tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post8745936904861497152..comments2024-03-18T09:47:18.076-07:00Comments on Forever a student: Chinese character etymology and Chinese character phonetic seriesVladimirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-13840233256611679822015-01-03T08:25:37.850-08:002015-01-03T08:25:37.850-08:00Lawrence,
Thank you too for the nice and informa...Lawrence, <br /><br />Thank you too for the nice and informative debate. <br /><br />“Regarding 兌 etc., if you proved to yourself the point you wanted to make, great.”<br /><br />I hope I this comment, (along with another one you made in your previous reply) weren’t intended to come across as sarcastic. We managed to keep the debate civil, it would be a shame to end it otherwise. <br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Vladimir<br />Vladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-22519845069134512052015-01-02T16:25:34.087-08:002015-01-02T16:25:34.087-08:00Vladimir,
Your summary is a fair one. You harbor...Vladimir,<br /><br /> Your summary is a fair one. You harbor misgivings on certain points, I addressed them to the best of my ability, and now it's time to give things a rest.<br /><br /> Regarding 兌 etc., if you proved to yourself the point you wanted to make, great.<br /><br /> I won't be checking this page any further, but if there are other points you would like to discuss, email me anytime. The address is available by clicking the Contact button on my dictionary website.<br /><br /> Thank you again. Our discussion was enjoyable and informative.<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />Lawrence J. HowellLawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-83767927405465344852015-01-02T06:22:55.850-08:002015-01-02T06:22:55.850-08:00Dear Lawrence,
thank you again for your time and ...Dear Lawrence,<br /><br />thank you again for your time and replies.<br /><br />“Safety isn't a factor. I interpret the characters to the best of my knowledge and ability with the data that is available.”<br /><br />I’m sorry to have taken this sentence out of context but it seems to sum up your position in the debate best. I rest my case. At this point I cannot argue with the above stated. I tried my best to present arguments as to why I don't agree with your Chinese character interpretation methods, but it seems I failed to present more exhausting ones. The thought of 134 semantical groups is fascinating and your character interpretations are well worth referencing, but my two greatest problems with them are, that you use too many semantic steps to link the character itself to the meaning you propose it had and that your interpretations are largely based on not always reliable OC reconstructions. <br /><br />I learned many new things in this discussion and will apply them in my work (e.g. greater use of 夅降, 离離, 桼漆 pairs as references in pictograph/semantic compound interpretation). Thank you for the time and effort you put into your posts. I’m sure many readers found them interesting.<br /><br />As for the 兌 phonetic series, what I had in mind when asking you to proove, that 兌 is the phonetic in the rest of the series was something like this:<br /><br />兌 dui4<br /><br />稅 shui4 <br />銳 rui4<br />說 shuo1 shui4<br />脫 tuo1<br />閱 yue4<br />悅 yue4 Related to 兌 dui4 through a lost pronunciation of 兌 dui4 which would lead to the modern yue4 (兌:《正韻》魚厥切,音月。).<br /><br />兌 dui4 and 銳 rui4 稅 shui4 說 shui4(shuo1) rhyme today, 說 shuo1(shui4) 脫 tuo1 rhyme today, no proof is needed as all 5 characters (兌銳稅說脫) are proven to be related even today. As for 悅/閱 yue4, they rhyme with a lost pronunciation of 兌 dui4 which is proven through an entry in the 正韻 dictionary (兌:《正韻》魚厥切,音月。). The whole series thus make sense, without any speculation whatsoever (not in a derogatory sense) relying on either modern pronunciation or relatively recent dictionaries. <br /><br />For now,<br /><br />VladimirVladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-6871980928769337472015-01-02T04:05:06.621-08:002015-01-02T04:05:06.621-08:00Section II
Vladimir: "(Y)ou are making seman...Section II<br /><br />Vladimir: "(Y)ou are making semantic connections through too many steps. Anything can be semantically linked together if there are enough steps. In a very derogatory sense, I can link the Statue of liberty or the Moon to 兌. Weiger’s and Karlgren’s definitions look exactly like this and a huge amount has been proven wrong."<br /><br /> This is among the issues that, to borrow your apt phrase, "... have been discussed to maturity." To recapitulate:<br /><br /> The characters have been in use for thousands of years, allowing plenty of time for incremental intermediate steps in semantic chains. Also, I have given attested examples in which seemingly absurd semantic chains have been created with few links.<br /><br /> We know a great deal about the pronunciations and meanings the characters have conveyed throughout history. 兌 was not created for random reasons any more than random reasons were behind its selection to convey a particular sound. Interpretations respecting a) historical conditions prevalent at the time of a character's creation, b) patterns in the creation process and c) meanings conveyed by cognate terms rule out the kind of idiosyncratic semantic chains of which you speak.<br /><br />Vladimir: "What I had in mind was to prove that 兌 dui4 really is the phonetic in the rest of the characters as the pronunciation of the characters in Mandarin today is very diverse. By “prove” I mean for instance presenting the 廣韻反切 which would show that the characters rhymed in Middle Chinese, or present pronunciations or alternative pronunciations of these characters in Chinese dialects, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese where the series would rhyme ect."<br /><br /> I fail to understand why you think it would be necessary for these characters to rhyme in MC (or in Chinese dialects, Japanese etc.) to demonstrate that 兌 is the phonetic element in these characters. Here are their pronunciations in OC (all Schuessler op. cit. except 鋭 Baxter/Sagart at link cited below):<br /><br />兌 *lôts 悦 *lôt 鋭 *lot-s 税 *lhots 説 *lhot 脱 *l(h)ôt 閲 *lôt<br /><br />http://ocbaxtersagart.lsait.lsa.umich.edu/BaxterSagartOCbyGSR2014-09-20.pdf<br /><br /> Similar enough? How the terms came to be pronounced in MC etc. much less in modern Mandarin is quite beside the point.<br /><br /> I sense that our discussion is winding down, as we are now largely reiterating points concerning which we have already presented our respective ways of thinking. I'm willing to continue the dialogue as long as it remains productive, but just in case this brings us to the end of the line I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for lending your time and talents to a debate which perhaps others too will find of no small interest.<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />Lawrence J. HowellLawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-15197330963924499522015-01-02T04:04:23.199-08:002015-01-02T04:04:23.199-08:00Vladimir,
Thank you for handling the display iss...Vladimir,<br /><br /> Thank you for handling the display issue with my previous post.<br /><br /> I am responding to your post time-stamped (January 1, 2015 at 1:49 PM) in two sections, again to get around the word count restrictions.<br /><br />Section One<br /><br />Vladimir: "(S)cholars have produced only one representative reconstruction of OC as a whole, that is the whole 1000 year span. How can this be precise? Surely the language could not have been the same at the beginning of this period and at its end. If so, how can one safely work with this reconstruction when discussing Chinese character etymology? Your interpretations might be based on analyzing material from one period (i.e. meanings of characters of that particular time), but the phonetic reconstruction you use might refer to another one."<br /><br /> "Surely the language could not have been the same at the beginning of this period and at its end."<br /><br />↓<br /><br /> Again, Vladimir, this is nothing other than an assumption on your part. And again, the degree of change (whatever that might have been) can only be relative. If ever we are able to accumulate enough data to pinpoint exactly how the language spoken and written by a control set of users in the Shang Dynasty differed from that of a roughly equivalent control group in the Warring States period we would be positioned to assert something meaningful about change and degree of change, but that is not the situation in which we find ourselves.<br /><br />"If so, how can one safely work with this reconstruction when discussing Chinese character etymology?"<br /><br />↓<br /><br /> I answer this the same way as in an earlier post: "(I)n inquires of this sort there is never a time when all the evidence is in, and all conclusions must be provisional."<br /><br /> Safety isn't a factor. I interpret the characters to the best of my knowledge and ability with the data that is available. If and when quantitative and qualitative advances in this data are produced, I will amend the interpretations where necessary.<br /><br />"Your interpretations might be based on analyzing material from one period (i.e. meanings of characters of that particular time), but the phonetic reconstruction you use might refer to another one."<br /><br />↓<br /><br /> Yes, "might." However, we will only be in a position to determine whether that is the case if and when scholarly advances permit the creation of a more refined periodization scheme for OC. This suggestion merely shifts the goal posts from a) a one-thousand-year time frame to b) speculative divisions within that time frame.Lawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-7764964314402878742015-01-01T22:10:28.565-08:002015-01-01T22:10:28.565-08:00All fixed. All fixed. Vladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-20867283025953755952015-01-01T15:53:07.968-08:002015-01-01T15:53:07.968-08:00Vladimir,
