Favourite Traditional Asian Clothes

Jan 2015
955
EARTH
People, stop derailing this thread. No matter how true the facts are, I sense a bit of nationalism steaming up here. There is no need to condescend on other populations using the situations of the past. Chinese civilization has nothing to do with us modern ones anyway. The old Chinese civilization was doomed to be dead the moment our fathers or grandfathers decided to do away with the Son and its Mandate and it will never come back. Look at the disrespect and mockery post-Imperials have for the values of the old culture. The past is the past now.
Anyway, the suspended member was a known troll, so let's stop going into that direction.

Here's something from India I like very much. Do Indian members know what they are called and do people still wear them like the Sari's?


 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
There's a theory that the Zhou language, the first true Sinitic langauge, was a creole that arose with heavy mixing of Sino-Tibetan and Austroasiatic (or some other southern) peoples on the Yellow River.
Are you talking about the recent argument proposed by Scott DeLancey that Sinitic is a creole of Tibeto-Burman and the local, "Southeast Asian" language of the Shang? But he was not talking about the Old Zhou language being Sinitic, because he regards the Old Zhou language as Tibeto-Burman, hence his description of Sinitic as a creole. Had he simply thought the Old Zhou language was Sinitic, he'd have talked about language replacement, not creolization.

Few people regard the Old Zhou language as the first Sinitic language. Scholars consider it Sino-Tibetan, yes, but on the Tibeto-Burman side, rather than the Sinitic side. The Shang language, on the other hand, is widely believed to fit that description, as it is both typologically similar to Sinitic, and share a large corpus of words and homophones with Sinitic.

There is also no evidence of there being a linguistic "break" between the Shang and the Zhou, which is one of the main problems with DeLancey's idea and those other few who argue that the Zhou language replaced the Shang's; indeed, the Zhou are thought to have switched to the Shang language prior to their conquest of the Shang, in which case Archaic Sinitic and Old Sinitic are simply later phases of the Shang language, which is therefore the earliest known Sinitic language. For information about this, see David McCraw's 2010 article, "An ABC Exercise in Old Sinitic Lexical Statistics," in which he shows that the lexicon used in the oracle bone script and the Zhou bronze script was virtually unchanged. It is difficult to imagine, in the case of a large language change in China, that Zhou era scribes used the exact same lexicon as Shang era scribes, down to loan graphs used to write homophones. It's a lot easier to believe that the Zhou simply learned and used the local Sinitic language, as all later conquerors did.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
Whether or not it had heavily mixed with southern languages still needs further evidences.
I'm afraid that evidence already exists. Virtually all linguists who've worked on Old Chinese agree that it has a large - ~25-30% - corpus of loan words from southern languages. As Axel Schuessler, one of the main experts on Old Chinese in the West, states: "when pursuing Old Chinese and Tibeto-Burman/Sino-Tibetan etyma down to their roots, one often seems to hit Austro-Asiatic bedrock."

For now, the linguistic evidences show that Chinese seem to have borrowed from both southern and northern languages, while retaining their core Sino-Tibetan vocabulary. Recent anthropological/genetic studies have also shown that northern elements seem to have mixed into the Sinitic peoples quite early in history.

So the Sinitics were not really a southern language/people as you have assumed. They had significant northern elements. I don't understand why some people always have the urge to claim the Chinese as southern. Just take a look at the Qin and Han warrior figurines, they look quite similar to some Koreans and Mongols.
Language and genetics aren't the same. For example, the Turks of Turkey speak a Turkic language, but they are genetically closer to local Greek and Semitic groups. Around 50% of the basic Old Chinese lexicon comes from Sino-Tibetan, and another 25-30% from southern languages such as Austro-Asiatic. This does not indicate that Chinese are a "southern people" but does indicate that their language, Sinitic, is a Sino-Tibetan language with a large % of southern loan words, as opposed to any language of the Mongols, Koreans, etc.

