Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Tue Dec 24, 2002 12:35 am

I'm not sure exactly how far north the Dong Son culture went. However the possibility that the Qin destroyed all of the Chu tombs, couldn't happen. If they did, they missed quite a number of tombs in those other areas, so it wouldn't make sense to only destroy the ones in GuangDong, unless there was some type of ulterior motive, we can't find...

You also have to remember that a few of the states in the Warring states period, were identified to be as "Yue" states (the Kingdom of Wu and Yue, are the only two examples I can think of, I can't remember if there are anymore). These in turn, were conquered by the Chu.

Hung Dao Dai Vuong

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Hung Dao Dai Vuong » Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:12 am

".....I think that Cantonese originally weren't Chinese....."

I think we originally weren't apes either!

Hung Dao Dai Vuong

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Hung Dao Dai Vuong » Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:34 am

I believe the Vietnamese calender started in the year 2879 B.C!

JP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby JP » Wed Mar 05, 2003 5:40 am

please note that cantonese and mandarin developed differently and modern cantonese only have six tones
eg: for the word foo in the six tones can mean (wife, father, wealth, bitter, husband, and the yellow piece of paper that you write spells on to ward of evil spirits)
cantonese developed over 2000 years ago but mandarin has only been around for about 800 so years
so when the japs came to china during the tang dynasty mandarin wasn't even around
in japanese 'kanji' usaully have two types of readings called
1. on- this is the ancient chinese pronunication of the character and is used in sophisticated 'kanji' compounds
2. kun- the native tongue 'yamato kotoba' and is used when pronunicing 'kanji' by itself or in simple 'kanji' compounds

eg:
the 'on' reading of the word for metal/steel in jap is "tetsu"
in canto is "tit" very obvious that the japs tried to inherit the silent "t" at the end of "tit" but due to limitations of the japanese language they added the "tsu" on the end

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:14 am

Maybe it's about time that I scrapped this thread, and started an updated one on my theories...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JP:
You are correct that the reason Japanese and Cantonese sound so similar, is because Cantonese retains most of the MC Chinese, which is what the Japanese borrowed from. However, there was one thing that went unanswered...
http://safeproxy.org/cgi-bin/nph-proxy. ... 1149&t=400
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, that idea isn't so bad, because this one is so tainted with politics.

HKB

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby HKB » Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:46 am

sum won, the character for Yue in discribing cantonese is not the same yue as vietnam. not "traverse" it's different word all together. I don't have cHinese software, so if someone does would they write the correct word for sum?

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Fri Mar 14, 2003 3:42 am

HKB:
The Yue describing the Cantonese, has an ancient meaning of "Dangerous" (or something to that affect), while the "Yue" (Viet) in VietNam means "beyond". This same word was used to describe all tribes south of the Zhou dynasty Chinese border indiscriminantly, with much disregard as well. How the term " (Dangerous) Yue" came to describe the Cantonese is a mystery to me... Why don't you (or anyone else for that matter) try explaining that?

HKB

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby HKB » Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:43 am

coz we were probably dangerous. cantonese soldiers and combat regiments were always the most feared by China's enemies. Recall General Yuen Sung Wun or the 72 martyrs, etc. we R dangerous. :)

KP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby KP » Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:23 pm

The "Yue" in VietNam meaning "beyond" is obviously a contemporary Chinese concept. In the past, the Vietnamese have referred to themselves as "Dai Viet" or "Tai? Yue" as well as Nan Yue/Nam Viet. I know many of you don't think much of the people who once lived in this region....but you believe they would name themselves as "the Great Beyond" or "South Beyond"?

More likely..and definitely less sino-centric is that the "Southern" peoples, including present-day Vietnamese referred to themselves as "Viet/Yue".

KP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby KP » Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:24 pm

"coz we were probably dangerous. cantonese soldiers and combat regiments were always the most feared by China's enemies. Recall General Yuen Sung Wun or the 72 martyrs, etc. we R dangerous. :)"

Your explanation of Cantonese Yue are in fact "dangerous" doesn't hold well........as history will tell you that the Cantonese Yue aren't nearly as dangerous as the Yue in Nothern Vietnam.

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:56 am

Regarding the word "Yue", for "Viet", I've already provided an explanation here:
http://safeproxy.org/cgi-bin/nph-proxy. ... 1995&t=400

Come on KP, HKB was just playing around! Besides, the only reason the Northern Viets were more successful against the Chinese, was because the Cantonese softened them up! LOL!

quangtrunghoangde

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby quangtrunghoangde » Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:11 pm

I believe most of the 290,000 soldiers who invaded Vietnam in 1789 were mostly Cantonese!

