Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 13th, 2017, 02:19 PM   #21
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Cyberspace Dystopia
Posts: 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakbus View Post
Let's stop dealing with empty claims and see if there are linguistic or cultural ties.

Korean is currently (and accurately) considered a language isolate. It should actually be considered a microfamily, with Cheju as a sister language to mainland Korean.

Typologically, Korean patterns like a Siberian language, and NOT like an Altaic one, such as a Tungusic, Mongolic, or Turkic one (by Altaic I mean the north Asian nomadic sprachbund, not a genetic relationship). Now typological similarities or differences don't indicate any kind of genetic relationship, but it does bring up some interesting questions as to what languages Korean might have once been in close contact with.
Hungarians are seen as a European peoples, but their language genetically derives from a Siberian language related to Khanty and Mansi, but that doesn't make modern Hungarians Siberian when the Hungarian language has been long removed from its ancestral Siberian environment
YeunTchai is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 13th, 2017, 02:19 PM   #22
Reptilian Shapeshifter
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Draco
Posts: 2,616
Blog Entries: 2

Can you provide these latest findings?
Haakbus is offline  
Old April 13th, 2017, 02:20 PM   #23
Reptilian Shapeshifter
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Draco
Posts: 2,616
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
Hungarians are seen as a European peoples, but their language genetically derives from a Siberian language related to Khanty and Mansi, but that doesn't make modern Hungarians Siberian when the Hungarian language has been long removed from its ancestral Siberian environment
My point is that there are possible indications that the Korean language originated in Siberia, or at least close to Siberian languages, as opposed to "Altaic" languages.
Haakbus is offline  
Old April 13th, 2017, 02:44 PM   #24
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Cyberspace Dystopia
Posts: 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakbus View Post
Can you provide these latest findings?
Well a lot has to do with anthropology, archaeology and genetics, which is strictly prohibited to discuss about on here. Open any recent general, authoritative anthro, archaeology and genetics book or textbook and it talks about it extensively. For example Gina Barnes, Sarah Nelson even really old scholars like KC Chang mentions similar concepts

And oh yes, the research Professor Jong Bhak is what I am directly referring to about latest findings, his recent statements about the true origins of the Korean people

Last edited by YeunTchai; April 13th, 2017 at 02:48 PM.
YeunTchai is offline  
Old April 13th, 2017, 03:20 PM   #25
Reptilian Shapeshifter
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Draco
Posts: 2,616
Blog Entries: 2

Archaeology and anthropology are not prohibited, only genetics.

There are models of Homo sapiens spreading through what is now southern China some 60,000-70,000 years ago or so. Way too early for there to be any meaningful or traceable cultural or linguistic connections. If we go that far, we can just say that the Korean people have origins in Africa, which is technically true, ultimately.

Last edited by Haakbus; April 13th, 2017 at 03:34 PM.
Haakbus is offline  
Old April 14th, 2017, 10:41 AM   #26
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakbus View Post
There are models of Homo sapiens spreading through what is now southern China some 60,000-70,000 years ago or so.
You mean 6000-7000 years ago. You're off by an order of magnitude. Let's just leave it at that, unless you want to get into auto-evolving octopus.
Jangkwan is offline  
Old April 14th, 2017, 01:05 PM   #27
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Cyberspace Dystopia
Posts: 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakbus View Post
Archaeology and anthropology are not prohibited, only genetics.

There are models of Homo sapiens spreading through what is now southern China some 60,000-70,000 years ago or so. Way too early for there to be any meaningful or traceable cultural or linguistic connections. If we go that far, we can just say that the Korean people have origins in Africa, which is technically true, ultimately.
Not 60,000-70,000 years. 10,000 years and even less than 10,000 years ago! It goes along with the spread of agriculture, eg millet + rice, and different patterns of lifestyle. Last time I hearda out it, the divergence between Siberians/Northern Asians and East Asians/Southeast Asians was 14,000 years ago
YeunTchai is offline  
Old April 18th, 2017, 01:27 AM   #28
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

To understand this topic better, we may want to think about the genesis of the Gokturk empire, which existed alongside Goguryeo. This may seem a bit superficial, but could it be that the Gokturks are related to Goguryeo based on naming. Its possible for the Gokturks to be original expansion of the Mongols, as it coincides with the initial creation of the Turkic peoples, which are very closely tied to the Mongols in language. But I really don't know much about the Gokturks.

Ignoring the timelines we see being established here and there (let's not try to match them yet), what if the seafaring expansion out of southern China and Taiwan founded Goguryeo and Baekje, only for Goguryeo to become the Gokturks somehow. (I know theres the bottom up approach, but sometimes the "bottom"/base isn't stable to begin with so..)

Is there a connection between Turkic languages and Polynesian languages? The dichotomy makes the comparison especially valuable.

Last edited by Jangkwan; April 18th, 2017 at 01:44 AM.
Jangkwan is offline  
Old April 18th, 2017, 09:02 AM   #29
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Cyberspace Dystopia
Posts: 49

Contact between Gokturks and Goguryeo was only very brief. And Gokturks expanded from the far west of Goguryeo, not directly neighboring them. Why do Korean history enthusiasts always like to make loose connections with distant tribes in history or geographically that are totally different and far removed from Koreans? For example Khori tribe in Buryatia or Koryaks in Kamchatka just because it sounds similar to 'Korea'? There is just no logic and reasoning behind these claims. Are Georgians in the Caucasus related to the American state of Georgia just because the name is the same?

Actually the closest related group to Koreans and Japanese would be Chinese living right across the Yellow Sea from them. You would be surprised how similar the culture especially the Confucian influenced culture, the architecture, mannerisms and general attitude is if you have actually travelled across the sea to cities in Shandong like Yantai or Qingdao. It was once connected by land at one point

There are far more references to connections between literati right across the Yellow Sea than these pseudohistorical connections to far-away, distant tribes and polities in the past or present today made by nationalist-influenced commentators. Confucian literati culture defined modern Korean culture that was imported from and shared with directly across the Yellow Sea

And NOT Inner Asian traditions that never even entered or firmly took hold in premodern Korea and that were completely rejected and frowned upon by the ruling class

You have to understand there was a whole framework and philosophical system synthesized & elaborated on by scholars for centuries to understand all this. And nowhere do these types of irrational pseudo-historical discourse fit within the narrative of this framework. Undeniably, this system concretely had its roots in China and, the Korean literati proudly acknowledged and upheld this, a tradition that can be traced back to Silla, Koguryo and Paekche

Last edited by YeunTchai; April 18th, 2017 at 09:11 AM.
YeunTchai is offline  
Old April 18th, 2017, 10:47 AM   #30
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

^I don't know what you're trying to say. If I see a result I don't like... I just toss it. That's kind of how I feel about your post.

Honestly though, Gokturks were adjacent to Goguryeo in the same time period. There could be a significance in that.

It feels ironic, but I've discovered that chief in Hawaiian is "Kahuna". Could this be where we get the word Khan?

Last edited by Jangkwan; April 18th, 2017 at 11:07 AM.
Jangkwan is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
jurchen, jurchens, koreans, mongols, origin, share



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jurchen people in North Korea (1100s) Pessimist Crow Asian History 0 March 11th, 2017 12:03 AM
Manchu/Jurchen soldiers, how were they so strong? YeunTchai Asian History 22 December 5th, 2016 04:24 AM
The Jurchen? Haardrada Asian History 70 April 12th, 2015 09:46 AM
the relation about sushen,jurchen, manchu fangqingming Asian History 18 December 2nd, 2012 08:03 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.