Author Topic: Language Crossovers (Read 5149 times)

saxon75 · « **on:** June 18, 2009, 04:13:59 PM »

The other day I was reflecting on the similarity between the Japanese word "kampai" and the Mandarin word "gambei," which are both used in a manner equivalent to saying "Cheers" in English before drinking. What struck me about it is that Japanese and Mandarin are in completely different language families, if I recall correctly. Normally I wouldn't think too much of it, since loan words from one language to another are pretty common--"waitoshaato" in Japanese, for example--but my understanding is that the literal meaning in both languages is also the same: roughly "bottoms up." That seemed like quite a coincidence to me, though I suppose it still doesn't rule out one or the other being a loan word.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #1 on:** June 18, 2009, 04:55:37 PM »

Japanese has a LOT of Chinese loan words. Even in cases where the word isn't directly borrowed, a lot of times the fact that Japanese compound words usually use the Chinese-borrowed reading for the kanji (and that meaning is often preserved in the kanji) produces words that sound very similar.

Kanpai (??) is the exact same word as ganbei (??). Some other nearly-identical pronunciations include:

?? - practice - Japanese: renshuu, Chinese: lianxi
?? - peace of mind - Japanese: anshin, Chinese: anxin
?? (Chinese: ??) - weather - Japanese: tenki, Chinese: tianqi
?? - language - Japanese: gengo, Chinese: yanyu

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #2 on:** June 18, 2009, 05:29:53 PM »

I was thinking about Chinese the other day, actually, and how language diversification worked very differently than it did in Europe because the language was character-based. Today in China there are countless mutually unintelligible dialects that are yet mutually legible. Someone speaking Cantonese in Hong Kong and someone speaking a Beijing dialect of Mandarin can not understand each others' language at all. (Cantonese even has three extra tones) And yet the two of them can read the exact same newspaper and understand it perfectly.

Whereas, Indo-European languages were diversified before they were written down, so then everyone wrote their own languages with vastly different spelling rules and even different alphabets. And thus we have languages that are mutually unintelligible and mutually illegible, except in a few general sorts of ways based on common roots.

Now that the world is all connected with phones and movies and whatnot it doesn't matter anymore, but what if we were to go back and start over again. What would be the benefits of a character-based language? Maybe it would help us rule a vast, diverse empire and preserve cultural and literary homogeneity for thousands of years. Maybe China owes its amazingly monolithic history to the way they decided to write their words.

Jonathon · « **Reply #3 on:** June 18, 2009, 06:49:29 PM »

I would guess that the standardization of Chinese orthography is probably just a symptom of the same cultural values that let them become a vast, unified empire.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #4 on:** June 18, 2009, 09:56:53 PM »

Guns Germs & Steel by Jared Diamond has a chapter addressing this.

saxon75 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 18, 2009, 10:19:47 PM »

I read that book, and while I do remember a bunch of linguistic analysis, what I recall had to do with using linguistics to chart the spread of the Polynesian migration. But that's not really the same, since those languages all have a common ancestor language, and would thus be in the same language family. But maybe I'm forgetting something?

Porter · « **Reply #6 on:** June 18, 2009, 10:48:53 PM »

It talked a lot about how and why China ended up a more or less a single culture while Europe remained fractured into a bunch of small countries.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:05:16 AM »

I remember all of that, but don't remember language being a factor. I still think language is a factor.

Porter · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2009, 07:16:14 AM »

Quote

I remember all of that, but don't remember language being a factor. I still think language is a factor.

According to Diamond, language wasn't a cause, it was an effect.

Jonathon · « **Reply #9 on:** June 20, 2009, 07:30:56 PM »

Empires of the Word talks about why some languages spread and are maintained over centuries and even millennia while others break apart and die off. I don't remember exactly what it says about Chinese, since I read it a few years ago, but it's a fascinating book.

pooka · « **Reply #10 on:** June 22, 2009, 09:40:13 AM »

I was wondering about the word Lieutenant the other day and why English picked up so much French as a result of invading France. Are military types more prone to borrowing from the subjugated nation? I suppose it could have to do with the same phenomenon underlying acronym use in modern times, that military types will speak in ways that distinguish them from civilian types.

Jonathon · « **Reply #11 on:** June 22, 2009, 09:50:34 AM »

France (well, Normandy, anyway) invaded England, not the other way around.

Porter · « **Reply #12 on:** June 22, 2009, 09:55:38 AM »

England invaded France during the 100 years war.

pooka · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:17:28 AM »

You got peanut butter on my chocolate.

Your chocolate got in my peanut butter.

But getting back to idiograms...

While it is far from the case that idiograms are strictly pictorial in nature, I do think that for a vocabulary of marginal literacy, idiograms are somewhat representational. So one could have a fifth grade level of literacy in an idiogramatic writing system much more easily than one could have a fifth grade level of literacy in an alphabetic writing system.