Your post time-stamped (January 1, 201...Vladimir,<br /><br /> Your post time-stamped (January 1, 2015 at 1:49 PM) responds to points I addressed in a post uploaded subsequent to that of yours time-stamped (December 30, 2014 at 11:32 AM). However, that post of mine is not displaying. Please fix, as the absence of any post obscures the thread of our discussion. I'll respond to the contents of your (January 1, 2015 at 1:49 PM) post after the situation is resolved. Thank you.<br /><br />For now,<br /><br />Lawrence J. HowellLawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-90785400092922672652015-01-01T13:49:22.483-08:002015-01-01T13:49:22.483-08:00Dear Lawrence,
I’m sorry for the short delay in r...Dear Lawrence,<br /><br />I’m sorry for the short delay in replying to you these days.<br /><br />Returning to your posts:<br /><br />“You assume the spoken language "must have changed a lot" over the approximately one-thousand-year stretch of OC…For the sake of the argument, let's posit that your assumption is accurate,….It still leaves you without evidence, still leaves me asking for that evidence, and funnels us back to our Zen mondō.”<br /><br />You seem to have dedicated a lot of time to this topic, I on the other hand started to gather my thoughts about it a little more than 2 weeks ago when we started this discussion, so naturally, I don’t have too much substantial evidence neatly organized and ready to present, but not too modestly I think the issues I’ve raised to question your position are worth a thought. <br /><br />As for how languages change; as relative as the term “change” might be, a thousand years in a life of a language is a lot. From what I understand, and please correct me if I’m wrong, it seems to me, that when reconstructing OC pronunciation, scholars have produced only one representative reconstruction of OC as a whole, that is the whole 1000 year span. How can this be precise? Surely the language could not have been the same at the beginning of this period and at its end. If so, how can one safely work with this reconstruction when discussing Chinese character etymology? Your interpretations might be based on analyzing material from one period (i.e. meanings of characters of that particular time), but the phonetic reconstruction you use might refer to another one. <br /><br />“My idea is that the original sense of 兌 was "strip away a captive's clothes.” 兌 Def: 八 split right and left + 兄 (kneeling figure) → strip away a captive's clothes and exchange them for prisoner's garb.”<br /><br />Lawrence, I honestly feel you are making semantic connections through too many steps. Anything can be semantically linked together if there are enough steps. In a very derogatory sense, I can link the Statue of liberty or the Moon to 兌. Weiger’s and Karlgren’s definitions look exactly like this and a huge amount has been proven wrong. <br /><br />Are you sure that prisoners had to wear special clothes at that time? <br /><br />When it comes to the 兌 series, maybe there was a misunderstanding. What I had in mind was to prove that 兌 dui4 really is the phonetic in the rest of the characters as the pronunciation of the characters in Mandarin today is very diverse. By “prove” I mean for instance presenting the 廣韻反切 which would show that the characters rhymed in Middle Chinese, or present pronunciations or alternative pronunciations of these characters in Chinese dialects, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese where the series would rhyme ect. <br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Vladimir<br /><br />p.s.: Please consider issues which I haven’t answered as issues I agree with or feel have been discussed to maturity. Vladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-25057243382938438792014-12-30T18:55:16.406-08:002014-12-30T18:55:16.406-08:00Vladimir,
About the experiment:
After proposin...Vladimir,<br /><br /> About the experiment:<br /><br /> After proposing it, I decided that if you wanted to follow through, the method you felt would be most meaningful for you would be the best form for it to take.<br /><br /> About the passage from the Analects, with reconstructed pronunciations attached:<br /><br /> Again and as always please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I take your point here to be a reiteration (or perhaps better, reification) of the spoken/written language divide you proposed earlier. I have my own doubts about the fidelity of the various OC reconstructions to the way terms were actually pronounced during that period, and as noted above have no trouble agreeing with you that texts generally exhibit differences with the spoken language of the time and place.<br /><br /> My counterpoint in this regard remains that such distinctions between spoken and written language are immaterial because the focus of OC linguists is on individual terms. If you wish to take the position that the complexity of OC reconstructions makes them suspect, and if you have solid arguments to support that position, I suggest contacting Baxter, Sagart and Starostin (the younger, of course) and sharing your thoughts. I've done so, and found Baxter and Starostin in particular to be willing to debate heterodox positions as long as it takes to identify the key points on which each party has a different outlook.<br /><br /> Of course, you are free to deny the fidelity/validity/utility of OC reconstructions even in the absence of solid reasons for doing so, but that leaves us with nothing further to discuss in this connection.<br /><br /> About the remainder of your post, I'm glad you've confirmed that it's up to you, as the proposer, to support your proposal. The support you've offered here is a time span.<br /><br /> You assume the spoken language "must have changed a lot" over the approximately one-thousand-year stretch of OC. I have to emphasize the word "assume." I also have to point out that "a lot" is highly subjective.<br /><br /> For the sake of the argument, let's posit that your assumption is accurate, and that linguists, historians and other specialists have produced a measuring device which demonstrates that whatever changes occurred in the spoken language during the time period in question were substantial. How does that support your contention that "... there might have been a revolution period where people just started giving new sounds to objects, animals, abstract meanings ect. in a way other than creating new words through meaning extensions of old ones." It still leaves you without evidence, still leaves me asking for that evidence, and funnels us back to our Zen mondō.<br /><br /> Regarding 兌 and derivatives:<br /><br /> Sorry, I overlooked that. The way you phrased it was, "I propose to you to try to prove that 兌 is the phonetic in 銳 稅 說 脫 閱 悅."<br /><br /> "Prove" is not an operable word in this context. Interpreting Chinese characters is different from the world of mathematical formulas, where participants agree on the ground rules. I have theories, and I have interpretations based on those theories. I make no claim that these interpretations have been proven.<br /><br /> Anyway, my idea is that the original sense of 兌 was "strip away a captive's clothes." In the derivative compounds you list, the concept "strip away" applies in all cases.<br /><br /> I'm giving the full link for 兌 and, to keep the word count down in order to make this a single post, just the id numbers for the remaining characters. Please copy and paste accordingly.<br /><br />兌 → http://www.kanjinetworks.com/eng/kanji-dictionary/online-kanji-etymology-dictionary.cfm?kanji_id=TUATx08<br /><br />悦 → TUAT01<br /><br />鋭 → TUAT05<br /><br />税 → TUAT03<br /><br />説 → TUAT04<br /><br />脱 → TUAT02<br /><br />閲 → TUAT06<br /><br />For now,<br /><br />Lawrence J. HowellLawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-40739147934380527682014-12-30T11:32:19.016-08:002014-12-30T11:32:19.016-08:00Dear Lawrence,
thank you for your replies.
