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 January 21st, 2016, 11:37 PM   #41
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wansui View Post
This makes as much a sense as your Jusen/Joseon or Buyeo/Baiyue theories.
I hope that means they make a lot of sense.

Quote:
辰 was pronounced d(h)ǝr or d(h)ǝn,晉 was pronounced cǝns or cinh.

The rest of your post is empty speculation. The Han in Samhan is a transliteration of a native term,while the 邯 in Handan was pronounced tār or tān.
Let's remember the proper context of the new theory. If the Jin state in China is the Jin state we find in Korean historical memory, along with Samhan being Zhao-Wei-Han, then the proper language for the Zhao-Wei-Han region could be closest Sino-Korean (how Koreans say Chinese words).

In such a context, we would have:
1. Jin or Sin for 辰, and Jin for 晉.
2. Han for 韓, and Gam for 邯. (Where we know the G-sound is closely related to the H-sound)

Basically, there are no phonetic inconsistencies, assuming Sino-Korean is binded to the alternate Samhan as Zhao-Wei-Han.

Last edited by Yeongsang; January 21st, 2016 at 11:43 PM.
Yeongsang is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 21st, 2016, 11:46 PM   #42
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by purakjelia View Post
Chinese Jin (晋) and ancient Korean Jin (辰) are not the same.

Samhan (三韓) and Han (漢) are also not the same.

Moreover, Jin and Han probably derived from native Korean language, which had nothing to do with the Chinese characters that transliterate them, despite they had similar pronunciations.

Again, stop making random claims.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The version of Han represented by 漢 wasn't even in our discussion.
Yeongsang is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2016, 03:00 AM   #43
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Singapore
Posts: 4

Deviating slightly, I seem to recall that Vietnam's name was once Nam Viet (or Nanyue in Chinese) but a Chinese Emperor changed it to the present day Vietnam as a show of imperial hegemony over the occasionally rebellious vassal. (can anyone verify this?)
FortressmasoN is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2016, 03:10 AM   #44

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,261

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senyokbalgul View Post
How would you explain the name Magbarnis. There must have been important historical interaction between the Japanese and Filipinos for there to be such a unique name.
Japanese contact with the Philippines reached its height at the start of the Tokugawa period. All Christians were expelled, so many Japanese samurai who refused to convert travelled to the Spanish-held (and therefore Catholic) Philippines, such as Takayama Ukon (who died shortly after arriving there).
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2016, 03:43 AM   #45

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,261

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senyokbalgul View Post
The Thai 'pratet' sounds very close to the Hindi word 'pradesh' which means state or region. It must be loanword from Sanskrit.
"Tet" has the same root as "desh" in "Bangladesh", so it's probably of Sanskrit origin.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2016, 03:54 AM   #46
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2013
From: China
Posts: 4,997

Quote:
Originally Posted by FortressmasoN View Post
Deviating slightly, I seem to recall that Vietnam's name was once Nam Viet (or Nanyue in Chinese) but a Chinese Emperor changed it to the present day Vietnam as a show of imperial hegemony over the occasionally rebellious vassal. (can anyone verify this?)
around 1800s, viet nam had a great change of their political environment. the last kingdom of viet nam was built, and they replaced the short life former kingdom. in 1802, the king sent envoys to qing china to ask for legitimacy of the kingdom. it was an important event because the previous dynasty of viet nam was partially a result of qing interference. also it was a tradition that viet nam being a tribute country to china. the new king requested to use the name nam viet for his kingdom. jiaqing emperor denied this requested, and changed it to viet nam. reason for it was nam viet as a name had existed about 2000 years ago, for the regional power of zhaotuo, a former official of qin and a chinese person. the historical area of nam viet of zhao tuo overlaps both viet nam and large part of southern china. reusing the name could result in confusion and possibly conflicts between qing and viet nam for the southern china lands. jiaqing believed reusing the name was improper. (under the context that though namely a tribute of qing, viet nam usually had small conflicts with qing on territory(doesn't matter who actually ruled the country), and the border was usually referred yue/viet for historical reasons.)

in 1804, officials of guangxi arrived at viet nam to confer the viet nam king. and in 1806, viet nam offcially held the ceremony for the first king of "viet nam", 4 years after he declared a kingdom had been built(four years ago, the kingdom was built without officially declare the name, especially to china, korea, thailand and possibly japan).

thus, indeed jiaqing changed something. but the name nam viet was never used as it was dead before born.


btw, in chinese(which was the diplomatic language for sino sphere and kind of official language of viet nam and korea), viet nam means the lands southern to viet/yue. while nam viet means lands of southern viet/yue.

