Origin of Chinese spoken languages

Origin of Chinese spoken languages

Part 1.

Around the world, spoken languages eventually leaded to development of various writing systems. An exception is Chinese spoken languages. Contrary to other spoken languages, they were generated and evolved from a writing system, called Hanja or Hanzi, and not vice versa.

Chinese spoken language is probably unique in that they were evolved from written languages. It is comparable to a hypothetical scenario where a spoken language is evolved from mathematical expressions, which is universal. Despite language barriers, scientists and mathematicians around the world can communicate with mathematical equations, although the pronunciations of the mathematical symbols may be radically different depending on their spoken languages. This is why Chinese people can communicate by their unique writing system, but may not understand each other by different spoken languages called Chinese dialects.

I have been curious about the origin of Chinese spoken languages, They are radically different from neighbouring languages, especially Altaic. The Chinese grammar is more similar to Indo-European rather than Altaic. How could this have happened?

Several years ago, I read a very interesting article on the origin of Chinese language: http://www.discover.com/issues­/mar-96/features/empireofunifo­rmi715/

In this article, the author attributed the uniformity of current spoken Chinese languages (low diversity) to the political unification ever first achieved by the Chin emperor (221 BCE). He speculated that there once were far diverse spoken languages in the current Chinese continent. He cited Europe as an example, where far more diverse spoken languages still are existent, despite the similar area comparable with the modern People's Republic of China.

I am not saying his idea is entirely wrong. I agree that it may partially explain the uniformity in modern Chinese spoken languages. However, the major factor was the unification by the writing system called Hanja. Hanja has been pronounced differently among groups, but could be understood by writing. This is possible because Hanja has been ideographic. Today, Koreans and Japanese also use Hanja, but pronunciations are different. In summary, the Hanja was a kind of universal symbols in the ancient Far East Asia, which is comparable to modern mathematical symbols, but more complex in the sense that they can be used beyond simple scientific representations to be adopted as a way of representing spoken languages at least partially.

Chinese spoken languages were evolved based on the Hanja writing system, not vice versa. I speculate that once there were so many spoken words in ancient Chinese continent but most of them were perished as the unification proceeded. In modern Korean and Japan languages, there are hundred-thousand onomatopoeic/mimetic words existent. In Chinese spoken languages, they even do not have a character (or word in spoken Chinese) corresponding 'sorry' in English, not to mentioning lack of onomatopoeic/mimetic words.

'Sorry' is a kind of basic words found around the world, but Chinese simply do not have it. Once they had it, but it was perished by the unification enforced by the unique writing system. I would rather stop here today.


Part 2.

Chinese spoken languages are actually written languages, because they were evolved from an ideographic script called Hanja or Kanji. Today, I provided an additional evidence: tones in Chinese spoken languages.

Is there anybody who dares to argue that so much diverse tones found in modern Chinese existed before the invention of Hanja? It is obvious to me that tones have been developed to differentiate homonyms of Hanja characters. Chinese people did not develop any writing system or modified Hanja to denote tones, again suggesting that Hanja was not evolved from spoken languages, but that Chinese spoken languages were modified and changed to accomodate the Hanja scripts by sacrificing their diversity (or entropy in the sense of information capacity). The Hanja has molded Chinese spoken languages into current forms of Chinese dialects. The entropy of spoken Chinese words greatly decreased but the entropy of tones increased proportionally.

Part 3

Monosyllabic, isolating spoken language could not exist.

Would it be just a coincidence that Chinese spoken language is isolating exactly the same way as the Hanja scripts? People and so-called linguists want to believe that Hanja scripts represented so well ancient Chinese spoken languages to be 100% isolating as we see now. This defies our common sense. Spoken languages in the world are typologically categorized as 1) inflectional, 2) agglutinative and 3) isolating languages. Chinese, Vietnamese, Cantonese, Cambodian, and possibly Riau Indonesian belong to the isolating languages. Except the last, the isolating feature is related with Chinese influence. Thus, the Chinese spoken language is the unique isolating language in the world. Because of their enormous population size, linguists probably had no choice but to include their language as a major category of spoken languages. But, it is nearly impossible that 100% isolating language could ever exist. As we see in Vietnamese and Tibetan, a certain degree of inflection is needed to function as a spoken language.

