36 ms·

It's not that it's generic, it's that it has several different, partly unrelated meanings, just like some short English roots that may coincide with some Latin,

It's not that it's generic, it's that it has several different, partly unrelated meanings, just like some short English roots that may coincide with some Latin, Greek or Old Norse loan. Both of the reasons for the many homophones in Japanese are related to Chinese: 1. Japanese use both native Japanese words, like はく (ha-ku), and Chinese loanwords, like 白 (HAKU). Due to the very limited phonology of Japanese, these often coincide. 2. Again due to the limited phonology, a lot of sounds that in Chinese sounded different will coincide in Japanese. By the way, HAKU and all other single character sounds that come from Chinese were originally single syllables, but since a syllable can't end in K in Japanese they add a U to it. People might object that Mandarin also doesn't allow syllables that end in K, but the Chinese spoken when these words were borrowed did, just like Cantonese still does. HAKU in Japanese is BAI in Mandarin and BAAK in Cantonese.

earthboundkid 5y ago
In general, Cantonese preserved Classical Chinese pronunciations better than Mandarin. It's a pity Mandarin is dominant now.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  Yeah, and with the HK situation it's only going to accelerate. Mandarin really feels like a streamlined variant of Chinese, probably the classic lingua franca affliction. The tone system is also impoverished. Hakka preserves some archaic features though, would be interesting to learn more about that.
  - eritain 5y ago
    Hakka's most obvious archaic feature is the syllable-final stops, as in Yue/Cantonese and Min. I know Yue dissimilated some of them (details fuzzy in my memory, possibly -t went to -k with a dental initial). I don't know of any changes to them in Hakka. Hakka retains the -m final, instead of merging it to -n. It retains distinct 'round' and 'sharp' (velar and dental) onsets in positions where some Mandarin varieties (including Standard) merge them to the new palatal j/q/x. The Middle Chinese palatal ny- is lost in Hakka as it is almost everywhere. It merged with r- in Mandarin, y- in Yue, and ng- in Hakka. So you can't read the archaic form directly off any one of those varieties, but you can detect it by comparing any two. Hakka tonal developments are middle-of-the-road. Like every variety of Chinese, it had the four Middle Chinese tones altered by the voicing feature of the syllable onset, and like every variety outside of Wu/Shanghainese, it then lost the voicing feature itself. Hakka splits the ping/level tone in two by voicing, like almost every variety does. It splits the ru/entering 'tone' (the syllables with final stops) by voicing, like almost every non-Mandarin variety does, instead of disintegrating it like Mandarin. In the shang/rising tone, Hakka agrees with Mandarin against Wu and Yue that you don't just split the tone down the middle by voicing; you split off voiced obstruent onsets and leave voiced sonorant onsets alone. It agrees with Mandarin and Wu against Yue that the split-off voiced onsets (whether all of them or just the obstruents) merge into the qu/departing tone. Hakka agrees with Mandarin against almost everybody else that the qu/departing tone does not split.

earthboundkid 5y ago

In general, Cantonese preserved Classical Chinese pronunciations better than Mandarin. It's a pity Mandarin is dominant now.

Grustaf 5y ago
Yeah, and with the HK situation it's only going to accelerate. Mandarin really feels like a streamlined variant of Chinese, probably the classic lingua franca affliction. The tone system is also impoverished. Hakka preserves some archaic features though, would be interesting to learn more about that.
- eritain 5y ago
  Hakka's most obvious archaic feature is the syllable-final stops, as in Yue/Cantonese and Min. I know Yue dissimilated some of them (details fuzzy in my memory, possibly -t went to -k with a dental initial). I don't know of any changes to them in Hakka. Hakka retains the -m final, instead of merging it to -n. It retains distinct 'round' and 'sharp' (velar and dental) onsets in positions where some Mandarin varieties (including Standard) merge them to the new palatal j/q/x. The Middle Chinese palatal ny- is lost in Hakka as it is almost everywhere. It merged with r- in Mandarin, y- in Yue, and ng- in Hakka. So you can't read the archaic form directly off any one of those varieties, but you can detect it by comparing any two. Hakka tonal developments are middle-of-the-road. Like every variety of Chinese, it had the four Middle Chinese tones altered by the voicing feature of the syllable onset, and like every variety outside of Wu/Shanghainese, it then lost the voicing feature itself. Hakka splits the ping/level tone in two by voicing, like almost every variety does. It splits the ru/entering 'tone' (the syllables with final stops) by voicing, like almost every non-Mandarin variety does, instead of disintegrating it like Mandarin. In the shang/rising tone, Hakka agrees with Mandarin against Wu and Yue that you don't just split the tone down the middle by voicing; you split off voiced obstruent onsets and leave voiced sonorant onsets alone. It agrees with Mandarin and Wu against Yue that the split-off voiced onsets (whether all of them or just the obstruents) merge into the qu/departing tone. Hakka agrees with Mandarin against almost everybody else that the qu/departing tone does not split.