Again, these comparisons are heavily flawed. First, there are problems with the sound correspondences. Then, there are mistakes in the Japanese words. For Korean, I don't know, but I suspect there are similar problems.stupidumboy said:today's list (the first coming word is Korean ナ津??猫(native) word and the following words after --->marks are modern Japanese words)-the content inside ( ) mark shows the meaning of the words.
"aka" has not the meaning of "baby" but red, and a baby is just a "red child"aka(nursing baby)---------------->akago(nursing baby)-窶堋?窶堋ゥ-窶堋イ[ツ静版スq]
The Japanese word is actually "shikko" ("o" is a prefix), and it is a modern word, and also a childish wordojim(urine)*old korean word*------------>ositko(urine)-窶堋ィ窶堋オ窶堙≫?堋ア
Japanese ue comes from upe < *upa(C)i, which is then quite different from the putative Korean "ue"ue(above)*old korean word*------------->ue(above)-ツ湘」
The Japanese word is not attested in Old Japanese, but it is clearly derived from opu "to carry a load" (not necessarily on the back)obu(pick a person up on one's back)*southern korean local dialect word*
------------------->obuu(pick a person up on one's back)窶堋ィ窶堙披?堋、-窶「窶ー窶堙披?堋、
kaerupop said:English word---------------------> Japanese word
boy ----------------> bo-ya (child)
kill ----------------> ki-ru (kill by sword)
What time is it now? ---------------> hotta imo ijirun jane-- ナ叩窶堙≫?堋スヒ?ー窶堋「窶堋カ窶堙ゥ窶堙ア窶堋カ窶堙。窶堙銀?堋・
If you want to mention the relation between Japanese and Korean, you had better study " old Japanese" and Silla language.
The modern Japanese word "ue" 窶堋、窶堋ヲツ(ツ湘」ツ) was written in pre-war spelling as "uhe" 窶堋、窶堙? We know from the portuguese transcriptions and other evidence that modern /h/ was pronounced as a bilabial fricative [F], so it was uFe in Middle Japanese. In Old Japanese, it was a labial stop *p, as it is proven by old spellings in Chinese characters ex: ue < uFe is written 窶ーFティy in Kojiki 窶愿コ窶怒ツ鞘?倪?ケI, which was read *wu@?peyh (@=schwa, ?=glottal stop) in Early Middle Chinese (yubie in Modern Chinese) , with a *p. It agrees with evidence from Ryukyuan languages and internal reconstruction.stupidumboy2 said:>please explain the progress of changement in linguistic standpoint which you often love to mention and emphasize.
then I would be very much appreciated your providing the logical reason why those words are considered the previous forms of "ue"
ue< upe < *upa(C)i
"obuu" and related forms are later developments, the only attested form in ancient texts is opu, reconstructed as explained above (modern ou 窶堋ィ窶堋、 < oFu 窶堋ィ窶堙 < opu), and its meaning is "to carry a load". The meaning "to take somebody on one's back" is a later semantic development. To relate this opu to Korean "obu" you will have to show that the latter word existed at least in Middle Korean.3>assuming that your point was right that "obuu" came from "opu"
,but it still has possibility to have stemming from the Korean word "obu"
Korean word "obu" means "taking somebody on one's back"
What does Japanese "obuu-窶堋ィ窶堙披?堋、-窶「窶ー窶堙披?堋、 " means?
plus as you often like to mention,you need to show the clear linguistic evidence how you can say "obuu" came from "opu"
the words' must have various kind of changement.
The word is also found simply as shikko 窶堋オ窶堙≫?堋ア "pee", and the o- is clearly the same suffix of o-shiri (butt), o-naka (belly), etc. Being a "baby-word", (o)shikko is better left out the picture, remember also that it is not attested in ancient texts.stupidumboy said:again @Tomach
What does the Japanese word "窶堋オ窶堙≫?堋ア-shikko" mean?
and how can you explain the reason of "o" is prefix from the word "oshitko" ?