Another unique feature of Chinese is being 'monosyllabic' according the definition of a Chinese syllable. Vietnamese also has been traditionally considered to be a monosyllabic isolating languagehttp://www.geocities.com/SoHo/­Den/5908/language/intro.html.

However, Vietnamese shows a pronounced tendency for using bi- or polysyllabic structures. And some suggest that once Vietnamese were polysyllabic. This Vietnamese example suggest that it is quite possible that at least some of current Chinese dialects were once polysyllabic.

Now, Chinese languages have two idiosyncratic features: monosyllabic + isolating. Is it possible that "monosyllabic" + "isolating" languages could ever have existed in ancient time before an invention of writing system? My answer is definitely "No". But, I agree that it could exist for very, very primitive societies. But, if any society evolved to a degree of sophistication to invent any writing system, monosyllabic, isolating languages were simply unimaginable. Even with just isolating features, it is difficult to figure out syntax structure, but anyway Chinese people now live and speak with that isolating languages.

How could ancient people could understand a syntax by monosyllabic AND isolating languages? To express meaning and syntax together, we need a certain degree of entropy in the sense of information capacity such as 16-bit or 32-bit computer processors. You can not edit a movie or songs with 8-bit processors. The entropy in monosyllabic, isolating languages is too low to express meaning and syntax together even for basic daily life in the ancient time. How many words could they express in monosyllabic language? The only solution to this degree of limitation is adopting tones to increase the entropy.

Ancient Chinese initially used tonal systems to distinguish various homonyms before the invention of Hanja script? The answer is obviously No. Chinese tones were developed ad hoc to distinguish various homonyms in Chinese characters. Instead of developing polysyllabic words, Chinese people applied various tones to each Hanja character to make it function as a polysyllabic word. They adopted polytonal words instead of polysyllabic words.

Why have they been so much attached to monosyllabic rule instead of developing polysyllabic words? The answer is that they could not escape from the Hanja script and its isolating feature. Despite of recent Chinese government's effort, Chinese are still attached to the Hanja script. It seems that they will never escape from the isolating Hanja script.

As it is impossible that the so called 'monosyllabic, isolating" languages ever existed without help of a writing system and tones, it is certain that Chinese spoken languages were originally neither monosyllabic, nor isolating.

The current two features of Chinese spoken dialects are a product of ad hoc adaptation to the Hanja scripts. This seems obvious if we compare the degree of changes between Chinese spoken languages and the Chinese writing system, at least since the middle Chinese period. Spoken Chinese changed dramatically and dynamically while the writing system has been nearly stagnant.

If A changes but B does not change, then A influences B, or B influences A? The answer is too obvious. Let's try to think reversely: Isolating Hanja scripts molded ancient spoken Chinese dialects into monosyllabic and isolating languages.

Part 4

Branches come from a root; a root does not come from branches.

I think this evidence alone is enough to support my theory that the common ancestor of modern Chinese spoken languages was the writing system called Hanja. This evidence is too obvious, but human stupidity and stubbornness always prevails to make it difficult to escape from a stereotype and preoccupation. Thus, I need to show excessive list of evidences supporting my theory.

There are several dialects in the Sinitic languages such as Mandarin, Wu, Hsiang, Kan, Hakka, Yueh and Min. They differ from each other to about the same degree as today's Romance languages. Most of the differences occur in pronunciation and vocabulary; there are few grammatical differences. But, strangely to most Westerners, they can almost understand each other by the common written languages.

This no longer would look strange if they could realize that the very common ancestor language was the written language. Can a baby have more than two biological mothers? Linguists and Chinese are answering to this question by saying 'Yes'. If the Chinese writing system came from several different spoken languages, how could there be a universal written language that matches well with all of the different spoken languages, both phonetically and grammatically? By chance or by magic? Please let me know how this could happen.

