First lecture in the hopefully longer series on Chinese character etymology and Chinese character phonetic series. In this lecture I try to explain what phono-semantic compound characters are (形聲字), explain the 才 phonetic series and etymology of all characters in it.
Characters in this video:
才 cai2 - talent, material. Leading phonetic character of the group.
財 cai2 - money, wealth
材 cai2 - material
在 zai4 - to be located at
載 zai4 - to give someone a ride
裁 cai2 - to cut
戴 dai4 - to wear (clothes), to put on
才 cai2 - talent, material. Leading phonetic character of the group.
財 cai2 - money, wealth
材 cai2 - material
在 zai4 - to be located at
載 zai4 - to give someone a ride
裁 cai2 - to cut
戴 dai4 - to wear (clothes), to put on
Hello! This is just fascinating. Thank you for putting together such an informative video. May I ask where you got your Oracle Bones font? There doesn't seem to be a safe place to download one. Also, are you writing in Paint and then transferring your characters onto your desktop? Thanks! Denis
ReplyDeleteA superbly lucid introduction to phono-semantic characters. Well done! One question, if I may: You say that 才 "... used to mean a sprouting plant." What is the basis for that identification?
ReplyDeleteI’m making these videos for ordinary students, in order to make the learning process for them easier, so my definitions of pictograms look something like this:
ReplyDelete單 - Original meaning ‘hunting tool’. Probably a simplified and formatted picture of a hunting tool of some sort (see Oracle bone script).
You know better than me, that writing about what exactly the character might have meant originally and how its meaning shifted to its modern meanings could be a subject of a small scientific paper :)
Thank you for bringing up Schuessler’s dictionary again. I’ll try to get my hands on it as soon as I can.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Thank you very much for the twin fascinating posts, Vladimir. I'll consider the contents carefully and upload a reply within the next week or so. For now, best regards,
ReplyDeleteLawrence
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteOn account of the word count limit in the posts I'll treat three of the questions you raise in the preceding two posts in one entry, and the fourth question in a separate entry.
I 才 and its derivative characters
Perhaps you are right in thinking we are saying the same thing but going about it in different ways.
Here is how I understand the links, starting with the equation of the term conveyed by 才 and the signification "rocks piled to cut off/dam a river" (with the object of securing water resources).
1) Cut off (water) to secure resources → cut off (wood) to secure resources → wooden resources; lumber
2) Cut off (water) to secure resources → cut off
We may suppose that 才 was employed to convey both its original signification and the associated meanings noted above, until it was decided that it would be beneficial to distinguish the acquired meanings by creating the separate characters 1) 材 and 2) the character that remains when 衣/車 are removed from 裁/載.
In time, the lumber aspect of 材 weakened to the point that the term conveyed by 材 came to indicate "resources; material" in a broad sense. To specify resources/material of a pecuniary nature, 貝 (commodities) was brought into play to create 財, in which I regard 才 functioning as an abbreviated form of 材 material (but see below).
Meanwhile, with 才 having come to convey meanings ("genius/ability/talent") far removed from its original, concrete sense of rocks piled in a certain location, 在 was devised by appending 土 earth. I wonder whether that is what you intend by a "sound loan."
That is my provisional take on the relations between these characters. However, I'm open to the possibility that future linguistic discoveries may reveal that the "resources" aspect of 才 remained in active awareness and contributed directly to the meanings that came to be conveyed by 材 and 財.
Parenthetically, you asked: "How can we be sure that 財 functions as an abbreviated form of 材? :)" Actually, what I stated was that in 財 I regard 才 to be functioning as an abbreviated form of 材. As to the question of how we can or cannot be sure of that, I have touched upon that above.
II 一 yi1
Vladimir (1): "You suggest that 一 yi1 is the phon(oseman)tic element in 天 and 旦."
