Sign In
Register
Help
Hokkien (Minnan) language forum
Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Hokkien Lang (210.186.36.---)
Date: 07-20-02 11:37
Historically it was claimed that Hokkiens originated from tribal groups inhabiting the Central Yangtze Valley who were pushed south-east towards the Fujian Province by the Northerners who subsequently subdued them and imposed their culture and character-writing on them as well as considered them as part of Han Chinese. But the fact that the Hokkien language differs vastly from Mandarin indicates that Hokkiens were originally not Chinese!!! What do you have to say?
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: ppk (---.156ce.scvmaxonline.com.sg)
Date: 07-20-02 12:25
ma na wu eng.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: KCTan (202.186.168.---)
Date: 08-27-02 10:11
Bo eng bo iau kin
Wu pat lang ai chham ka
kam sia
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: BHYeo (219.92.12.---)
Date: 09-24-02 12:46
There are various theories on the origin of the Hokkiens. Basically, I agree that they were originally not Chinese.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: PPK (---.156ce.scvmaxonline.com.sg)
Date: 09-24-02 18:43
should say that they were different from the tribes in the central plains in the beginning. when it comes to 'chinese', china already had a unified country plus a centralised govt, and ppl in hokkien, like ppl in other parts of china, were already part of the 'chinese' family.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Ken (153.20.95.---)
Date: 10-31-02 05:32
Hi,
It depends on how you define the term 'Chinese'. If you go by the strict definition of 'Han Chinese' from the very early Qin & Han dynasties, then only 30% of the present mainland Chinese population are true Chinese.
The Present Chinese Nation and Han Chinese Race were formed through a long and arduous process of territorial expansion from the yellow river regions, assimilation of different peoples that included ancient northern Han Chinese, Mongols, Manchurians, western minorities and the southern tribes. Much but not all of the Hokkien ancestry could be traced to these southern tribes who were originally not Han Chinese. In, fact these southern tribes originally spoke languages closely associated with the southwestern minorities in China, who till now are still not Han people. They are usually called the 'Yue' people.
In fact, contrary to older theories, Hokkien was actually brought down by Han Chinese from the north, who interacted with these southern tribes and subsequently assimilated them into the Han Culture thru both peaceful and forceful ways. Hokkien therefore was essentially one of the languages spoken by northern Han Chinese but also had some influences from the southern tribal languages.
In fact, in the beginning, the northern Han Chinese spoke languages quite similar to Southern dialects like Hokkien, Hakka & Cantonese. Due to war & famines, they migrated to the south and brought with them those languages. Those who remained in the north were continually influenced in their language by the invading northern tribes that included the Khitans, tartars and the Mongols, which resulted in the evoluition of the present Mandarin language.
So, in terms of human genetics, one can say that part of the Hokkien ancestry are that of the northern Han Chinese and the other part would be that of the ancient southern tribes or Yue; but in terms of language, Hokkien is essentially an ancient Han Chinese language that originated from the north.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: hokkien person (---.vc.shawcable.net)
Date: 11-17-02 02:39
hell yes, hokkien ARE chinese, and always will be
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Lan Fang Republic (---.wc-eres.charterpipeline.net)
Date: 12-01-02 05:23
Well, I agree with Ken, because during Han & Qin dynasty most of southern area (that is now part of China, including some Fujian, Guangdong, Yunnan) wasn't ruled by Han & Qin's emperor. Because of 'insane' expansion of those next emperors that today China formed.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: NG ML (211.110.7.---)
Date: 02-16-03 14:29
Try explaining the origin of these words in Hokkien and advicse if they are found in other Chinese dailects:
our - lan(4)
want - bok(4)
sleep - Khoon (3)
don't have - boh (2)
male - ta(1) poh(1)
female - char(1) boh(4)
type - khwan(4)
can -eh(3) sai(4)
I am of the view that Hokkien people are of different origin, like the Yue and Vietnamese who later assimilated with the invading Hans, as a result the Grammar and language underwent changes.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: ppk (218.244.58.---)
Date: 02-17-03 10:19
either you are weak in hokkien or chinese, or both. (simplified chinese fonts below)
our- lan2 or lang2, ren2(?) in chinese, from wa lang, wo3ren2 ???? in ?ancient chinese, abbriviated to lang2. correct in ancient chinese. (them, yi1ren2 ??, them, as in third party, bi1 ren2 ??? and later on, ta1 ren2 ?? )
want - never heard of bok4
sleep - khoon3, kun4??) in chinese, jiangsu and zhejiang area still uses kun4jiao4 instead of shui4jiao4 for 'sleeping'. refer to lu xun, story of ah Q.
dont have - boh2 , should be boh2 in chinese too. the word cannot be found in common chinese dictionaries, and its no longer in use. go to a decent library and refer to the bigger volumes of chinese dictionaries in the reference section. its a you3(?) without the 2 strokes inside.
type - khwan 4, kuan3(?) in chinese, ??is used in modern chinese for type, pattern, style and choice.
can - eh3 sai4, eh3 is probably a meaningless vowel. sai=shi3 (? as in shi3 yong4??. some hokkien like to refer it to ? as in 'driving'. 'can drive', meaning 'its working' )
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: ppk (218.244.58.---)
Date: 02-17-03 13:31
correction, eh3 is probably the abbreviated/mutated version of hui4(?), or huey3 in hokkien, meaning 'capable of'.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: annie (---.dorm.duke.edu)
Date: 03-15-03 01:51
Hi,
I am not into the argument, but I am keen to learn Chaozhou (Teochiu) Dialect, is there anyone who can teach me some basic pronounciations? I will be so grateful. Thank you in advance.
Yours,
Annie
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Aurelio (user244.63.108.---)
Date: 03-18-03 01:30
Hi ppk:
Very interesting. Didn't know that about "wo-ren" and "kun", either. I guess NG meant "beh" by "bok", as in "Gua behki buey mihkia" (supposed to be 'I'm going shopping'). Any opinion on that?
