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 (形聲字) are, 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
ReplyDeleteHello, I'm glad you found the videos interesting.
ReplyDeleteI write the Oracle bone characters myself. I have downloaded an OBS font, but I don't like it that much.
The program I use for the videos is called Smoothdraw. I do the whole explanation in it and use screen-capture software on that particular part of the screen to capture the video.
all the best
Vladimir
A 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?
ReplyDeleteHello Lawrence,
ReplyDeletethank you for the nice words.
You made a very good observation. Characters that are pictograms (as is 才) are most difficult to interpret if you don't have a direct dictionary entry or enough ancient texts to safely determine what the character means from context.
In this case we're lucky because there is a direct entry in the 說文解字 dictionary (100 CE) which says:
才：艸木之初也。从丨上貫一，將生枝葉。一，地也。
Don't know how familiar you are with Classical Chinese so I'll translate just in case:
才: The origin of grass (grass-like plants in general) and trees (tree-like plants in general). Character formed by 丨piercing 一 from the top (referring to the Original version of the character), will later form branches and leaves. 一 represents the ground.
Thank you, Vladimir, for confirming the source to be Shuōwén Jiězì.
ReplyDeleteAs you and no doubt many of your site visitors are aware, the Shuōwén Jiězì remains an invaluable cultural treasure, but for more than a century now many of its character interpretations (all of which were devised absent knowledge of the ancient bronzeware and oracle bone forms of the characters) have been considered unreliable or simply inaccurate.
English-language readers enjoy access to up-to-date, scholarly character interpretations through readily available works such as Axel Schuessler's ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese or Qui Xigui's Chinese Writing (original title: 文字學概要).
Regarding 才, both Schuessler (page 175) and Qui Xigui (page 280) maintain that its original meaning is obscure. However, Schuessler suggests a possible connection between 子 and 才, in the sense of a child or a seedling coming forth. That was the reason for my question: I was wondering whether you were following Shuōwén Jiězì, Schuessler, or some other authority.
For the record, let's consider Schuessler's suggestion.
In Old Chinese, the original meanings of cognates of 才 and 子 often concern small/slender objects, or piles created by such objects. Examples include the terms attached to 且 (pile created by the accumulation of small or slender objects), 糸 (piled threads), 茲 (luxuriant growth of slender vegetation), 再 (piling of elements to indicate "once again; twice"), and 采 (picked/plucked fruit [forming a pile]).
Like 才 and 子, these characters suggest the proliferation of small objects, lending some credence to Schuessler's proposal.
On the other hand, different Old Chinese cognates of 才 and 子involve the specific idea of cutting or splitting things to form piles of small objects. Examples include the terms attached to 乍 (a sharp, ax-like implement chopping wood and creating piles of shavings), 所 (shave wood with a bladed implement), 宰 and 胥 (cut meat), 斯 (split apart a winnow), 甾 (cut down weeds) etc.
Now, bearing in mind the relation that all the cognate terms mentioned above have with the idea of a pile, I suggest it's more natural to interpret 才 not as a sprouting plant but as rocks piled to cut off/dam a river.
Doing so enables us to identify the idea "cut off" at work in 材 (cut wood, creating lumber resources → "material"), in 在 (pile earth to cut off the flow of a river; the meanings "to be located at; to exist" are by extension), in 裁 (cut cloth in making clothes → "cut"), and in 載 (load cut wood on a vehicle → "load; place atop → give someone a ride"). For its part, the 才 element in 財 acts as an abbreviated form of 材 (material). Adding 貝 (commodities) suggests material of value, and thus "money" and "wealth."
Likewise, 戴 contains an abbreviated form of 載 ("load; place atop"). When added to 異 (original signification: a pair of hands raised straight above to the sides of a person's head [in affixing a crown]), the purpose was to emphasize the idea of placing a crown on the head. That accounts for the meanings "put on" and, by association, "wear clothes."
In passing, note how the original sense of 在 replicates what I propose to have been the original sense of 才. As you know, it is a common phenomenon among the Chinese characters for a character to lose its original meaning, necessitating the creation of a new character in order to convey the now-lost signification. As you point out, 才 acquired the meanings "talent; material" (for the latter sense, compare 材). 在 was then devised to replace 才, but as we have seen 在 too went on to acquire extended meanings.
In conclusion, modern scholarship makes character analysis much more interesting (and convincing) than Shuōwén Jiězì explanations. To enhance the value of your excellent data to the greatest possible extent, I'd like to urge you to make full use of the excellent interpretive resources available these days.
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletethank you for your constructive contribution.
