries-old attitude of disdain. "Nose tombs" in Japan still contain
20,000
noses severed from Koreans and brought home as trophies of a
sixteenth-century
Japanese invasion. Not surprisingly, many Koreans loathe the Japanese, and
their loathing is returned with contempt.
What really was "the legitimate arrangement of antiquity"? Today, Japan and
Korea are both economic powerhouses, facing each other across the Korea
Strait
and viewing each other through colored lenses of false myths and past
atrocities. It bodes ill for the future of East Asia if these two great
peoples cannot find common ground. To do so, they will need a correct
understanding of who the Japanese people really are.
Japan's unique culture began with its unique geography and environment. It
is,
for comparison, far more isolated than Britain, which lies only 22 miles
from
the French coast. Japan lies 110 miles from the closest point of the Asian
mainland (South Korea), 190 miles from mainland Russia, and 480 miles from
mainland China. Climate, too, sets Japan apart. Its rainfall, up to 120
inches
a year, makes it the wettest temperate country in the world. Unlike the
winter
rains prevailing over much of Europe, Japan's rains are concentrated in the
summer growing season, giving it the highest plant productivity of any
nation
in the temperate zones. While 80 percent of Japan's land consists of
mountains
unsuitable for agriculture and only 14 percent is farmland, an average
square
mile of that farmland is so fertile that it supports eight times as many
people as does an average square mile of British farmland. Japan's high
rainfall also ensures a quickly regenerated forest after logging. Despite
thousands of years of dense human occupation, Japan still offers visitors a
first impression of greenness because 70 percent of its land is still
covered
by forest.
Japanese forest composition varies with latitude and altitude: evergreen
leafy
forest in the south at low altitude, deciduous leafy forest in central
Japan,
and coniferous forest in the north and high up. For prehistoric humans, the
deciduous leafy forest was the most productive, providing abundant edible
nuts
such as walnuts, chestnuts, horse chestnuts, acorns, and beechnuts. Japanese
waters are also outstandingly productive. The lakes, rivers, and surrounding
seas teem with salmon, trout, tuna, sardines, mackerel, herring, and cod.
Today, Japan is the largest consumer of fish in the world. Japanese waters
are
also rich in clams, oysters, and other shellfish, crabs, shrimp, crayfish,
and
edible seaweeds. That high productivity was a key to Japan's prehistory.
Vast earth-mound tombs called kofun required well-organized labor to build.
This one, the 1,300-year-old Maruhakayama tomb, is 62 feet high. (Photo by:
J.
Edward Kidder, Jr. [704-733-4360])
From southwest to northeast, the four main Japanese islands are Kyushu,
Shikoku, Honshu, and Hokkaido. Until the late nineteenth century, Hokkaido
and
northern Honshu were inhabited mainly by the Ainu, who lived as hunter-
gatherers with limited agriculture, while the people we know today as
Japanese
occupied the rest of the main islands.
In appearance, of course, the Japanese are very similar to other East
Asians.
As for the Ainu, however, their distinctive appearance has prompted more to
be
written about their origins and relationships than about any other single
people on Earth. Partly because Ainu men have luxuriant beards and the most
profuse body hair of any people, they are often classified as Caucasoids
(so-
called white people) who somehow migrated east through Eurasia to Japan. In
their overall genetic makeup, though, the Ainu are related to other East
Asians, including the Japanese and Koreans. The distinctive appearance and
hunter-gatherer lifestyle of the Ainu, and the undistinctive appearance and
the intensive agricultural lifestyle of the Japanese, are frequently taken
to
suggest the straightforward interpretation that the Ainu are descended from
Japan's original hunter-gatherer inhabitants and the Japanese are more
recent
invaders from the Asian mainland.
But this view is difficult to reconcile with the distinctiveness of the
Japanese language. Everyone agrees that Japanese does not bear a close
relation to any other language in the world. Most scholars consider it to be
an isolated member of Asia's Altaic language family, which consists of
Turkic,
Mongolian, and Tungusic languages. Korean is also often considered to be an
isolated member of this family, and within the family Japanese and Korean
may
be more closely related to each other than to other Altaic languages.
However,
the similarities between Japanese and Korean are confined to general
grammatical features and about 15 percent of their basic vocabularies,
rather
than the detailed shared features of grammar and vocabulary that link, say,
French to Spanish; they are more different from each other than Russian is
from English.
Since languages change over time, the more similar two languages are, the
more
recently they must have diverged. By counting common words and features,
linguists can estimate how long ago languages diverged, and such estimates
suggest that Japanese and Korean parted company at least 4,000 years ago. As
for the Ainu language, its origins are thoroughly in doubt; it may not have
any special relationship to Japanese. After genes and language, a third type
of evidence about Japanese origins comes from ancient portraits. The
earliest
preserved likenesses of Japan's inhabitants are statues called haniwa,
erected
outside tombs around 1,500 years ago. Those statues unmistakably depict East
Asians. They do not resemble the heavily bearded Ainu. If the Japanese did
replace the Ainu in Japan south of Hokkaido, that replacement must have
occurred before A.D. 500.
Our earliest written information about Japan comes from Chinese chronicles,
because China developed literacy long before Korea or Japan. In early
Chinese
accounts of various peoples referred to as "Eastern Barbarians," Japan is
described under the name Wa, whose inhabitants were said to be divided into
more than a hundred quarreling states. Only a few Korean or Japanese
inscriptions before A.D. 700 have been preserved, but extensive chronicles
were written in 712 and 720 in Japan and later in Korea. Those reveal
massive
transmission of culture to Japan from Korea itself, and from China via
Korea.
The chronicles are also full of accounts of Koreans in Japan and of Japanese
in Korea--interpreted by Japanese or Korean historians, respectively, as
evidence of Japanese conquest of Korea or the reverse.
The ancestors of the Japanese, then, seem to have reached Japan before they
had writing. Their biology suggests a recent arrival, but their language
suggests arrival long ago. To resolve this paradox, we must now turn to
archeology. The seas that surround much of Japan and coastal East Asia are
shallow enough to have been dry land during the ice ages, when much of the
ocean water was locked up in glaciers and sea level lay at about 500 feet
below its present measurement. Land bridges connected Japan's main islands
to
one another, to the Russian mainland, and to South Korea. The mammals
walking
out to Japan included not only the ancestors of modern Japan's bears and
monkeys but also ancient humans, long before boats had been invented. Stone
tools indicate human arrival as early as half a million years ago.
aladdinsane
Around 13,000 years ago, as glaciers melted rapidly all over the world,
conditions in Japan changed spectacularly for the better, as far as humans
were concerned. Temperature, rainfall, and humidity all increased, raising
plant productivity to present high levels. Deciduous leafy forests full of
nut
trees, which had been confined to southern Japan during the ice ages,
expanded
northward at the expense of coniferous forest, thereby replacing a forest
type
that had been rather sterile for humans with a much more productive one. The
rise in sea level severed the land bridges, converted Japan from a piece of
the Asian continent to a big archipelago, turned what had been a plain into
rich shallow seas, and created thousands of miles of productive new
coastline
with innumerable islands, bays, tidal flats, and estuaries, all teeming with
seafood.
That end of the Ice Age was accompanied by the first of the two most
decisive
changes in Japanese history: the invention of pottery. In the usual
experience
of archeologists, inventions flow from mainlands to islands, and small
peripheral societies aren't supposed to contribute revolutionary advances to
the rest of the world. It therefore astonished archeologists to discover
that
the world's oldest known pottery was made in Japan 12,700 years ago. For the
first time in human experience, people had watertight containers readily
available in any desired shape. With their new ability to boil or steam
food,
they gained access to abundant resources that had previously been difficult
to
use: leafy vegetables, which would burn or dry out if cooked on an open
fire;
shellfish, which could now be opened easily; and toxic foods like acorns,
which could now have their toxins boiled out. Soft-boiled foods could be fed
to small children, permitting earlier weaning and more closely spaced
babies.
Toothless old people, the repositories of information in a preliterate
society, could now be fed and live longer. All those momentous consequences
of
pottery triggered a population explosion, causing Japan's population to
climb
from an estimated few thousand to a quarter of a million.
The prejudice that islanders are supposed to learn from superior
continentals
wasn't the sole reason that record-breaking Japanese pottery caused such a
shock. In addition, those first Japanese potters were clearly hunter-
gatherers, which also violated established views. Usually only sedentary
societies own pottery: what nomad wants to carry heavy, fragile pots, as
well
as weapons and the baby, whenever time comes to shift camp? Most sedentary
societies elsewhere in the world arose only with the adoption of
agriculture.
But the Japanese environment is so productive that people could settle down
and make pottery while still living by hunting and gathering. Pottery helped
those Japanese hunter-gatherers exploit their environment's rich food
resources more than 10,000 years before intensive agriculture reached Japan.
Much ancient Japanese pottery was decorated by rolling or pressing a cord on
soft clay. Because the Japanese word for cord marking is jomon, the term
Jomon
is applied to the pottery itself, to the ancient Japanese people who made
it,
and to that whole period in Japanese prehistory beginning with the invention
of pottery and ending only 10,000 years later. The earliest Jomon pottery,
of
12,700 years ago, comes from Kyushu, the southernmost Japanese island.
Thereafter, pottery spread north, reaching the vicinity of modern Tokyo
around
9,500 years ago and the northernmost island of Hokkaido by 7,000 years ago.
Pottery's northward spread followed that of deciduous forest rich in nuts,
suggesting that the climate-related food explosion was what permitted
sedentary living.
How did Jomon people make their living? We have abundant evidence from the
garbage they left behind at hundreds of thousands of excavated archeological
sites all over Japan. They apparently enjoyed a well-balanced diet, one that
modern nutritionists would applaud.
One major food category was nuts, especially chestnuts and walnuts, plus
horse
chestnuts and acorns leached or boiled free of their bitter poisons. Nuts
could be harvested in autumn in prodigious quantities, then stored for the
winter in underground pits up to six feet deep and six feet wide. Other
plant
foods included berries, fruits, seeds, leaves, shoots, bulbs, and roots. In
all, archeologists sifting through Jomon garbage have identified 64 species
of
edible plants.
Then as now, Japan's inhabitants were among the world's leading consumers of
seafood. They harpooned tuna in the open ocean, killed seals on the beaches,
and exploited seasonal runs of salmon in the rivers. They drove dolphins
into
shallow water and clubbed or speared them, just as Japanese hunters do
today.
They netted diverse fish, captured them in weirs, and caught them on
fishhooks
carved from deer antlers. They gathered shellfish, crabs, and seaweed in the
intertidal zone or dove for them. (Jomon skeletons show a high incidence of
abnormal bone growth in the ears, often observed in divers today.) Among
land
animals hunted, wild boar and deer were the most common prey. They were
caught
in pit traps, shot with bows and arrows, and run down with dogs.
The most debated question about Jomon subsistence concerns the possible
contribution of agriculture. Many Jomon sites contain remains of edible
plants
that are native to Japan as wild species but also grown as crops today,
including the adzuki bean and green gram bean. The remains from Jomon times
do
not clearly show features distinguishing the crops from their wild
ancestors,
so we do not know whether these plants were gathered in the wild or grown
intentionally. Sites also have debris of edible or useful plant species not
native to Japan, such as hemp, which must have been introduced from the
Asian
mainland. Around 1000 B.C., toward the end of the Jomon period, a few grains
of rice, barley, and millet, the staple cereals of East Asia, began to
appear.
All these tantalizing clues make it likely that Jomon people were starting
to
practice some slash-and-burn agriculture, but evidently in a casual way that
made only a minor contribution to their diet.
Archeologists studying Jomon hunter-gatherers have found not only hard-to-
carry pottery (including pieces up to three feet tall) but also heavy stone
tools, remains of substantial houses that show signs of repair, big village
sites of 50 or more dwellings, and cemeteries--all further evidence that the
Jomon people were sedentary rather than nomadic. Their stay-at-home
lifestyle
was made possible by the diversity of resource-rich habitats available
within
a short distance of one central site: inland forests, rivers, seashores,
bays,
and open oceans. Jomon people lived at some of the highest population
densities ever estimated for hunter-gatherers, especially in central and
northern Japan, with their nut-rich forests, salmon runs, and productive
seas.
The estimate of the total population of Jomon Japan at its peak is
250,000--trivial, of course, compared with today, but impressive for hunter-
gatherers.
With all this stress on what Jomon people did have, we need to be clear as
well about what they didn't have. Their lives were very different from those
of contemporary societies only a few hundred miles away in mainland China
and
Korea. Jomon people had no intensive agriculture. Apart from dogs (and
perhaps
pigs), they had no domestic animals. They had no metal tools, no writing, no
weaving, and little social stratification into chiefs and commoners.
Regional
variation in pottery styles suggests little progress toward political
centralization and unification.
Despite its distinctiveness even in East Asia at that time, Jomon Japan was
not completely isolated. Pottery, obsidian, and fishhooks testify to some
Jomon trade with Korea, Russia, and Okinawa--as does the arrival of Asian
mainland crops. Compared with later eras, though, that limited trade with
the
outside world had little influence on Jomon society. Jomon Japan was a
miniature conservative universe that changed surprisingly little over 10,000
years.
To place Jomon Japan in a contemporary perspective, let us remind ourselves
of
what human societies were like on the Asian mainland in 400 B.C., just as
the
Jomon lifestyle was about to come to an end. China consisted of kingdoms
with
rich elites and poor commoners; the people lived in walled towns, and the
country was on the verge of political unification and would soon become the
world's largest empire. Beginning around 6500 B.C., China had developed
intensive agriculture based on millet in the north and rice in the south; it
had domestic pigs, chickens, and water buffalo. The Chinese had had writing
for at least 900 years, metal tools for at least 1,500 years, and had just
invented the world's first cast iron. Those developments were also spreading
to Korea, which itself had had agriculture for several thousand years
(including rice since at least 2100 B.C.) and metal since 1000 B.C.
All through human history, centralized states with metal weapons and armies
supported by dense agricultural populations have swept away sparser
populations of huntergatherers. How did Stone Age Japan survive so long?
With all these developments going on for thousands of years just across the
Korea Strait from Japan, it might seem astonishing that in 400 B.C. Japan
was
still occupied by people who had some trade with Korea but remained
preliterate stone-tool-using hunter-gatherers. Throughout human history,
centralized states with metal weapons and armies supported by dense
agricultural populations have consistently swept away sparser populations of
hunter-gatherers. How did Jomon Japan survive so long?
To understand the answer to this paradox, we have to remember that until 400
B.C., the Korea Strait separated not rich farmers from poor
hunter-gatherers,
but poor farmers from rich hunter-gatherers. China itself and Jomon Japan
were
probably not in direct contact. Instead Japan's trade contacts, such as they
were, involved Korea. But rice had been domesticated in warm southern China
and spread only slowly northward to much cooler Korea, because it took a
long
time to develop cold-resistant strains of rice. Early rice agriculture in
Korea used dry-field methods rather than irrigated paddies and was not
particularly productive. Hence early Korean agriculture could not compete
with
Jomon hunting and gathering. Jomon people themselves would have seen no
advantage in adopting Korean agriculture, insofar as they were aware of its
existence, and poor Korean farmers had no advantages that would let them
force
their way into Japan. As we shall see, the advantages finally reversed
suddenly and dramatically.
More than 10,000 years after the invention of pottery and the subsequent
Jomon
population explosion, a second decisive event in Japanese history triggered
a
second population explosion. Around 400 B.C., a new lifestyle arrived from
South Korea. This second transition poses in acute form our question about
who
the Japanese are. Does the transition mark the replacement of Jomon people
with immigrants from Korea, ancestral to the modern Japanese? Or did Japan's
original Jomon inhabitants continue to occupy Japan while learning valuable
new tricks?
The new mode of living appeared first on the north coast of Japan's
southwesternmost island, Kyushu, just across the Korea Strait from South
Korea. There we find Japan's first metal tools, of iron, and Japan's first
undisputed full-scale agriculture. That agriculture came in the form of
irrigated rice fields, complete with canals, dams, banks, paddies, and rice
residues revealed by archeological excavations. Archeologists term the new
way
of living Yayoi, after a district of Tokyo where in 1884 its characteristic
pottery was first recognized. Unlike Jomon pottery, Yayoi pottery was very
similar to contemporary South Korean pottery in shape. Many other elements
of
the new Yayoi culture were unmistakably Korean and previously foreign to
Japan, including bronze objects, weaving, glass beads, and styles of tools
and
houses.
While rice was the most important crop, Yayoi farmers introduced 27 new to
Japan, as well as unquestionably domesticated pigs. They may have practiced
double cropping, with paddies irrigated for rice production in the summer,
then drained for dry-land cultivation of millet, barley, and wheat in the
winter. Inevitably, this highly productive system of intensive agriculture
triggered an immediate population explosion in Kyushu, where archeologists
have identified far more Yayoi sites than Jomon sites, even though the Jomon
period lasted 14 times longer.
In virtually no time, Yayoi farming jumped from Kyushu to the adjacent main
islands of Shikoku and Honshu, reaching the Tokyo area within 200 years, and
the cold northern tip of Honshu (1,000 miles from the first Yayoi
settlements
on Kyushu) in another century. After briefly occupying northern Honshu,
Yayoi
farmers abandoned that area, presumably because rice farming could not
compete
with the Jomon hunter-gatherer life. For the next 2,000 years, northern
Honshu
remained a frontier zone, beyond which the northernmost Japanese island of
Hokkaido and its Ainu hunter-gatherers were not even considered part of the
Japanese state until their annexation in the nineteenth century.
It took several centuries for Yayoi Japan to show the first signs of social
stratification, as reflected especially in cemeteries. After about 100 B.C.,
separate parts of cemeteries were set aside for the graves of what was
evidently an emerging elite class, marked by luxury goods imported from
China,
such as beautiful jade objects and bronze mirrors. As the Yayoi population
explosion continued, and as all the best swamps or irrigable plains suitable
for wet rice agriculture began to fill up, the archeological evidence
suggests
that war became more and more frequent: that evidence includes mass
production
of arrowheads, defensive moats surrounding villages, and buried skeletons
pierced by projectile points. These hallmarks of war in Yayoi Japan
corroborate the earliest accounts of Japan in Chinese chronicles, which
describe the land of Wa and its hundred little political units fighting one
another.
In the period from A.D. 300 to 700, both archeological excavations and
frustratingly ambiguous accounts in later chronicles let us glimpse dimly
the
emergence of a politically unified Japan. Before A.D. 300, elite tombs were
small and exhibited a regional diversity of styles. Beginning around A.D.
300,
increasingly enormous earth-mound tombs called kofun, in the shape of
keyholes, were constructed throughout the former Yayoi area from Kyushu to
North Honshu. Kofun are up to 1,500 feet long and more than 100 feet high,
making them possibly the largest earth-mound tombs in the world. The
prodigious amount of labor required to build them and the uniformity of
their
style across Japan imply powerful rulers who commanded a huge, politically
unified labor force. Those kofun that have been excavated contain lavish
burial goods, but excavation of the largest ones is still forbidden because
they are believed to contain the ancestors of the Japanese imperial line.
The
visible evidence of political centralization that the kofun provide
reinforces
the accounts of kofun-era Japanese emperors written down much later in
Japanese and Korean chronicles. Massive Korean influences on Japan during
the
kofun era--whether through the Korean conquest of Japan (the Korean view) or
the Japanese conquest of Korea (the Japanese view)--were responsible for
transmitting Buddhism, writing, horseback riding, and new ceramic and
metallurgical techniques to Japan from the Asian mainland.
Finally, with the completion of Japan's first chronicle in A.D. 712, Japan
emerged into the full light of history. As of 712, the people inhabiting
Japan
were at last unquestionably Japanese, and their language (termed Old
Japanese)
was unquestionably ancestral to modern Japanese. Emperor Akihito, who reigns
today, is the eighty-second direct descendant of the emperor under whom that
first chronicle of A.D. 712 was written. He is traditionally considered the
125th direct descendant of the legendary first emperor, Jimmu, the great-
great-great-grandson of the sun goddess Amaterasu.
Japanese culture underwent far more radical change in the 700 years of the
Yayoi era than in the ten millennia of Jomon times. The contrast between
Jomon
stability (or conservatism) and radical Yayoi change is the most striking
feature of Japanese history. Obviously, something momentous happened at 400
B.C. What was it? Were the ancestors of the modern Japanese the Jomon
people,
the Yayoi people, or a combination? Japan's population increased by an
astonishing factor of 70 during Yayoi times: What caused that change? A
passionate debate has raged around three alternative hypotheses.
One theory is that Jomon hunter-gatherers themselves gradually evolved into
the modern Japanese. Because they had already been living a settled
existence
in villages for thousands of years, they may have been preadapted to
accepting
agriculture. At the Yayoi transition, perhaps nothing more happened than
that
Jomon society received cold-resistant rice seeds and information about paddy
irrigation from Korea, enabling it to produce more food and increase its
numbers. This theory appeals to many modern Japanese because it minimizes
the
unwelcome contribution of Korean genes to the Japanese gene pool while
portraying the Japanese people as uniquely Japanese for at least the past
12,000 years.
A second theory, unappealing to those Japanese who prefer the first theory,
argues instead that the Yayoi transition represents a massive influx of
immigrants from Korea, carrying Korean farming practices, culture, and
genes.
Kyushu would have seemed a paradise to Korean rice farmers, because it is
warmer and swampier than Korea and hence a better place to grow rice.
According to one estimate, Yayoi Japan received several million immigrants
from Korea, utterly overwhelming the genetic contribution of Jomon people
(thought to have numbered around 75,000 just before the Yayoi transition).
If
so, modern Japanese are descendants of Korean immigrants who developed a
modified culture of their own over the last 2,000 years.
The last theory accepts the evidence for immigration from Korea but denies
that it was massive. Instead, highly productive agriculture may have enabled
a
modest number of immigrant rice farmers to reproduce much faster than Jomon
hunter-gatherers and eventually to outnumber them. Like the second theory,
this theory considers modern Japanese to be slightly modified Koreans but
dispenses with the need for large-scale immigration.
By comparison with similar transitions elsewhere in the world, the second or
third theory seems to me more plausible than the first theory. Over the last
12,000 years, agriculture arose at not more than nine places on Earth,
including China and the Fertile Crescent. Twelve thousand years ago,
everybody
alive was a hunter-gatherer; now almost all of us are farmers or fed by
farmers. Farming spread from those few sites of origin mainly because
farmers
outbred hunters, developed more potent technology, and then killed the
hunters
or drove them off lands suitable for agriculture. In modern times European
farmers thereby replaced native Californian hunters, aboriginal Australians,
and the San people of South Africa. Farmers who used stone tools similarly
replaced hunters prehistorically throughout Europe, Southeast Asia, and
Indonesia. Korean farmers of 400 B.C. would have enjoyed a much larger
advantage over Jomon hunters because the Koreans already possessed iron
tools
and a highly developed form of intensive agriculture.
Which of the three theories is correct for Japan? The only direct way to
answer this question is to compare Jomon and Yayoi skeletons and genes with
those of modern Japanese and Ainu. Measurements have now been made of many
skeletons. In addition, within the last three years molecular geneticists
have
begun to extract DNA from ancient human skeletons and compare the genes of
Japan's ancient and modern populations. Jomon and Yayoi skeletons,
researchers
find, are on the average readily distinguishable. Jomon people tended to be
shorter, with relatively longer forearms and lower legs, more wide-set eyes,
shorter and wider faces, and much more pronounced facial topography, with
strikingly raised browridges, noses, and nose bridges. Yayoi people averaged
an inch or two taller, with close-set eyes, high and narrow faces, and flat
browridges and noses. Some skeletons of the Yayoi period were still
Jomon-like
in appearance, but that is to be expected by almost any theory of the Jomon-
Yayoi transition. By the time of the kofun period, all Japanese skeletons
except those of the Ainu form a homogeneous group, resembling modern
Japanese
and Koreans.
In all these respects, Jomon skulls differ from those of modern Japanese and
are most similar to those of modern Ainu, while Yayoi skulls most resemble
those of modern Japanese. Similarly, geneticists attempting to calculate the
relative contributions of Korean-like Yayoi genes and Ainu-like Jomon genes
to
the modern Japanese gene pool have concluded that the Yayoi contribution was
generally dominant. Thus, immigrants from Korea really did make a big
contribution to the modern Japanese, though we cannot yet say whether that
was
because of massive immigration or else modest immigration amplified by a
high
rate of population increase. Genetic studies of the past three years have
also
at last resolved the controversy about the origins of the Ainu: they are the
descendants of Japan's ancient Jomon inhabitants, mixed with Korean genes of
Yayoi colonists and of the modern Japanese.
Given the overwhelming advantage that rice agriculture gave Korean farmers,
one has to wonder why the farmers achieved victory over Jomon hunters so
suddenly, after making little headway in Japan for thousands of years. What
finally tipped the balance and triggered the Yayoi transition was probably a
combination of four developments: the farmers began raising rice in
irrigated
fields instead of in less productive dry fields; they developed rice strains
that would grow well in a cool climate; their population expanded in Korea,
putting pressure on Koreans to emigrate; and they invented iron tools that
allowed them to mass-produce the wooden shovels, hoes, and other tools
needed
for rice-paddy agriculture. That iron and intensive farming reached Japan
simultaneously is unlikely to have been a coincidence.
We have seen that the combined evidence of archeology, physical
anthropology,
and genetics supports the transparent interpretation for how the
distinctive-
looking Ainu and the undistinctive-looking Japanese came to share Japan: the
Ainu are descended from Japan's original inhabitants and the Japanese are
descended from more recent arrivals. But that view leaves the problem of
language unexplained. If the Japanese really are recent arrivals from Korea,
you might expect the Japanese and Korean languages to be very similar. More
generally, if the Japanese people arose recently from some mixture, on the
island of Kyushu, of original Ainu-like Jomon inhabitants with Yayoi
invaders
from Korea, the Japanese language might show close affinities to both the
Korean and Ainu languages. Instead, Japanese and Ainu have no demonstrable
relationship, and the relationship between Japanese and Korean is distant.
How
could this be so if the mixing occurred a mere 2,400 years ago? I suggest
the
following resolution of this paradox: the languages of Kyushu's Jomon
residents and Yayoi invaders were quite different from the modern Ainu and
Korean languages, respectively.
The Ainu language was spoken in recent times by the Ainu on the northern
island of Hokkaido, so Hokkaido's Jomon inhabitants probably also spoke an
Ainu-like language. The Jomon inhabitants of Kyushu, however, surely did
not.
From the southern tip of Kyushu to the northern tip of Hokkaido, the
Japanese
archipelago is nearly 1,500 miles long. In Jomon times it supported great
regional diversity of subsistence techniques and of pottery styles and was
never unified politically. During the 10,000 years of Jomon occupation,
Jomon
people would have evolved correspondingly great linguistic diversity. In
fact,
many Japanese place-names on Hokkaido and northern Honshu include the Ainu
words for river, nai or betsu, and for cape, shiri, but such Ainu-like names
do not occur farther south in Japan. This suggests not only that Yayoi and
Japanese pioneers adopted many Jomon place-names, just as white Americans
did
Native American names (think of Massachusetts and Mississippi), but also
that
Ainu was the Jomon language only of northernmost Japan.
That is, the modern Ainu language of Hokkaido is not a model for the ancient
Jomon language of Kyushu. By the same token, modern Korean may be a poor
model
for the ancient Yayoi language of Korean immigrants in 400 B.C. In the
centuries before Korea became unified politically in A.D. 676, it consisted
of
three kingdoms. Modern Korean is derived from the language of the kingdom of
Silla, the kingdom that emerged triumphant and unified Korea, but Silla was
not the kingdom that had close contact with Japan in the preceding
centuries.
Early Korean chronicles tell us that the different kingdoms had different
languages. While the languages of the kingdoms defeated by Silla are poorly
known, the few preserved words of one of those kingdoms, Koguryo, are much
more similar to the corresponding Old Japanese words than are the
corresponding modern Korean words. Korean languages may have been even more
diverse in 400 B.C., before political unification had reached the stage of
three kingdoms. The Korean language that reached Japan in 400 B.C., and that
evolved into modern Japanese, I suspect, was quite different from the Silla
language that evolved into modern Korean. Hence we should not be surprised
that modern Japanese and Korean people resemble each other far more in their
appearance and genes than in their languages.
History gives the Japanese and the Koreans ample grounds for mutual distrust
and contempt, so any conclusion confirming their close relationship is
likely
to be unpopular among both peoples. Like Arabs and Jews, Koreans and
Japanese
are joined by blood yet locked in traditional enmity. But enmity is mutually
destructive, in East Asia as in the Middle East. As reluctant as Japanese
and
Koreans are to admit it, they are like twin brothers who shared their
formative years. The political future of East Asia depends in large part on
their success in rediscovering those ancient bonds between them.
Masaki OKADA
suggestions to the origin of Japanese and Koreans.
I only want to point out that at least Japanese are NOT reluctant at all
to know about their origin. I personally think after reading many
literature that Japan and Korea are both the twin children of the
Chinese civilization. Chinese immigrants in the ancient time enlightened
the Eastern barbarians and stimulated them to build their own states.
Japanese rather insisted before the end of the second world war that
Japanese and Koreans are from the same ancestors and used this as a
tool to integrate Korea into Japan. So, rather politically Japanese must
become hesitant after the WWII to say that we are close relatives.