Regards,
Aurelio
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: ppk (61.149.49.---)
Date: 04-01-03 08:18
i am not sure, but guess its abbreviated from beh xiong, or ma'shang(??) in chinese. guess its a rather recent usage and not a refined word too.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Niuc (---.156ce.scvmaxonline.com.sg)
Date: 04-01-03 19:20
Hokkien clearly differentiates 'lan' ? (inclusive we: including you) from 'gun'/'guan' ? (exclusive we: excluding you). This feature is a characteristic of Austronesian languages. Both 'lan' & 'gun'/'guan' are Sinitic, but the usage may be influenced by Yue/Austronesian.
Although in Mandarin ?? za2men5 means inclusive we; ?? wo3men5 can be used as both inclusive and exclusive we; just like "we" in English. This is also true for other Chinese languages, isn't it?
It's quite interesting to notice that plural pronouns in Hokkien are formed by adding 'n' to singular pronouns:
? 'gua' (I) + '-n' -> 'guan'/'gun' (exclusive we)
? 'ly'/'li'/'lu' (singular you) + '-n' -> 'lin' (plural you)
? 'i' (he/she/it) + '-n' -> 'in' (they)
Those plural pronouns can be combined with ? 'lang' (human) as emphasis: 'lan lang', 'gun lang', 'lin lang', 'in lang'.
Aurelio, g in 'gun'/'guan' is same as g in "good". It's not 'kun'.
PPK, is ?? ma3shang4 (Mandarin) pronounced as 'bei siong' in your Hokkien? In mine, it's always 'ma siong' and it's a literary/refined word.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: ppk (61.149.2.---)
Date: 04-02-03 03:24
should be ma siong... as i said, just a guess...
in some northeast china region za'men is used to indicate 'you' or 'plural you' too.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Aurelio (user244.63.108.---)
Date: 04-03-03 04:09
Hi:
The beh (or beq, bo', b?) I mean is used somewhat like "I will", "I am going to" in English. It's definitely not derived from ma (horse) because it has a glottal stop [?] at the end ([be?]). It's definitely not vulgar usage, either, although some people prefer Hokkien ai (Mandarin ?) [Gua ai khi Tiongkok] instead of [Gua be? khi Tiongkok].
My 1998 Xiamen Fangyan Cidian has 10 entries with [be?], the most commonly used ones being probably simply [be?] in the sense of Mandarin ku?-y?, jiangy? to express the near future and Hokkien [be?-si] for Mandarin ruguo or yaoshi - if. Douglas' "Dictionary of the Vernacular or Spoken Language of Amoy" has it, too (that's more than a hundred years old), same for Bodman's "Amoy Hokkien" from the 50s (Spoken Language Services) and "Elementary Hokkien" (Intellectual Publishing, Singapore, recent).
Most people seem to use the "y?" character (Mandarin) to write it, but the Xiamen Fangyan Cidian explains:
"yao/ [be'] is a spoken character, the book-character is unknown (ben-z?w?xi?g). Popularily (m?jian), it is often written "bu" (the character that looks like the right hand side of w? as in w?guoren)".
Some people use Mandarin y?(to wish, "yuk"), too, but I think that's phonetically unlikely.
Regards
Aurelio
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Aurelio (user244.63.108.---)
Date: 04-03-03 04:14
Hi Niuc:
I meant wo3ren2 (gun) and kun4 (khun) - didn't know EITHER of these in Mandarin ;-) Thanks, though!
Regards
Aurelio
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Niuc (---.156ce.scvmaxonline.com.sg)
Date: 04-03-03 18:32
Hi Aurelio & PPK, thanks for your info. Sorry that I misunderstood your postings. :-P
Aurelio, I agree that 'bei' for "want/will" is not derived from 'bei' for "horse". In my dialect (?? Tang-ua* Hokkien): want/will is 'be' ('e' as in "her"); horse is 'bei' ('ei' as in "heir"); hence are totally two different pronounciation.
I also agree that 'be' is not vulgar. In my dialect, usage of 'be' and 'ai' for "want/will" are slightly different. 'ai' tends to means "like".
Are those dictionaries/books still in sale? I can't find them in Amazon, not even the recent "Elementary Hokkien". I'll look for that one in shops here in Singapore but any info about those older ones? Thanks a lot.
About 'bok' meaning "want", is it ? (Mdr: mu4) as in ?? (Mdr: ke3mu4 -> yearn/desire). But this word more likely is a literary word.
I think 'ei sai' (can/allowed) should be written as ??. ? (Mdr: xu3) means 'allow' in Mandarin, as in ?? xu3ke3, ?? rong2xu3. Since the word ?/? is 'xu4' in Mandarin and 'sai~' in Hokkien, it's logical that ? (xu3) is 'sai\'.
? (Mdr: hui4) can be pronunced as 'ei', 'ue', 'huei', 'he' in Hokkien, depends on context and/or dialects.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Aurelio (user244.63.108.---)
Date: 04-04-03 01:43
Hi Niuc:
Actually, I bought both dictionaries in Singapore, so you might be in luck! Takashimaya has (or had two years ago?) a very nice cultural bookstore, I think it was on the ground level. The "Elementary Hokkien" was bought in a bookstore in a shopping mall somewhere in Orchard Road (but that one might be less interesting to you, it's more like a very short introdution to the language, i.e. a phrase-book + CD). The dictionaries, however, are great (the old one is a reprint). I will send you the exact titles tomorrow. "Spoken Amoy Hokkien" is a very extensive language course from the 50s. It's available via "Spoken Language Service" on the internet.
