755 replies to this topic

[nishishei]

Thanks, I always thought Tibetan was not tonal, because its script doesn't have tone marks.

Haha, neither does the Chinese script.

I'm not sure if Tibetan can still qualify as a phonetic script, because it is based on pronunciations more than 1500 years old. The Tibetan word pronounced groop (which means to accomplish) transcribed per grapheme into Latin letters is BA SA/GA/RA/U BA SA (BSGRUBS). Imagine English today written with the same spelling as found in the original Beowulf, but spoken like we do now. And people complain about English spelling now.


First 50 lines of Beowulf (in Old English):

Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,

5
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra

10
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning!
ðæm eafera wæs æfter cenned,
geong in geardum, þone god sende
folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat

15
þe hie ær drugon aldorlease
lange hwile. Him þæs liffrea,
wuldres wealdend, woroldare forgeaf;
Beowulf wæs breme (blæd wide sprang),
Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.

20
Swa sceal geong guma gode gewyrcean,
fromum feohgiftum on fæder bearme,
þæt hine on ylde eft gewunigen
wilgesiþas, þonne wig cume,
leode gelæsten; lofdædum sceal

25
in mægþa gehwære man geþeon.
Him ða Scyld gewat to gescæphwile
felahror feran on frean wære.
Hi hyne þa ætbæron to brimes faroðe,
swæse gesiþas, swa he selfa bæd,

30
þenden wordum weold wine Scyldinga;
leof landfruma lange ahte.
þær æt hyðe stod hringedstefna,
isig ond utfus, æþelinges fær.
Aledon þa leofne þeoden,

35
beaga bryttan, on bearm scipes,
mærne be mæste. þær wæs madma fela
of feorwegum, frætwa, gelæded;
ne hyrde ic cymlicor ceol gegyrwan
hildewæpnum ond heaðowædum,

40
billum ond byrnum; him on bearme læg
madma mænigo, þa him mid scoldon
on flodes æht feor gewitan.
Nalæs hi hine læssan lacum teodan,
þeodgestreonum, þon þa dydon

45
þe hine æt frumsceafte forð onsendon
ænne ofer yðe umborwesende.
þa gyt hie him asetton segen geldenne
heah ofer heafod, leton holm beran,
geafon on garsecg; him wæs geomor sefa,

[xng]

The characteristics of sino-tibetan are the following which must be satisfied:

1. Tonal

2. Monosyllabic

3. Noun classifier

4. Some common basic words (not all) within language group


No other language family in the world has these combinations.
**************************************************

Sino-tibetan language family has 3 main branches:

1. Sino branch - cantonese, mandarin, hakka, hokkien, wu etc (compare to germanic branch)

2. Tibetan/burmese (compare to indo branch)

3. Tai/laos (compare to latin branch)


The subject-verb-object order can be different. eg. sino branch and tibetan branch.
The adjective-noun order can be different eg. sino branch and tai branch.

Incidentally, studies have shown that the tibetans/burmese and the han chinese are genetically similar due to their common origins. The tibetans migrated south and the han migrated east.

[xng]

hey, I think linguisticians know better than us about that.

Not all linguists agree that vietnamese belong to mon-khmer ! In fact in the past, it was grouped under sino-tibetan. The most important thing is that we must identify the characteristics of the sino-tibetan languages.

Some linguists also think that tai language is a separate language family rather than as a branch of sino-tibetan so NOT all linguists agree on all things. If you see the numeral system in tai, you will know that it is very similar to sino numerals pronounciation and system.

Then some linguists think that korean and japanese are not related ! I think it is based more on national pride than on scientific classification.

[Gubook Janggoon]

Numerical system can mean something but doesn't really help out.

Japanese has a Sino system..

Korean has a Sino and a Native system..

[nishishei]

Then some linguists think that korean and japanese are not related ! I think it is based more on national pride than on scientific classification.

Why other than for a few vocabulary and some macro grammatical similarities would you think Korean and Japanese are related? Their indigenous numbers are completely different for one. Their phonology is completely different. Japanese has an Austronesian-like phonology (little to no diphthongs, incredibly small inventory of syllables, repetition of syllables, very monotonous with similar sounding syllables). The only things really that Korean and Japanese have in common (besides the Sinitic link) are that both are fully SOV, and CONSEQUENTLY use postposition particles, and words are agglutinative (which applies to just about every language in Asia that has SOV structure). In the world, SOV languages are MORE COMMON than SVO languages like Chinese and English (which coincidentally are huge in population).

In fact even the Korean-Altaic connection is recently cast in to doubt, the Korean and Japanese connection is on even shakier foundations.

Middle Mongolian
niken Jirin gurban dörben tabun Jirghughan dologhan nayiman yisün arban

Proto-Tungus
ämün zhör ilan dügün tuñga ñöngün nadan zhapkun xüjägün zhuwan

Korean
hana tul set net tasôt yôsôt ilgop yôdôl ahop yôl

Classical Japanese
pitö puta mi yö itu mu nana ya könönö töwo

Middle Chinese
'iêt8 ñzhi6 sâm2 si6 nguo4 lyuk8 ts'yet7 pwat7 kyeu4 zhyep7

Classical Tibetan
gtshig gñis gsum bzhi lnga drug bdun brgyad dgu btshu

[Gubook Janggoon]

Ugh...the old romanization...I'll write them out like the way they sound.

