from wiki
The word meat comes from the Old English word mete, which referred to food in general. Mad in Danish, and mat in Swedish and Norwegian, still mean food today.
Full Version: Relation of the name Bactria and YueZhi
China History Forum, Chinese History Forum > Chinese History Topics > Chinese Ethnic Groups and Peoples
well... too bad originally the word meat doean't mean "meat" instead it means food...
from wiki
The word meat comes from the Old English word mete, which referred to food in general. Mad in Danish, and mat in Swedish and Norwegian, still mean food today.
from wiki
The word meat comes from the Old English word mete, which referred to food in general. Mad in Danish, and mat in Swedish and Norwegian, still mean food today.
Just another close by region for meat
Thailand Thai:
Meat/Beef: neuua
That is extremely close to preclassical estimate of "nhikuu|"
(source Tower of Babel)
Thailand Thai:
Meat/Beef: neuua
That is extremely close to preclassical estimate of "nhikuu|"
(source Tower of Babel)
QUOTE(naruwan @ Jan 11 2007, 11:54 PM) [snapback]4871156[/snapback]
chū ending sound matches
【韻會】【正韻】而由切 (iû)
【集韻】【韻會】【正韻】如又切 (iū)
1. Does that reading means "meat"? 【韻會】【正韻】而由切 (iû)
【集韻】【韻會】【正韻】如又切 (iū)
Japanese on: niku, juu ("juu" shows that there were no stopped ending in that reading)
2. Chū is from Yin-qu right? Then it will not match 由 (from Ping).
3. The initial is quite far... and the voiced initials in Minnan are in "confusion" with nasal initials.
QUOTE(naruwan @ Jan 11 2007, 11:59 PM) [snapback]4871157[/snapback]
well... too bad originally the word meat doean't mean "meat" instead it means food...
How about the same change of meaning on the other languages?
QUOTE(naruwan @ Jan 11 2007, 11:02 PM) [snapback]4871145[/snapback]
泉州 QuanZhou's "肉 hiap" could be explained by another ng initial word 魚 that became a "h" sound. Most ng sounds became g.
But I have a feeling that all these Middle Chinese is later than the developement of bah or hiap.
But I have a feeling that all these Middle Chinese is later than the developement of bah or hiap.
i believe 'hiap' is actually a mutation of minnan s reading of 肉 as 'hik' ....i m not sure why the ending changed to -p
you are right thou in saying the sound change is related to minnan s rendering of 鱼 (original ng- initial in middle chinese) to h-although in this case using 耳 (original 'n' or 'portuguese nh' or nz) might be more accurate
i m still trying to find articles of this apparent change from nasals to h- initials in minnan .. no luck so far
QUOTE(qrasy @ Jan 12 2007, 04:40 AM) [snapback]4871298[/snapback]
1. Does that reading means "meat"?
Japanese on: niku, juu ("juu" shows that there were no stopped ending in that reading)
2. Chū is from Yin-qu right? Then it will not match 由 (from Ping).
3. The initial is quite far... and the voiced initials in Minnan are in "confusion" with nasal initials.
How about the same change of meaning on the other languages?
Japanese on: niku, juu ("juu" shows that there were no stopped ending in that reading)
2. Chū is from Yin-qu right? Then it will not match 由 (from Ping).
3. The initial is quite far... and the voiced initials in Minnan are in "confusion" with nasal initials.
How about the same change of meaning on the other languages?
肉
【唐韻】如六切
【集韻】【韻會】【正韻】而六切
異切
【集韻】【韻會】【正韻】如又切
【集韻】儒遇切
【韻會】【正韻】而由切
Those pronunciations that has not the stopped ending (入聲字), were all written during or after Song dynasty. 【集韻】 written after 廣韻, in 1037.【韻會】 in Yuan Dynasty, 【正韻】in Ming dynasty. Shows that losing of stopped ending as a trend.
nhuk -> nhauk -> nghiuk -> ngiuk -> niok -> nek
-> liok -> jio̍k -> rou
-> yuk
QUOTE(naruwan @ Jan 13 2007, 02:20 PM) [snapback]4871386[/snapback]
nhuk -> nhauk -> nghiuk -> ngiuk -> niok -> nek
-> liok -> jio̍k -> rou
-> yuk
ngiuk for 肉 is more like Hakka/Taishanese.-> liok -> jio̍k -> rou
-> yuk
Ng and Nh were different initials in Middle Chinese. Other languages does not fit this change of nhi->ngi.
