6 ms·

> Mandarin would form the foundation of the spoken standard (as had been the case for > 1000 years at this point)... The Old Mandarin had its root from Jin (11

by hker 5y ago

> Mandarin would form the foundation of the spoken standard (as had been the case for > 1000 years at this point)... The Old Mandarin had its root from Jin (1115-1234) and Yuan (Mongol) dynasties [1], coming from “foreign ethnicity” 外族 (from a Han-centric view point). The history is less than 1000 years, less than the ancient poems (唐詩) that we are discussing. One main reason for Mandarin to be the standard of Chinese is because of the influence of Mongolia (Yuan) and Manchurian (Qing), that is, non-Han ruling dynasties. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Mandarin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Mandarin > the idea that Cantonese is more faithful to Middle Chinese ... and therefore better for reading ancient poems also is suspect. The tones (esp. 平仄) are better preserved in Cantonese than Mandarin, I don’t think this is disputed.

dwohnitmok 5y ago
No Mandarin goes way further back than Old Mandarin (which despite its naming in that Wikipedia article, is far from standardized, I don't know where it's sourced as Yuan, as the Chinese version of the article states it sometimes is defined as being the language of the Northern Song Dynasty and in the literature sometimes even the Tang dynasty). For example this is how the Song philosopher 朱熹, a Fujian native, spoke in public: 若只是自了，便待工夫做得二十分到，終不足以應變。到那時，卻怕人說道不能應變，也牽強去應 (From the 朱子語類·朱子六) That's pretty recognizably Mandarin. Even earlier from the beginning of the Tang Dynasty, we have poems that are recognizably vernacular Mandarin. 我見那漢死，肚裡熱如火。不是惜那漢，恐畏還到我。 (by 王梵志) > The tones (esp. 平仄) are better preserved in Cantonese, I don’t think this is disputed Ah yes I read your reply too quickly and thought you meant all rhyming. Whether the tones as a whole are better preserved is controversial (a lot of Cantonese tones have come from the loss or change in certain sounds of the QYS, so it's hard to say they're "preserved") but 平仄 is definitely way easier in Cantonese than Mandarin.
- yorwba 5y ago
  Which features in your quotes are clearly Mandarin but not e.g. Wu Chinese?
  - dwohnitmok 5y ago
    The demonstrative 那 and 是 as a copula are the most obvious ones as well as the exclusive use of 不. Individually they are each found in some Wu varieties and other varieties, but that is often a bleed-over from Mandarin. More generally, the following are a small sampling of dominant, geographically independent characteristics of Song written vernacular that make me say that it is clearly Mandarin. 1. The standard pronouns are all the same. We have 我, 你, 他, with the appropriate 們 (often also spelled many different ways just as 門 or later on as we get to the Yuan and Ming dynasty 每). Note that unlike the Tang dynasty 他 and 你 are far and away clearly the dominant, geographically-independent pronouns of the standard vernacular. 2. The near demonstrative is 這 (also spelled 者, 遮, or otherwise) and the far demonstrative is 那. While other demonstratives exist (as is the case even in modern Mandarin) these are far and away the most popular, regardless of region. 3. The order of words is effectively always the same as modern Mandarin. 4. The copula is always 是. 5. The various uses of 個 as an auxiliary word apart from just a 量詞 are generally a superset of modern Mandarin. 6. The interrogative for "where" is 哪 (spelled 那) that is paired in all the same ways as in modern Mandarin (那裏, 那個, etc.). 7. The interrogative for "what" is variations of 什麼/甚麼 (e.g. literally those or 甚底 or other things involving 甚). And so so many other auxiliary words (著, 正, etc.). In fact, if anything, a general rule of thumb for Song vernacular is that modern Mandarin represents a subset of the usages of various function words in the Song vernacular (e.g. 著 has all the uses it does in modern Mandarin in addition to being something more similar to 被 and other things) and modern Mandarin has simply gotten more "strict" (this is of course a simplification).
    - FabHK 5y ago
      I'm by no means an expert, but it appears to me that one could use a similar list to demonstrate that, dunno, Spanish "is clearly" French, or so.
      - dwohnitmok 5y ago
