Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

한국어 Korean Language


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#16 Chris Weimer

Chris Weimer

    Grand Tutor (Taifu 太傅)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 394 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Antiquity
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Literature
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Dao Jia; Graeco-Roman cultures; early Judaism and Christianity

Posted 16 October 2007 - 12:41 AM

French & English both are influenced by Latin. (writing & language wise)
Indo-European language groups would also include groups such as Farsi (Persian) and Hindi.

So I suppose the relationship of Chinese characters to Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese is like the relationship of characters to English/French/etc

French is actually a child tongue of Latin, whilst English was only just influenced by both Latin and French. English stripped down to its bare is not all that influenced by Latin. In fact, besides the words French and Latin, only the word "influence" is non-Teutonic. English and French are closer than Vietnamese and Korean, if I recall correctly.
Chris Weimer, M.A. Student
Department of Classics, SFSU

B.A. Honors and Thesis
University of Memphis
Latin & Greek Major
Judaic Studies Minor

#17 Iovah

Iovah

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 92 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beijing, China
  • Interests:Late Qing and Republic History<br />Economic, Social and cultural history<br />History of the ordinary man
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Late Qing and Republic History

Posted 06 December 2007 - 01:59 AM

I have a friend who is a graduate student of history at Peking University and speaks Korean fluently. He told me he beleives that Korean is linguistically related to Manchurian from his experience. He said in reading transliterations of Manchurian he seens a clear grammatical, pronunciation and syntax relation.

Does anyone here speak both Manchurian and Korean, or at least Manchurian, who could explain if this is the case or not?

If it is true, it would imply that Korean and Japanese and Tungistic languages and that they are ethnically related.
Christopher C. Heselton -- Student of Chinese History

乱云低薄暮,急雪舞回风

#18 Iovah

Iovah

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 92 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beijing, China
  • Interests:Late Qing and Republic History<br />Economic, Social and cultural history<br />History of the ordinary man
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Late Qing and Republic History

Posted 09 December 2007 - 08:06 AM

Japanese language indeed has some characteristics that make it close to the Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungusic, Korean), but the Altaic languages don't constitute a genetic language family, as Indo-European for example. Their similarities come from cohabitation and borrowing. It is thus not surprising that Japanese would share some of those similarities with NE Asia.

Those words are identical because they are borrowings of the same word in Chinese,kazoku & sentaku are 2 examples.No,Japan's Kansai dialects are not closer to Korean.

The consensus is that Jomon people of Japan ( not a single homogeneous people, possibly different austronesian and/or austroasiatic people ) arrived very early from South East Asia.

Modern day Koreans are mostly of Mongol heritage ( they DO LOOK Mongol & Tungusic-Manchu people ABSOLUTELY DON'T LOOK Mongol ),Japanese race ONLY has a 24% shared ( proto-Siberian ) Tungusic origin with Koreans whereas 25% for Japanese & Chinese.


When you say the "shared Tungistic origin" are you speaking about genetic origin or vocabulary? And what's your source on that?

From the little Korean I have been learning, however, I have found that the grammatical concepts are strikingly similar between Japanese, Korean, and my friend claims the same is true for Manchurian. So grammatically speaking what's the difference? As far as I am concern, grammar is more important in analyzing linguistic roots because grammar changes at a much slower pace than words.
Christopher C. Heselton -- Student of Chinese History

乱云低薄暮,急雪舞回风

#19 Chanpuru

Chanpuru

    Grand Guardian (Taibao 太保)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 275 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Okinawa

Posted 10 December 2007 - 12:17 AM

When you say the "shared Tungistic origin" are you speaking about genetic origin or vocabulary? And what's your source on that?

From the little Korean I have been learning, however, I have found that the grammatical concepts are strikingly similar between Japanese, Korean, and my friend claims the same is true for Manchurian. So grammatically speaking what's the difference? As far as I am concern, grammar is more important in analyzing linguistic roots because grammar changes at a much slower pace than words.