For example, in Mandarin nh tend to be r, but ng tend to be lost.
In Minnan, nh tend to be j (can be hypothecized to come from palatal stop after denasalization of palatal nasal nh), or d/l (confusion with n-) in some variants, while ng tend to be g.
nhuk is already very much like Middle Chinese.
nhuk -> ngiuk -> yuk
-> nhiok -> niok -> liok/diok
-> nhiok -> jiok
-> nru' -> rou
If I am not mistaken, Herodotus (died c. 425 B.C.) is the first Greek author to refer to Bactria. Therefore the name of "Bactria" or its Iranian referent Bākhtar existed at least three hundred years before the Yüeh-Chi, who were already so named in Chinese sources in the seventh century B.C., were displaced by the Hsiung-nu c. 177 BC from the Gansu region of modern China and entered "Bactria" *for the first time*.
It therefore seem to me that logic demands that there can be no causal or genetic connection between the two terms regardless of the amount of fancy philological footwork pressed into service.
It therefore seem to me that logic demands that there can be no causal or genetic connection between the two terms regardless of the amount of fancy philological footwork pressed into service.
QUOTE
Like when latter Zhou Dynasty猃狁/玁狁 (Xianyun) become known as the Qin-Han Dynasty 匈奴 (Xiongnu), was it the name of the Xianyun/ Xiongnu which changed or the Chinese (system of) writing/ pronunciation which changed?
Actually, there is no reliable evidence that the Xianyun of the Western Zhou became the Xiongnu of Qin-Han times. Sima Qian in the Shiji merely noted that when a Xia aristocrat named Chunwei supposedly fled to the steppe and became the ancestor of the Xiongnu, there were already nomads on the steppe who were known as Shanrong (Mountain Rong), Xunyu, and Xianyun. The Xunyu are known from Shang sources like the oracle bones; the Xianyun are mentioned in the songs of the Shijing (supposedly dating from Western Zhou) as living around the Ordos region; and the Shanrong are not mentioned in records until the Eastern Zhou. So Sima Qian seems to simply have been listing those ancient far-northern 'barbarian' peoples that he knew about.
Later commentators on the Shiji (especially in the Tang) misinterpreted this to mean that the Xiongnu were earlier known as Xunyu or Xianyun. But that is obviously not what Sima Qian meant. The commentators even tried to trace the names 'Xiongnu', 'Xunyu', and 'Xianyun' all back to 'Chunwei.' In a similar way, scholars in the 20th century tried to identify 'Xiongnu', 'Xunyu', and 'Xianyun' all as variants of the word 'Hun'.
There is really no way we can be sure that the Xianyun and Xiongnu were the same people.
QUOTE(wang yun @ Feb 1 2007, 07:22 AM) [snapback]4874291[/snapback]
What "Traditional Chinese languages"? The character 肉 is pronounced "Yiok" in Cantonese or "Ngiuk" in Hakka, which is quite close to the pronunciation of 月 in Cantonese ("Yuit") or in Hakka ("Ngiat").
Yes, I also like "cherry-picking" my "Traditional Chinese languages"-- because the idea of somehow ONE of the Chinese dialects/ topolects at ONE particular time managed to retain (or be linearly "descended" from) ALL of the pronunciation from another ONE particular era is flawed.
月氏 is itself a transliteration of a foreign name (with 月, "moon", probably being used in transliteration instead of the similar-sounding 肉, "meat", because the former sounds more "respectful")-- so it would be nice if we could reconstruct the "contemporaneous" pronunciaton of this historical Chinese term to get as close as we can to the sound of the foreign name.
Like when latter Zhou Dynasty猃狁/玁狁 (Xianyun) become known as the Qin-Han Dynasty 匈奴 (Xiongnu), was it the name of the Xianyun/ Xiongnu which changed or the Chinese (system of) writing/ pronunciation which changed?
P.S. Both the "out-of-Africa theory" of Human Origin based on DNA evidence and the "separate evolution through various ice ages" theory based on evidence of human remains at different evolutional stages are actually 2 equally "scientific" approaches to 2 CONSECUTIVE STAGES of the same issue:
1) DNA evidence traces human gene pool back to one source but that doesn't really support the "out-of-Africa" theory of Human Origin-- because the theory requires humans to become fully evolved in Africa and THEN develop into SEPARATE races/ species as they move out of Africa (on the assumption each ice age more or less WIPED OUT earlier "human" migration from Africa).
2) Evidence of "human" remains at different evolutional stages traces our evolution in/ as/ by SEPARATE "human" races/ species and so supports the "separate evolution through various ice ages"-- because remains of SEPARATE "human" races/ species at DIFFERENT evolutional stages traces our evolution have been found (with many "gaps"). Though the answer as to where all these SEPARATE "human" races/ species comes may be answered through DNA analysis
3) Neither theory has a real bearing the migration of races/ civilization-- which really traces the development of ETHNICITY-- after the last ice age 10,000 years.
Yes, I also like "cherry-picking" my "Traditional Chinese languages"-- because the idea of somehow ONE of the Chinese dialects/ topolects at ONE particular time managed to retain (or be linearly "descended" from) ALL of the pronunciation from another ONE particular era is flawed.
月氏 is itself a transliteration of a foreign name (with 月, "moon", probably being used in transliteration instead of the similar-sounding 肉, "meat", because the former sounds more "respectful")-- so it would be nice if we could reconstruct the "contemporaneous" pronunciaton of this historical Chinese term to get as close as we can to the sound of the foreign name.
Like when latter Zhou Dynasty猃狁/玁狁 (Xianyun) become known as the Qin-Han Dynasty 匈奴 (Xiongnu), was it the name of the Xianyun/ Xiongnu which changed or the Chinese (system of) writing/ pronunciation which changed?
P.S. Both the "out-of-Africa theory" of Human Origin based on DNA evidence and the "separate evolution through various ice ages" theory based on evidence of human remains at different evolutional stages are actually 2 equally "scientific" approaches to 2 CONSECUTIVE STAGES of the same issue:
1) DNA evidence traces human gene pool back to one source but that doesn't really support the "out-of-Africa" theory of Human Origin-- because the theory requires humans to become fully evolved in Africa and THEN develop into SEPARATE races/ species as they move out of Africa (on the assumption each ice age more or less WIPED OUT earlier "human" migration from Africa).
2) Evidence of "human" remains at different evolutional stages traces our evolution in/ as/ by SEPARATE "human" races/ species and so supports the "separate evolution through various ice ages"-- because remains of SEPARATE "human" races/ species at DIFFERENT evolutional stages traces our evolution have been found (with many "gaps"). Though the answer as to where all these SEPARATE "human" races/ species comes may be answered through DNA analysis
3) Neither theory has a real bearing the migration of races/ civilization-- which really traces the development of ETHNICITY-- after the last ice age 10,000 years.
All very good point.
At this point I think the all 月氏 is Bactria theory is pretty much broken.
However, the issue of was the original character for 月氏 meant to be 肉 or 月 isn't. Since I still don't see any good evidence for either side.
I'd like to hear more on the 玁狁 (Xianyun) become known as the Qin-Han Dynasty 匈奴 (Xiongnu) theory tho.
QUOTE(wang yun @ Feb 1 2007, 10:22 PM) [snapback]4874291[/snapback]
What "Traditional Chinese languages"? The character 肉 is pronounced "Yiok" in Cantonese or "Ngiuk" in Hakka, which is quite close to the pronunciation of 月 in Cantonese ("Yuit") or in Hakka ("Ngiat").
That is more like a coincidence as Cantonese and Hakka do not distinguish the initials anymore.Sino-Vietnamese and Sino-Japanese, however, preserved them.
QUOTE
月氏 is itself a transliteration of a foreign name (with 月, "moon", probably being used in transliteration instead of the similar-sounding 肉, "meat", because the former sounds more "respectful")-- so it would be nice if we could reconstruct the "contemporaneous" pronunciaton of this historical Chinese term to get as close as we can to the sound of the foreign name.
禺 and 牛 were both more similar to 月 than 肉...The similarity of the initial with 肉 is quite recent. None of the reconstruction in http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi...a\bigchina confuses them: 禺牛月 start with ŋ- , 肉 starts with n/ń.
I don't think Chinese were very respectful to others when it came to transliteration. Examples are 匈奴 and 身毒.