Last edited by heylouis; January 22nd, 2016 at 04:19 AM.
heylouis is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2016, 04:02 AM   #47
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2013
From: China
Posts: 4,997

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
I hope that means they make a lot of sense.

Let's remember the proper context of the new theory. If the Jin state in China is the Jin state we find in Korean historical memory, along with Samhan being Zhao-Wei-Han, then the proper language for the Zhao-Wei-Han region could be closest Sino-Korean (how Koreans say Chinese words).

In such a context, we would have:
1. Jin or Sin for 辰, and Jin for 晉.
2. Han for 韓, and Gam for 邯. (Where we know the G-sound is closely related to the H-sound)

Basically, there are no phonetic inconsistencies, assuming Sino-Korean is binded to the alternate Samhan as Zhao-Wei-Han.
the samhan was called as samhan because they were three major groups of han people. they were referred as 马, 辰 and 弁. while, han zhao wei was three families living around shanxi, if we use the same "sam" prefix(means three), han zhao wei were usually called samjin.
completely different thing from samhan.

please do not put so low level confusions here.
heylouis is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2016, 04:05 AM   #48

stevapalooza's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,036

Quote:
Originally Posted by FortressmasoN View Post
Deviating slightly, I seem to recall that Vietnam's name was once Nam Viet (or Nanyue in Chinese) but a Chinese Emperor changed it to the present day Vietnam as a show of imperial hegemony over the occasionally rebellious vassal. (can anyone verify this?)
According to Wikpedia it was first coined by a Vietnamese official and poet named Nguyen Binh Khiem, not a Chinese emperor.

Last edited by stevapalooza; January 22nd, 2016 at 04:09 AM.
stevapalooza is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2016, 07:19 AM   #49
Academician
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 91

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
I hope that means they make a lot of sense.
All this shows is that you have no command of Chinese,the rest is psuedohistory.
Wansui is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2016, 08:01 PM   #50
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by heylouis View Post
the samhan was called as samhan because they were three major groups of han people. they were referred as 马, 辰 and 弁. while, han zhao wei was three families living around shanxi, if we use the same "sam" prefix(means three), han zhao wei were usually called samjin.
completely different thing from samhan.

please do not put so low level confusions here.
The Samhan states were not so detached from their Jin predecessor. First of all, we have Jinhan which gets its name from its precursor state Jin. Then we have Byeonhan also being named Byeonjin, after the precursor state Jin. Lastly, we Mahan claiming to be the ruler of Jin. Each of the states are tied to Jin in origin.

What I think happened is, the rulers of Goryeo deliberately changed the names to obfuscate the true origin of the legends/histories, while keeping enough of the story the same to satisfy the oral histories of the portion of the population that actually came from the Jin state of China, perhaps even binding separate legends into one narrative... or rather, this has a strong possibility.

But certain interactions between Gojoseon and Jin in the Korean narrative may be literal, such as Wiman betraying King Jun of Gojoseon and King Jun fleeing to Jin. Since there is already a leaning towards putting Gojoseon somewhere in northern Hebei. It'd be very difficult for King Jun to flee to the southern Korean peninsula if Gojoseon is in northern Hebei. Rather we should think about moving both, Gojoseon to northern Hebei and Jin-Samhan to Shanxi.

Last edited by Yeongsang; January 22nd, 2016 at 08:15 PM.
Yeongsang is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
asian, countries, names, strange



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Viking Names for Other Cities and Countries HeWiththeNose European History 10 July 16th, 2016 04:33 AM
Strange Old Names Pacific_Victory General History 18 November 5th, 2012 06:04 AM
when were the names of European countries invented? Thessalonian European History 69 December 9th, 2011 03:04 PM
Do you think it's possible for the Asian Countries to make a union? DeliciousTomatoesYay Asian History 53 June 19th, 2011 11:08 PM
Unusual, strange, funny facts, randoms about former european communist countries Perix European History 20 February 4th, 2011 07:04 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.