As we...Dear Lawrence,<br /><br />thank you for your replies.<br /><br />As we move on:<br /><br />“In that case, it rather weakens the value of the experiment, as it means you were to a certain extent viewing the ancient forms of the characters through the prism of Shuōwén Jiězì and the other sources you consulted. I suppose that in order to test the degree of intuitiveness among the ancient pictographs it would be necessary to set up a full-blown experiment with at least several dozen participants.”<br /><br />Before the experiment, I asked whether it would be ok to look at 說文解字 and other old dictionary definitions and there were no objections. <br /><br />“I have no evidence against your theory, but the burden of supplying evidence is on the one proposing the theory, is it not?”<br /><br />True, true. I too do not dismiss your theory either, I’m just skeptical.<br /><br />Maybe we can look at the whole issue of OC reconstruction from a different angle.<br /><br />子曰:「學而時習之,不亦說乎?有朋自遠方來,不亦樂乎?人不知而不慍,不亦君子乎?」<br /><br />ʔslɯʔ ɢʷad: ɡruːɡ njɯ djɯ ljub tjɯ, pɯ’ laːɡ hljod ɢaː? ɢʷɯʔ bɯːŋ ɦljids ɢʷans baŋ m·rɯːɡ, pɯ’ laːɡ ŋraːwɢ ɢaː? njin pɯ’ ʔl’e njɯ pɯ’ iuən, pɯ’ laːɡ klun ʔslɯʔ ɢaː?<br /><br />The above is the first sentence from the Analects of Confucius written in Chinese characters (as Classical as Classical Chinese can get) and the corresponding OC reconstruction as provided by ytenx.org. Just by looking at this reconstruction and trying to pronounce it, does it look like anything people would use as means of communication? We cannot be sure as none of us was there and I am no expert, but do you feel anyone would really talk like this? This sentence is surprisingly pronunciation-friendly but there are so many reconstructed sounds that have these incredible consonant and glottal stop clusters that it is hard to believe people would really talk like that. This reconstructed language seems to be full of pronunciation obstacles. It’s my very subjective opinion of course. I can read IPA, It’s not that I think the reconstruction doesn’t look anything like any written language. To me, subjectively it sounds ridiculous (for the lack of finding a better name for it). <br /><br />“We simply don't find technological advances or social agitation on a scale necessitating the degree and pace of word creation I understand you to be proposing. Nor can I identify other factors that would drive such a process. That is not a presumption; it's an opinion based on what (I understand to be what) we know.”<br /><br />Again I am no expert, but if we can find no evidence that there was a necessity for a vocabulary expansion of this sort based on (the very little) we know, why not allow space for thought that it might have happened anyway? We are talking about a period from 13th century B.C.E. to 221 B.C.E which is a huge time span. I think we have very little written sources in order for us to understand the period as a whole, not to mention the spoken language that was in use at that time (which surely must have changed a lot over the thousand or so years). It is enough to look at 詩經. Are you able to understand it? What does it tell you about the language of that time? Surely you can’t propose that along with other written sources of that period they form a fruitful representation of the spoken language of that time. <br /><br />Did you have any luck with the 兌 銳稅說脫悅閱 series by any chance? I would love to hear your take on it.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />VladimirVladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-85904019115382202932014-12-29T16:50:36.282-08:002014-12-29T16:50:36.282-08:00Vladimir,
Responding to your posts time-stamped ...Vladimir,<br /><br /> Responding to your posts time-stamped (December 28, 2014 at 6:47 AM) and (December 28, 2014 at 6:48 AM).<br /><br />Vladimir: "(What) was written on the Oracle bones and the way it was written did not represent spoken language as it was."<br /><br /> OK, I see what you're saying, and based on gaps that tend to exist between the spoken and written forms of languages in general, I agree that's a safe assumption, though given the present dearth of evidence there's no way of measuring how great or small those gaps might have been.<br /><br /> To give your position its proper context, let me reintroduce something else you wrote.<br /><br />Vladimir: "The written language does not necessarily have to convey spoken language as is. Much like a warehouse catalogue entry or a ship log entry (referring to fortune telling ‘logs’ or ‘entries’ on oracle bones) are languages on their own and do not represent the spoken language as is. They can consist of parts of speech present in the language, but do not have to look anything like the spoken language."<br /><br /> I think that portion, "They can consist of part of speech present in the language ..." helps address this issue. Why? Because I would suggest that these "parts of speech" accord with morphology (as opposed to grammar), and it is morphology upon which scholarly reconstructions of OC and my character interpretations are based. If you meant something else by "parts of speech," please correct me.<br /><br />Vladimir: "... OC phonetic reconstruction is full of speculation ... I propose that if we question tones (along with other reasons), other segments of OC phonetics should follow suit... (I)f 8 respected scholars are saying something different about the same academic subject surely that subject is not widely accepted and it means there is lots and lots of space for improvement."<br /><br /> Sure, the dictum "Question authority"happens to be a favorite of mine. By all means have at it. However, in inquires of this sort there is never a time when all the evidence is in, and all conclusions must be provisional. None of the small group of linguists active in OC make truth claims for their reconstructions, as far as I am aware, nor do I make any such claim for my own theories and interpretations.<br /><br />Vladimir: (Respecting a proposed revolution period in the ancient Han language) "I have no evidence but, why dismiss the theory? It’s a bold question, but do you have any evidence against it?"<br /><br /> Please observe that I did not dismiss the theory. What I said was that I'd be interested in reviewing supporting data. That's quite a different thing. There's a Zen 問答 flavor to this:<br /><br />A: I have a theory.<br />B: Evidence?<br />A: Counter-evidence?<br /><br /> I have no evidence against your theory, but the burden of supplying evidence is on the one proposing the theory, is it not?<br /><br />Vladimir: "How about all instances where there was organic necessity to artificially assign words to new concepts and objects appearing in the society that took place many times later in history? It would be unfair to presume none took place earlier on as well."<br /><br /> As I wrote, "I propose that extensions of existing terms took place one by one and over hundreds of years. These extensions were fully capable of keeping pace with developments." That's hardly the same thing as presuming that no such process took place.<br /><br /> With respect to historical events in China corresponding to the time frame of OC (generally considered to stretch from the 13th century B.C.E. to 221 B.C.E., to answer your subsequent question), we simply don't find technological advances or social agitation on a scale necessitating the degree and pace of word creation I understand you to be proposing. Nor can I identify other factors that would drive such a process. That is not a presumption; it's an opinion based on what (I understand to be what) we know.<br /><br />For now,<br /><br />Lawrence J. HowellLawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-88086056469221133132014-12-28T20:33:06.829-08:002014-12-28T20:33:06.829-08:00Vladimir,
