Koreans invented and developed Chinese chracters.
Bear Khan
"Sukgeun Jung" <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:ak9kss$4l4$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu...
> I insist that the so-called Chinese character was probably invented and
> developed by Korean, although the populous Chinese also have used it as
> their basic writing systems. I believe the number of population of any
> ethnic group should not be a factor that obscures the origin. I explain
some
> evidences.
>
> 1. The original pictographs called 'gab-gol' (bone and shell) or 'bok-sa'
in
> Korean were certainly invented during the Yin dynasty (or Shang state, BC
> 1600~BC 1046), although it is uncertain who was the inventor. There is no
> dispute regarding this matter between Korean and Chinese historians. There
> are ample recent evidences that the dominant people of the Yin dynasty was
> Korean, which some Chinese historians also acknowledge.
>
> 2. Among countries that adopted Chinese character, only Koreans use
exactly
> one syllable for one character. Chinese or Japanese used one or more
> syllables for one character. A good example is the sounds denoting the
> numbers. Only Koreans use just one syllable for one number. So, it is very
> easy for Koreans to say any complex numbers quickly.
>
> For another example, the sound for 'white' in Chinese character in 'baek'
> (one syllable) in Korean but 'bai' (two syllable) in Chinese. Regarding
the
> character denoting 'head', it is 'doo' in Korean but 'tou' in Chinese. On
> the other hand, it is the same for the character denoting 'mountain' -
> 'shan' in both Korean and Chinese.
>
> Why have Koreans used only one syllable for one character, but Chinese one
> or more syllables? It certainly shows that Chinese pronunciation system is
a
> variant from Korean counterpart.
>
> 3. Some basic pictographs reflect Korean life-style and customs.
>
> For example, the character denoting 'house' (ga in Korean) contains a
> character denoting a pig (hog) in the lower part. In the house, people
live,
> not a pig live. Why did they adopt a pig to denote a house? Only Koreans
> raised pigs within their house.
>
> Another example is the character denoting 'sun'. The character contains a
> dot within a rectangle. Why did they contain the dot, seemingly
> unnecessarily? The dot denotes a golden crow. Only Koreans had the legend
> linking the sun to the golden crow.
>
> Additional example is the character denoting 'surname' (ssi in Korean). In
> Chinese, the character denotes only 'surname' while it denotes both
> 'surname' and 'seed' in Korean. 'Ssi' is a most common word in Korean and
> compares the pedigree with the tree (i.e., the seed is a common symbol for
> the original ancestor whose trace has been handed down by his surname).
>
> 4. Korean history book describes the origin of written systems, which is
> inscribed in dolmens in Korea.
>
> A Korean history book called Chun-bu-gyung records the origin of both
> current Chinese character and Korean alphabet (hangul). Chinese character
is
> a kind of pictograph + ideograph, while hangul is the most advanced of
> phonogram + ideogram in the world. Bone and shell inscriptions were a
> pictograph, while hexagrams of I-ching invented by Fu Xi (Bokhwi in
Korean)
> are a kind of ideogram. The original character for both Chinese character
> and hangul was 'Nok-doo-mun' (the most ancient writing system), according
to
> the Chun-bu-gyung. Currently, only Koreans still play a game called
'Yout',
> which is believed to be very similar to the 'Nok-doo-mun'. The principles
of
> Yout game are essentially the same as I-Ching. Moreover, in Korea and
> Manchuria, currently there are many ancient rocks (dolmen) in which
various
> kinds of primitive writings are inscribed (see some pictures at
> http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~kbyon/culture/rokdo.htm)
>
> Based on these four facts, I strongly argue that the Chinese character was
> originated and developed by Koreans. The differences in pronunciation
system
> for numbers between Chinese and Korean clearly indicates it's Korean
origin.
>
> --- Footnote
>
> I add my message on Fu Xi and I-Ching. Fu Xi (or Bokhwi in Korean) is one
of
> the candidates for the inventor of Chinese characters.
>
> Han and 'I Ching'
>
> The hexagrams of the I Ching were said to have been created by the
> legendary emperor 'Fu Xi' after he had contemplated on a diagram
> called Ha Do that was bestowed from the Heaven. Han scholars rewrote
> many myths as fact to fill gaps in early Chinese history. Fu Xi was
> declared to have been the very first emperor, ruling from 2852 to 2737
> BC. He was said to have been the inventor of musical instruments and
> Chinese handwriting [1].
>
> Chinese legend says that Fu Xi is the most senior one among the three
> ancestors. Together with N-Wa, the women who he married with, they
> started the civilization of human being. The current Fu Xi's Temple in
> Shandong was built on a 6-meter high terrace. In the main hall, Fu
> Xi's state was placed and sacrifices are given. And in the back of the
> hall, N-Wa's statue was placed [2].
>
> It is said that the upper body of Fu Xi is that of a human being while
> his lower body is in the form of a snake. Inferring from the
> scientific nature of the I Ching, it may just be possible that Fu Xi
> was an extraterrestrial. If Fu Xi was indeed the first ancestor of
> Chinese, then how could the descendents describe their first ancestor
> as a monster? Why did ancient Chinese historians initially consider Fu
> Xi as just a legend? Ancient Chinese call their neighboring people as
> "bugs" or"barbarians". The monster portrait suggests that Fu Xi might
> have been from a neighboring country, not Chinese countries. What was
> that country?
>
> "Fu Xi came from the nationality called East Yi dwelling in the
> Neolithic Age, along the coastal area of the present-day Shandong
> Province and, therefore, Fu Xi turned out to have come from Shandong
> Province" (quoted from a Chinese site [4])
>
> What was "East Yi"? Of course, "Yi" means "barbarians" in Chinese.
> Most Koreans know what is "Dong (east) Yi". People in 'East Yi' are
> known to have been very good at archery, as Korean Olympic archery
> teams are today. The Chinese character "Yi" indeed symbolize the
> shape of a big bow. Surprisingly. the recently discovered Korean
> history text titled "Han Dan Go Gi" describes the life of "Fu Xi"
> (Bokhwi in Korean) [3].
>
> It writes that he was the son of the 5-th emperor of the Baedal
> (B.C.3898- BC 2333) and his surname was "Pung" as he lived in
> "Pung-san". Although the surname "Pung" no longer exists in Korean
> names, some related words survived to today such as "Pung-chae"
> "Pung-gol" and"Pung-shin", all of which are terms for describing human
> body shape. Another daughter name was "Yeo-wa" (N-Wa in Chinese) [3].
>
> It writes that she was known to have a magical talent to make a human
> being from mud and to be extremely jealous (these two points, together
> with the sound, might may remind you of Jehovah) [5].
>
> Unfortunately only a few Korean scholars in universities accept "Han
> Dan Go Gi" as a history book, insisting that the book was fabricated
> in some points. Some Koreans, while acknowledging that a few points
> might have been fabricated while copying, decry the university
> historians as too much contaminated by Japanese colonial view of
> history that tried to disparage Korean history in the 1910-1945
> period, as they deny whole text book. Anyway, East Yi was located in
> Shandong Province...... What does this mean? I would rather stop here
> for today. But the point is that it will not be awkward that I link "I
> Ching" to Han.
>
> Some References on this footnote
>
> [1] Microsoft Encarta "Fu Xi"
> [2] http://www.china-sd.net/eng/sdtravel/scenery/30.asp
> [3]
> http://www.sejongnamepia.pe.kr/name_before.html
> http://www.shaman.co.kr/newspaper/09/mago.htm
> http://www.jsd.or.kr/a/truth_sh/korhist/k_hist_05.htm
> [4]
>
http://www.sbbs.com.cn/English/RE-EXPLORATION%20OF%20BIAN-HEALING%20STONE.ht
> m).
> [5] http://www.hankooki.com/culture/200205/h2002051415292516030.htm
> [6] http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Zhou/springautumn.htm
> "Later historians said it was intended to protect the original Chinese
> states from the intruding barbarian tribes Man 蠻, Rong 戎
> and Yi 夷"
>
> http://www.xsenergy.com/theme.html
> "Yi is known by a variety of names: The East Barbarian, Yi the Good,
> Lord Yi, and Yi Lord of the Hsia. As a result of this ambiguity, Yi is
> seen both as a hero who is favored by the Gods as well as a villain,
> murderer, usurper and adulterer. In this myth Yi is the hero as he
> shoots the Ten Suns to avert disaster."
>
>
>
Bear Khan
> No. We do not need to shock the world. It will progressively be known to
the
> world. It takes time to change stereotype or belief of people. You will
see
> it during your life time. I guarantee it.
>
This nonsense that Korea was at the center of all creativity, culture, art
in Asia is a cottage industy in Korea.
There are theories that Confucius and Lao Tzu were Korean.
It's like the cottage industry in Japan where Japanese didn't take anything
from Korea and developed it all on their own.
Koreans and Japanese are so stupid.
Sukgeun Jung
counter-evidences with respect to my four evidences, I would like to
courteously advise you to shut up.
"Bear Khan" <bear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:euBcqNHTCHA.2140@cpimsnntpa03...
Sukgeun Jung
you based on your knowledge, I will talk about a rather funny story, related
with this thread.
In previous article, I mentioned the gold crow to explain how the Chinese
character denoting 'sun' had a dot in the center. In various mural paintings
drawn during Koguryo (B.C. 37 ~ A.D. 668), we can see the gold crow. The
gold crow has three legs. See a picture of the gold crow at:
http://sarim.changwon.ac.kr/~dodemy/m-samjok.htm
http://www.haerasia.com/introduction/haerasia.html
http://museum.korea.ac.kr/2000/html/korean/181.htm
It was the symbol of the sun to Koreans, whereas a toad was the symbol of
the moon. The legend says that the crow eats fire of the sun. Why did the
crow have three legs? Two legs implies imperfection, so Koreans added
another leg. Koreans cherished the number 3. The most ancient Korean history
book called Chun-bu-kyung also started with the number 3 (1 + 2 = 3). Three
denotes perfection or maturation.
This seemingly forgotten three-leg crow became a news during the 2002
worldcup in Korea. The three-leg crow has been used as the logo of JFA
(Japan Football Association), probably since 1950, which most Koreans had
not noticed. Look at the log at:
http://www.jfa.or.jp/index_e.html
Of course, Japan has a record on the three-leg crow according the book
(Nihon Shogi dated in AD 720), apparently influenced by Koguryo. But Japan
do not have any ancient paintings on the three-leg crow or the related
legend. Why do Japanese try to copy even this kind of ancient logo of
Koreans?
"Daitaro Hagihara" <dai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:daiyanh-2508...@sdn-ap-007njpennp0291.dialsprint.net...
> In article <euBcqNHTCHA.2140@cpimsnntpa03>, "Bear Khan"
> <bear...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's like the cottage industry in Japan where Japanese didn't take
anything
> >from Korea and developed it all on their own.
> >Koreans and Japanese are so stupid.
>
> Japan did learn a lot from China via way of Koguryo during early
> stages of Japanese development between 4th and 5th century when
> Japan subjugated a part of Korean penninsula known as Kaya.
> But that's not reason enough to say that Japan learnt from Korea
> per se, since Koguryo was highly sinicized when Japan first
> contacted them.
>
> DH
Bear Khan
This is the same shit Afrocentrists are pulling to make it seem Greeks stole
from the blacks.
Just eat your kim chi and shut up.
"Sukgeun Jung" <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:akbv8j$k41$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu...
Bear Khan
by a korean scholar. Korean academics are strictly third rate, even worse
than the Japanese.
"Sukgeun Jung" <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
Bear Khan
nationalist shit.
Your inflate your own cultures while belittling others. So Japanese say
Koreans taught them nothing and now some Korean idiot is Koreans taught
Chinese and no the other way around.
And your 'scientific' proof? Some book written by a Korean.
I have all of respected academia behind me when I say Korea didn't give
Chinese their written language.
Only stupid Korean universities teach this shit. And why do Koreans pretend
to have Chinese something? Because Koreans have nothing of their own to be
proud of.
Eat your kim chi and shut up.
"Sukgeun Jung" <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:akbv8j$k41$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu...
Sukgeun Jung
fake artifacts like Japanese counterparts such as 'hands of God'.
"Bear Khan" <bear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OusuBTKTCHA.2224@cpimsnntpa03...
ugly duckling
> Your bullshit and Daitaro's bullshit belong to the same category:
> nationalist shit.
It's a disease that is being continuously spread throughout Asia from
China.
> Your inflate your own cultures while belittling others.
This has been Chinese propaganda for God's knows how long. That's basically
how they puffed themselves up.
> So Japanese say
> Koreans taught them nothing and now some Korean idiot is Koreans taught
> Chinese and no the other way around.
It is because China always discustingly say, "We taught this and that to
inferior Korea and Japan." This kind of thing never happens in Europe.
They help each other out. If it weren't for Chinese shitheads, Asia
would be much better place to live.
> And your 'scientific' proof? Some book written by a Korean.
> I have all of respected academia behind me when I say Korea didn't give
> Chinese their written language.
At the same time, Koreans have been using Chinese characters as long as they
were first invented.
> Only stupid Korean universities teach this shit. And why do Koreans
pretend
> to have Chinese something? Because Koreans have nothing of their own to be
> proud of. Eat your kim chi and shut up.
We have plenty of things to be proud of. Chinese think having longer
history
is a pride. Rest of the world say, "China belongs to Museum."
ugly duckling
ugly duckling
But definitely not worse than Chinese.
ugly duckling
"Bear Khan" <bear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OusuBTKTCHA.2224@cpimsnntpa03...
Sukgeun Jung
that China or Japan has influenced Korea in cultural and other aspects. It
is too obvious that culture and even people mix between neighboring
countries.
I do not see any respected academia behind you, but just hear your growling.
Just show me any fact you could provide.
Even you do not give me kimchi, how dare you say to eat it?
"Bear Khan" <bear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u91dKVKTCHA.2152@cpimsnntpa03...
Kaminarikun
> As I think it seem to be impossible to explain ancient East Asian history to
> you based on your knowledge, I will talk about a rather funny story, related
> with this thread.
>
> In previous article, I mentioned the gold crow to explain how the Chinese
> character denoting 'sun' had a dot in the center. In various mural paintings
> drawn during Koguryo (B.C. 37 ~ A.D. 668), we can see the gold crow. The
> gold crow has three legs. See a picture of the gold crow at:
>
> http://sarim.changwon.ac.kr/~dodemy/m-samjok.htm
> http://www.haerasia.com/introduction/haerasia.html
> http://museum.korea.ac.kr/2000/html/korean/181.htm
If B.C. 37 is the best that you could pull, that doesn't seem old enough
compared with China's.
3 legged symbol of China's Western Zhou Dynasty (1050-771 B.C.).
"Twelve Symbols of Sovereignty Twelve Chinese symbols representing
imperial authority,
that appeared on the sacrificial robes of the emperor since the
Western Zhou Dynasty
(1050-771 B.C.). The twelve symbols include the sun(3 legged crow),
moon, constellation
of three stars, dragons, pheasant, mountains, a pair of bronze
sacrificial cups, waterweed,
grain, flame, ax, and fu. "
"Sun One of the Twelve Symbols of Sovereignty, the sun is a symbol of
enlightenment and is
represented by the legendary three-legged crow on a red disc."
<http://www.sdmart.org/dragonrobes/glossary.html>
"Taoist signs
A few examples found in Taoist literature are considered in the fifth
chapter.
They include the talismans, the twelve heavenly signs and the
twenty-four earthly
responses as described in the Heavenly Red Writing of the Five Ancient
Lords of the
Primal Origin, Perfect Writing in Jade Tablet (Yuanshi wulao chishu
yubian zhenwen)
and the auspicious omens mentioned in the Taishang Exoteric
Explanations of the Three
Heavens (Taishang Santian neijiejing). In the latter, an interesting
interpretation of
history from the beginning of time until the Liu Song dynasty in
provided. It says that,
in the course of time, Laozi manifested himself several times to
assist the emperors.
The Han dynasty had been blessed by Heaven not only with traditional
auspicious
omens, sweet dew, a phoenix, a three-legged crow, and a nine-tailed
fox, but also with
'Perfected-Immortals driving carriages', 'Saintly Assistants' and the
Lingbao Scriptures,
signs of undoubted Taoist origin. A few centuries later, the founding
of the Liu
Song dynasty, heir to the Han, was also blessed by the appearance of
sweet dew,
a nine-tailed fox, a three-horned ox, an elephant, twenty-two pieces
of jade, and a
jug of gold found by a Buddhist monk.
Tizina Lippiello, University of Venice, completed her PhD research at
the Sinological
Institute in Leiden in 1995. "
<http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/iiasn6/eastasia/omen.html>
> It was the symbol of the sun to Koreans, whereas a toad was the symbol of
> the moon. The legend says that the crow eats fire of the sun. Why did the
> crow have three legs? Two legs implies imperfection, so Koreans added
> another leg. Koreans cherished the number 3. The most ancient Korean history
> book called Chun-bu-kyung also started with the number 3 (1 + 2 = 3). Three
> denotes perfection or maturation.
> This seemingly forgotten three-leg crow became a news during the 2002
> worldcup in Korea. The three-leg crow has been used as the logo of JFA
> (Japan Football Association), probably since 1950, which most Koreans had
> not noticed. Look at the log at:
> http://www.jfa.or.jp/index_e.html
> Of course, Japan has a record on the three-leg crow according the book
> (Nihon Shogi dated in AD 720), apparently influenced by Koguryo. But Japan
> do not have any ancient paintings on the three-leg crow or the related
> legend. Why do Japanese try to copy even this kind of ancient logo of
> Koreans?
They do have it. In their shrines and burials.
<http://www.wbcci12.org/steve/Japan2001/JF28.jpg>
leon yin
You from your post know NOTHING about the Chinese language and are
blindly and falsely promoting korean propaganda.
> Among countries that adopted Chinese character, only Koreans use
> exactly one syllable for one character. Chinese or Japanese used one or more
> syllables for one character.
> For another example, the sound for 'white' in Chinese character in 'baek'
> (one syllable) in Korean but 'bai' (two syllable) in Chinese. Regarding the
> character denoting 'head', it is 'doo' in Korean but 'tou' in Chinese. On
> the other hand, it is the same for the character denoting 'mountain' -
> 'shan' in both Korean and Chinese.
FALSE. Chinese is STRICTLY one syllable per character. The Chinese
word white 'bai' is only ONE syllable, it's pronouced like the korean
'bae' NOT pronounced 'ba-yee'. The Chinese word for head, 'tou' is
also only ONE syllable pronounced like the english word 'tow' (as in
tow-truck); not 'to-ooh' as you had so stupidly IMAGINED.
> A good example is the sounds denoting the
> numbers. Only Koreans use just one syllable for one number. So, it is very
> easy for Koreans to say any complex numbers quickly.
FALSE AGAIN. The Chinese characters for numbers were strictly for the
Chinese language (yi/i, er/erh, san, si, wu, liu, qi/chi, ba, jiu,
shi). The Koreans had their own indigenous numbering system but later
used the Chinese because it was more logical and easier to use; to
this day Korea like the Japanese have two systems of numbers: the
native and the Sinitic. The Chinese have always just had THE ORIGINAL
numbering system; characters from 1 to 10. 11 is made by a [10] and a
[1] (shi-yi). the number 32 is made by [three][ten][two] (sanshi-er).
the number 183 = yibai-bashi-san ([one][hundred][eight][ten][three].
This concept was then adopted by the Japanese and Koreans as the
'Sinitic Numeral System.' This isn't some obscure knowledge, it is
pretty common knowledge. A Korean language textbook even teaches two
numbering systems (the native Korean which is polysyllabic and the
Sinitic which is monosyllabic).
The indigenous Korean numbers are the following:
1. Hana
2. Dul 20. Sumol
3. Set 30. Seron
4. Net 40. Mahon
5. Tasot
6. Yasot
7. Ilgop
8. Yodul
9. Ahop
10. Yul
11. Yulhana
They are not monosyllabic. The monosyllabic you were referring to are
the Chinese-derivative numbers: il (yi), ee (er/ni), sam (san), se
(si), etc. (enclosed w/ parenthesis are the Chinese pronounciations,
left open are the Korean).
> 1. The original pictographs called 'gab-gol' (bone and shell) or 'bok-sa' in
> Korean were certainly invented during the Yin dynasty (or Shang state, BC
> 1600~BC 1046), although it is uncertain who was the inventor. There is no
> dispute regarding this matter between Korean and Chinese historians. There
> are ample recent evidences that the dominant people of the Yin dynasty was
> Korean, which some Chinese historians also acknowledge.
No, the Yin Dynasty at that time had a writing system that was already
fairly advanced; it is commonly accepted that the Yin Dynasty had
borrowed the writing script from its predecessor the Xia/Hsia Dynasty.
The Yin Dynasty cannot be Korean since the concept of a Korean
ethnicity or nation had not even existed at that time. I don't know
what you are talking about. It is possible that the Yin Dynasty was
populated by more Central Asian like (Tungusic) peoples, but to say
they were Korean but not Turkish or Mongolian or proto-Chinese is
ridiculous (What are the 'Koreans' then? God?). However, even that is
a stretch considering the Yin Dynasty's territorial boundaries were
confined between the Yellow and Yangtse Rivers (although I agree it is
possible that expeditionary forces and settlements elsewhere existed,
like in the Korean peninsula; but the bulk of the civilization was in
Central China).
Please don't post false Korean national-pride propaganda as
scholarship. If you can find one Chinese character that has a two
syllable pronouciation, may you be god. Until then quit imagining the
Chinese pronouciation by its pinyin spelling. Bai = bae not ba'yee
just like Shanghai is not Shang-Ha-Yee. Quit IMAGINING THINGS that
aren't Korean to be Korean. You have many other things to be proud of
as a nation and a culture, what is the purpose of this obsession in
stating that the five thousands years of Chinese historical
civilization is Korean origin (which has a written history of only two
thousand yrs and the early ones being Chinese sources)?
I'm pissed that you could so 'matter-of-factly' say Chinese language
uses multiple syllables for each character (but not the Korean
language and hence your reasoning that Chinese is Korean-derivative)
when you are so damn wrong. That's like trying to play the piano
starting on the wrong note without transcribing the key signature.
