Origin Of Japanese Language

[ToMach]

ok some easy examples comes from that book
I would love to see you to check authenticity of the proto japanese on these following list and explain about the link between two languages.(whether those judgement of the two authors seems reasonable or not)?

I don't see any proto-Japanese there, only modern standard Japanese, so this is irrelevant. We must compare ancient languages, not modern ones.
We should check if some of these words are not simply modern creations or recent borrowings, but I don't have my dictionaries with me. And where do the Korean words come from? Is this modern Korean?
Secondly some of the comparisons are doubtful form the point of view of semantics, like Korean "face" and Japanese "become attached to, familiar", or "water" and "leaking".
Then these are only surface similarities, different from regular correspondences : Korean "o" correspond to Japanese "o", "u" to both J "o" and"u", and J. "o" to both K. "o" and "u".
In conclusion I would not be convinced by 1,500 or even 3,000 comparisons like those.

ﾅｽRﾋ廩=modern standard seoul korean language read it as "sanro"
and that book brought an example there is a place pronounced as "sanji-but written as ﾅｽRﾋ廩" near Kitakyushu in Japan unlike general recognized kanji prononciation version -"yamaji"
Jil(ﾋ廩) is Korean proto word that had been spoken in the southern part of peninsula. San(ﾅｽR) is the korean word means "mountain"
Therefore both of authors judged that place name stem from the southern dialect korean words-"sanji ﾅｽRﾋ廩"
The same meaning word can be found in Japanese place names in Kyushu island and near Kobe such as
"ﾋ?｢窶鷲ﾋ廩-asoji" ,"窶儻ﾋ廩-awaji" those pronounciation part "ji" came from the southern dialect korean word "jil" originally as those authors told in the book.

Sorry but I didn't get it. "san" is of course the chinese-borrowed reading of ﾅｽR, and Japanese "-ji" < Old Japanese *-N-ti simply means "way, road". And what is the meaning of that putative proto-Korean *jil?

for answering to the last part of your opinion about specialists mentioning
Why should their name be mentioned?
Looking for new findings are not meant to be included in the linguistic work

Why? Because you cannot claim to know proto-Korean or proto-Japanese without knowing those works and the basic but very tricky problems they try to solve. You cannot hope to supersed decennies of intensive research and debate by highly competent specialists with a reconstruction poping up out of thin air.

 

[ToMach]

By the way, here is a quick list of books to seriously get started in Old Japanese, proto-Japanese and its origins :
Bentley, John. 2001. A Descriptive Grammar of Early Old Japanese Prose. Brill
Martin, Samuel E. 1987. The Japanese Language Through Time. Yale University Press
Miyake, Marc Hideo. 2003. Old Japanese: A Phonetic Reconstruction. RoutledgeCurzon
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press
Unger, J. Marshall. 1993. Studies in Early Japanese Morphophonemics. Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications
John B. Whitman. 2002. The Phonological Basis for the Comparison of Japanese and Korean. University of Michigan
Alexander Vovin & 窶卍ｷ窶彡ﾂ俊ﾅｽﾃｷ 2003 ﾂ『窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ津ｪﾅ地窶慊斃彑窶堙固陳ｻﾂ催敖』 ﾂ坂?伉催帚?愿ｺ窶怒窶｢ﾂｶ窶ｰﾂｻﾅ陳､窶ｹ窶?ﾆ短ﾆ停?愴耽ﾂー (in English and Japanese)

 

[canadian_kor]

I'm not promoting Korean nationalism or anything like that here, but it is obvious that the Japanese language has its roots in ancient Korean - with some influences from Ainu and Polynesian. Many modern Japanese scholars have refused to believe that there are any strong connections between Japan and Korea, linguistically or genetically.

 

[ax]

I have heard a talk by Professor Unger during his visit in Taipei about the origin of Japanese language. He explained about the Altaic and Uralic superlanguages and that Japanese as well as Turkish fall under Altaic family. He showed some hypothesis from other linguists and how they have been wrong.