Regarding your post time-stamped (Dece...Vladimir,<br /><br /> Regarding your post time-stamped (December 27, 2014 at 1:20 AM):<br /><br />Vladimir: "I think that while whoever was responsible for character creation did his best to pick a phonetic element that would be somewhat closer to the meaning of the character as a whole, in the majority of cases, the phonetic value and the phonetic value only was the reason for selecting a character to act as a phonetic element in a given character."<br /><br /> I understand the position you take, but see no reason to modify my conclusion that what is called the phonetic element is better understood as a phonetic-ideational element (to Anglicize "phononoemaphore" even if only a little bit).<br /><br />Vladimir: "I propose that the phonetic element also has a semantic value only in case the character in which it appears is of the following relation to the phonetic: 夅降, 离離, 桼漆, that is a new character was created to take semantic burden off the original one..."<br /><br /> Well, we share common ground in our understanding of phonetic compounds such as those you mention!<br /><br />Vladimir: (Regarding the experiment) "I did not look at modern definitions or meanings of these characters, but I did look at old texts in which they appeared and at their definitions in 說文解字 and other old dictionaries."<br /><br /> In that case, it rather weakens the value of the experiment, as it means you were to a certain extent viewing the ancient forms of the characters through the prism of Shuōwén Jiězì and the other sources you consulted. I suppose that in order to test the degree of intuitiveness among the ancient pictographs it would be necessary to set up a full-blown experiment with at least several dozen participants.<br /><br />Vladimir: "Just so that I understand correctly, do you consider 可,我,奚,衣 to have had one original pronunciation some long time ago, meaning something along the lines of a “frame”/“continuum”?"<br /><br /> I consider that they were pronounced alike in P-C, and that while each term conveyed one or more meanings distinct from the meanings conveyed by the other terms, all terms were connected with the major concept of a frame and the minor concept of a continuum.<br /><br /> On the subject of the reliability of OC reconstructions, it is good to be skeptical about the accuracy of these attempts. Baxter in particular has revised his reconstructions repeatedly. He deserves credit, though, for not being afraid to take flak for changing his mind. <br /><br />Vladimir: "Am I correct in saying that you would come to different conclusions in your analyses depending on which reconstruction you would choose?"<br /><br /> No, because the various reconstructions are close enough to each other to support my contention that they are natural progressions from the simpler sounds I propose existed in P-C.<br /><br /> Next I will respond to your posts time-stamped (December 28, 2014 at 6:47 AM) and (December 28, 2014 at 6:47 AM).<br /><br />For now,<br /><br />Lawrence J. HowellLawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-15027305481741336922014-12-28T06:48:00.606-08:002014-12-28T06:48:00.606-08:00As a side note, when talking about Old Chinese, wh...As a side note, when talking about Old Chinese, which time period exactly do you have in mind?<br /><br />The semantic groups I propose are of the same nature as those that Karlgren presented in his "Word Families in Chinese.”..what Schuessler has in mind when he uses the phrase "word families.<br /><br />I'll read into it. <br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />VladimirVladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-44067318929475098432014-12-28T06:47:53.211-08:002014-12-28T06:47:53.211-08:00Dear Lawrence,
as we continue:
“Your point is v...Dear Lawrence, <br /><br />as we continue:<br /><br />“Your point is valid as a general principle. However, in the specific case of Chinese characters, I think anyone would have a hard time making the case that they were not used to convey the language spoken by the ancient Han.”<br /><br />What I meant to say was, that what was written on the Oracle bones and the way it was written did not represent spoken language as it was. Of course it consisted of parts of the language that was spoken in that part of China at that time, but it wasn’t a direct representation of the spoken language. Much like or even more so than the diglossia of written and spoken Chinese today. It is enough to read the newspaper in Chinese today to understand that no Chinese person speaks like that and that you can go almost as far as saying that it is a different language altogether. <br /><br />“These are the sorts of pronunciation changes I have in mind when I speak of consonant shifts. If you have another name for it, or a different explanation for the distinctions in pronunciation between the head term and its derivative, by all means please share it.”<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to write all the above examples. I understood what you had in mind, I am familiar with the term consonant shifts and vaguely understand the concept (Father Vater Pater ect.). What I meant to say was (and I truly believe I am not alone in this argument) that OC phonetic reconstruction is full of speculation (not in a derogatory sense). Some question the presence of tones in this language. I propose that if we question tones (along with other reasons), other segments of OC phonetics should follow suit. As for ‘other reasons’ as stated in the brackets in the last sentence, consonant shifts, or rather the ‘de-shifting’ of consonants in order to reconstruct OC pronunciation is also full of speculation and disagreements between scholars (see the amount of sources ytenx.org quotes for OC character pronunciation reconstructions. Do I count correctly, are there eight?) I am no expert, but if 8 respected scholars are saying something different about the same academic subject surely that subject is not widely accepted and it means there is lots and lots of space for improvement. <br /><br />“A revolution period in the ancient Han language? I'm aware of no evidence for that, but would be interested in reviewing data that supports it.”<br /><br />I have no evidence but, why dismiss the theory? It’s a bold question, but do you have any evidence against it? I remember talking to a Chinese friend a long time ago, who told me that there was a time in Chinese history when scholars tried to assign names and characters to absolutely every object and concept they could see or think of. Thus, words like ‘a black horse with a white stripe on its forehead’ were created. They must’ve realized very soon that it was pointless to do so, many of the words fell into disuse very soon, but many of these words must have survived until today. This is one example of planned artificial vocabulary expansion. How about all instances where there was organic necessity to artificially assign words to new concepts and objects appearing in the society that took place many times later in history? It would be unfair to presume none took place earlier on as well. <br /><br />“I believe the pace of linguistic growth in the relatively early Chinese language history period you suggest was much more leisurely than you imagine it. “<br /><br />I don’t know. Why would you say so? I think the Ancient Chinese society was very dynamic. Do you agree, that usually where there is a lot of competition in the form of many warring nations (which is the case of Ancient China), technologies and societies develop very fast? How can you thus be sure, that organic vocabulary evolution has been keeping up with the necessity to assign new words to new and new objects/concepts well? Vladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-18877800353350622062014-12-28T04:50:52.004-08:002014-12-28T04:50:52.004-08:00Section Two