An alternative explanation is that the different spoken languages have radiated from the common ancestor language. The uniqueness here is that the common ancestor was a written language rather than a spoken language. This explanation is so easy and simple to understand. Why are they afraid of accepting this uniqueness and desperately keeping the obviously nonsensical belief that the root should have came from branches? Linguists and archaeologists so far have insisted or believed that a baby called Hanja writing system should have come from several biological mothers collectively called ancient Chinese spoken languages. Their belief defies the principle of the Nature.

Part 5.

I happened to find a book that supports my theory. I cite this book and a related review as my 6-th evidence supporting my theory that Chinese spoken languages came from the isolating Hanja script:

The Roots of Old Chinese (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory) by Laurent Sagart Hardcover: 255 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 9.00 x 0.75 x 6.50 Publisher: John Benjamins Publishing Co; (August 1, 1999) ISBN: 1556199619 Unfortunately, I can not afford to purchase this book ($122.00). I just quote a part of a well written review from amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi­dos/tg/detail/-/1556199619/qid­=10986871...

"This trailblazing book presents a truly radical hypothesis. It argues that Old (loosely: Early and Mid-Zhou) Chinese had a rich affixal morphology, typologically comparable to many SE Asian languages today, but radically divergent from its medieval successor(s) and modern dialect descendants. It is radical in the sense that it once and for all destroys the myth of Old Chinese (OC) as an isolating, static, purely monosyllabic language, recorded in a writing system divorced from the spoken variety underlying it. Reintegrating a full-fledged theory of morphology into the reconstruction of the OC lexicon and its phonology, Sagart convincingly subverts almost all basic assumptions about the nature of 'the' Chinese language, which have periodically havocked rational interpretations of Chinese culture, history and philosophy, ever since the days of the _lettres ?ifiantes_. Assumptions, one hastens to add, which are still guilelessly cherished by the majority of sinologists and general linguists alike."

Thanks for the anonymous reviewer. You can read the remaining part at amazon.com.

In my humble opinion, the author of this book could have got a better inspiration if he could have considered my main point: Chinese spoken languages were originated from the isolating written language called Hanja script. It's so pity that I am not any kind of linguist to publish in linguistics journals (I should be satisfied with this kind of news group where only terrapin's eggs are dominant). Yes. It is indeed radical, but the degree of radicality is proportional to our deep-rooted stereotype and preoccupation which usually is based on political propaganda.

Part 6

Mysterious linguistic and genetic relationships of Chinese

Linguists generally have said or assumed that Sinitic languages are closely related with Tibetan, whereas archaeologists and anthropologists suggest that people in Pacific islands who speak Austronesian are closely related to modern Chinese people, especially southern Chinese including Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) people [1, 2, 3, 4, 7]. Why does this discrepancy occur? When considering both language and genetics, Chinese is closer to Tibetan or Austronesian?

I think the language family name called Sino-Tibetan is the most absurd one in language classifications. I strongly believe that population size of Chinese people should not be a factor in classifying spoken languages in the world.

Let me quote from Britannica online [8]: Sino-Tibetan languages

"Sinitic stands apart from Tibetic and Burmic on many grounds, including vocaburary, morphology, syntax, and phonology. Most scholars agree on combining Tibetic and Burmic into a Tibeto-Burman subfamily, ..."

"This relationship is now more commonly considered nongenetic in that most of the shared vocabulary is more likely attributable to a history of cultural borrowings than to derivation from a common ancestral language."

Also, in other references, Tibet-Chinese family is controversial because of Tibeto-Burman.

This again demonstrates the power of reproduction capacity. The classification problem lies in Chinese, not in Tibeto-Burman. Of course, Chinese people are majority, but I believe it should not a factor in language classification.

What are the common things between Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman, except that some Tibeto-Burman languages were heavily influenced by the Hanja scripts to show spurious phonological resemblance? Please list for me what you can show here.