As you might know, the recent theory in Japan says that the modern
Japanese are the mixture of the ancient Jomon people and the Yayoi
immigrants. Ainus and Okinawans are less mixed with the new blood from
the continent. Genetic evidences also support this idea. We only need
some bright idea concerning language. At least we cannot deny the
grammatical similarity between Japanese and Korean languages. On the
other hand, as for the pure Japanese words we can better explain the
meanings by using Ainu language. The development of language in the Far
East might have followed the different course from that in Europe. So, I
don't think that the analogy with Indo-German language is not much
viable for our languages.
I hope that the recent start of our reconciliation process with Koreans
will also promote the study in this area.
Check out my essay on the origin of Japanese
(http://www.mars.dti.ne.jp/~ja1rna/ainu/ainu.html")
if you have time.
--
Masaki OKADA
ja1...@mars.dti.ne.jp
"Japan as it is" (http://www.mars.dti.ne.jp/~ja1rna)
muchan
aladdinsane wrote:
>
> From Discover Magazine came this article, which I hope will help to answer
> your
> questions. It will be in two parts due to its length, this being part one:
>
> DISCOVER Vol. 19 No. 6 (June 1998)
> Japanese Roots
> Just who are the Japanese? Where did they come from and when? The answers
> are
> difficult to come by, though not impossible--the real problem is that the
> Japanese themselves may not want to know.
>
> By Jared Diamond
> (snip)
>
At the end of the last year, someone posted about this Diamonds's article,
and we discussed here in <s.l.j>. (Though there were about only three
participants..., for new years season?) If you are interested in, please
check on dejanews.
muchan
H. Takahashi
Masaki OKADA wrote in message <37039281...@mars.dti.ne.jp>...
>The development of language in the Far East might have followed
>the different course from that in Europe. So, I don't think that the
>analogy with Indo-German language is not much viable for our >languages .
In what way is the development of Japanese and Korean languagres different
from that of Indo-German languages?
Will you kindly explain?
I'm interested in that.
Hiro Takahashi,
Robato Yao
>I found this thesis is very interesting and includes many good
>suggestions to the origin of Japanese and Koreans.
>
>I only want to point out that at least Japanese are NOT reluctant at all
>to know about their origin. I personally think after reading many
>literature that Japan and Korea are both the twin children of the
>Chinese civilization. Chinese immigrants in the ancient time enlightened
>the Eastern barbarians and stimulated them to build their own states.
>
>Japanese rather insisted before the end of the second world war that
>Japanese and Koreans are from the same ancestors and used this as a
>tool to integrate Korea into Japan. So, rather politically Japanese must
>become hesitant after the WWII to say that we are close relatives.
>
>As you might know, the recent theory in Japan says that the modern
>Japanese are the mixture of the ancient Jomon people and the Yayoi
>immigrants. Ainus and Okinawans are less mixed with the new blood from
>the continent. Genetic evidences also support this idea. We only need
>some bright idea concerning language. At least we cannot deny the
>grammatical similarity between Japanese and Korean languages. On the
>other hand, as for the pure Japanese words we can better explain the
>East might have followed the different course from that in Europe. So, I
>don't think that the analogy with Indo-German language is not much
>
>I hope that the recent start of our reconciliation process with Koreans
>will also promote the study in this area.
>Check out my essay on the origin of Japanese
>(http://www.mars.dti.ne.jp/~ja1rna/ainu/ainu.html")
>if you have time.
I saw your web site. However there are some myths already broken by
anthropological and genetic evidence.
Ainus are not definitely related to Caucasian and are definitely
mongoloid stock. Murayama's work connect certain Ainu words with
Austronesian. Ainu language lack a crucial characteristics of Altaic
languages such as vowel harmony and its vocabulary shares little with
surrounding northern Asia.
Jomon skulls resemble south east Asian according to studies by C. L.
Brace and Hanihara. There seems to be some connection with Ainu with
Philippine Aeta (Hanihara) but that's probably because Ainu and Aeta
represent some of the oldest examples of Asians.
Ainu and Ryukuran languages may be language
isolates; they may not be related to each other as
well.
Rgds,
Chris
Masaki OKADA
> >the different course from that in Europe. So, I don't think that the
>
> In what way is the development of Japanese and Korean languagres different
> from that of Indo-German languages?
> Will you kindly explain?
> I'm interested in that.
>
> Hiro Takahashi,
The linguistic theory of the Indo-German language (i.e. different
languages stem from one original language.) might not apply to Japanese.
At least you have to first prove that the theory derived from the study
of the Indo-German language is applicable to Japanese, as such trials
have not been successful.
For example, it is obvious that Japanese and Korean are grammatically
very similar. However, if you try to measure the distance of these two
languages by using the similarity of individual words ... if I recall
correctly ... the result is 7,000 or 8,000 years. On the other hand we
learn that Koreans and other continental Mongoloids invaded into the
Japanese archipelago en masse only a few hundred years before the
Christ's birth.
People may have to develop another theory, for example birth of a
language through fusion of different languages. This is the tentative
result from what I read.
Masaki OKADA
> I saw your web site. However there are some myths already broken by
> anthropological and genetic evidence.
Please don't misunderstand what I wrote. Or my English is miserable for
you to correctly understand it? I only quoted a theory ... which was
popular under Nazi Germany ... that Ainus are Caucasians as an obsolete
one.
Hear I quote the said part of my essay.
"There were also many other theories which related the Japanese to
various ethnic groups from Siberia to Burma. But, they were not
successful as well. On the other hand, the Ainus, the northern neighbors
of the Japanese, were said to be an isolated race and probably related
to Caucasians and have no relations with the Japanese. "
> Ainus are not definitely related to Caucasian and are definitely
> mongoloid stock. Murayama's work connect certain Ainu words with
> Austronesian. Ainu language lack a crucial characteristics of Altaic
> languages such as vowel harmony and its vocabulary shares little with
> surrounding northern Asia.
I agree that Ainus "are definitely mongoloids stock".
As for as Ainu's language is concerned, I referred to only the work of
Mr. Tatsumine Katayama, who insists the kinship between Japanese and
Ainu languages.
> Ainu and Ryukuran languages may be language
> isolates; they may not be related to each other as
> well.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Chris
Here again, Katayama-san found similarities of vocabularies between the
language of Ainu and Ryukyuan. Some examples he mention from his study
of place name comparison are "pinai" - a sort of wadi, "pisi" - beach,
"muy" - mountain or peak, "tok" (Ainu for swelling) and "taki" (mountain
or peak), and so on.
I don't know much about Ryukyu words. But, Okinawa (Ryukyu) language is
clearly a sort of Japanese dialect. No one doubts it. It is also true
that many Japanese words can be well explained by using Ainu words and
their meanings.
Robato Yao
>H. Takahashi wrote:
>>
>> Masaki OKADA wrote in message <37039281...@mars.dti.ne.jp>...
>>
>> >The development of language in the Far East might have followed
>> >the different course from that in Europe. So, I don't think that the
>> >analogy with Indo-German language is not much viable for our >languages .
>>
>> In what way is the development of Japanese and Korean languagres different
>> from that of Indo-German languages?
>> Will you kindly explain?
>> I'm interested in that.
>>
>> Hiro Takahashi,
>
>The linguistic theory of the Indo-German language (i.e. different
>languages stem from one original language.) might not apply to Japanese.
>At least you have to first prove that the theory derived from the study
>of the Indo-German language is applicable to Japanese, as such trials
>have not been successful.
>
>For example, it is obvious that Japanese and Korean are grammatically
>very similar. However, if you try to measure the distance of these two
>languages by using the similarity of individual words ... if I recall
>correctly ... the result is 7,000 or 8,000 years. On the other hand we
On what basis can you measure this?
>learn that Koreans and other continental Mongoloids invaded into the
>Japanese archipelago en masse only a few hundred years before the
>Christ's birth.
I don't know if the seperation of Japanese and Korean goes as far as
that. It is possible that Japanese and Korean may already have
seperated while being within the Asian mainland itself.
However, there is also another factor and that is Jomon/Ainu/Ryukyuran
isolate languages with regards the origin of the Japanese language. How
long has Japanese, for example evolved away from these languages, which
may have originated in the south and away from the northeast (there
seems very little to link Ainu and Ryukyuran isolate languages with
languages in northeast Asia.) How this reconciles with Japanese+Korean
origin is another thing.
I don't have any answers and not even some specific speculation.
It does seem that you have assumed a blanket simplification by using
the term "Korean". "Korean" as an identity didn't really exist until
the unification of the peninsula by Shilla. Korean is the language of
Shilla, but Shilla is by far, not the only Korean kingdom or
Tungusic tribe that lived in Korea or nearby Manchuria. The different
kingdoms like Paechke, Kaya, and Koguryo may have had their own
languages, as well as the tribes that preceded these kingdoms.
In fact, you will discover that the history of northern Asian peoples
that different kingdoms and tribes were quite numerous, many of them
extinct today and sometimes not even leaving a written or spoken record
of their languages.
One thing that one must also understand though, that in the formation of
countries like China, Mongolia, Korea and Japan, one familiar pattern is
the unification of different and diverse tribes, which may individually
possess different languages of their own.
>
>People may have to develop another theory, for example birth of a
>language through fusion of different languages. This is the tentative
>result from what I read.
>
>
Mike Wright
What is this "Ryukyuran isolate language"? It's clear from the material in
Shibatani's _Languages of Japan_ that all the Ryuukyuuan languages are *at
least* as closely related to mainstream Japanese as Mandarin is to
Hokkien--possibly as closely as Fuzhou is to Hokkien. (The book's also worth
having for its treatment of Ainu.)
Robato Yao
Sorry. I was thinking in terms of Japanese itself as an isolate
language, and the time frame, given the seperation of Ryukyuran from
Japanese.
Interesting that Korean is considered an language isolate by
this ethologue:
http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/countries/KorS.html
Which makes me somewhat think if Japanese and Ryukyuran as a family
of its own.
My impression from sil.org is that the Ryukyuran languages are even more
diverse from Japanese compared to Mandarin vs. Hokkien. Mandarin and
Hokkien may possibly be as high as 90 to 99% cognate, but Ryukyuran to
Japanese is only about 60 to 70%. The balance of Hokkien may be due
to small remnants of Austric words as we have discussed before. It
also says that about 30% is not cognate with Japanese *and* other
Ryukyuran languages.
If this is a measure of distance, then Ryukyuran has been seperate from
Japanese for a considerably longer time than Hokkien to Mandarin, which
already would have diverged about a period chronologically similar to
Yamato/Heian/Nara periods (the Tang Dynasty would the chronological
equivalent in China.) That's put us right into the Yayoi period and
probably earlier.
This is what's in my mind. How do you reconcile if Koreans are bringing
their language form to Japan when the Ryukyus are already starting to
diverge at similar points in time.
Rgds,
Chris
>
>--
>Mike Wright
>http://www.mbay.net/~darwin/language.html
>_____________________________________________________
>"China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese."
>-- Charles de Gaulle
(counting down from top 50 oxymorons...)
10. Tight slacks
9. Definite maybe
8. Pretty ugly
7. Twelve-ounce pound cake
6. Diet ice cream
5. Rap music
4. Working vacation
3. Exact estimate
2. Religious tolerance
And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
muchan
> > However, there is also another factor and that is Jomon/Ainu/Ryukyuran
> > isolate languages with regards the origin of the Japanese language. How
> > long has Japanese, for example evolved away from these languages, which
> > may have originated in the south and away from the northeast (there
> > seems very little to link Ainu and Ryukyuran isolate languages with
> > languages in northeast Asia.) How this reconciles with Japanese+Korean
> > origin is another thing.
>
> a part of Japanese people and their language is quite different from contemporary
> Korean language. Ryukyu dialect is on the other hand understandable by using some
> Japanese knowledge.
>
Beg your pardon?
How do you mean "Jomon people are already extinct."? When? and How?
If people lived before Yayoi era are slowly integrated into newcoming people,
and/or later integrated under Yamato/Japan, does it called "extinction"?
I believe there are Jomon people's blood at least partly in my own body.
Jomon people, or people of pre-Yayoi era did not extinct like dinosaures did...
muchan
(Rest of question and debate, Chris will answer...)
Masaki OKADA
Robato Yao wrote:
> >For example, it is obvious that Japanese and Korean are grammatically
> >very similar. However, if you try to measure the distance of these two
> >languages by using the similarity of individual words ... if I recall
> >correctly ... the result is 7,000 or 8,000 years. On the other hand we
>
> On what basis can you measure this?
I didn't do that by myself. Some scholars compare basic words such as hand, face,
finger, mouth, foot and so on, and check the frequency of the comparable words to
measure the similarity of languages. This is basically the measure developed from the
study of the Indo-German language and those scholars use the same parameter for the
speed of differentiation of languages, if I recall correctly.
> I don't know if the seperation of Japanese and Korean goes as far as
> that. It is possible that Japanese and Korean may already have
> seperated while being within the Asian mainland itself.
This is a good point. Those who immigrated into Japan might have been from the ethnic
groups different from those who are now living on the continent.
> However, there is also another factor and that is Jomon/Ainu/Ryukyuran
> isolate languages with regards the origin of the Japanese language. How
> long has Japanese, for example evolved away from these languages, which
> may have originated in the south and away from the northeast (there
> seems very little to link Ainu and Ryukyuran isolate languages with
> languages in northeast Asia.) How this reconciles with Japanese+Korean
> origin is another thing.
Sorry, I cannot understand this part. Jomon people are already extinct. Ryukyuans form
a part of Japanese people and their language is quite different from contemporary
Korean language. Ryukyu dialect is on the other hand understandable by using some
Japanese knowledge.
You also have to explain what you mean by "Japanese" in this context. When you use the
word "Japanese", is it the so called contemporary standard Japanese, "hyojungo"?
Hyojungo is an artificial language introduced at the beginning by the Meiji government.
The diversity of Japanese language within Japan is very large. People from Tohoku can
hardly understand the dialect in Kagoshima, for example.
Compared to this variety, I cannot call Spanish, Italian and Portuguese as different
languages. They are much similar than Tokyo dialect and Osaka dialect.
So, I also want to ask you, what you mean by "isolated language". Is Ryukyu language an
isolated language of a Japanese dialect ? Is Japanese isolated from the rest of the Far
Eastern languages including Korean and Mongolian ? I perceive certain kinship between
Japanese and those languages. The relation is not so thin as with German or English or
even Chinese as far as grammar is concerned.
> I don't have any answers and not even some specific speculation.
>
> It does seem that you have assumed a blanket simplification by using
> the term "Korean". "Korean" as an identity didn't really exist until
> the unification of the peninsula by Shilla. Korean is the language of
> Shilla, but Shilla is by far, not the only Korean kingdom or
> Tungusic tribe that lived in Korea or nearby Manchuria. The different
> kingdoms like Paechke, Kaya, and Koguryo may have had their own
> languages, as well as the tribes that preceded these kingdoms.
> In fact, you will discover that the history of northern Asian peoples
> that different kingdoms and tribes were quite numerous, many of them
> extinct today and sometimes not even leaving a written or spoken record
> of their languages.
>
> One thing that one must also understand though, that in the formation of
> countries like China, Mongolia, Korea and Japan, one familiar pattern is
> the unification of different and diverse tribes, which may individually
> possess different languages of their own.
>
Yes, right. I haven't found good studies in this area in Japan. Japanese were hesitant
after the WWII to go to Korea or China to study history. I am also not quite sure
whether I can rely on the study of Koreans and Chinese as their theories look too much
biased by their own nationalism.
Anyhow, as you mention, we also have to take into account the influence of Chinese
immigrants to the Korean peninsula and Japan. According to the Chinese legend, Xu Fu
fled from the Quinq Shihuandi and established a state in Japan. According to the
Chinese history books many Chinese immigrated to this region and they established the
first state on the Korean peninsula. Chinese immigrants on the Korean peninsula spoke
in the first centuries AD. the languages of Shang people or Quing people or some other
old Chinese states. They might have contributed to the formation and diversification of
languages in the eastern part of Asia.
Robato Yao
>>
>> > However, there is also another factor and that is Jomon/Ainu/Ryukyuran
>> > isolate languages with regards the origin of the Japanese language. How
>> > long has Japanese, for example evolved away from these languages, which
>> > may have originated in the south and away from the northeast (there
>> > seems very little to link Ainu and Ryukyuran isolate languages with
>> > languages in northeast Asia.) How this reconciles with Japanese+Korean
>> > origin is another thing.
>>
>> Sorry, I cannot understand this part. Jomon people are already extinct. Ryukyuans form
>> a part of Japanese people and their language is quite different from contemporary
>> Korean language. Ryukyu dialect is on the other hand understandable by using some
>> Japanese knowledge.
>>
>
>
>How do you mean "Jomon people are already extinct."? When? and How?
>If people lived before Yayoi era are slowly integrated into newcoming people,
>and/or later integrated under Yamato/Japan, does it called "extinction"?
>
>I believe there are Jomon people's blood at least partly in my own body.
>Jomon people, or people of pre-Yayoi era did not extinct like dinosaures did...
>
>muchan
>
>(Rest of question and debate, Chris will answer...)
>
I already mentioned this in my other post. However Jomon may be more
alive than what most Japanese think. According to Dual Structure
Hypothesis, Jomon may not have been completely assimilated. There are
two types of Japanese now---one that is mostly Yayoi origin, and the
other mostly of Jomon origin. Those in the north seem mostly Yayoi, but
the south is mostly Jomon, especially in Ryukyus.
Rgds,
Chris
Robato Yao
Jomon people are really not extinct. According to the Dual Structure
Hypothesis of the origin of the Japanese peoples, it appears that the
Japanese are actually two groups that are living together and has
different origins. The first group is said to be Yayoi origin
and the second group is said to be Jomon
origin. According to some of the studies I have seen (could not recall
the web pages at the moment), the frequency and concentration of Yayoi
origin people is greatest at the north, but as you move southwards,
Jomon origin people increase in frequency, seeing greatest
concentrations in the south like Kyushu and the Ryukyus.
By Yayoi origin, I mean people whose origins can be traced to the
migrants that came in the Yayoi era, and as Jomon origin as people who
are anthropologically closer to Jomon era people and can have descended
from there. Thus Jomon people may have been culturally assimilated by
Yayoi, but genetically and anthropologically may have remained distinct.
>
>You also have to explain what you mean by "Japanese" in this context. When you use the
>word "Japanese", is it the so called contemporary standard Japanese, "hyojungo"?
>Hyojungo is an artificial language introduced at the beginning by the Meiji government.
>The diversity of Japanese language within Japan is very large. People from Tohoku can
>hardly understand the dialect in Kagoshima, for example.
>Compared to this variety, I cannot call Spanish, Italian and Portuguese as different
>languages. They are much similar than Tokyo dialect and Osaka dialect.
>
>So, I also want to ask you, what you mean by "isolated language". Is Ryukyu language an
>isolated language of a Japanese dialect ? Is Japanese isolated from the rest of the Far
>Eastern languages including Korean and Mongolian ? I perceive certain kinship between
>Japanese and those languages. The relation is not so thin as with German or English or
>even Chinese as far as grammar is concerned.
>
Actually both Korean and Japanese is isolated from what is called the
Altaic body language. In the sil.org ethnologue, they no longer
consider both Japanese and Korean as part of the Altaic family group
(Turkish, Tungusic like Manchu, and Mongolian). They regard Korean as
an isolate language and Japanese as a family of languages on their own.
As for Ryukyuran languages, only about 60 to 70% are cognate with the
Tokyo dialect, and among their own as well. This is a considerably
greater difference than Chinese languages like Cantonese and Hokkien to
the main Mandarin body. So where did the other 30% vocabulary
originated from?
>
>> I don't have any answers and not even some specific speculation.
>>
>> It does seem that you have assumed a blanket simplification by using
>> the term "Korean". "Korean" as an identity didn't really exist until
>> the unification of the peninsula by Shilla. Korean is the language of
>> Shilla, but Shilla is by far, not the only Korean kingdom or
>> Tungusic tribe that lived in Korea or nearby Manchuria. The different
>> kingdoms like Paechke, Kaya, and Koguryo may have had their own
>> languages, as well as the tribes that preceded these kingdoms.
>
>> In fact, you will discover that the history of northern Asian peoples
>> that different kingdoms and tribes were quite numerous, many of them
>> extinct today and sometimes not even leaving a written or spoken record
>> of their languages.
>>
>> One thing that one must also understand though, that in the formation of
>> countries like China, Mongolia, Korea and Japan, one familiar pattern is
>> the unification of different and diverse tribes, which may individually
>> possess different languages of their own.
>>
>
>Yes, right. I haven't found good studies in this area in Japan. Japanese were hesitant
>after the WWII to go to Korea or China to study history. I am also not quite sure
>whether I can rely on the study of Koreans and Chinese as their theories look too much
>biased by their own nationalism.
Japanese are still hesitant to go to Korea but China even under
Communist has been more surprisingly open. Still, there are certain
nationalist and ideological pressures. China, while recognizing the
cultural diversity of its minorities (national CCTV has even better
documentary of Chinese minorities than Discovery, National Geographic or
NHK), however remain not too keen about studies that may have political
impact with their minority nationalities. In all irony, because
China's one child policy does not extend to minority groups, Chinese
minorities have been having a birth boom.
Also, there is by far not enough studies done on Chinese nationalities
and minorities. This has been voiced as a major complaint.
>
>Anyhow, as you mention, we also have to take into account the influence of Chinese
>immigrants to the Korean peninsula and Japan. According to the Chinese legend, Xu Fu
>fled from the Quinq Shihuandi and established a state in Japan. According to the
I know this. Xu Fu has been identified as the Emperor Jimmu.
>Chinese history books many Chinese immigrated to this region and they established the
>first state on the Korean peninsula. Chinese immigrants on the Korean peninsula spoke
>in the first centuries AD. the languages of Shang people or Quing people or some other
>old Chinese states. They might have contributed to the formation and diversification of
>languages in the eastern part of Asia.
>
I have seen at least two references that connect similarities of Jomon
remains to both the Longshan and Yaoshan civilizations (pre-Shang)
particularly in skull parameters.
Emperor Wudi of the Han Dynasty---the same Emperor who sent Chang Chien
on the historical journey that led to the discovery of the Silk
Route---also sent an expedition to Japan in the quest for a medicine
that brings immortality. Said expedition never found this medicine,
obviously, but fearing execution from failure, never came back as well.
While this is legend, it is with Japanese legends that I found the best
references to Han Dynasty influence. The Han Dynasty is extremely fond
of mirrors---it is in fact, it's most famous archeological trait. As
you know, there is a legend regarding Amaterasu and a mirror. The three
jewels of the Imperial Family---orb, mirror and sword---are also the
three symbols of the Han Dynasty as well.
By the way, it was also the Han Dynasty that set up the Chinese vassal
states in Korea, and its time of existance also corresponds about the
same time as Yayoi period.
Rgds,
Chris
>
>
>--
>
>Masaki OKADA
>ja1...@mars.dti.ne.jp
>"Japan as it is" (http://www.mars.dti.ne.jp/~ja1rna)
>
>
muchan
there is an article about "Wordnet" project. A project to
build a database of the relation of English words between
themselves.
Here English words are organised by links of "synonyms",
"homonyms", "hypernyms"-"hyponyms" ( "is a" relation),
"meronyms"-"holonyms" ("has a" relation), etc.
Web site for the WordNet project is:
"http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu:80/~wn/main/"
* * * * * * * *
In National Geographic some months ago had an article
"Dinosaures has got wing", and since then, every time I see
a bird comming near my window, I think I'm observing a tiny
dinosaures in front of me. They see the world as their ancester
dinosaures saw the world just after, and on the way to becoming
Birds. The rest of dinosaures extinct, but this branch survived.
Then, if a bird "is a" dinosaures, then dinosaures never extincted.
If a bird "is not" dinosaures "any more", you say dinosaures
extincted.
* * * * * * * *
The relation between Language and Dialect is also interesting.
Language, as "a means of communication by pronounced sounds or
signs organised by grammer for understanding each other", then
any Dialect "is a" Language. Normally we conceive that a Language
"has" many Dialects. But "Is Kansai Dialect a Japanese language"?
Sure it is. Kansai Dialect "is a" Japanese language as well as
Tokyo Dialect "is". Let's notice "Japanese" of "Japanese language"
is an adjective. It's similar to a basket of apples than particular
apple itself.
So "Japanese Language" is a category/container of Languages occured
in variety of region, time, and subsociety. In other word, the entity
of this evolution, diversion, interaction of many Dialects and
Subculture Speech and vocaburary sets, grammer are called
"Japanese Language". It must have derived from a Dialect of other
preceeding Language, and in some point of history, it's distinguished
as a Language of its entity.
This transition process is interesting. In ancient and wellknown
case is the Romance languages derived from Latin. "Is French is
still a Dialect of Latin or not?", If birds are dinosaures, then
a Dialect of Latin (called French,) is still spoken in France.
Latest example of the transition is the three Dialects of single
Serbo-Croatian language is separated to three distinct languages.
The diversion is still going on. (One of Dialects of Serbo-Croation
in Dalmatia, Adriatic sea coast is now became a Dialect of Croatian
language.) The way of transition is linguistical event, but the
cause of it is rather political, that the old "basket" of apple
broke up and now other smaller baskets are in need, just as breakdown
of Roman Empire.
* * * * * * * *
Us mammals, birds, reptiles etc. are derived from fish. But are we a kind
of fish? In a moment of evolution, we stopped being fish, and since then
we are not fish any more. A language derived from a Dialect of a preceeding
Language, also, may have a moment of stopping a Dialect of it. In the course
of early history of Japanese, also, there was a time that Japanese stopped
being Dialect of language family to which it once belonged to. Main cause
was the isolation by sea, but I think influence of other language spoken
already there was another strong factor to diverge it from continental
brother languages.
* * * * * * * *
I personally like to think that Birds are still Dinosaures. So I think
I am one of modern representative of anscient Jomon, Yayoi, Yamato
people among many, among many. Just like Birds are modern representative
of dinosaures. Simply, reading Asahi's "Japan of 2,000 years ago", we
can see that we are eating basically same foods that our anscesters
ate in north, east, south, west of Japan. I think we are still very
Yayoi people.
muchan
muchan
>
> I already mentioned this in my other post. However Jomon may be more
> alive than what most Japanese think. According to Dual Structure
> two types of Japanese now---one that is mostly Yayoi origin, and the
> other mostly of Jomon origin. Those in the north seem mostly Yayoi, but
> the south is mostly Jomon, especially in Ryukyus.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Chris
Funny, for me, "Jomon people" refares to people in the north,
Iwate-ken as center of Jomon pottery... I mean, people with Jomon
Pottery before Yayoi era began... Rest of people before Yayoi era are
Jomon-jidai people, yes, but... You mean in Ryuukyuu, there are...
... but not Jomon people... ... just a question of terminology...
.......... thinking trough weekind .... have a nice weekend.
muchan
Robato Yao
>Robato Yao wrote:
>>
>> I already mentioned this in my other post. However Jomon may be more
>> alive than what most Japanese think. According to Dual Structure
>> Hypothesis, Jomon may not have been completely assimilated. There are
>> two types of Japanese now---one that is mostly Yayoi origin, and the
>> other mostly of Jomon origin. Those in the north seem mostly Yayoi, but
>> the south is mostly Jomon, especially in Ryukyus.
>>
>> Rgds,
>>
>> Chris
>
>Funny, for me, "Jomon people" refares to people in the north,
>Iwate-ken as center of Jomon pottery... I mean, people with Jomon
>Pottery before Yayoi era began... Rest of people before Yayoi era are
>Jomon-jidai people, yes, but... You mean in Ryuukyuu, there are...
>
>........... thinking trough weekind .... have a nice weekend.
>
>muchan
Oh I should try to explain more clearly. Jomon type people should be
spread out across Japan, but when the Yayoi came, the ones that are more
quickly assimilated or displaced are the ones in the north, with Yayoi
admixture decreasing in shades towards the south. Maybe Jomon people
retreated towards the south after the Yayoi came.
Rgds,
Chris.
Philip Brown
>Emperor Wudi of the Han Dynasty---the same Emperor who sent Chang Chien
>on the historical journey that led to the discovery of the Silk
>Route---also sent an expedition to Japan in the quest for a medicine
>that brings immortality. Said expedition never found this medicine,
>obviously,
obviously? whaddyamean, obviously? :->
If you suddenly had a medicine that would make you immune to aging,
(and you were a Chinese emperor ;-) would you beneficiently share it with the
world? or say "opps, so sorry, must not exist", then quietly enjoy your very
long life somewhere. [after killing the messengers, of course]
Any decently rational person would deduce that being emperor of china for
100 years, is liable to draw some unwanted attention to yourself :-)
--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
--------------------------------------------------
The word of the day is sescaquintillion
muchan
No no, it doesn't explain. "Where" is south and "Where" is north for people
who insists this theory? I mean, Ryuukyuu as South and Kyuushuu already north?
(It doesn't make sense for Japanese history...)
Yayoi pottery spread mainly on Western/Southern half of Honshuu to Northern
Kyuushuu, if I remember correctly. Yayoi culture spread to further north,
but the people in Northern Honshuu were the latest to assimilate to integrated
into rest Japan (Yayoi->Yamato Japanese).