In order to acquire a basic written vocabulary in an alphabetic writing system, one has to acquire all the same tools that are used in the advanced vocabulary: learning the alphabet, learning the phonemic overlay to the alphabet, learning all the idiomatic spellings etc.

Even where idiograms are not representational, there is nothing systematic to learning a symbol that builds a comprehension of other symbols as there is with an alphabet. It makes the alphabetic system more powerful in a way, but means there is a higher investment in acquiring the alphabet. My guess is a wider range of people are literate in an idiomatic language, while literacy was very restricted in Europe during the Middle Ages.

So I'd disagree that the timing relative to being written down determined the divergence of Chinese languages vs. European ones. I'm still thinking about it, though.

Are they still teaching in linguistics classes that writing systems are not really a linguistic question?

Jonathon · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:22:03 AM »

Quote

England invaded France during the 100 years war.

But the Normans had already invaded England and made French the official language of the court before the Hundred Years' War. That's how all the French borrowings made it into English—not from an English invasion of France.

Jonathon · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:27:55 AM »

Quote

While it is far from the case that idiograms are strictly pictorial in nature, I do think that for a vocabulary of marginal literacy, idiograms are somewhat representational. So one could have a fifth grade level of literacy in an idiogramatic writing system much more easily than one could have a fifth grade level of literacy in an alphabetic writing system.

This post argues that it's the other way around—it's easier to acquire literacy in an alphabetic writing system than in an ideographic one. It makes sense to me. If you don't know the spelling of a word, you can make at least a halfway decent guess at is based on its sound and on your knowledge of a very small alphabet. With an ideographic one, there's really no way to guess how to write a character.

Quote

Are they still teaching in linguistics classes that writing systems are not really a linguistic question?

I've never been taught that.

pooka · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:31:53 AM »

So why was literacy so poor in Europe during the middle ages? I'm talking about people with no opportunity for formal schooling.

Also, that post itself indicates it is a contraversial idea, and counterintuitive. I think there were probably cultural reasons behind it having to do with Muslims being a minority in China.

Porter · « **Reply #17 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:33:42 AM »

Quote

I'm talking about people with no opportunity for formal schooling.

There you go.

Unless you're claiming that literacy was better in China for people with no formal schooling.

pooka · « **Reply #18 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:35:18 AM »

I would argue that a person with no formal schooling could acquire maybe 300-1000 characters.

Porter · « **Reply #19 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:38:20 AM »

Is there any evidence that that's what actually tended to happen?

eta: I'm not saying that in a "show your sources, or what you say is invalidated" manner. I'm just wondering if there's any basis for what you'd argue.

Jonathon · « **Reply #20 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:42:24 AM »

Quote

So why was literacy so poor in Europe during the middle ages? I'm talking about people with no opportunity for formal schooling.

I think you just answered your own question.

The Genuine · « **Reply #21 on:** June 22, 2009, 11:36:03 AM »

Quote

Quote
England invaded France during the 100 years war.
But the Normans had already invaded England and made French the official language of the court before the Hundred Years' War. That's how all the French borrowings made it into English—not from an English invasion of France.

Aha!

So that's why they call it a télévision instead of a TV!

Jonathon · « **Reply #22 on:** June 22, 2009, 12:03:00 PM »

Huh?

pooka · « **Reply #23 on:** June 22, 2009, 01:25:39 PM »

Quote

Is there any evidence that that's what actually tended to happen?

eta: I'm not saying that in a "show your sources, or what you say is invalidated" manner. I'm just wondering if there's any basis for what you'd argue.

Mostly because acquiring an idiogram is a matter of exposure, attaching a meaning to a symbol. There are a few words in English that work the same way, just as there are a few characters in Chinese that have phonological content. While it's true you can't guess meaning from simply looking at a character, you also can't guess meaning simply from hearing a word. Both processes involve sensory exposure.

I'd also profer that arabic is more of a syllabary than an alphabetic language anyway, given the tendency of words to be written mostly in consonants.

Porter · « **Reply #24 on:** June 22, 2009, 01:54:17 PM »

Quote

Mostly because acquiring an idiogram is a matter of exposure, attaching a meaning to a symbol. There are a few words in English that work the same way, just as there are a few characters in Chinese that have phonological content. While it's true you can't guess meaning from simply looking at a character, you also can't guess meaning simply from hearing a word. Both processes involve sensory exposure.

You're making a lot of guesses based on what makes sense to you. I'm asking if you have any actual knowledge which corroborates this common sense.

You say that it seems likely that people surrounded by idiographic writing will pick it up through exposure. I'm asking if you have any knowledge of this actually happening.