        I mean if the personal pronouns, copula, word order, core auxiliary and particle words, interrogatives and the like are the same between two languages separated by time that's pretty good evidence that one is the ancestor of the other. More specifically to Chinese, if you read any comparative text on different Sinitic families, these word categories are the usual starting points of comparison between them and used to identify each. I haven't done the equivalent of examine 100 different word categories and only pick the 10 that prove my point. And every single Sinitic family other than Mandarin diverges from this list (as I explain in slightly more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29533678 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29533678).
- inkyoto 5y ago
  > No Mandarin goes way further back than Old Mandarin Can you provide credible references that support your statement as historical studies of phonological and tonal changes in Old (Ancient) and, later, Middle Chinese assertively point to emergence of various Chinese languages that we identify today as Wu, Yue, Mandarin etc to Late Middle Chinese (LMC) (with only exception being Min that had split off from the Old Chinese before Middle Chinese emerged)? In Western linguistics, Late Middle Chinese is identified with late Tang-early Song periods. Interestingly, Tang imperial annals do, in fact, note already emerging regional pronunociation differences in Middle Chinese across the empire, and, ironically, it was perhaps the first and the last point in the history of all Chinese languages where there existed true dialects of the Middle Chinese language – in the Western sense, anyway. Even the earliest occurence of what we identify as Mandarin today already indicates the beginning of profound phonological changes, the process that took the next few centuries, namely: a complete loss of checked syllables/contour tones, arbitrary tone changes owing to a loss of nearly all Middle Chinese finals which has also led to an emergence of polysyllabic words in Mandarin: Old Chinese words were nearly entirely monosyllabic and atonic, Middle Chinese words were mostly monosylabic and the tonogenesis had yielded four tones. Conservative varieties of Chinese, e.g. Yue, still have a largely monosyllabic core vocabulary, and Mandarin words, owing to the reduction of phonemic and tone pallettes, are remarkable for having two or three syllables on average. Later influence of Mongolian and Jurchen languages has also had profound effects on Mandarin as we know it today, phonetically and morphologically. > For example this is how the Song philosopher 朱熹, a Fujian native, spoke in public: > That's pretty recognizably Mandarin. Even earlier from the beginning of the Tang Dynasty, we have poems that are recognizably vernacular Mandarin. What distinguishing qualities of the two cited texts make you state your assertions? My paleolinguistic knowledge of Chinese languages is insufficient to discern differences, therefore it is a genuine enquiry on my behalf. Also, with respect to the Song era, the work «THE NATURE OF THE MIDDLE CHINESE TONES AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT TO EARLY MANDARIN / 中古汉语声调的本质和到早期官话的演变» (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23752830 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23752830) specifically notes the following (page 187): 3. NORTHERN SONG. Somewhat paradoxically, independent sources for the synchronic state of the language in Song are less satisfactory than for either the preceding Tang or the following Yuan periods. The great Song rhyme dictionaries, such as the Guang-yun and Ji-yun, were revisions and enlargements of the Qie-yun, preserving many distinctions which had long been obsolete. The existing versions of the earliest rhyme table, the Yun-jing, date from Southern Song but the work itself must have originated in late Tang times and its categories are those of LMC rather than the more evolved standard language of Song. Later rhyme tables such as the Qie-yun zhi-zhang tu show some contemporary influence but it is not always easy to distinguish what is merely traditional and what is strictly synchronic. Rhyming in poetry, especially «ci», as opposed to «shi» which continued to be dominated by Tang norms, gives important information but only on limited parts of the phonology. It would be interesting if you could shed the light on the available evidence (with references) that has shaped your point of view.

