| Welcome to Quetzalcoatl: anthropology forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| How many Min Chinese languages? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 27 2007, 12:38 AM (313 Views) | |
| ren | Jan 27 2007, 12:38 AM Post #1 |
Yoda
  ![]](http://209.85.48.16/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Karlgren (hope I spelled his name right) originally classified Min into one language but it seems that it's a branch with 5 mutually unintelligible languages. This already adds 4 more languages to the 8-language division of Karlgren. I will construct an accurate classification of Chinese branchs, languages, and dialects with academic sources when I have time.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jcl2/Ting.htm Sources: PAN, Maoding, et al. 1963. "Fujian hanyu fangyan fenqu lueshuo." (A brief description of the (geographical) divisions of the Chinese dialects in Fujian (Province).) Zhongguo Yuwen (1963) 6: 475-495. Chen Zhangtai and Li Rulong. 1991. Minyu yanjiu [Studies on Min LanguagesJ. Peking: Yuwen Chubanshe. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A relatively detailed description of Min branches: http://www.bookrags.com/Min/ Intonation and Tone Sandhi in Chinese Min dialect: http://www.let.kun.nl/tie/Abstracts/50_Liu.doc. According to History of Chinese Dialects, p. 13-15, the Min languages can be sub-divided into 2 brances, coastal and inland, and it is also not fully clear if some Min languages are really closer to Wu languages. update 2008-12-13 According to Norman, p.235 of Chinese, Shaowu and Jiangle can be considered as a further Western Min branch. It seems that Wanan Dialect is another Min language, possibly related to Shaowu Dialect or as a Coastal Min language that is undifferentiated . Coastal Min This would make atleast 7 mutually unintelligible Min dialects. Pucheng is also a peculiar case. It doesn't have Min pronounciation but has "Min" vocabulary, but "Wu" pronouns. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=YQ2HV2MxNYAC&dq=Problems+in+Comparative+Chinese+Dialectology:+The+Classification+...&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=7CExrXq3R0&sig=KHbtbOkGhypc_EMiu9lRPMZm-z8&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA128,M1 p. 115 Coastal Min Branch >Southern Min (Minnan, Hokkien) >Eastern Min (Mindong, Fuzhou) Inland Min Branch >Western Min >Central Min >Northern Min Puxian (creolized product of Northern and Southern Min) Wanan (possibly a form of Coastal Min or a third branch) Edited by ren, Dec 13 2008, 08:03 AM.
|
| It has already begun. | |
 |
 
|
| qrasy | Jul 24 2009, 06:59 PM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Maybe the link is too old? I can't find relevant information from the first pages. (for below, I've yet to re-find the links) Actually, Shao-jiang dialect might be Gan dialect but with heavy Min influences, as I've heard that it's possible for them to communicate reasonably well with the neighboring Fu-guang subgroup of Gan. It's not clear to me if the 4 dialects in Wan'an are Min influenced by (generalized) Hakka or the other way around. But the pronunciation of 梧宅 in its own dialect sounds more like Hakka than Min. In Datian and Youxi counties there are 5 dialects that have very high difficulty communicating. The region is adjacent to the areas of 4 major Min dialects. I doubt if this is more than geographical, though. Many people don't find much similarity between the 2. Actually Puxian a mixed form between Eastern and Southern Min. It sounds like the older classification that groups "any Min dialect sounding significantly different from Southern Min" as Northern Min. |
|
|
|
| ren | Jul 25 2009, 01:31 PM Post #3 |
|
Yoda
|
Yeah, I'll have to edit out the link.
It's the book called Chinese by Jerry Norman, I think, on the page I cited.
I found out about that after I read Norman, and it does seem like it should be a Gan dialect with heavy sub-stratum. I'll have to edit my initial post.
The author of this article seems to think that some of the Hakka-like characteristics is just general Coastal Min. I hope you can read it and give an analysis of how much sense is in his theory. The article about the Wa'nans tarts on page 128 of the book I think.
Perhaps they are language mixes like Putian. Do you have web links about these 5 dialects? Another side issue I'm pondering is that if language hybrids such as Putian should be considered separate languages. What do you think?