I’m sorry I didn’t elaborate a bit more, but I’m actually working with about 20 dictionaries. 爾雅， 說文解字，切韻，廣韻，唐韻， 集韻，韻會，正韻，康熙大字典 (via ctext.org) to name a few of the old ones and Karlgren’s Analytic dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese, Wenlin, 說文新証 and 古文字詁林 (recommended by a friend who studies character etymology at the NTNU in Taipei) to name a few of the new ones. And of course ancient texts and Thesaurus linguae sericae as a semantic cross-check. I don’t understand how I don’t know about Schuessler's ABC Etymological Dictionary :) I just read a brief paper about it written by Starostin and he says it’s been lacking proper publicity, but still, I have academic background in Chinese studies and have been doing character research for over two years and didn’t come across the dictionary anywhere. Strange. I know prof. Baxter is working on an etymological dictionary, which as far as I know still hasn’t been published, but this ABC dictionary really remained unnoticed to me somehow.
Thank you very much for your analysis of 才. There was lot’s of food for thought in it.
Why are the cognates 且, 糸, 茲, 再, 采 important in your opinion?
Based on everything you said, I still would say that 才 originally meant ‘sprouting plant’ and not ‘piled pebbles/rocks’ with 材 and not 在 being the tautological (?) derivate of its original meaning mainly because all original forms of 才 I’ve seen resemble a sprouting plant and because all sources (old and new) I could look up the 才 character in say, 才 was originally (probably) a sprouting plant. The word ‘probably’ leave lots of space for further interpretation. As you say yourself, 材, 財, 在 were all originally 才, but can we be sure that all of them are semantic derivates of 才 and none of them are sound loans for instance? Particularly in case of 在 (one of the key points supporting your interpretation if I understand correctly), can we be sure that 才 with the meaning ‘pile up, stockpile’ wasn’t just a sound loan with 土 added later to create 在?
In my limited experience, but after having analyzed almost 3600 characters, I’m skeptical when it comes to interpretations of 會意字 and 象形字 simply because there is too much speculation involved. I came across at least 50 characters that were thought to be 會意字 with wonderful interpretation attempts semantically linking together elements in the characters, just to find out later that the character had a lost pronunciation which perfectly matched the pronunciation of one of the elements in the character making it thus a 形聲字 and the whole lengthy semantic interpretation useless. I found that when you have enough steps, you can semantically link together absolutely anything. This is even more the case with 象形字, especially ones with few strokes. These misinterpretations are so frequent that I automatically expect every semantic compound to be a 形聲字 through a lost pronunciation of either the character as a whole or its elements and I’m thus more interested in 形聲字 and phonetic series than pictograms as these can be analyzed interpreted in a safer and quicker way. I’m working on a phonetic series dictionary and it would be very troublesome and time consuming to write possible interpretations of pictograms, especially when often in the sources I use I come across the term ‘interpretation obscure’. There is too much speculation involved and so I pick the definition that sounds most logical to me, can be cross-checked between at least 2 independent sources (preferably old and new (post Oracle bone discovery)) and relates to the shape of the character most.
I’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
Thanks for the comprehensive reply, Vladimir. It appears you are working with just about all the important reference sources. I think you'll find the ABC Etymological Dictionary a welcome addition to your collection.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you say with regard to 形聲字 and the alleged 會意字, to the point that I uploaded a paper last year dealing with this topic. Here's the link, in case you are interested:
http://www.slideshare.net/KanjiNetworks/the-phantom-category-of-chinese-characters
Starostin did indeed write an excellent review of ABC. Among other things I recall him noting that the work fails to treat a surprisingly large number of basic (largely pictographic) characters.
Regarding your question concerning the importance of the cognates 且, 糸, 茲, 再 and 采 and the conceptual link between them (piles composed of small/slender objects): I presented these both to give Schuessler's suggestion of a connection between 才 and 子 (in the sense of a proliferation of small objects) its proper due, and more importantly to underscore that cognate terms in Old Chinese support the interpretation of 才 as a collection of rocks/pebbles serving to cut off the flow of water in a stream or river.
Returning to 才 itself, I understand your point about the near-unanimity of opinion treating it as a sprouting plant, but the consensus strikes me as owing to uncritical transmission of Shuōwén Jiězì explanations rather than to multiple cases of independent analysis resulting in the same conclusion. In the face of this solidarity the frankly agnostic posture of Schuessler and Qui Xigui is practically refreshing. In any case, I hold to the interpretation outlined above.