Chinese numbers are Chinese, not Korean or Japanese; it may have
originated in India or the Arab world (even that is unlikely), but
definitely not from the far far East. The NATIVE Korean numbers
(hana, dul, set, net...) are Altaic, and the Chinese/Sintic (yi,
er/ni, san, si..) are not derivatives of your native Korean numbers.
"Sukgeun Jung" <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<ak9kss$4l4$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu>...
t-d
(preposterous or outrageous).
http://isweb41.infoseek.co.jp/novel/togakkai/ (Japanese)
I show you three examples of Korean "tondemo".
1.
http://www.hanja.com/ (Korean)
"Eastern characters" (aka. Chinese characters ) were made by Koreans
and English words can be traced back to Korean words.
2.
http://www.ancientart.pe.kr/culture/sanggo.htm (Korean)
3. Koreans are the Ancesters of English People
6. Ancient Swords of Korea are Archetypes of All Swords of the World
9. Outer Aliens are fake
3.
The last one is a Korean cult religion. They swallow a book "Hwan Dan
Go Gi".
http://www.jsd.or.kr/a/truth_gz/truth_gz_hi_new/hi_history9000_1.htm
http://www.jsd.or.kr/a/truth_gz/truth_gz_hi_new/hi_history9000_2.htm ... _16.html
Hwanguk [桓國] was the first empire in the world, established by
Koreans a hundred years ago, centered on the Lake Baikal. Sumerians
and Native Americans were moved from Hwanguk. Chiyou [蚩尤] was a
Korean, Hwanung [桓雄] and made war against Huangdi [黃帝]. At that
time China was ruled by Koreans and Yin-Yang-Wu-Xing [陰陽五行] was
made by Koreans...
Character Coding: Big5
masa...@yahoo.com (leon yin) wrote in message news:<265898cc.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> Let's put an end to this shall we?
> You from your post know NOTHING about the Chinese language and are
> blindly and falsely promoting korean propaganda.
> > 1. The original pictographs called 'gab-gol' (bone and shell) or 'bok-sa' in
> "Sukgeun Jung" <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<ak9kss$4l4$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu>...
> > I add my message on Fu Xi and I-Ching. Fu Xi (or Bokhwi in Korean) is one of
Bear Khan
nationalistic historians in korea.
Why don't you show me that this theory is supported by anyone other than
some stupid korean. Then, I'll take you more seriously.
Why is it that only Korean scholars say Chinese learned from Korea and only
Black scholars say Greeks stole from blacks. why? Because they have
political agendas.
Moron.
"Sukgeun Jung" <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:akc3mf$l0d$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu...
ypark
> This is the same shit Afrocentrists are pulling to make it seem Greeks stole
> from the blacks.
> Just eat your kim chi and shut up.
Your little jjangkke pork lard bags should not use khan even as your
pseudo name.
My ancestors were khan, they were koso-kan, marip-kan etc. Your
subhuman ancestors never were. Instead they were little appenditures
in service of Mongol, Turkic, Manchu masters. Reassume your proper
place as a slave.
Y. Park
ypark
Really. I am begging you.
>
> The indigenous Korean numbers are the following:
> 1. Hana
> 2. Dul 20. Sumol
> 3. Set 30. Seron
> 4. Net 40. Mahon
> 5. Tasot
> 6. Yasot
Hehe. Not that others are correct but just that this one is hilarious.
>
> No, the Yin Dynasty at that time had a writing system that was already
> fairly advanced; it is commonly accepted that the Yin Dynasty had
> borrowed the writing script from its predecessor the Xia/Hsia Dynasty.
> The Yin Dynasty cannot be Korean since the concept of a Korean
> ethnicity or nation had not even existed at that time.
Then by the same token it can not be chinese either.
Y. Park
1...@abc.com
Losers argue over things that happened over thousands of years ago
that they had absolutely given no help in creating rather just
inherited.
Winners creates something new that wins the admiration of people
today.
Choose your own legacy.
TK Sung
"Daitaro Hagihara" <dai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:daiyanh-2508...@sdn-ap-007njpennp0291.dialsprint.net...
>
> stages of Japanese development between 4th and 5th century when
> Japan subjugated a part of Korean penninsula known as Kaya.
>
and pass it as history. You need to restudy your Japanese history. This is
not even close to Nihon-shoki fiction, let alone facts.
Austin So (Hae Jin)
I suggest you consider your own japanese "tondemo"...
Makes for far better fantasy than any korean ever could...
Austin
ugly duckling
He was trying to say that such remarks are "tondemo."
ugly duckling
"Austin So (Hae Jin)" <hae...@ubc.caX> wrote in message
news:3D6A841F...@ubc.caX...
ugly duckling
> > stages of Japanese development between 4th and 5th century when
> > Japan subjugated a part of Korean penninsula known as Kaya.
> >
> Stupidity of this thread in general proves that anyone can make up a story
> and pass it as history. You need to restudy your Japanese history. This
is
> not even close to Nihon-shoki fiction, let alone facts.
What about Kojiki?
The thing is that Korea and China had been doing alot of history
distortion in the past as well as now.
ugly duckling
Austin So (Hae Jin)
Whatever your point is, Doohwan, you are not making it clear enough...
The Kojiki is mainly a history of Paekche, and as a number of *western* and
*japanese* scholars will state, both the Nihon-shoki and Kojiki use uniquely
Korean words when read as Idu.
Given this, one must wonder why two fundamental japanese historical
works would have Korean terms...
Austin
Austin So (Hae Jin)
When I wrote "...consider your own japanese 'tondemo'...", I am saying
that he should consider japanese statements which can be categorized as
"fantastic/outrageous".
Yes...Koreans are guilty of statements that are "tondemo", but this is
no different and oftimes pales in comparison to some of the statements
made by japanese which can easily be categorized as "tondemo".
BTW...since when do you believe in Jeun San Do?
Austin
ugly duckling wrote:
> You misread him.
> He was trying to say that such remarks are "tondemo."
> "Austin So (Hae Jin)" <hae...@ubc.caX> wrote in message
> news:3D6A841F...@ubc.caX...
>>While I agree that Sukgeung's convictions are quite "remarkable", might
>>I suggest you consider your own japanese "tondemo"...
>>
>>Makes for far better fantasy than any korean ever could...
>>t-d wrote:
ugly duckling
"Austin So (Hae Jin)" <hae...@ubc.caX> wrote in message
news:3D6A946D...@ubc.caX...
Jonathan Thor Lim
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:23:47 GMT
"ugly duckling" <daveiny...@hotmail.comnospam> wrote:
+ "Bear Khan" <bear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
+ > Your bullshit and Daitaro's bullshit belong to the same category:
+ > nationalist shit.
+
+ It's a disease that is being continuously spread throughout Asia from
+ China.
+
+ > Your inflate your own cultures while belittling others.
+
+ This has been Chinese propaganda for God's knows how long. That's basically
+ how they puffed themselves up.
+
+ > So Japanese say
+ > Koreans taught them nothing and now some Korean idiot is Koreans taught
+ > Chinese and no the other way around.
+
+ It is because China always discustingly say, "We taught this and that to
+ inferior Korea and Japan." This kind of thing never happens in Europe.
+ They help each other out. If it weren't for Chinese shitheads, Asia
+ would be much better place to live.
+
+
+ > And your 'scientific' proof? Some book written by a Korean.
+ > I have all of respected academia behind me when I say Korea didn't give
+ > Chinese their written language.
+
+ At the same time, Koreans have been using Chinese characters as long as they
+ were first invented.
+
+ > Only stupid Korean universities teach this shit. And why do Koreans
+ pretend
+ > to have Chinese something? Because Koreans have nothing of their own to be
+ > proud of. Eat your kim chi and shut up.
+
+ We have plenty of things to be proud of. Chinese think having longer
+ history
+ is a pride. Rest of the world say, "China belongs to Museum."
+
+ ugly duckling
+
+
+ > "Sukgeun Jung" <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
+ > news:akbv8j$k41$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu...
+ > > As I think it seem to be impossible to explain ancient East Asian
+ history
+ > to
+ > > you based on your knowledge, I will talk about a rather funny story,
+ > related
+ > > with this thread.
+ > >
+ > > In previous article, I mentioned the gold crow to explain how the
+ Chinese
+ > > character denoting 'sun' had a dot in the center. In various mural
+ > paintings
+ > > drawn during Koguryo (B.C. 37 ~ A.D. 668), we can see the gold crow. The
+ > > gold crow has three legs. See a picture of the gold crow at:
+ > >
+ > > http://sarim.changwon.ac.kr/~dodemy/m-samjok.htm
+ > > http://www.haerasia.com/introduction/haerasia.html
+ > > http://museum.korea.ac.kr/2000/html/korean/181.htm
+ > >
+ > > It was the symbol of the sun to Koreans, whereas a toad was the symbol
+ of
+ > > the moon. The legend says that the crow eats fire of the sun. Why did
+ the
+ > > crow have three legs? Two legs implies imperfection, so Koreans added
+ > > another leg. Koreans cherished the number 3. The most ancient Korean
+ > history
+ > > book called Chun-bu-kyung also started with the number 3 (1 + 2 = 3).
+ > Three
+ > > denotes perfection or maturation.
+ > >
+ > > This seemingly forgotten three-leg crow became a news during the 2002
+ > > worldcup in Korea. The three-leg crow has been used as the logo of JFA
+ > > (Japan Football Association), probably since 1950, which most Koreans
+ had
+ > > not noticed. Look at the log at:
+ > >
+ > > http://www.jfa.or.jp/index_e.html
+ > >
+ > > Of course, Japan has a record on the three-leg crow according the book
+ > > (Nihon Shogi dated in AD 720), apparently influenced by Koguryo. But
+ Japan
+ > > do not have any ancient paintings on the three-leg crow or the related
+ > > legend. Why do Japanese try to copy even this kind of ancient logo of
+ > > Koreans?
+ > >
+ > > "Daitaro Hagihara" <dai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
+ > > news:daiyanh-2508...@sdn-ap-007njpennp0291.dialsprint.net...
+ > > > In article <euBcqNHTCHA.2140@cpimsnntpa03>, "Bear Khan"
+ > > > <bear...@hotmail.com> wrote:
+ > > >
+ > > > >It's like the cottage industry in Japan where Japanese didn't take
+ > > anything
+ > > > >from Korea and developed it all on their own.
+ > > > >Koreans and Japanese are so stupid.
+ > > >
+ > > > Japan did learn a lot from China via way of Koguryo during early
+ > > > stages of Japanese development between 4th and 5th century when
+ > > > Japan subjugated a part of Korean penninsula known as Kaya.
+ > > > But that's not reason enough to say that Japan learnt from Korea
+ > > > per se, since Koguryo was highly sinicized when Japan first
+ > > > contacted them.
+ > > >
+ > > > DH
+ > >
+ > >
+ >
+ >
+
Kaminarikun
> "Daitaro Hagihara" <dai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:daiyanh-2508...@sdn-ap-007njpennp0291.dialsprint.net...
> >
> > Japan did learn a lot from China via way of Koguryo during early
> > stages of Japanese development between 4th and 5th century when
> > Japan subjugated a part of Korean penninsula known as Kaya.
>
> Stupidity of this thread in general proves that anyone can make up a story
> and pass it as history. You need to restudy your Japanese history. This is
> not even close to Nihon-shoki fiction, let alone facts.
Even your Samguksaki? In it it gives credit to Wa-jin for taking Silla's
castles in
the 5th to 6th century.
"500 AD. Wa-jin, Shiragi no shiro wo kouryaku."(Wa-jin conquered a
castle of Silla).
Also the Chinese were taking notes of Wa's rise in their own chronicles.
About the same period as Wa's adventure against silla we see Wa's kings
being
presented with political and/or actual titles to parts of Korea.
China's Sung Shu. A.D. 5I3
"By imperial edict, Bu was made King of Wa and Generalissimo Who
Maintains Peace in the East Commanding with Battle-Ax all Military
Affairs in the Six Countries of Wa, Silla, Imna, Kala, Chin-han, and
Mok-han. "
At later period. China's "Sui Shu" Chronicle. A.D. 630
"Both Silla and Packche consider Wa to be a great country, replete
with precious things, and they pay her homage. Envoys go back
and forth from time to time. "
Kaminarikun
> ugly duckling wrote:
> > "TK Sung" <tks...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>"Daitaro Hagihara" <dai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>Japan did learn a lot from China via way of Koguryo during early
> >>>stages of Japanese development between 4th and 5th century when
> >>>Japan subjugated a part of Korean penninsula known as Kaya.
> >>Stupidity of this thread in general proves that anyone can make up a story
> >>and pass it as history. You need to restudy your Japanese history. This
> >>is not even close to Nihon-shoki fiction, let alone facts.
> > What about Kojiki?
> > The thing is that Korea and China had been doing alot of history
> > distortion in the past as well as now.
>
> Whatever your point is, Doohwan, you are not making it clear enough...
> The Kojiki is mainly a history of Paekche,
With great stretch of imagination.
The original Kojiki texts is here if anyone care to locate this
mysterious Paekche.
<http://kuzan.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp/kojiki1.txt>
<http://kuzan.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp/kojiki2.txt>
<http://kuzan.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp/kojiki3.txt>
leon yin
> > 1. Hana
> > 2. Dul 20. Sumol
> > 3. Set 30. Seron
> > 4. Net 40. Mahon
> > 5. Tasot
> > 6. Yasot
>
> Hehe. Not that others are correct but just that this one is hilarious.
Oh? How so are they not correct? Are you denying that each Chinese
character is pronounced with one syllable? Your friend there seems to
think that multiple syllables are used to pronounce each Chinese
character in the Chinese language (and that because Korean uses one
syllable for each character, obviously Korean preceded Chinese in
inventing the Chinese script). Unless you are up to changing the
recognized and linguistic definition of syllables (which includes
diphthongs) then I hope you shut up. ONE SYLLABLE FOR EACH CHARACTER
in the Chinese language. There is no debate.
The numbers I had posted as indigenous Korean is correct. Little
Korean children learn to count with that to this day. Hana, dul,
set.. one, two, three. The Sino-Korean numbers il, ee, sam.. were
borrowed from the Chinese pronounciations (a variant close to
Cantonese is likely as opposed to Mandarin). The entire methodology
of numbering quantities were also taken from the Chinese. Prior to
that, the Koreans had only hana dul set; an awkward and rather
primitive way of naming numbers (esp big numbers). Even Japanese
today admit to having two sets of number systems (one of which being
borrowed from the Chinese: ichi, ni, san, shi..).
Pure (native) Korean numbers:
http://langintro.com/kintro/numbers/purekor.htm
Sinitic (borrowed from Chinese) numbers:
http://langintro.com/kintro/numbers/sinokor.htm
BTW, no one ever claimed the Yin Dynasty to be ethnically the same as
the Chinese today. You are just ridiculous enough to boast that it
was Korean based on mythologies written in the last century. However,
even if the Yin Dynasty were not ethnically Chinese, they are in
respect to the continuation of the Chinese civilization, Chinese.
Stop this BS Korean propaganda. We are all sick of it.
Sukgeun Jung
than Korea, as Chinese, Mongolians and Japanese consistently tried to
burn and destroy Korean history books during the past 2,000 years and
Korea lacks of ancient text books.
As you are mentioning that historical record from Zhou Dynasty
(1050-771 B.C.), I cite a record from the 8-th Dangun (Woo-seo-han, or
Oh-Sah-Hahm, B.C. 1993 ~ B.C. 1985). Han-dan-go-gi records that the
three-legged crow flied into the royal palace in B.C. 1987 and it's
wing was about 1 meter width.
Let's talk about paintings rather than records, as some stupid Korean
historians in academia also believe that the legend of three-legged
crow was Chinese.
Although one painting on silk cloth excavated from the Han dynasty
(about B.C. 100) does have the three-legged crow, most do not as you
can see at:
http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Art/Rubbings/stonerub.htm
Can you let me know any other paintings on the three-legged crow from
Zhou or Han dynasty?
There is no disputes that the three-legged crow is the symbol of
Koguryo among historians. Koguryo has the richest mural paintings on
the three-legged crow compared to any other country. Based on this,
we can infer that the three-legged crow found in other country had
been originated from Koreans, as only people of Koguryo loved the bird
so much. Koreans admired the sun and the light. 'Dan' in Dangun and
'Han' (also Khan) originally meant the light. In China, three-legged
crow was gradually changed to the Chinese phoenix.
Unlike impressions from records, paintings clearly show that the
three-legged crow was Korean. People could destroy as the Qin dynasty
did, or modify/exaggerate history in text as Sima Qian did , but they
could not completely remove relics.
You cited the following picture in Japan:
http://www.wbcci12.org/steve/Japan2001/JF28.jpg.
Are you claiming that this is a painting? It seems to be a modern
sculpture, reflecting influences of Koguryo at best.
Kaminarikun <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3D69A566...@yahoo.com>...
ugly duckling
> castles in the 5th to 6th century.
I don't remember reading about it in Sam-Guk-Sa-Gi. Which volume?
> "500 AD. Wa-jin, Shiragi no shiro wo kouryaku."(Wa-jin conquered a
> castle of Silla).
> Also the Chinese were taking notes of Wa's rise in their own chronicles.
> About the same period as Wa's adventure against silla we see Wa's kings
> being presented with political and/or actual titles to parts of Korea.
Can you cite the source? Because I don't remember reading anything like
that in SamGukSaGi.
> China's Sung Shu. A.D. 5I3
> "By imperial edict, Bu was made King of Wa and Generalissimo Who
> Maintains Peace in the East Commanding with Battle-Ax all Military
> Affairs in the Six Countries of Wa, Silla, Imna, Kala, Chin-han, and
> Mok-han. "
This is purely a distortion.
By A.D.513, Mok-Han(Ma-Han) and Byun-Han was no more. Another lie is
because it is Chin-Han turned into Silla. They just can't be together. I
think
either you misread it or it is a pure distortion.
> At later period. China's "Sui Shu" Chronicle. A.D. 630
> "Both Silla and Packche consider Wa to be a great country, replete
> with precious things, and they pay her homage. Envoys go back
> and forth from time to time. "
This also was not found in Sam-Guk-Sa-Gi.
ugly duckling
ugly duckling
> > The Kojiki is mainly a history of Paekche,
>
> With great stretch of imagination.
> The original Kojiki texts is here if anyone care to locate this
> mysterious Paekche.
> <http://kuzan.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp/kojiki1.txt>
> <http://kuzan.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp/kojiki2.txt>
> <http://kuzan.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp/kojiki3.txt>
Try this interesting article:
http://www.iufost.org/Newsline/Newsline48.pdf
Excerpt:
"The ancient Japanese history book, Kojiki , says that a man from Paekje ,
one of the three kingdoms in Korea of the same century, taught them
rice-wine making ..."
ugly duckling
Sukgeun Jung
masa...@yahoo.com (leon yin) wrote in message news:<265898cc.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > 1. The original pictographs called 'gab-gol' (bone and shell) or 'bok-sa' in
> > Korean were certainly invented during the Yin dynasty (or Shang state, BC
> > 1600~BC 1046), although it is uncertain who was the inventor. There is no
> > dispute regarding this matter between Korean and Chinese historians. There
> > are ample recent evidences that the dominant people of the Yin dynasty was
> > Korean, which some Chinese historians also acknowledge.
>
> No, the Yin Dynasty at that time had a writing system that was already
> fairly advanced; it is commonly accepted that the Yin Dynasty had
> borrowed the writing script from its predecessor the Xia/Hsia Dynasty.
> The Yin Dynasty cannot be Korean since the concept of a Korean
> ethnicity or nation had not even existed at that time. I don't know
> what you are talking about. It is possible that the Yin Dynasty was
> populated by more Central Asian like (Tungusic) peoples, but to say
> they were Korean but not Turkish or Mongolian or proto-Chinese is
> ridiculous (What are the 'Koreans' then? God?). However, even that is
> a stretch considering the Yin Dynasty's territorial boundaries were
> confined between the Yellow and Yangtse Rivers (although I agree it is
> possible that expeditionary forces and settlements elsewhere existed,
> like in the Korean peninsula; but the bulk of the civilization was in
> Central China).
You said writing system of the Yin Dynasty came from Xia/Hsia Dynasty.
What is your supporting evidence? The seemingly closest predecessor
was found in Ta wen k'ou of Shantung province. Ta wen k'ou was within
Xia/Hsia dynasty?
ugly duckling
1. Kojiki does not mention anything about Imna being in the Korean
penninsula.
2. Samguksagi does not mention anything about Japan conquering
Shilla castles.
3. Shilla, Chin-Han, and Mok-Han(Ma-Han) are not contemporaries.
4. Chin-Han turned into Shilla. There is no way Chin-Han and Shilla
coexisted.
ugly duckling
P.S. Even the majority of Japanese historians say "Mysterious 4th
Century Japan." because they cannot trust their own ancient
manuscripts.
"Kaminarikun" <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D6AEEDB...@yahoo.com...
ugly duckling
> > Whatever your point is, Doohwan, you are not making it clear enough...
> > The Kojiki is mainly a history of Paekche,
>
> With great stretch of imagination.
> The original Kojiki texts is here if anyone care to locate this
> mysterious Paekche.
This is hardly a stretch of imagination, because 3 volumes of Kojiki
are aptly titled, "3 Volumes for Paekje."
ugly duckling
Bear Khan
"ypark" <ypar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1931bacf.02082...@posting.google.com...
Okay, but remember we Mongols once invaded you wimps.
Curtis Desjardins
Actually...
LOSERS try their best.
WINNERS go home and fuck the prom queen.
Curtis.
--
ALL I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT LIFE I LEARNED FROM SEINFELD: Two cups in
front, two loops in back. I got it. // Why would I be a leg man? I
don't need legs. I have legs. // If every instinct you have is wrong,
then the OPPOSITE must be right. // Soup is not a meal. // Tub is
love. // Nobody tells me it's them, not me. If it's anybody, it's ME!
// It's "Moops" // It shrinks. // They're real, and they're
specTACular!
Kaminarikun
> "Kaminarikun" <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news
> > "Austin So (Hae Jin)" wrote:
> > > Whatever your point is, Doohwan, you are not making it clear enough...