He didn't come up to conclusion as to where Japanese language come from, so it remains a mistery. However he did pointed out about a civilization in Northern Korea long ago that might speak Japanese, but this civilization was all engulfed by a huge volcano eruption at that time. And how Japanse come to be spoken later in Japan, I do not remember any clue to that. But he mentioned alot about language planning in Japan that shape the language as it is now.

ax

 

[ToMach]

I'm not promoting Korean nationalism or anything like that here, but it is obvious that the Japanese language has its roots in ancient Korean - with some influences from Ainu and Polynesian.

Why obvious? The only thing obvious between Korean and Japanese is that they have a similar grammar typology, which isn't a proof of common origin. Of course there is evidence of an influence between the two languages, but you cannot easily conclude that Japanese has its roots in Korean.

Many modern Japanese scholars have refused to believe that there are any strong connections between Japan and Korea, linguistically or genetically

This is something I hear quite often, but as always this is a just a mere prejudice without foundation (of course I don't talk about lunatics and fanatics, but about scholars).
Since the Edo period and Arai Hakuseki ﾂ新ﾋ?､窶昶?卍静 's (1657-1725) work comparing Korean and Japanese, the theory of a genetic relationship between Japanese and Korean languages has always been the most popular one. This is true even for the climax of Japanese nationalism : Kanazawa Shousaburou 窶ｹﾃ?窶佚ｲﾂ渉ｯﾅｽOﾋ弸 (1872-1967) wrote a dissertation in 1912 about the common origin of Japanese and Korean.
The problem is not about the relation between the two languages, but how it is seen : Korean nationalists view Japanese as a derivate (=residual trash?) of Korean, while Japanese nationalists reverse this view, claiming that Korean is just a left-over dialect of Japanese, as written by Kanazawa who tried to justify the annexion of Korea by Japan in 1910. Of course both approaches are in contradiction with orthodox historical linguistics, who would say that both Japanese and Korean branched off a same ancestor. But recent studies tend to show that in fact they do not.

I have heard a talk by Professor Unger during his visit in Taipei about the origin of Japanese language. He explained about the Altaic and Uralic superlanguages and that Japanese as well as Turkish fall under Altaic family. He showed some hypothesis from other linguists and how they have been wrong.

Well, prof. Unger is a great specialist of Japanese, but not of Altaic languages in general. The hypothesis of a relation of Uralic languages (Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, Samoyede, etc) with Altaic ones has been abandonned a long time ago. And the Altaic theory, relating Mongolian, Manchu-Tungus, Turkish, and in some versions Korean and Japanese is also now rejected by most of the scholars in the field.

 

[bossel]

Well, prof. Unger is a great specialist of Japanese, but not of Altaic languages in general. The hypothesis of Uralic languages (Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, Samoyede, etc) with Altaic ones has been abandonned a long time ago. And the Altaic theory, relating Mongolian, Manchu-Tungus, Turkish, and in some versions Korean and Japanese is also now rejected by most of the scholars in the field.

Most scholars in the field? Don't know if that is true, but the problem is that there are quite a few different theories around. Can't see that the theories you mentioned are as abandoned as you say. In the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences you'll find an article from 2002 by M. Ruhlen proposing Eurasiatic as a super family where it says:

"3.5. Eurasiatic

Ruhlen (1994) offers evidence connecting Eurasiatic with both Afro-Asiatic and Amerind; Starostin, however, has presented evidence linking Nostratic and Dene-Caucasian (Starostin 1989). The internal structure of Eurasiatic is unclear, but Greenberg posits a subgroup consisting of Korean, Japanese, and Ainu. The Nostraticists exclude Ainu from their family and consider Korean and Japanese as part of Altaic, rather than coordinate to it."

I think, nothing is settled yet.

 

[ToMach]

Most scholars in the field? Don't know if that is true, but the problem is that there are quite a few different theories around. Can't see that the theories you mentioned are as abandoned as you say. In the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences you'll find an article from 2002 by M. Ruhlen proposing Eurasiatic as a super family where it says:
"3.5. Eurasiatic
Ruhlen (1994) offers evidence connecting Eurasiatic with both Afro-Asiatic and Amerind; Starostin, however, has presented evidence linking Nostratic and Dene-Caucasian (Starostin 1989). The internal structure of Eurasiatic is unclear, but Greenberg posits a subgroup consisting of Korean, Japanese, and Ainu. The Nostraticists exclude Ainu from their family and consider Korean and Japanese as part of Altaic, rather than coordinate to it."

