Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
Locked
Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by Sum Won » Mon Jun 03, 2002 9:46 pm

OK, now from the previous debates, I believe most (if not all) acknowledge that the Cantonese were ORIGINALLY not Chinese. Now, to go on researching exactly how their culture was, language will play a big role, because langauge is a part of culture, yet can sometimes influence.
Can anyone help me list as many Cantonese colloquial phrases and/or grammar exceptions that're present in Cantonese, compared to other Chinese dialects?
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk » Tue Jun 04, 2002 2:10 am

nope, the fact is, there was another group of people living in the present canton area. after china taken over canton since qin dynasty, there was a change in population content. people from central china and the locals married to give us wad we know as cantonese. they are 'chinese' in terms of nationality cos since the day they were born they are under chinese ruling. in terms of race, they are the mix-blooded offsprings of chinese and baiyue. the original race either stayed with the chinese conquerers and went under chinese ruling, or moved southwards to present vietnam.
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk » Tue Jun 04, 2002 3:19 am

if u are talking about the aborigins in canton area, they used to live there but they no longer exist. maybe they are the forefathers of modern vietnamese or cambodian. but this is different from, for example, india or hong kong as british colonies. in india or hong kong previously, u can say that all indians and hong kongers are british subjects, but by race they are indians and chinese originally, they are not europeans. in canton, however, the locals and foreigners had merged to form a totally new group of people, the cantonese, under chinese ruling. it was not china ruling over a group of foreign race and called them chinese. that is to say, there will only be people of bach viet(baiyue), and no cantonese at all if qin china had not conquered canton area. the cantonese were chinese oringinally, but not the aborigins that were once living in canton area.
Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by Sum Won » Wed Jun 05, 2002 5:57 pm

You can't basically say because the Cantonese culture was wiped out by the Chinese culture, that the descendants of this mixed race is necessarily "just Chinese". Because, "blood-wise" (excuse me for not using the correct term, if there is one), we have both Chinese and Cantonese blood in us. So if we have both bloods, why only promote one culture, instead of two?
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk » Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:30 am

u still havent got the point. there is NO cantonese before qin dynasty. there is only bach viet. if u want to consider the blood factor, cantonese have chinese and bach viet blood since the beginning. in ancient china the race is decided by the paternal side, since qin sent 500 000 troops to bach viet and left them there to intermarry the lacals, i can say that they are chinese. besides, after so many yrs, the bach viet blood should be, by right, diminished to a very low level cos cantonese probably married more to chinese than to viets. if u want to talk about culture, the cantonese culture is similiar to the other parts of china. i can safely say that they used the same writings, and wore the same costumes, and follow the same traditions, and was ruled by the chinese govt since 2000yrs ago. wad else u need to prove that they are chinese? anyway in ancient times the ppl being conquered got no say in politics regarding their identity. maybe u can say that the scots are british but u dun say all british are scots.

again i say, there were other tribes living in canton area. by race and tradition they should be non chinese.(thou chinese mythology says they are oso the descendants of huangdi, cos some of huangdi's son had migrated ther with their people. if u wanna be really really sure i can tell u that archaeology findings proved that the ancient cultures in bach viet showed similar traits as southern china cultures, so they may be from the same ancestors. but i'll take them as non chinese for now). but after qin conquered that place the cantonese appeared and they are chinese descendants. the bach viet culture was almost wipe out, not the cantonese culture. the cantonese culture is similar to chinese.
Chaseme

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by Chaseme » Thu Jun 06, 2002 9:05 pm

Just remember people, that there are both Chinese and Japanese readings for Kanji (chinese characters in Japanese). When the Japanese came to China, the center of culture and education was in Beijing, so it would seem natural to borrow from the Beijing dialect which is MANDARIN! Also look at the the Chinese pronunciation of most Japanese Kanji like DAI (Large in Japanse), DA (Mandarin), SUI (Water in Japanese) SHUI (Water in Mandarin), SHOU (small in Japanese) SHOW (spelled phoenetically, in Mandarin), TEN-KI (Weather in Japanese) TIAN-CHI, (Weather in Mandarin).

Of course the list goes on and on, but I think you get my point. While some Cantonese pronounciations are exactly the same as the Japanese readings BIG for example is DAI in both Cantonese and Japanese, (DA in Mandarin), BUT the frequency of Mandarin words, mirroring Japanese Kanji readings is much, much greater than Cantonese.