QUOTE
1) DNA evidence traces human gene pool back to one source but that doesn't really support the "out-of-Africa" theory of Human Origin-- because the theory requires humans to become fully evolved in Africa and THEN develop into SEPARATE races/ species as they move out of Africa (on the assumption each ice age more or less WIPED OUT earlier "human" migration from Africa).
Well, that depends on how tolerant your term of "human" is. Mutations tend to make the gene types diverge, so if they were not "humans", then (most likely) only one of the "races" became "human".
QUOTE(qrasy @ Feb 2 2007, 02:10 AM) [snapback]4874416[/snapback]
That is more like a coincidence as Cantonese and Hakka do not distinguish the initials anymore.
Sino-Vietnamese and Sino-Japanese, however, preserved them.
禺 and 牛 were both more similar to 月 than 肉...
The similarity of the initial with 肉 is quite recent. None of the reconstruction in http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi...a\bigchina confuses them: 禺牛月 start with ŋ- , 肉 starts with n/ń.
I don't think Chinese were very respectful to others when it came to transliteration. Examples are 匈奴 and 身毒.
Well, that depends on how tolerant your term of "human" is.
Mutations tend to make the gene types diverge, so if they were not "humans", then (most likely) only one of the "races" became "human".
Sino-Vietnamese and Sino-Japanese, however, preserved them.
禺 and 牛 were both more similar to 月 than 肉...
The similarity of the initial with 肉 is quite recent. None of the reconstruction in http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi...a\bigchina confuses them: 禺牛月 start with ŋ- , 肉 starts with n/ń.
I don't think Chinese were very respectful to others when it came to transliteration. Examples are 匈奴 and 身毒.
Well, that depends on how tolerant your term of "human" is.
Mutations tend to make the gene types diverge, so if they were not "humans", then (most likely) only one of the "races" became "human".
while that is true, but the Han wanted their help. So perhaps they showed more respect?
also, since the only recording of the alternate name for 月氏, 禺氏 was from the questionable 管子... I am starting to wonder if the name 月氏 was a translation at all.
Let's face it, non-Han sources referred to these people as Jats, Kushan or Tocharian.
None of which sounded anything like 月氏 (with the exception of Jats, but then I'd say Jats sounds more like 肉氏).
So could it be that they are 氏 people with the title of 月？ Similar to names such as 犬戎 or 青羌????
QUOTE(naruwan @ Feb 2 2007, 05:44 PM) [snapback]4874423[/snapback]
also, since the only recording of the alternate name for 月氏, 禺氏 was from the questionable 管子... I am starting to wonder if the name 月氏 was a translation at all.
Were the names 牛氏/禺氏 older than 月氏?(The wikipedia article of Yuezhi seems to imply it)
QUOTE
Let's face it, non-Han sources referred to these people as Jats, Kushan or Tocharian.
None of which sounded anything like 月氏 (with the exception of Jats, but then I'd say Jats sounds more like 肉氏).
But then I don't think 肉氏 sounded like "Jats" then. But then, other languages also evolve.None of which sounded anything like 月氏 (with the exception of Jats, but then I'd say Jats sounds more like 肉氏).
QUOTE
So could it be that they are 氏 people with the title of 月？ Similar to names such as 犬戎 or 青羌????
Maybe, but 牛 and 禺 were also close to 月.
QUOTE(qrasy @ Feb 2 2007, 06:23 AM) [snapback]4874434[/snapback]
Were the names 牛氏/禺氏 older than 月氏?
(The wikipedia article of Yuezhi seems to imply it)
But then I don't think 肉氏 sounded like "Jats" then. But then, other languages also evolve.
Maybe, but 牛 and 禺 were also close to 月.
(The wikipedia article of Yuezhi seems to imply it)
But then I don't think 肉氏 sounded like "Jats" then. But then, other languages also evolve.
Maybe, but 牛 and 禺 were also close to 月.
The 牛氏/禺氏 comes from sources that is said to be from the time of warring states. However some suspect that it these sources were forgeries made up after Han dynasty.
QUOTE(naruwan @ Feb 2 2007, 03:44 AM) 
while that is true, but the Han wanted their help. So perhaps they showed more respect?
also, since the only recording of the alternate name for 月氏, 禺氏 was from the questionable 管子... I am starting to wonder if the name 月氏 was a translation at all.
Let's face it, non-Han sources referred to these people as Jats, Kushan or Tocharian.
None of which sounded anything like 月氏 (with the exception of Jats, but then I'd say Jats sounds more like 肉氏).
