[lifezard]

Hi,

I hope any experts could help me with this question:

I have read that modern Korean is descended from ancient Silla language which, in turn was descended from Sam Han languages that was very differnt from the Koguryo language from the north...

My question is: How many, if any, of Koguryo words is actually adopted to latter Korean

Thanks a million for any (useful) replies..

[WangKon936]

lifezard, on Jan 1 2006, 08:51 AM, said:

Hi,

I hope any experts could help me with this question:

I have read that modern Korean is descended from ancient Silla language which, in turn was descended from Sam Han languages that was very differnt from the Koguryo language from the north...

My question is: How many, if any, of Koguryo words is actually adopted to latter Korean

Thanks a million for any (useful) replies..

Well,

I don't think a whole bunch of phD's in East Asian linguistics go to this site. It's not a knock on the site because there are some knowledgable people here. Usually the phD's that hang out and converse in places like Korea Studies Web bulletin board. The nature of the hypothetical Koguryo language has been a hot topic lately as it has been publicized that the language might be the precursor to Japanese.

Anyways, the two most knowledgable Western scholars on your topic is Christopher I. Beckwith of Indiana University and the author of "Koguryo: The Language of Japan’s Continental Relatives" and the other is Roy Andrew Miller, phD from Columbia University and author of "Languages and History: Japanese, Korean, and Altaic." Some other guys that are helpful to look at are Jonathan W. Best of Havard who's an expert on Paekje history. Koguryo and Paekje might have spoken a common language originally from the northern Kingdom of Puyo. Also check out http://www.corea.it/kudara_1.htm by an Italian professor who knows a lot about the language of Paekje (which might be related to Koguryo through the common origin through Puyo).

Here is an excerpt from Korea Studies Web on your exact same topic from phD's and not clueless amaturs like myself:

"I am not sure where Mr. Atkinson's friend came up with the number six, but if we stick to a basic linguistic definition of language, we may be able to claim anywhere from five to twenty languages on the peninsula during the three kingdom period. The problem is that some who make claims about what language was what on the peninsula are not being completely open and honest, as we have no written records *in the languages* of Paekche, Koguryo, Kaya (Kara), Silla, or peninsular Wa. So how do they know? I have written about the language of Paekche, and have provided information and etymology for roughly 80 words from the Paekche corpus (Bentley, New Look at Paekche Korean: data from Nihon shoki, Language Research (Ohak yon'gu), vol. 36.2, 417-443). But we have very little surviving data on morphology or syntax or other data that would help us see Paekche as a language, and not merely a list of words. My own work has suggested that Paekche and Silla were related 'languages', but that is simply a scholarly hypothesis, not a fact. I don't go around claiming that this is proven.

Lately Chris Beckwith has come out with a very provocative book titled, Koguryo: the language of Japan's continental relatives (Brill 2004). It is not my intention to review the book here, but suffice it to say this relationship (the claim that Japanese is a Koguryo language) is based on the tenuous comparison of about 140 Koguryo etyma. To me this is like looking at the skin of an elephant through a microscope and trying to guess what the animal is. It is not impossible, mind you, just highly difficult, and requires great skill.

In the end, Mr. Atkinson should ask his friend who the source of this claim about a) the peninsula had six languages, and one migrated to Japan is. We should remember that while Chinese and peninsular records talk about the Wa, we do not even know what language the Wa spoke. It could have been Ryukyuan, or Western Japanese, Eastern Japanese, or Central Japanese. Or it could have been a language that eventually died out. There are so many yet-to-be-answered questions regarding this thorny debate. But that is probably what makes it so popular as a topic of dicussion.

Best,
John R. Bentley
Northern Illinois University"

This post has been edited by WangKon936: 04 January 2006 - 02:09 PM

[wuTao]

WangKon936, on Jan 3 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

I don't think a whole bunch of phD's in East Asian linguistics go to this site. It's not a knock on the site because there are some knowledgable people here. Usually the phD's that hang out and converse in places like Korea Studies Web bulletin board.

I would like to visit this website. What's the web address of the Korea Studies Web bulletin board?

[WangKon936]

wuTao, on Jan 4 2006, 12:35 AM, said:

I would like to visit this website. What's the web address of the Korea Studies Web bulletin board?

http://koreaweb.ws/

[wuTao]

WangKon936, on Jan 4 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

http://koreaweb.ws/

Awesome, thanks!

