tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post4659130896940986935..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Fun with Old Chinese rhymesGlen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-68576686663675746072008-03-26T00:32:00.000-05:002008-03-26T00:32:00.000-05:00Movenon: "My main point that I'm trying to emphasi...<B>Movenon: <I>"My main point that I'm trying to emphasize [...] is that Mandarin went through an earlier stage when it had a lot more tones,[...]"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Yes, I already know. Trust me :) Poor wording is not necessarily indicative of a lack of knowledge. <BR/><BR/>Right after your first comment, I already adapted my text to read: "Vis-à-vis the number of tones, Mandarin was the more <I>Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-22842638280433733782008-03-25T22:15:00.000-05:002008-03-25T22:15:00.000-05:00Thank you for taking the time to read my comments....Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. However, let me reiterate that Middle Chinese, which was protolanguage to virtually all present-day Chinese languages, went through a tonal split that made the four tone categories (Ping, Shang, Qu, Ru) divide into Yin and Yang categories, based on whether or not the initial consonant was voiced or voiceless. From this, we can see that most Movenonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04836353006141553899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-92133215011564872192008-03-25T01:55:00.000-05:002008-03-25T01:55:00.000-05:00Even though you've misunderstood me, I must admit ...Even though you've misunderstood me, I must admit that this is actually **my fault** because I didn't explain myself accurately enough. Eek! Alas, I have a long way to go before I achieve perfection. ;)<BR/><BR/>When I wrote "Mandarin was the more conservative of the Sinitic languages", I failed to specify clearly what sort of "conservatism" I was referring to although I allude to it immediatelyGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-52804985947155151092008-03-24T22:58:00.001-05:002008-03-24T22:58:00.001-05:00Mandarin is NOT the more conservative form of Chin...Mandarin is NOT the more conservative form of Chinese when it comes to tones (Especially when compared to Cantonese, generally acknowledged to be one of the most conservative forms of Chinese when it comes to tones). Yes, Middle Chinese had four tones; these were Ping, Shang, Qu, and Ru. However, the four tones of Mandarin are NOT a direct continuation of this tonal system. All modern varieties Movenonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04836353006141553899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-59714504392425931662008-01-02T22:38:00.000-06:002008-01-02T22:38:00.000-06:00You got it right: Baxter would now understand the ...You got it right: Baxter would now understand the short-vowel nin "person" (人) and the long vowel nīn "harvest; year" (年).Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-50051275071692256642007-12-31T00:59:00.000-06:002007-12-31T00:59:00.000-06:00No, I think I may have misunderstood the first tim...No, I think I may have misunderstood the first time. The <B>*-j-</B> in the onset is to be ommitted and the following vowel to be understood as short, in opposition to long vowels in those that lack this <B>*-j-</B>.<BR/><BR/>If that's correct, that makes sense to me because Indic short vowels would then become Old/Middle Chinese short vowels... so then to respond to your question, there is Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-3914621967797703782007-12-30T20:36:00.000-06:002007-12-30T20:36:00.000-06:00I wonder though, what is it about the Sanskrit u a...I wonder though, what is it about the Sanskrit u and i which made the Old Chinese want to transcribe them with long vowels?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-13562251719877675832007-12-30T02:40:00.000-06:002007-12-30T02:40:00.000-06:00Whoops, wait a minute. I'm slow. Maybe you mean th...Whoops, wait a minute. I'm slow. Maybe you mean the other way around, don't you. So <I>But</I> "Buddha" (佛), <I>Kumaladzip</I> "Kumarajiva" (鸠摩羅什), <I>nin</I> "person" (人) and <I>nīn</I> "harvest; year" (年). Yes, that might be better. I'm slow, but I get it eventually :)Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-53566360266340414532007-12-30T02:15:00.000-06:002007-12-30T02:15:00.000-06:00Interesting. Strange too, because I myself was get...Interesting. Strange too, because I myself was getting the sense that this is a matter of length rather than a <B>*-j-</B> medial.<BR/><BR/>I was thinking of this because of the problematic Indic loans that Baxter himself was complaining about in this same book (<A HREF="http://books.google.ca/books?id=_XJRT43MXRgC&pg=PA287&vq=buddha&dq=%22old+chinese%22&sig=hdH2uf4ZbqCF3fDJEHo09Moha7E" REL="Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-42985268582606819032007-12-29T21:05:00.000-06:002007-12-29T21:05:00.000-06:00Yes, Baxter's work was a real nice piece of schola...Yes, Baxter's work was a real nice piece of scholarship.<BR/><BR/>Please note that he has since concluded that the ubiquitous OC *-j- really represents a short vowel, so your two words only really differ in the length of the vowel.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.com