Finally, concerning your suggestion of the possibility of a sound loan at work in 在, 材 and 財: Just to make sure, please note I was saying that in 財 the 才 element functions as an abbreviated form of 材. As for 在, and your idea that it may be possible to consider it a sound loan plus 土: It was common for a replacement character to be devised when the meaning(s) of the original character became too opaque, and I believe 在 fits the pattern quite well. For other examples of replacement characters, see
http://www.kanjinetworks.com/eng/kanji-dictionary/chinese-kanji-etymology-references.cfm#replacement
I hope you won't mind if I stop by from time to time to add my two or three cents regarding the wonderful educational materials you are preparing.
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletethank you very much for your comment. You are most welcome to stop by and share your knowledge anytime:)
The ABC Etymological Dictionary is available on Google books. I just had a brief look at it and I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but it doesn't provide the reader with character element explanations, right?
As for 在 being a replacement character for 才. I'm a little bit clumsy with terminology (as you might have noticed:) so let me just rephrase what I wrote and maybe we are actually saying the same thing:
I say: 才 = original meaning 'plant sprout' (based on its shape, earliest dictionary definition and later analyses). Adopted several other meanings. Some of them adopted as meaning extensions, some of them as sound loans. I suggest, 才=pile up, to be located at might have been a sound loan. A new replacement character 在 was created for the sole purpose to represent the meaning 'to pile up, to be located at' to take burden off 才 and avoid confusion.
The reason why I asked why you consider the cognates 且, 糸, 茲, 再 and 采 important is that (and maybe I'm not deep enough in the problem, so I'm sorry if my observation is too superficial) they seem to have been chosen because they suit your theory and not because your theory suits them, if you know what I'm trying to say (excuse me if the statement comes across as depreciating, it wasn't intended as such). As I said, I feel that with enough steps one can link absolutely any two meanings together so in case of 且, 糸, 茲, 再 and 采 I could think of many other characters that could join the group and justify why they should be there (with enough intermediary steps). But again, my observation might be too superficial and I might be missing something important, as to why this link should make sense.
How can we be sure that 財 functions as an abbreviated form of 材? :)
I read the paper you kindly provided the link for and about halfway through I started doing some research and noticed one interesting thing. You suggest that 一 yi1 is the phon(oseman)tic element in 天 and 旦. I was a bit skeptical, because even though I am no expert, I remember reading several times that all reasonable phonetic reconstruction of Chinese makes sense to the times of the 切韻 dictionary and that everything older than that, including Old Chinese/Proto-Chinese is questionable, because there is too much speculation involved and as far as I understand your analysis was partly based on these reconstructions. However in my research I also did notice several characters, where previously a 'fat dot' became an extended line in later scripts: 天, 氏, 十, 壬, 日, 乇, 午, 土. I thought it was interesting, because there was clearly a pattern, but it might only have been a question of arbitrary formatting.
I started doing my phonetic cross-comparison and indeed 天 and 旦 were in the same Rhyme class in Middle Chinese, but 一 yi1 was in a different one - not too far away so with a little stretch, all three characters *might have rhymed in Old Chinese, but still they were in different Rhyme classes in Middle Chinese.
What I found more interesting however was that 日 and 一 were in the same Rhyme group! in Middle Chinese, meaning they had almost the same pronunciation in Middle Chinese. 日 (《廣韻》人質切·入聲·質·日）Vs 一 (《廣韻》於悉切·入聲·質·一). Both 日 and 一 were in the 質 Rhyme group in Middle Chinese. This means, that they not only rhymed (same Rhyme class) they were pronounced almost the exact same way (same Rhyme group). 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.
Not related, but I also looked at 月 just out of interest, because I remember thinking a long time ago, what the dots/strokes were doing in the Chinese characters for Moon and Sun. 月 is in the same rhyme class as 天 and 旦 (meaning they all rhymed in Middle Chinese). If you look at the Jianbo versions of all three characters, the same 二 like element is in all of them:
ReplyDeletehttp://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&char=%E5%A4%A9
http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&char=%E6%97%A6
http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&char=%E6%9C%88
It is probably a coincidence, but I find it interesting that three characters that are 'suspected' to be phonosemantic compounds were in the same Rhyme class in Middle Chinese and share the same element.
Then as you mentioned in your writing, there is also the problem of character transformation. A given character once might have been a pictogram, later changed to a phonosemantic compound with the advent of the Seal script, later its elements fused with the advent of the Regular script formatting and finally might have been replaced with a new version, which is now an abstract character, having lost its phonosemantic features altogether. This needs to be considered in my opinion especially when analyzing characters with few strokes like 天.
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
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletefeel free to answer in your own good time.
Vladimir
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
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletethank you for your long and detailed reply.