I posted this elsewhere but I`ll repeat it again here

[b]Around 400-300 BCE, the Yayoi people began to enter the Japanese islands, intermingling with the Jōmon. Most modern scholars say that the Yayoi emigrated from the southern part of the Korean Peninsula to northern Kyūshū, though it has also been proposed that they came from southeastern China. ]


Theres a reason why most modern scholars still hold on to this view. Many can agree that the modern Japanese, Ainu, and Ryukyuans are descended from a varying mix of Jomon and Yayoi.. however theres still much debate on where the Jomons and Yayoi exactly came from.

Yayoi: links from what is now Korea, NE China, and the Russian Far East have generally had the strongest support. Pottery and ancient architecture in S.W Japan are very similar to those found in Southern Korea. Y chromosome markers from the Yayoi and modern day Koreans are also similar. Of course, recently there has been some, and I really stress some evidence with roots coming from S.China and SE Asia, but this of course has been weak.. notice that the article above states 3 out of 36 examples that match only PART of the DNA sequence. I do not find it very conclusive at all. In addition we have to wonder if this genetic commonality is unique to the subjects in Southern China and the Yayoi or if it is something commonly found in all Mongoloid ethnicities. In addition to existing genetic and archaelogical evidence that supports the main stream view, there is also growing linguistic ones too. While few information on the language of Koguryo/Gaoguoli exists, what is known shows that there is much similarities between Koguryo language and ancient Japanese. Some other theories suggest that the Yayoi have genetic similarities with Tibetans due to a unique gene only found among Japanese, Mongolians and Tibetans, suggesting a N.Asian origin.

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/9004139494
http://findarticles....i_19143382/pg_2
http://www.sjsu.edu/...japanorigin.htm
http://www4.ncsu.edu...04.prehist.html

Jomon: Another misconception is that the oldest inhabitants of Japan came from the Pacific Islands and are supposedly Austroloid or Austronesian. This again is not the case. Genetic tests done show a far northern origin. the Jomons arrived to the Japanese Islands at a time when an ice bridge made it possible.. not too dissimilar to how Asians crossed the Beiring Straits. These proto-Mongoloids developed differently than Mongoloids in mainland Asia. While the Jomons may look quite different than the Yayoi, Proto Koreans, Proto Tungusic peoples, they were still within the Mongoloid family. The heavier brow bridge, broader facial structures and deeper face may resemble Austronesian and even Polynesian people, but that is as far as it goes. Similarly, a number of Fijian people could pass as African American, but theyre not negroids. Further studies have also shown more similarities between Jomons and PaleoSiberians such as the Chukchi and Yukaghir rather than the Yayoi
http://www.um.u-toky...27/no27011.html
http://findarticles....151/ai_19143382
again these articles also point more similarities between the Yayoi and the Tungusic peoples of N.E China while the Jomons are closer to peoples further north. All sources have shown a N.Origin for both the Jomon and Yayoi, but the Jomon left the mainland first and developed independently compared to the much more recent Yayoi who maintain stronger genetic links with mainland Asia:s population

http://findarticles....151/ai_19143382

#20 sonnori

sonnori

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 40 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 31 December 2007 - 01:09 AM

Reading the Manchu script , they sure had grammatical postpositional words which is chracters of Altaic Language family.
Sentences have the same structure of course .

So why not related to each other ?

This applies same on the Cidan Language.


jorhon biya de wang ioi i ni geren be gaifi

The bold parts are grammatical postpositional words to clarify the relationship amongst words in sentence.
This applies same to Korean.

Edited by sonnori, 31 December 2007 - 01:21 AM.


#21 sonnori

sonnori

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 40 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 31 December 2007 - 03:26 AM

The language relation say a lot of the things , if not always applicapable for every case.


Example , the Madagascar locals speak Malagasy which is unrelated to African languages,
instead they speak kind of Austronesian language which gramatically similiar with Malaysian and local borneans.


The locals definitely don't look like East Africans while geographically the island is near located to the Eastern Africa.
For this case , language relation is being used for the key to explain locals trace of the movement from the origin place.

This can be applied to a lot of the cases.

Edited by sonnori, 31 December 2007 - 03:46 AM.