If you cut off all the comparisons with bad semantics, with modern words, with wrong root analysis, and with phonetic problems, what will be left? You gave 6 comparisons above, I rejected 4 of them from the Japanese point of view only : imagine what would happen if a specialist in Korean linguistic made the same work as me. And it took me just a glance to see the flaws of the comparisons : what would result of a deep analysis?I have 1,500 numbers of list and its too many to just say all of them are coincidence.
Well, I can provide the German versions:kaerupop said:And you had better compare English and German in these words.
True, but I would have appreciated it if you had said "between 1910 and 1945," instead of the alternative; it's better to keep politics out of academic discussions, in my humble opinion.kaerupop said:While Japan ruled Korea, many Japanese words went into Korean.
It is also important to keep it in mind that the word "aka" might not have meant "red" in ancient Japanese language. It would be a good example of color perception difference that modern Japanese still call green "blue" in some cases (just like ancient Chinese,) for instance traffic lights and vegetables.ToMach said:"aka" has not the meaning of "baby" but red, and a baby is just a "red child"
)19 number
modern Korean vowel(ㅏ[a]ㅓ[ツ??ㅕ[yu]ㅖ[ye]ㅗ[o]ㅘ[wa]ㅙ[we]ㅚ[oi]ㅛ[yo]ㅜ[wu]ㅝ[wo]ㅞ[wニ津テ]ㅟ[wi]ㅠ[yu]ㅡ[eu]ㅢ[eui]ㅣ)-21 number
Since I am not very familiar with linguistics,I just wrote those pronounciation mark blatantly loughly.
I am not sure about modern Japanese but I would just say
consonant number is about 14 and the vowel number is about 7.
(Again I can be wrong- i just can read and write 窶堙絶?堙ァ窶堋ェ窶堙 and 窶堋ゥ窶堋ス窶堋ゥ窶堙 but not so sure about classify them grammartically,I am just showing mathmatical method only here)
So here we just need to calculate the probability of 2 phoneme words correspondence between two languages.
Its simple (1/19+14-13)*1/21+7-7)*(1/19)
then we need to square this number.Thats B.
Can you get these calculated result number ?
Use your window calculator for engineering use-if that does not tell you anything -I recommend you to use matrix calculating programe.
The 5,000 number of resemblance is again too many to say put into coincidence list even if we just want to put prove it probablity methmatical method.
<the number of chances that we can find 1,250 matches in 100,000 words.>
Then you need to divide it by the number of every possible chances that you can make 2 phonemes words with using both languages' consonant and vowels as I mentioned above-thats the probability of <the number of chances that we can find 1,250 matches in 100,000 words.> towards every possible chance of making two.
By the way,does that really happend in reality?
How many number of the whole Japanese words that to be known so far?-we need to get this number first to design the method to make more reliable result.
ToMach said:The modern Japanese word "ue" 窶堋、窶堋ヲツ(ツ湘」ツ) was written in pre-war spelling as "uhe" 窶堋、窶堙? We know from the portuguese transcriptions and other evidence that modern /h/ was pronounced as a bilabial fricative [F], so it was uFe in Middle Japanese. In Old Japanese, it was a labial stop *p, as it is proven by old spellings in Chinese characters ex: ue < uFe is written 窶ーFティy in Kojiki 窶愿コ窶怒ツ鞘?倪?ケI, which was read *wu@?peyh (@=schwa, ?=glottal stop) in Early Middle Chinese (yubie in Modern Chinese) , with a *p. It agrees with evidence from Ryukyuan languages and internal reconstruction.
It has an alternate form *upa (see modern Japanese uwa- in uwagi ツ湘」窶吮?ヲ), and according to other evidence, it is the root of the word, and "upe" derives from the suffixation of -(C)i (C=unknown hypothetical consonnant). The details are too complex to be exposed here, please refer to the books quoted above.
"obuu" and related forms are later developments, the only attested form in ancient texts is opu, reconstructed as explained above (modern ou 窶堋ィ窶堋、 < oFu 窶堋ィ窶堙 < opu), and its meaning is "to carry a load". The meaning "to take somebody on one's back" is a later semantic development. To relate this opu to Korean "obu" you will have to show that the latter word existed at least in Middle Korean.