My Impression, is that Chris use the word "Jomon" for Austronesian type of
people, which sounds mismatching to me...
muchan
Robato Yao
No. What I am saying is that there are greater concentrations of Jomon
type people towards the south, while Yayoi like people are more
concentrated on the north. I am trying to recall the web site I saw
this or perhaps the medline abstract with the anthropological and
genetic survey but I will let you know when I see this again. The data
speaks for itself regardless how what you think the pottery migrated.
It also espouses no theory, although you can build your own theories
from this.
Rgds,
Chris
Bruce Rimell
the question about the relationship between Korean and Japanese is complicated, and I know
very little about the development of Korean, but....
what we do know is that the language of the Yamato court is an ancestor of modern japanese.
what we dont know is whether the yamato people were related LINGUISTICALLY to the yayoi
farmers from the korean peninsula. The Kojiki tells us (indirectly) that there were
migrations from
Kyuushuu (which it may possibly be okay to assume was the yayoi heartland around 100BC) to
the
yamato area. It depends how you read this: was this simply a group of courtiers visiting and
looking for
a new area to build a kingdom, a full scale invasion, or a natural migration.
we should also bear in mind that even by 700AD, the yamato kingdom was one of the easternmost
kingdoms of japan, and as such could be expected to speak a divergent dialect of the 'yayoi'
original (if
such a thing ever existed). also, that the yamato dialect was (at least partly) the basis
for the Heian courtly language,
and thus the modern hyoujungo and kansai dialects is quite clear from reading the earliest
texts.
but! right on the doorstep of the yamato kingdom, the nihongi tells us, to the southeast
(modern day
southern Mie, eastern Wakayama and very south Nara prefectures), were a people called the
Kuzu, and from their relatively detailed description in the nihongi, we can gather that they
were virtually untouched by any form of 'yayoi' culture. add to that the Izumo, another
powerful force in the far west of Japan, and who were the Yamato's greatest rival (the
constant conflicts between the two states are told allegorically in a number of myths,
particularly those of Susa-no-wo-no-mikoto and yamato-takeru-no-mikoto), and also add the
Musashi (thought to have lived around modern Tokyo and Chiba) whose origins, racial,
cultural, and linguistic are wholly unknown (Jomon? Yayoi? neither?) and you have a picture
of Japan as a thoroughly multiethnic place.
I for one, think that the Kuzu may have had at least some influence on the language of the
yamato, and that they were not in any linguistic way related to any of the yayoi people from
korea.
all we know is that yamato-kotoba is an ancestor of modern japanese. given the ethnic
diversity in japan at that time, it really is very difficult to say whether the yamato and
the yayoi had any linguistic affinity at all..... the connection between them is tenuous at
least (cultural traits notwithstanding, but then culture and new technology travels faster
tan language).
Bruce
Barbara Nostrand
The problem with studying the development of Japanese as compared to
English is that while the development of English takes place pretty
much within a historical context (Romano-Britons were on the scene
when the Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived) the early development of
Japanese was largely prehistoric. Consequently, notions of early
development of the Japanese language are inevitably bound up with
theories of the origin of the Japanese people. People who want the
Japanese to have always been in Japan will try to identify Japanese
as the linguistic successor to the prehistoric language spoken by
the Jomon people. Other popular candidates for the origin of the
linguistic community are migration from the Korean penninsula
(usually including membership in a Ural-Altaic language group) and
migration from Polynesia. Polynesian genesis is supported by early
Japanese words such as "maro" which appears to be a title related
to a title derived from a scarlet cord worn by certain polynesian
chiefs. (If I recall all of this stuff correctly.) The kanji used
to write "maro" was invented in Japan and was not imported from
the continent.
Probably the most attractive theory for the origin of the Japanese
language is that it arose as a creol based upon an Asiatic language
imported by the Pony Soldiers from the continent and thereby related
to Korean and other Ural-Altaics and an earlier Ainu-Polynesian
creol language. Such a theory is consistent with folkloric accounts
of conquest found in the Kojiki and the Nihongi, the early historical
conflict with the Ainu and with the philogical evidence at hand. This
sort of theory can be found in The Languages of Japan by Shibutani.
Solveig
Barbara Nostrand
Okada Masaki wrote:
> Anyhow, as you mention, we also have to take into account the influence
of Chinese
> immigrants to the Korean peninsula and Japan. According to the Chinese
legend, Xu Fu
> fled from the Quinq Shihuandi and established a state in Japan.
According to the
> Chinese history books many Chinese immigrated to this region and they
established the
> first state on the Korean peninsula. Chinese immigrants on the Korean
peninsula spoke
> in the first centuries AD. the languages of Shang people or Quing people
or some other
> old Chinese states. They might have contributed to the formation and
diversification of
> languages in the eastern part of Asia.
This is quite correct. We have a lot of historical and archeological
evidence of migration to (or at least conact with) Japan from the
Chinese mainland. However, the various Chinese languages do not
appear to have had a great influence upon the Japanese language other
than to have contributed the writing system and a system for creating
new words. Thus, the influence of Chinese upon Japanese is similar to
the influence of Latin (or possibly Norman French) upon the development
of English. Essentially, Chinese has contributed to the lexicon but
does not appear to have had much effect upon either the phonology or
syntax of Japanese. I suspect that the principle effect of Chinese
phonology upon Japanese phonology can be found in ONYOMI words.
Paleo-Japanese appears to have had a strict C-V phonological pattern.
This is extended by the various consonant and vowel clusters and
dipthongs imposed by ON-YOMI readings of kanji. A simple example of
this sort of thing is the kunyomi "yama" and the onyomi "chashitsu".
Even today, on-yomi and kun-yomi sound significantly different.
Currently, Japanese phonology is being extended by absorbing aspects
of English phonology.
Solveig
muchan
> yamato, and that they were not in any linguistic way related to any of the yayoi people from
> korea.
>
> all we know is that yamato-kotoba is an ancestor of modern japanese. given the ethnic
> diversity in japan at that time, it really is very difficult to say whether the yamato and
> the yayoi had any linguistic affinity at all..... the connection between them is tenuous at
> least (cultural traits notwithstanding, but then culture and new technology travels faster
> tan language).
>
> Bruce
"Yamato" people (4C-5C) spoke Japanese, linguistically directly related to
language of "Yayoi" era Japan (3CBC-3CAD), it's no doubt for me.
The first written record about Japan is in Chinese history book of
early 3c AD, the name of people, place etc., can be intrepreted with
knowledge of Japanese. So we can say at least the language of late Yayoi
era is closely related to the language of Yamato. Sure, there must be
regional difference between various people in various time in Yayoi era.
(I consider "them all" as the proto-Japanese. Basically we are same
Yayoi Japanese even today.)
In other words, Yamato arose from one branch of Yayoi Japanese.
I think "Yamatai" as written in Chinese text was about "Yamato" of some
hundreds years before. (I personally think "Yamatai-koku" was in
kita-kyuushuu and later moved to Yamato on Kii peninsula.)
Now <fj.sci.lang> has some threads about prehistroy of Japan.
"Yayoi people from Korea" is a phrase a little funny, though it's
basically correct (?) that Yayoi culture itself comes from Korean
peninsula. They come to Japan, and opened "Yayoi" era, and when they were
in Korea, it wasn't called "Yayoi"... (Rice culture and many other
culture -- including language -- came with them, but when we talk about
"Yayoi" in Japan, it was a process that new coming people and culture
spreads and mixed with people and culture there before that. Thinking
that "Yayoi people from Korea" completely "replaced" the population and
culture on Japanese island is not very accurate, IMO.
muchan
BTW, Idumo, was also one of center of "Yayoi" culture, isn't it? And the
language of Idumo, was also Japanese...
BTW2, the possibility, that the language of neighboring aborigine people
might affected the language of Yamato people, surely exists. But I think
it's more natural to think that the (mutual-)influence occured during Yayoi
era, (BC3c-AD3c) and late Yayoi era Japanese was already quite afffected by
the languages pre-existed in Japan, without waiting the Yamato era...
Bruce Rimell
muchan wrote:
> > I for one, think that the Kuzu may have had at least some influence on the language of the
> > yamato, and that they were not in any linguistic way related to any of the yayoi people from
> > korea.
> >
> > all we know is that yamato-kotoba is an ancestor of modern japanese. given the ethnic
> > diversity in japan at that time, it really is very difficult to say whether the yamato and
> > the yayoi had any linguistic affinity at all..... the connection between them is tenuous at
> > least (cultural traits notwithstanding, but then culture and new technology travels faster
> > tan language).
> >
> > Bruce
>
> "Yamato" people (4C-5C) spoke Japanese, linguistically directly related to
> language of "Yayoi" era Japan (3CBC-3CAD), it's no doubt for me.
>
> The first written record about Japan is in Chinese history book of
> early 3c AD, the name of people, place etc., can be intrepreted with
>
early 3Rd centuryAD, by which time the Yamato Court was already in strong ascendancy, at least
in many parts of honshuu, and had probably gained a strong hand over the Idumo court, if not
outright defeat.
> knowledge of Japanese. So we can say at least the language of late Yayoi
> era is closely related to the language of Yamato.
hmmm...where exactly did the Chinese go? can the places in their texts be explicitly identified as
being in kyuushuu, or did they penetrate into the kansai area (using the inland sea even then
would
have been relatively easy when compared to the voyage from china over an open and sometimes
quite stormy sea)?
> Sure, there must be
> regional difference between various people in various time in Yayoi era.
> (I consider "them all" as the proto-Japanese. Basically we are same
> Yayoi Japanese even today.)
>
> In other words, Yamato arose from one branch of Yayoi Japanese.
>
again, absolutely reliable records of 'yayoi' language do not exist. Yayoi is a term related to
culture,
while Yamato identifies a linguistic area of central Japan. It is quite likely that the Chinese
would have
gone to the most senior kingdom : ie either idumo, or yamato.
>
> I think "Yamatai" as written in Chinese text was about "Yamato" of some
> hundreds years before. (I personally think "Yamatai-koku" was in
> kita-kyuushuu and later moved to Yamato on Kii peninsula.)
> Now <fj.sci.lang> has some threads about prehistroy of Japan.
>
the problem with this is: no names relating to 'yamatai' or 'yamato' seem to survive on
kyuushuu, whereas Kojiki texts abound with names from the kansai area: yamato, asuka,
udi (modern Uji-shi, where I am right now), kusuba (kuzuha, hirakata-shi), pukagusa (fukakusa,
fushimi-ku, kyoto-shi), yamashiro (the area around hirakata and uji cities) and a host of other
names.
It is also worth mentioning that Emperor Nintoku's brother drowned in the Uji river(recorded both
in kojiki and nihongi and some local texts here in uji). This event has
been roughly dated between 300-350AD. A number of texts tell us that the court had been set up
in yamato, central japan, more than 200 years previous to Nintoku ascending the Imperial throne.
Therefore, it is quite likely that the chinese visitors to japan would have at the very least been
in
some form of contact with the yamato court in asuka.
>
> "Yayoi people from Korea" is a phrase a little funny,
sorry :) i meant "from the korean peninsula"
> though it's
> basically correct (?) that Yayoi culture itself comes from Korean
> peninsula. They come to Japan, and opened "Yayoi" era, and when they were
> in Korea, it wasn't called "Yayoi"... (Rice culture and many other
> culture -- including language -- came with them, but when we talk about
> "Yayoi" in Japan, it was a process that new coming people and culture
> spreads and mixed with people and culture there before that. Thinking
> that "Yayoi people from Korea" completely "replaced" the population and
> culture on Japanese island is not very accurate, IMO.
>
i dont believe this, and if i gave that impression, i didnt mean to. I'm not the world's best
typist :)
a couple oflexical examples might do, for what they are worth:
anthropologists living among the ainu of hokkaido earlier this century noted that the
goddess of the hearth fire was called "fuji", and that a number of spirits which live in the hills
and mountains (and particularly near rivers) were called "kamui" or "kamu". this strange "ui/u"
vowel change is also reflected in yamato "kamu" "kami".
(by this I am NOT saying that Japanese originates from Ainu, I am just demonstrating some
aboriginal influence on the yamato language, whether it is 'yayoi' or not)
Bruce
Gerald B Mathias
muchan had commented:
: > though it's
: > basically correct (?) that Yayoi culture itself comes from Korean
: > peninsula. They come to Japan, and opened "Yayoi" era, and when they were
: > in Korea, it wasn't called "Yayoi"... (Rice culture and many other
: > culture -- including language -- came with them, but when we talk about
: > "Yayoi" in Japan, it was a process that new coming people and culture
: > spreads and mixed with people and culture there before that. Thinking
: > that "Yayoi people from Korea" completely "replaced" the population and
: > culture on Japanese island is not very accurate, IMO.
: >
: i dont believe this, and if i gave that impression, i didnt mean to. I'm not the world's best
: typist :)
: a couple oflexical examples might do, for what they are worth:
: anthropologists living among the ainu of hokkaido earlier this century noted that the
: goddess of the hearth fire was called "fuji", and that a number of spirits which live in the hills
: and mountains (and particularly near rivers) were called "kamui" or "kamu". this strange "ui/u"
: vowel change is also reflected in yamato "kamu" "kami".
: (by this I am NOT saying that Japanese originates from Ainu, I am just demonstrating some
: aboriginal influence on the yamato language, whether it is 'yayoi' or not)
I assume you are alluding to the suggestion that the etymolgically opaque
name of a smoldering mountain in the middle of Honshu came from an Ainu
word for "fire." This would make *good* sense only supposing that the
Ainu themselves called the mountain "[Fire (Mountain)]." There is no
evidence that the word came into the Japanese language as a word for
"fire," which the Japanese then used exclusively to name a mountain. And
preservation of names isn't really linguistic influence.
I don't recall any strong evidence that the Japanese got "kami" < *kamu-i
from Ainu rather than vice versa. (Or weak evidence either, but that's
just because I am starting to forget a lot.)
Bart
Robato Yao
>Hi.
>
>Probably the most attractive theory for the origin of the Japanese
>language is that it arose as a creol based upon an Asiatic language
>imported by the Pony Soldiers from the continent and thereby related
>to Korean and other Ural-Altaics and an earlier Ainu-Polynesian
>creol language. Such a theory is consistent with folkloric accounts
>of conquest found in the Kojiki and the Nihongi, the early historical
>conflict with the Ainu and with the philogical evidence at hand. This
>sort of theory can be found in The Languages of Japan by Shibutani.
>
> Solveig
This is sometimes called the Horsemen theory. Actually it has very
little credibility outside of the assumption that the horsemen are no
other than Korean peninsula migrants, or even Chinese expedentiary
forces, most likely to belong to the Han Dynasty, which is
chronologically the same period as Yayoi and set up vassal kingdoms and
precints in the Korean peninsula at that time.
If the horsemen are not Korean, and refer to some other northern Asian
Altaic or Tungusic tribe, the problem of this theory is that there is no
written record of any horsemen men group moving across the Korean
peninsula then by sea into Japan by either in both Korean and Chinese
accounts, which is already detailing such accounts as early as the 3BC.
Japanese historical accounts like the Nihongi don't seem to jive with
Korean historical accounts either, and discussion of these horsemen
cannot be made independent of Korean history (which I think represents
the best historical component due to its earlier written history).
Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be evidence of visitation of another
Tungusic or Altaic tribe, especially with the most romantic variation of
the Horsemen theory, which implies that the Horsemen are Silk Road
peoples of a Turkish/Mongolian ancestry, and from this even implying a
Caucasoid connection. However, genetic and anthropological studies don't
support any of this. There are certain kinds of genes that
characterized Silk Road peoples, which also appear with northwestern Han
Chinese, but not with any other Asian groups.
Uralic-Altaic theory is disputed theory from what I heard, and even the
so called Altaic theory. Under http://www.sil.org, the language
ethnologue, both Korean and Japanese is not considered part of the
Altaic family (Turkish, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungus). Korean is a language
isolate while Japanese is considered a language family of its own.
Rgds,
Chris
Bruce Rimell
Gerald B Mathias wrote:
> Bruce Rimell (firs...@gol.com) wrote:
>
> muchan had commented:
> : > though it's
> : > basically correct (?) that Yayoi culture itself comes from Korean
> : > peninsula. They come to Japan, and opened "Yayoi" era, and when they were
> : > in Korea, it wasn't called "Yayoi"... (Rice culture and many other
> : > culture -- including language -- came with them, but when we talk about
> : > "Yayoi" in Japan, it was a process that new coming people and culture
> : > spreads and mixed with people and culture there before that. Thinking
> : > that "Yayoi people from Korea" completely "replaced" the population and
> : > culture on Japanese island is not very accurate, IMO.
> : >
>
> : i dont believe this, and if i gave that impression, i didnt mean to. I'm not the world's best
> : typist :)
>
> : a couple oflexical examples might do, for what they are worth:
> : anthropologists living among the ainu of hokkaido earlier this century noted that the
> : goddess of the hearth fire was called "fuji", and that a number of spirits which live in the hills
> : and mountains (and particularly near rivers) were called "kamui" or "kamu". this strange "ui/u"
> : vowel change is also reflected in yamato "kamu" "kami".
>
> : (by this I am NOT saying that Japanese originates from Ainu, I am just demonstrating some
> : aboriginal influence on the yamato language, whether it is 'yayoi' or not)
>
> I assume you are alluding to the suggestion that the etymolgically opaque
> name of a smoldering mountain in the middle of Honshu came from an Ainu
> word for "fire."
no, I am not suggesting this at all. I am suggesting that the etymologically opaque name
of a smouldering mountain in central honshuu, and the CURRENT Ainu name for the goddess of
the fire hearth are possibly cognate. I am not suggesting that fuji is or ever was the ainu word for
fire,
partly because I dont know the ainu word for fire. That Mt.Fuji and the Fuji hearth goddess might be
related
in some way is clear when one understands about the development of mythology: how names
change, how their interpretation changes and the like. The change from hearth goddess to smoking
mountain is not such a large leap as, for example, the extremely well-documented transformation of the
Greek Apollo as the sacrificial child of a poetical Muse goddess into Apollo, the poet's master, and
finally,
Phoebus Apollo the Sun God and principal deity at least of some cults).
> This would make *good* sense only supposing that the
> Ainu themselves called the mountain "[Fire (Mountain)]."
again, mythology changes. What may have once been a deity of central mountain (and the choice of
fuji as a world centre is a good one for its sheer size and beauty), which also happened to smoke and
smoulder a bit, could very easily have had its 'smoking' attributes accentuated, in the same way Apollo
had his 'shining child' attributes accentuated. This is of course, only speculation, but the connection
between the two "fuji"s has already been made on mythological grounds by joseph campbell.
Also, it is good to remember that the majority of japanese shinto gods have been transformed from
animistic spirits and guardians into nothing more than aesthetic pirinciples. Ama-terasu no longer
represents the sun, but the aesthetic idea of the sun. This is surely far stranger than the case of two
fuji's on one archipelago......
> There is no
> evidence that the word came into the Japanese language as a word for
> "fire," which the Japanese then used exclusively to name a mountain. And
> preservation of names isn't really linguistic influence.
>
true. but it is also true that very often new tribes arriving in a new land will often rename places, in
a process which has been called "Land-naming". It takes the beliefs of the old land and places them in
the new land, changing the mythological setting. with the result that the new land is 'deified' in a way
that the new arrivals can understand. If this sounds far fetched, take a look at a map of america: you
will see everything from Ithaca, New York to San Francisco, California. The question is then, who named
the mountain? Was it "land-named" by the new comers, or did it just get left over when the aboriginals
were pushed out?
>
> I don't recall any strong evidence that the Japanese got "kami" < *kamu-i
> from Ainu rather than vice versa. (Or weak evidence either, but that's
> just because I am starting to forget a lot.)
You should be able to find it in University of Tokyo press, Donald L. Phillipi's translation of the
Kojiki, which contains a host of linguistic information about the yamato language.
>
>
> Bart
muchan
> > > I for one, think that the Kuzu may have had at least some influence on the language of the
> > > yamato, and that they were not in any linguistic way related to any of the yayoi people from
> > > korea.
> > >
> > > all we know is that yamato-kotoba is an ancestor of modern japanese. given the ethnic
> > > diversity in japan at that time, it really is very difficult to say whether the yamato and
> > > the yayoi had any linguistic affinity at all..... the connection between them is tenuous at
> > > least (cultural traits notwithstanding, but then culture and new technology travels faster
> > > tan language).
> > >
> > > Bruce
> >
> > "Yamato" people (4C-5C) spoke Japanese, linguistically directly related to
> > language of "Yayoi" era Japan (3CBC-3CAD), it's no doubt for me.
> >
> > The first written record about Japan is in Chinese history book of
> > early 3c AD, the name of people, place etc., can be intrepreted with
> >
>
> early 3Rd centuryAD, by which time the Yamato Court was already in strong ascendancy, at least
> in many parts of honshuu, and had probably gained a strong hand over the Idumo court, if not
> outright defeat.
>
Early 3rd centruty AD, more exactly Year 239 AD, is the first record of Japan
in written history. It is the late phase of Yayoi era, and the rice cultureing
village are organized (after war after wars) themselves in bigger unit, forming
"countries". These countries might have had even bigger "allies" between them,
but the centralized Yamato government was not there (in Yamato in Kii) at this
date.
> > knowledge of Japanese. So we can say at least the language of late Yayoi
> > era is closely related to the language of Yamato.
>
> hmmm...where exactly did the Chinese go? can the places in their texts be explicitly identified as
>
> being in kyuushuu, or did they penetrate into the kansai area (using the inland sea even then
> would
> have been relatively easy when compared to the voyage from china over an open and sometimes
> quite stormy sea)?
>
There are two camps about the position of "Yamatai" where "Himiko" reigned.
About half of people believe it was Kita-kyuushuu, (Northern Kyuushuu), more
precisely saying in a part of Saga prefecture today, there you can find same
names of mountains in same order as you see in Yamato in Kii. They (we) take
the myth of Jimmu attacking Yamato (in Kii) as the oral story of their moving,
maybe to avoid war from neighbors (Korea), too near just over the sea, and
they named the mountains after there home country of Yamato in Kyuushuu.
A gold(??) stamp officially given from Chinese emperor to "Japanese King"
was found near the beach of Fukuoka, (I think it was dated a little before
Himiko).
Another camp believes that Yamatai was already in Yamato (in Kii).
In this case, you don't need to date the "moving" of them, but you have to
modefy the record of "time (distance) and direction" how these writers
travelled from Korea to "Yamatai". Recent thread in <fj.sci.lang> suggested
that "Itu" or "Ito" the country mentioned as far east on the sea, might be
Ise (near Nagoya), and the possibility that bigger allie existed. It
suggested also, that Yamatai of Himiko, later becomes mighty Yamato, might
be just one of regional authorities, not representing All of Japanese
countries of the time.
Nihonshoki wrote the life of early emperors, living more than 200 years.
(it's just like first part of old testament... if you believe, maybe you
must believe every single sentence of the bible, but I don't believe in
such things... Myth is myth, not history, but if you reject all myth, there
won't be any history. Checking every datails myth with every datails of
archaeological findings are time consuming and imagintion intensive work,
and you can't tell sure history yet...) I don't know how did you dated
Nintoku. But if you say 300-350AD, it is 4th century. :) Yes, but by the time
of Nintoku, (believing that the biggest kohun as His grave) the Yamato had
gained quite centralized power over Western half of Japan.
There were "5 Kings" written in Chinese text around that time, but the puzzle
of which "King" is which "Emperor" is not throughly answered yet.
In early Yayoi era, rice culture introduced to Japan. It made "villages"
for stable, staying, collective work force, which produce more food than
the community consume. Begining of Yayoi era was then the begining of
"war" time, that villages started to fight for geting "more" or "better"
teritory. (the finding of arms, and wounded bones tells this story.)
As a result of war, the hostages becomes slaves, and there will be
"soldiers" who devotes to war, not for production, and in the course
of Yayoi era, these Villages are more and more organized under stronger
and bigger Countries. As a result of this centralization, some where around
4c, there were wars between the biggest countries of Japan, and finally
Yamato stood over others. The change of "Yayoi jidai (--> Kohun jidai) -->
Yamato jidai" was such change of Upper structure of society, and as for
basic production of food, the same method of cultivating rice was used.
In this meaning Yamato era Japan is continuous following of Yayoi era.
BTW, "Yamato court in Asuka" is also incorrect... Asuka was chosen to be
center by Umayadonomikto, or Shootoku-taishi much later (6c). The court must
have moved around inside Yamato, sometimes over the mountain to Naniwa, and
sometimes over the other mountain to Ise... but not in Asuka.
> a couple oflexical examples might do, for what they are worth:
> anthropologists living among the ainu of hokkaido earlier this century noted that the
> goddess of the hearth fire was called "fuji", and that a number of spirits which live in the hills
> and mountains (and particularly near rivers) were called "kamui" or "kamu". this strange "ui/u"
> vowel change is also reflected in yamato "kamu" "kami".
>
I hesitate now to quote Oono, :( but his intrepretaion is that Ainu borrowed
the word God from Japanese ("Wajin" 's Japanese) in thier early interaction.
/fuji/ as "fire mountain" is very often told, but I never heard where it
exactly comes from.
About the detail of language of Ezo, Yezo, Emsi, Yemsi... whatever they
are called, the people of earstern half of Honshuu during Jomon
era, and later called as Azuma-Ebisu by "Yamatized", and was the "objet to
conqure" by General Sakanoue-Tamuramaro in 9c, and finally integrated into
rest of Japan when Minamoto-no Yoritomo broke Fujiwara Hidesato early 13c,
are not known to us. If Fuji meant "fire mountain" in their language, we
should know more vocabrary of these people. Place names with Ainu word
elements have soiuthern boundary as north as Iwate-ken. So if Fuji as
"fire mountain" is true, (which I want to believe") it must be language
of abovementioned Ezo, Yezo, Emsi, Yemsi, Aduma-Ebisu people.
muchan
Mike Wright
>
> >
[...]
> > a couple oflexical examples might do, for what they are worth:
> > anthropologists living among the ainu of hokkaido earlier this century noted that the
> > goddess of the hearth fire was called "fuji", and that a number of spirits which live in the hills
> > and mountains (and particularly near rivers) were called "kamui" or "kamu". this strange "ui/u"
> > vowel change is also reflected in yamato "kamu" "kami".
> >
>
> I hesitate now to quote Oono, :( but his intrepretaion is that Ainu borrowed
> the word God from Japanese ("Wajin" 's Japanese) in thier early interaction.
> /fuji/ as "fire mountain" is very often told, but I never heard where it
> exactly comes from.
Shibatani (_The Languages of Japan_, page 4) says, "Among land animals, bears,
deer, hares, and badgers were hunted for food. Of these, bears in particular are
of central importance in Ainu culture. This is quite clearly evidenced by the
fact that the word 'kamuy', which is a generic term for animals, is also used to
designate bears, and by the presence of eighty-three distinct words relating to
bears. 'Kamuy' also means 'god'. Indeed, bears are thought to be mountain gods
that bring bear meat to the village."
This muddies the water a bit (and reminds me of English "deer", which used to
mean "animal"). Then there's the apparent connection between "kami" in Japanese
as "god" and "high, upper, etc."
So, should we think:
J. "high" -> J. "god" -> A. "god" -> A. "bear" -> A. "animal"
or:
A. "animal" -> A. "bear" -> A. "god" -> J. "god" -> J. "high"
Neither is very satisfying. Are there any more likely chains? (But what if the
similiarity between "kami" and "kamuy" is a coincidence?)
How about something like:
J. "high"
/
J. "god"
\
A. "god" -> A. "bear" -> A. "animal"
I'm not too crazy about this one.
Anything about the development of the word "kami" in Japanese that makes one
scenario better than another?
Other Ainu words that seem to be obviously related to Japanese are "kane"
(gold), "rakko" (otter), "sake" (sake), and "pone" (bone). "Umma" (horse) looks
good, and that's supposed to be a North Asian loanword, isn't it? "Tek" for
"hand" seems less likely. There's also a possible English loan, "cip"
(chip<-ship), but maybe it's related to "cep" (fish).
> About the detail of language of Ezo, Yezo, Emsi, Yemsi... whatever they
> are called, the people of earstern half of Honshuu during Jomon
> era, and later called as Azuma-Ebisu by "Yamatized", and was the "objet to
> conqure" by General Sakanoue-Tamuramaro in 9c, and finally integrated into
> rest of Japan when Minamoto-no Yoritomo broke Fujiwara Hidesato early 13c,
> are not known to us. If Fuji meant "fire mountain" in their language, we
> should know more vocabrary of these people. Place names with Ainu word
> elements have soiuthern boundary as north as Iwate-ken. So if Fuji as
> "fire mountain" is true, (which I want to believe") it must be language
> of abovementioned Ezo, Yezo, Emsi, Yemsi, Aduma-Ebisu people.
That would make the "san" in "Fuji-san" the result of a kind of folk etymology,
so one might expect some early references to "Fuji-yama" (by Japanese, not by
Westerners, including the Trio Los Panchos).