Vladimir (2): "... 日 and 一 were in the same Rhyme group! in Middle Chinese... There is no record of 一 being the phonetic in 日 and it might be a coincidence, but considering the above written and your paper for instance, and with you suggesting 一 might be the phonetic in 天 and 旦 it is worth a thought."
Actually, I'm suggesting that 一 yi1 is NOT the phonosemantic element in 天. If you have another look at my paper I think you'll find that you've taken the sentence, "天 can be decomposed into 一 (one) and 大 (a person standing up, or big)" to be my own, when in fact it's a quotation from authors whose paper I am contesting.
My point is that the top horizontal line of 天 is a now-disappeared character the ancient pronunciation of which was *tan, and which represented the horizon. I'm saying it was this character, not 一 yi1, that functioned as the phonosemantic element in 天 as well as in 旦.
As for 一 and 日, they share the same final -T in Old Chinese, and I suppose a case could be made for the proposition that 日 is not a pictograph but rather a compound character with 一 being the phonosemantic element. This would necessitate a consonant shift from the initial K- of 一 to the initial N- of 日, which is certainly possible, but I'm inclined to continue regarding 日 as a pictograph.
III ABC and Character Element Explanations
Correct: ABC doesn't provide these. Schuessler's interest is in what he describes in the opening sentence of the Preface as "the origin of Old Chinese words."
Lawrence J. Howell
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteRegarding Cognates of 才
Vladimir: "The reason why I asked why you consider the cognates 且, 糸, 茲, 再 and 采 important is that ... they seem to have been chosen because they suit your theory and not because your theory suits them ..."
I see. In that case, the comprehensive overview of cognates attested in the oracle bone and/or bronzeware scripts that follows should, if nothing else, allay suspicions that the data has been cherry-picked.
As indicated previously, "pile" is a subset of a larger conceptual group involving a profusion of small/slender objects. A vertical arrangement of profuse objects creates a pile, and we find characters conveying both concrete and figurative applications of a pile. When the arrangement of profuse objects is horizontal, the result is a line. In some cases the focus is on cutting or splitting, actions resulting in a profusion of small objects. The final two characters involve small apertures.
Bear in mind that the descriptions apply to the earliest sense of each term, not to associated, extended or borrowed meanings that most of the terms eventually acquired.
Profusion of small/slender objects
事 bamboo sticks in a tube
史 tube containing bamboo slats inscribed with records
冊 inscribed bamboo slats of irregular length, bound with a cord
朿 twig with sharp, projecting points piled on the surface
茲 luxuriant growth of slender vegetation
子 child; offspring (May also be conceived of as a figurative pile of offspring; compare 茲 luxuriant growth)
Profusion of small/slender objects creating a pile
才 rocks piled to cut off/dam a river
且 pile created by the accumulation of small or slender objects
士 erect object formed by small composite materials
嗇 piles of barley/grain in a granary
即 table piled high with food, beside which a person kneels
糸 piled threads
采 picked/plucked fruit forming a pile
Figurative pile
再 piling of elements to indicate "once again; twice" (cf. the acquired meanings of 且)
昔 the figurative piling up (= passage) of days
責 the torment of debts piled one atop another
Slender line
徙 slender line of people migrating/relocating
亦 slender line of people standing outstretched
朔 slender line in the sky created by the moon in making one full cycle
Cut/split, creating a profusion of small/slender objects (wood shavings; food; cloth etc.)
乍 ax-like implement used to chop wood
析 split/divide wood by chopping it
所 shave wood with a bladed implement
斯 split apart a winnow
則 tripod kettle/cauldron + a knife beside it for cutting food or other objects
宰 cut meat
初 make a garment by cutting cloth
甾 cut down weeds
Small aperture
司 peer through a narrow hole
息 breathe through the nostrils
To maintain a focus on the original senses of the terms, I've omitted those derivative characters (Examples: 且 → 祖 組; 茲 → 滋 慈; 乍 → 詐 酢 etc.) that too are found in the oracle bone and/or bronzeware scripts.