So could it be that they are 氏 people with the title of 月？ Similar to names such as 犬戎 or 青羌????
also, since the only recording of the alternate name for 月氏, 禺氏 was from the questionable 管子... I am starting to wonder if the name 月氏 was a translation at all.
Let's face it, non-Han sources referred to these people as Jats, Kushan or Tocharian.
None of which sounded anything like 月氏 (with the exception of Jats, but then I'd say Jats sounds more like 肉氏).
So could it be that they are 氏 people with the title of 月？ Similar to names such as 犬戎 or 青羌????
Interesting discussion.
I need some help
My interest is the connection between the terms "Yueh Zhi" and the Jats.
Specifically :
A scenario:
Some chinese traveller/ scholar came across the Jats in the BCE period in the central asia/ Bactrian area..
The term "Jat" was recorded in the Chinese language as it was then spoken.
I seem to gather that the modern nomenclature is the term "Yueh Zhi", which phonetically can also be pronounced as "Ngiwat" or "Nguet", both of which terms if the, to be expected distortion in phonetics is taken into account, sound very much like the term "JAT" , with hard "T" at the end.
Am I on the right track?
Ravi Chaudhary
QUOTE(wang yun @ Jun 20 2007, 05:47 PM)
Yes, but more on my track than some others'. The characters "Yueh Zhi" is not really modern nomenclature, but recorded long ago-- whereas "Ngiwat" or "Nguet" are more like the modern pronunications. Though both the ending sounds goes through a little less distortion than the initials and has the "hard" AT.
There is actually a 2nd part to the probem-- how was "Jat" sound pronounced then and was it a reliably accurate recording/ transliteration of the "Jat" name?
There is actually a 2nd part to the probem-- how was "Jat" sound pronounced then and was it a reliably accurate recording/ transliteration of the "Jat" name?
Thank you very much for the quick response.
Jat with the hard T is the pretty much unchanged since ancient times.
We do find variants of the term and I am having, as may be expected, diffilculty in determining how, where, and when the changes occurred. That would an interesting line of research though.
We do also find that the G and the J sounds are interchangeable in certain circumstances.
Thus we also find Jat, Jutt, Gut.
There are other variations and we could with your assistance explore them later.
For now, Please could we stay with the Yueh Zhi - Ngiwat - Jat relationship.
I am quite convinced, based on hitsorical evidence, that the chinese writers were referring to the Jats when they wrote Yueh Zhi/Ngiwat.
How was /is the chinese character for 'Jat' written?
In 500 BCE, 0 CE, and then on, how did it term/ sound evolve over the centuries to our current era?
What were the phonetical sounds?.
When you pronounce 'ngiwat', is the 'n' letter silent or is there a touch of a'n' sound.
Thank you very much for the help
Ravi Chaudhary
QUOTE(wang yun @ Jun 21 2007, 07:47 AM)
The characters "Yueh Zhi" is not really modern nomenclature, but recorded long ago
If you want to say "the chatacters" then you should write "月氏" otherwise it's easy to misinterpret/misread the sentence to "the spelling".QUOTE
whereas "Ngiwat" or "Nguet" are more like the modern pronunications.
It is like modern pronunciations, but not Mandarin.QUOTE
There is actually a 2nd part to the probem-- how was "Jat" sound pronounced then and was it a reliably accurate recording/ transliteration of the "Jat" name?
Do you know in which script was the "Jat" written? Was it probably "Giat"?QUOTE(Ravi Chaudhary @ Jun 21 2007, 09:40 AM)
We do also find that the G and the J sounds are interchangeable in certain circumstances.
The direction is from G to J.You never read J as G, but you do read G as something like J sometimes. This is palatalization, they change the reading of G before E and I to something like J.
Just like how C can change to S while it usually represents something like K.
QUOTE
How was /is the chinese character for 'Jat' written?
I think this is not a Chinese terms.QUOTE
When you pronounce 'ngiwat', is the 'n' letter silent or is there a touch of a'n' sound.
Neither n nor g are silent for the common ng- initial. The 'ng' actually represents one sound as in 'singing'.
QUOTE(qrasy @ Jun 20 2007, 11:12 PM)
Query>
When you pronounce 'ngiwat', is the 'n' letter silent or is there a touch of a'n' sound.