One Ainu word for for "mountain" is "nupuri"--"ri" means "high". Other's are
"sir" and "kim". None of these words seems to have made any obvious impact on
Japanese. All over Europe there are place names that have old words in various
languages embedded in them--often hardly recognizable anymore. These are usually
words for "river", "hill", "valley", etc. that have then had the modern local
word for "river", "hill", etc. added back onto them. Do we see this at all with
remnants of Ainu words in Japanese place names? A word for "river" is "nay".
And what do you think of "menoko" for "woman"?
Gerald B Mathias
: [...] Then there's the apparent connection between "kami" in Japanese
: as "god" and "high, upper, etc."
: So, should we think:
: J. "high" -> J. "god" -> A. "god" -> A. "bear" -> A. "animal"
: or:
: A. "animal" -> A. "bear" -> A. "god" -> J. "god" -> J. "high"
Some people have proposed the relation of "kami" meaning "upper part" and
"kami" = "godling" even after the discovery that they were pronounced very
differently (they still are different in some dialects as far as accent
goes). I don't see how it can be justified. In case you have forgotten,
the "godling" word must go back to three syllables, "kamuxi," where the
"x" represents some unknown lost consonant. There are cases in *later*
Japanese of "mi" --> "mu" --> "N," and apparent cases of "mi" to nigori of
a following consonant ("tudumi" < *"tumitumi," "kazasi" < "kamisasi,"
etc.) in pre-OJ, but not early known cases of "mi" to "mu."
*"Kamuxi" also shows up in the Japanese animal name "ookami" = "wolf." I
think I learned that the Ainu word for wolf is "Osekamui" = "God that says
'O,'" with the Japanese word perhaps a borrowing. Otherwise the "kamu-"
word seems always to have "godly" connections so far as I know.
: [...] Do we see this at all with
: remnants of Ainu words in Japanese place names? A word for "river" is "nay".
Do I see a "Korean connection" there?
: And what do you think of "menoko" for "woman"?
You're saying the Ainu use it too?
Bart
Gerald B Mathias
: Gerald B Mathias wrote:
: > I assume you are alluding to the suggestion that the etymolgically opaque
: > name of a smoldering mountain in the middle of Honshu came from an Ainu
: > word for "fire."
: no, I am not suggesting this at all. I am suggesting that the etymologically opaque name
: of a smouldering mountain in central honshuu, and the CURRENT Ainu name for the goddess of
: the fire hearth are possibly cognate. I am not suggesting that fuji is or ever was the ainu word for
: fire,
Sorry, I allowed a more familiar hypothesis to let me overlook what you
actually said--"goddess of the fire hearth."
: > I don't recall any strong evidence that the Japanese got "kami" < *kamu-i
: > from Ainu rather than vice versa. (Or weak evidence either, but that's
: > just because I am starting to forget a lot.)
: You should be able to find it in University of Tokyo press, Donald L. Phillipi's translation of the
: Kojiki, which contains a host of linguistic information about the yamato language.
I spent a few minutes hunting, but it's not obvious where to look. No
clues in the index or the introduction or the glossary or the footnotes to
the names of the earliest mentioned kami. But I've pretty much decided
not to give the book away with all the others when I clear my office, so
maybe I'll find it yet. I expect it will be weak evidence when I do,
though.
Bart
Bruce Rimell
Mike Wright wrote:
> muchan wrote:
> >
> > >
> [...]
> > > a couple oflexical examples might do, for what they are worth:
> > > anthropologists living among the ainu of hokkaido earlier this century noted that the
> > > goddess of the hearth fire was called "fuji", and that a number of spirits which live in the hills
> > > and mountains (and particularly near rivers) were called "kamui" or "kamu". this strange "ui/u"
> > > vowel change is also reflected in yamato "kamu" "kami".
> > >
> >
> > I hesitate now to quote Oono, :( but his intrepretaion is that Ainu borrowed
> > the word God from Japanese ("Wajin" 's Japanese) in thier early interaction.
> > /fuji/ as "fire mountain" is very often told, but I never heard where it
> > exactly comes from.
Joseph Campbell was at least one scholar who told it, and he quoted it from somewhere else.
>
>
> Shibatani (_The Languages of Japan_, page 4) says, "Among land animals, bears,
> deer, hares, and badgers were hunted for food. Of these, bears in particular are
> of central importance in Ainu culture. This is quite clearly evidenced by the
> fact that the word 'kamuy', which is a generic term for animals, is also used to
> designate bears, and by the presence of eighty-three distinct words relating to
> bears. 'Kamuy' also means 'god'. Indeed, bears are thought to be mountain gods
> that bring bear meat to the village."
>
> This muddies the water a bit (and reminds me of English "deer", which used to
> mean "animal"). Then there's the apparent connection between "kami" in Japanese
> as "god" and "high, upper, etc."
>
unfortunately it is only an apparent connection. what a lot of Japanese scholars of
Yamato-era Japanese seem not to recognize is that the writing system of the Kojiki and
the brief Japanese sections in the Nihongi distinguish eight vowels, not 5:
modern a, i, u, e, o are distinguished as a, i, i', u, e, e', o, o'
where only the phonetic value of o' has been exactly established (have forgotten the IPA
symbol for it....). These vowels were already colalescing in the earliest texts and by the early
Heian period, the process was complete, leaving 5 vowels.
It appears that "kami (god)" used the vowel i' and "kami (upper)" used the vowel i. Thus,
Donald L. Philipi believes that they are etymologically distinct. It is good to remember that
word-play is sometimes significant,and the similarity of the two words would certainly have
been noticed by the wordplay-loving Heian poets and perhaps would have been understood before this time,
when the vowels were separated. This *may* have changed the meaning of
kami (upper).
In at least one example in the Kojiki, kami (upper) seems to represent nothing more than
'on', and ue seems to be more like 'in'. I have forgotten the exact phrasing, but it occurs
in the Susa-no-wo cycle of tales. That "kapa-no'-kami" (kawa no kami) and "kapa-no'-upe"
(kawa no ue) were very clearly distinguished can be seen from the Susa story.
>
> So, should we think:
>
> J. "high" -> J. "god" -> A. "god" -> A. "bear" -> A. "animal"
>
> or:
>
> A. "animal" -> A. "bear" -> A. "god" -> J. "god" -> J. "high"
>
> Neither is very satisfying. Are there any more likely chains? (But what if the
> similiarity between "kami" and "kamuy" is a coincidence?)
>
> How about something like:
>
> J. "high"
> /
> J. "god"
> \
> A. "god" -> A. "bear" -> A. "animal"
>
> I'm not too crazy about this one.
>
> Anything about the development of the word "kami" in Japanese that makes one
> scenario better than another?
>
from the info above about kami' and kami, I might suggest:
A: animal - A: bear - A: god - Yam: god - J: god
/
Yam: upper ---J: upper
where / represents an influence on the process of selection of borrowed words from
an aboriginal language. This influence is based on the SIMILARITY (but not exactness) of
sound between "kami(upper)" and "kamuy/kami'(god)". The feeling of this new word "kami'(god) " may
then have contained the nuance of upper (as it does today in modern japanese).
it is interesting to note that in a number of articles about ainu mythology that it is said
the ainu do not consider the gods to be above them. I myself have read at least one
"berating poem" whereby the leader of a ceremony berates a god when something has gone
wrong. The feeling of the piece was along the lines of "you didnt protect me from this ill, even
though it was your duty to do so. Do not relax your vigilance again!"
>
> Other Ainu words that seem to be obviously related to Japanese are "kane"
> (gold), "rakko" (otter), "sake" (sake), and "pone" (bone). "Umma" (horse) looks
> good, and that's supposed to be a North Asian loanword, isn't it? "Tek" for
> "hand" seems less likely. There's also a possible English loan, "cip"
> (chip<-ship), but maybe it's related to "cep" (fish).
>
incidentally, the nahuatl adverb form of "good" is also pronounced "well" :)
cip and ship could be a coincidence too :)
>
> > About the detail of language of Ezo, Yezo, Emsi, Yemsi... whatever they
> > are called, the people of earstern half of Honshuu during Jomon
> > era, and later called as Azuma-Ebisu by "Yamatized", and was the "objet to
> > conqure" by General Sakanoue-Tamuramaro in 9c, and finally integrated into
> > rest of Japan when Minamoto-no Yoritomo broke Fujiwara Hidesato early 13c,
> > are not known to us. If Fuji meant "fire mountain" in their language, we
> > should know more vocabrary of these people. Place names with Ainu word
> > elements have soiuthern boundary as north as Iwate-ken. So if Fuji as
> > "fire mountain" is true, (which I want to believe") it must be language
> > of abovementioned Ezo, Yezo, Emsi, Yemsi, Aduma-Ebisu people.
>
> That would make the "san" in "Fuji-san" the result of a kind of folk etymology,
> so one might expect some early references to "Fuji-yama" (by Japanese, not by
> Westerners, including the Trio Los Panchos).
>
fuji need not mean "fire mountain", just as zeus does not mean "thunder god", shiva
does not mean 'dancing deity of death' and quetzalcoatl does not mean "he founded our
nation and might well come back someday". Mythical names are nearly always allegorical, or
accentuate one characteristic of the deity. sometimes, they are even remnants of an older
belief which has nobody has bothered to organise into the new belief system.
>
> One Ainu word for for "mountain" is "nupuri"--"ri" means "high". Other's are
> "sir" and "kim". None of these words seems to have made any obvious impact on
> Japanese
noboru " to climb" :) this is silliness, i know. I was just struck by the fact that Yamato-kotoba
has a very strong habit of changing "p" into "b","h" and "w" in modern japanese :)
> . All over Europe there are place names that have old words in various
> languages embedded in them--often hardly recognizable anymore. These are usually
> words for "river", "hill", "valley", etc. that have then had the modern local
> word for "river", "hill", etc. added back onto them.
this is absolutely true all over england. my home town in england is called ogbourne: (og- old welsh
name for a giant (local legend calls him Ogyr) and cognate with the word ogre)(bourne- saxon
"small stream with reeds")
> Do we see this at all with
> remnants of Ainu words in Japanese place names? A word for "river" is "nay".
>
> And what do you think of "menoko" for "woman"?
>
Bruce Rimell
> > >
> > > "Yamato" people (4C-5C) spoke Japanese, linguistically directly related to
> > > language of "Yayoi" era Japan (3CBC-3CAD), it's no doubt for me.
> >
again, yayoi is an archaeological term, describing a particular set of cultural attributes.
yamato is a linguistic term, describing a particular set of grammatical and phonetic constructs
that the yamato were members of the yayoi culture is not in doubt. they were and the
archaeological and cultural record shows it. That the people who brought the yayoi culture to
Japan spoke the same language as the people historically known as Yamato is wholly in doubt.
That the yamato spoke the same language as the idumo people is also in doubt. The etymologies of
many of the names of the deities in the Idumo cycle of the kojiki are entirely unknown. Most
notable is take-paya-SUSA-no-wo-no-Mikoto, which has been translated as "The quick (?) warrior
lad of Susa". Susa is still very etymologically opaque.
> >
> > > The first written record about Japan is in Chinese history book of
> > > early 3c AD, the name of people, place etc., can be intrepreted with
> > >
> >
> > early 3Rd centuryAD, by which time the Yamato Court was already in strong ascendancy, at least
> > in many parts of honshuu, and had probably gained a strong hand over the Idumo court, if not
> > outright defeat.
> >
>
> Early 3rd centruty AD, more exactly Year 239 AD, is the first record of Japan
> in written history. It is the late phase of Yayoi era, and the rice cultureing
> village are organized (after war after wars) themselves in bigger unit, forming
> "countries". These countries might have had even bigger "allies" between them,
> but the centralized Yamato government was not there (in Yamato in Kii) at this
> date.
>
>
> > > knowledge of Japanese. So we can say at least the language of late Yayoi
> > > era is closely related to the language of Yamato.
> >
> > hmmm...where exactly did the Chinese go? can the places in their texts be explicitly identified as
> >
> > being in kyuushuu, or did they penetrate into the kansai area (using the inland sea even then
> > would
> > have been relatively easy when compared to the voyage from china over an open and sometimes
> > quite stormy sea)?
> >
> There are two camps about the position of "Yamatai" where "Himiko" reigned.
> About half of people believe it was Kita-kyuushuu, (Northern Kyuushuu), more
> precisely saying in a part of Saga prefecture today, there you can find same
> names of mountains in same order as you see in Yamato in Kii.
ok. this is very good evidence of a movement from kyuushuu to central japan. :)
> They (we) take
> the myth of Jimmu attacking Yamato (in Kii) as the oral story of their moving,
> maybe to avoid war from neighbors (Korea), too near just over the sea, and
> they named the mountains after there home country of Yamato in Kyuushuu.
> A gold(??) stamp officially given from Chinese emperor to "Japanese King"was found near the beach of
> Fukuoka, (I think it was dated a little before
> Himiko).
>
> Another camp believes that Yamatai was already in Yamato (in Kii).
> In this case, you don't need to date the "moving" of them, but you have to
> modefy the record of "time (distance) and direction" how these writers
> travelled from Korea to "Yamatai". Recent thread in <fj.sci.lang> suggested
> that "Itu" or "Ito" the country mentioned as far east on the sea, might be
> Ise (near Nagoya), and the possibility that bigger allie existed.
> It
> suggested also, that Yamatai of Himiko, later becomes mighty Yamato, might
> be just one of regional authorities, not representing All of Japanese
> countries of the time.
>
> > > Sure, there must be
> > > regional difference between various people in various time in Yayoi era.
> > > (I consider "them all" as the proto-Japanese. Basically we are same
> > > Yayoi Japanese even today.)
> > >
> > > In other words, Yamato arose from one branch of Yayoi Japanese.
> >
Yayoi Japanese? what is this? the earliest texts we have are Yamato. we know
nothing about this 'yayoi japanese'
then why did you date a gold seal from a chinese emperor to the time of himiko? :)
> Myth is myth, not history, but if you reject all myth, there
> won't be any history. Checking every datails myth with every datails of
> archaeological findings are time consuming and imagintion intensive work,
> and you can't tell sure history yet...) I don't know how did you dated
> Nintoku. But if you say 300-350AD, it is 4th century. :)
yes :) and the yamato had held considerable power for at least 200 years before that.
Making 2nd century. The Chinese came in 239AD . 3rd century.
> Yes, but by the time
> of Nintoku, (believing that the biggest kohun as His grave) the Yamato had
> gained quite centralized power over Western half of Japan.
>
> There were "5 Kings" written in Chinese text around that time, but the puzzle
> of which "King" is which "Emperor" is not throughly answered yet.
>
i'd be interested in hearing what those names were, and what the characters used to write
their names were. I think that would be extremely significant in finding out who they visited.
If you have access to this information, please post it here, as I never knew that their names were
written down. (my experience with reading chinese texts is like zero, and I admit my ignorance :)
>
> In early Yayoi era, rice culture introduced to Japan. It made "villages"
> for stable, staying, collective work force, which produce more food than
> the community consume. Begining of Yayoi era was then the begining of
> "war" time, that villages started to fight for geting "more" or "better"
> teritory. (the finding of arms, and wounded bones tells this story.)
does the archaeological records include texts for words like "ude" or "katana"? :)
the question is not really here "who attacked who?" but "who won?" as it would
be the winners who wrote the history and set the nature of the language in their
territory. Obviously, Yamato won, but this does not mean they were the same as
the invaders from Korean peninsula. People pick up culture much faster than language,
especially if your neighbour seems to be richer than you. You dont much care about how
to communicate with him, only to find out exactly where he got those bags of rice from. :)
>
> As a result of war, the hostages becomes slaves, and there will be
> "soldiers" who devotes to war, not for production, and in the course
> of Yayoi era, these Villages are more and more organized under stronger
> and bigger Countries. As a result of this centralization, some where around
> 4c, there were wars between the biggest countries of Japan, and finally
> Yamato stood over others.
a similar situation occurred this century, with economics rather than force of arms.
The "insular, simple-minded, people of the paddy field who will never amount to much
in the modern world (the words of one (to my shame) English writer in the 1880s)" have
become the world leaders in terms of economic power. The Yamato could have been in a similar
situation, patronised and looked-down upon by their immediate neighbours, until they joined in the
fight. This is specualtion, of course, but all I am saying is that prior to the 4th century AD, the
Yamato neednt have had the highest culture. They just needed to win and stay on top.
> The change of "Yayoi jidai (--> Kohun jidai) -->
> Yamato jidai" was such change of Upper structure of society, and as for
> basic production of food, the same method of cultivating rice was used.
> In this meaning Yamato era Japan is continuous following of Yayoi era.
>
> BTW, "Yamato court in Asuka" is also incorrect...
yup. :) sorry about that. my mistake.
Bruce
muchan
>
> unfortunately it is only an apparent connection. what a lot of Japanese scholars of
> Yamato-era Japanese seem not to recognize is that the writing system of the Kojiki and
> the brief Japanese sections in the Nihongi distinguish eight vowels, not 5:
> modern a, i, u, e, o are distinguished as a, i, i', u, e, e', o, o'
> where only the phonetic value of o' has been exactly established (have forgotten the IPA
> symbol for it....). These vowels were already colalescing in the earliest texts and by the early
> Heian period, the process was complete, leaving 5 vowels.
>
I wonder whom (which Japanese scholars) he wants to mock with,
but it was Japanese Scolar (Hashimoto) who noticed it,
and then it was Japanese scholar (Oono) who systematically categolized all
man'yoo-gana to these two classes of vowels. So the non-Japanese scholar
Bruce is refering (Donald L. Phillipi) must have then learned it from Oono's
work either directly or indirectly.
I don't see why Japanese scholars are then criticized such way by people
who just read Phillips work. I think it's a simple arrogance.
Please explain, if not.
muchan
Yesterday, I read Oono's dictionary, and he seems not believing "Yamatai -
Kita-Kyuushuu-setsu", because "Yamato" in Kii is "Yamato(2)" but Chikuzen
Yamato was "Yamato(1)", where Chinese pronounciation for this "Yamatai"
was closer to Yamato(2).
muchan
Mike Wright
> : as "god" and "high, upper, etc."
>
>
> : J. "high" -> J. "god" -> A. "god" -> A. "bear" -> A. "animal"
>
> : or:
>
> : A. "animal" -> A. "bear" -> A. "god" -> J. "god" -> J. "high"
>
> "kami" = "godling" even after the discovery that they were pronounced very
> differently (they still are different in some dialects as far as accent
> goes). I don't see how it can be justified. In case you have forgotten,
You can't forget what you've never known.
> the "godling" word must go back to three syllables, "kamuxi," where the
> "x" represents some unknown lost consonant.
Any reason that it can't be "kamui"?
> There are cases in *later*
> Japanese of "mi" --> "mu" --> "N," and apparent cases of "mi" to nigori of
> a following consonant ("tudumi" < *"tumitumi," "kazasi" < "kamisasi,"
> etc.) in pre-OJ, but not early known cases of "mi" to "mu."
>
> *"Kamuxi" also shows up in the Japanese animal name "ookami" = "wolf." I
> think I learned that the Ainu word for wolf is "Osekamui" = "God that says
> 'O,'" with the Japanese word perhaps a borrowing. Otherwise the "kamu-"
> word seems always to have "godly" connections so far as I know.
>
> : [...] Do we see this at all with
> : remnants of Ainu words in Japanese place names? A word for "river" is "nay".
>
> Do I see a "Korean connection" there?
>
> : And what do you think of "menoko" for "woman"?
>
> You're saying the Ainu use it too?
Well, actually, Shibatani says it, and he's my only source of info on Ainu.
What's interesting is how few everyday items seem to have been borrowed in
either direction. I think I'll extract all the words that Shibatani shows and
alphabetize them in Ainu and in English, and put them up on a Web page. That
will make it easy for everyone to see what they can make of what little is
there. Then, if others have more examples, they could be added later. I'll try
to get it done over the weekend.
muchan
> What's interesting is how few everyday items seem to have been borrowed in
> either direction. I think I'll extract all the words that Shibatani shows and
> alphabetize them in Ainu and in English, and put them up on a Web page. That
> will make it easy for everyone to see what they can make of what little is
> there. Then, if others have more examples, they could be added later. I'll try
> to get it done over the weekend.
>
> --
> Mike Wright
>
Another Oono's book lists the Stem words of Yamatokotoba, which is related
to Korean. (Actually it's two lists, a list of Stems, and a list of
Proto Japanese words from Korean. The former I have only words start with
vowels...) So if same words are found in both Japanese-Ainu and Korean
Japanese, prossibility is it's (Altaic>) -> P-Korean -> P-Japanese -> Ainu.
I can't promiss I'll type it, since I don't have my computer at home,
for now...
muchan
muchan
Ross Clerk...
Bruce Rimell wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > "Yamato" people (4C-5C) spoke Japanese, linguistically directly related to
> > > > language of "Yayoi" era Japan (3CBC-3CAD), it's no doubt for me.
> > >
>
> again, yayoi is an archaeological term, describing a particular set of cultural attributes.
> yamato is a linguistic term, describing a particular set of grammatical and phonetic constructs
> that the yamato were members of the yayoi culture is not in doubt. they were and the
Yamato as linguistical term? I wonder if Bart support it. ( I'd like to
support it for my anscient effort for yamatokotoba on this newsgroup... :)
Yayoi, comes from the name of place, Tookyoo-to Bunkyoo-ku Yayoi,
( I think it was Bonkyoo-ku...) where typical pottery of smooth curbe
made with lathe. Since then, the historical era, of this particular
life style since rice culture was introduced, is called Yayoi-jidai.
So in general, Yayoi, is a "historical term".
Yamato, starts from the name of place, too, where the root of imperial
family had installed in pre-history, before they settled the capital of
Nara, imitating Chinese imperial city. Then again, we call this historical
era, since the powers over villages are centralized to this "tribe" of
Yamato, forming their court until Nara was settled as capital.
(Often the transitive time, preceeding Nara-jidai is called Asuka-jidai,
when Emperatrice Suiko, Shootokutaishi, Soga family had lead the court
and imported many advanced technics from Korea)
Since this "Yamato court" seized Japan, and it is the roots of imperial
family, which is still continueing, Yamato, becomes pronoun for the
Japan as a state. "Yamoto" is then also a name of the nation, often, for
contrasting with other minority nations which didn't seized under Yamato.
The term "Yamato lanuguage" is not used, it's called "Japanese".
"Yamato-kotoba" are the words of "proper Japanese origin", contrasting with
"later imported words (mainly from Chinese)". (In my Yamatokotoba-no-tawamure,
Yamatokotoba means "Japanese language spoken only with yamatokotoba vocaburary"
:)
Linguist use "Old Japanese" for the historical feature of Japanese language.
It's oldest written Japanese (6c-8c). (in Japanese text, it's "joodai-ninongo"
joo as /ue/, dai as /kawar.u/ ) The Japanese older than that, but
direct lineage of it is either "Pre-Japanese" or "Proto-Japanese",
acording to historical time. Their features are not known completely.
(because not written.)
> archaeological and cultural record shows it. That the people who brought the yayoi culture to
> Japan spoke the same language as the people historically known as Yamato is wholly in doubt.
Sure, language(s) of people who brought the Yayoi-culture, is of BC3c in
their oldest form. Lanugage of Yamato in Yamaro era are max 700 years after
that. There must be much diversity.
"spoke the same language ... is wholly in doubt".
If you use "same" as "identical", it is impossible. But as "in same
linguistical lineage", it's no doubt, I speak same language, Japanese.
Oh, I have to leave. to be continued....
...and I came back, hello again.
> That the yamato spoke the same language as the idumo people is also in doubt. The etymologies of
> many of the names of the deities in the Idumo cycle of the kojiki are entirely unknown. Most
> notable is take-paya-SUSA-no-wo-no-Mikoto, which has been translated as "The quick (?) warrior
> lad of Susa". Susa is still very etymologically opaque.
>
It's no doubt that Yamato's language is direct lineage of at least one of
"Yayoi era Japanese". Idumo and Yamato's languages can be like dialects,
or like other branches derived from Proto-Japanese languages of earlier
time. It's no use to decide "one and only Yayoi Japanese".
In later Yayoi jidai, there were two major Area. In one area, people buried
"Doo-ken" (copper sword, but the shape for real battle), and other area,
"Doo-taku" ( copper... I don't know exactly the usage of it. curbed
rectanglar object.) There are other difference between two areas, but the
two are intersected someway, and archaeologists call them as "dooken-bunka-ken"
and "dootaku-bunka-ken" ( -cultural-area ). The shape of graves were also
different between two. The cultural divergence are not such that two groups
are considered as two unrelated people, but enough contrasting in details.
This is intrepreted that they came to Japan in different time, and kept there
identity until late. Big graves with precious ornaments are symbol of wealth,
which appears only since the late Yayoi era. I think there were multiple
waves of imigration to Japan, and technological transfarance during Yayoi
era via Korean peninsula. The first "shock wave" brought the rice culture,
and later waves more sofisticated tools and arms, etc. So it is not
neccesarry that one of these "cultural area" is from the people of the
first imigration wave from Korea.
Comparing Idumo and Yamato, I always think that Idumo people are from
much older generation of imigrants. ("How Yamato seized Idumo, in
_Idumo war_, is still still told as a oral history in the family of
Idumo taisha. I read about it in Shiba Ryotaroo's book. I think about
pre history of Roma (Latin vs. ????), and _Poeni war_ with Cartago, etc.)
In Japanese shintoizm, the gods are supposed to come from Idumo.
(and October is /Kanna-dzuki/, because every god goes back to Idzumo,
but in Idzumo, current Shimane-ken, it's called /Kamiari-dzuki/...)
Idumo, had moral, religious authority before Yamato got power. Yamato
seized the Idumo, and put their people for surveillance over Idumo.
( 1st Idumo war ) but the very surveillants became at home in Idumo,
and leveled against Yamato ( 2nd Idumo war ). Yamato kept the religious
authority of Idumo but deprived all the political power from them.
-- It's just like Tokugawa Ieyasu later did with the imperial family.
Why? Because, I guess, Yamato and Idumo are ethnically same roots, having
same religion, so for Yamato people, religious autority of Idumo was
undaoubtable. So the myth of Susanowo, etc., Idumo oriented stories are
included in official story of Yamato court.
I think you can get much about it searching "kookogaku", "idumo"
(kanji as deru-kumo) on Japanese search engines.
> > > > knowledge of Japanese. So we can say at least the language of late Yayoi
> > > > era is closely related to the language of Yamato.
> > >
> > > hmmm...where exactly did the Chinese go? can the places in their texts be explicitly identified as
> > >
> > > being in kyuushuu, or did they penetrate into the kansai area (using the inland sea even then
> > > would
> > > have been relatively easy when compared to the voyage from china over an open and sometimes
> > > quite stormy sea)?
> > >
> > There are two camps about the position of "Yamatai" where "Himiko" reigned.
> > About half of people believe it was Kita-kyuushuu, (Northern Kyuushuu), more
> > precisely saying in a part of Saga prefecture today, there you can find same
> > names of mountains in same order as you see in Yamato in Kii.
>
> ok. this is very good evidence of a movement from kyuushuu to central japan. :)
>
It's quite natural guess, because if people comes to Japan from Korea,
it was the place you first enter. The text about Himiko, when you read
the description of their Jurney (from Korea to Yamatai) you normally think
they arrived to Kita-kyuushuu. (but if you take the text too seriously,
you'll be in the middle of ocean to visit the Ito country...)
The myth of Yamato, itself suggests that they came from Kyuushuu. Jimmu
descent to Hyuuga, then go east to Yamato. ("Hyuuga" as "towards the sun"
is chosen because it's name... is the intrepretation of most of those who
read it...) There are war story to attack the aborigine people who lived
in Kii peninsula before these Yamato people. kao-ni irezumi...)
For me it's no doubt that Yamato people moved from somewhere in the west
to Yamato. Only the question is when. Before Himiko, or after.
> >
> > > > Sure, there must be
> > > > regional difference between various people in various time in Yayoi era.
> > > > (I consider "them all" as the proto-Japanese. Basically we are same
> > > > Yayoi Japanese even today.)
> > > >
> > > > In other words, Yamato arose from one branch of Yayoi Japanese.
> > >
>
> Yayoi Japanese? what is this? the earliest texts we have are Yamato. we know
> nothing about this 'yayoi japanese'
>
"Japanese people of Yayoi era lived with Yayoi culture".
How do you read otherwise? :( or again, my problem of English articles? )
We know much about them. See the first message of this thread.
The seal is dated by archaeologist by method of archaeology.
I didn't date it myself... I just read avout it in plain history book.
(I mean, it's so wider known fact about Japanese history.)
> > Myth is myth, not history, but if you reject all myth, there
> > won't be any history. Checking every datails myth with every datails of
> > archaeological findings are time consuming and imagintion intensive work,
> > and you can't tell sure history yet...) I don't know how did you dated
> > Nintoku. But if you say 300-350AD, it is 4th century. :)
>
> yes :) and the yamato had held considerable power for at least 200 years before that.
> Making 2nd century. The Chinese came in 239AD . 3rd century.
>
But these "200 years" are from culculation from their own myth, aren't they?
And how they were realy strong, their "considerable power" can be proved
only by archaeological finding from there, Yamato. Because of lack of
such evidence, Japanese archaeologists are devided to two camps, both
still can't break the other by undoubtable evidence. You believe you can,
only after reading a book about it? Because Official Story had a task of
authorize the authority, it was ornamented in this regard. Yamato, could
be in Yamato already in 2cAD, but not yet significant power as their 4th
century descendant, or Yamato was somewhere else, that the history of
emperors might telling some truth, but their power was based on another
territory. And they came to 3c or 4c as "mighty power". The one of two is
the realistic view of pre-history of Yamato before Kohun-jidai.
