173 replies to this topic

[xng]

The thai language is placed as one of the 3 branches of the sino-tibetan language family by some linguist ie.

1. Sino
2. Tibetan-myanmar
3. Tai

Thai language is

1. Tonal (as many tones as the southern chinese languages)

2. Richer set of endings (similar to southern chinese languages) when compared to languages such as japanese

3. Mostly monosyllabic

4. Basic grammar is the same as sino except that the adjective come after the noun eg. chicken male (as in cantonese) instead of male chicken.

5. Numbering system from 0-9 is the same and sound similar to southern chinese dialects.

6. Use noun classifiers .

7. Simple grammar (with no present/past/future tense, no verb changes etc)

I know that the thai language is written in indian script but would it be possible to write it in chinese characters instead ? Do the zhuang people in china write their language in chinese script ?

Vietnamese has been placed under mon-khmer by some linguist although it sounds quite close to the thai language to the untrained ear with similar grammar ie. adjective after noun. Han-viet part of vietnamese language would certainly belong to the tai branch if we ignore the basic khmer words.

Edited by xng, 11 January 2006 - 01:32 PM.

[qrasy]

Oh... the "same" topic again....

1. Tsat of Cham origin has 5 tones. rGyarong which is similar to Tibetan has no tones.
2. Malay and Khmer have even richer set of endings. Hmong only have the -ng ending (that means no -p,-t,-k) , that's why they could very easily develop a script in which tones are represented by endings.
3. I don't understand "monotonic"
4. "Similar grammar" of mostly isolations? While a few of Tibeto-Burman have inflections?
Cantonese use something like "雞乸" that I think as "chicken female", with "female" (乸～女)as "base", "chicken" as modifier. The usage of Cantonese 仔 after a noun is more meaningful than Mandarin 子 after 桌 and 椅.
5. For Thai, 3-10 is similar, 0 and 1 is not, and 2 is using "other word" (compared to Chinese) with similar meaning.
6. Then Austronesian and Austroasiatic are also included in Sino-Tibetan?
7. Future and Past are "unreal" in Chinese, Indonesian and Vietnamese. (by simply adding a word). Classical Tibetan have inflections, even for past tense.

Thai script derives from Khmer script, which ultimately derives from Hindi, but neither is actually Hindi.
I forgot how Zhuang wrote their script, but in modern they wrote with latin characters. Tone is shown by adding something to the end. There was a reformation to change the special letters into a combination of basic latin characters. Zhuang language is written on the Renminbi 人民币.
As for writing in Chinese, it should be as difficult as writing Chinese in Vietnamese. (Japanese is also very hard, but the condition is not too similar). I doubt that Tibetan can be written well with 100% Chinese.
I don't bring my Renminbi, but I still remember "cib maenz" (in new script) means "10$" (十文).
EDIT:
old script examples:
CuŋƄgoƨYinƨminƨYinƨhaŋƨ haɜ gak
中国人民银行五角
mənƨ=文(元)
<I have a broken 1 renminbi money, can't read the "1", i something, if I remember correctly, it should be "it">
Ƅ=tone 6, ƨ=tone 2, ƽ=tone 5
new script example:
Cunghgoz Yinzminz Yinzhangz haj maenz=中国人民银行五文(元)

I have not done large-scale vocabulary comparison simply because I don't have data, and what SIL linguists do is grouping Viet-Muong under Mon-Khmer, Miao Yao and She under their own family called Hmong-Mien, and Tai inside Tai-Kadai.

Edited by qrasy, 07 January 2006 - 11:56 AM.

[xng]

Oh... the "same" topic again....

1. Tsat of Cham origin has 5 tones. rGyarong which is similar to Tibetan has no tones.
2. Malay and Khmer have even richer set of endings. Hmong only have the -ng ending (that means no -p,-t,-k) , that's why they could very easily develop a script in which tones are represented by endings.
3. I don't understand "monotonic"

If a language just have only one or two similarities, it is not considered to belong to the same language family. Thai language have most if not all of them which are characteristics of the sino-tibetan language family.