Vladimir: "In a broader sense, a...Section Two<br /><br />Vladimir: "In a broader sense, as previously mentioned, it is logical that language was first made of only a handful of sounds with only maybe exactly one meaning per sound (I believe chimpanzees communicate this way), but as soon as language started to enter into a more “mature” stage, do you exclude the possibility that there might have been a revolution period where people just started giving new sounds to objects, animals, abstract meanings ect. in a way other than creating new words through meaning extensions of old ones? Or create sound combinations of existing sounds to name more and more objects (as was the case much later with the necessity to assign terms to western technologies in China at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century (瓦斯,馬達,瓦特 ect)?"<br /><br /> A revolution period in the ancient Han language? I'm aware of no evidence for that, but would be interested in reviewing data that supports it.<br /><br /> Sound combinations represent another matter, and this matter lies beyond my field of interest. The terms with which I work are conveyed by single characters. Many of these are attested in the oracle bone and or bronzeware scripts, and many of those that are not attested there are attested in the seal script. I find all derivative terms to be consistent in pronunciation and semantic connections with the terms that produced them.<br /><br />Vladimir: "We don’t have to go to China, we can look at words like telephone, television, telegraph in English. You cannot argue that these are nothing but a handful of exceptions and that the primary organic group is much larger, large enough to constitute an operative basis for the majority of words in use today."<br /><br /> I believe the two paragraphs immediately above speak to this point, but if you would like additional comments, please advise.<br /><br />Vladimir: "I think it is worth a thought that at some point in relatively early Chinese language history a similar artificial expansion of vocabulary has taken place simply because the rate at which words were evolving organically could not keep up with the amount of objects and concepts people of that time were coming into daily contact with."<br /><br /> I believe the pace of linguistic growth in the relatively early Chinese language history period you suggest was much more leisurely than you imagine it. I propose that extensions of existing terms took place one by one and over hundreds of years. These extensions were fully capable of keeping pace with developments.<br /><br />Vladimir: "Now with vocabulary being composed of words of such a mixed variety of origins, I think it is not possible to safely create semantic groups of the kind you propose, backing them up with only phonetic reconstructions (not completely reliable as I propose) and semantic links that are made through too many steps (4 for instance as we saw with 北, which reminds me of Weiger’s interpretations of which most have been proven wrong already by Karlgren)."<br /><br /> The semantic groups I propose are of the same nature as those that Karlgren presented in his "Word Families in Chinese." Also, these groups conform to what Schuessler has in mind when he uses the phrase "word families." The ones of which he (Schuessler) speaks are backed up (to use your characterization) by phonetic reconstructions of OC alone. Mine are supplemented by semantic chains. You are not convinced by these chains, I know, but I stand by them all the same.<br /><br /> Next I will respond to your post time-stamped (December 27, 2014 at 1:20 AM).<br /><br />For now,<br /><br />Lawrence J. HowellLawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-13726949618758974042014-12-28T04:50:05.339-08:002014-12-28T04:50:05.339-08:00Vladmir,
Comments on your posts time-stamped (Dec...Vladmir,<br /><br />Comments on your posts time-stamped (December 26, 2014 at 1:28 AM) and (December 26, 2014 at 1:32 AM)<br /><br />Section One<br /><br />Vladimir: "The written language does not necessarily have to convey spoken language as is. Much like a warehouse catalogue entry or a ship log entry (referring to fortune telling ‘logs’ or ‘entries’ on oracle bones) are languages on their own and do not represent the spoken language as is. They can consist of parts of speech present in the language, but do not have to look anything like the spoken language."<br /><br /> Your point is valid as a general principle. However, in the specific case of Chinese characters, I think anyone would have a hard time making the case that they were not used to convey the language spoken by the ancient Han.<br /><br />Vladimir: "(I)f we question and are not sure about the existence of tones in Old Chinese, how can we be sure about individual consonant shifts? I don’t think mutual influence is necessary to question both if you question one in this case. If a concept as intrinsic as tones is put under question, it’s only a step away from questioning other parts of OC phonetics as well.<br /><br /> First, to answer your question about why certain quotations begin with parentheses: This is simply to indicate that the first letter was not capitalized as originally written.<br /><br /> The phrase "consonant shift" is another one of those concessions to the non-specialists who consult my dictionary. By this I refer to terms that feature pronunciation changes such as those listed below. Shifts occur in the initial and in the final.<br /><br />Examples of Shifts in the Initial <br /><br />Dental Laterals → Velars: 林 → 禁 婁 → 屨<br /><br />Labial Nasals → Velars: 宀 → 安 目 → 窅 灰 → 盔<br /><br />Labial Stops → Velars: 丙 → 更 比 → 皆 鼻 → 劓 貝 → 貴 八 → 穴<br /><br />Sibilant Stops → Velars: 卸 → 御 朔 → 塑 朿 → 棘 冊 → 龠<br /><br />Dental Stops → Velars: 異 → 冀 甚 → 勘 廴 → 建 衍 → 愆 十 → 叶 旨 → 詣 勺 → 約 隹 → 帷 出 → 屈 矞 → 橘<br /><br />Velars → Dental Laterals: 魚 → 魯 京 → 涼 柬 → 煉 歹 → 列 果 → 裸<br /><br />Velars → Labial Stops: 亨 → 烹 爻 → 駁<br /><br />Velars → Sibilant Stops: 其 → 斯 矣 → 俟 屰 → 朔 及 → 扱 夾 → 浹 契 → 楔 告 → 造 松 → 鬆 員 → 損 旬 → 恂<br /><br />Velars → Dental Stops: 向 → 餉 盈 → 楹 炎 → 淡 咸 → 箴 臽 → 諂 甘 → 甜 合 → 拾 耆 → 蓍 希 → 絺 埶 → 勢 川 → 順 過 → 撾<br /><br /> Naturally, there is also movement between Non-Velars, but I believe these examples suffice.<br /><br />Examples of Characters the Pronunciations of Which Exhibit Shift in the Final<br /><br />叚 → 假 音 → 意 豈 → 覬 去 → 劫 厭 → 靨 念 → 捻 几 → 肌 斤 → 祈 殹 → 翳 既 → 概 加 → 珈 於 → 閼 匽 → 揠 血 → 洫 兀 → 元 囗 → 困 軍 → 揮 貴 → 遺 魏 → 巍 危 → 鮠 尹 → 伊 韋 → 諱 胃→ 謂<br /><br /> These are the sorts of pronunciation changes I have in mind when I speak of consonant shifts. If you have another name for it, or a different explanation for the distinctions in pronunciation between the head term and its derivative, by all means please share it.Lawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-45697691310721104392014-12-27T01:20:38.814-08:002014-12-27T01:20:38.814-08:00Dear Lawrence,
thank you for your reply again.
A...Dear Lawrence,<br /><br />thank you for your reply again.<br /><br />As we proceed:<br /><br />After reading your paper you kindly provided the link for, I realized we might belong to two different schools of Sinology.<br /><br />As far as phonosemantic compounds go, in my opinion the phonetic element as Dr. Mair says has in most cases no perceivable bearing on the meaning of the character. I think that while whoever was responsible for character creation did his best to pick a phonetic element that would be somewhat closer to the meaning of the character as a whole, in the majority of cases, the phonetic value and the phonetic value only was the reason for selecting a character to act as a phonetic element in a given character.<br /><br />I propose that the phonetic element also has a semantic value only in case the character in which it appears is of the following relation to the phonetic: 夅降, 离離, 桼漆, that is a new character was created to take semantic burden off the original one (as meaning extensions are many, there might be several characters per one phonetic element that are of this kind, but as they constitute only a small subgroup, it is impossible to consider all characters that share the same phonetic element to be related to these phonetic elements semantically as well). In all other cases, the phonetic element is almost strictly phonetic in nature. Character designers might have tried their best, where possible, to match up these phonetic elements with the target character semantically as well, but if they failed, it was not an issue.<br /><br />Another small remark about the paper, I remember the term ‘morphemographic script’ when referring to the Chinese script. (referring to terminology disagreements). <br /><br />Returning to 北 “north”. To me a semantic extension of “to flee, turn one’s back” is simply less plausible than a sound loan. For the time being, it seems we have agreed to disagree. <br /><br />“Regarding the pictograph experiment: If the original senses of those seven characters were unfamiliar to you at the beginning of the experiment, if your eyes did not stumble upon the meanings traditionally assigned them when you went to look the characters up, and if you devised those identifications purely on the basis of what you observe in the oracle bone or bronzeware scripts, then I eat my hat and acknowledge that the ancient forms are much more intuitive than I hitherto considered them to be.”