Returning to 財, I think the possibility, that 財 was created independently of 材 is equally plausible as is what you suggest, that is, that the character is a derivate of 材. I think it is an independent phonosemantic compound character with 才 phonetic and 貝 semantic with no relation to 材.
By sound loan I mean typical sound loans like 我，也，萬 ect. That is 才 with the original meaning ‘sprouting plant’ sounded the same as the word used for ‘talent’ or ‘then, only then’ which had no character. 才 was chosen to represent these meanings purely because of its sound with no semantic relation.
Lawrence: “Actually, I'm suggesting that 一 yi1 is NOT the phonosemantic element in 天.”
I’m sorry I misunderstood. In either case it prompted an interesting 一/日/月 analysis. 一 and 日 sound almost the same in modern Taiwanese too for instance. I’m skeptical about 日 being a phonosemantic compound as well, but 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?
Lawrence: "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.
This I understand, but why link these characters together apart from the fact that they are semantically related? I apologize if I’m missing something, but I don’t see any substantial structural or phonetic relation between them, only semantic. How does it differentiate from creating any other semantic group then? I see why you propose they are related to 材 and 財 but how does it support your theory that the original meaning of 才 is ‘to pile up’? Or am I really missing something here? That’s why I asked with just one simple sentence: ’why you consider the cognates 且, 糸, 茲, 再 and 采 important’ because I don’t see any relation between them and our argument apart from the fact that the characters within the group are semantically related - apart from 才.
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. Please feel free to correct me. With enough steps you can link any two semantic concepts together, for instance I see linking 朔 to the ‘slender line’ group as such. In my opinion saying that ‘the moon makes a slender line in the sky in making one full cycle’ is not enough to link the 朔 character to the ‘slender line’ semantic concept. 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).
I propose that semantic links should be much more concrete, direct and evident, simply because I believe Ancient Chinese people were much more ‘economic’ in their thinking and character creation, and weren’t that complex.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
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
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteFollow-up thoughts. Again, for word count reasons, the posts are split.
I Sound Loans/Borrowings
Vladimir: "By sound loan I mean typical sound loans like 我，也，萬 ect. That is 才 with the original meaning ‘sprouting plant’ sounded the same as the word used for ‘talent’ or ‘then, only then’ which had no character. 才 was chosen to represent these meanings purely because of its sound with no semantic relation."
OK, the examples of 我，也，萬 etc. make it clear that by "sound loan" you are indicating what I call "borrowing." That being the case, our respective interpretations of the function of 才 in 在 are distinct, as I consider 才 to convey not only a particular sound/pronunciation but also a particular concept.
II Linking of Characters: Cognates
To recap your paragraph on this subject, you identify a semantic relation between the cognate characters I listed, but not "any substantial structural or phonetic relation between them." Also, you ask how it supports my theory that the original meaning of 才 is "to pile up."
To begin with the latter question, and at the risk of appearing insistent about fine points, to say that I theorize that the original meaning of 才 was "to pile up" is inaccurate. What I do theorize is that the Old Chinese term conveyed by 才 originally indicated something very specific, namely, rocks piled to cut off/dam a river. From there, the semantic evolution of the term evolved in multiple directions, to convey 1) pile, 2) cut off, and (possibly) 3) resources.
As for structural or phonetic relations between the cognates, I'm beginning to think that you and I are, perhaps, using "cognate" to refer to different things. To make sure, allow me to define my use of the word precisely: "Terms pronounced alike in Proto-Chinese and (entirely/closely) alike in Old Chinese, exclusive of loan words and terms originating in onomatopoeia or mimesis."
What I posit is that ancient Han terms pronounced alike are conceptually alike. In the case of the cognates we have been discussing, the general concept is Small/Slender, and the primary sub-concept is a Profusion of Small/Slender Objects. There are three groups within the primary sub-concept: 1) A simple profusion of objects; 2) A profusion taking vertical form (a pile); 3) A profusion taking horizontal form (a line). A secondary and minor sub-concept is Small Aperture. Finally, we find examples of the concept applied in figurative senses.
Vladimir: "I propose that semantic links should be much more concrete, direct and evident, simply because I believe Ancient Chinese people were much more ‘economic’ in their thinking and character creation, and weren’t that complex."
The idea of economy and non-complexity in character creation is contraindicated by the very complexity of the oracle bone inscriptions themselves, containing as they do well over 5,000 characters and constituting a fully-developed writing script.
Complexity is also evident in the ways in which existing characters were pressed into service to convey abstract meanings, corresponding to the needs of a growing civilization. The manner in which the cardinal directions (北 東 南 西) came to be expressed in writing is an excellent example.