> > > The Kojiki is mainly a history of Paekche,
> >
> > With great stretch of imagination.
> > The original Kojiki texts is here if anyone care to locate this
> > mysterious Paekche.
>
> This is hardly a stretch of imagination, because 3 volumes of Kojiki
> are aptly titled, "3 Volumes for Paekje."
If it did it would be a big news in Japan.
Kaminarikun
> It is true that China has more text records on the three-legged crow
> than Korea, as Chinese, Mongolians and Japanese consistently tried to
> burn and destroy Korean history books during the past 2,000 years and
> Korea lacks of ancient text books.
>
> As you are mentioning that historical record from Zhou Dynasty
> (1050-771 B.C.), I cite a record from the 8-th Dangun (Woo-seo-han, or
> Oh-Sah-Hahm, B.C. 1993 ~ B.C. 1985). Han-dan-go-gi records that the
> three-legged crow flied into the royal palace in B.C. 1987 and it's
> wing was about 1 meter width.
Although you might be short on answers. Not Dangun. The book that
place Koreans back to Sumeria(Middle east) or something of that sort.
> Let's talk about paintings rather than records, as some stupid Korean
> historians in academia also believe that the legend of three-legged
> crow was Chinese.
>
> Although one painting on silk cloth excavated from the Han dynasty
> (about B.C. 100) does have the three-legged crow, most do not as you
> can see at:
>
> http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Art/Rubbings/stonerub.htm
>
> Can you let me know any other paintings on the three-legged crow from
> Zhou or Han dynasty?
Off hand no. I could look if that's so important to you.
> There is no disputes that the three-legged crow is the symbol of
> Koguryo among historians. Koguryo has the richest mural paintings on
> the three-legged crow compared to any other country. Based on this,
> we can infer that the three-legged crow found in other country had
> been originated from Koreans, as only people of Koguryo loved the bird
> so much. Koreans admired the sun and the light. 'Dan' in Dangun and
> 'Han' (also Khan) originally meant the light. In China, three-legged
> crow was gradually changed to the Chinese phoenix.
I would think that Chinese records from Zhou speaks much louder than
your
explaination so far. If three legged crow was a tradition by Zhou period
the
actual origin might've been much earier.
> Unlike impressions from records, paintings clearly show that the
> three-legged crow was Korean. People could destroy as the Qin dynasty
> did, or modify/exaggerate history in text as Sima Qian did , but they
> could not completely remove relics.
I guess no one can change your mind.
> You cited the following picture in Japan:
> http://www.wbcci12.org/steve/Japan2001/JF28.jpg.
>
> Are you claiming that this is a painting? It seems to be a modern
> sculpture, reflecting influences of Koguryo at best.
Your point was about "Japan Football Association" using three legged
crow.
My point was to show they probably took it from their local tradition
rather than
Korea or China since the person that was related to the founding of
"Japan
Football Association" came from a area where three legged crow was
enshrined
in Wakayama.
As for the burrial. After checking it aprears that the crow paining at
the Kitora tomb
seem to be of two legged version.
> Kaminarikun <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3D69A566...@yahoo.com>...
> > Sukgeun Jung wrote:
> > > As I think it seem to be impossible to explain ancient East Asian history to
> > > you based on your knowledge, I will talk about a rather funny story, related
> > > with this thread.
> > >
> > > In previous article, I mentioned the gold crow to explain how the Chinese
> > > character denoting 'sun' had a dot in the center. In various mural paintings
> > > drawn during Koguryo (B.C. 37 ~ A.D. 668), we can see the gold crow. The
> > > gold crow has three legs. See a picture of the gold crow at:
> > >
> > > http://sarim.changwon.ac.kr/~dodemy/m-samjok.htm
> > > http://www.haerasia.com/introduction/haerasia.html
> > > http://museum.korea.ac.kr/2000/html/korean/181.htm
> >
> > If B.C. 37 is the best that you could pull, that doesn't seem old enough
> > compared with China's.
[...]
Kaminarikun
> To summarize your distortions:
>
> 1. Kojiki does not mention anything about Imna being in the Korean
> penninsula.
Yet no one said it's in Kojiki.
> 2. Samguksagi does not mention anything about Japan conquering
> Shilla castles.
Look again.
> 3. Shilla, Chin-Han, and Mok-Han(Ma-Han) are not contemporaries.
That was in regard to Wa's King being awarded titles to Silla, Mokhan
among others. Award in itself is true.
> 4. Chin-Han turned into Shilla. There is no way Chin-Han and Shilla
> coexisted.
Yet, it coexisted in a title to Wa's King. Which is a fact.
Kaminarikun
> "Kaminarikun" <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > "Daitaro Hagihara" <dai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > Even your Samguksaki? In it it gives credit to Wa-jin for taking Silla's
> > castles in the 5th to 6th century.
>
> I don't remember reading about it in Sam-Guk-Sa-Gi. Which volume?
Look around 500 AD. 461 AD.
> > "500 AD. Wa-jin, Shiragi no shiro wo kouryaku."(Wa-jin conquered a
> > castle of Silla).
> > Also the Chinese were taking notes of Wa's rise in their own chronicles.
> > About the same period as Wa's adventure against silla we see Wa's kings
> > being presented with political and/or actual titles to parts of Korea.
>
> Can you cite the source? Because I don't remember reading anything like
> that in SamGukSaGi.
See above.
> > China's Sung Shu. A.D. 5I3
> > "By imperial edict, Bu was made King of Wa and Generalissimo Who
> > Maintains Peace in the East Commanding with Battle-Ax all Military
> > Affairs in the Six Countries of Wa, Silla, Imna, Kala, Chin-han, and
> > Mok-han. "
>
> This is purely a distortion.
> By A.D.513, Mok-Han(Ma-Han) and Byun-Han was no more. Another lie is
> because it is Chin-Han turned into Silla. They just can't be together. I
> think either you misread it or it is a pure distortion.
Whatever the case Wa kings being awarded Mokhan among others is not a
lie.
That's the way it's recorded
> > At later period. China's "Sui Shu" Chronicle. A.D. 630
> > "Both Silla and Packche consider Wa to be a great country, replete
> > with precious things, and they pay her homage. Envoys go back
> > and forth from time to time. "
>
> This also was not found in Sam-Guk-Sa-Gi.
Obviously. I gave its source as China's "Sui Shu" Chronicle, not
Samguksagi.
Kaminarikun
He's misleading you. The original is right up there as I gave.
Nothing in there says anything in regard to a man from Paekche.
Sukgeun Jung
> word white 'bai' is only ONE syllable, it's pronouced like the korean
> 'bae' NOT pronounced 'ba-yee'. The Chinese word for head, 'tou' is
> also only ONE syllable pronounced like the english word 'tow' (as in
> tow-truck); not 'to-ooh' as you had so stupidly IMAGINED.
I may generously agree that every Chinese character is monosyllabic
based on the broadest definition of a syllable. However, when Chinese
wanted to convert the character into phonograms such as Roman
alphabet, it was inevitable that one character may become two
syllables.
Let's see what some scholars say about the Pinyin Rules, which was
invented to Romanize the chinese characters.
http://www.whiteclouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl10mair.htm
<quote>
Starting at least half a dozen years ago, I lobbied hard with Karl
Kahler and other East Asian library professionals NOT to adopt the
infantile policy of separating all syllables. Why do it this way?
What's the point? What's the advantage? After the work of great
linguists such as George Kennedy, stretching back more than half a
century, it is absolutely clear that Sinitic languages are NOT
monosyllabic. Even Literary Sinitic (Classical Chinese), as I have
shown in numerous lectures, articles, and reviews, is far from
monosyllabic.
</quote>
The problem is that same for Taiwan.
http://romanization.com/tongyong/qanda.html
I will not argue over whether it is monosyllabic or not, or over the
definition of a syllable. Accurately speaking, each character is a
morpheme. I am just saying that there are some scholars who do not
think Chinese is monosyllabic in the strict sense. The same conclusion
will be drawn when converting so-called Chinese monosyllables into
Korean hangul.
The point is that Chinese pronunciation systems for chinese characters
are variants of the some unknown original one.
A simple fact is there are two major dialects and other minors in
China and the pronunciations can be different among them for the same
character. Moreover, the dialects became more homonymic, and now the
total number of the so-called monosyllables is just several hundreds.
Which one is more original between Mandarin and Cantonese? On the
contrary, in Korea, there is no dialect or variant with respect to
pronunciation of each character, although dialects exist (of course,
Koreans understand most of them).
Moreover, an ancient Chinese dictionary recording the way of
pronunciation for 53,525 characters (Book name is Jeon-Jib in Korean,
集韻 in Chinese character) are almost the same as modern
Korean pronunciations of the characters.
Let's have an example. How do chinese pronounce the first syllable of
the character meaning 'school' (學)? In Korea, it sounds 'hag'.
Chinese pronounce it as 'Shie'. The Jeon-Jib records in the item to
show how to pronounce as 'Hal Gag Jeol' (轄覺切).
'Jeol' means it should be pronounced as this way. So, H (first
consonant) + ag (vowel + consonant) = 'Hag'. Look at the old chinese
dictionary (集韻) and check whether the pronunciation
matches well with Chinese. Why did the Chinese old dictionary record a
seemingly redunant item to most Chinese for characters? Is it
coincidental that those items are entirely useful only for Koreans to
understand the way of pronunciation?
This kind of pronunciation writing system is well known in Korean
history, such as 'I-doo' in Silla'.
Other minor examples. Let's see how do you pronounce 'Buddha' in
China? In Korea, it sounds as 'Bul-ta' while Chinese sound it as
'Fotuo'. Koreans sound the chinese words for 'Sakga-Muni' as
'Seokga-Moni' while Chinese as 'Shigia-Mouni'. Which one is closer to
the original sounds?
Returning to the examples im my previous message, if Koreans had
learned from Chinese, how could the sound 'bai' in Chinese have become
'baek' in Korean, a more complex syllable? Koreans can easily
pronounce 'bai' and 'baek', but Chinese do not have any syllable for
'baek'.
Maybe it was possible that Koreans coincidentally add 'K' to 'bai'.
Let's see more examples, i.e., the numbers: 1 (il is Korean and yi in
Mandarin, where did 'L' come from?), 3 (sam in Korean and san in
Mandarin, and Koreans have both sam and san sounds, but Chinese only
have san sound), 6 (yuk in Korean and liou in Mandarin, where did 'K'
come from?), 7, 8, 10 (sib in Korean, shi in Chinese, where did 'B'
come from?). It seems to be too obvious that the sounds such as 'L',
'K' and 'B' were consistently and inevitabley missed while
transferring to the people who did not have the related syllables, and
not vice versa.
Anyway, thanks for your sincere questions,
Sukgeun Jung
masa...@yahoo.com (leon yin) wrote in message news:<265898cc.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> Let's put an end to this shall we?
> You from your post know NOTHING about the Chinese language and are
> blindly and falsely promoting korean propaganda.
>
> > Among countries that adopted Chinese character, only Koreans use
> > exactly one syllable for one character. Chinese or Japanese used one or more
> > syllables for one character.
> > For another example, the sound for 'white' in Chinese character in 'baek'
> > (one syllable) in Korean but 'bai' (two syllable) in Chinese. Regarding the
> > character denoting 'head', it is 'doo' in Korean but 'tou' in Chinese. On
> > the other hand, it is the same for the character denoting 'mountain' -
> > 'shan' in both Korean and Chinese.
>
> FALSE. Chinese is STRICTLY one syllable per character. The Chinese
> word white 'bai' is only ONE syllable, it's pronouced like the korean
> 'bae' NOT pronounced 'ba-yee'. The Chinese word for head, 'tou' is
> also only ONE syllable pronounced like the english word 'tow' (as in
> tow-truck); not 'to-ooh' as you had so stupidly IMAGINED.
>
> > A good example is the sounds denoting the
> > numbers. Only Koreans use just one syllable for one number. So, it is very
> > easy for Koreans to say any complex numbers quickly.
>
> FALSE AGAIN. The Chinese characters for numbers were strictly for the
> Chinese language (yi/i, er/erh, san, si, wu, liu, qi/chi, ba, jiu,
> shi). The Koreans had their own indigenous numbering system but later
> used the Chinese because it was more logical and easier to use; to
> this day Korea like the Japanese have two systems of numbers: the
> native and the Sinitic. The Chinese have always just had THE ORIGINAL
> numbering system; characters from 1 to 10. 11 is made by a [10] and a
> [1] (shi-yi). the number 32 is made by [three][ten][two] (sanshi-er).
> the number 183 = yibai-bashi-san ([one][hundred][eight][ten][three].
> This concept was then adopted by the Japanese and Koreans as the
> 'Sinitic Numeral System.' This isn't some obscure knowledge, it is
> pretty common knowledge. A Korean language textbook even teaches two
> numbering systems (the native Korean which is polysyllabic and the
> Sinitic which is monosyllabic).
>
> The indigenous Korean numbers are the following:
> 1. Hana
> 2. Dul 20. Sumol
> 3. Set 30. Seron
> 4. Net 40. Mahon
> 5. Tasot
> 6. Yasot
> 7. Ilgop
> 8. Yodul
> 9. Ahop
> 10. Yul
> 11. Yulhana
>
> They are not monosyllabic. The monosyllabic you were referring to are
> the Chinese-derivative numbers: il (yi), ee (er/ni), sam (san), se
> (si), etc. (enclosed w/ parenthesis are the Chinese pronounciations,
> left open are the Korean).
>
>
> > 1. The original pictographs called 'gab-gol' (bone and shell) or 'bok-sa' in
> > Korean were certainly invented during the Yin dynasty (or Shang state, BC
> > 1600~BC 1046), although it is uncertain who was the inventor. There is no
> > dispute regarding this matter between Korean and Chinese historians. There
> > are ample recent evidences that the dominant people of the Yin dynasty was
> > Korean, which some Chinese historians also acknowledge.
>
> No, the Yin Dynasty at that time had a writing system that was already
> fairly advanced; it is commonly accepted that the Yin Dynasty had
> borrowed the writing script from its predecessor the Xia/Hsia Dynasty.
> The Yin Dynasty cannot be Korean since the concept of a Korean
> ethnicity or nation had not even existed at that time. I don't know
> what you are talking about. It is possible that the Yin Dynasty was
> populated by more Central Asian like (Tungusic) peoples, but to say
> they were Korean but not Turkish or Mongolian or proto-Chinese is
> ridiculous (What are the 'Koreans' then? God?). However, even that is
> a stretch considering the Yin Dynasty's territorial boundaries were
> confined between the Yellow and Yangtse Rivers (although I agree it is
> possible that expeditionary forces and settlements elsewhere existed,
> like in the Korean peninsula; but the bulk of the civilization was in
> Central China).
>
> Please don't post false Korean national-pride propaganda as
> scholarship. If you can find one Chinese character that has a two
> syllable pronouciation, may you be god. Until then quit imagining the
> Chinese pronouciation by its pinyin spelling. Bai = bae not ba'yee
> just like Shanghai is not Shang-Ha-Yee. Quit IMAGINING THINGS that
> aren't Korean to be Korean. You have many other things to be proud of
> as a nation and a culture, what is the purpose of this obsession in
> stating that the five thousands years of Chinese historical
> civilization is Korean origin (which has a written history of only two
> thousand yrs and the early ones being Chinese sources)?
>
> I'm pissed that you could so 'matter-of-factly' say Chinese language
> uses multiple syllables for each character (but not the Korean
> language and hence your reasoning that Chinese is Korean-derivative)
> when you are so damn wrong. That's like trying to play the piano
> starting on the wrong note without transcribing the key signature.
> Chinese numbers are Chinese, not Korean or Japanese; it may have
> originated in India or the Arab world (even that is unlikely), but
> definitely not from the far far East. The NATIVE Korean numbers
> (hana, dul, set, net...) are Altaic, and the Chinese/Sintic (yi,
> er/ni, san, si..) are not derivatives of your native Korean numbers.
>
>
>
>
> "Sukgeun Jung" <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<ak9kss$4l4$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu>...
> > I insist that the so-called Chinese character was probably invented and
> > developed by Korean, although the populous Chinese also have used it as
> > their basic writing systems. I believe the number of population of any
> > ethnic group should not be a factor that obscures the origin. I explain some
> > evidences.
> >
> > 1. The original pictographs called 'gab-gol' (bone and shell) or 'bok-sa' in
> > Korean were certainly invented during the Yin dynasty (or Shang state, BC
> > 1600~BC 1046), although it is uncertain who was the inventor. There is no
> > dispute regarding this matter between Korean and Chinese historians. There
> > are ample recent evidences that the dominant people of the Yin dynasty was
> > Korean, which some Chinese historians also acknowledge.
> >
> > 2. Among countries that adopted Chinese character, only Koreans use exactly
> > one syllable for one character. Chinese or Japanese used one or more
> > syllables for one character. A good example is the sounds denoting the
> > numbers. Only Koreans use just one syllable for one number. So, it is very
> > easy for Koreans to say any complex numbers quickly.
> >
> > For another example, the sound for 'white' in Chinese character in 'baek'
> > (one syllable) in Korean but 'bai' (two syllable) in Chinese. Regarding the
> > character denoting 'head', it is 'doo' in Korean but 'tou' in Chinese. On
> > the other hand, it is the same for the character denoting 'mountain' -
> > 'shan' in both Korean and Chinese.
> >
> > Why have Koreans used only one syllable for one character, but Chinese one
> > or more syllables? It certainly shows that Chinese pronunciation system is a
> > variant from Korean counterpart.
> >
> > 3. Some basic pictographs reflect Korean life-style and customs.
> >
> > For example, the character denoting 'house' (ga in Korean) contains a
> > character denoting a pig (hog) in the lower part. In the house, people live,
> > not a pig live. Why did they adopt a pig to denote a house? Only Koreans
> > raised pigs within their house.
> >
> > Another example is the character denoting 'sun'. The character contains a
> > dot within a rectangle. Why did they contain the dot, seemingly
> > unnecessarily? The dot denotes a golden crow. Only Koreans had the legend
> > linking the sun to the golden crow.
> >
> > Additional example is the character denoting 'surname' (ssi in Korean). In
> > Chinese, the character denotes only 'surname' while it denotes both
> > 'surname' and 'seed' in Korean. 'Ssi' is a most common word in Korean and
> > compares the pedigree with the tree (i.e., the seed is a common symbol for
> > the original ancestor whose trace has been handed down by his surname).
> >
> > 4. Korean history book describes the origin of written systems, which is
> > inscribed in dolmens in Korea.
> >
> > A Korean history book called Chun-bu-gyung records the origin of both
> > current Chinese character and Korean alphabet (hangul). Chinese character is
> > a kind of pictograph + ideograph, while hangul is the most advanced of
> > phonogram + ideogram in the world. Bone and shell inscriptions were a
> > pictograph, while hexagrams of I-ching invented by Fu Xi (Bokhwi in Korean)
> > are a kind of ideogram. The original character for both Chinese character
> > and hangul was 'Nok-doo-mun' (the most ancient writing system), according to
> > the Chun-bu-gyung. Currently, only Koreans still play a game called 'Yout',
> > which is believed to be very similar to the 'Nok-doo-mun'. The principles of
> > Yout game are essentially the same as I-Ching. Moreover, in Korea and
> > Manchuria, currently there are many ancient rocks (dolmen) in which various
> > kinds of primitive writings are inscribed (see some pictures at
> > http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~kbyon/culture/rokdo.htm)
> >
> > Based on these four facts, I strongly argue that the Chinese character was
> > originated and developed by Koreans. The differences in pronunciation system
> > for numbers between Chinese and Korean clearly indicates it's Korean origin.
> >
> > --- Footnote
> >
> > I add my message on Fu Xi and I-Ching. Fu Xi (or Bokhwi in Korean) is one of
> > the candidates for the inventor of Chinese characters.
> >
> > Han and 'I Ching'
> >
> > The hexagrams of the I Ching were said to have been created by the
> > legendary emperor 'Fu Xi' after he had contemplated on a diagram
> > called Ha Do that was bestowed from the Heaven. Han scholars rewrote
> > many myths as fact to fill gaps in early Chinese history. Fu Xi was
> > declared to have been the very first emperor, ruling from 2852 to 2737
> > BC. He was said to have been the inventor of musical instruments and
> > Chinese handwriting [1].
> >
> > Chinese legend says that Fu Xi is the most senior one among the three
> > ancestors. Together with N-Wa, the women who he married with, they
> > started the civilization of human being. The current Fu Xi's Temple in
> > Shandong was built on a 6-meter high terrace. In the main hall, Fu
> > Xi's state was placed and sacrifices are given. And in the back of the
> > hall, N-Wa's statue was placed [2].
> >
> > It is said that the upper body of Fu Xi is that of a human being while
> > his lower body is in the form of a snake. Inferring from the
> > scientific nature of the I Ching, it may just be possible that Fu Xi
> > was an extraterrestrial. If Fu Xi was indeed the first ancestor of
> > Chinese, then how could the descendents describe their first ancestor
> > as a monster? Why did ancient Chinese historians initially consider Fu
> > Xi as just a legend? Ancient Chinese call their neighboring people as
> > "bugs" or"barbarians". The monster portrait suggests that Fu Xi might
> > have been from a neighboring country, not Chinese countries. What was
> > that country?
> >
> > "Fu Xi came from the nationality called East Yi dwelling in the
> > Neolithic Age, along the coastal area of the present-day Shandong
> > Province and, therefore, Fu Xi turned out to have come from Shandong
> > Province" (quoted from a Chinese site [4])
> >
> > What was "East Yi"? Of course, "Yi" means "barbarians" in Chinese.
> > Most Koreans know what is "Dong (east) Yi". People in 'East Yi' are
> > known to have been very good at archery, as Korean Olympic archery
> > teams are today. The Chinese character "Yi" indeed symbolize the
> > shape of a big bow. Surprisingly. the recently discovered Korean
> > history text titled "Han Dan Go Gi" describes the life of "Fu Xi"
> > (Bokhwi in Korean) [3].