#22 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 02 January 2008 - 06:00 PM

There certainly isn't any evidence that Korean and Japanese are Altaic languages.It's just something some Finnish Scientist made up and everyone else just assumed to be true. I think the word " Altaic " is over-emphasized & overly abused by pan-Mongolic or Koreanic propagandists in cyberspace,Japanese don't fancy it.

Korean is similar, if not related, to Japanese.They are grammatically pretty identical whereas vocabulary wise they are no.

Since when did language groups denote race :unsure:


Actually, Japanese themselves are saying their language is related to Altaic family, so it's not just Korean.
And because you don't really know native Korean (spoken words and vocabulary), so be careful when trying to down grade the altaic relation; because according to linguistic experts Korean spoken language is in fact related to Altaic and closely related to spoken languages of NE Asians that includes spoken languages of Jurchen, Siberian tribes, and Japanese.

The fact is, because of many borrowed or loan words from sino-korean or Chinese and other cultures; Korean today is very different from old Korean language, and it's differ from place to place in Korean peninsula as well.

Many slangs and native words are still present in everyday spoken Korean today.
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#23 天武桓皇

天武桓皇

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 19 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Korean History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None

Posted 06 January 2008 - 01:09 AM

I would say distantly related, due to the fact that starting from Goryeo, the connection to the various Manchurian tribes was severed politics-wise.



As for Japanese: I don't care if the Jomon were from Southeast Asia or Australia. It's the people from Northeast China that makes up most of the modern Japanese's ancestory.

#24 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 06 January 2008 - 01:31 AM

I would say distantly related, due to the fact that starting from Goryeo, the connection to the various Manchurian tribes was severed politics-wise.

As for Japanese: I don't care if the Jomon were from Southeast Asia or Australia. It's the people from Northeast China that makes up most of the modern Japanese's ancestory.


If the language is distantly related then there is little point to relate them together.
Moreover, there is little or no significant manchu stock within Korea's cultural and demography wise. Even there was no or little connection between them as manchu didn't survived in Korea. However, manchu's influence is only survived through today's China.

If most modern Japanese ancestry is Chinese then you are trying to paint approx. 90% of Japanese population as Chinese ancestry. There is little point to justify Japanese ancestry as Chinese as there wasn't any Chinese back 2000~1500 years ago. Don't try to make up ancient part of China as "Chinese".

Both, Chinese, Korean and Japanese are modern term to differentiate people living in different boundaries as country's nationality or citizenship.

In fact even Chinese themselves are now mixed race. Chinese population is so vast and huge in numbers to hardly make up as single racial family.
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#25 天武桓皇

天武桓皇

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 19 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Korean History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None

Posted 06 January 2008 - 01:37 AM

If the language is distantly related then there is little point to relate them together.
Moreover, there is little or no significant manchu stock within Korea's cultural and demography wise. Even there was no or little connection between them as manchu didn't survived in Korea. However, manchu's influence is only survived through today's China.

If most modern Japanese ancestry is Chinese then you are trying to paint approx. 90% of Japanese population as Chinese ancestry. There is little point to justify Japanese ancestry as Chinese as there wasn't any Chinese back 2000~1500 years ago. Don't try to make up ancient part of China as "Chinese".

Both, Chinese, Korean and Japanese are modern term to differentiate people living in different boundaries as country's nationality or citizenship.

In fact even Chinese themselves are now mixed race. Chinese population is so vast and huge in numbers to hardly make up as single racial family.


1. We're talking about languages here.

2. By distantly related, I'm thinking in terms of "from same source, but became different due to isolation."

3. The part about Jomon and modern Japanese was a counter to dingy's comment.

#26 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 06 January 2008 - 03:30 AM

1. We're talking about languages here.

2. By distantly related, I'm thinking in terms of "from same source, but became different due to isolation."

3. The part about Jomon and modern Japanese was a counter to dingy's comment.


I know what you were referring to.

Every languages of the world have some sort of common root since they share many universal words, some words share common tone or sound others share similar meaning.