Hana 하나

Dool 둘

Set 셋

Net 넷

Da suht 다섯

Yuh Suht 여섯

Eel Gobe 일곱

Yuh Duhl, or Yuh Duhlb 여덟

Ah Hobe 아홉

Yuhl 열

[nishishei]

Ugh...the old romanization...I'll write them out like the way they sound.

Hana 하나

Dool 둘

Set 셋

Net 넷

Da suht 다섯

Hehe, not really. Korean initials are never voiced in the beginning of a word.
This is just like Mandarin, e.g. T'aipei is spelled Taibei in Pinyin; but it's not a real voiced "b"; it's just voiceless unaspirated, in IPA it is still [t'Ai pei]. It's not because the sound actually changed from an English pei to Pinyin bei; it's just that Latin alphabet convention traditionally designates b,d,g as voiced and p, t, k as voiceless. And both Hanyu Pinyin and the new Korean romanization broke that rule by assigning b, d, g to voiceless consonants.

In Japanese, for example TANAKA, the t is like English t, the k is like Hanyu Pinyin g. Both the t and the g are voiceless (the latter is voiceless unaspirated). Only consonants that are aspirated in Japanese are the first syllable of a word; everything else is usually unaspirated (so like Pinyin b, d, g and the new Korean romanization). If you want a real voiced syllable in Japanese, it's spelled with b, d, g: like BUDOU (grape).

[ren]

Quite a few linguists today actually don't think Vietnamese should be part of Mon-Khmer.  75-80% of Vietnamese words come directly from Sinitic words, and remaining 20% come from proto-Sinitic origins (Sino-Tibetan). Vietnamese grammar and syntax are very similar with Sinitic and proto-Sinitic (the commonly used example of adjective after noun like Tieng Viet is also a Sinitic syntax,  e.g. 华东、人客, though less used today); both are also isolating. What remains of Vietnamese that can be called Mon-Khmer is actually just a few words like "fish" and numbers, that could have just as easily been loaned from its neighbors.  Far more BASIC words in Vietnamese come from Sinitic and proto-Sinitic than from Mon-Khmer (which doesn't pass a hundred).

Even southern Chinese dialects like Wu and Min are less tonal (because of extensive tone sandhi) than Vietnamese; and tonality is a very Sino-Tibetan trait.
Article arguing why Vietnamese should be classified within Sino-Tibetan:  http://www.vny2k.net...tm#sino-tibetan

I glanced over your link... The problem I have with the "Viet is Sino-Tibetan" argument is that there are Austroasiatic equivalents to those Sino-Viet words, so it's more of a case saturation by Chinese in Viet.

However, it is a valid argument to appraise its Sino-Tibetanness, I suppose, since at a certain point, when traces of the old language becomes just a sub-stratum, it can no longer be classified through the sub-stratum, BUT I don't think Viet ever reached that point,and now in modernity and the end of history, it won't slide further into Sinitc.

[AhMan]

Modern Vietnamese, like English to Latin, will have to make use of more and more mandarin for political, scientific terms.
The point is that Mandarin has its own problem copying with the deluge of English words in politics and sciences so Vietnamese will either have to work much harder than their neighbour or they should switch to using English as second language.
Classification of Vietnamese into Mon Khmer group is never expected to be absolutely comfortable but I think in general it is acceptable.

[xng]

Classification of Vietnamese into Mon Khmer group is never expected to be absolutely comfortable but I think in general it is acceptable.

If you say vietnamese belong into mon khmer, please list down the characteristics of this language group and try to see whether vietnamese matches them.

For your information, mon-khmer is non-tonal !

[Gubook Janggoon]

Hehe, not really.  Korean initials are never voiced in the beginning of a word. 
This is just like Mandarin, e.g. T'aipei is spelled Taibei in Pinyin; but it's not a real voiced "b"; it's just voiceless unaspirated, in IPA it is still [t'Ai pei]. It's not because the sound actually changed from an English pei to Pinyin bei; it's just that Latin alphabet convention traditionally designates b,d,g as voiced and p, t, k as voiceless. And both Hanyu Pinyin and the new Korean romanization broke that rule by assigning b, d, g to voiceless consonants.

In Japanese, for example TANAKA, the t is like English t, the k is like Hanyu Pinyin g.  Both the t and the g are voiceless (the latter is voiceless unaspirated).  Only consonants that are aspirated in Japanese are the first syllable of a word; everything else is usually unaspirated (so like Pinyin b, d, g and the new Korean romanization).  If you want a real voiced syllable in Japanese, it's spelled with b, d, g:  like BUDOU (grape).

Eh..romanization sucks......I'll just take your word for it seeing as your the language guy.

I tend to prefer the new Korean Romanization over the McCune-Reischauer one...I'm guessing you prefer the latter?

[nishishei]

I tend to prefer the new Korean Romanization over the McCune-Reischauer one...I'm guessing you prefer the latter?

Not for Korean and Mandarin, I prefer the new Korean one and Hanyu Pinyin as well.

But for Japanese and Wu, I prefer the voiceless = p,t,k,s,ch (voiced = b,d,g,z,j) system, because they have real voiced consonants and their voiceless unaspirated consonants are all fortis (forceful) like French and English.

So it all depends on the phonology.

[AhMan]

If you say vietnamese belong into mon khmer, please list down the characteristics of this language group and try to see whether vietnamese matches them.

For your information, mon-khmer is non-tonal !

Well, if you insist i recommend you do it yourself. Because if I am to do it I will search on google or wikipedia and paste the whole things I find here, which is a waste of my time.
Maybe rudeboy can do it for me.