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 February 26th, 2015, 12:18 AM   #71
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by purakjelia View Post
LOL, what are you talking about? Do you speak any of those southern Chinese dialects? How do you know that there are Mongolic terms in those dialects? How do you know that the ancient Chinese were partly Mongolic to begin with? Where are your evidences? You are making so many claims at once but without any supporting evidence.

I suggest that you mind your own business, my korean fellow. Stop making absurd claims about Chinese language and history, you have no clues about what you are saying.
I'm talking about Mongolic blood. All those Han Chinese groups contain a Huaxia ethnic core, and all Huaxia had some Mongolic to begin with, starting from as far back as Xia or Shang.
Yeongsang is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 26th, 2015, 12:25 AM   #72
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaicKorean View Post
Yeongsang, I just have a guestion. May I ask that you are Korean or Korean American? If not, Do you have any degree of Korean language or Korean?
If you're upset that I called Joseon Mongolic instead of Altaic Korean, you don't need to be. For now, you can think of Joseon as a pluralistic society that used Mandarin, Mongolic, and Korean. I avoided mentioning Korean to avoid allegations of bias, as a temporary measure. But I believe there is a way to connect Korean to Mongolic.

Perhaps its no coincidence that the Hongshan culture contained people from three distinct fatherlines, speaking three different native languages. Maybe Koreans were blond Altaics, Mongolics were Native Americans, and Sinitics were Baiyue.

Last edited by Yeongsang; February 26th, 2015 at 01:08 AM.
Yeongsang is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 12:39 AM   #73
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 231

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
If you're upset that I called Joseon Mongolic instead of Altaic Korean, you don't need to be. For now, you can think of Joseon as a pluralistic society that used Mandarin, Mongolic, and Korean. I avoided mentioning Korean to avoid allegations of bias, as a temporary measure.

Perhaps its no coincidence that the Hongshan culture contained people from three distinct fatherlines, speaking three different native languages. Maybe Koreans were blond, blue-eyed Altaics, Mongolics were Native Americans, and Sinitics were Baiyue.
You evade my question, What is your point? You are Korean? or not? Im not upset, What is mean "Joseon Mongolic"?
AltaicKorean is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 12:50 AM   #74
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaicKorean View Post
You evade my question, What is your point? You are Korean? or not? Im not upset, What is mean "Joseon Mongolic"?
Why do you want to know?

I don't get why you're not understanding. We know that Hongshan or Joseon had Mongolic people. I had left out that it could have had Korean people too, as a temporary measure. But there is a way to connect Koreans to Mongolic people, not intrinsically, but culturally perhaps.

Last edited by Yeongsang; February 26th, 2015 at 01:11 AM.
Yeongsang is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 03:20 AM   #75
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoopiter View Post
And if I'm mistaken, Guo see hongshan as Chinese/sinitic not Korean/Altaic right ?
The Hongshan culture was probably pluralistic in terms of language. They probably spoke Korean, Mongolic, and perhaps Hmong or some other related element.

Last edited by Yeongsang; February 26th, 2015 at 04:40 AM.
Yeongsang is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 06:28 AM   #76
Not a Korean
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: 'Maircuh
Posts: 3,254
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
Why do you want to know?

I don't get why you're not understanding. We know that Hongshan or Joseon had Mongolic people. I had left out that it could have had Korean people too, as a temporary measure. But there is a way to connect Koreans to Mongolic people, not intrinsically, but culturally perhaps.
Hongshan or Joseon? Do you mean that Hongshan was Gojoseon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
The Hongshan culture was probably pluralistic in terms of language. They probably spoke Korean, Mongolic, and perhaps Hmong or some other related element.
There were no Korean or Mongolic people at that time, nor were their languages spoken. Sure, ancestor language(s) were spoken, but not the languages themselves. Hongshan people may have spoken an ancestor of Mongolic, but we don't know at all.

We shouldn't project modern languages onto archaeological cultures.

The Hongshan culture did influence many later cultures nearby, though.
Haakbus is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 06:29 AM   #77
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: USA
Posts: 393

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
The Hongshan culture was probably pluralistic in terms of language. They probably spoke Korean, Mongolic, and perhaps Hmong or some other related element.
Stop posing as a Korean.

When we all know your a physco Chinese nationalist.

I don't know why you would go to such lengths on a history forum as to incite political threads.