Btw, there aren't any distantly related language only closely related language. If you were referring to languages from common root or source then you really should refer it to "main language group".

Korean language may share similarity with native Manchurian & Japanese due to proximity of their regions, and people tend to copy or borrow words, songs and written documents and well could have learn from the same source.

Just look at us, we are writing our comments in English (which is our common medium of understanding our communication), if we were writing with very different languages then we will need translators to interpret our communication then we will understand each other, but by doing so we also learn each other's language and use them in future correspondents and may be even alter our languages so that we can communicate better in future. And this was what exactly happened during our ancestor days too.

Also, Jomon Japan is nothing do with Chinese or Korean, since during these days most of Japan were occupied by very different race until they were driven out or even colonized by more advanced cultures from various routes (Far eastern Siberia, Korean peninsula, Eastern China & Taiwan/Filipino islands). Which is same thing happened to America and Australia. Their native population are either completely wiped out or fully assimilated into main stream of migrants.

Because, colonization of Americas & Australia only happened less than 300 years ago; still there are strong dominance of European race & culture, soon even them will become fully independent and formed non-European people due to mixed marriages and rise of nationalism.

Edited by SNK_1408, 06 January 2008 - 03:30 AM.

역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#27 Chanpuru

Chanpuru

    Grand Guardian (Taibao 太保)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 275 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Okinawa

Posted 09 February 2008 - 08:55 AM

Koreans language belongs to " Altaic" language family. ( Korean, Japanese, Monghol, Manchurian, Turkish).
Their are Korean descent Manchurians scattered around North East Manchuria between Korea and Manchuria
border. Your article shows the deep cultural kinship between Koreans and Manchurians. Population estimates
Korean descent Manchurians to be about 107,430,000 million ( Korean descent Manchurians today)


I'm not sure how you got to that number.
Today, there's roughly 11 million people who are registered as Manchurians in China. If you add other Tungusic speaking groups like the Evenks, Nanai, etc.. it'll probably be closer to 11.7 million, and if you add all the Koreans (both of them) and even the Mongols, you still won't get 107 million.

The only place where I can figure out how one derives 107.4 million is that it is the entire population of Liaoning, Jilin, and Heilongjiang combined (which includes many many ethnic groups including, but not limited to: Hans, Hui, Manchus, Koreans, Mongols, Nanai, Evenks, etc).

#28 大泽升龙

大泽升龙

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utera Næfreland
  • Interests:Things &amp; Thinks
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    science, art, history, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, philosophy, logic

Posted 09 February 2008 - 08:55 AM

Koreans language belongs to " Altaic" language family. ( Korean, Japanese, Monghol, Manchurian, Turkish).
Their are Korean descent Manchurians scattered around North East Manchuria between Korea and Manchuria
border. Your article shows the deep cultural kinship between Koreans and Manchurians. Population estimates
Korean descent Manchurians to be about 107,430,000 million ( Korean descent Manchurians today)

Besides the mathematical improficiency above, I want to point out several things:
1) the language family division does not guarantee any direct kinship between ethnical groups. Just like the Creole spoken in West Indies, it belongs Indo-European language family, but the speakers are generally not Indo-European.
2) the Altaic language family, like Sino-Tibetan, Indo-European, is rather a hypothesis. At the very young age of human linguistic evolution, all languages were similar and related. The common substrata can be found in any human languages. Likewise, the conjectural Sino-Caucasian-Dene language superfamily does not mean a Chinese person is more closely related to a Spanish Basque than a Korean.
3) nations are differentiated by cultures, languages and genes are secondary things.

Edited by 大泽升龙, 09 February 2008 - 09:33 AM.


#29 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 05 June 2008 - 10:06 PM

Found excellent Korean native language sites:-
http://www.woorimal.net/
http://www.hanvit99....l/sajeon-ga.htm
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#30 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 05 June 2008 - 10:15 PM

Found great sites on native Korean words and phrases.

http://www.woorimal.net/
http://www.hanvit99....l/sajeon-ga.htm

If Koreans use 100% native words; I would guarantee Korean sound more like Mongolian or tungusic-language.
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users