The word is also found simply as shikko 窶堋オ窶堙≫?堋ア "pee", and the o- is clearly the same suffix of o-shiri (butt), o-naka (belly), etc. Being a "baby-word", (o)shikko is better left out the picture, remember also that it is not attested in ancient texts.
If you cut off all the comparisons with bad semantics, with modern words, with wrong root analysis, and with phonetic problems, what will be left? You gave 6 comparisons above, I rejected 4 of them from the Japanese point of view only : imagine what would happen if a specialist in Korean linguistic made the same work as me. And it took me just a glance to see the flaws of the comparisons : what would result of a deep analysis?
What will be left will be a few mere coincidences if not supported by regular correspondences rules.
You should also read the following article about the "too many to be coincidence"-like argumentation:
How likely are chance resemblances between languages?
Very good point. In fact "aka" was always used to refer to the color "red", but it clearly derives form the same root as "akari" ("light"), "akebono" ("dawn"), "akiraka" (clear, evident).窶督シ窶督ウ窶堋オ said:It is also important to keep it in mind that the word "aka" might not have meant "red" in ancient Japanese language. It would be a good example of color perception difference that modern Japanese still call green "blue" in some cases (just like ancient Chinese,) for instance traffic lights and vegetables.
They say that "aka" used to include yellow, and meant "bright" ("akarui" in modern Japanese.)
My point is not that much about statistics but about methodology : what is acceptable as a comparison and what is not. With elastic semantics (ex: face vs familiar), use of recent words (ex: shikko), wrong analysis (ex: akago), ignorance of the history of the languages (ex: ue) and no care for regularity in sound correspondances, you can build a list of cognates (related words) out of nothing.stupidumboy said:@Tomach,What you'd provided me with the webpage link(How likely are chance resemblances between languages?
-- How likely are chance resemblances between languages?) that explained the formula of calculating the probability (in terms of matched chance between two far flung languages)is still very lack of convincing me
You will have first to prove that there are 1,250 words matching! I rejected most of your list with a quick glance from the Japanese point of view only. With a careful inspection of both Japanese and Korean words, I am pretty sure that only a few words will remain. And even then, without clear regular sound correspondences, you CANNOT say that these words are related.Anyways ,Let's just make the chance that we can find 1,250 matches in 100,000 words.
Let me explain about the meaning of 1,250 and 100,000 respectively.
1,250 is the matches number from the list what I mentioned (Yes the 5,000 list by two authors) by the way,I made the number become lessened because you rejected 4 out of 6 list therefore I pick the number 1,250 instead of 5,000
Sorry, I didn't understand, I am not a mathematician. But again, everything depends on what you accept to include in your list.So here we just need to calculate the probability of 2 phoneme words correspondence between two languages.
I don't understand what you mean.Did you successfully show the evidence in these following standpoints?
The scientific study of human language, including:
Phonetics (physical nature of speech)
Phonology (use of sounds in language)
Morphology (word formation)
Syntax (sentence structure) -I will minus this aspect because we are only compare words here-ok.
Semantics (meaning of words & how they combine into sentences)
Pragmatics (effect of situation on language use)
Those parts should be explained if you really want to make linguistic evidence.
one ---eins--- hitotsu
two ---zwei--- hutatsu
three ---drei-- mittsu
four ---vier--- 'yottsu
five ---fünf--- 'itsutsu
six ---sechs---- muttsu
seven --sieben-- nanatsu
eight --acht-- 'yattsu
nine --neun-- kokonotsu
ten ---zehn--- too
hand ---Hand-- te
foot ---Fuß-- 'ashi
nose --Nase-- hana
eye ---Auge--- me
tooth ---Zahn-- ha
ear ---Ohr--- mimi
hair ---Haar--- ke
head ---Kopf-- 'atama
tongue --Zunge-- sita
belly ---Bauch-- hara
back ---Rücken-- senaka
Originally Posted by stupidumboy
Korean word<----------->Japanese words
1.me(female)<---->mesu(pistil),mesu(animal female),megami(goddess),siutome(mother in law),yome(daughter in law),ohime(princess),imo(sisters),mei(niece)
2.mot(highest)<-->motomo(highest)
3.tongmu(pal)<--->tomo(friend)
4.koji(beggar)<--->kojiki(beggar)
5.si(husband family side)<--->siuto(father in law),siutome(mother in law)
6.bo(a person)<--->tumbo(a deaf),akanbo(baby),torobo(thief),nobpo(a tall person)
Read again : I said clear regular sound correspondences. The basis of comparative & historical linguistics is the principle of regularity in sound change : you don't have some words coming up with their "a" becoming "o", others becoming "e" and still others simply losing it. A sound change X>Y apply to every occurence of X in every word, and every exception have an explanation.stupidumboy said:but I am very curious why you cannot see any clear sound correspondence from the list below.