Response> Neither n nor g are silent for the common ng- initial. The 'ng' actually represents one sound as in 'singing'.
When you pronounce 'ngiwat', is the 'n' letter silent or is there a touch of a'n' sound.
Response> Neither n nor g are silent for the common ng- initial. The 'ng' actually represents one sound as in 'singing'.
*********
This is a great help.
I am for the moment, excluding the side threads. and trying to get one small point out of the way. We can and will return to them later, for your help.
The original interaction would be oral, not written.
I can see a traveler coming across the “Jats’, and when pronouncing the word in his own language, at that time the then spoken form of Chinese, phonetically adding an “n” nasal sound, which would phonetically give the sound “ njat’ ‘ngiwat’, both being pretty close.
Does this make sense?
Ravi
QUOTE(Ravi Chaudhary @ Jun 22 2007, 12:44 AM)
The original interaction would be oral, not written.
In which script it was written may give insight on what it sounded like... as we can guess if the sounds changed.QUOTE
I can see a traveler coming across the “Jats’, and when pronouncing the word in his own language, at that time the then spoken form of Chinese, phonetically adding an “n” nasal sound, which would phonetically give the sound “ njat’ ‘ngiwat’, both being pretty close.
Does this make sense?
How about, the name was actually not "Jat" (remember that the name "Jat" is from external source, too).Does this make sense?
Maybe the name contained 'ng', but the source could not pronounce the 'ng-' initial (I am assuming roots with ng- was and is not commonly found across languages) and changed it to 'g-'. Or maybe it was "g", but the Chinese mistook the g- to be ng-.
You can easily get gi -> ji palatalization after some vowel change.
Adding n- arbitrarily seems weird (though I can't say impossible).
QUOTE(Ravi Chaudhary @ Jun 20 2007, 07:40 PM)
When you pronounce 'ngiwat', is the 'n' letter silent or is there a touch of a'n' sound.
Thank you very much for the help
Ravi Chaudhary
Thank you very much for the help
Ravi Chaudhary
'ng' is a single velar-nasal consonant (IPA as ŋ), its found only in final positions in Mandarin and English but it's also an initial in Middle Chinese and is preserved as an initial in Cantonese and Hakka. (eg. 'Ngo' for me) Its place of articulation is velar which means it is articulated with the back part of the tongue (the dorsum) against the soft palate (the velum). It is a nasal consonant, which means air is allowed to escape through the nose. It's basically pronounced the same as an initial g- but with air pushed out of the nose (nasal) before the plosive.
QUOTE(Yongwoni GOD @ Jun 22 2007, 06:38 PM)
It is a nasal consonant, which means air is allowed to escape through the nose. It's basically pronounced the same as an initial g- but with air pushed out of the nose (nasal) before the plosive.
It's one single nasal consonant. No plosive has to be pronounced. Just like you don't have to say /b/ directly after you say /m/ (giving a result of /mb/).
QUOTE(qrasy @ Jun 23 2007, 08:56 AM)
It's one single nasal consonant. No plosive has to be pronounced. Just like you don't have to say /b/ directly after you say /m/ (giving a result of /mb/).
Maybe not excatly plosive,,,but before the back of the tongue creates friction with the soft palate
QUOTE(Yongwoni GOD @ Jun 24 2007, 12:17 PM)
Maybe not excatly plosive,,,but before the back of the tongue creates friction with the soft palate
Well... if there's audible friction then it's fricative, which means that's not a normal nasal consonant either.For nasal consonants, the articulators just touch (get in contact with, of course also press it slightly) each other, blocking the oral cavity but not the path of air to nose.
Just try to pronounce the "easier" /m-/. You won't feel friction on your lips, which is essentially because you can't blow air through your lips when you pronounce this sound. There's no air flowing to there (blocked).
Yuezhi/Kushan did move into northwest India/Pakistan. Combined with other warrior people who also moved into northwest India/Pakistan, they formed the present warrior caste of Rajputs (not Jats).
Rajputs have their own website. You may wish to look at their website.
Rajputs have their own website. You may wish to look at their website.
According to wiki, one theory says that "Jat" was originally spelt "Gyati"... The first syllable is similar enough, and this also explains the second syllable "氏". (well, then it would better be 氐 than 氏 or 支)
Does Rajputra... mean "descendants of the king" (Indonesian words of "raja"(king) and "putra"(son) are possibly borrowed from Indian)?