Intersting story was on <fj.s.l>.
(from Onizuka-san's post Message-ID: <lc66771...@mpapia.trc.rwcp.or.jp> )
I hope you can read it:
: いろいろ調べると、それなりに面白いことがあって、たとえば、任那加羅の一
: つ大伽耶国（高霊加羅とも）の最初の国の名前が、「弥烏耶馬国」なんですね。
: 「弥烏耶馬」は、「ミアヤマ」と読めるので、「三輪山」とそっくりです。で、
: その国の創始者は、「イジンアギ（伊珍阿岐）」なんですね。
:
: ついで、邪馬台国関係で、３世紀の倭国の官名に、「弥弥（ミミ）」なんてい
: うのがありますが、これは、なぜか神武朝の最初のほうに頻繁に出てきて（天
: 皇以外にも）、といっても、漢字では「耳」だったりしますが、この神武朝っ
: て、九州の倭国連合の中で、中級豪族として、「弥弥」の称号を世襲する程度
:ﾌ豪族だったのかも？とか思ってしまいました。
the first part /Minama-Karakoku/ is very Japanese related country in
Korean peninsula.
: 応神天皇とか神功皇后をどう考えるかについては、日本書紀や古事記を読む限
: り、やっぱり神功皇后の新羅征伐は事実で、戦争の間に、朝鮮半島の豪族と結
: 婚してできたのが応神天皇で、日本に戻ってから応神が生まれたと考えるのが
: ありそうな気がして、その結果、膨大な渡来人が日本に来ることになったとい
: うか。
Suppose there was (as alwasys) war in Korean peninsula, and closely related
Minama (it was considered as "Japan" by Yamato court untill they finally
lost it in 7c) was in danger, and Yamato (whereever it was) sent the army
to Korea, maybe "emperatrice" herself went there, ( there is stone
monument in North Korea talking about Japanese - Wa's war presence in
Korean territory, which Japanese right-wingers want to use as a evdence
that Korea was once Japan, with quite distorting intrepretation of text.
but Japanese went to "Korean war" in pre-history is almost sure.)
If she got pregnant there or not is not my concern, but Yamato, fighting
with Korean in 2c, winning or losing, anyway they could learn the more
advanced war technology of the time. When they comes back, it's easily
imagined that Yamato had technically most prepared army in Japan of the
time. If Yamato, before sending army to Korea, was in Yamato, it must be
really "ruler" of all the Seto Inner Sea and Kyuushuu. If Yamato was
in regional power in Kita-kyuushuu but "closely" related to Minama on
the other side of the sea, it was just accross the sea. They fought,
and learned and became stronger, then could easily seize the Islands of
Japan. I'd still think later more realistic.
> > Yes, but by the time
> > of Nintoku, (believing that the biggest kohun as His grave) the Yamato had
> > gained quite centralized power over Western half of Japan.
> >
> > There were "5 Kings" written in Chinese text around that time, but the puzzle
> > of which "King" is which "Emperor" is not throughly answered yet.
> >
>
> i'd be interested in hearing what those names were, and what the characters used to write
> their names were. I think that would be extremely significant in finding out who they visited.
> If you have access to this information, please post it here, as I never knew that their names were
> written down. (my experience with reading chinese texts is like zero, and I admit my ignorance :)
>
If I was in Japan, I'd had the book in my shelf, or just take bicycle to
the library near home. Since I'm in far country in Slovenia... I'll go to
"library" in the house of Yumi-san. There must be a history book I borrowed
once from another friend... If you could wait till Monday...
If you can read Japanese text well, plaese read
Chuuookooron-sha "Nihon-no Rekishi" (vol.1 of 26?)
I think by Inoue Mitsusada.
> >
> > In early Yayoi era, rice culture introduced to Japan. It made "villages"
> > for stable, staying, collective work force, which produce more food than
> > the community consume. Begining of Yayoi era was then the begining of
> > "war" time, that villages started to fight for geting "more" or "better"
> > teritory. (the finding of arms, and wounded bones tells this story.)
>
> does the archaeological records include texts for words like "ude" or "katana"? :)
> the question is not really here "who attacked who?" but "who won?" as it would
> be the winners who wrote the history and set the nature of the language in their
> territory. Obviously, Yamato won, but this does not mean they were the same as
> the invaders from Korean peninsula. People pick up culture much faster than language,
> especially if your neighbour seems to be richer than you. You dont much care about how
> to communicate with him, only to find out exactly where he got those bags of rice from. :)
>
If there were "text" there's no more mystery about proto-Japanese. :)
Linguists are so smart to analyse "arrow marks" of sumer language. :)
In ansient time, there wasn't elementary school like colonial french where
children would be taught to speak strict French grammar, etc., the winners,
not neccessary majority in the loser's territory, just "reign" over the
villages, taking strong boys as soldiers, taking beautiful girls as sevant,
giving works and tasking to give rice to rulers... it's just my imaginaton,
but as a general formula over the anscient world... I think the language
doesn't "replaces" but rather "mix".
> >
> > As a result of war, the hostages becomes slaves, and there will be
> > "soldiers" who devotes to war, not for production, and in the course
> > of Yayoi era, these Villages are more and more organized under stronger
> > and bigger Countries. As a result of this centralization, some where around
> > 4c, there were wars between the biggest countries of Japan, and finally
> > Yamato stood over others.
>
> a similar situation occurred this century, with economics rather than force of arms.
> The "insular, simple-minded, people of the paddy field who will never amount to much
> in the modern world (the words of one (to my shame) English writer in the 1880s)" have
> become the world leaders in terms of economic power. The Yamato could have been in a similar
> situation, patronised and looked-down upon by their immediate neighbours, until they joined in the
> fight. This is specualtion, of course, but all I am saying is that prior to the 4th century AD, the
> Yamato neednt have had the highest culture. They just needed to win and stay on top.
>
Is that irony to the country... which starts with U? ;)
> > The change of "Yayoi jidai (--> Kohun jidai) -->
> > Yamato jidai" was such change of Upper structure of society, and as for
> > basic production of food, the same method of cultivating rice was used.
> > In this meaning Yamato era Japan is continuous following of Yayoi era.
> >
> > BTW, "Yamato court in Asuka" is also incorrect...
>
> yup. :) sorry about that. my mistake.
> Bruce
I hope this thread not for "debate" but rather "exchange of information"...
I can tell what I know from my long long curiosity about history. But
I'm no schalar, Just telling my story on chimata-no-usenet.
I accept anthing which doesn't contradict with what I know, and seeking
most realistic VIEW(s), which explain(s) best what I know. Japanese history
is quite interesting itself. (not only pre-history). Shame that it's not
taught as a part of world history in rest of the world...
But more I learn about anscient Japan, more I want to know about Korea and
China of the time. Next time I go home... I will read many many books. :)
muchan
Robato Yao
>
>The seal is dated by archaeologist by method of archaeology.
>I didn't date it myself... I just read avout it in plain history book.
>(I mean, it's so wider known fact about Japanese history.)
>
>> > Myth is myth, not history, but if you reject all myth, there
>> > won't be any history. Checking every datails myth with every datails of
>> > archaeological findings are time consuming and imagintion intensive work,
>> > and you can't tell sure history yet...) I don't know how did you dated
>> > Nintoku. But if you say 300-350AD, it is 4th century. :)
>>
>> yes :) and the yamato had held considerable power for at least 200 years before that.
>> Making 2nd century. The Chinese came in 239AD . 3rd century.
According to Chinese "myth" they would have come earlier if you believe
on the Xu Fu expedition from the Han Dynasty, like in the BC era about
the earlier part of Yayoi jidai.
>>
>
>But these "200 years" are from culculation from their own myth, aren't they?
>And how they were realy strong, their "considerable power" can be proved
>only by archaeological finding from there, Yamato. Because of lack of
>such evidence, Japanese archaeologists are devided to two camps, both
>still can't break the other by undoubtable evidence. You believe you can,
>only after reading a book about it? Because Official Story had a task of
>authorize the authority, it was ornamented in this regard. Yamato, could
>be in Yamato already in 2cAD, but not yet significant power as their 4th
>century descendant, or Yamato was somewhere else, that the history of
>emperors might telling some truth, but their power was based on another
>territory. And they came to 3c or 4c as "mighty power". The one of two is
>the realistic view of pre-history of Yamato before Kohun-jidai.
>
>Intersting story was on <fj.s.l>.
>(from Onizuka-san's post Message-ID: <lc66771...@mpapia.trc.rwcp.or.jp> )
>
>the first part /Minama-Karakoku/ is very Japanese related country in
>Korean peninsula.
>
The Kara confederation is supposedly most suspected to be this
mythical Minama.
>
>Suppose there was (as alwasys) war in Korean peninsula, and closely related
>Minama (it was considered as "Japan" by Yamato court untill they finally
>lost it in 7c) was in danger, and Yamato (whereever it was) sent the army
>to Korea, maybe "emperatrice" herself went there, ( there is stone
>monument in North Korea talking about Japanese - Wa's war presence in
>Korean territory, which Japanese right-wingers want to use as a evdence
>that Korea was once Japan, with quite distorting intrepretation of text.
Kara on the other hand, never really lasted long against the powers of
Koguryo, Paechke and Shilla. Not to mention various interventions of
the Turkish related Wei and Sui Dynasties of China that continously
upset the balance of power in the peninsula, or harassments from
northern tribes like the Hsieh Po.
>but Japanese went to "Korean war" in pre-history is almost sure.)
>If she got pregnant there or not is not my concern, but Yamato, fighting
>with Korean in 2c, winning or losing, anyway they could learn the more
>advanced war technology of the time. When they comes back, it's easily
Another way is through refugees from the Korean peninsula, not just from
Kara, but other kingdoms that were eventually defeated. The unification
of Korea was costly and bloody. Significant numbers of armed survivors
and refugees could have come to the Japanese islands. If victors
perform some sort of "ethnic cleansing" like the Serbs are doing now,
the refugees could be significant in number. In comparison, Jomon jidai
people, according to what I have heard, may not have numbered more than
200,000 at any one time spread out through out the Japanese archipelago.
A large refugee migration could already greatly tip the balance of power
in the archipelego and change its people's anthropology forever.
There have been attempts to link Japanese language with the language of
Koguryo and Paechke, and the Imperial family to Paechke. Since the
current Korean language is really the language of Shilla, we really
wonder what exactly was the tongue of Kara, Koguryo and Paechke. At one
point Koguryo itself extended deep into Manchuria, and in the process,
deeply fighting Tungusic tribes, not to mention Chinese armies.
>imagined that Yamato had technically most prepared army in Japan of the
>time. If Yamato, before sending army to Korea, was in Yamato, it must be
>really "ruler" of all the Seto Inner Sea and Kyuushuu. If Yamato was
>in regional power in Kita-kyuushuu but "closely" related to Minama on
>the other side of the sea, it was just accross the sea. They fought,
>and learned and became stronger, then could easily seize the Islands of
>Japan. I'd still think later more realistic.
The most important military technology was the development of
metallurgy. Even the Chinese had steel at this point in time. Another
is military organization as well as tactics. In fact, this is
coincidentally is a rosy time for military technology in China, given
that this is a tumultous and divided period, one of the most warlike in
Chinese history, such as the Three Kingdoms.
>
>
>> > Yes, but by the time
>> > of Nintoku, (believing that the biggest kohun as His grave) the Yamato had
>> > gained quite centralized power over Western half of Japan.
>> >
>> > There were "5 Kings" written in Chinese text around that time, but the puzzle
>> > of which "King" is which "Emperor" is not throughly answered yet.
Chinese tend to be obsessed with the number "5" for mythology, so keep
that in account.
>> >
>>
>> i'd be interested in hearing what those names were, and what the characters used to write
>> their names were. I think that would be extremely significant in finding out who they visited.
>> If you have access to this information, please post it here, as I never knew that their names were
>> written down. (my experience with reading chinese texts is like zero, and I admit my ignorance :)
>>
>
>If I was in Japan, I'd had the book in my shelf, or just take bicycle to
>the library near home. Since I'm in far country in Slovenia... I'll go to
>"library" in the house of Yumi-san. There must be a history book I borrowed
>once from another friend... If you could wait till Monday...
>
>If you can read Japanese text well, plaese read
>Chuuookooron-sha "Nihon-no Rekishi" (vol.1 of 26?)
>I think by Inoue Mitsusada.
>
>> >
[snip]
>
>I hope this thread not for "debate" but rather "exchange of information"...
>I can tell what I know from my long long curiosity about history. But
>I'm no schalar, Just telling my story on chimata-no-usenet.
>
>I accept anthing which doesn't contradict with what I know, and seeking
>most realistic VIEW(s), which explain(s) best what I know. Japanese history
>is quite interesting itself. (not only pre-history). Shame that it's not
>taught as a part of world history in rest of the world...
>
>But more I learn about anscient Japan, more I want to know about Korea and
>China of the time. Next time I go home... I will read many many books. :)
>
>muchan
Asian history can not be taken in isolation. One can see it happens as
a result of many factors. There are many kingdoms and tribes, perhaps
with their own distinctive languages, that had become extinct since
then, and with them, important pieces in a puzzle.
Rgds,
Chris
Bruce Rimell
muchan wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
> >
> > unfortunately it is only an apparent connection. what a lot of Japanese scholars of
> > Yamato-era Japanese seem not to recognize is that the writing system of the Kojiki and
> > the brief Japanese sections in the Nihongi distinguish eight vowels, not 5:
> > modern a, i, u, e, o are distinguished as a, i, i', u, e, e', o, o'
> > where only the phonetic value of o' has been exactly established (have forgotten the IPA
> > symbol for it....). These vowels were already colalescing in the earliest texts and by the early
> > Heian period, the process was complete, leaving 5 vowels.
> >
>
> I wonder whom (which Japanese scholars) he wants to mock with,
> but it was Japanese Scolar (Hashimoto) who noticed it,
> and then it was Japanese scholar (Oono) who systematically categolized all
> man'yoo-gana to these two classes of vowels. So the non-Japanese scholar
> Bruce is refering (Donald L. Phillipi) must have then learned it from Oono's
> work either directly or indirectly.
>
> I don't see why Japanese scholars are then criticized such way by people
> who just read Phillips work. I think it's a simple arrogance.
> Please explain, if not.
>
this was not meant to be arrogance or criticism, just a statement of the facts as i have observed
them- a number of Japanese scholars do not seem to have noticed the eight vowel system in
books that I have read. There were also some books I had found which did use the eight vowels, and
which were also used in Phillipi's book. I did not intend to belittle the work of Japanese scholars,
who, lets face it, have made this discussion possible. There is, in my opinion, a world of difference
between the phrases "a lot of" and "all".
>
> muchan
>
> Yesterday, I read Oono's dictionary, and he seems not believing "Yamatai -
> Kita-Kyuushuu-setsu", because "Yamato" in Kii is "Yamato(2)" but Chikuzen
> Yamato was "Yamato(1)", where Chinese pronounciation for this "Yamatai"
> was closer to Yamato(2).
>
> muchan
so, it could be then that the chinese visitors in 294AD (sorry, i forgot the exact date...) could
have come to central japan. I hesitate to say Kii, because Kii seems to be located more in western
wakayama prefecture, but the general area seems more likely, based on what you say about Oono's
information.
muchan
> >the first part /Minama-Karakoku/ is very Japanese related country in
> >Korean peninsula.
> >
>
> The Kara confederation is supposedly most suspected to be this
> mythical Minama.
>
Intersting thing, is that
Yamatokotoba for Korea is /kara/, (kunyomi for Kankoku-no "kan" is /kara/),
and also,
Yamatokotoba for China is /kara/, (kunyomi for "Tang" dynasty is /kara/).
I think about ancent Greek, calling "the earth across the (Aegean) sea"
as "Asia", and it spread to Orient, including now Turkey, Syria,
Persia, India, ... to China and as far as Japan and Indonesia...
It still means "other side of Aegean sea" in Eurocentric view I'd laugh at.
But then from Japano-centric view ( /yamatokaramita-me/) Japan called
entire Korean peninsula with the name of closest neighbors just across the
sea, then further to China... "the earth across the sea over Tsushima Islands"
is all /kara/. I'd like to have joking mind with this Japono-centric view,
/tawamurashikiyamatokaramitame/ to call England to Portugal also /kara/. :)
So, Korean is /karakotoba/, Chinese is /karakotoba/, and English is also
/karakotoba/... My oldest biggest problem of naming "English" in
yamatokotoba is thus Over. /nazonazo-wa kaushitetoketa.../
Korean is /chika-karakotoba/ near-Kara's language
Chinese is /oo-karakotoba/ Big-Kara's lanugage
English is one of /too-karakotoba/ Far-Kara's language...
Waw that's simple! /yayakoshikaranu/...
(Intending a little humore after getting tired of too serious writing...)
muchan
Gerald B Mathias
: Yamatokotoba for Korea is /kara/, (kunyomi for Kankoku-no "kan" is /kara/),
: and also,
: Yamatokotoba for China is /kara/, (kunyomi for "Tang" dynasty is /kara/).
Not at all surprising, since there were Chinese words pronounced "han" for
both of them. "Kara" is more or less predictable as an early Japanese
reading for something like "han." "H" always came out as "k" and I can
find other cases of "...n" > "...r+vowel" if needed.
Bart
Robato Yao
>muchan (muc...@promikra.si) wrote:
>
>: Yamatokotoba for Korea is /kara/, (kunyomi for Kankoku-no "kan" is /kara/),
>: and also,
>: Yamatokotoba for China is /kara/, (kunyomi for "Tang" dynasty is /kara/).
>
>Not at all surprising, since there were Chinese words pronounced "han" for
Actually the Chinese character for the Korean "Han" as for the Han
river in Korea, and the Chinese character for the Chinese "Han", also
named after a river where the rouge General Li Bang was given
feudal jurisdiction (before he beat all other generals and established
the Han Dynasty), are two different characters. We still call Korea
"Han-kok" but just remember it's a different character.
>both of them. "Kara" is more or less predictable as an early Japanese
>reading for something like "han." "H" always came out as "k" and I can
>find other cases of "...n" > "...r+vowel" if needed.
If the Japanese at that time cannot differentiate the difference of the
two Han characters, they would likely percieve them as the same.
Furthermore, some of these Korean confederations are left over from the
Chinese fortress-precincts that were established there. Just remember
that that the older Chosen, Yen and Puyo were Han Dynasty vassals.
Also about 1700 years ago, China is having it's own internal war (the
legendary Three Kingdoms war and soon after that the North and South
Dynasties) and Korea is having their own internal war too, often with
Chinese intervention. This was also about the time when legitimacy to
the Imperial throne is by invoking one's legitimacy of succession to the
former Han Dynasty. it was at this point, the Chinese start refering to
themselves as "Han" to refer to themselves as the true successors of the
Han Dynasty, although they are seperate warring groups at that time.
The Chinese never called themselves "Qin" (source of the very word
Chinese) for the Qin Dynasty, because Shih Huang Di, even though
achieving more politically, militarily and culturally in his reign far
more than any other Emperor, was such a tyrant that the word Qin has the
same connotation as Nazi is today. Ironically, the Chinese called
another empire, Dai Qin---the Roman Empire.
In all irony, as you can see, there is also no ethnic basis for "Han".
Rgds,
Chris
>
>Bart
(counting down from top 50 oxymorons...)
10. Tight slacks
9. Definite maybe
8. Pretty ugly
7. Twelve-ounce pound cake
6. Diet ice cream
5. Rap music
4. Working vacation
3. Exact estimate
2. Religious tolerance
And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
Florian Eichhorn
Japanese Culture. Elisabeth, NJ (Hollym http://www.hollym.com.) 1984. ISBN 0-930878-34-5. Lots of
insights. Check it. Still a taboo among "official" japanese view of history. Summary pp. 110-112. Florian
Mike Wright
>
> In <7ffr02$i...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) writes:
> >muchan (muc...@promikra.si) wrote:
> >
> >: Yamatokotoba for Korea is /kara/, (kunyomi for Kankoku-no "kan" is /kara/),
> >: and also,
> >: Yamatokotoba for China is /kara/, (kunyomi for "Tang" dynasty is /kara/).
> >
> >Not at all surprising, since there were Chinese words pronounced "han" for
>
> Actually the Chinese character for the Korean "Han" as for the Han
> river in Korea, and the Chinese character for the Chinese "Han", also
> named after a river where the rouge General Li Bang was given
> feudal jurisdiction (before he beat all other generals and established
> the Han Dynasty), are two different characters. We still call Korea
> "Han-kok" but just remember it's a different character.
>
> >both of them. "Kara" is more or less predictable as an early Japanese
> >reading for something like "han." "H" always came out as "k" and I can
> >find other cases of "...n" > "...r+vowel" if needed.
>
> If the Japanese at that time cannot differentiate the difference of the
> two Han characters, they would likely percieve them as the same.
The point is not about the characters (and I rather suspect that Bart already
knew that they are not the same), but about the pronunciation--Japanese of that
era not yet having the syllabic "-n" to use with borrowed Chinese sounds. And
modern "h-" was still "p-" (or [P]?), which explains the "k-" as the closest
they could get using native Japanese sounds of that time.
The odd thing is why they picked "-ra" to stand in for Chinese "-n", rather than
something like "-nu". So, Bart, what were some other cases? Could this indicate
something about the pronunciation/articulation at that time of what has become
the modern Japanese "r-" and/or of the Chinese final "-n"?
Maybe they just dropped the "-n" and tacked on the "-ra" pluralizing suffix. :-p
Any idea of the approximate dates that these words were brought into Japanese
(or at least the latest likely dates)?
(The other funny thing, assuming that Bart is correct, is assigning the sound
for "Han" to the character for "Tang", but I believe we've seen that sort of
thing before.)
Gerald B Mathias
: The point is not about the characters (and I rather suspect that Bart already
: knew that they are not the same), but about the pronunciation--Japanese of that
: era not yet having the syllabic "-n" to use with borrowed Chinese sounds. And
: modern "h-" was still "p-" (or [P]?), which explains the "k-" as the closest
: they could get using native Japanese sounds of that time.
: The odd thing is why they picked "-ra" to stand in for Chinese "-n", rather than
: something like "-nu". So, Bart, what were some other cases?
One other instance came to mind as I was reading this: The place name
Suruga is written with a character for "fast horse" (I think)--"horse" on
left and "mu, ru" and I'm not sure what to call it--"no-mata"?--on the
right, and a character for "river," the "ka" one. Modern on'yomi for the
former is "shun" (I think--oh, nuts, let's look it up in Nelson... OK,
6754, JIS 3D69 but I can't add the <ESC>$B etc. with this editor; "good
horse, fast person"; shun), but there was no "s"/"sh" distinction in Old
Japanese. The same character seems to have been used as a two-syllable
man'yogana for "suru." I think there are still more waiting to come to
mind; I'd expect to find them in *old* proper nouns.
: Could this indicate
: something about the pronunciation/articulation at that time of what has become
: the modern Japanese "r-" and/or of the Chinese final "-n"?
Well, let's hope so! I vaguely recall (these will *not* come to mind
without deliberate searching) that there are apparent borrowings into
Chinese of syllables that ended with "n" or "r" in foreign languages being
rendered the other way around (guess it would mostly be "r" to "n"?). I
use this notion in my hypothesis that Chinese "man" (now "wan" in
Mandarin, I think) = "10,000" is a borrowing from Greek ("myr" of
"myriad").
Of course, one-syllable Japanese "r" kana all go back to "l..." in
Chinese, but where does that get us when we look at Chinese dialects? And
at Korean?
: Maybe they just dropped the "-n" and tacked on the "-ra" pluralizing suffix. :-p
: Any idea of the approximate dates that these words were brought into Japanese
: (or at least the latest likely dates)?
It's *my* idea--could be a century or two off, but I'd bet no one will
ever be able to prove it happened after 700.
: (The other funny thing, assuming that Bart is correct, is assigning the sound
: for "Han" to the character for "Tang", but I believe we've seen that sort of
: thing before.)
At least it's not as funny as reading "tang" directly as "kara," and makes
the reading rationalizable--"Tang" was just another name for/way to write
the name of, a country known as Kara.
Bart
Robato Yao
>Robato Yao wrote:
>>
>> In <7ffr02$i...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) writes:
>> >muchan (muc...@promikra.si) wrote:
>> >
>> >: Yamatokotoba for Korea is /kara/, (kunyomi for Kankoku-no "kan" is /kara/),
>> >: and also,
>> >: Yamatokotoba for China is /kara/, (kunyomi for "Tang" dynasty is /kara/).
>> >
>> >Not at all surprising, since there were Chinese words pronounced "han" for
>>
>> Actually the Chinese character for the Korean "Han" as for the Han
>> river in Korea, and the Chinese character for the Chinese "Han", also
>> named after a river where the rouge General Li Bang was given
>> feudal jurisdiction (before he beat all other generals and established
>> the Han Dynasty), are two different characters. We still call Korea
>> "Han-kok" but just remember it's a different character.
>>
>> >both of them. "Kara" is more or less predictable as an early Japanese
>> >reading for something like "han." "H" always came out as "k" and I can
>> >find other cases of "...n" > "...r+vowel" if needed.
>>
>> If the Japanese at that time cannot differentiate the difference of the
>> two Han characters, they would likely percieve them as the same.
>[...]
>
>knew that they are not the same), but about the pronunciation--Japanese of that
>era not yet having the syllabic "-n" to use with borrowed Chinese sounds. And
>modern "h-" was still "p-" (or [P]?), which explains the "k-" as the closest
>they could get using native Japanese sounds of that time.
>
>The odd thing is why they picked "-ra" to stand in for Chinese "-n", rather than
>something about the pronunciation/articulation at that time of what has become
>the modern Japanese "r-" and/or of the Chinese final "-n"?
>
>
>Any idea of the approximate dates that these words were brought into Japanese
>(or at least the latest likely dates)?
>
>for "Han" to the character for "Tang", but I believe we've seen that sort of
>thing before.)
Was these words coined from the nihonjiki, which may have
been written well after the events have taken place, and thus not
necessarily represent the actual sounds during the time period of the
events. The language the time when it was recorded is not the
same as the language during the time of the event. Things can be
recorded from oral history centuries after they had taken place.
Also, the proper name for the Korean confederation that had
Yamato/Wa support is Kaya, not Kara.
Rgds,
Chris
>
>--
>Mike Wright
>http://www.mbay.net/~darwin/language.html
>_____________________________________________________
>"China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese."
>-- Charles de Gaulle
muchan
> Chinese, but where does that get us when we look at Chinese dialects? And
> at Korean?
>
>
> : Any idea of the approximate dates that these words were brought into Japanese
> : (or at least the latest likely dates)?
>
> ever be able to prove it happened after 700.
>
> : for "Han" to the character for "Tang", but I believe we've seen that sort of
> : thing before.)
>
> the reading rationalizable--"Tang" was just another name for/way to write
> the name of, a country known as Kara.
>
> Bart
Now I wonder if there was a PJ/OJ word for "Korean Peninsula" in general,
not mentioning its south most country Kara, but including Kogryo,Shilla etc.,
all.
muchan
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) wrote:
> Was these words coined from the nihonjiki, which may have
> been written well after the events have taken place, and thus not
> necessarily represent the actual sounds during the time period of the
> events. The language the time when it was recorded is not the
> same as the language during the time of the event. Things can be
> recorded from oral history centuries after they had taken place.
>
> Also, the proper name for the Korean confederation that had
> Yamato/Wa support is Kaya, not Kara.
You seem to have been spreading mucho-disinformation denigrating Korea
behind my back. If choson was a vassal to Han because it paid occasional
tributes, then Han was a vassal to Hsingnu too.
Kaya was alternatively called karak and there is no mystery as to where the
word Kara comes from. Incidentally it probably is related to Tungusic [Xala]
which means tribe, kinsfolks etc. In Koguryo, [Ka] was the word with similar
meaning and it is still used in Korean with slightly altered
meaning(surname). I think the closest Korean word to khala([Xala]) is Kyeore
which means "nation" but in old or middle Korean, it used to mean individual
clan, family etc which are closer in meaning to khala.
Defeated people of Paekje and Koguryo often called themselves Tang to
elevate their status even toward their fellow Koreans. So many clans have
"such such man with a title of blah blah from Tang" as their progenitor. But
if you do background check, they are usually Koreans. Why "Tang" was
phonetically called kara is explained in many books including Hong's which
you referred to sometime ago.
y. Park
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Robato Yao
>In article <7flril$nbn$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) wrote:
>
>> Was these words coined from the nihonjiki, which may have
>> been written well after the events have taken place, and thus not
>> necessarily represent the actual sounds during the time period of the
>> events. The language the time when it was recorded is not the
>> same as the language during the time of the event. Things can be
>> recorded from oral history centuries after they had taken place.
>>
>> Also, the proper name for the Korean confederation that had
>> Yamato/Wa support is Kaya, not Kara.
>
> You seem to have been spreading mucho-disinformation denigrating Korea
>behind my back. If choson was a vassal to Han because it paid occasional
>tributes, then Han was a vassal to Hsingnu too.