> >
> > It writes that he was the son of the 5-th emperor of the Baedal
> > (B.C.3898- BC 2333) and his surname was "Pung" as he lived in
> > "Pung-san". Although the surname "Pung" no longer exists in Korean
> > names, some related words survived to today such as "Pung-chae"
> > "Pung-gol" and"Pung-shin", all of which are terms for describing human
> > body shape. Another daughter name was "Yeo-wa" (N-Wa in Chinese) [3].
> >
> > It writes that she was known to have a magical talent to make a human
> > being from mud and to be extremely jealous (these two points, together
> > with the sound, might may remind you of Jehovah) [5].
> >
> > Unfortunately only a few Korean scholars in universities accept "Han
> > Dan Go Gi" as a history book, insisting that the book was fabricated
> > in some points. Some Koreans, while acknowledging that a few points
> > might have been fabricated while copying, decry the university
> > historians as too much contaminated by Japanese colonial view of
> > history that tried to disparage Korean history in the 1910-1945
> > period, as they deny whole text book. Anyway, East Yi was located in
> > Shandong Province...... What does this mean? I would rather stop here
> > for today. But the point is that it will not be awkward that I link "I
> > Ching" to Han.
> >
> > Some References on this footnote
> >
> > [1] Microsoft Encarta "Fu Xi"
> > [2] http://www.china-sd.net/eng/sdtravel/scenery/30.asp
> > [3]
> > http://www.sejongnamepia.pe.kr/name_before.html
> > http://www.shaman.co.kr/newspaper/09/mago.htm
> > http://www.jsd.or.kr/a/truth_sh/korhist/k_hist_05.htm
> > [4]
> > http://www.sbbs.com.cn/English/RE-EXPLORATION%20OF%20BIAN-HEALING%20STONE.ht
> > m).
> > [5] http://www.hankooki.com/culture/200205/h2002051415292516030.htm
> > [6] http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Zhou/springautumn.htm
> > "Later historians said it was intended to protect the original Chinese
> > states from the intruding barbarian tribes Man 蠻, Rong 戎
> > and Yi 夷"
> >
> > http://www.xsenergy.com/theme.html
> > "Yi is known by a variety of names: The East Barbarian, Yi the Good,
> > Lord Yi, and Yi Lord of the Hsia. As a result of this ambiguity, Yi is
> > seen both as a hero who is favored by the Gods as well as a villain,
> > murderer, usurper and adulterer. In this myth Yi is the hero as he
> > shoots the Ten Suns to avert disaster."
Antti Leppanen
> I may generously agree that every Chinese character is monosyllabic
> based on the broadest definition of a syllable. However, when Chinese
> wanted to convert the character into phonograms such as Roman
> alphabet, it was inevitable that one character may become two
> syllables.
Thanks for sharing your generosity.
> Let's see what some scholars say about the Pinyin Rules, which was
> invented to Romanize the chinese characters.
> http://www.whiteclouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl10mair.htm
> <quote>
(Quote deleted)
The quote is about most of the Chinese _words_ not being monosyllabic,
_not_ characters.
> I will not argue over whether it is monosyllabic or not, or over the
> definition of a syllable. Accurately speaking, each character is a
> morpheme. I am just saying that there are some scholars who do not
> think Chinese is monosyllabic in the strict sense. The same conclusion
> will be drawn when converting so-called Chinese monosyllables into
> Korean hangul.
Now you talk about Korean hangul. You should leave it out of the
discussion of _Chinese_ pronunciation of Chinese characters.
> Returning to the examples im my previous message, if Koreans had
> learned from Chinese, how could the sound 'bai' in Chinese have become
> 'baek' in Korean, a more complex syllable? Koreans can easily
> pronounce 'bai' and 'baek', but Chinese do not have any syllable for
> 'baek'.
Because the (northern) Chinese pronunciation has changed since Korea
borrowed the character and its pronunciation. But Cantonese has not
changed as much, and many Cantonese pronunciations resemble Korean.
And this applies to all of your examples.
Antti.
Wing C Ng
Sukgeun Jung <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>masa...@yahoo.com (leon yin) wrote in message news:<265898cc.02082...@posting.google.com>...
>> FALSE. Chinese is STRICTLY one syllable per character. The Chinese
>> word white 'bai' is only ONE syllable, it's pronouced like the korean
>
><quote>
>Starting at least half a dozen years ago, I lobbied hard with Karl
>Kahler and other East Asian library professionals NOT to adopt the
>infantile policy of separating all syllables. Why do it this way?
>What's the point? What's the advantage? After the work of great
>linguists such as George Kennedy, stretching back more than half a
>century, it is absolutely clear that Sinitic languages are NOT
>monosyllabic. Even Literary Sinitic (Classical Chinese), as I have
>shown in numerous lectures, articles, and reviews, is far from
>monosyllabic.
That is eurocentric bias. They say that dianhua (telephone)
is one word, therefore that one word has two syllables, blah
blah blah.
></quote>
>
>The problem is that same for Taiwan.
>http://romanization.com/tongyong/qanda.html
>
>I will not argue over whether it is monosyllabic or not, or over the
>definition of a syllable. Accurately speaking, each character is a
>morpheme. I am just saying that there are some scholars who do not
>think Chinese is monosyllabic in the strict sense. The same conclusion
>will be drawn when converting so-called Chinese monosyllables into
>Korean hangul.
>
>The point is that Chinese pronunciation systems for chinese characters
>are variants of the some unknown original one.
They descended from ancient Chinese pronunciation, which
was reconstructed close to a hundred years ago, by no means
unknown.
>
>A simple fact is there are two major dialects and other minors in
>China and the pronunciations can be different among them for the same
>character. Moreover, the dialects became more homonymic, and now the
>total number of the so-called monosyllables is just several hundreds.
>Which one is more original between Mandarin and Cantonese? On the
Cantonese is much closer than Tang dynasty Chinese than is
Mandarin.
>contrary, in Korea, there is no dialect or variant with respect to
>pronunciation of each character, although dialects exist (of course,
>Koreans understand most of them).
>
>Moreover, an ancient Chinese dictionary recording the way of
>pronunciation for 53,525 characters (Book name is Jeon-Jib in Korean,
>集韻 in Chinese character) are almost the same as modern
>Korean pronunciations of the characters.
>
>Let's have an example. How do chinese pronounce the first syllable of
>the character meaning 'school' (學)? In Korea, it sounds 'hag'.
>Chinese pronounce it as 'Shie'. The Jeon-Jib records in the item to
Only in Mandarin. Cantonese pronunciation is "hok".
>show how to pronounce as 'Hal Gag Jeol' (轄覺切).
>'Jeol' means it should be pronounced as this way. So, H (first
>consonant) + ag (vowel + consonant) = 'Hag'. Look at the old chinese
>dictionary (集韻) and check whether the pronunciation
>matches well with Chinese. Why did the Chinese old dictionary record a
>seemingly redunant item to most Chinese for characters? Is it
Your seeming mystery can be easily understood by realizing
that there was a different ancient Chinese pronunciation.
Cantonese is similar to the pronunciation during Tang dynasty.
A lot of Korean words were imported during Tang. Therefore
there is great similarity between Cantonese and Korean pronunciations
of the same Chinese characters, whereas there is little
resemblance between Mandarin and Korean pronunciations of
those same chars.
>coincidental that those items are entirely useful only for Koreans to
>understand the way of pronunciation?
>
>This kind of pronunciation writing system is well known in Korean
>history, such as 'I-doo' in Silla'.
>
>Other minor examples. Let's see how do you pronounce 'Buddha' in
>China? In Korea, it sounds as 'Bul-ta' while Chinese sound it as
>'Fotuo'. Koreans sound the chinese words for 'Sakga-Muni' as
>'Seokga-Moni' while Chinese as 'Shigia-Mouni'. Which one is closer to
>the original sounds?
The Cantonese pronunciation is Si Ka Mou Nei.
>
>Returning to the examples im my previous message, if Koreans had
>learned from Chinese, how could the sound 'bai' in Chinese have become
>'baek' in Korean, a more complex syllable? Koreans can easily
>pronounce 'bai' and 'baek', but Chinese do not have any syllable for
>'baek'.
You must be referring to bai as in "white". Again, the
Cantonese pronunciation is "bak".
>
>Maybe it was possible that Koreans coincidentally add 'K' to 'bai'.
>Let's see more examples, i.e., the numbers: 1 (il is Korean and yi in
>Mandarin, where did 'L' come from?), 3 (sam in Korean and san in
>Mandarin, and Koreans have both sam and san sounds, but Chinese only
>have san sound), 6 (yuk in Korean and liou in Mandarin, where did 'K'
>come from?), 7, 8, 10 (sib in Korean, shi in Chinese, where did 'B'
>come from?). It seems to be too obvious that the sounds such as 'L',
>'K' and 'B' were consistently and inevitabley missed while
>transferring to the people who did not have the related syllables, and
>not vice versa.
Again, these are easily explainable,
L is a sound change from t, 1 = yat (all examples are Cantonese),
3 = sam,
6 = luk,
10 = sap,
Wing
Kaminarikun
> ugly duckling wrote:
> > "Kaminarikun" <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > Whatever your point is, Doohwan, you are not making it clear enough...
> > > > The Kojiki is mainly a history of Paekche,
> > >
> > > With great stretch of imagination.
> > > The original Kojiki texts is here if anyone care to locate this
> > > mysterious Paekche.
> > > <http://kuzan.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp/kojiki1.txt>
> > > <http://kuzan.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp/kojiki2.txt>
> > > <http://kuzan.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp/kojiki3.txt>
After going over word per word I found 4 reference to Paekche,
far from a majority.
ypark
> Okay, but remember we Mongols once invaded you wimps.
Geez. You are now a mongol? What is your name? Ulan Baator? Now
that one you used last time(remember soc.cuture.iranian stuff?) and
was properly trashed by me. Come up with a better one.
By the way, non-paternal lineage does not count in East Asia. So
don't talk about your great great grandma being a mongol or that kind
of shit. I think your mongol ancestry is completely made up but I am
giving you the benefit of doubt.
Also PRC regularly rounds up mud kicking pork lard belly chinamen and
makes them into various ethnicities depending on their political
needs.(like the "manchus" in dandong who were originally han chinese.
They were assigned as manchus abruptly because PRC felt threatened by
the size of the Korean community there and their historical claim to
the land)
Puhahaha.
Not that I would be afraid to go against a real mongol. I hope
bgarid returns so that I can trash him. There is plenty of material
if one goes back far enough all the way to Koguryo period.
Y. Park
P.S. Between you and "ordosclan" who determined that he is a mongol
because some Mongols credited him with mongol looks, I wonder who is
more hilarious.
You little idiots should stop aspiring to be what you are not.
ypark
> > > The indigenous Korean numbers are the following:
> > > 1. Hana
> > > 2. Dul 20. Sumol
> > > 3. Set 30. Seron
> > > 4. Net 40. Mahon
> > > 5. Tasot
> > > 6. Yasot
> >
> > Hehe. Not that others are correct but just that this one is hilarious.
>
> Oh? How so are they not correct?
It is yeoseot. And I am being generous with the rest.
>Are you denying that each Chinese
> character is pronounced with one syllable?
hmm did I say anything about it?
> Your friend there seems to
> think that multiple syllables ...
Incoherent babbles snipped.
>
> BTW, no one ever claimed the Yin Dynasty to be ethnically the same as
> the Chinese today.
Thank you. But someone claimed as such. Too bad.
You are just ridiculous enough to boast that it
> was Korean
I never said so. You are making things up. I only hinted of their
connection to the peoples of the north rather than to the chinese.
>based on mythologies written in the last century. However,
> even if the Yin Dynasty were not ethnically Chinese,
They weren't. Uncertainty lies in their precise ethnic affilation
and chinese is not one of the candidates.
>..they are in
> respect to the continuation of the Chinese civilization, Chinese.
doesn't matter. They(the ruling class) were not jjankke. That is
all that matters.
>
> Stop this BS Korean propaganda. We are all sick of it.
Now then think of the rest of East Asia who had to endure 2000 years
of chinese BS propaganda.
Y. Park
ugly duckling
> ugly duckling wrote:
> > To summarize your distortions:
> >
> > 1. Kojiki does not mention anything about Imna being in the Korean
> > penninsula.
> Yet no one said it's in Kojiki.
Every wondered why such important matter is recorded in Nihonshoki
and not Kojiki?
> > 2. Samguksagi does not mention anything about Japan conquering
> > Shilla castles.
> Look again.
*You* are the one who came up with such ridiculous claim.
Please, back up your own claim.
> > 3. Shilla, Chin-Han, and Mok-Han(Ma-Han) are not contemporaries.
> That was in regard to Wa's King being awarded titles to Silla, Mokhan
> among others. Award in itself is true.
Chin-Han and Ma-Han are not kingdom names or country names.
Neither Chin-Han nor Mok-Han was in no way political entity, they
were *mere tribes.* Shilla, OTOH, was a full-scale kingdom.
Besides, Chin-Han, Mok-Han, and Byu-Han only existed up to about 100.A.D.
Shilla unified them all eventually and peacefully, because they were of same
stock.
By the time Wa's king was installed in Japan, there was no way he could have
known the three Hans.
One possible alternative could be that it is an alternative story of the
original 6 tribes of Shilla. Shilla initially consisted of 6 tribes, Lee,
Jung,
Choi(a.k.a. lastname So), Sohn, Seol, and Bae. And Hyok'se Park, the
founder of
Shilla, was "awarded" the title King over them.
Apparently, this story got really famous so the Kim clan (from Huns)
developed
their own versionof the story later saying, a Kim had six sons... and they
shared
his father's inheritance.
And It is amazing that a story of striking similarity existed in Japan's
ancient
manuscripts. Something must be going on here.
> > 4. Chin-Han turned into Shilla. There is no way Chin-Han and Shilla
> > coexisted.
> Yet, it coexisted in a title to Wa's King. Which is a fact.
No one can claim they are facts. They are manuscripts.
East Asian manuscripts, as you probably know, has alot of problems.
I am not saying that only Japanese manuscripts has problems. I doubt
manuscripts from all three countries, China, Japan, and Korea, that they
have problematic records in them. Based on their claims and archaeological
evidences, we can come up with the real history of East Asia.
ugly duckling
t-d
> 3.
> The last one is a Korean cult religion. They swallow a book "Hwan Dan
> Go Gi".
> http://www.jsd.or.kr/a/truth_gz/truth_gz_hi_new/hi_history9000_1.htm
> http://www.jsd.or.kr/a/truth_gz/truth_gz_hi_new/hi_history9000_2.htm ... _16.html
> Hwanguk [桓國] was the first empire in the world, established by
> Koreans a hundred years ago,
<--- nine thousand years ago
> centered on the Lake Baikal. Sumerians
> and Native Americans were moved from Hwanguk. Chiyou [蚩尤] was a
> Korean, Hwanung [桓雄] and made war against Huangdi [黃帝]. At that
> time China was ruled by Koreans and Yin-Yang-Wu-Xing [陰陽五行] was
> made by Koreans...
t-d
> masa...@yahoo.com (leon yin) wrote in message news:<265898cc.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > FALSE. Chinese is STRICTLY one syllable per character. The Chinese
> > word white 'bai' is only ONE syllable, it's pronouced like the korean
> > 'bae' NOT pronounced 'ba-yee'. The Chinese word for head, 'tou' is
> > also only ONE syllable pronounced like the english word 'tow' (as in
> > tow-truck); not 'to-ooh' as you had so stupidly IMAGINED.
>
> I may generously agree that every Chinese character is monosyllabic
> based on the broadest definition of a syllable. However, when Chinese
> wanted to convert the character into phonograms such as Roman
> alphabet, it was inevitable that one character may become two
> syllables.
[snip]
> I will not argue over whether it is monosyllabic or not, or over the
> definition of a syllable. Accurately speaking, each character is a
> morpheme. I am just saying that there are some scholars who do not
> think Chinese is monosyllabic in the strict sense. The same conclusion
> will be drawn when converting so-called Chinese monosyllables into
> Korean hangul.
Then your 2nd "evidence" was defied.
Sukgeun Jung
> Losers argue over things that happened over thousands of years ago
> that they had absolutely given no help in creating rather just
> inherited.
>
> Winners creates something new that wins the admiration of people
> today.
>
I do not disagree completly on your point. I think it is closer to the
truth.
Some Chinese say that it is a fact that Koreans copied from Chinese,
but it is nationalistic belief that Chinese copied anything from
Koreans. Based on European criteria, they also claim that Chinese
existed during the bronze period, but Koreans could not exist for the
same period.
Unless stupid Chinese nationalists provoke Koreans, I would not argue
over ancient history.
I simply began this thread because the following gentleman provoked
some Koreans, under the thread "Re: Vietnamese is a little Chink!". I
can be very generous if Vietnamese did, but not if Chinese did, as
they always claim.
masa...@yahoo.com (leon yin) wrote in message news:<265898cc.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> However, the Koreans have a native set of numbers as well. The il, ee,
> sam, sa was borrowed from the Chinese (possibly from the Cantonese
> variant of Chinese). The native Korean set begins with 'hana, dul,
> set, net', etc. Regardless the debate of whether the Korean numbers
> il, ee, sam were natively Korean or Chinese is not debatable: it is
> CHINESE. If you pick up any Korean language textbook, it will teach
> you two sets of Korean numbers: one native and the other (more
> commonly used because of its simplicity when using larger numbers)
> Chinese or Sinitic Number System. The same holds for the Japanese
> ichi, ni, san (also of Chinese origin, the Japanese originally had its
> own numbers as well but later borrowed the Chinese for its logical
> simplicity).
leon yin
> based on the broadest definition of a syllable. However, when Chinese
> wanted to convert the character into phonograms such as Roman
> alphabet, it was inevitable that one character may become two
> syllables.
> Let's see what some scholars say about the Pinyin Rules, which was
> invented to Romanize the chinese characters.
>
> Starting at least half a dozen years ago, I lobbied hard with Karl
> Kahler and other East Asian library professionals NOT to adopt the
> infantile policy of separating all syllables. Why do it this way?
> What's the point? What's the advantage? After the work of great
> linguists such as George Kennedy, stretching back more than half a
> century, it is absolutely clear that Sinitic languages are NOT
> monosyllabic. Even Literary Sinitic (Classical Chinese), as I have
> shown in numerous lectures, articles, and reviews, is far from
> monosyllabic.
> </quote>
Hehe, the above quote has a different use of 'monosyllabism' as you
had used it. It isn't related to our discussion. Each character in
Chinese is strictly pronounced with only one syllable. This is not
debatable. The above quote is not talking about what you are claming.
Each Chinese CHARACTER IS monosyllabic, however Chinese words ARE NOT
NECESSARILY MONOSYLLABIC. The above quote is bringing up the fact
that since the Chinese LANGUAGE (not character) is NOT monosyllabic,
it makes no sense to Romanize words separately. Let's use the example
of 'baichi' (the Chinese word for idiot or retard). In Chinese this
is written with TWO CHINESE CHARACTERS (bai = white/void; chi = fool).
What the author of the quote is arguing for is to Romanize the word
idiot/retard as 'Baichi' (one WORD) and not 'Bai Chi' (two WORDS).
However each character has only ONE syllable.
Does that make sense now? Chinese word for television is dienshi (it's
polysyllabic), however it's written with TWO CHARACTERS with EACH
character giving only ONE syllable of pronounciation (dien = electric;
shi = vision).
Korean however only standardized one syllable to one character during
King Sejong's time. Chinese has always had one syllable per character
even though it's language today is not monosyllabic; so we just use
combinations of characters. Most Chinese words today are two or three
syllables long (so hence, two or three characters long).
> Returning to the examples im my previous message, if Koreans had
> learned from Chinese, how could the sound 'bai' in Chinese have become
> 'baek' in Korean, a more complex syllable? Koreans can easily
> pronounce 'bai' and 'baek', but Chinese do not have any syllable for
> 'baek'.
> Maybe it was possible that Koreans coincidentally add 'K' to 'bai'.
> Let's see more examples, i.e., the numbers: 1 (il is Korean and yi in
> Mandarin, where did 'L' come from?), 3 (sam in Korean and san in
> Mandarin, and Koreans have both sam and san sounds, but Chinese only
> have san sound), 6 (yuk in Korean and liou in Mandarin, where did 'K'
> come from?), 7, 8, 10 (sib in Korean, shi in Chinese, where did 'B'
> come from?). It seems to be too obvious that the sounds such as 'L',
> 'K' and 'B' were consistently and inevitabley missed while
> transferring to the people who did not have the related syllables, and
> not vice versa.
You are forgetting that Mandarin is a relatively NEW Chinese dialect
(Qing/Manchu Dynasty) and that it was originally artificially created
in a room. Hence you should not compare Korean pronounciations with
Mandarin as the Koreans borrowed from the Chinese language much
earlier than four hundred years ago. If you compare Korean with
Cantonese (a much older Chinese dialect) you will know your examples
above are moot. Cantonese for hundred is bak, for 3 is sam, 6 is luk,
8 is bal or bak, 10 is shep. See the similiarities? Ancient Chinese
poetry does not rhyme in Mandarin but does with very good consistency
in Cantonese and almost any other Southern Chinese dialect. Almost
all Chinese dialects except Mandarin and the urban Shanghainese have
very complicated final consonant endings (k, g, l, m, t, r); Mandarin
has only -n, -ng, -r; Shanghainese has only -n (all others are halted
immediately and are silent).
Mandarin for school/learn is xue (hsueh) which takes Mongolian and
Manchurian influence; Cantonese is hok or ngok (hence gaku in
Japanese); Shanghainese is ha or nasal ga (halted just before the k is
pronounced). So now your Korean pronounciation being hag/hak isn't so
surprising I hope.
TK Sung
verified historic/archeological facts instead touting un-crosschecked
sources as facts. 4th-5th century is kofun/yamato in japan where yamato
court had extra ordinary relationship with baekje. Anything that leaves out
baekje is a fiction. So is mimana myth.
TK Sung
>
> All is in Paekche section of Nihon Shoki. It's also
> written on Koguryo's King Kwanggaet'o's monument as well.
