Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!chicagokent.kentlaw.edu!iitmax!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: How did Korean lose the tones?
Message-ID: <1995Jan13.001414.27898@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <3esmmn$3o4@news.CCIT.Arizona.EDU> <1995Jan11.015052.7766@midway.uchicago.edu> <3f14rq$dqf@news.CCIT.Arizona.EDU>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 00:14:14 GMT
Lines: 92

In article <3f14rq$dqf@news.CCIT.Arizona.EDU> hlu@GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU (Hung J Lu) writes:
>Daniel von Brighoff (deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: It is.  You might want to study some Korean history before you
>: start speculating wildly about Korean historical linguistics.
>
>OK, OK.

Sorry if my tone was a little harsh.  It's true that Korean historical
linguists do date a lot of changes to the Hideyoshi invasions (late
16th century) which threw Korea into total chaos.

>But this is not a wild guess, if you know about Chinese linguisitics.
>Tones in Chinese just don't change easily.

What about Cantonese?  There's a special variety of the first tone
(Sydney Lau marks it "1 [degree sign]") which is used to derive
new vocabularly (I'll see if I can't scare up some examples; unfortu-
nately, I don't actually own a Cantonese dictionary).

Also, keep in mind that, as far as we can tell, Korean never had tones
in the way Chinese does and did.

[examples deleted]
>Out of the three aspects of Chinese languages: consonants, vowels
>and tones, the tone aspect is the most regular one across the
>spectrum of all dialects. Given this, I find it really hard
>to believe that tones can disappear gradually from the Korean 
>language. (Incidentally, tones in Chinese dialects usually get 
>complexified in time rather than simplified. Hoklo tones are more 
>complicated than Mandarin, therefore you can sucessfully predict 
>Mandarin tones from Hoklo tones with a high hit-rate.)

You've got it backwards:  Mandarin has massively simplified the
number of tones in Middle Chinese [see Karlgren's reconstructions].
That is why you can predict Mandarin tones from Hoklo and not vice-
versa. 

>All major change in Chinese phonetics had to do with change
>of dynasties. 

Whoah!  That's very bold statement!  What do you base it on, considering
that our phonetic data for earlier forms of Chinese is all indirect (i.e.,
rhyme tables, loanwords into neighboring languages, etc.).

In fact, change of the ethnic group that controls
>the central government. Mandarin does not have the typical
>(t,k,p) consonant ending of southern dialects, and I believe this
>did not happen because of a smooth transition, but because the
>northern ethnic groups that took power were unable to pronounce 
>these endings. 

Patently ridiculous!  Have you studied Mongolian and Manchu?  Both
languages have final consonants.  Also, remember that the size of
the invasionary forces was tiny compared to the total Chinese popula-
tion and that the conquerors assimilated pretty quickly to Chinese
speech and culture.  Not exactly the best conditions for forcing the
vast majority of Chinese speakers to change the way they talk.

>After a change of dynasty, massive killing, persecution
>and migration are the rule, which in turn translated into a sudden
>change in the phonetics of the "standard language".

Maybe, maybe not.  What about massive killings and migrations *during*
a dynasty?  And what changes in the standard language did the Taiping
Rebellion bring about?

>: Why?  Like most linguistic shifts, it was gradual.  And, remember,
>: it hasn't taken place in all forms of Korean.
>
>The consonant endings haven't disappeared in all Chinese dialects
>either. And the disappearance of these endings in the "Standard
>Chinese" was not gradual.  

Again, what evidence do you have to make this statement?  I'm not trying
to nitpick or discourage you from speculation, I'm just wondering what
support actually exists for your theories.
>
>: I don't understand the question.  Why would they have more problems
>: with homonymns than other speakers?  After all, vowel length isn't
>: marked either.
>
>I meant possible confusion in the written language. I should have
>been more clear. Anyway, I suspect the possibility of confusion must
>be very small.

Basically, yes.  I can only think of a few words (mal "horse", mal
"[measure]"; pam "evening", pam "chestnut"; pae "boat", pae "pear")
that are actually distinguished by pitch accent/vowel length.
-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