Another important consideration in this regard is that semantic links devised in ancient societies were conceived in the context of cosmologies, rituals, social structures, value systems and moral conventions that are largely alien to us today. We are bound to run up against instances that fail to match our expectations of economy and directness.
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
Hello dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletethank you for your reply. I enjoy this discussion very much.
Addressing your thoughts as they go:
As for the 'sound loan' Vs. 'borrowing' term, I might be wrong, but I believe ‘sound loan’ is the widely accepted term in this case, I was just using it automatically as I learned it at the Chinese department.
You are right, ‘to pile up’ and ‘rocks piled up to cut off a river’ are two different things. Objection well accepted.
“From there, the semantic evolution of the term evolved in multiple directions, to convey 1) pile, 2) cut off, and (possibly) 3) resources.
”
Understood.
“What I posit is that ancient Han terms pronounced alike are conceptually alike.”
All words or only some of them? Just so that I understand correctly, do 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? This maybe would be a general linguistic question then and not entirely something specific to Chinese character evolution.
Again I am only very superficially familiar with what we are talking about but (making my own conclusion based on what I understand and from your writing) to 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.
Arguably, concepts came first (tree, sun, moon, friendship ect.), 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). 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).
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’.
The relationship between these cognates is the same as in any other language (as we see between their corresponding English translations) simply because it’s a fact that they can be (after a few or many steps) semantically linked. This would entirely take characters out of the equation - except if they would be related phonetically.
You are correct, I see cognates as words that are similar in meaning and sound in 1)two different languages, 2)in the same language deriving from the same root (?).
ReplyDelete“The idea of economy and non-complexity in character creation is contraindicated by the very complexity of the oracle bone inscriptions themselves, containing as they do well over 5,000 characters and constituting a fully-developed writing script.”
In my opinion, multitude is not equal to complexity and I didn’t mean complexity of the script itself, but rather the complexity of individual characters. 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. I feel that if you start giving names and assigning characters to everything you see around you, you will end up with a lot of characters but that doesn’t mean that characters or the script itself is complex, it just means there’s a lot of things around you and that the world around you is complex.
You are right, some characters were created in a very clever way, but a great portion have very direct, simple and straightforward semantic ties among the elements. As I mentioned before, 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.
It is true, that there are some as you mention convoluted semantic chains, but how many are there? I haven’t done any studies, but I don’t think it would be a substantially big portion given the size of a language’s vocabulary.
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. Given this fact, supposing that 才 is a pictogram and should resemble either “rocks piled up to cut off a river’ or “a sprouting plant” I think it objectively resembles the latter. I also believe, that if there was a voting done today by people coming from different backgrounds, they would also say the same thing (considering that my opinion might be subjective).
“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.”
Again, based on everything we wrote, how does it support the theory that 才 is a pile of rocks cutting of a river? 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.
You are right, there are more than 200 forms of 日 as listed by chineseetymology.org but they are structurally the same character formatted differently, no?
As for 則 and 士 admittingly my definitions have lots of space for improvement. Picking one resource:
ReplyDelete說文新証:
則：
釋義：等畫物也。引申為典則，效法。
釋形：西周中期段簋从二鼎，从刀，會以上面一鼎為典則，下面一效法上面的典。先秦銅器製作一器一範，先以泥心刻出實物形狀，花紋等，一範刻畢，則其他同形器便可以此範為標準一一倣效，這就是「則」字的造字背景；依初形隸定當作「貝＋貝＋刀」，《說文》古文第一形保留的便是這個字形，古文的第二形所从「鼎」形稍訛：「鼎」再訛為「貝」則作「則」。
六書：會意。
According to this interpretation, 貝 in 則 is a reduction of previous one or two 鼎.
Paraphrasing the same source, 士 the description of which is too long to re-write as it is a pdf, was originally a picture of a hatchet, which was probably a tool that the 士 (lowest rank of gentry) had to use. The character then transformed many times and gradually settled on the 士 shape. I remember reading this interpretation and realizing again that I just don’t like analyzing and reading pictogram and semantic compound analyses because there is too much speculation involved and not much can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In this case (as is the case with many other characters) I found more plausible, that while the character might have been a picture of a hatchet earlier, it has been intentionally replaced by 十 over 一 to create 士 later. One, it still resembles the hatchet somehow, two, the elements in it make more sense (十 over 一 suggesting math work). I decided to go with the 說文解字 since it was closer in time to the Seal script revolution (when the basis for the modern 士 was created) and it “might have” still been a widely known fact that 士 has been intentionally re-structuralized as 十 over 一 . Again too much speculation, but I feel mine are no worse than others.