According to Wikipedia, Rajput comes from Rajaputra, who were descendants of a king who did not become king.
QUOTE(Peter S @ Jun 28 2007, 05:41 AM)
Yuezhi/Kushan did move into northwest India/Pakistan. Combined with other warrior people who also moved into northwest India/Pakistan, they formed the present warrior caste of Rajputs (not Jats).
Rajput is a caste, not "tribe"/ethnic group.Does Rajputra... mean "descendants of the king" (Indonesian words of "raja"(king) and "putra"(son) are possibly borrowed from Indian)?
According to Wikipedia, Rajput comes from Rajaputra, who were descendants of a king who did not become king.
Hi Grasy,
The emperor is always right.
I know many Jats. They are fine people. They live mainly in Northwest India and in Pakistan. They originally came from Central Asia, most probably of Iranian stock. Most of them are down to earth farmers.
Kushans, on the other hand, were fancy warriors. There were Kushan kingdoms in which Kushans were the ruling class. I don't think that Kushans disappeared from the face of the earth. I have read that the Kushans, together with other fancy warriors and ruling classes, merged into the Rajputs.
Unlike other parts of India, in Northwest India and in Pakistan, the line between caste and ethnic group is perhaps sometimes non-existent? Not so long ago, in the Jat website, the major topic of discussion was "Jat is not a caste". What a hoot! If you want to learn more about the Jats, you can go to the Jat website. Perhaps you can start a discussion topic on the Jat website: "Jats are Kushans"?
The emperor is always right.
I know many Jats. They are fine people. They live mainly in Northwest India and in Pakistan. They originally came from Central Asia, most probably of Iranian stock. Most of them are down to earth farmers.
Kushans, on the other hand, were fancy warriors. There were Kushan kingdoms in which Kushans were the ruling class. I don't think that Kushans disappeared from the face of the earth. I have read that the Kushans, together with other fancy warriors and ruling classes, merged into the Rajputs.
Unlike other parts of India, in Northwest India and in Pakistan, the line between caste and ethnic group is perhaps sometimes non-existent? Not so long ago, in the Jat website, the major topic of discussion was "Jat is not a caste". What a hoot! If you want to learn more about the Jats, you can go to the Jat website. Perhaps you can start a discussion topic on the Jat website: "Jats are Kushans"?
QUOTE(qrasy @ Jun 22 2007, 02:11 AM)
In which script it was written may give insight on what it sounded like... as we can guess if the sounds changed.
How about, the name was actually not "Jat" (remember that the name "Jat" is from external source, too).
Maybe the name contained 'ng', but the source could not pronounce the 'ng-' initial (I am assuming roots with ng- was and is not commonly found across languages) and changed it to 'g-'. Or maybe it was "g", but the Chinese mistook the g- to be ng-.
You can easily get gi -> ji palatalization after some vowel change.
Adding n- arbitrarily seems weird (though I can't say impossible).
How about, the name was actually not "Jat" (remember that the name "Jat" is from external source, too).
Maybe the name contained 'ng', but the source could not pronounce the 'ng-' initial (I am assuming roots with ng- was and is not commonly found across languages) and changed it to 'g-'. Or maybe it was "g", but the Chinese mistook the g- to be ng-.
You can easily get gi -> ji palatalization after some vowel change.
Adding n- arbitrarily seems weird (though I can't say impossible).
I have been away traveling for a few weeks,and was not able to post.
I am back now.
Comment:
The actual term/name is "Jat".
From a Chinese traveller's perspective, the term 'Jat' would be external, but from the Jats' perspective living in the Bactria area( NW Afghanistan) it would be internal.
It does not contain any 'n' sound.
What we are trying to zero in on is
1) how the term Jat sounded to the Chinese traveler ?
It would appear that :
That the oral form of 'Jat' was pronounced as ' nguet' or something close to that, and that would be natural given the chinese traveller's understanding for the ( to him) foreign sound of speech
The pronunciation was a natural result of how the speech pattern worked.
[I would like someone to put in the technical terms here please]
The oral sound in Chinese ' Nguet' was represented in Chinese Characters as 'Yueh Zhi' but was still pronounced as 'Nguet'
The term Jat became represented in later Chinese literature in written form.as-:' Yueh zhi', and that is the nomenclature that has since caught on.
Feedback please
Ravi
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.