> Beginning in 391, Japan started continental adventure
> after establishing military bases in Kaya, and controlled
> southern Korea (both Paekche and Silla) until 475 when
> Koguryo defeated Paekche. Paekche remained allied to
> Japan afterwards, but with the fall of Kaya by Silla
> in 562, Japan not only lost foothold in Korea but also
> its important allie Paekche lost much of influence on
> the peninsula.
>
This time you are passing the nihon shoki fiction as historical facts. Also
read more about the disputed King Guanggaeto's stelle. Again, stick to
verified historical/archeological facts, and you'd make more progress in any
debates.
Sukgeun Jung
> The quote is about most of the Chinese _words_ not being monosyllabic,
> _not_ characters.
Is there any language in the world that most _words_ are monosyllabic?
Scholars as well as common people do not emphasize too obvious facts.
> Because the (northern) Chinese pronunciation has changed since Korea
> borrowed the character and its pronunciation. But Cantonese has not
> changed as much, and many Cantonese pronunciations resemble Korean.
> And this applies to all of your examples.
>
> Antti.
I know there are a lot of dialects in China. Don't avoid the point by
showing diverse variants. Please just pick up one dialect that you
think is closest to the original one with respect to Shang or Zhou
dynasty, whatever you want. I know language or dialect of a group can
interact each other. However, you can say which one is closet to the
original form. Please let me know which one is. Is it Cantonese or
Mandarin, or anything else?
Sukgeun Jung
As you want to argue over whether Chinese use only one syllable for
each character, I again show examples to refute your argument.
In Mandarin, 6 and 9 are romanized as the following:
6 - Liou
9 - Jiou
Based on general definitions of a syllable, a syllable should have
just one vowel. Do you think 'iou' is just one vowel? Considering
diphtongs, I can agree that 'ou' is one vowel.
In Cantonese, 6 is clearly a syllable.
6 - Luk
Comparing Liou and Luk, the constant 'k' sound became a vowel, as
Mandarin can not pronounce 'k'. So, Lu + (a vowel changed from k) = L
+ (vowel u) + (vowel).
How many vowels do you think are now in 'Liou'? You may claim that
'iou' is still a vowel. To me, it is two vowels. If you disagree that
it is two vowels, I think you should deny the link between Mandarin
and Cantonese.
Sukgeun Jung
original chinese pronuncation system than Mandalin.
As you said, chinese became more homonymic from ancient to the present
time. So, we can assume the the pronunciation system having richer
syllables is closer to the original one.
Confining to only Chinese characters, Korean has the richest syllables
than any other language.
Now, it is too obvious that the temporal sequence should be as the
following:
(original) --> Korean --> Cantonese --> Mandalin
What is your single evidence that Korean Hanja (chinese character) is
Chinese??
Even you agreed that Korean was an element during the Shang Dynasty?
Do you have any evidence supporting that Han people were dominant in
the Shang Dynasty?
I showed that predecessor of bone-and-shell inscriptions of the Shang
dynasty was found east in Shandung province, where (archaic) Koreans
might have dominated.
For minor point.
masa...@yahoo.com (leon yin) wrote in message news:<265898cc.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> Korean however only standardized one syllable to one character during
> King Sejong's time. Chinese has always had one syllable per character
> even though it's language today is not monosyllabic; so we just use
> combinations of characters. Most Chinese words today are two or three
> syllables long (so hence, two or three characters long).
I think you are claiming that Korean could have more than two
syllables for one character. Can you show any evidence?
I think it is entirely nonsense, as each Chinese character was
sometimes used as a vowel or a consonant in Hyang-chal or Ido before
the invention of hangul. As I have shown, C + VC was used in Jeon-Jip.
I say again, "Each chinese character was used for a consonant-vowel
unit, not two syllables, before the invention of Hangul in Korea". Of
course, a syllable was used for each character at the same time.
Kaminarikun
> "Kaminarikun" <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D6B5B46...@yahoo.com...
> > ugly duckling wrote:
> > > To summarize your distortions:
> > >
> > > 1. Kojiki does not mention anything about Imna being in the Korean
> > > penninsula.
> >
> > Yet no one said it's in Kojiki.
>
> Every wondered why such important matter is recorded in Nihonshoki
> and not Kojiki?
Did someone explained why? Kojiki basically deals with gods and maybe
they ran out of stories to tell.
> > > 2. Samguksagi does not mention anything about Japan conquering
> > > Shilla castles.
> >
> > Look again.
>
> *You* are the one who came up with such ridiculous claim.
> Please, back up your own claim.
I did quote it in Japanese. With english translation. Sanguksaki details
over 32 attacks by the WAs spanning hundreds of years. (Saeki's "Sangoku
Shiki, Yamato
Jin Den," Publisher: Iwanami Bunko). A few successful out comes doesn't
seem odd even if
Koreans were writing a fiction.
> > > 3. Shilla, Chin-Han, and Mok-Han(Ma-Han) are not contemporaries.
> >
> > That was in regard to Wa's King being awarded titles to Silla, Mokhan
> > among others. Award in itself is true.
>
> Chin-Han and Ma-Han are not kingdom names or country names.
> Neither Chin-Han nor Mok-Han was in no way political entity, they
> were *mere tribes.* Shilla, OTOH, was a full-scale kingdom.
>
> Besides, Chin-Han, Mok-Han, and Byu-Han only existed up to about 100.A.D.
> Shilla unified them all eventually and peacefully, because they were of same
> stock. By the time Wa's king was installed in Japan, there was no way he could have
> known the three Hans.
It's all over in Chinese records. A quick glimpse of such books
should've told the tales of the past.
> One possible alternative could be that it is an alternative story of the
> original 6 tribes of Shilla. Shilla initially consisted of 6 tribes, Lee,
> Jung, Choi(a.k.a. lastname So), Sohn, Seol, and Bae. And Hyok'se Park, the
> founder of Shilla, was "awarded" the title King over them.
In their petition it clearly said King of Wa. Also in one of their
expedition to China they took with them native Ainus.
> Apparently, this story got really famous so the Kim clan (from Huns)
> developed their own versionof the story later saying, a Kim had six sons... and they
> shared his father's inheritance.
> And It is amazing that a story of striking similarity existed in Japan's
> ancient manuscripts. Something must be going on here.
If Silla were masquerading as Wa kings that would be another big news.
But that's a theory for now, a really bad one.
> > > 4. Chin-Han turned into Shilla. There is no way Chin-Han and Shilla
> > > coexisted.
> >
> > Yet, it coexisted in a title to Wa's King. Which is a fact.
>
> No one can claim they are facts. They are manuscripts.
No one has claimed it's not.
> East Asian manuscripts, as you probably know, has alot of problems.
> I am not saying that only Japanese manuscripts has problems. I doubt
> manuscripts from all three countries, China, Japan, and Korea, that they
> have problematic records in them. Based on their claims and archaeological
> evidences, we can come up with the real history of East Asia.
Not sure which one, but I have yet to hear any of
China's dynastic chronicles were forgeries.
Kaminarikun
> You can select parts of ancient texts to distort anything.
Try it if you can.
> Stick to the verified historic/archeological facts instead touting un-crosschecked
> sources as facts. 4th-5th century is kofun/yamato in japan where yamato
> court had extra ordinary relationship with baekje. Anything that leaves out
> baekje is a fiction. So is mimana myth.
Going only by archaeology would miss the the whole story. Like a diary
of President Truman might be more important as a history than what car
he
drove or what house he lived.
Sukgeun Jung
> Although you might be short on answers. Not Dangun. The book that
> place Koreans back to Sumeria(Middle east) or something of that sort.
Contrary to your impression, most of Handangogi is very accurate. One
physicist in a unversity of Korea compared the dates of solar eclipse
recorded in the book with what he calcuated based on planet rotations.
The result was that the dates were surprisingly accurate within
statistical error.
Most ancient history books have myths. For example, Shiji by Sima
Qian, which most scholars on east asian history cherish, described
'Chiwoo' (an Korean emperor recorded in Handangogi) as the following:
"He had 81 brothers. They were with beast body, spoke in human
language, had bronze head and iron forehead, and ate sands everyday."
Do you think this is possible literally? It is a myth, but most
scholars consider the book as a standard history text. Shiji implies
that Chiwoo was from a tribe that used bronze to make weapons.
Usually, responses to Koreans described in chinese history books are
bipolar (disparaging while being scared). The description on Chiwoo is
a typical one.
>
> Off hand no. I could look if that's so important to you.
>
I think you need some pictures to dispute my point, although I can not
guarantee whether you can find any.
ugly duckling
> > Every wondered why such important matter is recorded in Nihonshoki
> > and not Kojiki?
> Did someone explained why? Kojiki basically deals with gods and maybe
> they ran out of stories to tell.
Then, what were those 4 mentionings of Paekje for? Care to explain?
> > > > 2. Samguksagi does not mention anything about Japan conquering
> > > > Shilla castles.
> > > Look again.
> > *You* are the one who came up with such ridiculous claim.
> > Please, back up your own claim.
> I did quote it in Japanese. With english translation. Sanguksaki details
> over 32 attacks by the WAs spanning hundreds of years. (Saeki's "Sangoku
> Shiki, Yamato
> Jin Den," Publisher: Iwanami Bunko). A few successful out comes doesn't
> seem odd even if
> Koreans were writing a fiction.
My argument did not start from there, Ignoramus. You said you read
SamGukSaGi
and you said you read what you wrote. Apparently, you are lying. Or the
book you
have read are lying. I was arguing from your own claim. Stay on the
course.
> > > > 3. Shilla, Chin-Han, and Mok-Han(Ma-Han) are not contemporaries
> > > That was in regard to Wa's King being awarded titles to Silla, Mokhan
> > > among others. Award in itself is true.
> > Chin-Han and Ma-Han are not kingdom names or country names.
> > Neither Chin-Han nor Mok-Han was in no way political entity, they
> > were *mere tribes.* Shilla, OTOH, was a full-scale kingdom.
> > Besides, Chin-Han, Mok-Han, and Byu-Han only existed up to about
100.A.D.
> > Shilla unified them all eventually and peacefully, because they were of
same
> > stock. By the time Wa's king was installed in Japan, there was no way he
could have
> > known the three Hans.
>
> It's all over in Chinese records. A quick glimpse of such books
> should've told the tales of the past.
Damnit, it's all over where?!?!?!?!???
Cite the source! Which page? What volume?
> > One possible alternative could be that it is an alternative story of the
> > original 6 tribes of Shilla. Shilla initially consisted of 6 tribes,
Lee,
> > Jung, Choi(a.k.a. lastname So), Sohn, Seol, and Bae. And Hyok'se Park,
the
> > founder of Shilla, was "awarded" the title King over them.
> In their petition it clearly said King of Wa. Also in one of their
> expedition to China they took with them native Ainus.
> > Apparently, this story got really famous so the Kim clan (from Huns)
> > developed their own versionof the story later saying, a Kim had six
sons... and they
> > shared his father's inheritance.
> > And It is amazing that a story of striking similarity existed in Japan's
> > ancient manuscripts. Something must be going on here.
>
> If Silla were masquerading as Wa kings that would be another big news.
> But that's a theory for now, a really bad one.
I never said Shilla was masquarading as Wa kings. No manuscript of
Ancient Korea says anything like that. Nevertheless, it does say there
were alot of exchanges of culture and trade going on between the Paekje
and Wa.
> > > > 4. Chin-Han turned into Shilla. There is no way Chin-Han and
Shilla
> > > > coexisted.
> > > Yet, it coexisted in a title to Wa's King. Which is a fact.
> > No one can claim they are facts. They are manuscripts.
> No one has claimed it's not.
Of course there are some, Ignoramus. Japanese scholars themselves are
doubting the credibility of such manuscripts.
> > East Asian manuscripts, as you probably know, has alot of problems.
> > I am not saying that only Japanese manuscripts has problems. I doubt
> > manuscripts from all three countries, China, Japan, and Korea, that they
> > have problematic records in them. Based on their claims and
archaeological
> > evidences, we can come up with the real history of East Asia.
>
> Not sure which one, but I have yet to hear any of
> China's dynastic chronicles were forgeries.
What about the Japanese one?
ugly duckling
ugly duckling
> > You can select parts of ancient texts to distort anything.
> Try it if you can.
You didn't.
You only made up stories like Wa's King got title
from Ma-Han and Chin-Han, which are pre-Shilla entity.
> > Stick to the verified historic/archeological facts instead touting
un-crosschecked
> > sources as facts. 4th-5th century is kofun/yamato in japan where yamato
> > court had extra ordinary relationship with baekje. Anything that leaves
out
> > baekje is a fiction. So is mimana myth.
>
> Going only by archaeology would miss the the whole story.
Moron.
He did say, "Stick to the verified historical/archaelogical facts..."
>Like a diary
> of President Truman might be more important as a history than what car
> he drove or what house he lived.
Not if he is a fiction writer like you.
ugy duckling
t-d
> I assume that you confirmed me that Cantonese is closer to the
> original chinese pronuncation system than Mandalin.
>
> As you said, chinese became more homonymic from ancient to the present
> time. So, we can assume the the pronunciation system having richer
> syllables is closer to the original one.
>
> Confining to only Chinese characters, Korean has the richest syllables
> than any other language.
Don't you know tone? While Mandarin has 4 tones and Cantonese has 6
tones, Seoul dialect of Korean has almost completely lost them. Maybe
the length distinction is their trail. Judging from diacritics for the
tonal specification which Hangul had, the Middle Korean language had 3
tones or pitch accents. The tonal system of the Old Korean language is
unknown.
Kaminarikun
> Kaminarikun <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3D6B5AEE...@yahoo.com>...
> > Although you might be short on answers. Not Dangun. The book that
> > place Koreans back to Sumeria(Middle east) or something of that sort.
>
> Contrary to your impression, most of Handangogi is very accurate. One
> physicist in a unversity of Korea compared the dates of solar eclipse
> recorded in the book with what he calcuated based on planet rotations.
> The result was that the dates were surprisingly accurate within
> statistical error.
If the book was writen around 1911 I'm sure
it's data on solar eclipse might be accurate.
But to expand that to say the whole is accurate is another
matter.
> Most ancient history books have myths. For example, Shiji by Sima
> Qian, which most scholars on east asian history cherish, described
> 'Chiwoo' (an Korean emperor recorded in Handangogi) as the following:
>
> "He had 81 brothers. They were with beast body, spoke in human
> language, had bronze head and iron forehead, and ate sands everyday."
>
> Do you think this is possible literally? It is a myth, but most
> scholars consider the book as a standard history text. Shiji implies
> that Chiwoo was from a tribe that used bronze to make weapons.
> Usually, responses to Koreans described in chinese history books are
> bipolar (disparaging while being scared). The description on Chiwoo is
> a typical one.
I'm sure you are trying to elevate your Dangun but it's
not something that real historians would use for their historical
material
I don't belive.
> > Off hand no. I could look if that's so important to you.
>
> I think you need some pictures to dispute my point, although I can not
> guarantee whether you can find any.
What for? You did a good job of disputing yourself
by relying on that book.
Kaminarikun
> "Kaminarikun" <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
> > > Every wondered why such important matter is recorded in Nihonshoki
> > > and not Kojiki?
> > Did someone explained why? Kojiki basically deals with gods and maybe
> > they ran out of stories to tell.
>
> Then, what were those 4 mentionings of Paekje for? Care to explain?
Sure.
1. Reference to envoy from Paekche.
2. Reference to Paekche lake.
3. Reference to King of Paekche.
4. Reference to Wa king requesting a scholar from Paekche.
> > > > > 2. Samguksagi does not mention anything about Japan conquering
> > > > > Shilla castles.
> > > > Look again.
> > > *You* are the one who came up with such ridiculous claim.
> > > Please, back up your own claim.
> >
> > I did quote it in Japanese. With english translation. Sanguksaki details
> > over 32 attacks by the WAs spanning hundreds of years. (Saeki's "Sangoku
> > Shiki, Yamato
> > Jin Den," Publisher: Iwanami Bunko). A few successful out comes doesn't
> > seem odd even if
> > Koreans were writing a fiction.
>
> My argument did not start from there, Ignoramus. You said you read
> SamGukSaGi and you said you read what you wrote. Apparently, you are
> lying. Or the book you have read are lying. I was arguing from your own
> claim. Stay on the course.
Where did I say I read it? What I said was "in it."
It's quoted as a summery in an article that I have.
Look under the Silla section of Samguksaki around the date that I gave
earlier.
> > > > > 3. Shilla, Chin-Han, and Mok-Han(Ma-Han) are not contemporaries
> > > > That was in regard to Wa's King being awarded titles to Silla, Mokhan
> > > > among others. Award in itself is true.
> > > Chin-Han and Ma-Han are not kingdom names or country names.
> > > Neither Chin-Han nor Mok-Han was in no way political entity, they
> > > were *mere tribes.* Shilla, OTOH, was a full-scale kingdom.
> > > Besides, Chin-Han, Mok-Han, and Byu-Han only existed up to about
> 100.A.D.
> > > Shilla unified them all eventually and peacefully, because they were of
> same
> > > stock. By the time Wa's king was installed in Japan, there was no way he
> > could have known the three Hans.
> >
> > It's all over in Chinese records. A quick glimpse of such books
> > should've told the tales of the past.
>
> Damnit, it's all over where?!?!?!?!???
> Cite the source! Which page? What volume?
Here. In original Chinese text(not Japanese). If you can read it.
China's Later Han chronicle(Mahan listed but no Paekche):
<http://www.ceres.dti.ne.jp/~alex-x/kanseki/gokan-teiki.html>
China's Wei Zhi chronicle(Mahan, Chinhan, Pyonhan, are still listed):
<http://www.ceres.dti.ne.jp/~alex-x/kanseki/gi-toui.html>
China's Jin chronicle(Mahan, Chinhan, Pyonhan, listed):
<http://www.ceres.dti.ne.jp/~alex-x/kanseki/sin-toui.html>
China's Sung chronicle(Finally, Paekche is listed but Silla is not
officially recognized. It apprears as one of items in Wa king's petition
list
as a request to rule, which included Silla.)
<http://www.ceres.dti.ne.jp/~alex-x/kanseki/sou-iban.html>
There you have it. More if necessary.
> > > One possible alternative could be that it is an alternative story of the
> > > original 6 tribes of Shilla. Shilla initially consisted of 6 tribes,
> Lee,
> > > Jung, Choi(a.k.a. lastname So), Sohn, Seol, and Bae. And Hyok'se Park,
> the
> > > founder of Shilla, was "awarded" the title King over them.
> > In their petition it clearly said King of Wa. Also in one of their
> > expedition to China they took with them native Ainus.
> > > Apparently, this story got really famous so the Kim clan (from Huns)
> > > developed their own versionof the story later saying, a Kim had six
> sons... and they
> > > shared his father's inheritance.
> > > And It is amazing that a story of striking similarity existed in Japan's
> > > ancient manuscripts. Something must be going on here.
> >
> > If Silla were masquerading as Wa kings that would be another big news.
> > But that's a theory for now, a really bad one.
>
> I never said Shilla was masquarading as Wa kings. No manuscript of
> Ancient Korea says anything like that. Nevertheless, it does say there
> were alot of exchanges of culture and trade going on between the Paekje
> and Wa.
Like this?
China's "Sui Shu" Chronicle. A.D. 630
"Both Silla and Packche consider Wa to be a great country, replete
with precious things, and they pay her homage. Envoys go back
and forth from time to time. "
> > > > > 4. Chin-Han turned into Shilla. There is no way Chin-Han and
> Shilla
> > > > > coexisted.
> > > > Yet, it coexisted in a title to Wa's King. Which is a fact.
> > > No one can claim they are facts. They are manuscripts.
>
> > No one has claimed it's not.
>
> Of course there are some, Ignoramus. Japanese scholars themselves are
> doubting the credibility of such manuscripts.
Doubting? Hardly proves anything, who ever this Japanese scholar may be.
> > > East Asian manuscripts, as you probably know, has alot of problems.
> > > I am not saying that only Japanese manuscripts has problems. I doubt
> > > manuscripts from all three countries, China, Japan, and Korea, that they
> > > have problematic records in them. Based on their claims and
> archaeological
> > > evidences, we can come up with the real history of East Asia.
> >
> > Not sure which one, but I have yet to hear any of
> > China's dynastic chronicles were forgeries.
>
> What about the Japanese one?
Like Nihonshoki? Some of the eariler emperors are questioble.
But not generally from around Nintoku and Oujin period.
Kaminarikun
> "Kaminarikun" <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > TK Sung wrote:
> > > You can select parts of ancient texts to distort anything.
> >
> > Try it if you can.
>
> You didn't.
> You only made up stories like Wa's King got title
> from Ma-Han and Chin-Han, which are pre-Shilla entity.
No more made up than your police record if you have one.
Wa's king's petion and its award was noted in Sung's chronicle.
See for yourself, all in Chinese.
<http://www.ceres.dti.ne.jp/~alex-x/kanseki/sou-iban.html>
> > > Stick to the verified historic/archeological facts instead touting
> un-crosschecked
> > > sources as facts. 4th-5th century is kofun/yamato in japan where yamato
> > > court had extra ordinary relationship with baekje. Anything that leaves
> out
> > > baekje is a fiction. So is mimana myth.
> >
> > Going only by archaeology would miss the the whole story.
>
> Moron.
> He did say, "Stick to the verified historical/archaelogical facts..."
And what are you? You hardly varify anything.
> >Like a diary
> > of President Truman might be more important as a history than what car
> > he drove or what house he lived.
>
> Not if he is a fiction writer like you.
I thought fiction was coming from your end? Dangun and all that jazz.
Sukgeun Jung
>
> If the book was writen around 1911 I'm sure
> it's data on solar eclipse might be accurate.
> But to expand that to say the whole is accurate is another
> matter.
No. The book was copied in 1911. Are you going to say that Nihon Shogi
was written in 2002, if it is printed now?
> > > Off hand no. I could look if that's so important to you.
> >
> > I think you need some pictures to dispute my point, although I can not
> > guarantee whether you can find any.
>
> What for? You did a good job of disputing yourself
> by relying on that book.
No. I detailed my argument based on relic such as mural painting of
Koguryo, as I knew you would not completely accept the handangogi. My
focuse is not books. Among historians, mural painting is more
important than text. Archaeologist do not rely on Bible, but used it
as a kind of reference.