It should be monosyllabic not monotonic means you use one sound to convey a meaning eg. sam means three.

polysyllabic languages are languages like japanese which use 'arigato', english which use 'corrigible' etc.

Edited by xng, 08 January 2006 - 12:37 PM.

[urofpersia]

It should be monosyllabic not monotonic means you use one sound to convey a meaning eg. sam means three.

Hi,

but there are many examples of polysyllabic words in Chinese and Thai. Just interested in knowing how to classify a language as mostly monosyllabic.

[浪淘音]

not all Sinitic languages are tonal in the same way either

the relation of Sinitic languages to Tibeto Burmic languages is still a theory. the theory holds more water than the altaic theory but its still a theory

unlike the Indo European family, no proto Sino-Tibetan language has been constructed

[ren]

not all Sinitic languages are tonal in the same way either

the relation of Sinitic languages to Tibeto Burmic languages is still a theory. the theory holds more water than the altaic theory but its still a theory

unlike the Indo European family, no proto Sino-Tibetan language has been constructed

It isn't a theory as many root words have been reconstructed, thousands. The situation is totally different from the Altaic situation, where a group of languages have a lot of similarities except for provable root vocabulary.
Here is a list of reconstructed words: http://starling.rine...;stibet&first=1
The chance of these Sino-Tibetan languages not being related is close to nill. No one, virtually atleast, questions this.

It's relationship to Tai-Kadai is also possible. Unlike Viet or Miao-Yao/Hmong-Mien, which I've looked at, Tai-Kadai actually have a lot of rbasic words similar to Chinese/Sinitic.

Edited by rudeboy, 07 January 2006 - 05:36 PM.

[浪淘音]

It isn't a theory as many root words have been reconstructed, thousands. The situation is totally different from the Altaic situation, where a group of languages have a lot of similarities except for provable root vocabulary.
Here is a list of reconstructed words: http://starling.rine...;stibet&first=1
The chance of these Sino-Tibetan languages not being related is close to nill. No one, virtually atleast, questions this.

It's relationship to Tai-Kadai is also possible. Unlike Viet or Miao-Yao/Hmong-Mien, which I've looked at, Tai-Kadai actually have a lot of rbasic words similar to Chinese/Sinitic.

but proto sino tibetan hasn't been constructed

and you misread me, i didnt compare it to the altaic situation, i said the theory holds more water than the altaic theory. i never said it was the same situation

plus, linguists like Christopher I. Beckwith, Roy A. Miller, and W. S. Coblin due question the relationship between Sinitic and Tibeto Burman

it is 95% possible but until its indisputable, its not fact yet

Edited by 浪淘音, 07 January 2006 - 08:48 PM.

[qrasy]

If a language just have only one or two similarities, it is not considered to belong to the same language family. Thai language have most if not all of them which are characteristics of the sino-tibetan language family.

Tsat is Cham derivative, so it has "past-future simplicity", "classifier" at first.
Then due to contact with Hokkien, Hlai and Mandarin it simplifies, isolating, mostly monosyllabic, tonal.

polysyllabic languages are languages like japanese which use arigato, english etc.

The heavy consonant cluster in Classical Tibetan looks like contracted form of polysyllabic words.
Example: Though "brgyad" is pronounced in single syllable, but it seems derived from vowel losses in 2 or 3 syllable.

but there are many examples of polysyllabic words in Chinese and Thai. Just interested in knowing how to classify a language as mostly monosyllabic.

The Germanic roots of English is mostly monosyllabic. (one, two, three are monosyllabic; water and seven are not). Khmer mostly monosyllabic and sometimes disyllabic, almost no 3 syllable words.
Indonesian almost no monosyllabic words. Mostly 2-3.

not all Sinitic languages are tonal in the same way either

I heard Cixi dialect of Wu has lost the tones.

the relation of Sinitic languages to Tibeto Burmic languages is still a theory. the theory holds more water than the altaic theory but its still a theory

See some special migration markers, and we can possibly see which gtoups are possibly one family.

unlike the Indo European family, no proto Sino-Tibetan language has been constructed

Proto-Sino-Tibetan+ *k-tyig *k-in-hnis *k-in-t'um *p-l-shi *p-l-nga *t-r'uk *s-Nis *t-r'iat *t-kua
(taken from http://www.zompist.com/sino.htm ), showing that there were somebody who tried to reconstruct it.
There are always somebody who tries weird construction. Even I've seen tries to reconstruct Sino-Dene-Caucasian.