Anyway, my point here is that there are no coincidences here. Asia is made up of a group of people decended from the same race. Korean also used Chinese characters until just around 60 years ago, (with a great deal of Chinese loan words) and there is not much similarity between the spoken language of Korean and Chinese, just as there is not much similarity between the spoken language of Japanese and Chinese. HOWEVER if you look back in history, you see the common ground that every language started with, and you see that you can't possibly say that the people of the Cantonese provinces are are not part of the same race of people as people from any other part of any other province in China, or the rest of Asia for that matter. It would be like me, (a mixture of Irish and Swedish), saying that just because I don't have strait, blond hair and a natural tan (I have dark brown hair and a reddish face), that I don't have Swedish blood in me. I can't deny my heritage.
Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by Sum Won » Thu Jun 06, 2002 11:39 pm

Once again, let me say that I'm not using the exact technical of Cantonese. When I say Cantonese, I mean the people of bach viet. Just like there are many tiny tribes of the Cheyenne Native-American nation. Sorry for not clarifying that.
Now to use myths to prove your point, would be a a little shaky. We're not sure whether or not these myths are true for one thing. Another is, we wouldn't exactly know how they came about. Maybe they were used to justify the assimilation. For example, if your mom told you to "finish that bowl or rice, or else you'll grow up looking ugly!" It sounds silly, but the point in doing so would be to convince you to "finish your bowl of rice". Now, as for the archaeological studies. Are they material items that were traded by the Chinese? Because that would be a reason for finding Chinese items in the bach viet regions. If they were buildings of some sort, maybe they could've been trade outposts. I think you also know that LingNam was a major area of trade route, and was the most prosperous port in Tang times (Note: It was known as the "Silk Sea-Route"). So, when the Chinese took over, they must've had a very good trading port.
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk » Fri Jun 07, 2002 2:12 am

if u are talking about bach viet then i have already said, they are not really chinese by race or by govt. and i already said that thou there were myths, i prefer not to say that they are same race as the chinese, cos there is still unsolved problems. but the earliest cantonese are at least 50% by race and fully by govt that they are chinese. i dun think trading is very popular 10 000-40 000 yrs ago, and i dun think the abundance of similar relics justify the little trade 10 000-40 000yrs ago. using the same kind of measurement system as shown in the tomb of the king of nam viet further prove that they were under same govt. and u have to understand that 'chinese' race appeared almost the same time as the cantonese race.

after qin conquered china and bach viet, and later han taken over power and the land, then 'han ren', or 'chinese' came into the picture. chinese in its very early definations included all the ppl ruled by the han dynasty, including the cantonese. to say that cantonese is not chinese is to cut away a portion of land of the han empire, this is altering history. remember, the chinese national identity begins in the han dynasty and that defination includes all under the han empire, including canton. and there is no 'pure chinese race' cos 'chinese' itself is a mixture of many races to start with. huangdi and yandi, the earliest chinese leaders are from different tribe, represented 2 races among them. qin is the western barbarian, who conquered sichuan, so another mixture of 2 races, chu is the southern barbarian, conquered part of bach viet, again 2 races, plus state of qi, yan, wu, yue(wu and yue probably same race as the bach viets) etc. the chinese race is a mixture of many races.

japanese and koreas dun share the same ancestors as the chinese in race or language. their race and language is more mongolian based. the language problem. the centre of culture and education is not beijing when the japanese and korean came to china. it is xi'an. and mandarin at that time is more like present day fujian/min'nan and chaozhou dialects. the present mandarin/pu tong hua only appear 700 yrs ago and is itself a dialect too. therefore the japanese and korea kept the pronounciation of middle-ages chinese(1300-1500yrs ago), which sounds like fujian/chaozhou dialects. my korean fren told me that korean kept the pronouciation of ancient shandong area. besides foreigners dun necessarily pick up pronouciation from the centre of arts. america was called a-mei-li-jian/'阿美利坚'and later shortened to meiguo/ ‘美国’, cos it was first translated in cantonese. 'tea' was called 'tea' in the west and not 'cha' in mandarin/pu tong hua cos tea was exported to the west from the port of quanzhou, which is in fujian province. and tea in fujian is called 'theh'. i think the french still keep this pronouciation. so is why amoy is called amoy instead of 'xiamen'. cos in fujian amoy is called 'eh-mengh' and the westerners made a close translation as amoy.