KP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby KP » Tue Mar 18, 2003 2:38 am

Sum Won:

The only way your aguement holds is if you are dead set in believing that the term originally sounding like "Viet" in Chinese has evolved to sound like "Yue", "Yuet", whatever... over the past 2000 years.

Again, as far as I can tell.......there is no archeological findings that show the Viets have referred to themselves as the "beyond" correct? Is there evidence that shows that they used to call themselves "Lac", but later accepted the term "Viet" to appease the Chinese? Or is that merely "Chinese" train of thought? Without evidence, that is an extremly sino-centric statement.

Are there other instances of ethnic groups throwing away their own names and adopting the term coined by the Chinese? The Qiang? NanMan(Did they actually call themselves that?)? Mongols? XiongNu?

Honestly, I don't think HKB was kidding.

Some one else said from looking in a dictionary that the modern character for "yue" in Cantonese translates more to "cautious".....not "dangerous". Besides, you are surely aware that both the Cantonese and Vietnamese Yue(s) were both controlled for over 1000 years, but in the end, it was only the Vietnamese that got their independence. If anything, it was either a combined force of Northerners and their sinicized "Cantonese" or mostly the Cantonese alone that tried to stop the Vietnamese from gaining independence. So your reasoning of softening up....doesn't count!! MUHAHAH!! ;)

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:05 am

KP:
Actually, this is evident in terms of Chinese as well. To the rest of the anglo-phone world, everyone universally knows the Chinese people as "Chinese". They don't know them as "Zhong Guo Ren" unless they are explained to about it. Of course, nowadays, most people will have the understanding, and be considerate enough to call the Chinese people "Zhong guo Ren", if they wanted to. However, since the Chinese all accept themselves as "Chinese" to the rest of the world, they don't even bother taking this initiative. If you don't see a correlation to this, and the example I've given within the link from my prior post, I can't help you...

Now, thankyou for the correction on the "dangerous" and "cautious". I will admit, I took it one step further in interpreting the fact that they [whoever named the Cantonese] labeled us "Cautious", because they had to be "cautious of us". Why they'd need to be afraid of us, could either be the feirce fight the proto-Cantonese put up against the Chinese, hence "softening them up", or maybe its from our eating habits:
"If it lies, walks, crawls, flies, the Cantonese will eat it!" (I forgot the EXACT quote, so anyone may correct me on this...)

Now, on the use of Cantonese people trying to prevent the VietNamese from their independance...
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/aspac/papers/s ... arlow.html
Read on, and you'll find out that the so-called "Yue" tribes were used as mercenaries to fight wars early on. Why they would help the Chinese, I'll have to take examples from the US:
"WWII, Apaches, and other native-American tribes who fought for the US, even though their own land had been taken away just a generation or two ago, by the very government they work under."

KP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby KP » Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:56 am

I was well aware that the "Chinese" have given up their traditional ethnic term to appease the westerners, that is why I left them out. However, if you notice, that is not the case of the Vietnamese. I do notice that you ignored everyone on my list:
"The Qiang? NanMan(Did they actually call themselves that?)? Mongols? XiongNu?"

Nice play on words there....however..we both know it just doesn't swing that way. Previously, you used the term to the descibe the Cantonese as "dangerous"....not to be "dangerous of us". Now you admit that the more correct translation is "cautious". Using your previous phrase, the Cantonese are now "cautious", NOT as in to be "cautious of us[Cantonese]".

Regarding the article.........which part are you referring to when you say:
" 'Yue' tribes were used as mercenaries to fight wars early on"
I don't doubt that Yue tribes have been used in the past, but I just don't see that part in the article. I did sorta skim over it.......but the article mostly has to do w/ the time period of 1000 AD. I assume by that time, the ancient YUE tribes have been pretty much ethnically defined by the Chinese. Now, I can see the Chinese referring to the Nong as "dangerous".....so do you claim that the Cantonese claim descendency from the Nong? I'd bet that most of the Cantonese around here would call you crazy and would rather be associated w/ the Han Chinese than the Nong. In the end however, the result is the same, the Yue, whom I claim descendency from held on to their language and customs for 1000 years of Chinese occupation.......while the Yue whom you claim descendency from are now fully "sinicized".

Anyways.......it seems you have finished Taylor's book. What did you think? I've only read about 25% of the book...just don't have the time. Plus I have about 5 other books I'm trying to finish as well.


Return to “Cantonese language forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests