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 18th, 2017, 12:31 PM   #31
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: 天下
Posts: 138

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jangkwan View Post
^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?
Implausible. You know when you are doing such comparisions you cannot just take a look at the words and say they are related because they look similar.

To better ilustrate it here "Khan" has only two sylables, while "Kahuna" has three. You would either need to explain where either "ka" or "hu" came from. Notice please that "kh" in "Khan" is a digraph for aspirated "k" (if you are Korean as your nick suggests then it's "ㅋ"), there's no "h" in pronounciation. If we go further back in time then we know it comes from "Khagan" (where g is a voiced velar fricative), which is a more likely candidate. However, still without more information (how does "Kahuna" look in other Polynesian languages, how did it look 2000 years ago) and with absolutely no clue how a word from Polynesian language could arrive in Turkic when they were never close to each other (to our knowledge), I would say it's just a coincidence.

The problem with "Gokturks" and "Goguryeo" is similar. In the first syllable we have "Kok" in opposition to MC "kau". Where did the "k" came from? It cannot be "g" because we know that Guryeo, or Gori means "fortress" in Goguryeo language, so the "g" couldn't be part of the first morpheme. We also know that "kok" meant "heaven" or "sky" is Old Turkic, so we probably cannot separate that "k". I'm sorry, but this also seems unlikely.
Vaderfan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 18th, 2017, 03:37 PM   #32
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Cyberspace Dystopia
Posts: 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jangkwan View Post
^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?
I guess you wuz Turko-Manchurian kingz/khanz
YeunTchai is offline  
Old April 18th, 2017, 06:23 PM   #33
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaderfan View Post
Implausible. You know when you are doing such comparisions you cannot just take a look at the words and say they are related because they look similar.

To better ilustrate it here "Khan" has only two sylables, while "Kahuna" has three. You would either need to explain where either "ka" or "hu" came from. Notice please that "kh" in "Khan" is a digraph for aspirated "k" (if you are Korean as your nick suggests then it's "ㅋ"), there's no "h" in pronounciation. If we go further back in time then we know it comes from "Khagan" (where g is a voiced velar fricative), which is a more likely candidate. However, still without more information (how does "Kahuna" look in other Polynesian languages, how did it look 2000 years ago) and with absolutely no clue how a word from Polynesian language could arrive in Turkic when they were never close to each other (to our knowledge), I would say it's just a coincidence.

The problem with "Gokturks" and "Goguryeo" is similar. In the first syllable we have "Kok" in opposition to MC "kau". Where did the "k" came from? It cannot be "g" because we know that Guryeo, or Gori means "fortress" in Goguryeo language, so the "g" couldn't be part of the first morpheme. We also know that "kok" meant "heaven" or "sky" is Old Turkic, so we probably cannot separate that "k". I'm sorry, but this also seems unlikely.
The 'h' in "Kahuna" may have been dropped in Mongolian, and transformed into a 'k' in Turkic. If various cultures are inclined to drop the 'h's in their own language, there must be a reason for it. My point is they are close enough to have been related.

We don't actually know what the name Goguryeo means. It could be a transliteration of the Turkic 'Kok' sky. Goguryeo was the name of the entire kingdom, not a city or fortress. Hence, it wouldn't really be proper to call it a fortress. Thus your attribution is implausible.

Last edited by Jangkwan; April 18th, 2017 at 06:25 PM.
Jangkwan is offline  
Old April 18th, 2017, 07:05 PM   #34

stevapalooza's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 963

Has it ever even been suggested that Altaic and Polynesian languages have a common root? I mean I can see how Polynesians couldve gotten to Central Asia--arrive on the east coast and gradually migrate to the interior--but I've never seen the two language groups linked in any way.
stevapalooza is offline  
Old April 18th, 2017, 07:15 PM   #35
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Andromeda
Posts: 552

Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
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?
This is because the origin of the Korean people is a mystery and the connections are merely attempts at finding possibilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
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. 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
We are talking about the origin of the Korean people, not about what cultures influenced Korea. Clearly, Korea was heavily influenced by China in the past, but that does not imply that Koreans and the Chinese have the same origins. As we travel into the past, it turns out that the cultural similarities between Korea and China diverge; they do not converge.

Historical linguistics can be a very useful tool to figure out whether several peoples have common origins or not. This is because historical linguistics filters out external influences from genealogically unrelated languages when building linguistic family trees. Linguistics have shown that the Korean people do not have common origins with any people known or recorded in history.

Last edited by Senyokbalgul; April 18th, 2017 at 07:21 PM.
Senyokbalgul is offline  
Old April 18th, 2017, 08:40 PM   #36
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

The color blue in Korean is "purun" (푸른). In Maori and Hawaiian, the color blue is "puru" and "polū" respectively. This color is important because it has dual meanings and has significance in the name Gokturk.

Last edited by Jangkwan; April 18th, 2017 at 08:47 PM.
Jangkwan is offline  
Old April 18th, 2017, 09:43 PM   #37
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Andromeda
Posts: 552

Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

I am so sick and tired of this BS!