They share the second and third person pronouns, for one thing, while inalnd Min uses different words. Edited by ren, Jul 25 2009, 02:35 PM.
|
| It has already begun. | |
|
|
|
| qrasy | Jul 26 2009, 05:30 PM Post #4 |
|
Advanced Member
|
There are a lot of info floating around in the internet, not sure which one is correct. One forummer pointed out that the locals call Shaowu dialect "江西話", has aspirated devoicing. Another site, says that Jiangle and Shaowu belongs to different linguistic region, where Jiangle and its surrounding is labeled "transition area between Min and Hakka-Gan". I read through it, though somehow I didn't notice where it mentions if the Hakka-like features is Coastal Min features as well? What I did read was, the author assumes that the 4 dialects are Min dialects under Hakka pressure, reflecting from the aspiration. Aspiration can be changed by neighbors, though, an example would be Leizhou Min where 朋 has p' like neighboring Yue instead of p as in Minnan, I don't know, though, to how much extent it happens. One thing I notice is that the features involving "ng" initials in Wan'an are quite difficult to imagine if it's derived from Amoy-like Minnan, but easily understood if it's from Hakka. I'm not sure, though, if it's actually a less important feature, as we still can see word replacements of such type in Zhongshan Min linguistic island. Somehow '-m' ending is replaced by '-ng', and given rhymes like '-eing' it reminds of Minbei or Mindong instead of Minnan. There are no detailed information about these, it only says which dialects are closest to these 5 and that they are still a bit far. There are several links mentioning these dialects, I'll find it. As long as it cannot be understood by non-speakers, and it has first-language speakers, it's rightfully a language on its own. The way of mixture is not by adding the features of 2 languages together, but it can be said that it's also to mix the pronunciations of each word. The distortions are relatively regular, similar to many of the situations in language evolutions. Edited by qrasy, Jul 26 2009, 06:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
| ren | Jul 29 2009, 02:04 AM Post #5 |
|
Yoda
|
update 2009-9-23： Seems that Putian was originally a Minnan dialect and not a language mix (this hasn't been demonstrated yet anywhere in the world), so the core (whatever that is) of Putian should be Southern Min. It's so transformed that it definitely deserves recognition as a separate language within a Southern Min branch. http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/32359-standardization-of-hokkien/page__view__findpost__p__4981215 Sorry, it actually says on page 115 that it seems to be a dialect under heavy Hakka pressure but preserving some archaic Min features. I'm very interested in what you think of his analysis. Some of the vocabulary is still too technical for me. http://books.google.com/books?id=YQ2HV2MxNYAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0 Edited by ren, Sep 23 2009, 05:18 AM.
|
| It has already begun. | |
|
|
|
| qrasy | Oct 29 2009, 09:29 AM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
|
That's quite like what I was about to say in the previous post. A "regular distortion" from what looks to be Minnan, instead of something that looks like "patching" half of Minnan vocabulary/grammar with another half of Mindong vocabulary/grammar, etc. And then, the divergence is probably the biggest one among Southern Min. It's interesting that the author of the book classifies Putian as Mindong [page 43]. What I guess is that he is focusing on the initial consonants features peculiar to Min (just like Norman). For *dz (Minnan: ts, Mindong: s) Putian seems to agree with Mindong far more often, though the rhymes are obviously Minnan and the consonant change peculiar to Putian [nasal -> voiceless stop] is much better explained when it's classified as Southern Min under Mindong pressure. After reading Chapter 3, it seems that there are more evidences of Min than of Hakka (though the Hakka-test actually is too narrow). Some features seem to be, still, difficult to explain starting from Min (i.e. 5=ag). In anycase, it still appear to be equivocal, as the test seemed to be successful when applied to the doubtful case of Shaowu. And then, I wonder why the author consider Longyan, the center of the county, which speaks Min, as a "pressure". As seen from the case of Putian, administrative division can make a difference. I am wondering about the classification "Coastal Min"; classification should be based on innovation not preservation, otherwise it's extremely easy to get a paraphyletic clade. If the special words in Coastal Min is a 'replacement' of part of the basic vocabulary, then it's likely that they form a group, but that doesn't mean the rest of Min is one other group. For example, we can have a development tree like this.  I have a feeling that Minnan-Minbei-Mindong are almost at equal distance. Though I can't verify it. Btw, Norman also suggested "Old Southern Chinese" that apparently was based on some preservation. Edited by qrasy, Oct 29 2009, 10:03 AM.