Good point! You mentionned in fact the last believers of the Altaic theory : Starostin and co.
A very critical review of the Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages by Starostin & co should appear in the next issue of Diachronica (international journal of historical linguistics).
For critics of Starostin's "Sino-Caucasian", see :
Alexander Vovin -- "Building a 'bum-pa for Sino-Caucasian -- a reply to Sergei Starostin's reply," in Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 30.1 (January 2002), pp. 154-171.
On Greenberg and Ruhlen's Eurasiatic and methodology of mass comparison see:
Stefan Georg & Alexander Vovin "From mass comparison to mess comparison: Greenberg's Indo-European and its Closest Relatives" Diachronica 20:2. 2003. (pp. 331–362)

I think, nothing is settled yet

I have the same opinion : nothing is settled, which means nothing is proved. I don't say that the so-called "Altaic languages" could not be ultimately related, but the current theory doesn't prove that they are.

For people really interested in proto-Japanese, you can read the following free on-line article (pdf) :
Marc Hideo Miyake, "Philological evidence for *e and *o in Pre-Old Japanese"

 

[stupidumboy]

whatevery the linguistic theories that support relation between two languages,
I foudn the work of the book was really useful for me to learn Japanese language more easily by reminding each correspondent or similiar looking Korean words.

Thats enough for me.

Linguistic thoeries is important in academic research but I do not need them personally.

Their 1,500 words finding is really cool.

today's list from the book

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)

 

[ToMach]

whatevery the linguistic theories that support relation between two languages,
I foudn the work of the book was really useful for me to learn Japanese language more easily by reminding each correspondent or similiar looking Korean words.Thats enough for me.

I you are happy with those funny comparisons, that's fine, but since we are talking about REAL linguistics, you'd better go to this thread :
Japanese and other languages(mere coincidence)

 

[stupidumboy]

I don't see any proto-Japanese there, only modern standard Japanese, so this is irrelevant. We must compare ancient languages, not modern ones.
We should check if some of these words are not simply modern creations or recent borrowings, but I don't have my dictionaries with me. And where do the Korean words come from? Is this modern Korean?
Secondly some of the comparisons are doubtful form the point of view of semantics, like Korean "face" and Japanese "become attached to, familiar", or "water" and "leaking".
Then these are only surface similarities, different from regular correspondences : Korean "o" correspond to Japanese "o", "u" to both J "o" and"u", and J. "o" to both K. "o" and "u".
In conclusion I would not be convinced by 1,500 or even 3,000 comparisons like those.



Sorry but I didn't get it. "san" is of course the chinese-borrowed reading of ﾅｽR, and Japanese "-ji" < Old Japanese *-N-ti simply means "way, road". And what is the meaning of that putative proto-Korean *jil?


Why? Because you cannot claim to know proto-Korean or proto-Japanese without knowing those works and the basic but very tricky problems they try to solve. You cannot hope to supersed decennies of intensive research and debate by highly competent specialists with a reconstruction poping up out of thin air.

to anwer quickly for your questions.

1.sorry I remembered wrong,today I checked that book again and it said they collected 5,000 numbers ﾅ津??猫ﾅ津ｪ words in both languages(therefore foreign language and chinese borrowed ones were not included on their work)
But the book showed only 1,500 list and plan to publish more list in the next publishing.

They used comparision method of the root of each listed word.

2.the book just said that 'Jil' is the Old southern dialect Korean word that means "road" and that is the origin for some japanese place names "ji"

3.OK I respect your scholar spirit.

 

[ToMach]

1.sorry I remembered wrong,today I checked that book again and it said they collected 5,000 numbers ﾅ津??猫ﾅ津ｪ words in both languages(therefore foreign language and chinese borrowed ones were not included on their work)

As I said, their methodology is flawed and doesn't meet the scientific critera of historical linguistics. It is not a matter of number.

They used comparision method of the root of each listed word.