This is how I perceive the conceptual links between the terms conveyed by these characters.
Lawrence J. Howell
p.s.:
ReplyDeleteJust for comparison, here’s what my sources say about some of the characters you mentioned:
The original meaning of 則 was to ‘grade, asses’. Character formed by 貝 bei4 'money, goods' and 刂 (刀) dao1 'knife'. To grade/mark goods (with a knife).
事 and 史 were originally the same word:
https://www.facebook.com/105061786325889/photos/a.178454858986581.1073741830.105061786325889/364466587052073/?type=1&theater
Original meaning of 且 is 'to sacrifice, sacrificial tablet'. The character is probably a simplified and formatted picture of a sacrificial tablet. Borrowed for the abstract meaning 'and' based on its sound.
士 ‘scholar’ is formed by 十 shi2 'ten' over 一 yi1 'one' symbolizing the math work an official in ancient China had to do.
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the thoughtful replies. I'll chew them over then upload my ideas.
Meanwhile, a couple fixes:
1) 斯 Split apart a winnow → Split apart in a winnow
That is, use a winnow to split apart (= separate) grain from chaff
2) 責 is based on 朿, so it properly belongs to a list of derivative characters.
For now,
Lawrence J. Howell
III Linking of Characters: Semantic Relations
ReplyDeleteVladimir: "I allow myself to question the semantic relations between the characters you listed, as I feel some of them are a bit of a far stretch."
The world's languages are filled with attested examples of convoluted semantic chains, not to mention chains leading to surprising results in just two or three steps.
Porcelain: Young sow → cowrie shell → china/porcelain. The logic? Perceived association of shape between the openings of female porcine genitalia and of a cowrie shell.
Feisty: Fart → farting and/or smelly cur → farting and/or smelly, lively dog → feisty.
Compared with these two, the P-C/OC examples come off as models of directness.
Vladimir: "And I still don’t understand how it all relates to 才 meaning ‘pile up’. (original meaning of 在 is to pile up. You propose that it is a derivate of the original meaning of 才 thus making the original meaning of 才to pile up, do I understand it right? But 1.: how does 朔 and other characters support this argument? 2.: 才 originally objectively does resemble sprouting plants more than piled up pebbles)."
For what I mean about the "original meaning of 才," please see Part I of this post. As for what the ancient forms of 才 suggest visually, very few of the pictographs in the ancient scripts are drawn in ways permitting viewers/readers to grasp the object being depicted intuitively. For instance, the oracle bone forms of 山 and 火 both resemble a crown as much as they do a mountain or a fire, and I think if we were to ask one hundred moderns to draw an eye, none would produce anything even slightly resembling what we find among the oracle bone forms of 目. Arguments based on resemblance get us nowhere.
As for the "pile" aspect of 才, the "slender" aspect of 朔 and so on, about all I can do is reiterate that I view these as subsets of a larger conceptual group involving a profusion of small/slender objects.
IV Comparative Interpretations
ReplyDeleteVladimir: "The original meaning of 則 was to ‘grade, asses’. Character formed by 貝 bei4 'money, goods' and 刂 (刀) dao1 'knife'. To grade/mark goods (with a knife)."
This explanation is belied by the bronzeware forms of 貝 and the purported (貝) element in 則, which are distinct.
http://www.chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E8%B2%9D
http://www.chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E5%89%87
Vladimir: "事 and 史 were originally the same word:
https://www.facebook.com/105061786325889/photos/a.178454858986581.1073741830.105061786325889/364466587052073/?type=1&theater"
Both cognates involve bamboo slats or sticks placed in a tube, so yes, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a common origin.
Vladimir: "Original meaning of 且 is 'to sacrifice, sacrificial tablet'. The character is probably a simplified and formatted picture of a sacrificial tablet. Borrowed for the abstract meaning 'and' based on its sound."