Lemme tell you a history forum has little to with consensus of opinions and few people even heard of a history forum in the US.
John Khan is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 06:30 AM   #78
Not a Korean
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: 'Maircuh
Posts: 3,254
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Khan View Post
Stop posing as a Korean.

When we all know your a physco Chinese nationalist.

I don't know why you would go to such lengths on a history forum as to incite political threads.

Lemme tell you a history forum has little to with consensus of opinions and few people even heard of a history forum in the US.
But we DON'T know that. It's against the rules to insult other members.
Haakbus is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 06:59 AM   #79
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Singapore
Posts: 266

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
I'm talking about Mongolic blood. All those Han Chinese groups contain a Huaxia ethnic core, and all Huaxia had some Mongolic to begin with, starting from as far back as Xia or Shang.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
If you're upset that I called Joseon Mongolic instead of Altaic Korean, you don't need to be. For now, you can think of Joseon as a pluralistic society that used Mandarin, Mongolic, and Korean. I avoided mentioning Korean to avoid allegations of bias, as a temporary measure. But I believe there is a way to connect Korean to Mongolic.

Perhaps its no coincidence that the Hongshan culture contained people from three distinct fatherlines, speaking three different native languages. Maybe Koreans were blond Altaics, Mongolics were Native Americans, and Sinitics were Baiyue.
Unlike Koreans, Chinese people in general do not see the need to latch ourselves onto the Mongolic speaking people merely because they created one of the world's largest empires which spanned across Eurasia during the 13th-14th century.

It is a well-established fact in the world of linguistic studies that all Chinese languages and/or dialects belong to the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family - with the other branch being Tibeto-Burman.

We'd rather group ourselves as such because not only is it historically accurate, but it has also received worldwide recognition, as seen in the map of language families in the Asia-Pacfic produced by the United Nations Organization for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

This "Huaxia / Sinitic" (華夏) core you are talking about - is heavily linked to the Tibeto-Burman people living across the Tibetan Plateau, Amdo (Qinghai), Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Sichuan, Nepal, Bhutan, Nagaland, Manipur, Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh (South Tibet), Sikkim-Darjeeling, Gilgit-Baltistan and Upper Burma (Myanmar) along the banks of the Irrawaddy River - not the Mongolic people living north of the Great Wall.

According to most historians around the world, the reconstructed Urheimat (homeland) of these Sino-Tibetan speaking people is in Eastern Tibet or the upper and middle reaches of the Yellow River Basin.

On to my second point, Koreans are blond Altaics? Unless you show me a photo of a modern-day Korean man/woman with natural blond hair, your statement is invalid. Besides, native people of Southern China traditionally considered to be part of the Hundred Yue (百越) speak languages belonging to the Tai-Kadai or Hmong-Mien family. None of them speak Tibeto-Burman languages, let alone Sinitic languages of any sort.

Tibeto-Burman speakers were traditionally grouped into what was known as Xirong (西戎) instead since they lived to the west (西) of the Central Plains - not the Baiyue (百越) who lived south of the Central Plains.

Stop trying to rewrite history in a way that suits you. By claiming that "Mongolics were Native American" and that "Koreans are related to the Mongolics", are you not the one trying to claim that the whole of North America was founded by the Koreans? Double standards indeed.
Takoyaki is offline  
Old February 26th, 2015, 07:05 AM   #80
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Singapore
Posts: 266

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
The Hongshan culture was probably pluralistic in terms of language. They probably spoke Korean, Mongolic, and perhaps Hmong or some other related element.
Much like Sinitic languages, Hmong-Mien languages are tonal, monosyllabic and follow the Subject-Verb-Object grammatical structure. Neither are they related to the Korean language nor are they related to the Mongolic languages.

In fact, the Hmong-Mien languages were once considered a branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family by most Western linguists until the late 1980s when it was believed that the Hmong-Mien languages are a separate family of their own, leaving the Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages behind to form this current configuration.
Takoyaki is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
chinese, civilization, foundations, theory



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proof Chinese civilization was founded in Liangzhu wingerman Asian History 29 June 7th, 2014 09:30 PM
Was 'six limb theory' of Chinese painting borrowed from India? vikas Asian History 8 March 21st, 2013 10:45 PM
Continuity of civilization and Chinese identity deke Asian History 0 September 19th, 2012 02:36 PM
Should the Chinese just admit that Western civilization and hisory is better? TruthSeeker1 Asian History 9 February 14th, 2012 11:50 AM
Chinese civilization: yellow river vs Yangtze tomar Ancient History 4 February 22nd, 2011 05:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.