Roots? I see mostly complete words in the comparisons

2.the book just said that 'Jil' is the Old southern dialect Korean word that means "road" and that is the origin for some japanese place names "ji"

If the authors were really specialists of Japanese and they were trying to extract the "roots" of the words, they would recognize the root *ti in "ji" < di < *n+ti, the same root present in "michi" < mi+ti, with the meaning of "road". And a local dialect word does not allow us to say it is proto-something

 

[longbow]

the japanese speaking sounds like the wu dialect of china to me although their grammars are totally different.

 

[lexico]

Hello, ToMach!

I'm back to reread the material in this thread.
My knowledge of linguistics & Japanese history is rather lacking, so please bear with me.

But it has been criticized from a linguistic point of view, and with recent archeological discoveries that may settle the arrival of rice agriculture in Japan several centuries before 400 BC there is now great doubt about it. We would also have to prove that those farmers spoke a language related to Japanese, which is difficult.

I gather what you're saying can be summarized;
1. 400BC Origin of agriculture by the Yayoi used to be the accepted theory.
2. There has been objections to this theory from linguistic evidence.
3. Archeology also says Origin was earlier by 100's of years.
4. There is no direct evidence that Yayoian & Japanese are genetically related.
Did I understand you correctly? If so, the Science/NYT article is quoting outdated material.

This a difficult problem, but the only thing we can say is that some place names recorded in ancient Chinese chronicles as being of the kingdom of Koguryo present similarities to the Japanese language.

The metalinguistic comments "about" the Kokuryo language and its neighbors come from the Chinese dynastic histories; however, the "Kokuryo" place name material itself comes from a single source compiled during the Koryo period: The History of the Three Kingdoms, 1145, books 35,37. About a dozen more Kokuryo gloss can be found scattered in the Chinese histories.

So this "pseudo-Koguryo" language once spoken in the Korean peninsula may have been related to Japanese. By the way, pseudo-Koguryo has also some similarities with the Korean language, maybe a result of mutual influence, or of a genetic link.

Shirokogorov & Kim, Jong Bae, discussed the existence of PaleoSiberians or PaleoAsians from the Neolithic Period. There were certainly more than 1 language groups within this loose term, PaleoAsian. But Lee, Ki Moon carefully suggests the possiblity that what we normally consider of "Kokuryo" origin may very well have come from "a certain PaleoAsian substratum." I believe the uncertainty about the true identity of the so-called "Kokuryo" place names is why you used the term pseudo-Kokuryo. I tend to agree with your nomenclature; PaleoAsian is too broad, Kokuryo may be misleading. One can suggest Weimo/Yemaek but there's still the uncertainty. So, pseudo-Kokuryo for now.

If you have access to PaleoGeographic maps of the early post galcial period when the sea level was some 150-200m lower than what it is now, you will find the contour of the coast lines showing no Bohai Sea, no Yellow Sea, no Sea of Japan, but rivers, land, and lakes instead. One version of this map even shows the Yangtze and the Huanghe converging before it enters the Pacific. Another version shows the rivers Huanhe, Yalu, rivers of West Coast Korea, rivers of Kyushu and SW Honshu all converging and entering the Pacific somewhere between Ryukyu and Quelpart Is. PaleoAmur flowed into a giant coastal lake in the middle of what if now Sea of Japan/Eastern Sea and entered the Pacific through what is now Tsugaru Strait.

This Early Neolithic natural geography must have allowed easy travel on foot over the coastal region which connected S.E.Asia, E. China, Taiwan, The Ryukyu Archipelago, Korea, The Japanese Archipelago, The Kurile Archipelago, and the Maritime Region near the Amur. I wonder how the PaeloHuanghe and PaleoAmur, with their water life (fish, freshwater shells and conches), and natural barrier, may have influenced the many cultures and languages of the N Pacific Coast that flourished in the early neolithic period. I wonder if you think PaleoGeographic information can be of use in historical study of languages and peoples of Japan.

I don't see what you mean by this. I would say that part of the Japanese nobles were bilingual in Japanese and Paekchean

That is a possible interpretation of it, but we don't know for sure because often times histories don't talk about language identities or the presence of interpreters. As you seem to suggest, it's hard to make a judgement on this.