I wasn't really refering or using "tributes". The point is rather
Choson has been heavy influence by the Han Dynasty and was later invaded
and the Han set up colonial administrations. The Korean peninsula was
under the Chinese sphere of influence, and tribal leaders are accepting
various titles, seals and ranks from the Han Dynasty. This is
especially so during the reign of Han Wu Di, but the situation for the
Han Dynasty started to disintegrate after his death.
The circumstances with Hsiong Nu are of course much different since they
and the Han were killing each other with massive wars at that time.
>
> Kaya was alternatively called karak and there is no mystery as to where the
>word Kara comes from. Incidentally it probably is related to Tungusic [Xala]
>which means tribe, kinsfolks etc. In Koguryo, [Ka] was the word with similar
>meaning and it is still used in Korean with slightly altered
>meaning(surname). I think the closest Korean word to khala([Xala]) is Kyeore
>which means "nation" but in old or middle Korean, it used to mean individual
>clan, family etc which are closer in meaning to khala.
Any relation to the use of the word 'Kara' for cities such as in
Mongolia?
>
> Defeated people of Paekje and Koguryo often called themselves Tang to
>elevate their status even toward their fellow Koreans. So many clans have
>"such such man with a title of blah blah from Tang" as their progenitor. But
>if you do background check, they are usually Koreans. Why "Tang" was
So we have computers to do background ID checks on then? :-)
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) wrote:
>
> I wasn't really refering or using "tributes". The point is rather
> Choson has been heavy influence by the Han Dynasty and was later invaded
> and the Han set up colonial administrations. The Korean peninsula was
> under the Chinese sphere of influence, and tribal leaders are accepting
> various titles, seals and ranks from the Han Dynasty. This is
> especially so during the reign of Han Wu Di, but the situation for the
> Han Dynasty started to disintegrate after his death.
This means basically
nothing. Parhae received titles from Shilla in the beginning, various jurchen
tribes received titles from Koryo. So what?
Like many Chinese, you seem to fantasize too much; that Koreans valued things
chinese do not mean that they regarded chinese as higher beings. One of the
reasons stated by Han Muje(wu ti) for expedition to choson was that choson
interfered with chinese trade with han tribes.
>
> The circumstances with Hsiong Nu are of course much different since they
> and the Han were killing each other with massive wars at that time.
It took more than a year to destroy choson and even that would not have been
possible without internal discord within choson government. Choson had many
wars with china mostly with yeon.
>
> Any relation to the use of the word 'Kara' for cities such as in
> Mongolia?
Probably not. kara as in "khara-koto" means "black".
>
> So we have computers to do background ID checks on then? :-)
I am sure YOU would need all kinds of apparatus to compensate for you
mental shortcoming. Others have good old human intelligence in far greater
abundance.
Y. Park
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
ypar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Like many Chinese, you seem to fantasize too much; that Koreans valued things
> chinese do(es) not mean that they regarded chinese as higher beings.
I hope everyone understood what I meant from the context. This was a
grammatical error, not an error in punctuation.
> >
> > So we have computers to do background ID checks on then? :-)
>
> I am sure YOU would need all kinds of apparatus to compensate for you(r)
> mental shortcoming. Others have good old human intelligence in far greater
> abundance.
In fact, Puyo Seo lists ,as their progenitor, Seo Ryung with a title from
Tang court. It is not a lie as he indeed received such title from Tang as a
reward for his collaboration in crushing his own countrymen. But he turns out
to be none other than Puyo ryung who was the third(?) son of the last king of
Paekje. I can come up with countless such examples.
Robato Yao
>In article <7g5nd5$sth$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't really refering or using "tributes". The point is rather
>> Choson has been heavy influence by the Han Dynasty and was later invaded
>> and the Han set up colonial administrations. The Korean peninsula was
>> under the Chinese sphere of influence, and tribal leaders are accepting
>> various titles, seals and ranks from the Han Dynasty. This is
>> especially so during the reign of Han Wu Di, but the situation for the
>> Han Dynasty started to disintegrate after his death.
>
> This means basically
>nothing. Parhae received titles from Shilla in the beginning, various jurchen
>tribes received titles from Koryo. So what?
You are the one who keeps fantasizing to think that I mean Koreans
regard Chinese as higher beings, and yet it seems ancient Koreans will
associate themselves with Han or Tang when the time is convenient.
Going back to the issue of "ethnic unrest" with the fall of Loyang if
you got Chinese living in Korea. The sign or the lack of sign of
unrest is no characteristic of Chinese populations. Furthermore, they
have went to Korea as refugees or as dissatisfied of the imperial
goverments, which tend to be very despotic. They would have more reason
to cheer if the provinciaries would fall.
>reasons stated by Han Muje(wu ti) for expedition to choson was that choson
>interfered with chinese trade with han tribes.
>
>>
>> The circumstances with Hsiong Nu are of course much different since they
>> and the Han were killing each other with massive wars at that time.
>
> It took more than a year to destroy choson and even that would not have been
>possible without internal discord within choson government. Choson had many
>wars with china mostly with yeon.
A year is a short time for the technology level of wars fought in that
time, when wars with races, cities and nations can last in generations.
>
>>
>> Any relation to the use of the word 'Kara' for cities such as in
>> Mongolia?
>
> Probably not. kara as in "khara-koto" means "black".
>
Sorry. Take out a map of cities in the area. There are many
other cities named "kara" and these have nothing to do with black.
>>
>> So we have computers to do background ID checks on then? :-)
>
> I am sure YOU would need all kinds of apparatus to compensate for you
>mental shortcoming. Others have good old human intelligence in far greater
>abundance.
>
Usually it is an accepted fact that in the usenet, the one who makes
insults first usually attempts to hide their shortcomings in
intelligence.
Rgds,
Chris
> Y. Park
>
>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) wrote:
> You are the one who keeps fantasizing to think that I mean Koreans
> regard Chinese as higher beings, and yet it seems ancient Koreans will
> associate themselves with Han or Tang when the time is convenient.
Just the way British Celts called themselves Roman when it was convenient to
do so. But unlike Chinese, Italians do not try to spread garbage like "we
fathered celtic race.".
>
> Going back to the issue of "ethnic unrest" with the fall of Loyang if
> you got Chinese living in Korea. The sign or the lack of sign of
> unrest is no characteristic of Chinese populations. Furthermore, they
> have went to Korea as refugees or as dissatisfied of the imperial
> goverments, which tend to be very despotic. They would have more reason
> to cheer if the provinciaries would fall.
When they were about to fall into the hands of "barbarians" who often took
them as slaves as soon as they ventured outside the protection of their
military garrisons? These incidents are in the records.
By the way, even chinese "historians" would not call Lolang a province.
> A year is a short time for the technology level of wars fought in that
> time, when wars with races, cities and nations can last in generations.
A year was the time for the single(final) military campaign itself. It was
a very very long siege ESPECIALLY for that time.
>
> Usually it is an accepted fact that in the usenet, the one who makes
> insults first usually attempts to hide their shortcomings in
> intelligence.
>
an expression of contrition? You are the one who attempted clumsy and
insipid sarcasm first.(as always)
muchan
> word Kara comes from. Incidentally it probably is related to Tungusic [Xala]
> which means tribe, kinsfolks etc. In Koguryo, [Ka] was the word with similar
> meaning and it is still used in Korean with slightly altered
> meaning(surname). I think the closest Korean word to khala([Xala]) is Kyeore
> which means "nation" but in old or middle Korean, it used to mean individual
> clan, family etc which are closer in meaning to khala.
>
/udi/ is a paternel family tree, (you get the "family name" from your father.)
/kara/ is more wider term of "relatives".
Now, old word /kara/ survives in compounds like
/ie-gara/ ("rank" of house/family)
/gara-ga warui/ (bad manner, bad taste...)
I'm not sure how /gara/ as "(printing)pattern" is related to /kara/
/tomo-gara/ (friends and relatives)
/hara-kara/ (brothers (and cousins...))
Both /udi/ and /kara/ are considered to be "the most Altaic words" in
Japanese. -- Another is "sumer." part of "sumera-mikoto" (the Emperor),
sumer was the name of legendary mountain for Altaic people. The word
survive in Modern Japanese as /subete/ (All), is it true?
> Defeated people of Paekje and Koguryo often called themselves Tang to
> elevate their status even toward their fellow Koreans. So many clans have
> "such such man with a title of blah blah from Tang" as their progenitor. But
> if you do background check, they are usually Koreans. Why "Tang" was
> phonetically called kara is explained in many books including Hong's which
> you referred to sometime ago.
>
>
May I hear the explanation, why Tang is read as /kara/ in Japanese?
I still wonder.
> y. Park
>
Oh, <soc.culture.korean> was included... Hello from <sci.lang.japan>!
muchan
Robato Yao
>In article <7g897p$mqc$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) wrote:
>
>> You are the one who keeps fantasizing to think that I mean Koreans
>> regard Chinese as higher beings, and yet it seems ancient Koreans will
>> associate themselves with Han or Tang when the time is convenient.
>
> Just the way British Celts called themselves Roman when it was convenient to
>do so. But unlike Chinese, Italians do not try to spread garbage like "we
>fathered celtic race.".
>
>>
>> Going back to the issue of "ethnic unrest" with the fall of Loyang if
>> you got Chinese living in Korea. The sign or the lack of sign of
>> unrest is no characteristic of Chinese populations. Furthermore, they
>> have went to Korea as refugees or as dissatisfied of the imperial
>> goverments, which tend to be very despotic. They would have more reason
>> to cheer if the provinciaries would fall.
>
> When they were about to fall into the hands of "barbarians" who often took
>them as slaves as soon as they ventured outside the protection of their
>military garrisons? These incidents are in the records.
Incidents, sure. There are plenty of slave taking incidents throughout
all the borders of the Chinese empire, much more grave and in larger
numbers than what you describe, which amounts to more like petty
incidents. Not to mention headhunters in the south.
>
> By the way, even chinese "historians" would not call Lolang a province.
>
>> A year is a short time for the technology level of wars fought in that
>> time, when wars with races, cities and nations can last in generations.
>
> A year was the time for the single(final) military campaign itself. It was
>a very very long siege ESPECIALLY for that time.
Oh you mean it's just a city? We are talking about a darn kingdom here
and against which, the Han Dynasty sent a second rate general and
punitive police force by their standards. Do you suppose they should
send a major butcher like Gen. Ban Chao instead (a hero in Chinese
history, but a closer look of his military exploits shows he massacred
entire towns and cities in Xinjiang against Turkic or Hun tribes.)
Kazaks laid seige on a city in the 17th century that took more than
three months, and cut the throat of a German who made a snide remark it
should have taken three days.
>
>>
>> Usually it is an accepted fact that in the usenet, the one who makes
>> insults first usually attempts to hide their shortcomings in
>> intelligence.
>>
>
> an expression of contrition? You are the one who attempted clumsy and
>insipid sarcasm first.(as always)
Seems to me that it's in your fantasy again that I am attempting
sarcasm.
Rgds,
Chris
>
>
> Y. Park
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Robato Yao
>> Kaya was alternatively called karak and there is no mystery as to where the
>> word Kara comes from. Incidentally it probably is related to Tungusic [Xala]
>> which means tribe, kinsfolks etc. In Koguryo, [Ka] was the word with similar
>> meaning and it is still used in Korean with slightly altered
>> meaning(surname). I think the closest Korean word to khala([Xala]) is Kyeore
>> which means "nation" but in old or middle Korean, it used to mean individual
>> clan, family etc which are closer in meaning to khala.
>>
>/kara/ as Japanese word is corresponding to /udi/.
>/udi/ is a paternel family tree, (you get the "family name" from your father.)
>/kara/ is more wider term of "relatives".
>Now, old word /kara/ survives in compounds like
> /ie-gara/ ("rank" of house/family)
> /gara-ga warui/ (bad manner, bad taste...)
> I'm not sure how /gara/ as "(printing)pattern" is related to /kara/
> /tomo-gara/ (friends and relatives)
> /hara-kara/ (brothers (and cousins...))
Probably meant loosely as word for brotherhood or unity.
For example, Kara-Khanid federation of some Turkish tribes, or in the
case of another tribal unity or federation, Kara-Kirghiz.
>
>Both /udi/ and /kara/ are considered to be "the most Altaic words" in
>Japanese. -- Another is "sumer." part of "sumera-mikoto" (the Emperor),
>sumer was the name of legendary mountain for Altaic people. The word
>survive in Modern Japanese as /subete/ (All), is it true?
One has to look at the Altai mountains area and the Tarim basin south of
that (Xinjiang or Chinese Turkestan).
Kara- words occur in some frequency. For example, the Karakhoram
mountain ranges, Karakhuli lake, Karakosh river, city of Karaghora (it
could be Kharaghora, present name, Gaocheng.) And of course, the recent
Karakhoram highway.
Then there are the legendary cities of Karakhoto, so called the Black
City, a city of Tanguts, a Tibetan tribe, which the Mongolians
massacred. I think it sounds like that for the Mongolians, but I doubt
that is the original meaning of its name, since the Mongolians did not
live on it, just kill the people in it.
Ditto with city of Karashar, so called the Black Town, an ancient city
in Xinjiang, which Han Gen. Ban Chao massacred to make a point for the
Huns (Hsieh Nu, Xiongnu) and other Turkish (To-Kueh) tribes.
I think both are originally founded by Tibetan or Turkish related
peoples. Interesting enough, the Tang Dynasty may be the most Turkish
oriented of all Chinese dynasties (even though the preceding Wei and Sui
Dynasty emperors got Hsieh Po, a Turkic tribe, blood in them.) The
Tangs wear Turkish style costumes, had all sorts of Central Asian arts
and culture around them. Their most famous poet, Li Bo, seems Central
Asian or probably Turkish. What more, they strike treaties with Turkish
Khanates and even use Turkish armies to quell internal rebellions. They
suffered a major defeat against another Central Asian race, this time
the Arabs. The beginning of the fall of various Buddist-Turkish
kingdoms in the west around the 9th Century to Mohamedism, also
coincided with the fall of the Tang.
>
>> Defeated people of Paekje and Koguryo often called themselves Tang to
>> elevate their status even toward their fellow Koreans. So many clans have
>> "such such man with a title of blah blah from Tang" as their progenitor. But
>> if you do background check, they are usually Koreans. Why "Tang" was
>> phonetically called kara is explained in many books including Hong's which
>> you referred to sometime ago.
>>
>>
>
>May I hear the explanation, why Tang is read as /kara/ in Japanese?
>I still wonder.
>
>> y. Park
>>
>
>Oh, <soc.culture.korean> was included... Hello from <sci.lang.japan>!
>
>muchan
k_...@hotmail.com
ypar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Kaya was alternatively called karak and there is no mystery as to where the
> word Kara comes from. Incidentally it probably is related to Tungusic [Xala]
> which means tribe, kinsfolks etc. In Koguryo, [Ka] was the word with similar
> meaning and it is still used in Korean with slightly altered
> meaning(surname). I think the closest Korean word to khala([Xala]) is Kyeore
> which means "nation" but in old or middle Korean, it used to mean individual
> clan, family etc which are closer in meaning to khala.
The word 'kara' has a Japanese meaning similar to Tungusic. It remains only in
composites such as 'hara-kara', 'ya-kara', and 'tomo-gara'
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) wrote:
> Incidents, sure. There are plenty of slave taking incidents throughout
> all the borders of the Chinese empire, much more grave and in larger
> numbers than what you describe, which amounts to more like petty
> incidents. Not to mention headhunters in the south.
The incident I mentioned involved 1000. Not really petty at that time. My
point was that Koreans were not really that favorably disposed toward chinese
even though they might have regarded certain aspects of chinese culture
highly. This means that Chinese would have to hug the coast line and make a
long sea voyage to Japan since it would be a pure fantasy to safely travel on
land to Korean southern coast(I often observed chinese fantasizing that
Koreans would allow safe passage to chinese merchants out of respect for the
chinese race. Puhahaha.). This means that the sea voyage does not become any
easier even after taking northwestern part of Korea(generously ceding to the
chinese insistence that lolang was located in present day pyongyang).
The most immediate benefit of taking lolang(for chinese) would be direct
trade with han tribes and probably only second hand trade with wae.(this was
one of their stated goals. The other was to "cut the right arm of Hsingnu".)
> Oh you mean it's just a city? We are talking about a darn kingdom here
> and against which, the Han Dynasty sent a second rate general and
> punitive police force by their standards. Do you suppose they should
> send a major butcher like Gen. Ban Chao instead (a hero in Chinese
> history, but a closer look of his military exploits shows he massacred
> entire towns and cities in Xinjiang against Turkic or Hun tribes.)
Oh gosh. You have little idea of how ancient warfare was conducted(nor of
general organization of state). People were not continuously distributed at
that time. And I assure you that whatever chinese did they never did out of
generosity or human compassion. And you overestimate chinese military might
as usual.
Another misconception you have is that Lolang was fairly densely populated
by chinese. As I said it was a commandary not colony. There were numerous
native revolts throughout its history. Enemy of Chinese could still pass
through the country in relative safety(because of relative lack of chinese
control in addition to sparsely populated nature of ancient state.)etc.
Large portion of the land remained at the hands of local chiefs albeit only
nominally.(ie. The story of Ye-kun Namyeo)
Y. Park
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
muchan <muc...@promikra.si> wrote:
> /kara/ as Japanese word is corresponding to /udi/.
> /udi/ is a paternel family tree, (you get the "family name" from your father.)
Are you sure this is not sino-Japanese? I can not think of any
corresponding Korean word. ka is the closest in meaning but it no doubt is
related to khala not udi(probably from ka of koguryo meaning tribes).
I can not think of its relation to any altaic words either.(My knowledge of
altaic languages is very very poor of course but still.....)
> Both /udi/ and /kara/ are considered to be "the most Altaic words" in
> Japanese. -- Another is "sumer." part of "sumera-mikoto" (the Emperor),
> sumer was the name of legendary mountain for Altaic people. The word
> survive in Modern Japanese as /subete/ (All), is it true?
?? I doubt it. It would have made quite a sensation if it were and Japanese
are not known to miss any opportunity in which they could make connection to
the north bypassing Korea.
There are several cases where Japanese words seem to have closer connections
to the corresponding Altaic ones than Korean.
Kuro---Khara (black) is one. In Korean, there are only questionable cases
of correspondence. keu-eul(to soot from smoke etc) and kuri(copper)(I think
there is a word kurogane in Japanese too)etc. The Old Korean word in all
three kingdoms for "black" was [ki"mi"l].
kure-(something that has to do with castle) kuru was the Koguryo word for
this.(however it was reconstructed as kuet based on the study of
pronunciation of old chinese and it may be related to khoto etc.) In korean,
this form remains only in place names or in altered meaning such as in
kure(fence for dwelling of domesticated animals?) korae(this was listed as
one by some korean linguist. It is one of architectural components of house
but I forgot the exact meaning.). In paekje and shilla, the corresponding
word was [ki] possibly remotely related to the above.
There are several more.
>
> May I hear the explanation, why Tang is read as /kara/ in Japanese?
> I still wonder.
Probably the same way Han is pronounced kara. People of kara were the most
familiar to Japanese so they called the hans as karakuni as well etc and when
some Koreans(refuges from Koguryo and paekje) started to call themselves
Tang-In Japanese said "yeh yeh sure sure. But we will still call you
karakuni.".
Chris Robato Yao
>In article <7garl8$hkt$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) wrote:
>
>> Incidents, sure. There are plenty of slave taking incidents throughout
>> all the borders of the Chinese empire, much more grave and in larger
>> numbers than what you describe, which amounts to more like petty
>> incidents. Not to mention headhunters in the south.
>
> The incident I mentioned involved 1000. Not really petty at that time. My
Maybe it is big to you, since you are incapable of conceiving the vast
geopolitics of an empire. But for the Chinese it is quite petty
compared to the rest of the population and the incidents that occur
continually with the Hun (who take entire villages and towns to
slavery) and Yuet (feared by the Chinese as headhunters).
>point was that Koreans were not really that favorably disposed toward chinese
>even though they might have regarded certain aspects of chinese culture
>highly. This means that Chinese would have to hug the coast line and make a
>long sea voyage to Japan since it would be a pure fantasy to safely travel on
>land to Korean southern coast(I often observed chinese fantasizing that
>Koreans would allow safe passage to chinese merchants out of respect for the
>chinese race. Puhahaha.). This means that the sea voyage does not become any
No they don't but I bet they don't mind profiteering from some tariffs,
levies, tributes, and commissions either. You underestimate the power
of the buck. Even the Hun conducted much trade with their Han enemy (a
buck is a buck, boy) and collected tribute, commissions and tariffs from
caravans along the so called Silk Road, unless these caravans are meant
to trade with the Hun in the first place.
>easier even after taking northwestern part of Korea(generously ceding to the
>chinese insistence that lolang was located in present day pyongyang).
>
The Korean route is not the only route the Chinese are capable
of taking. There are two other routes, one from the mouth of the
Yangtze river, and the other through the Ryukyuran-Taiwan route. The
latter is not likely established by the Han Dynasty considering their
weak control and continous wars over what is Yuet territories at that
time.
However, if Himiko's clan has knowledge of the Go/Etsu (Wu/Yuet) which
came from the Yangtze area, most likely by boat across the sea, the
Chinese could compare favorably sea navigating considering how primitive
Wu/Yuet could compare. When Japan and China began their direct trade
and contact together, traveling hugging Korean coastline wasn't even the
main trading route. You have very little knowledge of sea navigation,
that traveling near the coast is actually far more hazardous than the
open sea due the ease of running aground from rocks. Because the
supplies you take on the sea is limited, you take the route with the
shortest time, and following the Korean coast is the longest and most
hazardous.
Their main route is from the mouth of the Yangtze, which actually
represents the shortest point between China and the Japan, and the
distance of travel is much shorter than hugging the Korean coast. From
the Yangtze, ships can travel inland following the river much faster and
safer than caravan inland across the mountains, and the Yangtze extends
deep into the Chinese interior much closer to Chan'gan.
If they take the Yellow river route, they would travel across the sea
from the river and only touching the southern tip of the Korean
peninsula.
Along with the later Ryukyuran-Taiwan route, these sea routes were shown
to me in a museum in Ningpo, near the mouth of the Yangtze, where there
is an abundance of both Japanese and Chinese artifacts of such trade.
Even if Koreans in the coast allow the Chinese to pass through, albeit
even with tariffs, Chinese merchant greed (remove the middleman!) would
prefer dealing with Japanese directly.
> The most immediate benefit of taking lolang(for chinese) would be direct
>trade with han tribes and probably only second hand trade with wae.(this was
>one of their stated goals. The other was to "cut the right arm of Hsingnu".)
>
>> Oh you mean it's just a city? We are talking about a darn kingdom here
>> and against which, the Han Dynasty sent a second rate general and
>> punitive police force by their standards. Do you suppose they should
>> send a major butcher like Gen. Ban Chao instead (a hero in Chinese
>> history, but a closer look of his military exploits shows he massacred
>> entire towns and cities in Xinjiang against Turkic or Hun tribes.)
>
> Oh gosh. You have little idea of how ancient warfare was conducted(nor of
>general organization of state). People were not continuously distributed at
I do actually. You don't. You failed to concieve that Korea at that
time has nothing to offer of value for the Han at that time, not the
capability to buy bolts of silks by the hundreds or the thousands, not
the Central Asian horses the Han desire, not the Central Asian
culture and art the Han also desire, not even the military capability of
Central Asian tribes the Han can desire as allies against the Huns.
>that time. And I assure you that whatever chinese did they never did out of
Oh really. From this, I assure you that you greatly *underestimate* the
brutality and ruthlessness the Han is quite capable off.
>generosity or human compassion. And you overestimate chinese military might
>as usual.
I think you are the one who greatly underestimate Chinese military
strength at that time, and as usual, think that Korea plays a bigger
part in Chinese history that what it really did. The best forces in the
Han Dynasty are primarily located in the northwest in campaigns against
the Hun and kingdoms in the Tarim Basin, where battles are often
100,000 men alone in one side, and then they have to allocate
forces against the fierce Yuet and southern tribes. Believe me, Korea
is considered a minor police action. The fact that the Han didn't go
there and conducted a massacre or a campaign of ethnic cleansing (which
they will not hesitate to do with their own people by the way) shows
that they actually *like* Koreans and consider them generally peaceful
people, not in any sense a threat at that time. Only much later, past
several dynasties, did the Chinese see a threat from Korea (Koguryo).
>
> Another misconception you have is that Lolang was fairly densely populated
>by chinese. As I said it was a commandary not colony. There were numerous
Oh you are the one who has this usual misconception that I think Lolang
was fairly populated by Chinese. At best such 'Chinese' are
originally non-Han northeastern people who have sworn allegiance to the
Han Dynasty, but are not your ethnically the Yellow River loess
plateau people around Changan.
Chinese don't actually see things much in value in Korea and their
emphasis for expansion population wise was southwards, in the much
greater fertile regions around the Yangtze, causing battles against
southern tribes, as well as the northwest and the west where there is
great wealth from the trade with Western kingdoms.
>native revolts throughout its history. Enemy of Chinese could still pass
>through the country in relative safety(because of relative lack of chinese
>control in addition to sparsely populated nature of ancient state.)etc.
>Large portion of the land remained at the hands of local chiefs albeit only
>nominally.(ie. The story of Ye-kun Namyeo)
>
> Y. Park
>
>
>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
muchan
>
> In article <3728956F...@promikra.si>,
> muchan <muc...@promikra.si> wrote:
>
> > /kara/ as Japanese word is corresponding to /udi/.
> > /udi/ is a paternel family tree, (you get the "family name" from your father.)
>
> Are you sure this is not sino-Japanese? I can not think of any
> corresponding Korean word. ka is the closest in meaning but it no doubt is
> related to khala not udi(probably from ka of koguryo meaning tribes).
>
> I can not think of its relation to any altaic words either.(My knowledge of
> altaic languages is very very poor of course but still.....)
>
This is not sino-Japanese. sure.
Possibility that Altaic words bypassing to Japan is that when
proto-Japanese was still about to born in Korea, the career of
"Korean/Altaic" segment of the mixed language could be other
ethnical group than the anscestor of Modern Korean.
Relation with other Altaic words was quoted in Oono's book, I don't
have it here handy though.
> > Both /udi/ and /kara/ are considered to be "the most Altaic words" in
> > Japanese. -- Another is "sumer." part of "sumera-mikoto" (the Emperor),
> > sumer was the name of legendary mountain for Altaic people. The word
> > survive in Modern Japanese as /subete/ (All), is it true?
>
> ?? I doubt it. It would have made quite a sensation if it were and Japanese
> are not known to miss any opportunity in which they could make connection to
> the north bypassing Korea.
>
/suber.u/ is a (old?) verb for "commanding the entire army",
"standing the top of everyone", Japanese reading for "sui" of
/gensui/ (Marshal sp?) , /tooshui/, etc.
> There are several cases where Japanese words seem to have closer connections
> to the corresponding Altaic ones than Korean.
>
> Kuro---Khara (black) is one. In Korean, there are only questionable cases
> of correspondence. keu-eul(to soot from smoke etc) and kuri(copper)(I think
> there is a word kurogane in Japanese too)etc. The Old Korean word in all
> three kingdoms for "black" was [ki"mi"l].
>
> kure-(something that has to do with castle) kuru was the Koguryo word for
> this.(however it was reconstructed as kuet based on the study of
> pronunciation of old chinese and it may be related to khoto etc.) In korean,
> this form remains only in place names or in altered meaning such as in
> kure(fence for dwelling of domesticated animals?) korae(this was listed as
> one by some korean linguist. It is one of architectural components of house
> but I forgot the exact meaning.). In paekje and shilla, the corresponding
> word was [ki] possibly remotely related to the above.
>
"kul" or "kur"... as black, sorry I don't remember correctly, is supposed
to be the origine of word /kuro/ (black) /kura.si/ (dark) etc.,
(at least by Oono.)
> There are several more.
>
> >
> > May I hear the explanation, why Tang is read as /kara/ in Japanese?
> > I still wonder.
>
> Probably the same way Han is pronounced kara. People of kara were the most
> familiar to Japanese so they called the hans as karakuni as well etc and when
> some Koreans(refuges from Koguryo and paekje) started to call themselves
> Tang-In Japanese said "yeh yeh sure sure. But we will still call you
> karakuni.".
>
> Y. Park
Oh, it's a same guess as mine... But I though Korean people call Tang as
/kara/ or simlar way, too...
muchan
muchan
>
> However, if Himiko's clan has knowledge of the Go/Etsu (Wu/Yuet) which
> came from the Yangtze area, most likely by boat across the sea, the
> Chinese could compare favorably sea navigating considering how primitive
> Wu/Yuet could compare. When Japan and China began their direct trade
> and contact together, traveling hugging Korean coastline wasn't even the
> main trading route. You have very little knowledge of sea navigation,
> that traveling near the coast is actually far more hazardous than the
> open sea due the ease of running aground from rocks. Because the
> supplies you take on the sea is limited, you take the route with the
> shortest time, and following the Korean coast is the longest and most
> hazardous.