Regards,
Aurelio
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Kobo-Daishi (169.232.229.---)
Date: 04-04-03 02:14
Dear Niuc,
The Carstairs Douglas Dictionary, “Chinese-English Dictionary of the Vernacular or Spoken Language of Amoy” is available at the http://www.cheng-tsui.com/ site’s on-line bookstore.
I saw it offered in one of their previous print catalogs but not in their most recent one.
Here is their blurb about the dictionary.
Chinese-English Dictionary of the Vernacular or Spoken Language of Amoy
Price: $89.50
Author: Carstairs Douglas; Supplement by Thomas Barclay
Unit: Hdcr
Prepared in 1873 by a Presbyterian missionary and updated in 1923, this dictionary remains the premier reference work in English to the Amoy language, then as now spoken by millions both in China and in the diaspora. In his supplement, Barclay pays tribute to the “incalculable benefit” of the original work. Both dictionary and supplement are entirely in Douglas’s own romanization system, though the supplement includes Chinese initial characters. Definitions are detailed and clear, and five appendices on aspects of the Amoy language and its dialects are included.SMC, 1991; 7 x 9.25, 888pp.
Do a keyword search for Amoy at their site. It says the dictionary is available but you should e-mail or phone them to make sure that it is.
I might get a copy myself since Aurelio recommends it so highly.
Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Niuc (203.116.61.---)
Date: 04-04-03 04:07
Dear Aurelio & Kobo-Daishi,
Thanks a lot! :-)
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Aurelio (user244.63.108.---)
Date: 04-04-03 17:04
Hi:
Luckily I kept the pricetag on the book: The shop's name was "Vista Culture Square" and I think that is in Metro Paragon (right hand side of the main entrance) rather than in Takashimaya. The detail information is:
(1)
Xiamen Fangyan Cidian (Li Rong et al.)
ISBN 7-5343-1995-1
$23.20
(2)
Rev. C. Douglas (Suppl. by Rev. T. Barclay):
Dictionary of the Vernacular or Spoken Language of Amoy
(Xia-Ying DaCidian)
ISBN 957-9482-32-2
$92.40
From what Kobo-Daishi writes the price does not seem to have changed too much. Both dictionaries have their merits. The 1873 one is more comprehensive, it uses the Missionary Romanization System and has a lot of variant pronunciations (Hokkien-dialects) and all the literary pronunciations as well. It's a pity that only the supplement has characters (but most words appear in both sections). The Xiamen Fangyan Cidian is all characters and uses the international phonetic alphabet for romanisation. It does have sample sentences in Hanzi for a lot of words, too (one of the rare opportunities to see Hokkien written). The explanations are in Madarin. Both dictionaries are what I'd call "entire word"-dictionaries, none of this "character dictionary - I'll only tell you how to pronounce this character but I won't tell what the special fangyan words mean"-nonsense I have seen for Cantonese. If you can, get them both!
Some years ago I read an onlie Taipei Times article on a new giant Hokkien Dictionary prepared in Taiwan (Hokkien - Mandarin, pronunciation in Bopomofo). Maybe you want to search their online archives on that.
Best regards,
Aurelio
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Niuc (---.156ce.scvmaxonline.com.sg)
Date: 04-06-03 07:34
Dear Aurelio :-)
Cin cia* tou sia ly ????? (Really thanks you a lot).
Thanks to you for the detailed information, I've gotten those two dictionaries at that bookstore, basically at the same price. The bookstore (Vista Culture Square) is also named 'Yuan Jing ??'. Both are really good & interesting. I'm really grateful to get them.
The shopkeeper told me that the big one was the last one available in the shop. Due to very low demand, they didn't stock that one. I felt quite lucky to get it but at the same time saddened of the fact that almost nobody in Singapore had interest in these books.
It's really difficult to find books on Hokkien language in Singapore. At Yuan Jing (Vista) I only found those two. At Kinokuniya Takashimaya those two were not even available, I only found the "Elementary Hokkien" and a Taiwanese book introducing Hokkien. I think the "Elementary Hokkien" is quite good for beginners; it's Hokkien-Mandarin-English-Malay-Japanese, not bad. There are quite a few books/dictionaries on Cantonese, even Shanghainese & Hakka, yet almost none for Hokkien/Minnan. It's a pity that among Southern Chinese in South East Asia, Hokkiens are the most ignorant regarding preserving their own culture/language.
Hopefully in Taiwan as a start, there'll be more Hokkien youngsters interested in gaining back their own heritage (language/culture) and develop it for greater benefits, without being trapped into chauvinism. Other places hopefully will follow. I hope it's not an empty daydream :-)
Thanks a lot & Best Regards,
Niuc
Reply To This Message
Preserving Culture & Language
Author: :-) (---.dialup.mindspring.com)
Date: 04-06-03 14:14
"It's a pity that among Southern Chinese in South East Asia, Hokkiens are the most ignorant regarding preserving their own culture/language. "
Niuc,
I don't know if preserving culture/language has anything to do with ignorance, however, from a sociological point of view looking hindsight into colonial history of South East Asia, I found that Hokkiens followed by Hakkas are so ready to abandon their traditional Chinese heritages compared to other groups such as Cantonese-Guangdong-ren.
Looking hindsight, in the cases of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, the Cantonese as a group in general show the most cultural resistance to assimilating which includes converting to Christianity-Catholicism or Islam, poltical activism, intermarriage with local people...
In the Philippines there is the provincial island called Cebu where at least million residents can trace their roots to Fujian. There is a possibility that Hokkien &/or other Fujian dialects are going strong on Cebu, however, on the island of Luzon it appears that most of the Hokkiens "made" it a "policy" to assimilate and speak Tagolog. It is my understanding that "Chinese culture" in the Philippines is most visible via their small Cantonese community dispite Hokkien having the most dominant Chinese presence. The Chinese demographic pattern of assimilation on Luzon appears to be a microcosm for the rest of SE Asia which I find quite interesting on a regional scale.