It isn't a theory as many root words have been reconstructed, thousands. The situation is totally different from the Altaic situation, where a group of languages have a lot of similarities except for provable root vocabulary.
Here is a list of reconstructed words: http://starling.rine...;stibet&first=1
The chance of these Sino-Tibetan languages not being related is close to nill. No one, virtually atleast, questions this.

It's relationship to Tai-Kadai is also possible. Unlike Viet or Miao-Yao/Hmong-Mien, which I've looked at, Tai-Kadai actually have a lot of rbasic words similar to Chinese/Sinitic.

I've not read through them all, actually apart from numbers and a few words I don't really see the connection between Tai and Sinitic , just looking from first pages.

Sometimes I see some condition like Khmer is closer to Chinese than Tai does. (perhaps wrong observation though)

Edited by qrasy, 08 January 2006 - 06:58 AM.

[xng]

Hi,

but there are many examples of polysyllabic words in Chinese and Thai. Just interested in knowing how to classify a language as mostly monosyllabic.

For one thing, if a polysyllabic can be broken into 2 monosyllabic characters which has its individual meaning , then it is monosyllabic. eg. computer is 'electric brain' in chinese. And also we look at the percentage of essential words which are monosyllabic. Chinese words are overwhelming monosyllabic.

English is essentitally polysyllabic because most of the words are pronounced with multiple sounds and cannot be broken. (exception do exist but they are the minority).

It isn't a theory as many root words have been reconstructed, thousands. The situation is totally different from the Altaic situation, where a group of languages have a lot of similarities except for provable root vocabulary.
Here is a list of reconstructed words: http://starling.rine...;stibet&first=1
The chance of these Sino-Tibetan languages not being related is close to nill. No one, virtually atleast, questions this.

It's relationship to Tai-Kadai is also possible. Unlike Viet or Miao-Yao/Hmong-Mien, which I've looked at, Tai-Kadai actually have a lot of rbasic words similar to Chinese/Sinitic.

I don't quite agree that thai language belong to separate tai-kadai when I see so many similarities between the thai language and the sino languages which is not shared among other language families.

We have the right to disagree with some of these so-called linguists who decided to put into a separate language family. I heard that Miao-yao language also belongs to sino-tibetan group once.

Languages within the same language family means that it is easier to learn than a language outside the language family.

For example, an english would find it easier to learn french than chinese due to similarities in the language (eg. tense, verb changes, gender noun etc)

Edited by xng, 08 January 2006 - 12:43 PM.

[urofpersia]

For one thing, if a polysyllabic can be broken into 2 monosyllabic characters which has meaning , then it is monosyllabic. eg. computer is 'electric brain' in chinese. And also the percentage of essential words which are monosyllabic are much greater.

Thanks for the clarification.

[xng]

See some special migration markers, and we can possibly see which gtoups are possibly one family.

From a genetic viewpoint, the chinese and the tibetan are closely related but when we talk about language family, I would redefine it as how similar the languages are within the same family and thus making it easier to learn. Anyway, the tai people are genetically closer to chinese than the europeans/africans/malays etc.

And the tai/zhuang people seems to have quite a long history of language interaction with the chinese.


I quote somebody's post below:

In Thai there are 2 words for "one" : nueng is the current word, but they say "sip et" for "eleven", where "et" sounds a bit like the cantonese "yaat".
Thai also use 2 words for "two" (but in a different maner from putonghua "er" & "liang" ) : "song" means "two", but "yii sip"means "twenty" , with "yii" very similar to cantonese again.