 

[miles7tp]

There are few historical sources about the languages of Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo.

notice : There are few historical sources about the languages of Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo.
There were 3 countries(Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo) in the Korean Peninsula and a part of Manchuria in ancient times.

1. Old Japanese has some resemblance to the language of Goguryeo.
2. The language of Silla has some resemblance to the language of Baekje.
3. Old Japanese has "little" resemblance to the language of Silla.
4. The origin of Korean is the language of Silla which destroyed Baekje and Goguryeo.

 

[canadian_kor]

notice : There are few historical sources about the languages of Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo.
There were 3 countries(Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo) in the Korean Peninsula and a part of Manchuria in ancient times.

1. Old Japanese has some resemblance to the language of Goguryeo.
2. The language of Silla has some resemblance to the language of Baekje.
3. Old Japanese has "little" resemblance to the language of Silla.
4. The origin of Korean is the language of Silla which destroyed Baekje and Goguryeo.

Sorry kaerupop, but Silla and Paekche were of similar linguistic stock while the Koguryo language was a related but different language. Koguryo was more closely linked to the Altaic-Tungusic family, while Silla and Paekche had some Paleolithic elements.

 

[miles7tp]

The Baekje people used 2 languages.

The Baekje people used 2 languages.
The ruling class used the language like Goguryeo language and the other used the language like Silla language. They had different racial characteristics.

There are few historical sources about the languages of Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo.
We know only 80 words of Goguryeo language.

Baekje = Paekche, Goguryeo = Koguryo

 

[ToMach]

I'm back to reread the material in this thread.
My knowledge of linguistics & Japanese history is rather lacking, so please bear with me.
I gather what you're saying can be summarized;
1. 400BC Origin of agriculture by the Yayoi used to be the accepted theory.
2. There has been objections to this theory from linguistic evidence.
3. Archeology also says Origin was earlier by 100's of years.
4. There is no direct evidence that Yayoian & Japanese are genetically related.
Did I understand you correctly? If so, the Science/NYT article is quoting outdated material.

Yes, you understand well, but about 4., we simply don't know what language(s) the Yayoi people spoke, so there is no way to know if there is a link with Japanese.

Shirokogorov & Kim, Jong Bae, discussed the existence of PaleoSiberians or PaleoAsians from the Neolithic Period

Can you give the reference please?

I believe the uncertainty about the true identity of the so-called "Kokuryo" place names is why you used the term pseudo-Kokuryo. I tend to agree with your nomenclature

We don't what is the language of the Koguryo place names recorded in ancient Chronicles, so it is safer to call it "pseudo-Koguryo"

Sorry kaerupop, but Silla and Paekche were of similar linguistic stock while the Koguryo language was a related but different language. Koguryo was more closely linked to the Altaic-Tungusic family, while Silla and Paekche had some Paleolithic elements.

Is there clear evidence relating pseudo-Koguryo with Tungusic languages? For Altaic, I already said somewhere that it is better left out.
What do you call "paleolithic elements"?

 

[lexico]

Paleo-Asiatic Archeology before 1976, Shirokogoroff, Kim Jong Bae, et al.

Can you give the reference please?

Just to answer this one question, but more to come later. I have to reload my windows. Books, aritcles all demarked by "".

I do not have Shirokogoroff's original work, and am only quoting second hand via Kim, Jong Bae. Verify with original text or a reliable full translation. I've read with as much exactness as possible, but Kim's interpretation may have seeped in. What you are given have been translated in excerpts 3 times from Russian! This is a rather long and winding list of quotes, but I thought some people might find it useful.