for japs they've got more kanji words that pronouced the same as major dialect than pu tong hua. 'seikai' for world, same as fujian/chaozhou, 'jikan' for time,'sikan' in fujian/chaozhou, 'daimyo' for lords, 'daimia' in fujian/chaozhou, 'shimbun' for news, 'simbun' in fujian, 'sengbun' in chaozhou, 'benli' for convenient, 'bianli' in fujian, 'biangli' in chaochow. 'bun gaku' for literature, boon hak in fujian/chaozhou. 'haksen' for student, 'haksih' or 'hakseng' in fujian/chaozhou.
Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by Sum Won » Fri Jun 07, 2002 9:07 pm

Actually, trade was common between ancient people. However, 10,000-40,000 years ago --if my memory serves me correctly-- is about the time when homo erectus/Neanderthals were present. So obviously, trade (if any) would be on a person-to-person basis, and would be rare, since their culture would be a hunter-gathering society. Now, some believe people believe that the Bach Viet had contact with the Chu country (Warring States/Spring-fall period). If this were true, trade between these two nations were very possible --Just like the "civilized" colonists of America trading with the "primitive" culture of the Native-Americans, as Terence might put it. Spice trades were commonly conducted, and spice was a very important tool in preserving meat in the old days before refrigerators were invented, because ice was hard to find in the summer, and if you did, you'd have to stay up in the mountain (assuming if they still had ice), and couldn't bring it down upon the plains, where it would've melted by the time you got to the ground (assuming if it didn't melt on the way)...
Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by Sum Won » Sat Jun 08, 2002 1:37 am

...Now, I didn't state earlier, that contact with the Chu people and bach viet came wwwaaaayyyyyy later in time, so trade seems more likely at this time period. Just like in ancient Mesopotamia, even though several people came about, they all conducted trade with each other, and on the side, even warred against each other. Now, since Mesopotamia is the "Birthplace of Civilization", yet they traded many things; obviously, trade between the bach viet and the Chinese (the European Expansionist term, which is a miswritten form from Ch'ing, sorry again for not using the technical term) can't be merely "little" when even the people of Mesopotamia traded.
Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by Sum Won » Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:06 am

To add upon more confusion, many scholars even say that the Chu completely destroyed the bach viet kingdom. However, even this cannot necessarily mean that there was no trade. Because just like interstate trade happens in the US, so did regional trade happen in China.
RedSultan

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by RedSultan » Sat Jun 08, 2002 6:25 pm

Trade was quite vital way back then. I don't know why you're using the 10,000-40,000 year time frame as those were the times of the Neanderthals and Neanderthals have nothing to do with this discussion at the time. But even far back that time, trade did occur between tribes. Many ancient civilizations took great lenghts to secure important trade routes or secure important resources such as the Ancient Egpytian mining settlement of Timna on the Sinai Peninsula, which was quite a distance away from the heart of Kemet (ancient Egypt) in Men-Nefer (Memphis). The Greeks established trade colonies on a variety of places that were quite a distance away from their homelands such as Ionia (which is now known as Turkey). Even though ancient peoples had primitive means of travel, they still conducted trade. Trade between so-called "advanced" cultures and so-called "primitive" cultures were very common like the example of European settlers and Native Americans mentioned earlier. Through trade, many cultures did trade many aspects. Like for example the Arabs and the other peoples of Africa. Due to trade, the religion of Islam became a major religion in Africa and the Arabic langauge and Arabic writing became commonplace in many African cultures. The Hausa language especially displays numerous Arab influences as their writting uses Arabic script. And all of this was due to TRADE. Trade could have very much brought "Chinese" aspects and items to the "Cantonese". The "Cantonese" regions could have very much been a trade post for spices between the "Chinese" and the peoples of Southeast Asia. Spice was an extremely important commodity back then.

On another note, we really should not generalize the peoples of China way too much. Just because our ancestors are all stuck within China's modern borders doesn't mean we're all "Chinese". Like the Uighirs of Xinjiang, the Mongols of the northern provinces, the Tibetans of Tibet, and possibly the "Cantonese" of the southeastern regions. If we are to generalize, then why don't we all just call ourselves "Mongols" because we're generally referred to as the "Mongoloid" race (and I'm referring to ALL peoples that fit under this category)? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk » Sun Jun 09, 2002 11:43 am

i think we will have to define 'cantonese' in the first place. if not we are just beating round the bush and not talking about the same thing. my defination is the ppl living in canton area after qin'han era. they are half chinese by race, under the same govt as the han chinese so they are considered chinese. if u want to refer to those before that, they are bach viets. different race and different govt, but may be from the same ancestors. if u want to argue that bcos bach viets are not chinese so present cantonese are not chinese as well, that i cannot agree, reasons stated on previous posts.