>
I don't agree it. Even 400 years later, sending ship "across" the sea
between China and Kyuushuu was a deadly dangerous. ( more the 1/4 of
boats lost). And Japan was forced to use this route only when Korean
political situation was not favorable for Japan to use the sea near
the peninsula. So in Himiko's time, the route between Chana and Japan
was absolutely via Korean peninsula.
Himiko's people mentioning Go/Yuet, is probably people in south Korea,
-- those rice farmers -- were directl related to Go/Yuet. It's the
only possibility I can take seriously.
muchan
muchan
Gerald B Mathias
: ypar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: >
: > In article <3728956F...@promikra.si>,
: > muchan <muc...@promikra.si> wrote:
: >
: > > /kara/ as Japanese word is corresponding to /udi/.
: > > /udi/ is a paternel family tree, (you get the "family name" from your father.)
: >
: > Are you sure this is not sino-Japanese? I can not think of any
: > corresponding Korean word. ka is the closest in meaning but it no doubt is
: > related to khala not udi(probably from ka of koguryo meaning tribes).
: >
: > I can not think of its relation to any altaic words either.(My knowledge of
: > altaic languages is very very poor of course but still.....)
: >
: This is not sino-Japanese. sure.
: Possibility that Altaic words bypassing to Japan is that when
: proto-Japanese was still about to born in Korea, the career of
: "Korean/Altaic" segment of the mixed language could be other
: ethnical group than the anscestor of Modern Korean.
: Relation with other Altaic words was quoted in Oono's book, I don't
: have it here handy though.
He gives Korean "ul" (presumably "wul" in Yale romanization) defined
ZOKU/yakara. Presumably related to "uli" ("wuli") = "us/we" which I was
tempted to suggest yesterday. Oono also gives Mongolian "uru-g" =
"kinfolk," Turkish (Kilghis? dialect--"kirugisu" in kana) "uru" with
macron over second "u" = same, and Tungus "ur" = "progeny." (He then
cites Korean "mul" = Japanese "midu" = "water" to show that Korean "l" can
correspond with Japanese "d.")
Bart
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
muchan <muc...@promikra.si> wrote:
>
> This is not sino-Japanese. sure.
> Possibility that Altaic words bypassing to Japan is that when
> proto-Japanese was still about to born in Korea, the career of
> "Korean/Altaic" segment of the mixed language could be other
> ethnical group than the anscestor of Modern Korean.
I know that genetics and languages are separate but still I can not help but
note the recent findings which seem to indicate high correlation between
y-chromosomes and languages.(this is explained by something called
patri-locality)
Most efforts thus far have been largely concentrated on the origin of native
americans and the peopling of east asia itself has not been resolved with
sufficient clarity. However while I was looking at the most recent Hammmer's
article, I noticed that certain haplotype(1f in hammer's notation) has fairly
regular and substantial presence in all altaic speaking peoples.(see american
journal of human genetics march 99 issue)
The frequency of this haplotype ranges from 20% among some turkic speakers
to 90% in some tungusic tribe.(and 50% for khalkas(main stream mongols))
Yakuts are the only exception.
Korean data are a bit flawed since hammer adjoined 2 yap+ to existing data
inappropriately.(In Kim's study utilizing 455 samples, Korean yap+ was found
to be about 1.3% which is a shocking indicator of unidirectional nature of
interaction between Koreans and Japanese. I will explain this later if
anybody is interested.) So after correction, korean 1f frequency comes out
at about 25% which makes quite a bit of sense since Korean is not quite
altaic but has at least significant relation with altaics whether the
relationship is genetic(in linguistic sense) or stems purely from frequent
contacts(in my other calculation, however, Korean 1f frequency might be as
high as 40%).
Japanese figure for this is very low(5%, but with correction for
mainlanders,I calculated it to be 7%). I grant that language and genetics do
not always go together but it is mind boggling to me how Japanese could have
acquired more "altaic" elements than Korean.
(however one should be a bit careful as 1f seems to have presence among
indonesians and australians as well. I am certain that there will be further
markers that will separate 1f haplotype into two or more branches(ie northern
and southern with northern branch being loosely associated with "altaics", but
not so closely as even some native american tribes have this haplotype.).
> >
> > kure-(something that has to do with castle)
I meant kuruwa in Japanese.
>> kuru was the Koguryo word for
> > this.(however it was reconstructed as kuet based on the study of
> > pronunciation of old chinese and it may be related to khoto etc.)
I was confused a bit. kuru was "castle" in the language of koguryo and kuet
, "town".(the reconstruction was for the word hol in today's pronunciation of
the chinese character into which it was transcribed.)
>> In paekje and shilla, the corresponding
> > word was [ki] possibly remotely related to the above.
Korean linguists seem certain that ki derives from kuru.
kuru-kuyu-kuy-ku-ki or something like that.
As for the word kara, choi of SNU thinks that <gioro> as in Aisin Gioro
derives from [xala] much the same way kyeore derives from kara.(gioro is a
Manchurian word for same-name-kinsforks. Those who have seen "last emperor"
may remember it. Incidentally the real life prison guard was korean and had
surname Kim as well.(Aisin and Kim both mean "gold".) If Ching imperial line
descended from chin empire of medieval time(destroyed by mongols, also called
kin) and the prison guard was from Kyeongju Kim clan, they may even be
related patrilineally!!!
> Oh, it's a same guess as mine... But I though Korean people call Tang as
> /kara/ or simlar way, too...
In modern Korean, single chinese character has always uni-syllabic
pronunciation. This was not always so as Koreans had Idu which worked pretty
much the same way as Japanese kana. In fact miller mentioned about the
conjecture that Japanese kana derives from certain idu-like writing system in
paekje. I think manyo kana is at least superficially similar to idu.
Sino-Korean went through radical revamping around the time of creation of
hangul.(in fact it was one of the stated goals of hangul to teach koreans to
pronounce chinese characters as close as possible to the "real" contemporary
chinese. Thus it is not necessarily true that Koreans had little influence
on sino-Japanese as Yao often fantasizes based on comparisons between modern
pronunciations of sino-korean and sino-japanese words.)
Another (remote) possibility revolving around kara is that kara might have
meant "black" and in east asia, directions have colors north-black east-blue
etc.(that is why koreans were often called cheong-gu(blue something. I hope
gu does not have the same meaning as in wae-gu) "ching" might be of the same
derivation(word-wise).)
Many kara-'s in placenames of Mongolia are largely of this variation(meaning
north or black etc).
so maybe kara meant just north as all these
countries(kara,han(korean),han(china),tang etc) were located north of japan.
However I think this is a weak hypothesis as there is no reason to believe
that kara meant 'black' in Old Japanese.
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
> He gives Korean "ul" (presumably "wul" in Yale romanization) defined
> ZOKU/yakara. Presumably related to "uli" ("wuli") = "us/we" which I was
> tempted to suggest yesterday. Oono also gives Mongolian "uru-g" =
> "kinfolk," Turkish (Kilghis? dialect--"kirugisu" in kana) "uru" with
> macron over second "u" = same, and Tungus "ur" = "progeny." (He then
> cites Korean "mul" = Japanese "midu" = "water" to show that Korean "l" can
> correspond with Japanese "d.")
It came up in my mind too but I have been flamed in sci.lang for being too
speculative so I refrained. First plural pronoun is uri not uli by the way.
Tungusic muke is suggested as being related to mul, however it does not have
any mongolian or turkic correspondences.
As for ur(progeny), does it correspond to [hure] in Mongolian meaning "son"?
This can be korean too as in hure-adeul(wayward son). I think this is a very
late loan from mongolian to korean(possibly during the mongol invasion). I
speculate that the son was a result of rape by mongol soldiers and the korean
stepfather did not like him.
Chris Robato Yao
>In article <37307316...@promikra.si>,
> muchan <muc...@promikra.si> wrote:
>
>
> As for the word kara, choi of SNU thinks that <gioro> as in Aisin Gioro
>derives from [xala] much the same way kyeore derives from kara.(gioro is a
>Manchurian word for same-name-kinsforks. Those who have seen "last emperor"
>may remember it. Incidentally the real life prison guard was korean and had
>surname Kim as well.(Aisin and Kim both mean "gold".) If Ching imperial line
>descended from chin empire of medieval time(destroyed by mongols, also called
>kin) and the prison guard was from Kyeongju Kim clan, they may even be
>related patrilineally!!!
>
>
>> Oh, it's a same guess as mine... But I though Korean people call Tang as
>> /kara/ or simlar way, too...
>
> In modern Korean, single chinese character has always uni-syllabic
>pronunciation. This was not always so as Koreans had Idu which worked pretty
>much the same way as Japanese kana. In fact miller mentioned about the
>conjecture that Japanese kana derives from certain idu-like writing system in
>paekje. I think manyo kana is at least superficially similar to idu.
>
> Sino-Korean went through radical revamping around the time of creation of
>hangul.(in fact it was one of the stated goals of hangul to teach koreans to
>pronounce chinese characters as close as possible to the "real" contemporary
>chinese. Thus it is not necessarily true that Koreans had little influence
>on sino-Japanese as Yao often fantasizes based on comparisons between modern
>pronunciations of sino-korean and sino-japanese words.)
They actually don't have much influence since it is well known that
Go-on and Kan-on especially are derived from the Tang Dynasty dialect in
the imperial capital Changan. The founders of the Tang Dynasty are
based from the Shaanxi province, which is in the northwest frontier
(also where Xian is located.) We can go through the comparisons if you
wish once again.
It is much more likely the Sino-Korean is much more influenced by the
rising Chinese dialect that happen to be closest to Korea. That dialect
is none other than the Beijing dialect, also Mandarin. It would be
interesting if Sino-Korean matches well with proto-Mandarin.
>
> Another (remote) possibility revolving around kara is that kara might have
>meant "black" and in east asia, directions have colors north-black east-blue
>etc.(that is why koreans were often called cheong-gu(blue something. I hope
>gu does not have the same meaning as in wae-gu) "ching" might be of the same
>derivation(word-wise).)
>
> Many kara-'s in placenames of Mongolia are largely of this variation(meaning
>north or black etc).
Mongolia actually has very little place names with -kara. The
place names with Kara- are actually south of Mongolia, in Xinjiang and
the Tarim Basin. You probably based this on the lost city of
Karakhotto, which although is located in inner Mongolia within present
day Chinese borders. But Karakhotto is not even a Mongolian city. It
is probably founded by Turks and then occupied by Tanguts.
These Kara- place names are found in the Xinjiang province, not even
close to Mongolia. These area is also called Chinese Turkestan or East
Turkestan. Thus these are Turkish places---
Karakoram (mountain range)
Karakoram (a modern highway that heads into Islamabad, Pakistan from
China)
Karakuli (lake)
Karakash (river)
Kara-Kirghiz (a federation of Kirghiz tribes)
Karakhoam (name of a Buddist-Turkish Khanate, present name Gaocheng)
Karakhanid (name of another Turkish Khanate)
>
> so maybe kara meant just north as all these
Kara does not mean north, if you look at these place names.
>countries(kara,han(korean),han(china),tang etc) were located north of japan.
Your geography sucks big time. Korea, China and even the capital of
the Tang are not anywhere north of Japan but the West.
Black as "north" actually came from the Chinese. It is not because the
north looks dark, but from the legend of the Dark Warrior, which comes
from the North. The Dark Warrior is an allusion to desert tanned
Turkish tribes that penetrated as far as the Gansu and threatened the
Chinese. The Huns are often portrayed as 'dark' in contrast let's say,
to the lightness and fairness of true Mongolians. (Even in Disney's
Mulan, you can see this touch.)
>However I think this is a weak hypothesis as there is no reason to believe
>that kara meant 'black' in Old Japanese.
>
Note also that the Tang Dynasty is also probably the most pro-Turkish
dynasty in Chinese history (like using Turkish forces to quell internal
rebellions in China, fad with Turkish culture, fashion and even sports
like polo.) It was also in the Tang Dynasty when Turkish Khanates are at
their height, such as the Uighyurs.
Wei Dynasty (3-4ad) and Sui Dynasty (5-6 ad) are led by emperors that
had Turkish blood (in particular Hsieh Po in the latter.) In fact,
'Khan' is a term also often used with the Chinese emperor, like in the
Sui Dynasty, such as in literal translations of the Hua Mulan ballad.
Kara- is not the only Turkish like word in the Japanese language.
Another one is namae, name for English. The coincidence between 'namae'
and 'name' may not be coincidence after all, since 'nema' is name in
Uighyur (Turkish minority in Xinjiang).
Note also the Uighyur 'yes' is 'Haah', quite similar to Japanese 'Hai',
Shanghainese 'hai', Cantonese 'hai' and best of all, the Hokkien "Ho!"
All these notably have no Mandarin equivalent ("hau" for good does not
cut it.)
Rgds,
Chris
> Y. Park
>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
(counting down from top 50 oxymorons...)
10. Tight slacks
9. Definite maybe
8. Pretty ugly
7. Twelve-ounce pound cake
6. Diet ice cream
5. Rap music
4. Working vacation
3. Exact estimate
2. Religious tolerance
Gerald B Mathias
: In article <7gq3hp$m...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
: mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
: > He gives Korean "ul" (presumably "wul" in Yale romanization) defined
: > ZOKU/yakara. Presumably related to "uli" ("wuli") = "us/we" which I was
: > tempted to suggest yesterday. Oono also gives Mongolian "uru-g" =
: > "kinfolk," Turkish (Kilghis? dialect--"kirugisu" in kana) "uru" with
: > macron over second "u" = same, and Tungus "ur" = "progeny." (He then
: > cites Korean "mul" = Japanese "midu" = "water" to show that Korean "l" can
: > correspond with Japanese "d.")
: It came up in my mind too but I have been flamed in sci.lang for being too
: speculative so I refrained. First plural pronoun is uri not uli by the way.
Now you risk getting flamed for being silly. You know as well as the rest
of us that Korean doesn't distinguish "l" and "r." In most romanization
schemes, "liul" comes out as "l," whatever allophone represents it.
I was quoting Oono directly with "uli." I would have used Yale: "wuli."
Bart
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
Korean ending consonant in "rieul" is closer to l. Thus uli generally
indicates ul-i or even ul-ri, very different from u-ri.
I have thought about connection between ul and uri yesterday and I find it
highly unlikely that they are related. Ul means certain underlying enclosure
and there is actually a word uri that derives from ul. It means pen or corral
for animals. I think it is of the form ul + i("i" is a noun suffix,
generally for biological being(especially human) but not always.). As for
the pronoun uri, it certainly is not of ul + i form where "i" is a suffix for
subject phrase(jhosa) since we say "uri + ka....." etc.
muchan
> : > > /udi/ is a paternel family tree, (you get the "family name" from your father.)
> : >
> : > Are you sure this is not sino-Japanese? I can not think of any
> : > corresponding Korean word. ka is the closest in meaning but it no doubt is
> : > related to khala not udi(probably from ka of koguryo meaning tribes).
> : >
> : > I can not think of its relation to any altaic words either.(My knowledge of
> : > altaic languages is very very poor of course but still.....)
> :
Now I don't know which part I should quote, and just put it above for
context.
Oono's dictionary says corresponding word for /kara/ in Korean is
"kyoryo". (I don't know I should I spell "umlaut o" of Korean, the both
"o" are umulauted.) And according to him, particle/sticker/conjunctive-suffix"
-kara" (From), "-kara" (Because) etc. in Modern Japanese, are derrived usage
of this Altaic Noun /kara/, he suppose it entered to Japan(ese) earlier
than /udi/.
(Earlier, means "kara" relation was important already in Yayoi era, and
/udi/ relation/clans were doominant, later, Yamato era, according to my
interpretation.)
I'd like to ask fellow Korean readers to tell me about how to spell Korean
words, (I learned to read hungle once, well, listened NHK's radio course
for some years. but I wonder how much I remember, except "Iuorobun, annon-
hashimunika, cho-nun, ilbonsaaramimnida..." ) since in one book, Oono wrote
extensive list of (proto)Japanese-Korean phonetical corresponding with
many example words. I'll type it for newsgroups if you let me know how I
should deal with "umlaut-o", "reversed e" signs, etc.
More and more, we talk about this "most ancient form known" of Japanese
word and their relation to neigbor languages. I think it would be beneficial
to make aveilable of these lists ( I mean this proto J-K list, and OJ stem
list ) This year I'll take this project seriously.
(lost and found)
Oono's dictionary gives a good answer for the questions of this thread.
Kara : (Kala, Korea, China) is from /kara/ (relatives).
So we assume proto-Japanese-pro-South-Korean language had /kara/ or
/kala/, and the word had same (or directly derived) meaning in land of
"Kala" as well as in Yamato Japan in ancient time.
Aya : (Chinese Han)
Hata : (Chinese Qin)
Old Japanese often related the name of foreign country (regioon/dynasty)
to the name of textile came to Japan and considered representative of
the country. So word /aya/, /hata/ were name of textile (both still active
in Modern Japanese) and same time Old yamatokotoba name for Dynasty.
It's same as
Kure : ("Chinese" Wu)
Kure, was a name of textile, or ceramic, which considered typical from
this part of China, and the word /kure/ suggest Sunset (=West).
/kure/ as Sunset, verb as hi(-ga) kure.ru, is same origin as /kuro/
(Black), /kura.si/ (Dark) so /kure.ru/ was (Get Dark), we see that it's
related to Altaic "kara-" words.
---- So Go/Wu = /kure/ was related to kara (black). It's sounds me
like good /ochi/ (falling = unexpected good ending of story) for this
long thread.
oato-ga yoroshii-youde...
muchan
Gerald B Mathias
: In article <7gsllk$l...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
: mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
: > : It came up in my mind too but I have been flamed in sci.lang for being too
: > : speculative so I refrained. First plural pronoun is uri not uli by the way.
: >
: > Now you risk getting flamed for being silly. You know as well as the rest
: > of us that Korean doesn't distinguish "l" and "r." In most romanization
: > schemes, "liul" comes out as "l," whatever allophone represents it.
: >
: > I was quoting Oono directly with "uli." I would have used Yale: "wuli."
: Korean ending consonant in "rieul" is closer to l. Thus uli generally
: indicates ul-i or even ul-ri, very different from u-ri.
Now I am starting to wonder if you are Korean. If you are, you must know
that "ul-i" and "u-ri" are pronounced exactly the same. That is, the word
for "water (as grammatical subject)" rhymes with the word for "us (no
markers added).
All of the popular romanizations schemes for Korean--McCune-
Reischauer, UNESCO, Yale, for three--match hankul, and use "l" for liul in
all positions.
: I have thought about connection between ul and uri yesterday and I find it
: highly unlikely that they are related.
: Ul means certain underlying enclosure
: and there is actually a word uri that derives from ul. It means pen or corral
: for animals. I think it is of the form ul + i("i" is a noun suffix,
: generally for biological being(especially human) but not always.). As for
: the pronoun uri, it certainly is not of ul + i form where "i" is a suffix for
: subject phrase(jhosa) since we say "uri + ka....." etc.
I'll check my Khunsajen when I get to the office, but I would bet money
that "enclosure" is spelled "u li." Samuel Martin related this word to
Japanese "wori" = "cage" in his famous 1966 work.
I'll check "ul" as a yeynmal at the same time. I don't know whether Oono
was bending semantics in his etymology or not.
Bart Mathias
Gerald B Mathias
: I'd like to ask fellow Korean readers to tell me about how to spell Korean
: words, (I learned to read hungle once, well, listened NHK's radio course
: for some years. but I wonder how much I remember, except "Iuorobun, annon-
: hashimunika, cho-nun, ilbonsaaramimnida..." ) since in one book, Oono wrote
: extensive list of (proto)Japanese-Korean phonetical corresponding with
: many example words. I'll type it for newsgroups if you let me know how I
: should deal with "umlaut-o", "reversed e" signs, etc.
: More and more, we talk about this "most ancient form known" of Japanese
: word and their relation to neigbor languages. I think it would be beneficial
: to make aveilable of these lists ( I mean this proto J-K list, and OJ stem
: list ) This year I'll take this project seriously.
The vowels for modern Korean are romanized as follows, depending on the
system.
McCune-Reischauer:
a ya o* yo* o yo u yu u* i
The "o" and "u" marked "*" should have little sagging macrons (I don't
remember what they are called) on top instead. This old-fashioned
system is hard to use on the internet because of the diacritics.
UNESCO:
a ya eo yeo o yo u yu eu i
Easy to type with ASCII, although the two-character spellings of
single vowels isn't very esthetic.
Yale:
a ya e ye o yo wu yu u i
This is the system used by linguists working with modern Korean.
The only clumsy part is the "wu" for the simple high back rounded
vowel (the "w" is dropped after "p," "ph," "m," and "y," where
the high backish unrounded vowel is impossible).
All three systems use "w" for "o" and "u" as onglides, e.g.
Tonghaynmul-KWA payktwusan-i maluko ...
When we get to Middle Korean, there are symbols that none of the above
include, such as the dot that represents alay-a. Yale extends by writing
that as "o," and changes the "o" that survives in New Korean to "wo."
Way, way back in my student days, I devised a transliteration system that
had one typewriter symbol for each old hankul symbol, plus accent marks,
and I wrote in syllable blocks, e.g. "bbul 'i kip 'un namg '@n ..." (I
wonder how many recognize the quote? Assuming I remember it right...).
I sometimes regret that I didn't make such use of it as to get it widely
adopted.
Bart Mathias
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
> Now I am starting to wonder if you are Korean. If you are, you must know
> that "ul-i" and "u-ri" are pronounced exactly the same.
Native words spelled that way would be pronounced [uri] by the well known
rule (of transfering ending consonant to the next syllable if it has 0
consonant etc). But if any foreign word was transcribed into hangeul as ul-i
then Koreans are likely to pronounce it as precisely that. I do not think
you will understand what the hell I am talking about.
What is so difficult to understand? Try "ileum" to Koreans and see if they
do not think it sounds funny.
> All of the popular romanizations schemes for Korean--McCune-
> Reischauer, UNESCO, Yale, for three--match hankul, and use "l" for liul in
> all positions.
I have no respect for it.
> I'll check my Khunsajen when I get to the office, but I would bet money
> that "enclosure" is spelled "u li." Samuel Martin related this word to
> Japanese "wori" = "cage" in his famous 1966 work.
Cage would be a better interpretation of the word uri. Yes it is spelled
"u-ri", did I ever say otherwise? I said it is ul+i in its etymology, not in
spelling.
>
> I'll check "ul" as a yeynmal at the same time. I don't know whether Oono
> was bending semantics in his etymology or not.
I am sure it is very ancient. In fact,korean word for sky ,haneul is
analyzed as han+ ul.
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
muchan <muc...@promikra.si> wrote:
> Now I don't know which part I should quote, and just put it above for
> context.
>
> Oono's dictionary says corresponding word for /kara/ in Korean is
> "kyoryo". (I don't know I should I spell "umlaut o" of Korean, the both
> "o" are umulauted.)
I am not aware of any such word. Using e* as the reverse epsilon symbol(or eo
in my other writing), the following seems to be related to kara.
kye*re used to mean family, kinsfolks etc but now it is used to denote whole
ethnic group(usually and implicitly korean nation only) etc. Choi of SNU
thinks that it derives from kara.(he thinks that gioro derives from khala
much the same way)
ka surname. It used to mean tribe or macro-tribe(pujok) in Koguryo.
kalae branch in general(both abstract and concrete)
tree branch is called kajhi, perhaps remotely related to these?
kajhi(?) branch for trees etc. also kind(s). ye*re* kajhi : many kinds
khye*le units of pairs(such as for shoes)
khi- (?) split etc usually with saws.
karak tubular branching outgrowth or strands etc
son-garak: finger bal-garak: toes guksu-garak: noodle strands
garak-guksu: kake-udon however the last one is a neologism apparently out
of need to put a korean name on the Japanese food.
karang-i between legs
kareu- to part or split
kal-
kal (???) knife or sword
> And according to him, particle/sticker/conjunctive-suffix"
> -kara" (From), "-kara" (Because) etc.
I read similar etymology for kkadarg(reason). I am not sure.
>in Modern Japanese, are derrived usage
> of this Altaic Noun /kara/, he suppose it entered to Japan(ese) earlier
> than /udi/.
> (Earlier, means "kara" relation was important already in Yayoi era, and
> /udi/ relation/clans were doominant, later, Yamato era, according to my
> interpretation.)
Yayoi is a bit problematic. More recent evidences seem to suggest china
and rice farming culture as their ultimate origin. Koreans seem to have
better connection with kofun era people.(partially supported by y chromosome
analysis)
> "Iuorobun, annon-
> hashimunika, cho-nun, ilbonsaaramimnida..."
this sounds north korean.
Gerald B Mathias
: I'll check my Khunsajen when I get to the office, but I would bet money
: that "enclosure" is spelled "u li." Samuel Martin related this word to
: Japanese "wori" = "cage" in his famous 1966 work.
Khun sacen (op cit) has "u-li: {i} cimsung-ul katwue kirunun kos."
: I'll check "ul" as a yeynmal at the same time. I don't know whether Oono
: was bending semantics in his etymology or not.
There are three "ul," including "'uli2'-ui cun mal." Under uli2 (uli1 is
the cimsung-ul katwue kirunun kos and uli3 is "us") it has "kiwa-lul seyl
ttay ichen cang-ul tanwi-lo ilkhetnun mal." So perhaps Oono played fast
and loose with his "ul"? None of these fit.
Bart Mathias
Gerald B Mathias
: When we get to Middle Korean, there are symbols that [modern hankul
: doesn't]
: include, such as the dot that represents alay-a. Yale extends by
: writing
: that as "o," and changes the "o" that survives in New Korean to "wo."
: Way, way back in my student days, I devised a transliteration system
: that
: had one typewriter symbol for each old hankul symbol, plus accent marks,
: and I wrote in syllable blocks, e.g. "bbul 'i kip 'un namg '@n ..." (I
: wonder how many recognize the quote? Assuming I remember it right...).
: I sometimes regret that I didn't make such use of it as to get it widely
: adopted.
Wow, did I muff that one! Here's the way I did it in 1965:
bul .hui gi .pwn nam .g@n b@ l@ .mai 'a .ni :muil .ss@i
goj :dyo ko 'ye .lwm ha n@ .ni
:s@i mi gi .pwn .mw .lwn .g@ m@ .lai 'a .ni gw .cwl .ss@i
:nai .hi 'i .lye ba .l@ .lai .ga n@ .ni
Bart Mathias
Gerald B Mathias
I need to aplogize for the terrible mixture of romanizations in the above.
I wrote "ul" as a direct quote of Oono, where he uses that spelling for
(Yale) wul. It is, of course wul, and wuli1, wuli2, wuli3.
I have used three romanizations in my life time, and now comes a fourth.
I suppose Y.Park would write the definition of wuli2 as, "kiwa-reul sel
ttae ich'en chang-eul tanwi-ro ilk'enneun mal"?
Bart Mathias
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
>
> I have used three romanizations in my life time, and now comes a fourth.
> I suppose Y.Park would write the definition of wuli2 as, "kiwa-reul sel
> ttae ich'en chang-eul tanwi-ro ilk'enneun mal"?
The point of romanization is to enable non-Korean speakers(with very little
knowledge of Korean phonetic structure but with familiarity with latin
alphabet) to pronounce korean best. Your insistence on use of l even in
places where r far more closely approximates the sound was QUITE annoying in
this sense.
Certain compromise is necessary of course as,for instance, English speakers
tend to follow their own phonetics and screw up the whole thing(ie aspiration
of k,p at the beginning of words). I use for instance "ss" to represent
strong "s" even though ss may be read differently by non korean speakers.
However this may be seen as a necessary compromise while yours may not.
I would use jh in chang-eul, however.
Y. Park
P.S. using l in place of r is quite close to chinese pattern of Korean
speech. (Uli taeguk ssallam mueolo pogo ileo hae?)(a speech that will surely
induce a violent behavior from ypark.)
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
> Wow, did I muff that one! Here's the way I did it in 1965:
>
> bul .hui gi .pwn nam .g@n b@ l@ .mai 'a .ni :muil .ss@i
> goj :dyo ko 'ye .lwm ha n@ .ni
> :s@i mi gi .pwn .mw .lwn .g@ m@ .lai 'a .ni gw .cwl .ss@i
> :nai .hi 'i .lye ba .l@ .lai .ga n@ .ni
This certainly is not modern Korean but not very hard to guess the meaning.
Trees with deep roots are not bent by wind etc.
Deep fountains do not dry up in drought etc.
I think you got a couple of suffixes wrong.(ai -> e or eoi)
Y. Park
Jung Chull Lee
The Korean word Kara is not related to any Japanese words having "-kara-".
The word kara you are using is actually karak, meaning "music" in old Korean
language.
In addition, the word Kaya is different word from kara. Until chosun, old korean
people
had developed their own tradition and cutom, not depending on chinese and japanese
people. Korea was actually very huge country encompassing the area Manchuri as
well
as estern areas from the now known Shanghai. China was not actually a big country
as
it is. Do you know what china means? The word china was coined by ancient korean
people and
pronounced as "jinah", meaning "a brach of a tree". Korean people still uses the
word the china
when they refer to the sea between Korea and China. Presumably, old china was a
very
small country located near Shanghai, excluding the spacious nothern east area
including
Beijing and Manchuri.
Korean language is one of the oldest languages in the world.