[redflowers]

Can we spell the Korean words?

It means whether it exists some rules or orders to spell any Korean word?Maybe I can't explain this so well,but image U the English and French,German:U can't spell English,but it's quite apparently that U can't spell French and Germans ones,almost without any axception !!! Can we can also spell the Korean ones?

This post has been edited by redflowers: 06 June 2006 - 06:21 AM

[redflowers]

Is it possible that someone with only knowing the Korean language(both comprehensive reading and writing) can know some Chinese writings?

[ren]

hua, on Sep 4 2006, 03:23 AM, said:

Korean nationalism never cease to amaze me. First they make a claim at Puyo regions in Jilin because of the Koguryo connection, even though it is not sure or certain if most of the current Koreans are descended from them. They were only a ruling, conquering elite during 3 kingdoms period.

Indeed, the only linguistic analysis done on the Koguryo language by a linguist, Beckwith, connects the Koguryo language with Japonic languages (Japanese and various Okinawan/Ryukyuan lanaguges) and not at all with Korean.

Info on the book can be found here, http://linguistlist....fm?BookID=11991.

Since I've seen no scholarly review criticizing the Beckwith study and research and conclusions, this book is the end-all, say-all of the Koguryo language's relationship with Korean: no relationship. Korean scholars point to the limited number of Koguryo words available and that nothing is conclusive, but that can't explain away why those limited number of words is more similar to ancient Japanese than to Korean.

[Yun]

See also this thread: http://www.chinahist...showtopic=13456

[WangKon936]

rudeboy, on Sep 4 2006, 11:21 PM, said:

Indeed, the only linguistic analysis done on the Koguryo language by a linguist, Beckwith, connects the Koguryo language with Japonic languages (Japanese and various Okinawan/Ryukyuan lanaguges) and not at all with Korean.

Since I've seen no scholarly review criticizing the Beckwith study and research and conclusions, this book is the end-all, say-all of the Koguryo language's relationship with Korean: no relationship.

Rudeboy,

You are wrong on both counts. There have been a fair number of reputable linguists that have looked at the Koguryo language in depth. Roy Miller is one, Bruno Lewin, John Whitman and Samuel Martin are others.

Also, there IS scholarly review criticizing Beckwith. The review below is one of several I can show you. If you want more, just let me know.

Quote

Koguryo, the Language of Japan's Continental Relatives: An Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study of the Japanese-Koguryoic Languages with a Preliminary Description of Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese.

(Book Review) Korean Studies - January 1, 2005 Thomas Pellard

Word count: 1272.

citation details
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Koguryo, the Language of Japan's Continental Relatives: An Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study of the Japanese-Koguryoic Languages with a Preliminary Description of Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese. By Christopher I. Beckwith. Brill's Japanese Studies Library, vol. 21. Leiden: Brill, 2004. 274 pages. $124.00 cloth.

This volume is an attempt to recover the ethnolinguistic history of the ancient Korean kingdom of Goguryeo/Kogury0 (henceforth Kogury0), recently brought to the attention of the public by a politico-historical controversy. It focuses on the reconstruction of the Kogury0 language and its relations to other languages, which will also be the main object of this review, but also encompasses connected subjects such as Chinese historical phonology, the origins of the Japanese language and people, and the Altaic theory and even devotes a whole chapter to various broader linguistic issues.

Beckwith proceeds in this volume to a philological investigation of the "Old Koguryo" (OKog) toponyms recorded in the twelfth-century Korean history Samguk sagi and also takes a look at the fragments of the "Archaic Koguryo" language (AKog) found in older Chinese chronicles. Interpreting these transcriptions in Chinese phonograms through his personal version of Chinese historical phonology, Beckwith gives then a reconstruction of the phonological system of his OKog, as well as 139 Koguryo words, out of which he identifies about a hundred cognates with Japanese.

Beckwith concludes that the Koguryo and Japanese languages are genetically related, as already assumed by many scholars, but rejects the Korean and Altaic connections. Actually, Beckwith dismisses the Altaic theory as a whole, even the convergence theory, by denying the very existence of an Altaic typology. For Japanese, he rejects all forms of Altaic, Korean, Austronesian, and, of course, the mixed language theories. In his view, Japanese and Koguryo are in "an exclusive close genetic relationship" (p. 183).