Vladimir
p.s.: What are your definitions for 東西南北？ Just for comparison, here is what my sources say:
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.
東 sun rising behind the trees in the east?
南 phonosemantic compound/sound loan? As can be seen from the Oracle bone script, this character was originally a picture of a hanging musical instrument, borrowed for the meaning 'south'. In the Seal script it was modified to fit the Seal script formatting and was chosen to consist of 巿 po2 'abundant vegetation (in the south)' semantic and 𢆉 ren2 'opposite, battering ram' phonetic. Compare Ancient Chinese pronunciations of 𢆉 ńźi̯əm Vs. 南 nâm.
西 sound loan? possibly a simplified picture of a bird’s nest. Nesting birds in the West?
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
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletethank you very much for your reply again.
Again addressing the issues as they come:
“I'm not sure how you are using "concepts" here: Tree, sun and moon are what I consider objects.”
That’s why I added “friendship”.
“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.”
That is true. Something that might have been a very clear link for someone 2000 years ago given the realia of that time can be something completely nebulous to us and vice versa.
“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.”
1. Based on my 3600 character corpus there are only a few dozen (of the most frequently used 2-3 thousand characters) pictographs still in use today that are not sound loans. 2. When talking about visual resemblance of pictographs I always referred to their Oracle bone script versions.
“Yes, 鼎 is the tripod kettle to which my interpretation refers. I don't know why a reduction of two 鼎 would be posited.”
An arbitrary simplification of 鼎 in my opinion. The bottom section of 鼎 had too many strokes and got arbitrarily replaced by 貝 with less semantic relation as has happened with hundreds of other characters. Whether 貝 has some other lost semantic/phonetic value other than maybe distantly pointing to ‘goods’ that would link it to 則 I don’t know.
“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.”
:) That is partly true. That is, 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.
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).
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.
Why do you use the term Shell and Bone characters?
I wanted to ask, what stage of Chinese language and script do you refer to when you say that it is a fully-developed script? 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. I’m sure you read some of the inscriptions on oracle bones yourself. Short notes in ‘broken’ Chinese of that time (which we still don’t know whether is a direct representation of the spoken word of that time or something not directly representing the spoken word) about how a particular fortune telling ceremony went can hardly be considered a written language fully-developed. I don’t think I’m alone in this argument either. All going back to the fact that people of that time working and inventing characters were rather simple and straightforward than complex and complicated when it comes to character creation.
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 your continuing participation in this dialectic. I'm finding it extremely fruitful, as are perhaps many among your site visitors.
I'm going to start posting in pieces rather than continuing to attempt to cover all issues at one time. This post concerns the following statement.
Vladimir: "1. Based on my 3600 character corpus there are only a few dozen (of the most frequently used 2-3 thousand characters) pictographs still in use today that are not sound loans. 2. When talking about visual resemblance of pictographs I always referred to their Oracle bone script versions."
Taking point 2 first, thank you for confirming that when you speak about identifying pictographs you are referring to the forms found in the oracle bone script. I'd like to propose an experiment in that regard, which I'll detail after the presentation that follows.
Regarding point 1, I believe your estimate of the number of pictographs still in use today that are not sound loans is much too low. However, our discussion has revealed that you and I tend to attribute the acquired meanings of many terms to different factors: Semantic links (me) and sound loans (you). For that reason, it seems unproductive to squabble about how many are properly regarded as sound loans and how many the results of semantic chains.
Moving on, I submit that in order to grasp the presence and influence of pictographs in the corpus of Chinese characters it's necessary to draw on a greater number of characters than 3600. The following pictographs are found in my dictionary, which at present contains 7240 entries.
Let me throw out what I have, and you can make what use of it you like.
(Note: Some characters may not display properly. If this proves to be the case, I'll use a subsequent post to describe the ones that don't in order that they may be identified.)