I find no evidence for the veracity of the assertion concerning the original meaning. Schuessler has nothing more productive to say than to note Pulleyblank's idea of 且 being an allofam of 將. If you can cite a scholarly source for the equation of 且 with the meanings "to sacrifice; sacrificial tablet," I'll gladly give this more consideration.
Vladimir: "士 ‘scholar’ is formed by 十 shi2 'ten' over 一 yi1 'one' symbolizing the math work an official in ancient China had to do."
Here too, a cite from a reputable authority? By a reputable authority, I mean one whose character interpretations are, contrary to Shuōwén Jiězì and uncritical rehashes of same, informed by knowledge of ancient Chinese phonetics, comparative linguistics and (or, at the very least) the bronzeware and oracle bone forms of the characters.
V 日 and 月
Vladimir: "... when you think about it, why would someone put a dot or a line into a circle (Oracle bone version of 日) to represent the sun? Characters were often marked this way to differentiate meanings, but is there another Oracle bone script character that looks like a circle with no dot/line in it that has a different meaning?"
R. Sears shows more than two hundred oracle bone script forms in his listing for 日:
http://www.chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E6%97%A5
Among these, a handful lack a line (or dot) in the middle. For what it's worth, the same applies to what we find among the various oracle bone script forms of 月:
http://www.chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E6%9C%88
As to why a line or dot would have been considered necessary in the first place, I had never thought about it. If something occurs to me, I'll post again.
Thank you for all the time you've taken to consider and respond to my posts.
Lawrence J. Howell
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteI too am enjoying this discussion. Here again I'll divide the post into three sections.
Section One
Quoting Vladimir quoting me: “What I posit is that ancient Han terms pronounced alike are conceptually alike.”
Quoting Vladimir: "All words or only some of them?"
Don't forget that I excluded loan words and terms originating in onomatopoeia or mimesis from this proposition. Aside from those exceptions, yes, all words.
Quoting Vladimir: "(D)o you suggest that the cognates you mentioned all had the same or similar pronunciation in Old/Proto Chinese and all maybe point to one or a few meanings?"
That is correct.
Quoting Vladimir: "(T)o me it seems that the possibility that A) characters for cognates you mention were pronounced similarly/in the same way and were created gradually to take off semantic burden of characters with many meanings and are thus “organically” semantically and phonetically related and B) they were created long after these meanings (and pronunciations) originated and there is therefore no “organic relation” or “intelligent design” in the sequence. Characters were just created for many different things and of those many things some can be picked out to form a sequence."
Well-stated! With A) being my viewpoint.
Vladimir: "Arguably, concepts came first (tree, sun, moon, friendship ect.) ... "
I'm not sure how you are using "concepts" here: Tree, sun and moon are what I consider objects.
Vladimir: "... long after that pronunciation that linked these concepts to sounds came second (with the advent of speech) and characters came long after that (linking an image to the meaning and later to the sound as well)."
I think rather that the sequence was 1) Visual cognition of objects → 2) Systemic imitative articulation → 3) Character creation. For the second step, please refer to
http://www.slideshare.net/KanjiNetworks/systemic-imitative-articulation
According to this thesis, the transfer of concept was active in the transition from 1 to 2, and in the transition from 2 to 3 as well.
Vladimir: "The time gap between the second and third (origin of a sound for a specific word and character creation) and the semantic gaps between individual cognates you listed in my opinion is too big for anyone at that time to realize a connection. Some of the cognates yes, but most, I opine, no. (朔，亦 and 才 for instance)."
I understand and respect your opinion, but to my mind the concepts were quite vigorous and long-lasting. I say that because meanings of characters unattested in the oracle bone and/or bronzeware scripts but which appear in seal script tend to fit the concepts quite well. Naturally, the time came when the concepts completely faded from the collective consciousness of speakers of Chinese, but by then the basic corpus of characters had been long established.
Section Two
ReplyDeleteVladimir: "I read that there were only about 4000 individual oracle bones characters, but 4 or 5 thousand, both is not that much compared to later stages in history."