Beckwith then tries to back up his theory with historical background and discuss at length the history and the archeology of Northeast Asia. Arguing for lexical and typological similarities with the Sino-Tibetan languages, he hypothesizes about ancient contacts and concludes that the Proto-Japanese-Koguryoic homeland was located in Southern China or Southeastern Asia. The Japanese-Koguryoic speakers would have migrated to the North, some of them remaining on the continent to form the Puy0-Kogury0ic people in Manchuria and Korea, others moving by sea to Southern Korea and to the North of Kyushu, where they became the ancestors of the Japanese people.

Unfortunately, Beckwith's ambitious work is heavily flawed in many aspects, of which I will provide only a few examples. First, I deplore the general opacity of his methodology, since most of his reconstructions are his own, quite different from the ones adopted in mainstream Chinese (Baxter 1992; Sagart 1999; Starostin 1989, 1998-2003) and Japanese (Martin 1987) historical phonology, and it is unclear how they were arrived at. His comparisons thus use reconstructions that are too often problematic, sometimes simply incorrect, or, worse, just circular.

For instance, the mysterious Proto-Japanese (PJ) *mika < *miak 'eye' (p. 157) is simply teleological: the Hateruma form "min" (said ad hoc to go back to *mina) quoted as evidence is simply the regular reflex of Proto-Ryukyuan *me, with a lexicalized nasal suffix (Martin 1987: 74-75; Oyler 1997). Similarly, the reconstructions of PJ *rmaj > ume 'plum' and *rmey > umi 'sea' (pp. 146-47) are completely ad hoc. They are supported by neither internal nor comparative method, and such consonant clusters have never been posited for PJ. The Yaeyama form "[sup.m]mi" quoted as evidence (p. 147) cannot be found in Hirayama's reference dictionary (1988: 139-40; Yaeyama dialects forms are recent loans from mainland dialects since plums don't grow there). Anyway, both words cannot be reconstructed with the same onset since umi doesn't exhibit the m-/o- alternation of mume/ume in Japanese, and both words have completely different Ryukyuan reflexes (Shuri ?Nmi 'plum' vs. ?umi 'sea'). Their putative Chinese sources don't exhibit an initial *r- in standard reconstructions either: 'plum' *mi (Baxter), *m[??] (Starostin); 'sea' *hmi? (Baxter), *sm[??]? (Starostin).

Many words are also cut down into pseudo roots, although there is no internal evidence for a morphological boundary: the only argument for those segmentations seems to be that they make the comparisons look better. For example, the reduction of OJ naga 'long' to *na (p. 133), taka 'high' to *ta (pp. 136-37), or toporu 'to pass through' to to (p. 137, oddly reconstructed as *t[??]wn) and their comparison with OKog cannot be accepted without justification.

It seems that all the above "reconstructions" are motivated only by the urge to provide them with an etymology: external comparison is privileged in detriment of internal evidence. Other quite irregular correspondences and derivations can also be found, with irregular forms too easily dubbed as "dialectal," and, for some of them, the author even confesses that "these phonological changes are almost completely unexplained" (p. 149).

Beckwith's comparisons also include a significant number of cases with questionable or unrealistic semantics. I am thus not convinced that OKog *tsu 'to shoot with a bow' should be compared with OJ tobu (reduced ad hoc to *to) 'to fly' despite Beckwith's claim that simply "arrows fly" (p. 140). The most puzzling comparison is found on p.143, where OKog *yatsi 'mother' is said to be cognate with OJ yatukwo 'slave.'

I also find unpersuasive the too-easy and too-quick dismissal of the non-Japonic etymologies for Kogury0 words (Itabashi [2004] provides a much more thorough list of Altaic, Korean, and even Austronesian etymologies by various authors). Too quick is also the conclusion that the language underlying the toponyms represents the actual language of Koguryo and the rejection of opposite views. The exact nature of the source language of the place names remains problematic in spite of Beckwith's arguments, and this has led some scholars to label it cautiously "pseudo-Koguryo."

In addition, many of the phonetic fonts are misprinted, and the mixing of IPA characters and conventional transcriptions can be in some cases confusing.

In conclusion, Beckwith's book is a valuable attempt to have a new look at the Koguryo fragments, within the broader scale of a global ethnolinguistic study of Ancient Eastern Asia. Nevertheless, its too many methodological shortcomings forbid us to accept Beckwith's reconstructions and conclusions, although it is quite clear that some of the Kogury0 place names indeed represent in all likelihood a language related to Japanese that was once spoken in the center of the Korean peninsula.