whether one is chinese or not depends on whether he is talking about his race or his country of origin/residence/citizenship, which is 2 different things. i can be a chinese by race and an american citizen at the same time, so saying i'm chinese and i'm american works well for me both ways. cos saying american doesnt suggest anything about my racial origin. but to be more specific i can say that i am an american chinese. for the xinjiang muslims, they are ulghirs by race and chinese by citizenship. makes sense? so in general chinese ppl say that they are chinese doesnt meant to deny them of their race, just that race is not taken into concern in general discussion. chinese are chinese and there shouldnt be discrimination bcos of race. same as tibetians. they are chinese tibetians in relative with those indian tibetians staying with the dalai lama. this is nothing ridiculous at all. mongoloid is a scientific term to classify a group of human with certain physical and biological features. we are refering to race here as ppl with certain form of culture and traditions, so i dun think u example fits well. the scientific term 'mongoloid' doesnt suggest any cultural traits, neither does homo sapiens. but chinese or bach viets or mongolians does. if ur point stands, i can say that we are all human beings so europeans are chinese as well. the problem with the word chinese is bcos it meant to define a certain race of people and a certain citizenship and that had caused much confusion.

as for mongolians, i would say that they are chinese only since 300yrs back cos they and the qing govt are allies. but chinese historians probably think otherwise. the first wife of the qing emperors were all mongolian princess, and most qing royals are at least half mongolian. the qing emperors ruled both china and mongol, just like the king/queen of england ruled england and scotland. they are bounded by royal marriage, and that kind of sovereignity is accepted in the past.

i brought up ancient humanoid 10000-40000 yrs ago cos large amount of their tools and pottery already shown close similarities and i dun think its just bcos of trade. i would believe that they are somehow racially and culturally related in the past.
RedSultan

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by RedSultan » Tue Jun 11, 2002 12:05 am

I don't think you fully understand my point. My point is that people, no matter what era, did conduct some sort of trade. It is very likely that nomadic hunters and gatherers may have come across another band of hunters and gatheres and thus conduct some form of trade. And through trade of material items follows trade of ideas. Hunters and gatherers interacted with one another and eventually formed large factions.

On your statement that you believe that the ancient peoples were racially and culturally related in the past, it should be known that the vast majority of ancient humanoids used similar stone and bone weapons as those were the only things available. Ancient people made those tools because they were practical. Another thing is that a large amount of cultures across the world all have developed the bow, despite the massive distance between them. So similar traits may occur coincidentally and you can't simply say that all cultures that developed the bow are truly racially and culturally related.

Your example of the monarchs of England ruling both England and Scotland is quite flawed. The Scots did not "accept" English sovereignty. If they did, then the Scots would not have rebelled various times. Scottish leaders such as William Wallace and Robert de Bruce strongly resisted the English from gaining soverignty of Scotland. People do not always "accept" the sovereignty of foreign leaders or leaders of different culture and ethnicity.
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk » Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:17 am

i did not deny the possibility of trade at that time. i was saying trade couldnt be the only reason for the large amount of similarities, and there is a possibility that they came from the same ancestors that bear the same culture. ppl in the past may have used similar tools but they have their own insignia. certain colour, symmetrical patterns and pictures(fish or birds in certain specific forms) can only be found among certain group of ppl. certain shapes of the artifacts/pots/containers are oso more preferred by a certain group of ppl, and the way they bury the dead, the way they do religious sacrifices, the food they eat, the method of farming, their costumes, body markings like tatoo or piercing of nose, ears, skin, and most of all their skeletal structure, oso suggest whether they are from the same group or not.

i knew the scots did not accept the english rule in the past. but is scotland part of britain now? are scots/welish/(southern)irish considered british subjects now? please answer my question. for more, did the red indians accept the whitemen/europeans when they first came to america and take away the land from them? did the residents in california or alaska have a say when americans bought the land from russia and spain? did the ppl of okinawa and hokkaido agreed when the tokugawa shogunate annexed their land 300 yrs ago? did all the german clans agreed when 2 among them conquered the rest and give us the present countries of germany and austria? the island of bali did not accept islamic rules until today, but arent they part of indonesia? so they all are now legitimate countries. and wad gives them the right to maintain their soverignity/unification while the chinese have to give up theirs? being a different race doesnt automatically give one the right to call for separation. not to mention simply 'claiming' oneself to be of a different race in the distant past.
Locked