OK I accept the Japanese word. But what about the Korean one?1.me(female)<---->mesu(pistil),mesu(animal female),megami(goddess),siutome(mother in law),yome(daughter in law),ohime(princess),imo(sisters),mei(niece)
The meaning is problematic, because motomo means "very much", "more". And how do you explain that the ending "-omo" is not there in Korean?2.mot(highest)<-->motomo(highest)
Japanese word is OK, but how do you explain that the same vowel "o" (in fact a central vowel in Old Japanese) corresponds to 2 different vowels in Korean?3.tongmu(pal)<--->tomo(friend)
Rejected : kojiki is a corruption of kot(u)-jiki, the reading of the chinese word ナ津ョツ食4.koji(beggar)<--->kojiki(beggar)
Problematic : si-uto(me) can refer to the father/mother of both husband and wife side. The correct reconstruction would be : si- = "parent"-in-law5.si(husband family side)<--->siuto(father in law),siutome(mother in law)
Rejected : none of those words appear at least before 1600, and the bo(u) in it is the chinese word 窶天.6.bo(a person)<--->tumbo(a deaf),akanbo(baby),torobo(thief),nobpo(a tall person)
1.me(female)<---->mesu(pistil),mesu(animal female),megami(goddess),siutome(mother in law),yome(daughter in law),ohime(princess),imo(sisters),mei(niece)
OK I accept the Japanese word. But what about the Korean one?
2.mot(highest)<-->motomo(highest)
The meaning is problematic, because motomo means "very much", "more". And how do you explain that the ending "-omo" is not there in Korean?
3.tongmu(pal)<--->tomo(friend)
Japanese word is OK, but how do you explain that the same vowel "o" (in fact a central vowel in Old Japanese) corresponds to 2 different vowels in Korean?
4.koji(beggar)<--->kojiki(beggar)
Rejected : kojiki is a corruption of kot(u)-jiki, the reading of the chinese word ナ津ョツ食
5.si(husband family side)<--->siuto(father in law),siutome(mother in law)
Problematic : si-uto(me) can refer to the father/mother of both husband and wife side. The correct reconstruction would be : si- = "parent"-in-law
6.bo(a person)<--->tumbo(a deaf),akanbo(baby),torobo(thief),nobpo(a tall person)
Rejected : none of those words appear at least before 1600, and the bo(u) in it is the chinese word 窶天.
you don't have some words coming up with their "a" becoming "o", others becoming "e" and still others simply losing it. A sound change X>Y apply to every occurence of X in every word, and every exception have an explanation.
If you assume that 2 languages A and B are related, it means that they come from a common ancestor "proto-AB". In language A, the sound X of proto-AB became regularly Y according to the rule above, while in language B it became Z. In consequence we have a regular correspondance of Y-Z in language A and B, reflecting the sound X of proto-AB.
To prove that two language are related, you have to show correspondence rules of the type :
The sound Y in the environment W in language A always correspond to sound Z in language B
It doesn't matter if the sounds are similar or not : similarity can be coincidental, not correspondence regularity.