<br /><br />I did not look at modern definitions or meanings of these characters, but I did look at old texts in which they appeared and at their definitions in 說文解字 and other old dictionaries. <br /><br />Thank you for your take at the 可 series. I think I understand your method a little better now. Just so that I understand correctly, do you consider 可,我,奚,衣 to have had one original pronunciation some long time ago, meaning something along the lines of a “frame”/“continuum”?<br /><br />As a side note, why I question the reliability of Old Chinese phonetic reconstructions. Here are several reconstructions of 可:<br /><br />上古音系 <br /> kʰaːlʔ<br /><br />Other reconstructions:<br />http://ytenx.org/kyonh/sieux/1742/<br /><br />And as you mentioned Schuessler:<br />*khâiʔ<br /><br />Do I count correctly, are there four of them (*khâiʔ, kʰɑ, kʰa, kʰaːlʔ)? <br /><br />Am I correct in saying that you would come to different conclusions in your analyses depending on which reconstruction you would choose? If that is the case, why consider Schuessler’s reconstruction and not 王力 for instance?<br /><br />Thank you for the fruitful debate again. <br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />VladimirVladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-76064647619512445672014-12-26T18:37:47.759-08:002014-12-26T18:37:47.759-08:00Vladimir,
Concerning your two posts time-stamped...Vladimir,<br /><br /> Concerning your two posts time-stamped (December 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM)<br /><br /> I note your position on all the points made in regard to my earlier comments.<br /><br /> Moving on,<br /><br />三戦三北、 而亡地五百里 史記・魯仲連<br /> <br />Vladimir: "I don’t understand. Does this prove 北 is North?"<br /><br /> Not at all. I introduced it as an example of 北 being used for the meaning "flee" as opposed to the meaning "north," which is a later development in the term conveyed by 北 (the same acquisition process applying to the terms that came to convey "south," "east" and "west").<br /><br /> As mentioned, I view 北 as representing one person turning his back to another person. Turning one's back is something done both in fleeing an enemy standing in opposition and in protecting oneself from the cold wind, which often blows from the north. The fact that 北 has been used both for "flee" and for "north" brings us back to the issue of how to account for it, whether by sound loan, semantic extension or some other explanation. I consider a semantic connection between the two senses of 北 quite plausible.<br /><br /> Regarding the nomenclature used in my dictionary, "Shell and Bone" characters are indeed "Oracle Bone" characters, just as "borrowing" is my version of "sound loans." I wanted to enhance the accessibility of the dictionary for non-specialists, and chose for that reason to use non-specialist language so long as precision doesn't suffer.<br /><br /> In contrast, when writing for a narrower audience, I sometimes find that the word I want does not yet exist, and coin one accordingly. An example would be "phononoemaphore," as appears in <br /><br />http://www.slideshare.net/KanjiNetworks/response-tovictormair<br /><br />where I needed a term to convey an important distinction in the nature of something that linguists habitually designate "phonophore."<br /><br />Vladimir: "Do you ... consider the 主 series (住駐注註柱蛀 ect.) to’ve been one sound and one meaning originally? Or maybe a more complicated example: the 可 series (可柯苛呵何河荷哥歌阿啊屙奇埼騎寄倚椅 ect.)?"<br /><br /> OK, let's go with the complicated example, 可.<br /><br /> There was a spoken term in OC pronounced *khâiʔ (Schuessler's reconstruction, as are all the OC readings that follow). I posit that in P-C the term that came to be conveyed by 可 was less complex than its OC pronunciation.<br /><br /> The term spawned a number of derivative terms, some also found in OC. Examples include the terms conveyed by 何 苛 河 (all *gâi) and 奇 (*kai). There are also OC examples of sub-derivative terms, such as 奇 → 寄 *kaih, or 哥 → 歌 *kâi.<br /><br /> Then, I assign the terms that took form in the 可 line to a word family that includes other terms that I posit were cognate in P-C with the *khâiʔ/可 term, along with their derivative lines. Examples: 我 (OC *ŋâiʔ → 義 *ŋaih → 議 *ŋaih), 奚 (OC *gê → 溪 *khê) and 衣 (OC *ʔjəj → 依 *ʔəi). <br /><br /> As noted in a previous post, I identify 134 of these word family groups. The word family to which the terms conveyed by 可 etc. 我 etc. 奚 etc. 衣 etc. belong is defined by the main concept Frame (conveyed by the P-C initial) and the secondary concept Continuum (conveyed by the P-C final).<br /><br /> Regarding the pictograph experiment: If the original senses of those seven characters were unfamiliar to you at the beginning of the experiment, if your eyes did not stumble upon the meanings traditionally assigned them when you went to look the characters up, and if you devised those identifications purely on the basis of what you observe in the oracle bone or bronzeware scripts, then I eat my hat and acknowledge that the ancient forms are much more intuitive than I hitherto considered them to be.<br /><br /> Next I will take up the contents of your posts time-stamped (December 26, 2014 at 1:28 AM) and (December 26, 2014 at 1:32 AM). <br /><br /> For now,<br /><br />Lawrence J. HowellLawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-5213515773743839092014-12-26T01:32:38.493-08:002014-12-26T01:32:38.493-08:00You might argue that people of that time had less ...You might argue that people of that time had less objects they came across in their world, thus having less words in their language and that the organic vocabulary batch was sufficient, but I don’t think that is a valid point. Less objects do not make a language less rich in my opionion (maybe a bit of a far stretch but if I remember correctly, eskimos have about 60 terms for snow). I propose, that the language must’ve been very rich in other ways, maybe obscure to us today (as a side note, when saying simple and straightforward in earlier posts, I was referring to the written language and character creation) and surely the amount of objects and concepts people were coming into contact with was greater than what the organic vocabulary evolution could cover. <br /><br />You might also argue that this artificial vocabulary creation of that time followed the principles you mention, that is, that the absolute majority of new words were created by extending the meanings of old ones (many extensions that remain obscure to us simply because we do not know the realia of that time), which is true, but at the same time, automatically assuming that all or the vast majority of new words were created this way and create large semantic groups based on this premise and phonetic reconstructions is a bit of a stretch for me.<br /><br />As far as vocabulary expansion goes, how about loans from foreign languages? How about the origin of words used purely for grammar? How about words that people just happened to invent (like the famous 甭 later on)? Or for instance, why is it that you are able to link so many sounds and so many meanings to one group that you propose used to originate from one sound with one meaning only, yet there are some syllables today (that is with plenty of time for development since their origin) that have only one meaning (more or less)? Syllable 給 comes to mind. Moreover, if I’m correct, the syllable “gei“ only appears in the 3rd tone and only has this one meaning and there is only one character that represents it. Why has this syllable been ‘saved’ from any sort of evolution? These examples in my opinion cannot be considered a small group now or then.<br /><br />Looking forward for the debate to come,<br /><br />Vladimir<br /><br />p.s.: As a side note, when you quote me in your replies, I sometimes see forms like “(Y)ou”. Does this mean the initial “Y” was missing in my post? If that is the case, it might be a problem of blogger.com as in my posts the initial “Y” is always there.Vladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-57178254884981613232014-12-26T01:28:54.521-08:002014-12-26T01:28:54.521-08:00Dear Lawrence,
thank you for your reply again.