Sukgeun Jung
> Don't you know tone? While Mandarin has 4 tones and Cantonese has 6
> tones, Seoul dialect of Korean has almost completely lost them.
What are you going to say by bringing up tones? I am talking about
syllables, as your guys wanted to do it. Spoken Korean is completely
different from Chinese. Korean has probably the richest syllables
among the world language, and does not need so complex tones to
distinguish homonym syllables. Only one problem of Korean hangul,
compared with international phonetic symbols, is that hangul do not
have a symbol to distinguish between short and long vowels.
Unlike your claiming, the following cite says about tones in Chinese
as the following:
Cantonese has 9 tones compared to 5 tones in Mandarin. 8 of these are
distinct tones and 1 is the mid-tone.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/GenX_jt_mtjr/GenXCantonese.html
TK Sung
>
> Going only by archaeology would miss the the whole story.
>
in Japan.
> Like a diary
>
You are calling Nihon-shoki mythology a diary? Good luck.
leon yin
> each character, I again show examples to refute your argument.
>
> In Mandarin, 6 and 9 are romanized as the following:
>
> 6 - Liou
> 9 - Jiou
> Based on general definitions of a syllable, a syllable should have
> just one vowel. Do you think 'iou' is just one vowel? Considering
> diphtongs, I can agree that 'ou' is one vowel.
In Mandarin, 6 is liu (it has the forth tone; down/accentégrave '\').
'iu' is one syllable; it is pronounced somewhat like English 'you'.
Add an 'L' before iu and you get a sound close to lyou or lyu, NOT
li-ou. The pinyin 'iu' is clearly a diphthong.
> In Cantonese, 6 is clearly a syllable.
>
> 6 - Luk
> Comparing Liou and Luk, the constant 'k' sound became a vowel, as
> Mandarin can not pronounce 'k'. So, Lu + (a vowel changed from k) = L
> + (vowel u) + (vowel).
FALSE. Instead of adding a vowel in substitute of k, Mandarin simply
dropped the final consonant k (as it did for t, b, p, g, m, d; but not
n, ng, r). A transition from lyuk to lyu (liu). Modern Mandarin is a
relatively new Chinese dialect. Its predecessor was 5 tonal with a
final consonant ending system just as complex as Cantonese. If you
knew more of the evolution of Chinese dialects/languages, you will
find out that the trend is in losing tonal differentiation and finals.
Just look at urban Shanghainese as the perfect example; the dynamic
population of Shanghai has transformed the regional Wu Dialect from 9
tones two centuries ago to a toneless vowel emphasis/de-emphasis
system (two registers similar to Japanese: long accented vowel or
short). Additionally, final consonant endings are halted just before
they are pronounced.
> How many vowels do you think are now in 'Liou'? You may claim that
> 'iou' is still a vowel. To me, it is two vowels. If you disagree that
> it is two vowels, I think you should deny the link between Mandarin
> and Cantonese.
Shanghainese for 6 is rok (k is not actually pronounced aloud).
Japanese is roku. The modern Chinese dialects (from the 11th century
AD) evolved from Old (or Archaic) Chinese (8th-3rd century BC), the
sounds of which have been tentatively reconstructed. Although
monosyllabic, Old Chinese was not wholly uninflected. The next stage
of Chinese that has been carefully analyzed was Middle (or Ancient)
Chinese (to about the 11th century AD). By this time the rich sound
system of Old Chinese had progressed far toward the extreme
simplification seen in the modern dialects. For instance, Old Chinese
possessed series of consonants such as p, ph, b, bh (where h stands
for aspiration or rough breathing). In Middle Chinese this had become
p, ph, bh; in Mandarin only p and ph (now spelled b and p) are left.
The modern Mandarin syllable consists, at the least, of a so-called
final element, namely, a vowel (a, e) or semivowel (i, u) or some
combination of these (a diphthong or triphthong), with a tone (level,
rising, dipping, or falling) and sometimes a final consonant which,
however, can only be n, ng, or r. Old Chinese, however, had in
addition a final p, t, k, b, d, g, and m. The final element may be
preceded by an initial consonant but never by a consonant cluster; Old
Chinese probably had clusters, as at the beginning of klam and glam.
As sonic distinctions became fewer; for example, as final n absorbed
final m, so that syllables such as lam and lan became simply lan; the
number of Mandarin syllables different from one another in sound fell
to about 1300. No fewer words existed, but more words were homonyms.
Thus, the words for poetry, bestow, moist, lose, corpse, lion, temple,
and louse had all been pronounced differently from one another in
Middle Chinese; in Mandarin they all become shi in the level tone. In
fact, so many homonyms came to exist that ambiguity would have become
intolerable if compound words had not simultaneously developed. Thus,
poetry, became shi-ge, "poetry-song"; teacher became shi-zhang,
"teacher-elder." Although a modern Chinese dictionary contains many
more such compounds than one-syllable expressions, most of the
compounds still break down into independently meaningful syllables.
Why Cantonese has still retained its system of finals maybe attributed
to its geographic location (isolated in the South China landmass in
the Pearl River Delta) and the people's relatively recent
incorporation into the Han ethnicity only after 600 AD. To this day,
the Cantonese refer to themselves as People of Tang (from Tang
Dynasty) while the rest of China refer to themselves as the Han
People. Hence due to its isolation, Cantonese has given linguists some
idea of Middle Chinese's phonology. The bulk of Korean vocabulary are
derivatives of pronounciations of Middle Chinese words and hence the
correlation between Korean pronounciation with the Cantonese and not
so much with Mandarin (as Mandarin took later influences from China's
northern border of Mongolia and Manchuria).
Kaminarikun
> Kaminarikun <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3D6C9C1C...@yahoo.com>...
> >
> > If the book was writen around 1911 I'm sure
> > it's data on solar eclipse might be accurate.
> > But to expand that to say the whole is accurate is another
> > matter.
>
> No. The book was copied in 1911.
Not to 4 separate books. One book was created in 1911. But whatever the
case,
if the contents are fictions it really doesn't matter whether it was
complied in 1911 or in
1311.
> Are you going to say that Nihon Shogi was written in 2002, if it is printed now?
Nihonshoki was compiled in 8th century.
> > > > Off hand no. I could look if that's so important to you.
> > >
> > > I think you need some pictures to dispute my point, although I can not
> > > guarantee whether you can find any.
> >
> > What for? You did a good job of disputing yourself
> > by relying on that book.
>
> No. I detailed my argument based on relic such as mural painting of
> Koguryo, as I knew you would not completely accept the handangogi. My
> focuse is not books. Among historians, mural painting is more
> important than text. Archaeologist do not rely on Bible, but used it
> as a kind of reference.
On this crow. Just because more were found around the previous Koguryo
region
don't necessarily means they were the origin.
Like Japan's Doutaku(Bronze Bell) being discovered in greater numbers
around Yamato(Kansai) area
don't necessarily mean it was the source. Many scholars believe it
originated from the west
where the bells are smaller and discovery fewer.
Doutaku:
<http://www.town.kamo.shimane.jp/Doutaku/Doutakutowa.html>
Kaminarikun
> "Kaminarikun" <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D6C2857...@yahoo.com...
> >
> > Going only by archaeology would miss the the whole story.
>
> That's true, especially given the recent revelation of archeological frauds
> in Japan.
And they were corrected. All of the discovery that the charlatan had his
hands on
were thrown out recently.
> > Like a diary
>
> You are calling Nihon-shoki mythology a diary? Good luck.
Diary or not Truman's diary and Nihonshoki are accepted part of our
history although
we might disagree on its content.
ugly duckling
> In article <NYLa9.37344$15.1...@www.newsranger.com>, "ugly duckling"
> <daveiny...@hotmail.comnospam> wrote:
>
> >> > 2. Samguksagi does not mention anything about Japan conquering
> >> > Shilla castles.
> >> Look again.
> >
> >*You* are the one who came up with such ridiculous claim.
> >Please, back up your own claim.
> received various titles from Chinese Liu-Sung dynasty in
> 451, including governorships over Silla and Kaya. His
> son, Anko Emperor, went a step further and took Paekche
> prince as a hostage.
Interesting... because Shilla and Goya was never governed by
any foreign entity whatsoever. In fact, Shilla was so strong it
defeated Tang Dynasty.
> >Apparently, this story got really famous so the Kim clan (from Huns)
> >developed
> >their own versionof the story later saying, a Kim had six sons... and
they
> >shared
> >his father's inheritance.
>
> Kim clan was originally from Kaya.
Some says they are from India and some says they are from Goya.
(Goya, as in the movie Final Fantasy. Wonder why they named it so.)
But most of the Kim clans admit that they are from the Huns.
This is why Kims in Korea, especially in Noth Kore, wants to
stick to Russia, who are mixed Huns and Eastern European race.
I any case, no Kim claims that they are from a unique background.
> When Kaya was absorbed
> by Silla in 562, Silla emperor, who was originally from
> Paekche imperial family,
This just can't be true, because Shilla's kingship was shared
by three families: Park, Kim, and Suk. These three families
shared the kingship over Shilla. Also Shilla's founder, Hyok'se Park,
is not from Paekje at all. In fact, this is the reason why
Paekje just hated Shilla, not only because Shilla conquered
Paekje, but also because they did not consider Shilla as
their own ethnicity.
From the record, peaceful transition took place between
Park kings and Suk kings. But not betwen Park and Kim
or Kim and Suk.
There were total 58 kings, spanning 993 years of Shilla
Kingdom. Only 7 years short of a thousand years old
kingdom. Park clan had 10 kings. Suk clan had 8 kings.
And Kim clans had 40 kings.
Park - Park - Park - Suk - Park - Park - Park - Park
- Suk - Park - Kim - Kim - ..................- Kim - Kim - .....
- Kim - Park - Kim - Park - Kim.
Transition from Park King to Suk king seemed very
peaceful, but transition from Park king to Kim king
seemed very unnattural or even illegal.
>took Kim surname to promulgate
> full independence of Silla from Paekche influence.
No one took the surname Kim. (Yes, I can see that they are
Goldtein, Goldberg, Goldman, Goldblatt, and Goldilux of the
Koreans... but...)
The kings of Shilla were originally Park, and he reigned
61 years up from 58 B.C. to 4 A.D.
ugly duckling
ugly duckling
> >fo Tsushima to rightful owners, Koreans.
>
> I showed that Tsushima was a recognized Japanese island
> in the 6th century. What evidence do you have that
> can substantiate your claim?
According to the Korean history, Tsushima was the center
for pirate activities in the Southern seas of Korea, harrassing
many Koreans who lived on the coastlines. So King of Koryo
sent navy with General Choi, Moo-Sun to bust it.
ugly duckling
Sukgeun Jung
> Sukgeun Jung wrote:
> > Kaminarikun <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3D6B5AEE...@yahoo.com>...
> > > Although you might be short on answers. Not Dangun. The book that
> > > place Koreans back to Sumeria(Middle east) or something of that sort.
> >
> > Contrary to your impression, most of Handangogi is very accurate. One
> > physicist in a unversity of Korea compared the dates of solar eclipse
> > recorded in the book with what he calcuated based on planet rotations.
> > The result was that the dates were surprisingly accurate within
> > statistical error.
>
> If the book was writen around 1911 I'm sure
> it's data on solar eclipse might be accurate.
> But to expand that to say the whole is accurate is another
> matter.
It so, are you also sure that the copier (Gye Yeonsu) might have used
at least Pentium PC around 1911 to calcuate the solar eclipse dates
like the professor?
Sukgeun Jung
some points.
1. Liu vs. Liou
> In Mandarin, 6 is liu (it has the forth tone; down/accentégrave '\').
> 'iu' is one syllable; it is pronounced somewhat like English 'you'.
Of course, you can Romanize '6' in Mandarin as 'liu', but it is true that
some people denote it as 'liou' in Mandarin. I will show just one example:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/GenX_jt_mtjr/GenXChinese.html
2. Diphthong and triphthong are exactly single syllable?
As you acknowledged that diphthong and triphthong are being used in China, I
do not need to argue over it any more.
Technically, diphthong and triphthong can be called a syllable, but in
reality most people usually pronounce them as two or three syllables. For
example, 'child' or 'wire' in English are technically single syllable words,
but many people pronounce them as two syllables. Unlike Chinese, Korean
pronunciation of a Chinese character is unarguably and exactly one syllable.
As the definition of a syllable is indeed vague, I did not want to argue
over whether Chinese is technically monosyllabic or not. So, I said I might
agree that Chinese is technically monosyllabic. My point was that, among
countries that adopted Chinese character, only Koreans use exactly one
syllable for one character. Read again my first message in this thread.
Whatever you define a syllable; you cannot deny that Chinese use less
clearly one syllable for a character than Koreans. Unless you can deny this
fact, the argument on monosyllable is now over de facto.
> FALSE. Instead of adding a vowel in substitute of k, Mandarin simply
> dropped the final consonant k (as it did for t, b, p, g, m, d; but not
> n, ng, r). A transition from lyuk to lyu (liu).
I do not agree. If it dropped k from 'lyuk' (monophtong), it is 'lyu'
(monophthong), not 'liou' or 'liu' (triphthong and diphthong). In English,
'y' is usually used for denoting a semivowel, and 'Lyu' and 'Liou' or 'Liu'
are the same at all. In other words, if it simply dropped the final
consonant, how do you explain that the original monophthong could change to
a diphthong or even a triphthong?
> The bulk of Korean vocabulary are derivatives of pronounciations of
> Middle Chinese words
A quite surprising claim. What is your single evidence with respect to
derivatives of pronunciation of Middle Chinese words?
Koreans had unique pronunciation systems for Hanja (so called Chinese
characters) far before Middle Chinese period (11-th century). Have you heard
about Hyangchal and Idoo (Korean phonetic systems based on Hanja before
hangul invention)? Ancient Korean poems 'Seodongyo' and 'Hyeseongga' were
written based on Idoo between AD 579-632 (King Jinpyung), indicating that
not only pronunciation system for Hanja, but Idoo itself had already been
established in Silla before AD 600. As you know, Silla should have been the
last country to use Hanja among the three Kingdom. What would have happened
for Paekche and Koguryo?
t-d
> > Don't you know tone? While Mandarin has 4 tones and Cantonese has 6
> > tones, Seoul dialect of Korean has almost completely lost them.
>
> What are you going to say by bringing up tones? I am talking about
> syllables, as your guys wanted to do it. Spoken Korean is completely
> different from Chinese. Korean has probably the richest syllables
> among the world language,
Korean have much simpler syllables than English.
> and does not need so complex tones to distinguish homonym syllables.
Do you still believe this sequence?:
(original) --> Korean --> Cantonese --> Mandalin
> Only one problem of Korean hangul,
> compared with international phonetic symbols, is that hangul do not
> have a symbol to distinguish between short and long vowels.
if you do not believe that Hangul is also suitable for other
languages.
> Unlike your claiming, the following cite says about tones in Chinese
> as the following:
>
> Cantonese has 9 tones compared to 5 tones in Mandarin. 8 of these are
> distinct tones and 1 is the mid-tone.
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/GenX_jt_mtjr/GenXCantonese.html
It depend on whether the clipped sounds -p, -t and -k are counted as
independent tones. And normally the light sound is not counted as a
tone in Mandarin.
t-d
> > Because the (northern) Chinese pronunciation has changed since Korea
> > borrowed the character and its pronunciation. But Cantonese has not
> > changed as much, and many Cantonese pronunciations resemble Korean.
> > And this applies to all of your examples.
> >
> > Antti.
>
> I know there are a lot of dialects in China. Don't avoid the point by
> showing diverse variants. Please just pick up one dialect that you
> think is closest to the original one with respect to Shang or Zhou
> dynasty, whatever you want. I know language or dialect of a group can
> interact each other. However, you can say which one is closet to the
> original form. Please let me know which one is. Is it Cantonese or
> Mandarin, or anything else?
It has no significance. The linguistic propinquity to the original
form just shows that the language is conservative.
A dialect of a marginal area sometimes keeps old forms because it has
not been affected by the sound changes spreading from a center.
Kaminarikun
Solar eclipses are noted in Samguksaki. Maybe the writer got it from
there.
If you want to believe that Koreans were big eyed Sumerians fine.
Hopefuly Egyptians will be left out of this love affair with Middle
East.
Sukgeun Jung
news:ccd5440b.02082...@posting.google.com...
> skj...@wam.umd.edu (Sukgeun Jung) wrote in message
news:<eb309be5.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > liancou...@yahoo.co.kr (t-d) wrote in message
news:<ccd5440b.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Don't you know tone? While Mandarin has 4 tones and Cantonese has 6
> > > tones, Seoul dialect of Korean has almost completely lost them.
> >
> > What are you going to say by bringing up tones? I am talking about
> > syllables, as your guys wanted to do it. Spoken Korean is completely
> > different from Chinese. Korean has probably the richest syllables
> > among the world language,
>
> Korean have much simpler syllables than English.
Can you specify the number of syllables used currently in English and
Korean?
I guarantee that Korean has far richer syllables than English or any other
language . Korean text books of elementary school alone have101,636
different syllables http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/abstract18e.html.
About 4,400 syllables can describe virtually all American English words,
although 20,000 syllables may be required for complete coverage. Source:
Douglas O'Shaughnessy. Speech Communication, chapter 5, pages 164-203.
AddisonWesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1987.
Mandarin Chinese has about 400 different syllables and about 1,200 when
including tones. Cantonese has about 620 different syllables and about 1,800
when including tones. Source:
http://www.ee.cuhk.edu.hk/~tanlee/paper/CanLVCSR.pdf
> > and does not need so complex tones to distinguish homonym syllables.
>
> Do you still believe this sequence?:
>
> (original) --> Korean --> Cantonese --> Mandalin
I do not think it is any kind of belief. It is rather a plain fact than a
belief.
Sukgeun Jung
"t-d" <liancou...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
news:ccd5440b.0208...@posting.google.com...
Sukgeun Jung
history text books.
Just two examples:
1. The oldest record for a solar eclipse in Chinese history books is B.C.
776 (Zhou dynasty). The oldest one in Handangogi is B.C. 2183, which was
about 1,400 year earlier. Of course, the calculated date was near the same.
2. Dangunsegi and Dangungosa record that, in B.C. 1733, five stars
approached each other and became a cluster. The calculated year by the
professor and his colleague was B.C. 1734, July 13. These results were also
confirmed by most stupid historians in Korean academia, who disparage
handangogi more severely than Japanese or Chinese nationalists.
Following your speculation, how could the copier could write the event that
no other history text books in the world recorded? Could he have a pentium
PC with Ph.D. degree in modern astronomy around 1911?
"Kaminarikun" <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D6DA113...@yahoo.com...
Kaminarikun
> Handangogi records anstromical events that are not recorded in any other
> history text books.
>
> Just two examples:
>
> 1. The oldest record for a solar eclipse in Chinese history books is B.C.
> 776 (Zhou dynasty). The oldest one in Handangogi is B.C. 2183, which was
> about 1,400 year earlier. Of course, the calculated date was near the same.
>
> 2. Dangunsegi and Dangungosa record that, in B.C. 1733, five stars
> approached each other and became a cluster. The calculated year by the
> professor and his colleague was B.C. 1734, July 13. These results were also
> confirmed by most stupid historians in Korean academia, who disparage
> handangogi more severely than Japanese or Chinese nationalists.
Isn't the date in Dangun just a guesswork? Who decided that the year
of Dangun 5808 is 1911AD? With a wishy washy dating system i'm not
really sure eclipses matter much.
> Following your speculation, how could the copier could write the event that
> no other history text books in the world recorded? Could he have a pentium
> PC with Ph.D. degree in modern astronomy around 1911?
Sound to me like a desperate attempt by someone to valdate a
questionable
book like Dangun. I haven't seen this research on eclipeses so I can't
comment
but I'm in no hurry to start worshiping it anytime soon.
t-d
Hangul after 1933 has logically 11,172 combination characters.
choseong: g, gg, n, d, dd, r, m, b, bb, s, ss, ', j, jj, c, k, t, p, h
(19)
jungseong: a, ai, ya, yai, oe, oei, yeo, yeoi, o, oa, oai, oi, yo, u,
uoe, uoei, ui, yu, eu, eui, i (21)
jongseong: g, gg, gs, n, nj, nh, d, r, rg, rm, rb, rs, rt, rp, rh, m,
p, ps, s, ss, ng, j, c, k, t, p, h (27)
19 * 21 * (27+1) = 11172 (jongseong is optional)
But 80% of them are never or rarely used. In fact, KS C 5601 (1987)
includes only 2,350 Hangul characters. In addition, 27 jongseong
converge with seven constants: p, t, k, m, n, ng and l. Thus the
number of syllables in Korean is much less than 101,636.
> > > and does not need so complex tones to distinguish homonym syllables.
> >
> > Do you still believe this sequence?:
> >
> > (original) --> Korean --> Cantonese --> Mandalin
>
> I do not think it is any kind of belief. It is rather a plain fact than a
> belief.
As I shown before, "Korean --> Cantonese" could not have been occured.
Lack of tonal system in Korean clearly shows it.
Sukgeun Jung
>
> choseong: g, gg, n, d, dd, r, m, b, bb, s, ss, ', j, jj, c, k, t, p, h
> (19)
> jungseong: a, ai, ya, yai, oe, oei, yeo, yeoi, o, oa, oai, oi, yo, u,
> uoe, uoei, ui, yu, eu, eui, i (21)
> jongseong: g, gg, gs, n, nj, nh, d, r, rg, rm, rb, rs, rt, rp, rh, m,
> p, ps, s, ss, ng, j, c, k, t, p, h (27)
>
> 19 * 21 * (27+1) = 11172 (jongseong is optional)
It is true that the total combination of written syllables is 11,172 based
on modern Korean writing system. The number 11,172 is correct for KS-C 5601,
a computer font system for hangul. However, the number of spoken syllables
are far richer than that, because Koreans also can have tones and accent (or
intonation), and because the sound of a written syllable can be changed
slightly but regularly depending on the next syllable by processes such as
intersonerent obstruent voicing.