REFERENCES

Baxter, William H. 1992. A Handbook of Old Chinese phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hirayama, Teruo. 1988. Minami Ryukyu no hogen kiso goi. Tokyo: Ofusha.

Itabashi, Yoshizo. 2004. Kokuri no chimei kara Kokurigo to Chosengo/Nihongo to no shiteki kankei wo saguru. Nihongo keitoron no genzai [Perspectives on the Japanese language origins], ed. Alexander Vovin and Osada Toshiki.
Kyoto: International Center for Japanese Studies. Pp. 131-84.

Martin, Samuel E. 1987. The Japanese Language through Time. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Oyler, Gary G. 1997. "The Beginning of the /N/: In Search of the Origin of the Noun-final Mora Nasal in the Language of Hateruma. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Sagart, Laurent. 1999. The Roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Starostin, Sergei. 1989. Rekonstrukcija drevnekitajskoj fonologicheskoj sistemy. Moscow: Nauka.

--. 1998-2003. "Chinese Etymological Database." The Tower of Babel (http://starling .rinet.ru/).

Thomas Pellard

Paris, France

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citation Details
Title: Koguryo, the Language of Japan's Continental Relatives: An Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study of the Japanese-Koguryoic Languages with a Preliminary Description of Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese.(Book Review)
Author: Thomas Pellard
Publication: Korean Studies (Magazine/Journal)
Date: January 1, 2005
Publisher: Thomson Gale
Volume: 29 Page: 167(4)

The best expert on Koguryo history in the west, Mark Byington, thinks that Beckwith is something of a quack considering that he does not take into account the wealth of archeological evidence regarding the origins of Koguryo and instead relies on linguistic analysis alone based on some VERY fragmentary evidence.

First rule of real scholarship is that you really shouldn't make such sweeping comments like that unless you know what the heck you are talking about.

[ren]

WangKon936, on Sep 5 2006, 01:22 AM, said:

Also, there IS scholarly review criticizing Beckwith. The review below is one of several I can show you. If you want more, just let me know.

I was unaware of scholarly reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Thanx for this and please provide all the ones you know. I've already added your review to the topic on the Koguryo language's relationship to Japnic and Korean on my forum: http://z6.invisionfr...p?showtopic=863.
I assure you I'm not politically motivated on behalf of Chinese. It was just my opinion based on scholarly material I was aware of.

1. HOWEVER, the point is, even in this review, the relationship between Japonic and the Koguryo language isn't denied, simply some of Beckwith's reconstructions. This is what the reviewer said,
"Beckwith concludes that the Kogury0 and Japanese languages are genetically related, as already assumed by many scholars, but rejects the Korean and Altaic connections."
...
"Nevertheless, its too many methodological shortcomings forbid us to accept Beckwith’s reconstructions and conclusions, although it is quite clear that some of the Kogury0 place names indeed represent in all likelihood a language related to Japanese that was once spoken in the center of the Korean peninsula."


2. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, the review doesn't deny the LACK of relationship between the Koguryo language and modern Korean.

Quote

The best expert on Koguryo history in the west, Mark Byington, thinks that Beckwith is something of a quack considering that he does not take into account the wealth of archeological evidence regarding the origins of Koguryo and instead relies on linguistic analysis alone based on some VERY fragmentary evidence.

Beckwith is a linguist, not an archaeologist. I don't see how an archaeological connection necessarily equals to a language relation??
He isn't denying that Korea owes much of its origins to Koguryo, but simply that the Koguryo language isn't related to Korean. One can't retroactively make Koguryo to be Koreans simply because Korea owes its beginnings to Koguryo.
Similarly, I know of no express prove that the Shang spoke a Sinitic language, even though they are the cultural ancestors of the Chinese.

I think you are being too emotional about this.

This post has been edited by rudeboy: 05 September 2006 - 02:21 AM

[qrasy]

rudeboy, on Sep 5 2006, 03:01 PM, said:

1. HOWEVER, the point is, even in this review, the relationship between Japonic and the Koguryo language isn't denied, simply some of Beckwith's reconstructions. This is what the reviewer said,
"Beckwith concludes that the Koguryo and Japanese languages are genetically related, as already assumed by many scholars, but rejects the Korean and Altaic connections."