The question is why is one group of Chinese such as Hokkien is more likely to assimilate/abandon their Chinese cultures at a more rapid pace than other groups such as Cantonese.
Over the short life of my present career, I've helped first, second, third generation overseas Cantonese from SouthEast Asia who are fluent in Cantonese as well as Tagalog, Bahasa, Burmese, Vietnamese but not English. I've also helped Malaysian-born Cantonese who can't utter a word of Malaysian. On the flip side of the coin, I've also helped Hokkiens from SouthEast Asia but I discovered that many only speak English and Bahasa, Tagalog, Burmese, or Vietnamese but no Hokkien.
So to answer my question as to why Cantonese are most likely not to assimilate locally compared to Hokkiens in SE Asia, I'm witnessing that the overseas Cantonese communities are a highly mobil/trans-migratory community which means many Cantonese are moving within international communities eventually hoping to find a permenant home mainly in North America (Austrailia, England, or France) where one can still maintain a quality of life similar to what one is used to before and not assimilate into mainstream culture. (BTW, Los Angeles is one of their most popular destinations). There is also the obvious reason that in order to maintain business guanxi with HongKong when it "was" a laissez-faire economy, Cantonese fluency still is a "financial asset" as a language with international "currency" when analyzing the value of a group's community purchasing power (contrary to popular/political belief of the pro-Mandarin speaking camp). To me, retaining Cantonese fluency & culture as a result of a successful Hong Kong entertainment industry is not a strong enough arguement for language preservation.
This Cantonese international trans-migrancy culture, I believe, differs from that of Hokkien community who who expected to settle in SE Asia permanently as their final destination. Interesting, once these overseas Cantonese settle in the United States, chances are their children will follow the pattern of assimilation into mainstream society just like the Hokkiens in SE Asia because where else is there left to settle once you've arrived in North America?
I don't believe maintaining Chinese languages/cultural retention has anything to do with chauvanism. In my humble opinion, its preservation has more to do with maintaining international guanxi among overseas Chinese communities.
Unlike the catylistic conditions which inspired other Chinese groups to move into SE Asia, the Cantonese left Guangdong under different circumstances mainly as a result of a Civil Wars. The Cantonese of SE Asia know first hand what it means to be held prisoner in the Killing Fields of Kampuchea where the mainstream media fails to report that half of all Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot where ethnic Guangdong-ren (approx. 1 million). The Cantonese know first hand without warning that they must drop all their wordly possessions in an event of a political crisis such as in the case of Vietnam where nearly all of Boat People fleeing Saigon were ethnic-Guangdong-ren whom many were pilliaged & raped by pirates before becoming food for sharks. Even the Guangdong-ren of North America had their share of historical turmoil in which one never knew when one was subjected to harassment and be deported. Given the international hostilities against the Cantonese-Guangdong-ren people compared to other Chinese groups in general, one understands why retaining "Cantonese" as an international "lingua franca" was so important for the Guangdong-ren. The international Cantonese-Guangdong-ren community was constantly surviving & existing in a state of political flux.
Personally, for me, maintaining Chinese languages & culture is about discovery & unlocking secrets to my past.
:-)
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Lim Eng Di (---.nyc2.dsl.speakeasy.net)
Date: 04-07-03 03:57
Just to clarify:
Smiley Face writes: "The Cantonese of SE Asia know first hand what it means to be held prisoner in the Killing Fields of Kampuchea where the mainstream media fails to report that half of all Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot where ethnic Guangdong-ren (approx. 1 million)".
If you mean in the general sense of Guangdong-ren meaning people from the province of Guangdong this statement is correct. But more likely, most Ethnic Chinese who were killed under the Pol Pot Regime were not Cantonese speakers but rather Teochius. The vast majority were Teochiu. To this day Teochius are the majority of the Chinese population in Cambodia. Cantonese make up a very small minority of the Chinese population. Vietnam however was and is populated by more Cantonese than Teochius.
Thanks
Reply To This Message
Preserving Culture & Language
Author: :-) (---.dialup.mindspring.com)
Date: 04-07-03 08:09
L.E.D.
Some people can not differentiate the difference between Guangdong-ren vs. Cantonese as the former includes the latter while "Cantonese" does not represent all of Guangdong. I'm glad that you are one that can see the difference and that is how I presented my arguement so extra clarification was not necessary on your part to support my position on comparing Cantonese to Hokkiens with regards to assimilation.
Even as a small minority in Cambodia, Cantonese are no more or no less victims of Pol Pot as those whose ancestry hail from Chaozhou, Guangdong. Both groups share the same atrocities and horrors so my statement about "Guangdong-ren" being victims of the Khmer Rouge still holds correct as "Guangdong-ren" is a more an inclusive term. Some people don't realize that when Vietnam was purging (ethnic-cleansing) it's Cantonese community in the South, many Cantonese instead of taking to the sea went an alternative route and sought refuge in Cambodia by mistake only to discover it was another death trap.
Personally, I'm not in a contest to see which community has more or less people or which group had more sacrafices. I'm trying to report situations as I interpret history and try to integrate it into the knowledge share. Yes, Cantonese are still a minority in Cambodia but that does not mean they're arent there at all and originally, I wasn't making a case for "size does matter". You will find in Place d' Italie, Paris a significant community of Cantonese who escaped Pol Pot which supports my position that the Cantonese-speaking community is a highly trans-migratory group and because of this trans-migration they retain their Cantonese language to a higher degree compared to other Chinese groups in order to maintain the guanxi which connects them to other established Cantonese-speaking communities around the world.