1. Example for intersonerent obstruent voicing
There are two sounds for 'g' 'b' in Korea, i.e., voiced and unvoiced,
depending on the combination of the written syllable: Gaeul means 'autumn'
in Korean. The change is regular and predictable based on the preceding
consonants. The sound of G in Gaeul is unvoiced, but is voiced in 'Bom
Gaeul' (Spring and Autumn).
2. Examples for differentiation in vowels
As I wrote hangul does not tell between short and long vowels. 'Bam' means
night if a is short vowel but chestnut if a is long vowel. All written
vowels can have both short and long one in hangul. For another example, in
hangul, 'we' is the same for swegogi (beef) and weguk (foreign country), but
depending on the precedent constant, the sound changes slightly. The vowel
sounds of 'swe' in swegogi and 'we' in weguk are slightly different (a
theory of Huh Ung, a Korean linguist).
3. Examples for tones
'Ga Ra Ra' in hangul means 'replace' in the case of 'High Low Low' tones but
'grind' in the case of 'Low High Low'.
4. Example for intonation:
Ga Sseo? (Did you go?)
Ga Sseo. (I did go)
---
In the original hangul, these slight differences can more clearly
differentiated. So, based on the original hunminjeongeum (King Sejong), the
number of syllables that can be expressed are about 40 billions
http://wwwk.dongguk.ac.kr/~byunjy/kiss/kiss98fall.html.
Also, the Microsoft Word 2000 supports 11,172 modern Korean written
syllables and 1.6
million old written syllables as some Koreans need them or maybe need them
in the future. For the computer font system, the number of syllables for
Korean is 11,172 for KS-C 5601 (standardized in 1974 and 1982), 2,350 for
KS-C 5601(standardized in 1987), 499,954 for KS-C 5700 (standardized in
1995), 40 billions for Jeongeum type that can include old hangul (1996).
Sukgeun Jung
Mars, Saturn, Venus and Mercury. During the past several millennium, how
many
times could five stars form a cluster? Is there any history text that
describes this event occurred in B.C. 1733 or 1734? Professor Pak said that
the
probability of coincidence is 0.007%. He and his colleagues used a
supercomputer, not a Pentium PC, to calculate those dates.
As a solar eclipse can be seen only in a specific area on the earth, they
could track down the position of observers based on records of samguksai or
other texts from the three kingdoms. The results indicated that the Silla
observer should have been near the Yangtze River before AD 201 and southern
Korea after AD 787. It is quite interesting that the observers for Paekche
should have been near Bohai bay, as all events recorded from Paekche could
have been observed only there.
With respect to solar eclipse events, the hitting ratio of samguksai was
80%, 63-78% for some Chinese records at the similar period, and only 45% for
Nihon shogi. The ratio was 70% for all recorded solar eclipse in handangogi
when allowing +/-4 years error. http://www.eurasiad.com/handan_astro.html
(hangul)
"Kaminarikun" <ryuu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D6DCB55...@yahoo.com...
TK Sung
> > You are calling Nihon-shoki mythology a diary? Good luck.
>
> Diary or not Truman's diary and Nihonshoki are accepted part of our
> history although
> we might disagree on its content.
>
compare it to the Bible. I'm sure both Bible and Nihon-shoki are of some
historical value, but the problem happens when some nationalists follow it
like fundamentalists follow the Bible in disregard to archeological and
other historical facts. You know what such zealots do. They fly planes into
buildings. Or fly planes into enemy ships. Or...
Sukgeun Jung
> > >
> > > (original) --> Korean --> Cantonese --> Mandalin
> >
> > I do not think it is any kind of belief. It is rather a plain fact than
a
> > belief.
>
> As I shown before, "Korean --> Cantonese" could not have been occured.
> Lack of tonal system in Korean clearly shows it.
Decreasing number of syllables (homonym) has required more complex tonal
systems in current Chinese dialects . Far richer and diverse Korean syllable
system do not need such ad hoc solution like tones. Do you mean that archaic
Chinese might have had more tones than current Chinese dialects?
Regarding the correlation distances among Korean, Cantonese and Mandarin,
the gentleman called Leon Yin wrote as the following:
> correlation between Korean pronounciation with the Cantonese and not
> so much with Mandarin (as Mandarin took later influences from China's
> northern border of Mongolia and Manchuria).
He/she seems to insist that there is a more strong correlation between
Korean and Cantonese. It is true that there is a strong correlation compared
with the correlation distance between Cantonese and Korean. However, if you
look at the map, the geographical distance correlation suggested the
opposite direction. Geographically, Cantonese area (near Hongkong) is far
away from Korea than Peiking (Mandarin) is. Geographically, Korean language
is segregated from Cantonese by Mandarin area.
Let me summarize briefly.
1. Language distance: Mandarin -- Cantonese -- Korean
2. Geographic distance: Cantonese -- Mandarin -- Korean
How could you explain this inconsistency? My tentative hypothesis is that
Koreans had lived near Cantonese area, such as near or within Shantung
province, before they immigrated into Korean peninsula. This hypothesis can
explain this puzzle. If you disagree, what is your alternative hypothesis?
LT Lee
> > FALSE. Chinese is STRICTLY one syllable per character. The Chinese
> > word white 'bai' is only ONE syllable, it's pronouced like the korean
> > 'bae' NOT pronounced 'ba-yee'. The Chinese word for head, 'tou' is
> > also only ONE syllable pronounced like the english word 'tow' (as in
> > tow-truck); not 'to-ooh' as you had so stupidly IMAGINED.
>
> I may generously agree that every Chinese character is monosyllabic
> based on the broadest definition of a syllable. However, when Chinese
> wanted to convert the character into phonograms such as Roman
> alphabet, it was inevitable that one character may become two
> syllables.
>
> Let's see what some scholars say about the Pinyin Rules, which was
> invented to Romanize the chinese characters.
>
> http://www.whiteclouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl10mair.htm
>
> <quote>
> Starting at least half a dozen years ago, I lobbied hard with Karl
> Kahler and other East Asian library professionals NOT to adopt the
> infantile policy of separating all syllables. Why do it this way?
> What's the point? What's the advantage? After the work of great
> linguists such as George Kennedy, stretching back more than half a
> century, it is absolutely clear that Sinitic languages are NOT
> monosyllabic. Even Literary Sinitic (Classical Chinese), as I have
> shown in numerous lectures, articles, and reviews, is far from
> monosyllabic.
> </quote>
>
> The problem is that same for Taiwan.
> http://romanization.com/tongyong/qanda.html
>
> I will not argue over whether it is monosyllabic or not, or over the
> definition of a syllable. Accurately speaking, each character is a
> morpheme. I am just saying that there are some scholars who do not
> think Chinese is monosyllabic in the strict sense. The same conclusion
> will be drawn when converting so-called Chinese monosyllables into
> Korean hangul.
>
> The point is that Chinese pronunciation systems for chinese characters
> are variants of the some unknown original one.
>
> A simple fact is there are two major dialects and other minors in
> China and the pronunciations can be different among them for the same
> character. Moreover, the dialects became more homonymic, and now the
> total number of the so-called monosyllables is just several hundreds.
> Which one is more original between Mandarin and Cantonese? On the
> contrary, in Korea, there is no dialect or variant with respect to
> pronunciation of each character, although dialects exist (of course,
> Koreans understand most of them).
>
> Moreover, an ancient Chinese dictionary recording the way of
> pronunciation for 53,525 characters (Book name is Jeon-Jib in Korean,
> 集韻 in Chinese character) are almost the same as modern
> Korean pronunciations of the characters.
>
> Let's have an example. How do chinese pronounce the first syllable of
> the character meaning 'school' (學)? In Korea, it sounds 'hag'.
> Chinese pronounce it as 'Shie'. The Jeon-Jib records in the item to
> show how to pronounce as 'Hal Gag Jeol' (轄覺切).
> 'Jeol' means it should be pronounced as this way. So, H (first
> consonant) + ag (vowel + consonant) = 'Hag'. Look at the old chinese
> dictionary (集韻) and check whether the pronunciation
> matches well with Chinese. Why did the Chinese old dictionary record a
> seemingly redunant item to most Chinese for characters? Is it
> coincidental that those items are entirely useful only for Koreans to
> understand the way of pronunciation?
>
> This kind of pronunciation writing system is well known in Korean
> history, such as 'I-doo' in Silla'.
>
> Other minor examples. Let's see how do you pronounce 'Buddha' in
> China? In Korea, it sounds as 'Bul-ta' while Chinese sound it as
> 'Fotuo'. Koreans sound the chinese words for 'Sakga-Muni' as
> 'Seokga-Moni' while Chinese as 'Shigia-Mouni'. Which one is closer to
> the original sounds?
>
> Returning to the examples im my previous message, if Koreans had
> learned from Chinese, how could the sound 'bai' in Chinese have become
> 'baek' in Korean, a more complex syllable? Koreans can easily
> pronounce 'bai' and 'baek', but Chinese do not have any syllable for
> 'baek'.
>
> Maybe it was possible that Koreans coincidentally add 'K' to 'bai'.
> Let's see more examples, i.e., the numbers: 1 (il is Korean and yi in
> Mandarin, where did 'L' come from?), 3 (sam in Korean and san in
> Mandarin, and Koreans have both sam and san sounds, but Chinese only
> have san sound), 6 (yuk in Korean and liou in Mandarin, where did 'K'
> come from?), 7, 8, 10 (sib in Korean, shi in Chinese, where did 'B'
> come from?). It seems to be too obvious that the sounds such as 'L',
> 'K' and 'B' were consistently and inevitabley missed while
> transferring to the people who did not have the related syllables, and
> not vice versa.
In America,
adults say horse as "horse," small kids say horse as "horsie,"
adults say dog as "dog," small kids say dog as "doggie,"
adults say bird as "bird," small kids say bird as "birdie,"
adutls say blanket as "blanket," small kids blanket as "blankie," so
on and so forth.
I don't think the adults are learning the word from the kids and
missed the "ie" while learning.
I think it is more logical to assume that the adults know the language
before the kids. They add the "ie" as emphasis attract the kids'
attention. Similarly, early Koreans might want to emphasize the origin
of the word as "Made in China" by adding an extra syllable to attract
attention.
>
> Anyway, thanks for your sincere questions,
>
> Sukgeun Jung
>
> masa...@yahoo.com (leon yin) wrote in message news:<265898cc.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > Let's put an end to this shall we?
> > You from your post know NOTHING about the Chinese language and are
> > blindly and falsely promoting korean propaganda.
> >
> > > Among countries that adopted Chinese character, only Koreans use
> > > exactly one syllable for one character. Chinese or Japanese used one or more
> > > syllables for one character.
> > > For another example, the sound for 'white' in Chinese character in 'baek'
> > > (one syllable) in Korean but 'bai' (two syllable) in Chinese. Regarding the
> > > character denoting 'head', it is 'doo' in Korean but 'tou' in Chinese. On
> > > the other hand, it is the same for the character denoting 'mountain' -
> > > 'shan' in both Korean and Chinese.
> >
> > FALSE. Chinese is STRICTLY one syllable per character. The Chinese
> > word white 'bai' is only ONE syllable, it's pronouced like the korean
> > 'bae' NOT pronounced 'ba-yee'. The Chinese word for head, 'tou' is
> > also only ONE syllable pronounced like the english word 'tow' (as in
> > tow-truck); not 'to-ooh' as you had so stupidly IMAGINED.
> >
> > > A good example is the sounds denoting the
> > > numbers. Only Koreans use just one syllable for one number. So, it is very
> > > easy for Koreans to say any complex numbers quickly.
> >
> > FALSE AGAIN. The Chinese characters for numbers were strictly for the
> > Chinese language (yi/i, er/erh, san, si, wu, liu, qi/chi, ba, jiu,
> > shi). The Koreans had their own indigenous numbering system but later
> > used the Chinese because it was more logical and easier to use; to
> > this day Korea like the Japanese have two systems of numbers: the
> > native and the Sinitic. The Chinese have always just had THE ORIGINAL
> > numbering system; characters from 1 to 10. 11 is made by a [10] and a
> > [1] (shi-yi). the number 32 is made by [three][ten][two] (sanshi-er).
> > the number 183 = yibai-bashi-san ([one][hundred][eight][ten][three].
> > This concept was then adopted by the Japanese and Koreans as the
> > 'Sinitic Numeral System.' This isn't some obscure knowledge, it is
> > pretty common knowledge. A Korean language textbook even teaches two
> > numbering systems (the native Korean which is polysyllabic and the
> > Sinitic which is monosyllabic).
> >
> > The indigenous Korean numbers are the following:
> > 1. Hana
> > 2. Dul 20. Sumol
> > 3. Set 30. Seron
> > 4. Net 40. Mahon
> > 5. Tasot
> > 6. Yasot
> > 7. Ilgop
> > 8. Yodul
> > 9. Ahop
> > 10. Yul
> > 11. Yulhana
> >
> > They are not monosyllabic. The monosyllabic you were referring to are
> > the Chinese-derivative numbers: il (yi), ee (er/ni), sam (san), se
> > (si), etc. (enclosed w/ parenthesis are the Chinese pronounciations,
> > left open are the Korean).
> >
> >
> > > 1. The original pictographs called 'gab-gol' (bone and shell) or 'bok-sa' in
> > > Korean were certainly invented during the Yin dynasty (or Shang state, BC
> > > 1600~BC 1046), although it is uncertain who was the inventor. There is no
> > > dispute regarding this matter between Korean and Chinese historians. There
> > > are ample recent evidences that the dominant people of the Yin dynasty was
> > > Korean, which some Chinese historians also acknowledge.
> >
> > No, the Yin Dynasty at that time had a writing system that was already
> > fairly advanced; it is commonly accepted that the Yin Dynasty had
> > borrowed the writing script from its predecessor the Xia/Hsia Dynasty.
> > The Yin Dynasty cannot be Korean since the concept of a Korean
> > ethnicity or nation had not even existed at that time. I don't know
> > what you are talking about. It is possible that the Yin Dynasty was
> > populated by more Central Asian like (Tungusic) peoples, but to say
> > they were Korean but not Turkish or Mongolian or proto-Chinese is
> > ridiculous (What are the 'Koreans' then? God?). However, even that is
> > a stretch considering the Yin Dynasty's territorial boundaries were
> > confined between the Yellow and Yangtse Rivers (although I agree it is
> > possible that expeditionary forces and settlements elsewhere existed,
> > like in the Korean peninsula; but the bulk of the civilization was in
> > Central China).
> >
> > Please don't post false Korean national-pride propaganda as
> > scholarship. If you can find one Chinese character that has a two
> > syllable pronouciation, may you be god. Until then quit imagining the
> > Chinese pronouciation by its pinyin spelling. Bai = bae not ba'yee
> > just like Shanghai is not Shang-Ha-Yee. Quit IMAGINING THINGS that
> > aren't Korean to be Korean. You have many other things to be proud of
> > as a nation and a culture, what is the purpose of this obsession in
> > stating that the five thousands years of Chinese historical
> > civilization is Korean origin (which has a written history of only two
> > thousand yrs and the early ones being Chinese sources)?
> >
> > I'm pissed that you could so 'matter-of-factly' say Chinese language
> > uses multiple syllables for each character (but not the Korean
> > language and hence your reasoning that Chinese is Korean-derivative)
> > when you are so damn wrong. That's like trying to play the piano
> > starting on the wrong note without transcribing the key signature.
> > Chinese numbers are Chinese, not Korean or Japanese; it may have
> > originated in India or the Arab world (even that is unlikely), but
> > definitely not from the far far East. The NATIVE Korean numbers
> > (hana, dul, set, net...) are Altaic, and the Chinese/Sintic (yi,
> > er/ni, san, si..) are not derivatives of your native Korean numbers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Sukgeun Jung" <skj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<ak9kss$4l4$1...@gamera.cbl.umces.edu>...
> > > I insist that the so-called Chinese character was probably invented and
> > > developed by Korean, although the populous Chinese also have used it as
> > > their basic writing systems. I believe the number of population of any
> > > ethnic group should not be a factor that obscures the origin. I explain some
> > > evidences.
> > >
> > > 1. The original pictographs called 'gab-gol' (bone and shell) or 'bok-sa' in
> > > Korean were certainly invented during the Yin dynasty (or Shang state, BC
> > > 1600~BC 1046), although it is uncertain who was the inventor. There is no
> > > dispute regarding this matter between Korean and Chinese historians. There
> > > are ample recent evidences that the dominant people of the Yin dynasty was
> > > Korean, which some Chinese historians also acknowledge.
> > >
> > > 2. Among countries that adopted Chinese character, only Koreans use exactly
> > > one syllable for one character. Chinese or Japanese used one or more
> > > syllables for one character. A good example is the sounds denoting the
> > > numbers. Only Koreans use just one syllable for one number. So, it is very
> > > easy for Koreans to say any complex numbers quickly.
> > >
> > > For another example, the sound for 'white' in Chinese character in 'baek'
> > > (one syllable) in Korean but 'bai' (two syllable) in Chinese. Regarding the
> > > character denoting 'head', it is 'doo' in Korean but 'tou' in Chinese. On
> > > the other hand, it is the same for the character denoting 'mountain' -
> > > 'shan' in both Korean and Chinese.
> > >
> > > Why have Koreans used only one syllable for one character, but Chinese one
> > > or more syllables? It certainly shows that Chinese pronunciation system is a
> > > variant from Korean counterpart.
> > >
> > > 3. Some basic pictographs reflect Korean life-style and customs.
> > >
> > > For example, the character denoting 'house' (ga in Korean) contains a
> > > character denoting a pig (hog) in the lower part. In the house, people live,
> > > not a pig live. Why did they adopt a pig to denote a house? Only Koreans
> > > raised pigs within their house.
> > >
> > > Another example is the character denoting 'sun'. The character contains a
> > > dot within a rectangle. Why did they contain the dot, seemingly
> > > unnecessarily? The dot denotes a golden crow. Only Koreans had the legend
> > > linking the sun to the golden crow.
> > >
> > > Additional example is the character denoting 'surname' (ssi in Korean). In
> > > Chinese, the character denotes only 'surname' while it denotes both
> > > 'surname' and 'seed' in Korean. 'Ssi' is a most common word in Korean and
> > > compares the pedigree with the tree (i.e., the seed is a common symbol for
> > > the original ancestor whose trace has been handed down by his surname).
> > >
> > > 4. Korean history book describes the origin of written systems, which is
> > > inscribed in dolmens in Korea.
> > >
> > > A Korean history book called Chun-bu-gyung records the origin of both
> > > current Chinese character and Korean alphabet (hangul). Chinese character is
> > > a kind of pictograph + ideograph, while hangul is the most advanced of
> > > phonogram + ideogram in the world. Bone and shell inscriptions were a
> > > pictograph, while hexagrams of I-ching invented by Fu Xi (Bokhwi in Korean)
> > > are a kind of ideogram. The original character for both Chinese character
> > > and hangul was 'Nok-doo-mun' (the most ancient writing system), according to
> > > the Chun-bu-gyung. Currently, only Koreans still play a game called 'Yout',
> > > which is believed to be very similar to the 'Nok-doo-mun'. The principles of
> > > Yout game are essentially the same as I-Ching. Moreover, in Korea and
> > > Manchuria, currently there are many ancient rocks (dolmen) in which various
> > > kinds of primitive writings are inscribed (see some pictures at
> > > http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~kbyon/culture/rokdo.htm)
> > >
> > > Based on these four facts, I strongly argue that the Chinese character was
> > > originated and developed by Koreans. The differences in pronunciation system
> > > for numbers between Chinese and Korean clearly indicates it's Korean origin.
> > >
> > > --- Footnote
> > >
> > > I add my message on Fu Xi and I-Ching. Fu Xi (or Bokhwi in Korean) is one of
> > > the candidates for the inventor of Chinese characters.
> > >
> > > Han and 'I Ching'
> > >
> > > The hexagrams of the I Ching were said to have been created by the
> > > legendary emperor 'Fu Xi' after he had contemplated on a diagram
> > > called Ha Do that was bestowed from the Heaven. Han scholars rewrote
> > > many myths as fact to fill gaps in early Chinese history. Fu Xi was
> > > declared to have been the very first emperor, ruling from 2852 to 2737
> > > BC. He was said to have been the inventor of musical instruments and
> > > Chinese handwriting [1].
> > >
> > > Chinese legend says that Fu Xi is the most senior one among the three
> > > ancestors. Together with N-Wa, the women who he married with, they
> > > started the civilization of human being. The current Fu Xi's Temple in
> > > Shandong was built on a 6-meter high terrace. In the main hall, Fu
> > > Xi's state was placed and sacrifices are given. And in the back of the
> > > hall, N-Wa's statue was placed [2].
> > >
> > > It is said that the upper body of Fu Xi is that of a human being while
> > > his lower body is in the form of a snake. Inferring from the
> > > scientific nature of the I Ching, it may just be possible that Fu Xi
> > > was an extraterrestrial. If Fu Xi was indeed the first ancestor of
> > > Chinese, then how could the descendents describe their first ancestor
> > > as a monster? Why did ancient Chinese historians initially consider Fu
> > > Xi as just a legend? Ancient Chinese call their neighboring people as
> > > "bugs" or"barbarians". The monster portrait suggests that Fu Xi might
> > > have been from a neighboring country, not Chinese countries. What was
> > > that country?
> > >
> > > "Fu Xi came from the nationality called East Yi dwelling in the
> > > Neolithic Age, along the coastal area of the present-day Shandong
> > > Province and, therefore, Fu Xi turned out to have come from Shandong
> > > Province" (quoted from a Chinese site [4])
> > >
> > > What was "East Yi"? Of course, "Yi" means "barbarians" in Chinese.
> > > Most Koreans know what is "Dong (east) Yi". People in 'East Yi' are
> > > known to have been very good at archery, as Korean Olympic archery
> > > teams are today. The Chinese character "Yi" indeed symbolize the
> > > shape of a big bow. Surprisingly. the recently discovered Korean
> > > history text titled "Han Dan Go Gi" describes the life of "Fu Xi"
> > > (Bokhwi in Korean) [3].