But the reviewer seems not too agree with Beckwith:
"Its too many methodological shortcomings forbid us to accept Beckwith's reconstructions and conclusions"

Quote

Similarly, I know of no express prove that the Shang spoke a Sinitic language, even though they are the cultural ancestors of the Chinese.

Didn't the 甲骨文 has some 形聲字? That can be used to see what family language it's more like...

[WangKon936]

rudeboy, on Sep 5 2006, 02:01 AM, said:

He isn't denying that Korea owes much of its origins to Koguryo, but simply that the Koguryo language isn't related to Korean. One can't retroactively make Koguryo to be Koreans simply because Korea owes its beginnings to Koguryo.
Similarly, I know of no express prove that the Shang spoke a Sinitic language, even though they are the cultural ancestors of the Chinese.

I think you are being too emotional about this.

Perhaps I was too emotional about it, but I am really sick and tired of laypeople thinking that Beckwith's book is the freak'in Rosetta Stone or something like that, when it's not. I'm also tired of people distancing Koguryo from Korean heritage using Beckwith's book. I don't think it was Beckwith's intention to have his book used in this manner.

[WangKon936]

rudeboy, on Sep 4 2006, 11:21 PM, said:

Indeed, the only linguistic analysis done on the Koguryo language by a linguist, Beckwith, connects the Koguryo language with Japonic languages (Japanese and various Okinawan/Ryukyuan lanaguges) and not at all with Korean.

More on the subject, this one from a Japanese language linguist Dr. John R. Bentley of Northern Illinois University:

Quote

Dear All,

As one who has done some research on the onomastic data in Samkuk saki (SKSK) I have found the various comments on the languages of Silla, Paekche, and Koguryo interesting. However, let me urge caution on over speculating on this subject. These data constitute terribly thin evidence for any linguistic conclusions. One of the pitfalls of much research on these important data concerns the interpretation of the Chinese graphs. These graphs are often interpreted according to Sino-Korean or Karlgren's out-dated Chinese reconstructions. Even recent attempts to use innovative Chinese reconstructions err because many of the toponyms preserved in SKSK predate Early Middle Chinese (EMC, ca. 6th century). Let me give an example that hopefully will illustrate the difficulty of this problem.

The name of the 21st king of Paekche is spelled gai4 'canopy' + lu3 'salt flat'. The traditional reading is Kay-lwo (using Yale romanization). Nihon shoki, interestingly, calls him Lord Kasuri (spelled phonetically). Just a different name? But notice what happens if we analyze the SKSK spelling according to Axel Schuessler's Later Han reconstruction (which represents Chinese pronunciation from around the third century CE): gai4-lu3 is *kas-lwo. The early Japanese appear to have inserted a vowel between the *s and l- (though it is just as possible the Paekche transcription ignored the medial vowel). The divergence of the final vowels is another problem that has exciting possibilities. My point is that simple comparisons here have a tendency to fail to accurately account for all the data. Scholars need to strive for rigor when analyzing these data. Even an appeal to Pulleyblank's EMC yields kayh-lo, without shedding light on the medial consonant. The evidence of the medial *s- is important here.

Several postings have mentioned that Koguryo and Japanese appear to be closely related. This may or may not be the case. As a linguist it is probably wise to say that this is simply a working hypothesis, and should be taken with a grain of salt on two counts. One, less than fifty words have been identified, which is quite tenuous to declare language A is related to language B. Second, Professor John Whitman has noted in a review of Ruins of Identity that there is a possibility that the Japanese-like toponyms predate Koguryo's possession of those areas. If correct, then we have a situation like here in the US where European settlers drove out Native American dwellers but kept their toponyms in many cases. If this proves correct, then Japanese and Koguryo may have nothing in common. I think the jury is still out on this one.

My final caveat is to avoid drawing broad conclusions on such a small corpus of data. Consider the folly of people 1500 years from now who do not correctly understand the history of the US and see toponyms like St. Louis, Milwaukee, New York, and El Paso, and think these languages were mutually intelligible dialects of the same language.

Best,
John R. Bentley

[Bab-ilu]

I happen to be the one who has written the review of Beckwith's book for Korean Studies quoted above, and I completely agree with the quote by John Bentley, which is the opinion of most of the specialists I think. We don't really know about the language of the Koguryo kingdom, we have mostly place names from the same region.
About Modern Korean, it is indeed assumed to descend from the language of Silla, which we do not know very well. But we know that it was different from the language of Paekche.