Edited by xng, 08 January 2006 - 08:26 AM.

[qrasy]

English is essentitally polysyllabic because most of the words are pronounced with multiple sounds and cannot be broken. (exception do exist but they are the minority).

If you notice, the polysyllabic things in English mostly comes from Greek, Latin, or French.
Among 0-10, only 0 and 7 is polysyllabic.
English "basic" (mostly visible) body part:
monosyllabic: Head, Hand, Foot, Eye, Mouth, Nose, Ear, Neck, Waist, Arm, Leg, Tooth, Tongue, Bone, Hair
can be broken: Eyelid, Eyebrow
unseparable polysyllabic: Shoulder, Ankle, Finger

I don't quite agree that thai language belong to separate tai-kadai when I see so many similarities between the thai language and the sino languages which is not shared among other language families.

We have the right to disagree with some of these so-called linguists who decided to put into a separate language family. I heard that Miao-yao language also belongs to sino-tibetan group once.

Language family means common "language ancestor".

Languages within the same language family means that it is easier to learn than a language outside the language.

For example, an english would find it easier to learn french than chinese due to similarities in the language (eg. tense, verb changes, gender noun etc)

Yes, as those grammar characteristics can be inherited. But influence from can also enter the mainstream and inherit to new languages.

From a genetic viewpoint, the sino and the tibetan are related but when we talk about language family,
I would redefine it as how similar the languages are within the same family and thus making it easier to learn.

The tai/zhuang people would have quite a long history of language interaction with the chinese.

Long interaction does not make a language belong to the influencer, except "completely" replaced. That's why English is not Romance but Germanic language; Khmer not Indian language.

In Thai there are 2 words for "one" : nueng is the current word, but they say "sip et" for "eleven", where "et" sounds a bit like the cantonese "yaat".
Thai also use 2 words for "two" (but in a different maner from putonghua "er" & "liang" ) : "song" means "two", but "yii sip"means "twenty" , with "yii" very similar to cantonese again.

That's right, but arguably it's Classical Chinese influence. Complex words tend to use "et" and "yii" more. (but ending of "2" is always "song" never "yii", 22 "yii sip song").
If I recall correctly Kam-Sui languages of Tai-Kadai use Chinese-like numerals even for 1.
Edit: see details of the numbers here:
http://www.zompist.com/asia.htm#Tai
some of Tai-Kadai languages do not use Chinese-like numeral, and there is Tsat influence, visible on the number "6" (Tsat: 6=nam).

Edited by qrasy, 08 January 2006 - 08:43 AM.

[naruwan]

There are acutally not many mono-syllabic languages in the world in ratio.

Even Korean and Japanese are poly-syllabic taking out the barrowed Han words.

All Austronesian languages are poly-syllabic.

[xng]

There are acutally not many mono-syllabic languages in the world in ratio.

Even Korean and Japanese are poly-syllabic taking out the barrowed Han words.

All Austronesian languages are poly-syllabic.

Yes, the sino-tibetan group of languages is unique in being mono-syllabic and tonal. I doubt there are any other language families that have these characteristics plus all the other characteristics that I mentioned.

The austronesian languages eg. malay may have some of the characteristics like 'noun classifier' but they are polysyllabic, non-tonal, and the verb changes (eg. menangis, tangis)

So it would be safe to include any languages that have all these characteristics inside the same language family.

Language family means common "language ancestor".

If we look at a strict definition of language family, then it should have the same language ancestor. Does english really have the same ancestor as latin ??? English have similarities with latin but I doubt they really have the same language ancestor considering genetically they belong to different subbranch of the caucasoid.

If we look at a less strict definition of language family, then languages that are similar in characteristics should be grouped together regardless of whether they have a common language ancestor.

Edited by xng, 08 January 2006 - 12:28 PM.

[浪淘音]

^tonalality is not a pre requisite of Sino Tibetan languages since some languages currently classified as Sino Tibetan are not tonal.

tonality is an areal feature and rarely implies a common linguistic ancestor