According to a report I've reviewed a long while back, the Cantonese community in Paris claim that only 10% of the Cantonese survived Pol Pot's ethnic cleansing for it was the Cantonese community which most symbolized everything the Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate from society, the merchant class. (I have not seen a report consisting what percentage of the Chaozhou people survived under Pol Pot). So if we evaluate the destruction of the Chinese community by percentages in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge, a 90% decimation of a specific target group (ie Cantonese) speaks just as significant as the group (Chaozhou) which lost more lives. Who is to say who suffered more? Again, numbers of lost lives was not the point I was trying to make however, it was their experience of sufferage which I wanted to put forth to support my position.
Have it ever occured to you that the Teochius of the Mekong River & Delta in Cambodia & Vietnam speak Cantonese just as well as the native Cantonese-speakers?
:-)
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Andrew Yong (194.81.212.---)
Date: 04-09-03 20:51
If the e in e sai is hui4, how do you write e hiao (know how to)?
andrew
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Niuc (---.156ce.scvmaxonline.com.sg)
Date: 04-10-03 17:32
Andrew Yong,
'ei hiau' is ?? (hui4xiao3 in Mandarin).
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Niuc (---.156ce.scvmaxonline.com.sg)
Date: 04-10-03 19:23
Hi Smiley Face :-),
Thanks for sharing your view & experience. It's really interesting.
I share your opinion that many Hokkiens in South East Asia have, to various degrees, absorbed local cultures. Hokkiens were the earliest Chinese migrating to SE-Asia, they absorbed local culture and also enriched local culture. E.g.: Malay language contains a lot of words derived from Hokkien and colloquial Hokkien in SE-Asia has many words loaned from/through Malay. There are also people called 'Peranakan', mixed Chinese (mainly Hokkiens) & Malay with combined culture: Malay speaking, Chinese custom/religion, mixed culinary, etc.
Hokkiens whose ancestors came later (end of 19th century & afterward) usually still preserve most of their original culture and still speak Hokkien. Ancestors of Hokkien people in Eastern Sumatra (including my family) came to SE-Asia about 90-120 years ago. We are among the most Chinese of Indonesian Chinese. I heard that many Hokkiens in Manila & nearby still can speak Hokkien, although may be they primarily speak Tagalog. Many of Hokkiens in Malaysia still can speak Hokkien but their youngsters are abandoning it for Mandarin. In Singapore it's even worse.
Unlike Cantonese that have Hongkong media to promote it, Hokkien has none until recently i.e. Taiwanese media that not yet as vibrant as Hongkong's. The media do play important role. In Malaysia, most Chinese can speak Cantonese because of overwhelming Hongkong programs in Malaysian tv stations. Many Malaysian Hokkiens especially youngsters think that Cantonese is better & more trendy than Hokkien. In Indonesia, Cantonese is not that trendy because Hongkong tv programs are dubbed into Indonesian. In Singapore, no 'dialect' tv serials allowed and Mandarin is wiping other Chinese languages out.
As pointed out by Aurelio http://www.chinesela...f=6&i=571&t=571, most Hokkiens don't regard their language as a proper language. They have been being brainwashed for a long time, either by themselves or others (governments, media, etc). Unlike Cantonese that have pride in their own language and resistance against pressure from Mandarin & other languages, Hokkiens usually believe that Mandarin is better and adopt other languages for practical sake. May be they are too materialistic and have no strong attachment to their ancestral heritage. They are also easily deceived by political propaganda that Mandarin is the mother tongue of all Chinese, or that Cantonese is more trendy, etc. May be they just don't care.
I am not against Mandarin or Cantonese or any other languages. I benefit a lot from Mandarin and I like it too. I also like English and benefit even more from it. I believe that multilingualism is a very good thing. Yet I won't abandon my ancestral language because it's part of myself. As you said, it's not about chauvinism, but about discovery. I fully support Mandarin as the lingua franca among Chinese. Knowing Mandarin (& other Chinese languages) should be a help in preserving Hokkien (or Cantonese, etc), not a reason to abandon it. Even knowing English can be a help since most information in internet is in English and it allows Hokkiens that don't know Mandarin to learn Hokkien, e.g. through this forum :-D.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Aurelio (user244.63.108.---)
Date: 04-10-03 23:56
test
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Aurelio (user244.63.108.---)
Date: 04-11-03 17:57
P.S. to my message from 04-03-03:
If you see some nonsense characters there it's because I used the wrong encoding (trying to get unicode to show accents on vowels). It should have read:
My 1998 Xiamen Fangyan Cidian has 10 entries with [be?], the most commonly used ones being probably simply [be?] in the sense of Mandarin kuai-yao, jiangyao to express the near future and Hokkien [be?-si] for Mandarin ruguo or yaoshi - if. Douglas' "Dictionary of the Vernacular or Spoken Language of Amoy" has it, too (that's more than a hundred years old), same for Bodman's "Amoy Hokkien" from the 50s (Spoken Language Services) and "Elementary Hokkien" (Intellectual Publishing, Singapore, recent).
Most people seem to use the "yao4" character (Mandarin) to write it, but the Xiamen Fangyan Cidian explains:
"? [be'] is a spoken character, the book-character is unknown (ben-ziweixiang ????). Popularily (min2jian ??), it is often written "bu ?" (the character that looks like the right hand side of wai as in waiguoren)".
Regards,
Aurelio
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Kai Cheng (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: 04-20-03 03:20
Well, I disagree, I think that Mandarins are the ones who are not traditionally Chinese. There is no idea of a China ever because it's all separate tribes just like there is no real German or no real French or no real American or no real Japanese. The most powerful class dominates and creates a new identity. America is obviously a crazy mix of Irish Americans, Italian Americans, African Americans. British identity is created by a mix of English, Scot, Welsh etc. And even the English themselves were formally a tribe Anglo-Saxon and English did not exist. France is made up of Bretagne, Picardie etc and the Francs from the ?e de France dominated everyone else and expanded their borders.