|
|
|
|
| ren | Nov 5 2009, 11:59 PM Post #7 |
|
Yoda
|
This seems to suggest Putian is not a mix of 2 languages, as the change is internally in each word, but a Southern Min type driven into dramatic change. On the other hand, I'm starting to think of New Xiang as just a mixture of SW Mandarin with Old Xiang. In that case, it can't be considered a language, but some sort of contact zone phenomenon. What do you think?
I don't agree. 渠 is a very old word. If anything, it is a retention where as the "yi" of coastal Min is an innovation. Edited by ren, Nov 6 2009, 12:19 AM.
|
| It has already begun. | |
|
|
|
| qrasy | Nov 8 2009, 12:35 AM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
|
I don't see how the New Xiang is any different from Puxian case. For example, when the Middle Chinese consonant *b is taken, Southwestern Mandarin will change it to p and p' depending on tones, with Old Xiang keeping *b. In New Xiang, *b as in Old Xiang is changed regularly to [p] only (it's said to be one of the characteristics of New Xiang. It indeed looks like a Mandarin approximation to voiced b) What you will expect from "Old Xiang plus SW Mandarin" will be p p' b for Middle Chinese *b. Also I read that there are 3 rhymes that are consistent within Xiang (and actually also Wu) but very different in Mandarin. Actually, for any dialect continuum, it would be hard to decide which one should be language and which one should not, even when the "distortions" from one another are regular. While the the word itself is old (attested as 其), irregularity also counts as an innovation. When the initial of 鳥 changed to n- it is an innovation that distinguishes Mandarin from, say, Hakka and Minnan. "伊" itself has obscure origins and indeed counts as innovation to replace 其. Edited by qrasy, Nov 8 2009, 12:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
| ren | Nov 8 2009, 01:02 AM Post #9 |
|
Yoda
|
No, what I'm saying is not necessary a mixture of sounds, but rather a SW Mandarin core (vocabulary and sound) heavily mixed with Xiang vocabulary and sound. Do you see any substantive innovation of New Xiang, or is all of its qualities either found in SW Mandarin or Old Xiang? Another example would be an English core with a lot of French vocabulary and sound. Would it be a New French or just a mix of English and French, perhaps with some local innovations. New Xiang vocablary that's different from Old Xiang tend to be Mandarin in origin. For example, "ta" instead of "qu" for the 3rd person pronoun. This is not a case of language change/innovation but of a migration and mixture.
No, what I'm saying is that the irregularity itself is very old. It doesn't have to be at all influence from Gan. Edited by ren, Nov 8 2009, 02:33 AM.
|
| It has already begun. | |
|
|
|
| qrasy | Nov 8 2009, 09:50 AM Post #10 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Still we don't count Modern English as a French language, or Modern Korean and Vietnamese as a Chinese language. Even when more than 50% of total vocabulary is identified to have come from another group, the things used daily are more important. Note that some of those foreign influences do have penetrated daily speeches, though in smaller percentage. Though it's hard to imagine when e.g. Vietnamese replaced their word for "Head" with Chinese. Indeed it's an effect called "dialect mixture". Calquing another language (which result in vocabulary replacement) can actually be considered an innovation, too. I'm not expert in Xiang, but I think New Xiang can be considered to be a Xiang core with added "Mandarin distortions" (mostly phonemic, but sometimes vocabulary-wise); Or it can be considered to be the result of people with Mandarin background trying to speak a Xiang language, but with a lot of imperfections. So it's not too different from the case of Puxian. Whether it will be considered a new language is whether the difference is big enough, not what differences there are and their origins. I've not seen if 渠 was recorded early. [while we can see things like 骹, 氵靚 being recorded] Though, in the ancient times, it's not common to write in dialects. Edited by qrasy, Nov 8 2009, 09:55 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Sino-Tibetan · Next Topic » |