All East Asians, N Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and Northeasterners share a common origin in the N China Plain that straddles Hebei to the north through Shandong and Henan in the south.

Actually NE Asian cultures, Sinitic, Koreanic, Japonic, Tungusic-Mongolic all share common roots in the HONGSHAN CULTURE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
The task of deconstructing the national-level narrative, which demands that scholars carefully study regional and local cultures in various periods, has already begun in China and abroad, with the startling discoveries of complex jade-working cultures outside the Central Plain that Ho Ping-to cited as the "cradle of Chinese civilization" (Ho 1976). These new archeological discoveries suggest multiple origins of the features that we identified as "Chinese." Archeologists have identified a distinctive northeastern cultural complex with ties to the peoples who resided in the Korean peninsula and islands of Japn, that might have contributed to the origins of the Shang state (Nelson 1995, 252). That the homeland of the Jurchen/Manchus developed its own distinctive Neolithic society, epitomized in the Hongshan site, challenges the center-periphery assumptions of Sinology. Multiply this question by the number of these new sites and we have an approximation of the challenge that awaits historians.
YeunTchai, Please reread the passage you have provided slowly and carefully in detail since you did not understand the passage correctly.

Nowhere in this quote says anything about Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongol and Tungusic people having a common genetic origin. The passage that you have quoted says that Chinese culture was not uniquely created by the Chinese alone. It says that Chinese culture as we know was also shaped and influenced by other unrelated peoples such as Koreans, Japanese, Jurchen and Manchus. Thus, his conclusion is that credit should also be given to Koreans, Japanese, Jurchen and Manchus since they helped shape Chinese culture. This challenges the long-held view that the Chinese and the Chinese alone created Chinese culture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
East Asia has one common culture and one common region. Sorry, but this is how the whole world sees it
Just because the whole world sees it as the same, doesn't mean that it is. All Asians look the same, sound the same, walk the same, they're all the same is clearly not true.

Last edited by Senyokbalgul; April 18th, 2017 at 10:03 PM.
Senyokbalgul is offline  
Old April 18th, 2017, 10:01 PM   #38
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Andromeda
Posts: 552

Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
The ancient Huaxia like the ancestors of Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, the Hmong-Mien, Vietnamese, Burmese and the Tai-Kradai all ultimately originate from the south of China based on latest findings.
I am not sure where you are getting this information but please provide the source of these "latest findings".

Koreans do not originate from the south of China since the "consistent and accepted findings" indicate that the maternal line of Koreans originates in Siberia, not Southern China. The maternal line is used rather than the paternal line, since it is more reflective of the original inhabitants of a certain geographical region.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
All East Asians ultimately share common origins with Negritos (which isn't a neutrally correct word) in Southeast Asia a relic population of the Sundaland landmass.
Please provide sources.
Senyokbalgul is offline  
Old April 18th, 2017, 10:37 PM   #39
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Andromeda
Posts: 552

East Asian history is far more complex than the credit it is given. I wish the history of the peopling of East Asia was simpler than it is, but it is not. Linguistics can give a good idea of common heritage between peoples and here are the current findings below.

Chinese share origins with:
Tibetans
Burmese
Currently unchallenged and widely accepted

Japanese share possible origins with:
Korean
Japonic within the Altaic family
Japonic-Koreanic grouping within the Altaic family
Tungusic-Japonic-Koreanic grouping within the Altaic family
Tai-Kadai
Polynesian
Austronesian
Dravidian
Widely challenged with ongoing debate

Koreans share possible origins with:
Japanese
Koreanic within the Altaic family
Japonic-Koreanic grouping within the Altaic family
Tungusic-Japonic-Koreanic grouping within the Altaic family
Tungusic within the Altaic family
Mongolic within the Altaic family
Turkic within the Altaic family
Paleo-Siberian
Austronesian
Dravidian
Widely challenged with ongoing debate

Last edited by Senyokbalgul; April 18th, 2017 at 11:49 PM.
Senyokbalgul is offline  
Old April 19th, 2017, 12:11 AM   #40
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevapalooza View Post
Has it ever even been suggested that Altaic and Polynesian languages have a common root? I mean I can see how Polynesians couldve gotten to Central Asia--arrive on the east coast and gradually migrate to the interior--but I've never seen the two language groups linked in any way.
Interestingly enough, the forebearers of the Mongols (via the Xianbei-Rouran) were known as the Donghu, which means Eastern Hu or possibly Eastern Barbarian. Now who can say these Eastern Hu didn't have seafaring abilities considering there is only coast lands to the east of ancient Chinese core domains.
Click the image to open in full size.
(pictured: Zhou Dynasty map)

Let's say that by 2nd-1st century BC, they had already sailed north in face of the expanding Han dynasty, moving their location and leaving much confusion for later ancient historians.

Last edited by Jangkwan; April 19th, 2017 at 12:47 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.