Same for Chinese. If the Cantonese or Hokkien/Fujianese had been more powerful in voting after the revolution, Mandarin would not be the GUO2 YU3 but it would have been Cantonese. Chinese is not even a real word, in the Chinese language, Chinese cannot be translated. Should it be ZHONG1 GUO2 REN2 (People of the Middle Kingdom), the invention of HUA2 REN2 (The Majestic / Civilized People) in Singapore, or TANG2 REN2 (TNG NANG in Hokkien)? It's just as if Britain split up and people started identifying themselves more as Welsh than British. Of course, governments would never let them happen, always trying to homogenize whether formulating the HOMINUS SOVIETICUS in former USSR or the beautiful Aryan race in Germany or the homogenized Japanese race or the Singaporean, it's all BRAINWASHING. We are all unique and beautiful individuals the way we are and despite our differences, we are all the same human beings with a body and soul. Racial characteristics account for less than 10 per cent of differences between one human and another. That being said, I believe Mandarin Chinese is not the purest Chinese..since I am a Cantonese and Hokkien mongrel, I believe the real Chinese are closer to the South. Even though the seat of the capital has shifted throughout history. Once in Chengdu etc.
This says nothing about cultural purity or Chinese-ness etc. It's all a concept. History proves the most powerful will win and will always dominate and impose their culture. The unification of China has been so ancient that Chinese culture has been imposed on Japan, Korea for centuries. It's breakdown has only been a very recent 19th century phenomenon.
What I am curious about is Mongolian blood. They said that if your last nail on your feet is pointy, if means you are not pure Han is that true? Is Han Chinese a myth? Is there a particular racial characteristic of Han Chinese or is it a myth like the Aryan race?
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: jiang fu jian, tjio hok kian ()
Date: 05-02-03 17:12
we, hokkien lang, are not chinese, but , teng-lang.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Ken ()
Date: 05-03-03 04:19
I agree with Kai Cheng that 'Han-ism' was a concept used by rulers for assimilation and centralised control. It's quite true that southern dialects like Hokkien & cantonese are the original forms of ancient Chinese languages. Due to the invasion by northern tribes of the Khitans, Nuchens, Mongols and the Manchurians (actually the descendants of Nuchens), many fled to the south and brought these languages (Southern dialects). Mandarin evolved as a form of Northern language after much influence from the invaders.
I have a question for tjio hok kian: How do you define 'teng lang' and 'Chinese'? I suppose 'teng lang' is 'tng lang' or 'Tang Ren'. But wasn't Tang dynasty the golden age of China?
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: ppk ()
Date: 05-03-03 15:43
to ken and kai cheng,
being 'chinese' or 'han' in old china doesnt really mean racial composition. its more of a culture thing. if one cannot comprehen that he'll find it difficult or even controversal when looking at chinese history. any race that accepted and practiced the cultural and lifestyle of the central plains can be considered chinese. thats why in chinese history kublai khan and his descendants are considered a chinese ruler, thou of a different race. the mongols were overthrown not simply bcos they are from a different race, they discriminated the chinese culture half the time. the manchus, however accepted most of it and u see the majority han chinese siding them during the qing dynasty.
for mandarin being the official language of china, sorry to tell u, kai cheng, that the population of ppl speaking cantonese and other dialects put together is less 30% of china's population. the majority of them speaks mandarin or close-to-mandarin variations, therefore it was made official. and that didnt happen after the revolution. as early as song dynasty, there is something we called 'guan hua' or 'official tongue' that existed. and its no way cantonese. thats the predecessor of modern mandarin.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Na Ren ()
Date: 05-07-03 15:06
I agree that Chinese refers to cultural and not necessarily racial factors. But even if it was based off of racial factors, I would still say that Hokkiens and the other southern Chinese are still in fact Chinese. The area has been directly controlled by the various Chinese dynasties for a long time, so who is to say that intermarriage between the northerners and southerners has not taken place? Based on Y-chromosome testings, it seems that all the people of the Chinese mainland are descended from two waves of human migration that left from what is now in Kazakhstan, one settling in the north and one in the south. With no barriers dividing the two populations, but mountains and desert isolating the two from others, the mutations characteristic of the south appear in the north and vice versa. And culturally, we are Chinese, how many of the Hokkiens and Teochews in this site actually practise Dai or Austronesian customs? If there are any, let me know.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: A-hiong ()
Date: 05-13-03 04:09
I'm an ABC living in the States. Regarding to what I believe...the definition of "Chinese" is simply this... China in Chinese means(??) "Middle Kingdom." This is where Westerner kind of misunderstand us. Being Chinese is not a racial or ethnic thing, its a national identity. We are all Chinese regardless if we are Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, Mongolian, etc... My best explanation is, if the EU was one whole nation and had been that way for along time then it would somewhat be like a China today. We are kind of more like a collective of different peoples that have similiarities yet are unique. Using a the word Chinese can be such an adaptive word I think. With all the sub-groups we want to be distinctive, unique from other groups yet we also want everyone in the world to know we are one people in one nation that's been this way for thousands of years. We are definitely a unique people, I don't think you can find anywhere in the world where so many different groups of people have been living under one nation for such a long time. And over time we've become one, yet have been able to distinctively separate ourselves from another group from the country. In Europe they have so many small countries that they've separated because of ethnic identity. In China we have our different groups, some in these groups we have a population more than any other European nation out there. Only difference between us is that we have no borders to cross. Everyone in China is Chinese! I don't think in the history of the world there has been a country like China where so many different peoples become one people. We definitely are a special people!
I don't think its as bad as some people think. I know in Taiwan there is a good base for Hokkienese, on tv a lot of the most popular tv shows speak Taiwanese all the time. There's a good budding music interest in Taiwanese. A lot of TV shows in Taiwanese(sorry, I'm just used to using Taiwanese than Minan or Hokkienese because I believe we speak a little differently than the Minan or Hokkienese in the Mainland). There is even news broadcasted in Taiwanese. Taiwanese is definitely alive in the countryside. In the cities its not used as much because Taipei and Kaoshiung are actually mixed. Most people who fled China after the civil war live in the cities and so Mandarin has become dominant there. I have friends from the Philipines that speak only Hokkienese! Not Mandarin! So its not too bad, but not as good as the Cantonese. It could be better. I hear in Taiwan some political groups want to make it a requirement in school that all students learn Taiwanese.