Nearly all of the tens of thousands of characters produced subsequently constitute alternate forms of existing characters or served to designate now-obsolete objects, practices, courtly ranks and so on. Also, and I regret not having a supporting link at hand, I recall an academic paper in which the author avers that the corpus of characters in regular use through all historical periods has not differed greatly (generally about 4,000, as it is now) with 7,500 being the outer limit of character fluency for the crème de la crème among scholars and bureaucrats.
Vladimir: "My conclusion: I don’t see a link that could link beyond reasonable doubt all characters you mentioned and prove or imply that the original meaning of 才 was ‘rocks piled up to cut off a river’."
I don't share your conclusion, but won't argue with it. I will say, however, that "beyond reasonable doubt" is a pretty high standard for investigations of this nature. (More on that below.)
Vladimir: "(S)ome characters were created in a very clever way, but a great portion have very direct, simple and straightforward semantic ties among the elements... I often came across characters that were interpreted as amazingly clever, just to find out later that one of the elements had a lost meaning or pronunciation making it either a very straightforward semantic compound or a phonosemantic compound."
I agree about the cleverness. And, for the reason noted in my previous post, I consider the links "direct, simple and straightforward" in the context of them having been devised in accordance with the Weltanschauung of ancient Han society, that Weltanschauung being quite different from the sort that any of us alive today bring to the subject.
Vladimir: "It is true that it is difficult to make a visual relation between the meaning and the image of many oracle bone characters. but at the same time, mostly there is a relation."
Several hundred pictographs attested in the oracle bone script survive in present usage. I would venture that the contemporary forms of nearly all these characters bear as little evident resemblance to the actual objects upon which they are based as do 山, 火 and 目, cited previously. Perhaps the most productive thing we can do is to agree to disagree on this point.
Vladimir: "I know I sound silly asking the same question over and over, I do understand what you are trying to say, but the semantic group you listed and its link to 才 are in my opinion not proof beyond reasonable doubt."
If resolution of this issue hinges on me furnishing evidence that meets your standards for "beyond reasonable doubt," I'm afraid we've reached an impasse. I've supplied what I have to offer: Perhaps my ideas will find outside support in years to come via archeological excavations, advances in our reconstructions of P-C/OC, insights gleaned from ongoing studies of other Sino-Tibetan languages etc.
Section Three
ReplyDeleteVladimir: "(T)here are more than 200 forms of 日... but they are structurally the same character formatted differently, no? "
Yes, we can consider that to be the case.
Vladimir: "According to this interpretation, 貝 in 則 is a reduction of previous one or two 鼎."
Yes, 鼎 is the tripod kettle to which my interpretation refers. I don't know why a reduction of two 鼎 would be posited.
Regarding 士, I share your discomfort with speculative interpretations of the more obscure pictographs and of what have long been understood as semantic compounds. I respect traditional explanations as long as they do not conflict with the phonetic and semantic patterns I've identified. When they do conflict, I trace all applicable transformations in the forms of the characters, refer to the OC readings proposed by Schuessler, Baxter/Sagart, Starostin et al, consider cognates or near-cognates in OC that possess the same or similar meaning, and devise my own interpretations according to what I understand of the history, customs, technological abilities and so on of ancient Han society. That's my method.
In contrast (and please excuse and correct me if I am misstating your position), it appears that what you consider to be the most logical available explanation behind changes in form is the foundation of your method for interpreting unclear or controversial characters such as 士. To each his own!