“...Dear Lawrence,<br /><br />thank you for your reply again.<br /><br />“The point here is that whether it was the ancient Han who originally devised the characters or not, the characters convey the spoken language of the ancient Han language in writing. I know of no scholars who hold otherwise, but if you can cite somebody please enlighten me.”<br /><br />Maybe I should clarify what I mean by ‘to convey spoken language’. The written language does not necessarily have to convey spoken language as is. Much like a warehouse catalogue entry or a ship log entry (referring to fortune telling ‘logs’ or ‘entries’ on oracle bones) are languages on their own and do not represent the spoken language as is. They can consist of parts of speech present in the language, but do not have to look anything like the spoken language. We discussed this in our “History of the Chinese language” class at the Chinese department. I can’t remember any author unfortunately. <br /><br />“Sorry, but might I ask you to elaborate on why (the presence or absence of) tones in OC would impact consonant shifts?”<br /><br />What I meant to say was, that if we question and are not sure about the existence of tones in Old Chinese, how can we be sure about individual consonant shifts? I don’t think mutual influence is necessary to question both if you question one in this case. If a concept as intrinsic as tones is put under question, it’s only a step away from questioning other parts of OC phonetics as well. As the famous quote goes “a change of a tone of a Chinese syllable is just as significant as a change of any sound (letter) within the syllable itself”.<br /><br />“I don't consider the idea bold at all. I wouldn't go so far as to use the word "few" (understood narrowly as three or four), but certainly I believe that the number of sounds in early speech was not large.“ <br /><br />I understand. In a broader sense, as previously mentioned, it is logical that language was first made of only a handful of sounds with only maybe exactly one meaning per sound (I believe chimpanzees communicate this way), but as soon as language started to enter into a more “mature” stage, do you exclude the possibility that there might have been a revolution period where people just started giving new sounds to objects, animals, abstract meanings ect. in a way other than creating new words through meaning extensions of old ones? Or create sound combinations of existing sounds to name more and more objects (as was the case much later with the necessity to assign terms to western technologies in China at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century (瓦斯,馬達,瓦特 ect)? We don’t have to go to China, we can look at words like telephone, television, telegraph in English. You cannot argue that these are nothing but a handful of exceptions and that the primary organic group is much larger, large enough to constitute an operative basis for the majority of words in use today. <br /><br />I think it is worth a thought that at some point in relatively early Chinese language history a similar artificial expansion of vocabulary has taken place simply because the rate at which words were evolving organically could not keep up with the amount of objects and concepts people of that time were coming into daily contact with. Now with vocabulary being composed of words of such a mixed variety of origins, I think it is not possible to safely create semantic groups of the kind you propose, backing them up with only phonetic reconstructions (not completely reliable as I propose) and semantic links that are made through too many steps (4 for instance as we saw with 北, which reminds me of Weiger’s interpretations of which most have been proven wrong already by Karlgren).Vladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-84044281327527299872014-12-25T18:00:04.992-08:002014-12-25T18:00:04.992-08:00(Resuming from previous post)
Vladimir: "(Y)...(Resuming from previous post)<br /><br />Vladimir: "(Y)ou mention that all characters that have a similar sound (save a few exceptions) used to have the same meaning too. This is quite a bold statement to be honest. It would mean that in early language history there were only a few sounds and a few meanings (logically very probable) but, that all new meanings and sounds were only derivates of these with no new sounds or meanings originating completely independently of these."<br /><br /> I don't consider the idea bold at all. I wouldn't go so far as to use the word "few" (understood narrowly as three or four), but certainly I believe that the number of sounds in early speech was not large. As for the connection between original sounds and those identifiable later in a language's history, yes, some of them would be derivative, and some would be from heterogeneous sources (hence the pains I took earlier to stress the exceptions represented by loan words and terms originating in onomatopoeia and mimesis).<br /><br />Vladimir: "If it wouldn’t be too much of a hassle, could you list the ancient pronunciations that you find relevant for the characters you listed earlier?"<br /><br /> Starostin, Baxter-Sagart and Schuessler each have their own versions, though there is of course a certain amount of overlap. Here are the start pages for the first two. Schuessler's material is only available in paper, I believe.<br /><br />http://starling.rinet.ru/<br /><br />http://ocbaxtersagart.lsait.lsa.umich.edu/<br /><br />Vladimir: (Regarding the ancient pronunciations of the characters listed earlier) "(Y)ou postulate that all of them are only derivates of the same one meaning and only one sound. How many of these groups (originating from one meaning and one sound) did you identify among Chinese characters?<br /><br /> 134 groups. Member terms share the Initial and the Final in Proto-Chinese (as I theorize).<br /><br />Vladimir: "I also don’t quite understand why the ‘small apertures’ group is related to the ‘slender line’ group :)"<br /><br /> It's related to the main concept Small/Slender rather than the subset Slender Line.<br /><br /> Next I will take up the contents of your posts both time-stamped (December 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM). <br /><br /> Thank you again for your interest in these matters, and for challenging me to support my assertions.<br /><br /> For now,<br /><br />Lawrence J. HowellLawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-63649937737948460002014-12-25T17:59:19.307-08:002014-12-25T17:59:19.307-08:00Vladimir,
Responding to your final question in t...Vladimir,<br /><br /> Responding to your final question in the post time-stamped (December 23, 2014 at 5:51 AM).<br /><br />Vladimir: "I don’t quite agree that earlier stages of the language where Oracle bone script characters were used was a fully developed script. We know so little about this stage that it would be too bold to male this claim."<br /><br /> By "fully developed" I mean "mature," the descriptor Qui Xigui uses in the book cited earlier. Speaking with reference to "the bone and bronze inscriptions of the late Shang dynasty," he says, "They reveal a mature form of Chinese writing that was already fully capable of recording language." (Page 29) I can't improve on the simplicity and clarity of that description.<br /><br /> Responding to other points raised in your post time-stamped (December 23, 2014 at 5:56 AM)<br /><br />Vladimir: "(M)any scholars say that it is not sure at all whether the Chinese language of today is a direct descendant of the language used even by Confucius, not to mention language used earlier (pre Warring states language employing Chinese characters). The language that ‘invented’ Chinese characters might have maybe even been a language coming from a completely different language family altogether. Chinese characters might have been invented by one nation but later adopted by speakers of a completely different language, a direct predecessor of modern Chinese and adapted it to their needs."<br /><br /> With respect to what you mention here about language, it's important to distinguish between speech and writing. Perhaps some of your uses of "language" in these three sentences were intended to convey "spoken language," but I don't want to assume.<br /><br /> Earlier, you observed how Schuessler in the ABC Dictionary doesn't provide the reader with character element explanations. I think at least part of the reason why he doesn't owes to a desire to draw a clean distinction between the sounds of OC (with which Schuessler is comfortable) and with the correspondence of those sounds with particular characters (with which he may be less comfortable).<br /><br /> The point here is that whether it was the ancient Han who originally devised the characters or not, the characters convey the spoken language of the ancient Han language in writing. I know of no scholars who hold otherwise, but if you can cite somebody please enlighten me.<br /><br />Vladimir: "... Old Chinese ... is said to’ve had no 4th tone (入聲?). This according to some scholars is just one step away from stating that that language had no tones at all. If it is speculated whether it had no tones (something that is very intrinsic to Chinese and subject to a lot of debate and speculation), how can we be sure about consonant shifts, ending drops ect. that your theory relies on so much?"<br /><br /> Sorry, but might I ask you to elaborate on why (the presence or absence of) tones in OC would impact consonant shifts?