* Hmong-Mien

Because people in the Pacific Islands shows close genetic relationship with Hmong-Mien people in China, it is quite possible that the languages also could have been related. But, we do not see the clear relationship between Austronesian and Hmong-Mien, at least according to P.D. Daniels here. However, there is some suggestion that Hmong-Mien could be included as Austronesian: "The Miao ethnic group has its own language which belongs to the Miao-Yao Austronesian of Chinese-Tibetan Phylum." [5]

Again, why the same kind of discrepancy occurs in Miao-Yao people and their languages. About 1 year ago (May 2003), I proposed Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages as vestiges of the lost homeland language for current Austronesian [6]

For example, let me quote a paragraph from a paper titled "Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion." [7]

"Languages, like molecules, document evolutionary history. Darwin observed that evolutionary change in languages greatly resembled the processes of biological evolution: inheritance from a common ancestor and convergent evolution operate in both. Despite many suggestions, few attempts have been made to apply the phylogenetic methods used in biology to linguistic data. Here we report a parsimony analysis of a large language data set. We use this analysis to test competing hypotheses--the "express-train" and the "entangled-bank" models--for the colonization of the Pacific by Austronesian-speaking peoples. The parsimony analysis of a matrix of 77 Austronesian languages with 5,185 lexical items produced a single most-parsimonious tree. The express-train model was converted into an ordered geographical character and mapped onto the language tree. We found that the topology of the language tree was highly compatible with the express-train model."

Looking the genetic/linugistic relationship between Chinese and Pacific Islanders and the Hmong-Mien languages, it seems obvious that Chinese spoken languages were once closer to Austronesian languages, but that they radically diverged from the common ancestor of Sinitic and Austronesian.

* Hypothesis

Why? Because Hanja scripts began to mold ancient Chinese spoken languages into isolating and monosyllabic languages, after separated from Austronesian. At the same time, the political unification by the Chin emperor (221 BCE) accelerated this process.

How can I test my hypothesis here? I here predict, based on my theory, that Chinese spoken languages became no longer inflictive and polysyllabic only after the major immigration of Austronesian people started. Physical anthropologists can estimate the approximate time of immigration by genetic clock or other genetic calculations based on the rate of mutations. Linguists can estimate the time when Chinese languages became isolating and monosyllabic. Taking bigger risk, I can predict that the two events occurred nearly simultaneously. Do not forget that taking bigger risk guarantees more validity of my theory. Thus, I take this bigger risk. I will welcome anybody who is willing to compare these two time lines to falsify my theory: Isolating Hanja scripts molded ancient spoken Chinese dialects into monosyllabic and isolating languages

Reference

[1] Gibbons, A. 2001. The Peopling of the Pacific. Science. Volume 291,>> Number 5509, Issue of 2 Mar 2001, pp. 1735-1737. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/­content/summary

[2] Yanagihara R, Nerurkar VR, Scheirich I, Agostini HT, Mgone CS, Cui X, Jobes DV, Cubitt CL, Ryschkewitsch CF, Hrdy DB, Friedlaender JS, Stoner GL. 2002. JC virus genotypes in the western Pacific suggest Asian mainland relationships and virus association with early population movements. Hum Biol 74(3):473-88.

[3] Terry Melton, Stephanie Clifford, Jeremy Martinson, Mark Batzer, and Mark Stoneking. 1998. Genetic Evidence for the Proto-Austronesian>> Homeland in Asia: mtDNA and Nuclear DNA Variation in Taiwanese>> Aboriginal Tribes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 63:1807-1823.

[4] "Farmers and Their Languages: The First Expansions" by Jared Diamond1 and Peter Bellwood. Science. Volume 300, Number 5619, Issue of 25 Apr 2003, pp. 597-603. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/­content/full/300/5619/597/FIG2

[5] http://www.travelchinaguide.co­m/intro/nationality/miao/

[6] http://groups.google.com/group­s?selm=eb309be5.0305080944.d0a­b664%40po... g.google.com

[7] Gray RD, Jordan FM. Nature. 2000 Jun 29;405(6790):1008-9. Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion.

[8] http://www.britannica.com/eb/a­rticle?tocId=75005