Group One: Pictographs with acquired meanings (owing to sound loan or semantic extension)
互 夏 亜 午 己 其 革 屰 京 行 享 亨 幸 庚 欠 今 禽 焉 云 業 旡 豈 吉 頁 九 求 交 高 夭 曲 工 又 圭 于 永 冂 尢 県 丱 鬼 回 癸 力 兩 老 了 六 龍 民 萬 文 未 勿 而 乃 南 壬 冉 爾 禸 巴 白 方 丙 平 凡 釆 畢 包 丰 不 非 飛 癶 且 士 乍 冊 曾 心 彡 辛 西 自 小 爵 夊 戌 者 予 氏 止 巳 之 也 夕 單 身 申 夂 它 大 由 弔 兆 丑 酋 虫 主 豆 隹 樂 來 卜 夫
Group Two: Pictographs bearing their original signification (whether as primary or minor meanings)
車 巨 示 魚 几 牙 襾 亥 丫 丮 凵 干 斤 厂 巾 燕 甲 凹 衣 匸 气 彐 孑 幺 臼 韭 龜 口 禺 玉 角 廾 雨 羽 丘 瓜 壺 禹 弓 缶 川 果 戈 瓦 禾 月 孒 鹵 呂 栗 鹿 耒 卵 馬 皿 网 黽 米 矛 毛 戊 目 木 門 火 末 女 耳 人 日 肉 匚 匕 貝 子 糸 朿 井 爿 兂 傘 山 卩 爪 泉 土 齒 豸 黍 鼠 兎 兕 石 弋 鼎 田 矢 尸 豕 黹 屮 首 鳥 手 州 舟 刀 卣 酉 竹 斗 鬥 丶 東 彖 水 凸 朮 鬲 戸 羊 象 母 牛 犬 虎 烏 羋
There are of course more pictographs in current use than the 243 listed above. The following considerations hold down the number:
1) Only one form of a character is included: 龜 but not 亀, 兩 but not 両, 萬 but not 万 etc.
2) Excluded are certain pictographs whose status as independent characters is debatable. Examples:
开 丯 壳 夅 㠯 �� 叒 畐 祘 枼 叀 丵 巤
3) Aside from the characters/elements noted in 2), others have not been computerized (as far as I'm aware). Examples: The right-hand elements of 淵 and of 備; the left-hand element of 斲. The same applies for certain pictographs that figure in the graphic evolution of some characters, but eventually disappeared. Examples: 若 須 朋 參 冬 蜀
Now, regarding that experiment I mentioned ...
Most of the pictographs listed are found in the oracle bone script. I'm going to go far out on a limb and suppose there are at least a few among them with which you are unfamiliar. If so, I'd like to propose that you use these unfamiliar characters to test your ability to identify the objects depicted in oracle bone script pictographs.
The experiment will only be of full value if you can navigate to the proper oracle bone form(s) without your eyes inadvertently coming across the meaning in a reference source, but this may not be possible. In any case, please do give it a try when you have a few spare moments, and let us know how it goes.
For now,
Lawrence J. Howell
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletethank you again for your reply.
When it comes to the use of pictographs today, as you noted correctly, I meant pictographs that still preserve their original meanings. Moreover, as I wrote I meant the number of pictograms among the 2-3 thousand most frequently used characters. Excuse me for taking the freedom to be a bit pedantic, but I don’t feel 夭冂尢 県 丱冉 癶彡夊丰弔酋卜禸 can be considered frequent characters today (depending on what you read of course) and as far as Heavenly stems and Terrestrial branches go, I would consider these as abstract as Western numerals are (even though you listed them in the ‘pictographs with acquired meanings group).
I would love to read a comprehensive study about Terrestrial branches and Heavenly stems. Would you happen to be able to recommend anything by any chance?
Similarly 几 (in it’s original sense, not the simplified character) 襾丫(very questionable as it is used mostly for its Bopomofo value)丮 凵 厂匸彐 孑 幺 臼 韭廾丘缶戈 匚 匕爿 兂卩豸兎 兕黹 屮卣 丶 彖鬲羋孒 鹵 are not frequent characters. 主 is a debated phonosemantic compound (丶phonetic 王 semantic a terrible nitpick, I know, I’m sorry:). 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.
Thank you for the interesting task. In the experiment, can I look at earlier versions of these characters and can I see them in context? Can I look at their definitions in Old dictionaries? Actually to my surprise, there were only 7 characters of the ones you mentioned, that that I didn’t know the meanings of (not counting not knowing exactly which Heavenly stem or Terrestrial branch a given character was): 羋韭兎 兕丮禸禹
If you are interested, as phonosemantic compounds are what I think I understand a bit better, I propose to you to try to prove that 兌 is the phonetic in 銳 稅 說 脫 閱 悅.
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,
ReplyDeleteContinuation of comments on your post time-stamped (December 23, 2014 at 5:56 AM)
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."
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.
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.
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)."
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.
士 is one of those characters.
http://www.chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E5%A3%AB
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.
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."
Typically, 北 is explained as two figures with their backs turned to each other. See for example page 186 of Qui Xigui, cited above.
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.