But then again, I fail to see why it's "northern" against "southern" in the first place, considering that 50% of it is Sino-Tibetan, and Sino-Tibetans aren't "northern"/"southern" - they were, for all we know, local to where the ancient Chinese lived - that is to say, around the Yellow River. Certainly, the ancient Chinese never considered themselves to be either "northern" or "southern," but believed that they were the "Middle Kingdom," which existed in-between the northern steppes and the southern jungles, and was unique in its own way.
 
Last edited:

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,777
United States
Are you talking about the recent argument proposed by Scott DeLancey that Sinitic is a creole of Tibeto-Burman and the local, "Southeast Asian" language of the Shang? But he was not talking about the Old Zhou language being Sinitic, because he regards the Old Zhou language as Tibeto-Burman, hence his description of Sinitic as a creole. Had he simply thought the Old Zhou language was Sinitic, he'd have talked about language replacement, not creolization.

Few people regard the Old Zhou language as the first Sinitic language. Scholars consider it Sino-Tibetan, yes, but on the Tibeto-Burman side, rather than the Sinitic side. The Shang language, on the other hand, is widely believed to fit that description, as it is both typologically similar to Sinitic, and share a large corpus of words and homophones with Sinitic.

There is also no evidence of there being a linguistic "break" between the Shang and the Zhou, which is one of the main problems with DeLancey's idea and those other few who argue that the Zhou language replaced the Shang's; indeed, the Zhou are thought to have switched to the Shang language prior to their conquest of the Shang, in which case Archaic Sinitic and Old Sinitic are simply later phases of the Shang language, which is therefore the earliest known Sinitic language. For information about this, see David McCraw's 2010 article, "An ABC Exercise in Old Sinitic Lexical Statistics," in which he shows that the lexicon used in the oracle bone script and the Zhou bronze script was virtually unchanged. It is difficult to imagine, in the case of a large language change in China, that Zhou era scribes used the exact same lexicon as Shang era scribes, down to loan graphs used to write homophones. It's a lot easier to believe that the Zhou simply learned and used the local Sinitic language, as all later conquerors did.
Yeah, it was, but it's been a while since I've read the paper so I couldn't remember the details.
 
Sep 2015
125
India
People, stop derailing this thread. No matter how true the facts are, I sense a bit of nationalism steaming up here. There is no need to condescend on other populations using the situations of the past. Chinese civilization has nothing to do with us modern ones anyway. The old Chinese civilization was doomed to be dead the moment our fathers or grandfathers decided to do away with the Son and its Mandate and it will never come back. Look at the disrespect and mockery post-Imperials have for the values of the old culture. The past is the past now.
Anyway, the suspended member was a known troll, so let's stop going into that direction.

Here's something from India I like very much. Do Indian members know what they are called and do people still wear them like the Sari's?


It is Ghagra Choli. It is still popular in Rajasthan and Gujrat region till our own times. Only one in extreme left is what I am talking about. The rest two wear Persian trousers type.

Various regional forms are this

 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
It is Ghagra Choli. It is still popular in Rajasthan and Gujrat region till our own times. Only one in extreme left is what I am talking about. The rest two wear Persian trousers type.

Various regional forms are this

Nice post. Ghaghra Choli is very popular, the 'bride's dress'. Nearly every woman will spend a large amount of money on a dress that will rarely be worn again in life. The one that my wife wore, was used by four in-coming brides (my brothers' wives), it became a sort of heir-loom; so too my 'achkan' (the coat) - worn by five grooms, after repeated alternations till it disintegrated. :D

But the persian trousers/under-dress, perhaps in Moghul times, never now.

This is fast-bowler Md. Shami with his wife.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,856
India
People, stop derailing this thread. No matter how true the facts are, I sense a bit of nationalism steaming up here. There is no need to condescend on other populations using the situations of the past. Chinese civilization has nothing to do with us modern ones anyway. The old Chinese civilization was doomed to be dead the moment our fathers or grandfathers decided to do away with the Son and its Mandate and it will never come back. Look at the disrespect and mockery post-Imperials have for the values of the old culture. The past is the past now.
Anyway, the suspended member was a known troll, so let's stop going into that direction.

Here's something from India I like very much. Do Indian members know what they are called and do people still wear them like the Sari's?


Only the dress in extreme left is still popular in few parts of India.