Vladimir: "What are your definitions for 東西南北？"
東 → http://www.kanjinetworks.com/eng/kanji-dictionary/online-kanji-etymology-dictionary.cfm?kanji_id=TUNG01
西 → http://www.kanjinetworks.com/eng/kanji-dictionary/online-kanji-etymology-dictionary.cfm?kanji_id=SAR19
南 → http://www.kanjinetworks.com/eng/kanji-dictionary/online-kanji-etymology-dictionary.cfm?kanji_id=NAM04
北 → http://www.kanjinetworks.com/eng/kanji-dictionary/online-kanji-etymology-dictionary.cfm?kanji_id=PUAK01
I consider it equally likely that borrowing is at work in 東 and 西 as that "east" and "west" represent semantic extensions. The semantic extensions in 南 and 北 are in somewhat bolder relief than for 東 and 西, but I wouldn't rule out borrowing for 南 and 北 as well.
For now,
Lawrence J. Howell
As a side note as to how little we know about the language of that time and how it seems your interpretations rely on Old/Proto Chinese language reconstructions, many 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. Much like (and I do have vast lack of knowledge in this regard so excuse me if I’m wrong) Japanese using Chinese characters or Slovak using the Latin alphabet. Neither is very suitable for the script but has adopted it anyway.
ReplyDeleteScholars are not even sure whether the language of the Warring states period is directly related to the Chinese languages of today. I’m sure you know that Old Chinese (I’m sorry if I’m mistaking the term again) 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?
On a different note, you 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.
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? As I hopefully understand, you 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?
I also don’t quite understand why the ‘small apertures’ group is related to the ‘slender line’ group :)
Thank you for participating in the discussion. There is truly a lot of food for thought in it.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the reply.
Vladimir: (On the subject of pictographs) "Some of the rest are mostly found in people’s names, food names, place names, or foreign name/word transliterations, but I agree that they are frequent and I also admit I was wrong in the sense that there are more than a few dozen pictographs in use today, but maybe you also agree that there aren't hundreds either. I’m sorry if it seems like I disagree with everything you write, it’s not like that. I only address the issues as they come."
Well, there's no denying that hundreds of pictographs exist among the characters in use today. People are likely to disagree about their relative importance in modern times (as defined by how frequently they appear, the situations in which they are used etc.). 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?
As for the experiment, by all means conduct it in the manner you believe will produce the most useful results.
I've yet to have a chance to address other of the questions you asked in your post time-stamped (December 23, 2014 at 5:56 AM), so please allow me to add the additional questions from post (December 24, 2014 at 12:12 AM) to that list, and I'll answer them in turn.
For now,
Lawrence J. Howell
PS As seen in my browser, one character among those included in my last post fails to display properly, the one between 㠯 and 叒. The one in question appears as the right-hand element of compound characters such as 慍 縕 or 醞.
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteResponding to your final question in the post time-stamped (December 23, 2014 at 5:51 AM).
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."
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.
Responding to other points raised in your post time-stamped (December 23, 2014 at 5:56 AM)
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."
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.
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).
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.
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?"
Sorry, but might I ask you to elaborate on why (the presence or absence of) tones in OC would impact consonant shifts?
(Continued immediately following)
(Resuming from previous post)
ReplyDeleteVladimir: "(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."
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).
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?"
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.
http://starling.rinet.ru/
http://ocbaxtersagart.lsait.lsa.umich.edu/
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?
134 groups. Member terms share the Initial and the Final in Proto-Chinese (as I theorize).
Vladimir: "I also don’t quite understand why the ‘small apertures’ group is related to the ‘slender line’ group :)"
It's related to the main concept Small/Slender rather than the subset Slender Line.
Next I will take up the contents of your posts both time-stamped (December 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM).
Thank you again for your interest in these matters, and for challenging me to support my assertions.