If that is unpersuasive, so be it. But I'd like to note the example
三戦三北、 而亡地五百里 史記・魯仲連
Vladimir: "Why do you use the term Shell and Bone characters?"
Oracle Bone describes the usage. Shell and Bone describes the medium. Any reason why we may not use both?
(To be continued)
Lawrence J. Howell
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletetaking off where we left:
“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?”
Agreed.
:.. 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.”
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.).
“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.:
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.
“As I also present, by association with the idea of turning one's back to the cold north wind.”
I also wrote that 北 originally meant ‘to flee’, but I propose it is a sound loan:
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.
You say: “ As I also present, by association with the idea of turning one's back to the cold north wind.”
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”.
“三戦三北、 而亡地五百里 史記・魯仲連”
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?
“Oracle Bone describes the usage. Shell and Bone describes the medium. Any reason why we may not use both? “
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.
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.)?
My best shot at the 7 characters (not having looked at modern meanings or definitions):
ReplyDelete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.
韭 Some sort of a vegetable. Maybe corn (based on earlier characters), maybe something smaller. A simplified and formatted picture of a corn(?) plant).
兎 alternate form of 兔
兕 Rhinoceros? A simplified and formatted picture of a rhinoceros.
丮 To hold something in one’s hands. A simplified and formatted picture of a person with closing arms.
禸 Animal footprint (Alternate form of 厹). A phonosemantic compound. 九 jiu3 ‘nine’ phonetic 厶 si1 representing the footprint semantic.
禹 Not sure. Some sort of a snake maybe?
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.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
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
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletethank you for your reply again.
“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.”
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.
“Sorry, but might I ask you to elaborate on why (the presence or absence of) tones in OC would impact consonant shifts?”
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”.
“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.“
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.
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).
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.
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
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.
Looking forward for the debate to come,
Vladimir
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.
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteConcerning your two posts time-stamped (December 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM)
I note your position on all the points made in regard to my earlier comments.
Moving on,
三戦三北、 而亡地五百里 史記・魯仲連
Vladimir: "I don’t understand. Does this prove 北 is North?"
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").
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.
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.
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
http://www.slideshare.net/KanjiNetworks/response-tovictormair
where I needed a term to convey an important distinction in the nature of something that linguists habitually designate "phonophore."
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.)?"
OK, let's go with the complicated example, 可.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
For now,
Lawrence J. Howell
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletethank you for your reply again.
As we proceed:
After reading your paper you kindly provided the link for, I realized we might belong to two different schools of Sinology.
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.
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.
Another small remark about the paper, I remember the term ‘morphemographic script’ when referring to the Chinese script. (referring to terminology disagreements).
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.
“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.”
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.
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”?
As a side note, why I question the reliability of Old Chinese phonetic reconstructions. Here are several reconstructions of 可:
上古音系
kʰaːlʔ
Other reconstructions:
http://ytenx.org/kyonh/sieux/1742/
And as you mentioned Schuessler:
*khâiʔ
Do I count correctly, are there four of them (*khâiʔ， kʰɑ， kʰa， kʰaːlʔ)？
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?
Thank you for the fruitful debate again.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
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
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeleteas we continue:
“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.”
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.
“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.”
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.
“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.”
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.
“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 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?
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,
ReplyDeletethank you for your replies.
As we move on:
“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.”
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.
“I have no evidence against your theory, but the burden of supplying evidence is on the one proposing the theory, is it not?”
True, true. I too do not dismiss your theory either, I’m just skeptical.
Maybe we can look at the whole issue of OC reconstruction from a different angle.
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？」
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?
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).
“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.”
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.
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.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Vladimir,
ReplyDeleteAbout the experiment:
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.
About the passage from the Analects, with reconstructed pronunciations attached:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Regarding 兌 and derivatives:
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."
"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.
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.
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.
兌 → http://www.kanjinetworks.com/eng/kanji-dictionary/online-kanji-etymology-dictionary.cfm?kanji_id=TUATx08
悦 → TUAT01
鋭 → TUAT05
税 → TUAT03
説 → TUAT04
脱 → TUAT02
閲 → TUAT06
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
Dear Lawrence,
ReplyDeletethank you again for your time and replies.
“Safety isn't a factor. I interpret the characters to the best of my knowledge and ability with the data that is available.”
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.
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.
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:
兌 dui4
稅 shui4
銳 rui4
說 shuo1 shui4
脫 tuo1
閱 yue4
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。).
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.
For now,
Vladimir
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
Lawrence,
ReplyDeleteThank you too for the nice and informative debate.
“Regarding 兌 etc., if you proved to yourself the point you wanted to make, great.”
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.
Kind regards,
Vladimir