Based on my study, Korean language is still used in a part of India (the language
called
gujarat) and some other areas of south asian countries. Korea has very old history
at least
more than 8000 years. Back in at least 3000 BC, 38 fundamental characters of
Korean language
was created, then reorganized into 28 characters by King Sejong in Chosun, and now
26 characters only are being used by Korean people. But in gujarat area, only 19
characters
are being used and also gujarat people write the characters differently compared
to Korean
letters. In early 1920, an American historian alreay published a paper concerning
the
similarity between Korean language and gujarat language.
Additionally, an ancient Indian poet Tagor exclaimed that Korea had a splendid
history, sining
"Oh beautiful morning-calm country having a great history". I have a lot of things
to write,
but I'm so busy. I just suggest that you must not try to relate any Korean history
to Japanese
and Chinese history. You know, old Korean people was characterized as "tall
people" compared
to Chinese and Japanese people. Before and still, Chinese and Japanese people were
called
as "short legs" because they were too short in height. You probably know that
there are
four very famous history books telling the old japanese history. However, nobody
in Japan
can understand the contents of the books because those books were written in old
Korean
by old Korean people (maybe Baekje or Shilla). Recently, a professor in Korea is
trying to
translate the books into Korean so that she wants many Korean students to read the
books
in Korean and have pride for their old history, implying that old Japan was
controlled by
old Korean people for more than 500 years.
Besides, Korea was the origin of the Buddhism. You know, Sakamuni believed in
the Past
Seven Budda which are still refered to "Seven Star God" in Korea. After leaving
his home,
Sakamuni reached the mountain called "Baekdoo" in Korea and practised Zen. After
being
baptized on the mountain by a Korean Buddhist monk, he reached an old Korean
temple
called "Hwangryongsa" and tought many people for five years before he returned to
India.
We Koreans don't use the word Budda, instead we are using "Boochuh" [boochuh]
meaning Buddha,
but Boochuh is a pure Korean word. Many people beleive that Buddhism was delivered
to
Korea via China and then sounds of sutras was written first into Chinese and then
into Korean from
Chinese. But recent studies found that sounds of all the sutras is very similar to
Korean and is very
different to Chinese, implying that Buddhism was not delivered from China to
Korea.
Then one of you mentioned the word sumer, but sumer is still not a Japanese
word. instead
Sumer is a pure Korean word meaning "the head of cow" and indicates a very
honorable
position of authority such as King in a kingdom. However, sumer was an actually
name of
a old Korean tribute which was the most powerful people. So not mention the word
sumer
as a word derived from Japanese language. Do you remember the national flag of
Japan?
The Japanese national flag was actually designed by old Korean person and the word
Nippon
was coined by the person meaning the country located east to Korea.
And also, chosun controlled by Lee's has never been influenced by Chinese in
tradition and
custom. Do you know why? The name chosun was after the first historical name of
Korea.
The old chosun had developed many political and economical principles some of
which are
still present in the high-school history books. Actually, during the Lee Dynasty,
chosun
tried to conquer China several times, which implies that chosun was not dependent
on China,
never, ever!! Even in the early this centry before Japan invaded chosun, manchuri
was belonged
to chosun. However, after invading chosun, Japan yielded Manchuri to China to
obtain the
right to build railway systems in China.
This is gonna be too long. Anyhow, don't mix Korean history with Japan and
China's ones!!
Korea was an independent country from the origin and was a center of the culture
in the world.
If you want to debate about something more, study hard about the Korean history
and chinese
or japanese history. Actually, Japan has very shallow history less than you
expected.
Our precedents called japanese people as ignorant people because they were
ignorant in
their perspective and they had no writing system.
Jung
muchan wrote:
> > Kaya was alternatively called karak and there is no mystery as to where the
> > word Kara comes from. Incidentally it probably is related to Tungusic [Xala]
> > which means tribe, kinsfolks etc. In Koguryo, [Ka] was the word with similar
> > meaning and it is still used in Korean with slightly altered
> > meaning(surname). I think the closest Korean word to khala([Xala]) is Kyeore
> > which means "nation" but in old or middle Korean, it used to mean individual
> > clan, family etc which are closer in meaning to khala.
> >
> /kara/ as Japanese word is corresponding to /udi/.
> /udi/ is a paternel family tree, (you get the "family name" from your father.)
> /kara/ is more wider term of "relatives".
> Now, old word /kara/ survives in compounds like
> /ie-gara/ ("rank" of house/family)
> /gara-ga warui/ (bad manner, bad taste...)
> I'm not sure how /gara/ as "(printing)pattern" is related to /kara/
> /tomo-gara/ (friends and relatives)
> /hara-kara/ (brothers (and cousins...))
>
> Both /udi/ and /kara/ are considered to be "the most Altaic words" in
> Japanese. -- Another is "sumer." part of "sumera-mikoto" (the Emperor),
> sumer was the name of legendary mountain for Altaic people. The word
> survive in Modern Japanese as /subete/ (All), is it true?
>
> > Defeated people of Paekje and Koguryo often called themselves Tang to
> > elevate their status even toward their fellow Koreans. So many clans have
> > "such such man with a title of blah blah from Tang" as their progenitor. But
> > if you do background check, they are usually Koreans. Why "Tang" was
> > phonetically called kara is explained in many books including Hong's which
> > you referred to sometime ago.
> >
> >
>
> May I hear the explanation, why Tang is read as /kara/ in Japanese?
> I still wonder.
>
Gerald B Mathias
: In article <7h1usf$m...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
: mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
: > bul .hui gi .pwn nam .g@n b@ l@ .mai 'a .ni :muil .ss@i
: > goj :dyo ko 'ye .lwm ha n@ .ni
: > :s@i mi gi .pwn .mw .lwn .g@ m@ .lai 'a .ni gw .cwl .ss@i
: > :nai .hi 'i .lye ba .l@ .lai .ga n@ .ni
: This certainly is not modern Korean but not very hard to guess the meaning.
: Trees with deep roots are not bent by wind etc.
: Deep fountains do not dry up in drought etc.
Pretty good! It's the pure Korean version of the first stanza of the
Yongbieocheonga (Yoqbiecenga/Yongpiechenka).
: I think you got a couple of suffixes wrong.(ai -> e or eoi)
I believe they are all correct. The "-ai" in "b@ l@ .mai" is "ai" as in
"maeil/maeil" = "every day." Vowel harmony required "-ai" instead of
"-ei" (= your "e," the modern locative particle) after words with the
vowels "a, @, o" in them.
In a previous post you wrote, "The point of romanization is to enable
non-Korean speakers (with very little knowledge of Korean phonetic
structure but with familiarity with latin alphabet) to pronounce Korean
best."
If you changed the first "The" to "A," I would no longer disagree with you
100%. That could arguably be a rather trivial and hopeless use of
romanization. If I had such a purpose for romanization, I'd do it probably
on an eternally ad hoc basis, and perhaps sometimes romanize "uli" as
"ooh-ty." "Uri" is going to result in something rhyming with "furry," and
not sounding at all like any Korean word.
Another use of romanization, the only one I can take seriously, is to
write about a language that is not normally written in latin script when
writing English on a typewriter or in a computer font that does not permit
integrating the native script into the text. One would be doing this only
for people who do have advanced knowledge of the phonetic structure of the
object language.
Bart
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
> "kul" or "kur"... as black,
I read a few days ago that the old form of kureum(cloud) was kul-rim.
If this is indeed of kul+im form with kul meaning black as the author of
the book suggested, kul might have been in Korean but was lost somewhere
along the line.
I think there might be certain word pairs such as
ku-reum kumo (cloud)
ssi-reum sumo etc. anyone?
As for the namae etc, I wonder whether that has anything to do with
norae(song), usually analyzed as nol + ae where nol- means to play.
And as for japanese words that have strong cases for northern
derivation, how about no?
"na" used to mean "land" in Koguryo. I think "no" means "field" or
something like that in Japanese right?
Curiously there does not seem to be any related words to this in
Korean. Some think na whose meaning is not absolutely clear is related
to Koguryo's "na" but I doubt it. I think it came from "nari" meaning
"river" or "stream". nari - nai - nae etc.( Dropping r is quite
frequent in Korean and I would not be surprised if kara - kaya was a
similar process.) Instead I would suggest non(wet rice field).
Going back to the word "na"(land), it is very close to many tungusic
words with nearly identical meaning. However northern tungusic and
southern tungusic differ with respect to this. And naturally the
Koguryo word na is similar to southern tungusic words.
Curiously Korean word for this (teul from toro etc) appears to have
northern tungusic etymology. There are several other cases such as this
where Korean has better correspondence with northern than southern
tungusics.
However Koguryo word tal(mountain) might have some remote relation to
doro etc.(also Korean ttang?(earth land etc))
Y. Park
P.S. how about pat(agricultural patch of land) and bator as in
ulan-bator?
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Pablo Saratxaga
サラチャガ＠ベルギーです。
記事 <37351995...@mail.utexas.edu> にて、
Jung Chull Lee <han...@mail.utexas.edu> さん曰く
JCL> Do you know what china means? The word china was coined by ancient korean
JCL> people and
JCL> pronounced as "jinah",
I thought it was from the pronounciation of Qin dinasty.
With the exception of french, all the european languiages I know pronounce
China close to chinese 'Qin'
--
ではまた、 PGP Key available, key ID: 0x8F0E4975
サラチャガ “柳” パブ郎 [Pablo Saratxaga]
Gerald B Mathias
: In article <37307316...@promikra.si>,
: muchan <muc...@promikra.si> wrote:
: > "kul" or "kur"... as black,
: I read a few days ago that the old form of kureum(cloud) was kul-rim.
: If this is indeed of kul+im form with kul meaning black as the author of
: the book suggested, kul might have been in Korean but was lost somewhere
: along the line.
What is the evidence for "kul-rim"? Hyangchal? Possible relation to
"ku'ulli-ta"? (And what does "r" mean when it comes after "l" in your
romanization?
: I think there might be certain word pairs such as
: ku-reum kumo (cloud)
: ssi-reum sumo etc. anyone?
An interesting idea, but "sumo" is historically "sumapu."
: And as for japanese words that have strong cases for northern
: derivation, how about no?
: "na" used to mean "land" in Koguryo. I think "no" means "field" or
: something like that in Japanese right?
It might be even closer than that. The kind of "o" (namely, otsu-rui) in
the 8th-century pronunciation of "no" suggests it is a contraction, of
something like "nu+a," or perhaps "na+u." Then there is "nadare" =
"landslide" (but more often, snowslide). Still very borderline, though.
: Curiously there does not seem to be any related words to
this in
: Korean. Some think na whose meaning is not absolutely clear is related
: to Koguryo's "na" but I doubt it. I think it came from "nari" meaning
: "river" or "stream". nari - nai - nae etc.( Dropping r is quite
: frequent in Korean and I would not be surprised if kara - kaya was a
: similar process.) Instead I would suggest non(wet rice field).
Korean "non" = Japanese "ta" has always been a puzzle, especially if one
supposes that the relatively recent introduction of wet rice culture had
anything to do with the Korean peninsula.
: However Koguryo word tal(mountain) might have some remote relation to
: doro etc.(also Korean ttang?(earth land etc))
When I was a student and could play with any stupid idea I wanted to, I
made a list of Korean "-l" : Japanese "-ma" words, including "kal" =
"knife" : "kama" = "sickle," and another similar pair for "bullrush," if I
remember correctly, and "tal" = "moon--'jewel (in the sky)? : "tama" =
"jewel" (well, I said they were stupid ideas). You've just added one to
my list: "tal" : "yama" (many of my colleagues assume "yama" < *dama.)
: P.S.
how about pat(agricultural patch of land) and bator as in : ulan-bator?
Looks good. If you remember the "h" in "path," and know that there is
strong evidence that earlier Korean did not have consonant clusters, it is
an even better match with Japanese "hatake" < *pataka+i.
Then there's English "patch." :-)
Bart
Florian Eichhorn
Donald Denoon, Mark Hudson, Gavan McCormack, and Tessa
Morris-Suzuki, eds.
Multicultural Japan: Paleolithic to Postmodern. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996. viii +
296 pp. Figures, tables, notes, and index. $54.95 (cloth),
ISBN 0-521-55067-X.
Reviewed by Jennifer M. Callans, State University of New
York at Stony Brook.
Published by H-Japan (March, 1998)
The Diversity of Japanese Culture
This volume, a must-read for all Japan specialists, is a
collection of articles which were originally presented in September,
1993, at Australian National University (Canberra), at a
conference entitled "Stirrup, Sail, and Plough: Continental and
Maritime Influences on Japanese Identity" (p. 3). The
conference attracted a broad range of scholars, ranging from
biological anthropologists to historians, and this diversity
is preserved in the book. Of the sixteen chapters, over half were
written by Japanese historians and social critics, ensuring
that the volume is not biased toward the views of non-Japanese
scholars.
The book is divided into an Introduction, written by
McCormack, and five Parts: "Archaeology and Identity," "Centre and
Periphery," "Contact with the Outside," "The Japanese
Family," and "Culture and Ideology." McCormack's Introduction
skillfully develops the theme of the volume while providing
an overview of each chapter. The premise of the book is clear
from the title: while Japan has usually been called a
monocultural society, evidence reaching back to prehistoric times
contradicts this assumption of homogeneity, providing
instead an image of a multicultural society, albeit one that commonly
denies any possibility of diversity. While it is not new to
state that Japan is not as monocultural as has generally been
believed, it is new to take such a wide-ranging and decisive
look at these assumptions. McCormack writes that the book
challenges the conventional approach by arguing that Japan
has long been "multicultural," and that what is distinctive is the
success with which that diversity has been cloaked by the
ideology of "uniqueness" and "monoculturalism." While
sympathetic to the Japanese attempt to resist Western
cultural hegemonism and the pretense that Western European values
are universal, the contributors incline towards post-modern
cultural relativism rather than any sort of hegemonism,
European or Japanese (p. 3).
As is generally case with edited volumes, the chapters
collected here are somewhat uneven in every respect. Some are
narrowly focused on issues which would seem to only concern
Japan; others take a broader view and are applicable to
human cultural processes more generally. Some are thoroughly
end-noted, with a wide variety of reference materials in
English, Japanese, and other languages; others are more
personal reflections with few or no references. The differences are
not always such as to undermine the contributions; rather,
the volume succeeds in providing a variety of viewpoints in
numerous styles, all of which contribute to the central
thesis, that Japan is now and always has been a multicultural society.
One particularly strong chapter, "North Kyushu Creole: A
Language-Contact Model for the Origins of Japanese" (Part
One, Chapter Two), is also among the more challenging, in
that it discusses the linguistic origins of Japanese while
assuming that most readers will be generally familiar with
the terms necessary to the argument. Having only a very weak
background in linguistics, I had no idea what distinction
John C. Maher was highlighting in his usage of the terms pidgin
and creole, which are not defined until near the end of the
chapter, on page 40. That said, however, Maher's contribution
provides a convincing argument for the multicultural origins
of a language which is so important to contemporary
arguments of Japanese uniqueness.
Other chapters in Part One provide a physical
anthropologist's view of Japan's population history (Chapter One, "The
Japanese as an Asia-Pacific Population," by Katayama
Kazumichi); a discussion of the variety of different life-ways that
existed in the prehistoric archipelago and how this relates
to constructions of Japanese ethnicity (Chapter Three, "Beyond
Ethnicity and Emergence in Japanese Archaeology," by Simon
Kaner); and an overview of the practice and politics of
Japanese archaeology, and its relationship to notions of
monoculturalism (Chapter Four, "Archaeology and Japanese
Identity," by Clare Fawcett).
Tessa Morris-Suzuki's contribution (Part Two, Chapter Five,
"Descent into the Past: The Frontier in the Construction of
Japanese Identity") takes as its starting point an article
by Immanuel Wallerstein, in which he recommends taking a new
look at our notions of time and space in history. In
applying Wallerstein's argument to the case of Japan, she is at once
adding a tool to our kit for Japanese Studies and advancing
theory more generally. As she writes, "our decision whether to
consign difference to the dimension of space or the
dimension of time has profound implications for the way in which we
see the whole world" (p. 82). She proceeds to demonstrate
how this may be the case in Japanese conceptions of the Ainu
and the Roykoyans. First, these two peoples were conceived
of as "barbarians" on the periphery (p. 83), that is, in a
separate, but adjunct, space. Later, the Ainu and Roykoyans
became representatives of "ancient" traditions, emissaries from
another time. Morris-Suzuki's article is an important
examination of these machinations of difference and exclusion.
Following her chapter, Richard Pearson (Chapter Six, "The
Place of Okinawa in Japanese Historical Identity") presents an
archaeological overview of the development of Okinawan
culture, while Hanazaki Khei (Chapter Seven, "Ainu Moshir and
Yaponesia: Ainu and Okinawan Identities in Contemporary
Japan") discusses contemporary Ainu and Okinawan identities.
Two chapters in Part Three examine Japan during the war. Got
Ken's contribution (Chapter Ten, "Indonesia under the
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere") provides an
excellent summary of Japan's self-image at the time, illustrating it
with a detailed summary of the relationship between Japan
and Indonesia. His analysis, that "Japanese consciousness of
South-east Asia, of the whole Asia-Pacific region, and of
modern history, needs to be severely re-examined" (p. 172), while
harsh, is justified. Got's chapter is followed by Utsumi
Aiko on "Japanese Army Internment Policies for Enemy Civilians
During the Asia-Pacific War" (Chapter Eleven). While
focusing on Japan's internment centers for enemy civilians, and
severely criticizing Japan's notions of "human rights," she
makes a broader theoretical contribution in her conceptualization
of the relationship between "victims" and "aggressors" in
wartime. Her thoroughly-referenced chapter is both clear and
far-reaching, considering the relationship between internees
and the Japanese from every angle.
Part Three also contains Derek Massarella (Chapter Eight,
"Some Reflections on Identity Formation in East Asia in the
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries" on interactions between
Europe in Japan well before contemporary notions of
"Europe" and "Japan" were established; and Ishii Yoneo
(Chapter Nine, "Siam and Japan in Pre-Modern Times: A Note on
Mutual Images," discussing the multiplicity of perceptions
of the Other.
Part Four consists of two noteworthy contributions that
examine the Japanese family. Ueno Chizuko (Chapter Twelve,
"Modern Patriarchy and the Formation of the Japanese Nation
State") argues that the ie, or traditional Japanese family
formation, was actually an invention of the Meiji Era
government. Ueno's discussion succeeds in dismantling arguments
about Japanese identity which are based on this family
formation, while at the same time providing evidence of the variety
of family forms that were common before the Meiji Era and
which were considered as possibilities for modernizing Japan.
Her discussion is followed by Nishikawa Yoko on "The Modern
Japanese Family System: Unique or Universal?" (Chapter
Thirteen). Nishikawa Yoko states that "all nation states are
family states, with the modern family as their basic unit. It is for
this reason that modern Japan was forced to invent its own
traditions of family state, centred around the imperial family" (p.
224). Nishikawa Yoko supports her argument with an
historical examination of Japanese models of the family and the
houses and other buildings which have contained them.
The volume ends with three important chapters that make up
Part Five. Chapter Fourteen is a somewhat idiosyncratic look,
by Amino Yoshihiko, at "Emperor, Rice, and Commoners," in
which Amino considers the recent relinking of "rice" with
the Emperor, and therefore with "Japan." Amino's piece is
speculative, but solid nonetheless, and a refreshing view of the
imagery that surrounds the Japanese Emperor. This is
followed by Nishikawa Nagao on "Two Interpretations of Japanese
Culture" (Chapter Fifteen), in which he suggests that, "as
the concept of nation begins to unravel, the concept of culture in
the sense of national culture should also be questioned" (p.
247). Drawing on author Sakaguchi Ango's Personal View of
Japanese Culture, Nishikawa Nagao proposes a new cultural
model which does not have a relationship with the concept
of the "nation."
The final chapter (Chapter Sixteen, "Kokusaika: Impediments
in Japan's Deep Structure") is written, as was the
Introduction, by Gavan McCormack, and it provides an
excellent endnote for this volume. In discussing kokusaika, or
internationalization, McCormack argues that Australia's
recent reconstruction of itself as a multicultural state provides a
model by which Japan can do the same, leading to a new,
flourishing "Japan" which would embrace diversity.
One shortcoming of the book, but one that is instructive, is
the fact that several important recent works which have made
similar points are not cited by contributors. For example,
Gail Bernstein's edited volume (Recreating Japanese Women,
1600-1945, University of California Press, 1991)
demonstrates, in part, that the Meiji Era government's promotion of the
Good Wife, Wise Mother was one aspect of an "invented
tradition" regarding the role of Japanese women, a point which
echoes Ueno's piece of the Japanese family system.
Similarly, Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney's work on the symbolism of rice in
Japan (Rice as Self: Japanese Identities Through Time,
Princeton University Press, 1993) supports Amino's chapter. I say
this is an instructive shortcoming because it points, I
think, to the divide between contemporary scholarship written in
English and that written in Japanese. It is unfortunately
often the case that, when writing in English, scholars fail to cite
many references in other languages. The opposite also holds
true at times, leading to something of a gap between those who
study Japan from the point of view of outsiders, and those
who are themselves Japanese. In another, equally important, way,
however, this volume helps to narrow this scholarly gap, by
the inclusion of many chapters by Japanese scholars, some of
which were translated especially for this publication. This
is a boon in making more accessible contemporary work done in
Japan.
Library of Congress call number: DS821.5.A1 M85 1997
Subjects:
Japan -- Civilization -- Foreign influences
-- Congresses
Citation: Jennifer M. Callans . "Review of Donald Denoon,
Mark Hudson, Gavan McCormack, and Tessa Morris-Suzuki, eds,
Multicultural Japan: Paleolithic to Postmodern," H-Japan,
H-Net Reviews, March, 1998. URL:
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=9627890172130.
Copyright c 1998, H-Net, all rights
reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper
credit is
given to the author and the list. For
other permission questions, please contact hbo...@h-net.msu.edu.
--
Nobody wants to die - that is the tragedy. Everybody wants to marry - that is
the comedy. - Goethe.
muchan
>
> When I was a student and could play with any stupid idea I wanted to, I
> made a list of Korean "-l" : Japanese "-ma" words, including "kal" =
> "knife" : "kama" = "sickle," and another similar pair for "bullrush," if I
> remember correctly, and "tal" = "moon--'jewel (in the sky)? : "tama" =
> "jewel" (well, I said they were stupid ideas). You've just added one to
> my list: "tal" : "yama" (many of my colleagues assume "yama" < *dama.)
>
> : P.S.
> how about pat(agricultural patch of land) and bator as in : ulan-bator?
>
> Looks good. If you remember the "h" in "path," and know that there is
> strong evidence that earlier Korean did not have consonant clusters, it is
> an even better match with Japanese "hatake" < *pataka+i.
>
> Then there's English "patch." :-)
>
> Bart
Oo, I just wanted to point /hatake/ for "pat"... Bart is faster /karuta/
player than I...
well... etimology of /karuta/ is.... of course...
muchan
/karuta/ <-- Carta (Por.) sure it was.
/karuta/ <-- karu (light) + uta (song) = light verse... it's kojitsuke...
Florian Eichhorn
This is a non-linguistic based attempt to give some evidence, based on
zoologic and archaeologic research. It is in german language (slightly easier
to understand than medieval japanese):
Thiede, Ulrike: Auf Haustierspuren zu den Urspruengen der Japaner. Munich
(iudicium) 1998. ISBN 3-89129-429-8. 152 pp. DM 38.-. iudicium is
http://www.geist.de
From the blurb: the long (and liked) anticipation of japanese people beeing
homogenous from race, history and culture does not withstand nowadays
research. A lot points to the fact, that from the asian continent at various
times large groups of people immigrated to the japanese islands. With the
people, also their domestic animals immigrated to Japan. A
zoologic-historical research of their traces, and by thoroughly comparing
with respective knowledge on other far-east regions, one can conclude on
origin and emigration routes to Japan.Zoologist and japanologist ms. Ulrike
Thiede gives a comprehensive history of the early domestic animals in Japan.
She reviews their connections/relations with other views of japanese
population history by the various branches of scientific disciplines. An
almost unkown chapter of pre- and early history of the Japanese islands.
- By the way, mice & virus, also to be found in archaeologic sites, are
viewed, tooÉ
Looks utterly obscure, hm? But its based on scholarly, empiric research, not
on presumptions.
---
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
> : I think you got a couple of suffixes wrong.(ai -> e or eoi)
>
> I believe they are all correct. The "-ai" in "b@ l@ .mai" is "ai" as
in
> "maeil/maeil" = "every day." Vowel harmony required "-ai" instead of
> "-ei" (= your "e," the modern locative particle) after words with the
> vowels "a, @, o" in them.
a,o are positive and i,eu neutral. Neurtals can be combined with
either positives or negatives. In modern Korean, e is the right suffix.
Y. Park
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
> What is the evidence for "kul-rim"? Hyangchal?
It was from an old book. (kyerimyusa?)
> Possible relation to
> "ku'ulli-ta"?
I speculated about possible relation of keu-eul- and kara before.
So It must have been not too crazy an idea after all.
(And what does "r" mean when it comes after "l" in your
> romanization?
kul(I forgot in which chinese character it was represented) and rim
meaning forest, I think.
> Korean "non" = Japanese "ta" has always been a puzzle, especially if
one
> supposes that the relatively recent introduction of wet rice culture
had
> anything to do with the Korean peninsula.
But it is quite common to co-opt a suitable word from range of words
with similar meaning.
ps...@my-dejanews.com
> : P.S.
> how about pat(agricultural patch of land) and bator as in : ulan-bator?
It is Ulaan Baatar in Khalkha and -aa- is contraction of -aga- of Middle
Mongolian. Thus,
baatar < bagatar.
Of course one needs to be a 'bakatare' to claim that word is cognate
of 'bakatare.'
Gerald B Mathias
: In article <7h7seb$6...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
: mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
: > : I think you got a couple of suffixes wrong.(ai -> e or eoi)
: >
: > I believe they are all correct. The "-ai" in "b@ l@ .mai" is "ai" as
: in
: > "maeil/maeil" = "every day." Vowel harmony required "-ai" instead of
: > "-ei" (= your "e," the modern locative particle) after words with the
: > vowels "a, @, o" in them.
: a,o are positive and i,eu neutral. Neurtals can be combined with
: either positives or negatives. In modern Korean, e is the right suffix.
My fault! I forgot to point out that Yongbiechenka wasn't written in
modern Korean. In middle Korean, a, o, @ (Yale: a, wo, o) are positive,
e, u, w (Yale: e, wu, u) are negative, and i is neutral.
The positive suffix -ai (Yale: -ay) goes on words like p@l@m with positive
vowels, and -ei (Yale: -ey) on words like yeki with negative vowels.
Bart
Gerald B Mathias
: In article <7hanjb$e...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
: mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
: > What is the evidence for "kul-rim"? Hyangchal?
: It was from an old book. (kyerimyusa?)
Then it was hyanchal. No wonder I couldn't find it in Khun sacen.
: > [Why the "l" and "r" distinction]
: kul(I forgot in which chinese character it was represented) and rim
: meaning forest, I think.
So you don't always choose between "r" and "l" on the basis of
American pronunciation after all?
Since the natural pronunciation of "FOREST" was on the order of "lim,"
it's probably safer to go with "kullim" (not that there is any safe basis
for interpreting hyangchal).
: > Korean "non" = Japanese "ta" has always been a puzzle, especially if
: one
: > supposes that the relatively recent introduction of wet rice culture
: had
: > anything to do with the Korean peninsula.
: But it is quite common to co-opt a suitable word from range of words
: with similar meaning.
I don't follow this. Who co-opted what word, from what range of words?
Bart
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@Hawaii.Edu (Gerald B Mathias) wrote:
>
> Since the natural pronunciation of "FOREST" was on the order of "lim,"
It clearly is not in modern Korean.(it is closer to r) I do not think
there is any indication that it was any different in the past.
I would not object to representing final rieul as r too(in fact this is
the system adopted by Kim Panghan etc) but initial consonant as l? no
way.
These two sounds are roughly between l and r but with the above
qualification.
> it's probably safer to go with "kullim" (not that there is any safe
basis
> for interpreting hyangchal).
I said so myself.(that -l-r will produce a sound close to l, thus in
Korean, double rieul is equivalent to l ) I merely represented it as it
was transcribed in idu.
> : But it is quite common to co-opt a suitable word from range of
words
> : with similar meaning.
>
> I don't follow this. Who co-opted what word, from what range of
words?
If there was no word for agricultural land, some suitable word
would be chosen from what was available already.
Y. Park
ypar...@my-dejanews.com
> > how about pat(agricultural patch of land) and bator as in :
ulan-bator?
>
> It is Ulaan Baatar in Khalkha and -aa- is contraction of -aga- of
Middle
> Mongolian. Thus,
>
> baatar < bagatar.
I heard that in Korean, g is sometimes changed to h or
is replaced by an aspiration of surrounding consonants.(this is quite
sensible since in modern korean h-t for instance is read t(h) as in
jhoh-ta(it is good) which is read jho-t(h)a.)
>
> Of course one needs to be a 'bakatare' to claim that word is cognate
> of 'bakatare.'
>
???
In order to make connection with Japanese hatakare, ta and ka should
be interchanged.(this kind of process is not unknown but I am not sure
about this case.)