> > >
> > > It writes that he was the son of the 5-th emperor of the Baedal
> > > (B.C.3898- BC 2333) and his surname was "Pung" as he lived in
> > > "Pung-san". Although the surname "Pung" no longer exists in Korean
> > > names, some related words survived to today such as "Pung-chae"
> > > "Pung-gol" and"Pung-shin", all of which are terms for describing human
> > > body shape. Another daughter name was "Yeo-wa" (N-Wa in Chinese) [3].
> > >
> > > It writes that she was known to have a magical talent to make a human
> > > being from mud and to be extremely jealous (these two points, together
> > > with the sound, might may remind you of Jehovah) [5].
> > >
> > > Unfortunately only a few Korean scholars in universities accept "Han
> > > Dan Go Gi" as a history book, insisting that the book was fabricated
> > > in some points. Some Koreans, while acknowledging that a few points
> > > might have been fabricated while copying, decry the university
> > > historians as too much contaminated by Japanese colonial view of
> > > history that tried to disparage Korean history in the 1910-1945
> > > period, as they deny whole text book. Anyway, East Yi was located in
> > > Shandong Province...... What does this mean? I would rather stop here
> > > for today. But the point is that it will not be awkward that I link "I
> > > Ching" to Han.
> > >
> > > Some References on this footnote
> > >
> > > [1] Microsoft Encarta "Fu Xi"
> > > [2] http://www.china-sd.net/eng/sdtravel/scenery/30.asp
> > > [3]
> > > http://www.sejongnamepia.pe.kr/name_before.html
> > > http://www.shaman.co.kr/newspaper/09/mago.htm
> > > http://www.jsd.or.kr/a/truth_sh/korhist/k_hist_05.htm
> > > [4]
> > > http://www.sbbs.com.cn/English/RE-EXPLORATION%20OF%20BIAN-HEALING%20STONE.ht
> > > m).
> > > [5] http://www.hankooki.com/culture/200205/h2002051415292516030.htm
> > > [6] http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Zhou/springautumn.htm
> > > "Later historians said it was intended to protect the original Chinese
> > > states from the intruding barbarian tribes Man 蠻, Rong 戎
> > > and Yi 夷"
> > >
> > > http://www.xsenergy.com/theme.html
> > > "Yi is known by a variety of names: The East Barbarian, Yi the Good,
> > > Lord Yi, and Yi Lord of the Hsia. As a result of this ambiguity, Yi is
> > > seen both as a hero who is favored by the Gods as well as a villain,
> > > murderer, usurper and adulterer. In this myth Yi is the hero as he
> > > shoots the Ten Suns to avert disaster."
Sukgeun Jung
news:5eb15984.02082...@posting.google.com...
> skj...@wam.umd.edu (Sukgeun Jung) wrote in message
news:<eb309be5.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > masa...@yahoo.com (leon yin) wrote in message
news:<265898cc.02082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> adults say horse as "horse," small kids say horse as "horsie,"
> adults say dog as "dog," small kids say dog as "doggie,"
> adults say bird as "bird," small kids say bird as "birdie,"
> adutls say blanket as "blanket," small kids blanket as "blankie," so
> on and so forth.
>
> I don't think the adults are learning the word from the kids and
> missed the "ie" while learning.
>
> I think it is more logical to assume that the adults know the language
> before the kids. They add the "ie" as emphasis attract the kids'
> attention. Similarly, early Koreans might want to emphasize the origin
> of the word as "Made in China" by adding an extra syllable to attract
> attention.
I said Korean syllable has more richer final constants within a syllable
than Chinese, not an 'extra syllable'. For example, Chinese pronounce
'white' as 'bai' while Koreans as 'baek'. The seemingly added last constant,
'k', is not a syllable as you imagined. I am quite suspicious that you know
even the difference between syllable and consonant, based on your argument.
An example was 'shie' in Chinese. They may claim that 'shie' is single
syllable. I would not disagree any more, fearing wasting time for defining a
syllable.
The reason for missed 'k' was simply that Chinese could not pronounce
'baek', so they modified it to 'bai' ad hoc. This kind of processes occurs
in Japanese too. For example, Japanese pronounce kim-chi as 'kimu-chi' as
they can not pronounce the final m within a syllable. Actually, k in kim-chi
is closer to 'g', but some people wanted to tell difference between voiced
and unvoiced 'g', so they adopted unvoiced 'k' ad hoc to indicate this sound
is unvoiced one. The problem lies in English, not in Korean, as English does
not make difference between voiced and unvoiced 'g' and even 'k'. In
English, 'k' can be voiced or unvoiced.
Variation in Korean words comparable to your childish examples might be
between the paired words for adult and young animals in Korean.
adult -- kid (English word)
gae -- gang-ajie (dog)
mal -- mang-ajie (horse)
dwaeji -- doyajie (pig)
so -- song-ajie (cow)
You may be curious why 'ng' sound is not added in pig like 'dongyajie'.
Learn more about phonology.
Kaminarikun
You are talking about its content. Obviously themes are different,
yet both are recognized in the west as historical material.
Kaminarikun
> A cluster of five stars is not a solar eclipse. Five stars are Jupiter,
> Mars, Saturn, Venus and Mercury. During the past several millennium, how
> many times could five stars form a cluster? Is there any history text that
> describes this event occurred in B.C. 1733 or 1734? Professor Pak said that
> the probability of coincidence is 0.007%. He and his colleagues used a
> supercomputer, not a Pentium PC, to calculate those dates.
First of all. Dangun doesn't date in western style. One might need to
question that first.
> As a solar eclipse can be seen only in a specific area on the earth, they
> could track down the position of observers based on records of samguksai or
> other texts from the three kingdoms. The results indicated that the Silla
> observer should have been near the Yangtze River before AD 201 and southern
> Korea after AD 787. It is quite interesting that the observers for Paekche
> should have been near Bohai bay, as all events recorded from Paekche could
> have been observed only there.
>
> With respect to solar eclipse events, the hitting ratio of samguksai was
> 80%, 63-78% for some Chinese records at the similar period, and only 45% for
> Nihon shogi. The ratio was 70% for all recorded solar eclipse in handangogi
> when allowing +/-4 years error. http://www.eurasiad.com/handan_astro.html
> (hangul)
And this researcher might need to be examined as well.
The book was written, SUPPOSEDLY, around 13th century when astronomical
data might've been more advance by that time.
Also when discussing Dangun everyone seem to ignore Chulmon people(some
say they were like Ainus)
that lived in Korea from about 8000BC to 700BC. All the while some like
to claim ancient Korea
was founded around 2333BC.
"The first state in the Korean Peninsula, Gojoseon was founded by
Dangun
Wanggeom in 2333 BC."
Obviously you can't have both.
t-d
> "t-d" <liancou...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
> news:ccd5440b.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > Hangul after 1933 has logically 11,172 combination characters.
> >
> > choseong: g, gg, n, d, dd, r, m, b, bb, s, ss, ', j, jj, c, k, t, p, h
> > (19)
> > jungseong: a, ai, ya, yai, oe, oei, yeo, yeoi, o, oa, oai, oi, yo, u,
> > uoe, uoei, ui, yu, eu, eui, i (21)
> > jongseong: g, gg, gs, n, nj, nh, d, r, rg, rm, rb, rs, rt, rp, rh, m,
> > p, ps, s, ss, ng, j, c, k, t, p, h (27)
> >
> > 19 * 21 * (27+1) = 11172 (jongseong is optional)
>
> It is true that the total combination of written syllables is 11,172 based
> on modern Korean writing system. The number 11,172 is correct for KS-C 5601,
> a computer font system for hangul. However, the number of spoken syllables
> are far richer than that, because Koreans also can have tones and accent (or
> intonation), and because the sound of a written syllable can be changed
> slightly but regularly depending on the next syllable by processes such as
> intersonerent obstruent voicing.
That depends on how to count syllables.
A phoneme /p/ in English has two allophones: [p] and [ph]. But it is
unmeaningful to distinguish [p] with [ph] when counting syllables
because of the complementary distribution. The same is true of Korean.
Voiced [g] and unvoiced [k] are an allohone of /g/.
The vowel length distinction is being lost in Seoul dialect and the
high-low pitch accent has been lost or is phonologically meaningless.
I think that they should be represented by each jamo rather than
precomposed syllables. Indian scripts such as Devanagari, Tamil and
Thai do so although they are much more complicated than Hangul. The
allocated area of Unicode to Hangul is too large for an alphabet. This
is just an aside.
t-d
> "t-d" wrote in message
> news:ccd5440b.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > Do you still believe this sequence?:
> > > >
> > > > (original) --> Korean --> Cantonese --> Mandalin
> > >
> > > I do not think it is any kind of belief. It is rather a plain fact than
> a
> > > belief.
> >
> > As I shown before, "Korean --> Cantonese" could not have been occured.
> > Lack of tonal system in Korean clearly shows it.
>
> Decreasing number of syllables (homonym) has required more complex tonal
> systems in current Chinese dialects . Far richer and diverse Korean syllable
> system do not need such ad hoc solution like tones. Do you mean that archaic
> Chinese might have had more tones than current Chinese dialects?
You should study Ancient Chinese, which had both tones and final
constants -p, -t and -k.
Here is a comparison of Ancient Chinese and Middle Korean. Ancient
Chinese sounds were reconstructed by B. Karlgren and they were
compared by R. Ko^no. It is very complicated, so I show you small
parts.
Encoding: UTF-8
A.Chinese M.Korean
Initial Constants
k- k-
kʻ k-
gʻ k-
ng- '-
n- n-
n//˘- n-
ńź- z-, '-
l- r-
Final Constants
-n -n
-m -m
-ng' -ng
-ng -ng
-t -r
-p -p
-k' -k
-k -k
Vowels and Final Constants
-ân -an
-ậm -am
-âm -am
-âng -ang
-â -a
-ậi -ɐi, -ai
-âi -ɐi, -ai
(snip)
-ång -ɐk, -ang
-a -a
-aiα -a
-aiβ -ɐi, -ai, -yɐi
The simplified family tree I supposed:
(?)/--------------------------> Cantonese
/
Archaic Chinese -> Ancient Chinese -> Middle Chinese -> Mandarin
\ \ \
\---------------------> Sino-Korean
Hoklo Taiwanese
lol!
not a language expert, but here's what i want to say:
spoken korean belongs to the same family as japanese, which is completely
different than chinese. certain words may sound similar among these 3
languages. but so what? (for instance, the words 'mom' and 'dad' from many
different languages throughout the world sound very similar....variations of
'ba, pa, ma.'.) grammar is the key, not the sounding of words. korean
shares similar grammar with japanese, which are totally different than
chinese grammar.
there never was any "korean" people in canton, china. if anything, they
could only be the ancestors of present day koreans.
hahaha. just cuz both cantonese and korean may sound annoying and rude, it
doesn't mean they are related in any way, at any time.
why only pick on cantonese to glorify korean??? right on the vicinity of
cantonese speaking people, there are other chinese dialects....hakka,
teochow, minnan, etc.. it's more sensible to talk about the relationships
among these chinese dialects....not korean!
korean language should be compared with japanese. who taught whom??? who
was da masta? lol!
Hoklo Taiwanese
> "LT Lee" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5eb15984.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > skj...@wam.umd.edu (Sukgeun Jung) wrote in message
> news:<eb309be5.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > masa...@yahoo.com (leon yin) wrote in message
> news:<265898cc.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > In America,
> > adults say horse as "horse," small kids say horse as "horsie,"
> > adults say dog as "dog," small kids say dog as "doggie,"
> > adults say bird as "bird," small kids say bird as "birdie,"
> > adutls say blanket as "blanket," small kids blanket as "blankie," so
> > on and so forth.
> >
> > I don't think the adults are learning the word from the kids and
> > missed the "ie" while learning.
> >
> > I think it is more logical to assume that the adults know the language
> > before the kids. They add the "ie" as emphasis attract the kids'
> > attention. Similarly, early Koreans might want to emphasize the origin
> > of the word as "Made in China" by adding an extra syllable to attract
> > attention.
>
> I said Korean syllable has more richer final constants within a syllable
> than Chinese, not an 'extra syllable'. For example, Chinese pronounce
you call it "richer final constants." but i call it "tedious, extraneous
tumor"
> 'white' as 'bai' while Koreans as 'baek'. The seemingly added last
constant,
> 'k', is not a syllable as you imagined. I am quite suspicious that you
know
> even the difference between syllable and consonant, based on your
argument.
>
> An example was 'shie' in Chinese. They may claim that 'shie' is single
> syllable. I would not disagree any more, fearing wasting time for defining
a
> syllable.
hahaha. syllabi are for latin based languages, not applicable to chinese.
the differences between korean and chinese in pronounciation cannot be
precisely explained using english letters and english pronounciations of
these letters. you're just using the wrong tools to study chinese (and
korean), therefore nothing sensible and precise can come out of it. garbage
in garbage out.
> The reason for missed 'k' was simply that Chinese could not pronounce
> 'baek', so they modified it to 'bai' ad hoc.
huh? the chinese can pronounce anything. raise a chinese kid in korea for
a while and he can speak perfect korean. raise an african kid in korea for
a while and he can speak perfect korean as well.
ok, before the chinese "tried" to speak korean long, long time ago, what
language were the chinese speaking originally? the chinese definitely
weren't mute, were they?
just exactly why the chinese had to learn to speak korean? and why did they
fail so miserably that they had to omit the 'k' constant at the end of a
syllable.
Sukgeun Jung
news:ccd5440b.02082...@posting.google.com...
> The simplified family tree I supposed:
>
> (?)/--------------------------> Cantonese
> /
> Archaic Chinese -> Ancient Chinese -> Middle Chinese -> Mandarin
> \ \ \
> \---------------------> Sino-Korean
>
Your scheme implies that Cantonese was segregated from Ancient Chinese before
Korean. The fact is Korean was segregated from the main China after the 7-th
century AD, while Cantonese people continued to interact with norther
Chinese. Your scheme does not explain this.
Considering the geographic distance and segregation, Korean language should
be closer to Middle Chinese or Mandarin, not to Cantonese. As you tried to
demonstrate so far, Korean language is closer to Cantonese rather than
Mandarin. Your scheme still do not explain this inconsistency.
However, the following scheme of Hanja transfer explains the puzzle.
Korean (East Yi) Hanja -->Ancient Chinese--> Middle Chinese -->Cantonese,
| | +------>Mandarin
| V V
+------> (Hanja in 3 Kingdoms) --> (Idoo in Silla) --> Koryo --> Hangeul
In this scheme, I do not deny the influence of Chinese Hanja on Koryo and
Chosun. Depending on the period, the direction of cultural transfer could
change.
And, Koreans were segregated from Cantonese area and confined to the Korean
peninsula since the 7-th C AD.
During the Shang period, all three types of Hanja (Chinese character)
already had been developed (pictography, logography and lexigraphy).
Moreover, semantic and phonetic determinative were developed in this period.
It will not be surprising that phonetic determinative continued to be
developed in Korea to establish Idoo before 600 A.D., finally inventing
Hangul in 1446 A.D.
William Boltz (1986) concluded that the Ta wen k’ou graphs (1900 B.C. ) are
indeed the predecessors of the Shang pictography (B.C. 1200). He differed
"Origins of civilization in China” from “Origins of Chinese civilization”
.
He noted distinct two kinds of inscription of the Shang dynasty: 1) oracle
bone inscription (OBI), and 2) bronze inscription. Shang OBI had rough and
angular, with a strong dominance of straight lines, whereas the characters
of “bronze inscriptions” are replete with circles, ovals and curved
strokes of a kind nearly impossible to incise on bone or turtle shell. Shang
bronze inscriptions are generally limited to simple statements of who made
the vessel for whom. The OBI, on the other hand, consist of considerably
more complex, often ritually formulaic, divinatory texts.
Pictographs found in the Shantung province show evolutionary process of
writing system according to Boltz (1986).
(1) Insignia or emblem-type graphs found on pottery fragments from a
neolithic site at Ling yang ho, near Chu hsien, souther part of modern
Shantung province (4300-1900 BC)
(2) Emblem-type character painted on a hu vase found at Pao t’ou village,
Shantung province (Middle Ta wen k’ou period)
(3) Partial insigne found on pottery fragment from Ch’ien chai, north of
Ling yang ho (Late Ta wen k’ou culture)
The feature of the Ta wen k’ou pictographs (1900 B.C.) is matched by the
‘clan name’ emblems on Shang bronzes of a few centuries later.
Let’s summarize the propagation sequence of Hanja system and technology
among the four cultures with respect to Chinese writing system (Hanja): Ta
wen k’ou (4300-1900 BC), Yangshao (West) vs. Lung-shan (East) (3000-1000
BC) and Shang (1700-1027 BC).
<Propagation of Hanja system>
Ta wen k’ou (pictograph) -> Shang dynasty
<Propagation of technology>
Ta wen k’ou (Neolithic) -> Lung-shan (Neolithic + bronze weapon) -> Shang
dynasty (bronze)
Now, it seems certain that Hanja (Chinese writing) did not come from
Yangshao culture, but Hanja might have came from Ta wen k’ou through
Lung-shan (Youngsan). The Lungshan people were far advanced at pottery than the
concurrent Yangshao people. Undoubtedly, the Lungshan was the predecessor of
the Bronze Age (Shang) kingdom.
Few people would deny the fact that “East I” or “East Yi” was the
dominant people of Lung-shan culture. And, Koreans had been called East Yi,
as Yi indeed denotes a ‘big bow’, which still symbolize why Koreans are
undefeatable champions in Olympic archery. Moreover, it would not be
coincident that the Shang people firstly used a new composite bow and that
the Hanja (Chinese character) denoting Yi is the shape of the composite bow.
A picture of composite bow can be seen at
http://www.rom.on.ca/pub/shang/shangd.html.
Sukgeun Jung
> First of all. Dangun doesn't date in western style. One might need to
> question that first.
I think you are more intelligent than implied in the above statement. Is
there any history book in Asia that wrote dates in western style? If not
written in western style, people can not convert the dates into western
style? In Handangogi, they recorded the number of years for each throne or
sovereignty without omission, and you can back-calculate the year of any
event recorded, and convert lunar dates to western dates, while
crosschecking with the date of any common event that other history text
books also recorded.
> And this researcher might need to be examined as well.
The professor has researched in College of Natural Science, Seoul National
University. If you doubt their research quality, I would doubt all of
research from Tokyo University. Of course, I believe reputation of a college
should not be a major factor to determine the quality. I do not think It is
surprising that you dare bring up possibility of faking, as you may think
Korean historians may be the same kind as Japanese counterparts who have a
history of faking. Unlike Japanese academia, no Korean historians have been
suspected of faking artifacts. They are indeed too much attached to accuracy
and objectivity compared to western scholars. I know them.
> The book was written, SUPPOSEDLY, around 13th century when astronomical
> data might've been more advance by that time.
Do you mean that the writer of Handangogi around 13th century used a
supercomputer to calculate the date when the Five stars form a cluster, or
Koryo (13-th century in Korea) was so much advanced in astronomy and
mathematics to calculate the date without a supercomputer? If so, the
writers of Handangogi would predate Newton by more than 400 years. Or, do
you mean that some people in Koryo might be clairvoyants who can see the
computer screen of 20-th century?
It seems to be true that a few sentences in Handangogi were modified while
copying around 1911. Koreans, including me, acknowledge it. However, the few
modified sentences can not justify denying all of the history text book. In
the world, which text book was not modified at all while copying? Comparing
with Handangogi, Nihon Shogi is indeed an imaginary novel. Comparing hitting
ratio of solar eclipse, Handangogi is 70% while Nihon Shogi is just 45%.
Still, historians, especially westerners, cite Nihon Shogi while
acknowledging some parts were exaggerated or modified. Look at the whole
context of Handangogi at first. This is what so-called nationalist
historians in Korea ask for.
Sukgeun Jung
news:ccd5440b.02082...@posting.google.com...
> That depends on how to count syllables.
It is unarguable that Korean has the richest syllables among the world
languages. You are trying to allude that Korean has fewer syllables while
applying narrower definition of a syllable, and other language has more
syllables while applying a broader defining. Can you specify number of
syllables for Korean and English based on a consistent criteria? If you can
not, let's stop talking about it.
In any case, you can not deny that Korean has far richer syllables than
Chinese whatever you define a syllable.
> A phoneme /p/ in English has two allophones: [p] and [ph]. But it is
> unmeaningful to distinguish [p] with [ph] when counting syllables
> because of the complementary distribution. The same is true of Korean.
> Voiced [g] and unvoiced [k] are an allohone of /g/.
The sounds of allophones are different. Syllables in English are pronounced
mostly independently, whereas the pronunciation of Korean syllable is
influenced by the preceding syllable as in processes such as coda
neutralization, places assimilation, obstruent nasal assimilation,
aspiration, post obstruent tensing, penalization, umlaut and intersonorant
obstruent voicing. In English, the sound of 'p' or 'k' differs depending on
the positing within a syllable. So the open 'p' or 'k' always has the same
sound. However, in Korean, the opening sounds of 'g', 'd', and 'b' differ
depending the preceding consonant that is positioned in the preceding
syllable as the final constant. If preceding consonant is unvoiced,
penalization occurs in /g/ /d/ and /b/. Else, intersonorant obstruent
voicing occurs. For the open code, they are unvoiced. For the same written
syllables, the sounds are clearly different.
> The vowel length distinction is being lost in Seoul dialect and the
> high-low pitch accent has been lost or is phonologically meaningless.
So, are you going to say most Koreans use Seoul dialect? How much percentage
among Koreans speak in Seoul dialect? Busan dialect is not Korean?
>
> I think that they should be represented by each jamo rather than
> precomposed syllables. Indian scripts such as Devanagari, Tamil and
> Thai do so although they are much more complicated than Hangul. The
> allocated area of Unicode to Hangul is too large for an alphabet. This
> is just an aside.
Your opinion is near-sighted. Information age and globalization requires
Koreans to accommodate foreign languages around the world. Based on KS-C
5601
standard, hangul can not express effectively foreign pronunciations such as
'v', 'f', and 'r'. Jeongeum standard, based on the original hunminjungeum by
King Sejong, is the unique alphabet system that can accommodate virtually
all
syllables that human vocal cords can make.