For now,
Lawrence J. Howell
Vladmir,
ReplyDeleteComments on your posts time-stamped (December 26, 2014 at 1:28 AM) and (December 26, 2014 at 1:32 AM)
Section One
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Examples of Shifts in the Initial
Dental Laterals → Velars: 林 → 禁 婁 → 屨
Labial Nasals → Velars: 宀 → 安 目 → 窅 灰 → 盔
Labial Stops → Velars: 丙 → 更 比 → 皆 鼻 → 劓 貝 → 貴 八 → 穴
Sibilant Stops → Velars: 卸 → 御 朔 → 塑 朿 → 棘 冊 → 龠
Dental Stops → Velars: 異 → 冀 甚 → 勘 廴 → 建 衍 → 愆 十 → 叶 旨 → 詣 勺 → 約 隹 → 帷 出 → 屈 矞 → 橘
Velars → Dental Laterals: 魚 → 魯 京 → 涼 柬 → 煉 歹 → 列 果 → 裸
Velars → Labial Stops: 亨 → 烹 爻 → 駁
Velars → Sibilant Stops: 其 → 斯 矣 → 俟 屰 → 朔 及 → 扱 夾 → 浹 契 → 楔 告 → 造 松 → 鬆 員 → 損 旬 → 恂
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
Naturally, there is also movement between Non-Velars, but I believe these examples suffice.
Examples of Characters the Pronunciations of Which Exhibit Shift in the Final
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
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.
Section Two
ReplyDeleteVladimir: "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)?"
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.
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.
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."
I believe the two paragraphs immediately above speak to this point, but if you would like additional comments, please advise.
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."
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.
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)."
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.
Next I will respond to your post time-stamped (December 27, 2014 at 1:20 AM).
For now,
Lawrence J. Howell
As a side note, when talking about Old Chinese, which time period exactly do you have in mind?
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
I'll read into it.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteRegarding your post time-stamped (December 27, 2014 at 1:20 AM):
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."
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).
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..."
Well, we share common ground in our understanding of phonetic compounds such as those you mention!
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."
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.
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”?"
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.
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.
Vladimir: "Am I correct in saying that you would come to different conclusions in your analyses depending on which reconstruction you would choose?"
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.
Next I will respond to your posts time-stamped (December 28, 2014 at 6:47 AM) and (December 28, 2014 at 6:47 AM).
For now,
Lawrence J. Howell
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteResponding to your posts time-stamped (December 28, 2014 at 6:47 AM) and (December 28, 2014 at 6:48 AM).
Vladimir: "(What) was written on the Oracle bones and the way it was written did not represent spoken language as it was."
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.
To give your position its proper context, let me reintroduce something else you wrote.
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."
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.
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."
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.
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?"
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:
A: I have a theory.
B: Evidence?
A: Counter-evidence?
I have no evidence against your theory, but the burden of supplying evidence is on the one proposing the theory, is it not?
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."
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.
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.
For now,
Lawrence J. Howell
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry for the short delay in replying to you these days.
Returning to your posts:
“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.”
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
Are you sure that prisoners had to wear special clothes at that time?
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.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
p.s.: Please consider issues which I haven’t answered as issues I agree with or feel have been discussed to maturity.
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteYour 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.
For now,
Lawrence J. Howell
All fixed.
ReplyDeleteVladimir,
ReplyDeleteThank you for handling the display issue with my previous post.
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.
Section One
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."
"Surely the language could not have been the same at the beginning of this period and at its end."
↓
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.
"If so, how can one safely work with this reconstruction when discussing Chinese character etymology?"
↓
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."
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.
"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."
↓
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.
Section II
ReplyDeleteVladimir: "(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."
This is among the issues that, to borrow your apt phrase, "... have been discussed to maturity." To recapitulate:
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.
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.
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."
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):
兌 *lôts 悦 *lôt 鋭 *lot-s 税 *lhots 説 *lhot 脱 *l(h)ôt 閲 *lôt
http://ocbaxtersagart.lsait.lsa.umich.edu/BaxterSagartOCbyGSR2014-09-20.pdf
Similar enough? How the terms came to be pronounced in MC etc. much less in modern Mandarin is quite beside the point.
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.
Best regards,
Lawrence J. Howell
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteYour 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.
Regarding 兌 etc., if you proved to yourself the point you wanted to make, great.
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.
Thank you again. Our discussion was enjoyable and informative.
Best regards,
Lawrence J. Howell