<br /><br />(Continued immediately following)Lawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-6590392191040485802014-12-25T07:05:38.378-08:002014-12-25T07:05:38.378-08:00My best shot at the 7 characters (not having looke...My best shot at the 7 characters (not having looked at modern meanings or definitions):<br /><br />羋 Sound of sheep; surname. A simple indicative character. Formed by 羊 yang2 and one additional stroke at the top indicating the bleat of a sheep. Modern character simplified and formatted.<br /><br />韭 Some sort of a vegetable. Maybe corn (based on earlier characters), maybe something smaller. A simplified and formatted picture of a corn(?) plant).<br /><br />兎 alternate form of 兔<br /><br />兕 Rhinoceros? A simplified and formatted picture of a rhinoceros.<br /><br />丮 To hold something in one’s hands. A simplified and formatted picture of a person with closing arms.<br /><br />禸 Animal footprint (Alternate form of 厹). A phonosemantic compound. 九 jiu3 ‘nine’ phonetic 厶 si1 representing the footprint semantic.<br /><br />禹 Not sure. Some sort of a snake maybe?<br /><br />One thing that I haven’t paid too much attention to before we started this discussion was to look at character pairs like 夅降, 离離, 桼漆 ect. to aid in pictograph analysis. Thank you for the idea. <br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />VladimirVladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-48063879878023621172014-12-25T07:05:32.549-08:002014-12-25T07:05:32.549-08:00Dear Lawrence,
taking off where we left:
“That ...Dear Lawrence, <br /><br />taking off where we left:<br /><br />“That said, as we are discussing the nature of Chinese characters in a larger and historical context, the more data at our disposal the more accurate and fruitful the debate, wouldn't you agree?”<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />:.. whether you base your conclusions solely on what you regard as the most logical explanations of changes in form, or if you bring other analytical tools to the task as well.”<br /><br />I use other tools of course but with so much speculation, I unfortunately realized after about 50 similar cases that my best guess is almost just as good. Also, as I mentioned before I don’t rely on what you call “Scholarly reconstructions of the pronunciation of terms in OC” too much. Only as a second grade reference in some cases when analyzing phonosemantic compounds, after every other source has proven to be insufficient. I don’t rely on these because of the issues I mentioned earlier (ongoing debate about Old/Proto Chinese reconstruction ect.).<br /><br />“士 is one of those characters. http://www.chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E5%A3%AB ….That presence also casts doubt upon the tortuous interpretation of 士 you so kindly shared (and properly rejected) earlier in this exchange.:<br /><br />I trust chineseetymology.org is only a fraction of your resources. You must know too, that earliest 商 versions of 士 look nothing like 士 and are missing in the list chineseetymology provides. But what you say makes sense. Although the Seal script hasn’t been invented in a day, has its history and all versions of 士 that chineseetymology.org lists may be based on the same 十 over 一 newly constructed character with the aim to replace the earlier version suggesting that 十 over 一 represent mathwork the 士 officials had to carry out (not to mention that 十 might have a phonetic value too) your explanation is more plausible. <br /><br />“As I also present, by association with the idea of turning one's back to the cold north wind.” <br /><br />I also wrote that 北 originally meant ‘to flee’, but I propose it is a sound loan: <br /><br />北 Sound loan. Original meaning 'to run away from battle/conflict (still preserved in the modern expression 敗北 bai4bei3 'suffer a defeat') formed by two 人 (人) 'person' standing up against each other's backs (see Seal script). Character borrowed for the meaning 'north' based on its sound.<br /><br />You say: “ As I also present, by association with the idea of turning one's back to the cold north wind.” <br /><br />I find 北 sound loan more plausible than 北 meaning extension. A wind can be cold from wherever it is blowing. Of course it is cold from the North as well, maybe known to be colder, but the semantic relation between 1. turn one’s back and flee 2. turn one’s back 3. turn one’s back to the North cold wind 4) North is A) made through too many steps B) too weak to associate the original meaning “to flee” with “North”.<br /><br />“三戦三北、 而亡地五百里 史記・魯仲連” <br />I don’t understand. Does this prove 北 is North? “Fought three wars, three times fled from them and lost land of a size of 500 Li.” Or am I misunderstanding something you’re saying?<br /><br />“Oracle Bone describes the usage. Shell and Bone describes the medium. Any reason why we may not use both? “<br />I understand. I thought you were referring to the Oracle bone script when using the term Shell and Bone. We learned that “Oracle bone script” is the widely accepted term that is in use today, that’s why I was confused.<br /><br />Going back to what you were saying, that you consider all syllables with the same or similar pronunciation to stem from one single syllable and all meanings and derivates related to those sounds to point to one original meaning as well. Do you for instance consider the 主 series (住駐注註柱蛀 ect.) to’ve been one sound and one meaning originally? Or maybe a more complicated example: the 可 series (可柯苛呵何河荷哥歌阿啊屙奇埼騎寄倚椅 ect.)?Vladimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05898612218295828520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275372772077650637.post-5903797082120008362014-12-25T00:26:44.388-08:002014-12-25T00:26:44.388-08:00Vladimir,
Continuation of comments on your post ...Vladimir,<br /><br /> Continuation of comments on your post time-stamped (December 23, 2014 at 5:56 AM)<br /><br />Vladimir: "... what I consider to be the most logical available interpretation and interpretations I came up with on my own are the basis for my method of interpreting unclear or controversial characters. The former is something most people would do. As for the latter, if everyone is only speculating and can show no substantial proof, I can take my shot at the interpretation just as well."<br /><br /> That makes perfect sense. What I was looking to confirm here was whether, in interpreting unclear or controversial characters such as 士, you base your conclusions solely on what you regard as the most logical explanations of changes in form, or if you bring other analytical tools to the task as well.<br /><br /> As noted earlier, I bring four of these tools to my consideration of such characters: 1) Historical changes in the forms of these characters; 2) Scholarly reconstructions of the pronunciation of terms in OC; 3) cognates or near-cognates in OC; 4) the history, customs, technological abilities and so on of ancient Han society. It's only natural that an interpretive method using all of these tools will arrive at different conclusions from interpretive methods using only some of them.<br /><br />Vladimir: "As far as 士 goes, Karlgren also stated, and I agree with him, that Chinese characters have two main phases of development: 1) pre Seal script revolution and 2) post Seal script revolution and of the two it is absolutely essential that we consider the latter and not the former when analyzing characters used today as during this revolution, hundreds of characters have been replaced by completely new ones that have structurally nothing in common with their earlier counterparts (as might be the case with 士)."<br /><br /> Karlgren's dictum is unarguable, but the majority of characters in common use are attested pre-Seal in the oracle bone and/or bronzeware scripts, so its applicability is limited.<br /><br /> 士 is one of those characters.<br /><br />http://www.chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E5%A3%AB<br /><br /> Sure, there are multiple variant forms among the Seal script characters, but 士 is attested in the oracle bone script in just that shape. How is that presence accounted for in your statement that it was "... the Seal script revolution when the basis for the modern 士 was created"? (Note: Parentheses removed from within quotation.) That presence also casts doubt upon the tortuous interpretation of 士 you so kindly shared (and properly rejected) earlier in this exchange.<br /><br />Vladimir: "北 Why flee to the North? Why not South or any other direction? I don’t see the concept of ‘fleeing’ related to North or any other direction."<br /><br /> Typically, 北 is explained as two figures with their backs turned to each other. See for example page 186 of Qui Xigui, cited above.<br /><br /> Instead, as early forms write the figure on the left identically with 人, I present 北 as two figures with the back of only one turned, suggesting "turn one's back to the enemy and flee." Why to the north rather than another direction? As I also present, by association with the idea of turning one's back to the cold north wind.<br /><br /> If that is unpersuasive, so be it. But I'd like to note the example<br /><br />三戦三北、 而亡地五百里 史記・魯仲連<br /><br />Vladimir: "Why do you use the term Shell and Bone characters?"<br /><br /> Oracle Bone describes the usage. Shell and Bone describes the medium. Any reason why we may not use both?<br /><br />(To be continued)<br /><br />Lawrence J. HowellLawrence J. Howellhttp://www.kanjinetworks.com/noreply@blogger.com