Take for example the folowing words for numerals :
"1" : one (English) / un (French) / eka (Sanskrit) / heis (Greek) / nane (Celtic Manx) / aiwa (Iranian)
"4" : four (Eng) / quatre (Fr) / catvar (Skr)/ tettares (Grk) / kiare (CMx) cÛaùwaßrah (Ira)
"5" : five (Eng) / cinq (Fr) / pañca (Skr)/ pente (Grk) / queig (CMx) / pancÛa (Ira)
Most of those words don't really look like, but they are still related because their sounds correspond regularly, and they derive from the proto-Indo-European words :
1 = *oinos
4 = *kwetores
5 = *penkwe
The basis of comparative & historical linguistics is the principle of regularity in sound change
So you have to prove that this dialectal "me" is an archaic form and not just a derivation of Seoul "moni"stupidumboy said:메[me] means "female" but its southern dialect morpheme -for example halme(grandmother),ome (mother) are korean southern local dialect words.
halmoni(grandmother),omoni(mother) are standard seoul local language and they are more widely spoken in the whole korea but if you come down to the southern province of peninsula -you would be likely to hear halme,ome more often.
The word is originally "motomo" and means "more", "much", not "the highest"Sorry I wanted to mention "窶堙?窶堙≫?堙??堙?[ツ催??堙?] " -I apologize for my carelessness and error."窶堙?窶堙≫?堙??堙?[ツ催??堙?] " means "the top" ,"the highest","No 1",is it right?
Korean word 맏(mat) is known to be stemming from the old word mot(I cannot write the old writing here sorry ) and mot has the same meaning of "窶堙?窶堙≫?堙??堙?[ツ催??堙?] "
So we have no choice than to reject this comparions : half of the word cannot just vanish like thatI cannot answer for your question that asking about additional "omo",sorry.
Yes it matters : if rewritten as proto-Japanese *t@m@, the japanese word looks then less "similar". But the most important is that the same vowel "o" of Japanese corresponds to both Korean "o" and "u", which requires an explanationDoes it matter? I do not know anything about the "central vowel"
Just both words look very similiar plus they have the same meaning.
But again,as you like often mention-they might have been coincidence or whatever.
Who knows if the Jpaanese word "tomo" came from Korean word "tongmu" ?
Possible, but unlikely. Those words can be compared to the use of sino-japanese word bôzu 窶天ナステ・ ("monk") to call some men.ok BUT regardless of the year,what if the Japanese people just agreed to use Chinese word "窶天" when they wrote the pronounciation "bo" in those Japanese words above?
Do you think every Japanese word has correspondenting writing and meaning towards Chinese words? I think the people could have agreeded to write some Chinese characters that shows similiar pronounciation or (whatever) other reasons with Japanese words regardless of the matched meaning.
Stop : as you said yourself, you are not a linguist, so don't speak too much about what you clearly don't know.But there could be exceptions everywhere,the linguistic regulation is only according to the some agreements that made by only so called "linguists" people.
Thats just one of the standards for the studying by their interets
Then how do you intend to resolve language issues? You study language with linguistics, scientific analysis of the human language(s). Even if you can look for a little help from psychology, biology, archeology, etc for different matters, linguistics remain at the core.we cannot solve every language related problems by linguistic theories only.
Yes, linguistics may not be able to recover every relationship between languages, but this is because of lack of data/research, and there nothing except linguistics able to demonstrate relationship between languagesthat cannot tell every language related mysteries but yes so far ,in humans conception,its the most scientific and trustworthy method to solve language related problems rationally)
Please do not bring up religious matters in the discussion.Well the God is watching us playing but nobody knows how many % of the complete providences of the universe that we can understad.
In other words,we are making efforts to find as many regulations of God's playing the chess as possible we can.
lexico said:Moreover may I remind you that many Korean words were borrowed into Japanese during that same period? This is a very natural 2-way process that is observed between many languages that come into contact with another, and one must strive to get the "whole picture."
I'll read it.窶督シ窶督ウ窶堋オ said:The hypothesis was already proposed in a short story Forward written by a novelist Yoshinori Shimizu...
Why do you think Japanese is different from Korean in these basic words?stupidumboy said:native Korean numeral:1[hana] 2[tul] 3[set] 4[net] 5[tasot] 6[yosot] 7[ilgop] 8[yodol] 9[ahop] 10[yol]