Bilingualism is very important. I think Westerners don't want to give us credit because for many generations China has been a bilingual nation. Europeans boast how many of them can speak different languages, just because we've become one nation doesn't mean that we haven't created the same feat... Everything is referred as Chinese, most westerners from my perspective(my whole life actually) refer everything as "Chinese," most people don't know the distinction on how very unique and different we are. To tell you the truth we are the first nation to become a real melting pot. We've blended so many people into on concotion. Everywhere in China people can call themselves Chinese and they can call themselves something else as well. Where else in the world can you go about from one nation talk in a common language and hear a different language on the streets? Yet can also read and write the same to communicate? There really aren't that many nations that have done this for thousands of years.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Aurelio ()
Date: 05-21-03 02:19
Dear A-Hiong,
your post opens up a lot of different interesting perspectives. It's good to hear that you think that everybody living in China is Chinese, regardless of their Han- or non-Han ancestry (kind of "We are all Americans"). Where does that leave the 100s of millions of Han-ren, though, that are living outside of China, e.g. in the United States? What about Taiwan itself (in the status quo)? Looks like there is a second meaning of "being Chinese" which is cultural, irrespective of where you were born (I'd agree with you and previous posters that this is way more important than whatever your genes might say).
Every once in a while one of those nonsensical "XYZ fangyan group is not truly Chinese" topics will come up (I do not mean this particular one where the question was asked in a very reasonable way). I guess that the motivation is usually a political one, trying to find linguistic/ cultural/ biologic reasons why a certain part of SE Asia should not be part of the PRC (see some posts in the Cantonese group on this server about this). For similar political reasons every once in a while there is somebody claiming that some cultural feat of Chinese history was indeed brought about by the now "suppressed" neighbours (Korea, Vietnam, what have you). Luckily, we've been spared most of this on this thread (not enough people knowing Hokkien ;-) ....?)
There's no doubt that Hokkien has a significant portion of words which do not have modern Mandarin counterparts. In a different post I have estimated them to be around 10 % of the language's vocabulary
(http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read.php?f=6&i=642&t=635#reply_642)
and a significant part of these might not have Han-counterparts in Middle/ Ancient/ Archaic Chinese. Some of them are very common, as the words for "field", "woman", "cow", "meat" which makes it unlikely (though not impossible) that these are borrowed from another language. From all we know from other "case histories" of language contact, there will have been a pre-Han substrate of which some is left even after 1000s of years of mixing with Han-speakers.
Does that make the Hokkien people non-Chinese (in the cultural sense)? According to virtually all posters on this thread - obviously not! (as a waiguoren I don't have much of a say in this, but I'd agree).
As far as preserving Hokkien, the situation seems to be very different in Taiwan and the rest of SE Asia. Over the last 5 (?) years there has been a growing support for Hokkien in Taiwan leading to a whole flood of publications and internet websites. That's what I currently put my hope in for the preservation (and growth) of the language. If you go to Malaysia/ Singapore, however, you will hardly find any written Material on Hokkien, though. So, I guess the fate of Hokkien still needs to be determined. I'm sure the internet helps.
I'd agree with you that the Chinese culture and the degree of homogeneity within China are truly impressive. As far as multilingualism is concerned I'd have some remarks, though: Are you sure that multilingualism applies all across the PRC? It's definitely common in Malaysia and the neighbouring countries where people speak 6 languages easily, and I wouldn't be surprised if it holds true on the southern coast of China, but what happens if you go north (i.e. into the majority's language territory - how many people will know, say, Cantonese?). It's a common feature that minority populations speak many languages but not the other way round. Finally: Give the poor ang-mo some more credit for their linguae francae: Latin was used for almost 1900 years in most of Europe and is still (in a modified way) in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Romania and parts of Switzerland. Granted, people don't use classical Latin as a univeral means of communications anymore, but it looks like English is taking over that position now.
Best regards,
Aurelio
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: A-hiong ()
Date: 05-21-03 06:40
I guess if you put it in a certain aspect that Hokkiens in certain areas are losing their ancestry tongue but I think it may come out different sometime later. Taiwan is thriving and I think may one day be in the same position as the Hong Kong media. Today I hear on the radio and tv a lot Taiwanese phrases and conversation. To younger people its becoming a "cool" thing to know Taiwanese. Of course one of the lures to young people to learn Taiwanese is to learn curse words. Mandarin doesn't have very good curse words. Mandarin is always considered like a "formal" language or a polite language to most Taiwanese. So I guess that helps in a way. Also so many younger artists out there are using Taiwanese in their music nowadays. Even Hong Kong popstars are trying to cash it in by singing in Taiwanese as well.
I didn't mean to not give credit to European languages. Its just it confuses me that they call Spanish and Italian two languages. They have sooooo much in common, yet when you compare Taiwanese and Mandarin, its called a dialect. Its not, Dialects would sound much closer alike than how Taiwanese and Mandarin are. It would be more like comparing German and Spanish when comparing with Taiwanese. About the northerners. To some degree it can be considered bilingualism. Some northern provinces speak differently, which I would consider a "dialect." For instance Shandongnese sounds like Mandarin but I wouldn't know what a Shandongnese are talking about. I can pickout a some phrases and words but I don't understand what they are saying. Its like me and Cantonese, I don't know what they are saying but without knowing Cantonese, I can probably understand a good 40% -60% of the lanuage. My point is that if you consider the "dialect" and common or standard Mandarin as two different tongues then I guess you could considered it Bilingualism.
