Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!ncar!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: How did Korean lose the tones?
Message-ID: <1995Jan19.022033.25506@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <3f6pvo$j9q@agate.berkeley.edu> <1995Jan14.223820.14719@midway.uchicago.edu> <3fhegl$5vh@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 02:20:33 GMT
Lines: 131

In article <3fhegl$5vh@agate.berkeley.edu> patchew@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Patrick Chew) writes:
>Daniel von Brighoff <deb5@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:

>>Those are not his words (or mine, for that matter).  I was mentioning
>>this type of word derivation (tone change) as a counterexample to
>>Ekki's claim that tone is very conservative in Chinese dialects.
>
>	Hmm.. well, in most Yue dialects, there are morphotonemic 
>processes by which derivation can be arrived at, but, not necessarily can 
>one say that it's productive.  

The point is that if you know that a given Cantonese lexeme is spoken
in first tone, you can't predict what the cognate Mandarin tone is be-
cause the lexeme might be derived from another with an entirely diffe-
rent tone.  Not the best counterexample, I grant you. 

>Anyway, Ekki is "right" in his vague 
>statement that tones are much more conservative in (southern) Chinese 
>dialects - most likely substrate influence.  

Why do you say this?  Substratal insfluence is almost *never* invoked
to explain conservatism.  The assumption is that, in the absence of 
pressure for change, a feature will be retained.  Substrata are used
(often not very convincingly) to explain why a language form spoken in 
one area has gained or lost a feature that none of the forms has.

>>It has always been my impression that the
>>correspondances are not perfectly regular (generalising from the
>>fact that they aren't regular between Cantonese and Mandarin, which
>>are more closely-related than Mandarin and Hoklo).
>
>	Eh?  The tonal categories/correspondences are even more regular from 
>Cantonese to Mandarin than Hoklo to Mandarin.

That's the point:  they're more regular between Mandarin and Cantonese
than between Mandarin and Hoklo.  They are not 100% regular between
Mandarin and Cantonese.  Therefore, Ekki's claims that tonal categories
are very conservative and one can predict Mandarin tones from Hoklo are
exaggerated.

>>The frequency of the Beijing -er (which I hate the sound of, btw) is 
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	I used to also, until I lived in Beijing for a while and ended up 
>getting used to it. =j

Maybe if I watched more movies in Mandarin and fewer in Cantonese. ^_^ 
>
>	One cool thing to note is how much Manchu (and Mongol) influence 
>there actually is in Beijing Mandarin (local patois esp!!!).

Hakkim Wong posted a fairly detailed list of some these influences 
once and I foolishly deleted it.  Is there a good book or article on
the subject?
>
>>Here's another example of a gradual change:  sh -> s in Taiwanese
>[snip]
>
>	Well.. we can also look at it that the Mandarin spoken in the 
>southern areas anyway by and large were retroflexless... a more furthere 
>advanced state of what we see now in Taiwan Mandarin, no doubt.  

It was my impression that, as a result of its historical isolation and
recent Japanese administration, Mandarin was known by *very* few people
in Taiwan before the Nationalist takeover, which is why I used it as
an example.  Was I mistaken in this belief?

>speakers, no?  Then again, we have to wonder at the lack of retention of 
>initial categories from MC and then even from OC in most southern 
>dialects period.. *scritches head*  ;-)

You mean, why did the southern dialects by and large dispense with the
retroflex distinction in initials which Mandarin inheirited from MC?
We may never know the answer to this.

>	keureomyeon keureot'ago hagesseoyo. keundae, i hangukmal 
>ireum-eun, hanjja-ro oddeohke sseuneun keos-ieyo?

Keu hanjaneun aju kandanhaeyo.  Tari ryang, k'eun tae, keurweol mun.
Kwaneo-ro 'Liang2 Da4wen2'eun, Weoreo-ro 'Leung Daai-man', O-eo-ro
'Liang Du-v@ng'eun pareumhaeyo.
>
>	Hmm.. in my own opionion the Han and Tang expansions into 
>present-day southern China were by and large the first and foremost 
>factors in present-day "conservatism".  In looking at the possible 
>substrate languages (Taiic and Hmong-Mienic), we can see a possible 
>feasibility in the patterns of retention in terms of initials, finals and 
>tone.  *shrug* Mayhaps not... as for Ekki's concentration on the Yuan 
>period and his fixation on Altaic influence, well.. he has some 
>good-points there.

Well, remember that his *original* goal was to find a historical 
cause for the breakdown of the MK pitch-accent system.  This whole
excursion into the evolution of Mandarin is just a side discussion. ^_^
>
>	Actually, one of the ideas bandies around here at Bezerkeley is 
>that the dental series of patch'im were actually distinguished, where the 
>-t finals of the incoming Sinitic lexemes were closer in articulation to 
>the ri'eul of the time (note.. non-aspiration.. "lenis").  Also, it's 
>really funky to note that ofttimes Chinese -n was used to represent a 
>foreign -r, that -t was used to represent -s, etc.. *shrug*  Who's to 
>say?

Certainly not me!  I hadn't heard this before!  Has it been published
yet?

>>So, the theory is that the words came from a northern dialect where
>>-t --> -r.  Subsequently, -r became -l in Korean and was lost in
>>this Chinese dialect.
>
>	Funky.. got a source I could read up on?

I was afraid of that question.  Most of this is gleaned from a book
on Korean historical linguistics I read in Germany.  I have my notes,
but not the author or title (yes, I know, very sloppy of me, but it
was for fun and not for class).

>>Kamsahamnida, Tongsaengnim!
>
>	waaa.. tongsaeng-hant'e -nim puch'ineun keos????  *scritches 
>head* aiguuuu  ;-)

Anio, chalmoseul peomhaesseoyo!  'Kye-ssi' ttoneun 'aunim'eul sseosseu-
myeon, chok'esseosseoyo!

Eorisogeosstani andwaesseoyo!

Yang Tae-mun
-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