According to Kim, Jong Bae 金窶凖･窶掟, ﾂ"ﾅ?ﾃ佛｡ﾂ?窶督ｯ窶伉ｰ窶｢ﾂｶ窶ｰﾂｻ의 窶ｹNﾅ陳ｹ,ﾂ" 窶ｺ{ﾂ術硏窶ｹ窶?窶湾ﾂ鞘? 2, ﾂ坂?壺?氾ｭ窶佚･窶ｺ{ﾂ校ﾂ出窶敕??｢窶? 3rd edition, 1976 (Korean with English summary & abridged English index), p. 10,

"Paleo-Asiatic Theory is introduced by Shirokogoroff, S. M., "Social Organization of Northern Tungus," ﾂ静ｬ窶ｹv窶｢ﾃ帚?凖ｮ 窶彡窶吮??ﾂ最ｽﾅ津暗ｦﾂ｡ (1941) p. 298, who says,

'The Tungus originated in the south...
The Tungus and the Paleo-Asiatics migrated along a certain path...
The Korean stock is one among the many Paleo-Asiatic peoples.
The 濊 and ﾃｦﾂｹ belong to the direct ancestral line from which modern Korean descended,
The 濊 and ﾃｦﾂｹ were Paleo-Asiatics.'"
(I am not too sure whether Shirokogoroff mentioned the 濊 and ﾃｦﾂｹ explicitly. That's how the book reads, however needs verification. If you can find the original text or a reliable translation, maybe you can correct me.)

My notes: The 濊, ﾃｦﾂｹ, or 濊ﾃｦﾂｻ found in the Chinese dynastic histories, ﾅｽj窶ｹL, ﾅ?ﾂｿﾂ鞘?? ﾅ津｣ﾅ?ﾂｿﾂ鞘?? and ﾅｽOﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾅｽu are also assumed by some scholars to be the ancestral or tribal designation of the early Kokuryo people prior to 4 CE. The 濊 and ﾃｦﾂｹ also appear later in the scattered works of the 7th century Tang geographer ﾃｦﾃ俄?竸ﾂ's ﾅ津δ債｡ﾅ担ﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾅｽu (alias ﾅ津δ債｡ﾅ担ﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾃ｣p窶慊ｹ窶板｢窶ｹL, ﾅ津δ債｡ﾅ担ﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾃ｣p窶慊ｹﾅｽlﾋ?篠述, quoted in ﾅｽOﾅ｡ﾂ?ﾅｽj窶ｹL, book 37) as two marginalized remnants of the ancient states of 濊ﾅ｡ﾂ? and ﾃｦﾂｹﾅ｡ﾂ?. It is believed that the 濊 and ﾃｦﾂｹ resided in central Korea, and some also resided in a region in northeast Korea or in the Maritime region, possibly stretching to the lower Amur. Other archeological evidence point to a much wider distribution during the Chin (3rd-5th c. CE) period, however, a comprehensive definition has not been formulated. Kim believes that the 濊ﾃｦﾂｻ people were the main stock of the State of (ﾅ津?窶卍ｩ窶朗 documented 3rd century to 198 BCE. End of my notes.

Quting Okladnikov, A. P., 1965, "The Soviet Far East," Univ. of Toronto Press, pp. 62-63 and 窶卍ｹ窶ｹﾂ?#63940;ﾃ･U, 1926 <<窶猫ﾅｽjﾋ?遺?楼窶堙娯?愿ｺ窶怒>>, p. 373 says,

"The neolithic people of the Russian Maritime Region were in contact with the neolitic people of Korea. The cultural and ethnic connection is not surprising considering the natural geography."

Quoting Okladnikov, A. P., Ibid., p. 63, says,

"The neolithic remains in Korea (e.g. ﾅ?ﾋ愬ｽR 窶愬椎ｽO窶慊ｴﾋ?｢ﾂ静? are identical to those found in the Southern Maritime Region...
It appears that the wide region ecompassing the Maritime Region, Korea, and Japan were inhabited by peoples in close contact, or closely related peoples."

Quoting Schmidt via Levin saying, "The Tungus merged with Paleo-Asiatics, and also absorbed their language." (Levin, M. G., 1963, Ethnic Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia, Univ. of Toronto Press, p. 164)

Quoting Levin (Ibid., p.171), says,

"The Tungusic peoples developed by merging with a southern proto-stock of the ancient Yukaghirs...
Due to this southern origin...the Tungusic languages spread as they absorbed Paleo-Asiatic elements...
In the process of intermarriage, The Tungusic speakers received some amount of Paleo-Asiatic culture."

Quoting E. A. Kreynovich via Levin (Ibid., p. 305), says,

"The Gilyaks (Nivx) are one Paeo-Asiatic stock...
The Gilyak language is connected to the Korean language."