However if you don't consider "dialects" as bilingualism then I understand. Northerners would be less likely to be bilingual but then again, many of the intellectuals in China know English. I wouldn't say that many Chinese are bilingual as Malaysians (6 languages, OMG!) but then again, with people going to the cities to work these days, many Chinese have to adapt to their surroundings. They eventually learn a whole new language to get around. I know a lady who knows Shanghainese (her birth place), Cantonese, Taiwanese, and Mandarin...she learnt Cantonese and Taiwanese because she moved around in her job. Overall for a country its size, I think it has a pretty high percentage for bilingualism. I would really like to see statistically how many Americans are bilingual. Small countries I notice are more likely have bilingual citizens because how small it is and to do business its required that they learn another way to communicate with others. As China grows I think bilingualism will grow. I think one disadvantage of having English as your native tongue is that you can easily feel that you don't need to learn another language since most other people are learning English. Some pros and cons there.
10% of Taiwanese are actually from Mandarin words. Also, what perplexes me as well is the grammatics is different. Its not the same as Mandarin. Neither are the "sayings" or phrases. Some of them don't make any sense in literal translation but mean something only in Taiwanese.
Taiwanese itself has its own dialects. My dad is from Keelung and mom is from Chiayi. They both speak a little differently. Some words are pronounce differently. Sometimes I think its two separate words but its not. And I hear people in the Kaoshiung and Tainan area of Taiwan really speak different from Taipei people. I don't know much about Hokkien from other places because the only people I speak Hokkienese are with people from Taiwan and Philippines (but they originally came from Taiwan too). So I wouldn't know how different their Hokkien would be from my parents. I heard that in Fujian province alone they say that there are over 100 dialects in that province! Crazy huh? But I think it would be fairly intelligently mutual. Although, I've heard people speak in Chaozhounese and I had trouble keeping up with what exactly they were saying. Maybe its just their accent????
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Aurelio ()
Date: 05-22-03 01:17
Dear A-Hiong,
you're absolutely right: Cantonese and Mandarin or Hokkien and Mandarin are much further apart than Italian and Spanish, at least as much as Spanish and French. There are two good reasons to call them different languages: (1) that they are mutually unintelligible and (2) that they have dialects of their own, like you said. I think the use of the word 'dialect' is more due to the "one nation, one language" policy than actual linguistic fact.
I don't know where that leads us with the multi-lingualism. In any place where people had time to develop different dialects you will find "bilingualism". In Germany, for example, where I was born, every region has it's own dialect, all very different from one another and from the standard language (I only learned standard German at home and I still find it difficult to understand the local dialect of my hometown). The same holds true for Catalan and Gallego in Spain, Belorussian and Ukranian in Russia, the Scottish variety of English etc. etc. In that sense, all these societies are bilingual (leave alone the "officially bilingual" places like Northern Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland (four languages), the Basque part of Spain, about everywhere in subsaharan Africa, most of India etc.).
The U.S. is about the least bilingual place I can think of - yes, all immigrants of the first generation speak their own mothertongue, but as soon as they're in the third generation, most will have forgotten everything! So I don't count that as true bilingualism.
One question about Taiwanese: Did you really mean to say that only 10% of Hokkien vocabulary can be related to Mandarin? (In the sense that French [shan'tay] and Spanish [kantar] sound very different but will still end up at the same ancestor 'cantare' if you trace them back through the centuries)? A lot of words do sound very different in Taiwanese, but most of them can be derived from Middle Chinese by a few standard rules. For two-character combinations and sayings there might be more differences but I wouldn't say that's anywhere near 90%. What do you think?
Best regards,
Aurelio
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Niuc ()
Date: 05-27-03 17:27
Hi Aurelio,
Nice discussion here, I learned a lot.
BTW you mention about 'field' & 'cow', are they "chan" & "gu"? I think that "chan" & "gu" are the proper colloquial reading of ? and ? ("tian2" & "niu" in Mandarin). Literal reading: "tian"/"tien" & "giu". From comparison of some words in Hokkien & Mandarin, it seems that 't' & 'c'/'ch'; 'u' & 'iu'; 'n' & 'g' are related. They are "den" & "gyuu" in Japanese On ? reading.
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: Andrew Yong (194.81.212.---)
Date: 05-29-03 18:14
Aurelio,
You said in one of your posts that your copy of Douglas has no Chinese characters in the main dictionary but only in the supplements. Can you tell me which reprint you have?
The original 1899 edition of the dictionary in the Chinese Studies library here has block-printed chinese characters in the margins of the main dictionary and type-set characters in the supplement. I want to get a copy with characters in the main dictionary if possible.
andrew
Reply To This Message
Re: Hokkiens Also Originally Not Chinese???
Author: A-hiong (63.163.30.---)
Date: 05-30-03 18:52
Aurelio,
I think the main point is that people need to know the distinction between a difference of a language and a dialect. And keep the rule for all situations. That's why I'm always baffled by why people say "dialect" instead for language in some cases.
Yes, if you look at the entymology of Chinese language, then you could trace the resemblance of Minan to Mandarin. I was rather referring by today's standards. There's a lot of differences. I do however wonder myself (I grew up with an American education) why they don't teach about these things in school? It won't be until college, if you choose to study some linguistic studies that you learn about the differences between what a language and dialect is. You'd think with such a high standard of Education in America that they'd teach in social studies some background on language. Not only that, history teachers do a bad job on explaining how China came about and how "Chinese" was formed. They never explained that China used to be a land that was separated into many countries many times in its history.
I guess it would be up to the individual to find out for themselves about these differences. I definitely think that the American education system doesn't do a good job to promote bilingualism or promote the rest of the world either to its students.
This post has been edited by Yun: 22 April 2005 - 03:14 AM
MultiQuote
Posted 19 August 2004 - 09:12 AM