Kim, Jong Bae, although quoting Shirokogoroff extensively, differs somewhat from Shirokogoroff.

"The Korean stock are a people distinct from the Tungus. Paleo-Asiatics are not the direct ancestor of Modern Koreans, although Paleo-Asiatic elements may have contributed to the formation of Koreans as one component." (my summary of Kim)

From this, it seems that Kim (mis-)interprets Shirokogoroff as seeing Koreans as a branch of the Tungus, which is not what Shirokogoroff is saying, and has no foundation language-wise. Kim is distancing himself from (what he thinks is) Shirokogoroff's idea. Because of this, his statement of denying the primary role of Paleo-Asiatic people in the formation of the Korean peoples and its languages may have to be underrated. But the rest of his archeological survey is quite excellent in my view.

Later, Lee, Ki Moon, emphasizes, quoting Kreynovich, that Korean-Giylak connection was never that of genetic kinship, but that of mutual influence.

A linguist Kang, Kil Woon, did an extensive but loose comparison between Korean and Gilyak; a very long and interesting list; really can't say much for now.

 

[lexico]

Some Questions of Archeology

Silla and Paekche had some Paleolithic elements.

Maybe you meant Paleo-Asian elements from the neolithic period?
There is a sharp break between the paleolithics and the neolithics worldwide, and Korea seems to be no different. However, neolithic culture should have absorbed some elements from the paleolithics, perhaps; but to what degree, i don't know. Another thing I am curious about is what Japanese archeology says for Japan, or Chinese for China. Or even other parts of the world.
I hope someone can fill in please?

 

[stupidumboy]

anybody know both of Korean and Japanese language at the same time?

I know both languages but my linguistic knowledge is very short ,plus my Jpanese is not very enough to read some heavy linguistic related materials.

EDIT:I do not to trust any comparative lingusts' perspective if he/she does not know both languages at the same time.

his/her perspective cannot go further from other linguists achivement.
Plus he/she cannot explain properly.

Its just very common sense if a comparative linguist attempts to make some perspective between two languages,at least he/she should know both languages at the same time.(NO? )

 

[stupidumboy]

I think I need to go to the library and then start to learn linguistic terms.

Being engineering major student,I think it has been for a while since I grabbed the linguistic book last time.

But I think only I know both languages at the same time on this thread.
At least I passed the minimum qualification to leave comment on both language comparision here.

:sorry:

 

[ToMach]

EDIT:I do not to trust any comparative lingusts' perspective if he/she does not know both languages at the same time.
his/her perspective cannot go further from other linguists achivement.
Plus he/she cannot explain properly.
Its just very common sense if a comparative linguist attempts to make some perspective between two languages,at least he/she should know both languages at the same time.(NO? )

Speaking both languages is not enough, you must have a good knowledge in :
1. historical linguitics (methodology)
2. the history of both languages (material)
For instance, speaking modern standard japanese is not the same knowing Old Japanese

 

[stupidumboy]

Speaking both languages is not enough, you must have a good knowledge in :
1. historical linguitics (methodology)
2. the history of both languages (material)
For instance, speaking modern standard japanese is not the same knowing Old Japanese

Of course,I told about minimum requirement.

 

[stupidumboy]

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.

ﾅ津??猫Korean word--------------------->ﾅ津??猫 Japanese word
sar(passed,disappearing)------------>saru(go past)-窶ｹﾅｽ窶堙ｩ
simida(affect,soak)---------------->simiru(spread,being affected)-ﾂ静ｵ窶堙昶?堙ｩ
aka(nursing baby)---------------->akago(nursing baby)-窶堋?窶堋ｩ-窶堋ｲ[ﾂ静版ｽq]
ojim(urine)*old korean word*------------>ositko(urine)-窶堋ｨ窶堋ｵ窶堙≫?堋ｱ
ue(above)*old korean word*------------->ue(above)-ﾂ湘｣
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､


Thats it for today.

 

[stupidumboy]

without any linguistic analytic comment,this list can easily show the mutual correspondence between words in terms of pronoinciation and meaning.