by hker 5y ago

dwohnitmok 5y ago

No Mandarin goes way further back than Old Mandarin (which despite its naming in that Wikipedia article, is far from standardized, I don't know where it's sourced as Yuan, as the Chinese version of the article states it sometimes is defined as being the language of the Northern Song Dynasty and in the literature sometimes even the Tang dynasty). For example this is how the Song philosopher 朱熹, a Fujian native, spoke in public: 若只是自了，便待工夫做得二十分到，終不足以應變。到那時，卻怕人說道不能應變，也牽強去應 (From the 朱子語類·朱子六) That's pretty recognizably Mandarin. Even earlier from the beginning of the Tang Dynasty, we have poems that are recognizably vernacular Mandarin. 我見那漢死，肚裡熱如火。不是惜那漢，恐畏還到我。 (by 王梵志) > The tones (esp. 平仄) are better preserved in Cantonese, I don’t think this is disputed Ah yes I read your reply too quickly and thought you meant all rhyming. Whether the tones as a whole are better preserved is controversial (a lot of Cantonese tones have come from the loss or change in certain sounds of the QYS, so it's hard to say they're "preserved") but 平仄 is definitely way easier in Cantonese than Mandarin.

yorwba 5y ago
Which features in your quotes are clearly Mandarin but not e.g. Wu Chinese?
- dwohnitmok 5y ago
  The demonstrative 那 and 是 as a copula are the most obvious ones as well as the exclusive use of 不. Individually they are each found in some Wu varieties and other varieties, but that is often a bleed-over from Mandarin. More generally, the following are a small sampling of dominant, geographically independent characteristics of Song written vernacular that make me say that it is clearly Mandarin. 1. The standard pronouns are all the same. We have 我, 你, 他, with the appropriate 們 (often also spelled many different ways just as 門 or later on as we get to the Yuan and Ming dynasty 每). Note that unlike the Tang dynasty 他 and 你 are far and away clearly the dominant, geographically-independent pronouns of the standard vernacular. 2. The near demonstrative is 這 (also spelled 者, 遮, or otherwise) and the far demonstrative is 那. While other demonstratives exist (as is the case even in modern Mandarin) these are far and away the most popular, regardless of region. 3. The order of words is effectively always the same as modern Mandarin. 4. The copula is always 是. 5. The various uses of 個 as an auxiliary word apart from just a 量詞 are generally a superset of modern Mandarin. 6. The interrogative for "where" is 哪 (spelled 那) that is paired in all the same ways as in modern Mandarin (那裏, 那個, etc.). 7. The interrogative for "what" is variations of 什麼/甚麼 (e.g. literally those or 甚底 or other things involving 甚). And so so many other auxiliary words (著, 正, etc.). In fact, if anything, a general rule of thumb for Song vernacular is that modern Mandarin represents a subset of the usages of various function words in the Song vernacular (e.g. 著 has all the uses it does in modern Mandarin in addition to being something more similar to 被 and other things) and modern Mandarin has simply gotten more "strict" (this is of course a simplification).
  - FabHK 5y ago
    I'm by no means an expert, but it appears to me that one could use a similar list to demonstrate that, dunno, Spanish "is clearly" French, or so.
    - dwohnitmok 5y ago
      I mean if the personal pronouns, copula, word order, core auxiliary and particle words, interrogatives and the like are the same between two languages separated by time that's pretty good evidence that one is the ancestor of the other. More specifically to Chinese, if you read any comparative text on different Sinitic families, these word categories are the usual starting points of comparison between them and used to identify each. I haven't done the equivalent of examine 100 different word categories and only pick the 10 that prove my point. And every single Sinitic family other than Mandarin diverges from this list (as I explain in slightly more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29533678 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29533678).
inkyoto 5y ago
> No Mandarin goes way further back than Old Mandarin Can you provide credible references that support your statement as historical studies of phonological and tonal changes in Old (Ancient) and, later, Middle Chinese assertively point to emergence of various Chinese languages that we identify today as Wu, Yue, Mandarin etc to Late Middle Chinese (LMC) (with only exception being Min that had split off from the Old Chinese before Middle Chinese emerged)? In Western linguistics, Late Middle Chinese is identified with late Tang-early Song periods. Interestingly, Tang imperial annals do, in fact, note already emerging regional pronunociation differences in Middle Chinese across the empire, and, ironically, it was perhaps the first and the last point in the history of all Chinese languages where there existed true dialects of the Middle Chinese language – in the Western sense, anyway. Even the earliest occurence of what we identify as Mandarin today already indicates the beginning of profound phonological changes, the process that took the next few centuries, namely: a complete loss of checked syllables/contour tones, arbitrary tone changes owing to a loss of nearly all Middle Chinese finals which has also led to an emergence of polysyllabic words in Mandarin: Old Chinese words were nearly entirely monosyllabic and atonic, Middle Chinese words were mostly monosylabic and the tonogenesis had yielded four tones. Conservative varieties of Chinese, e.g. Yue, still have a largely monosyllabic core vocabulary, and Mandarin words, owing to the reduction of phonemic and tone pallettes, are remarkable for having two or three syllables on average. Later influence of Mongolian and Jurchen languages has also had profound effects on Mandarin as we know it today, phonetically and morphologically. > For example this is how the Song philosopher 朱熹, a Fujian native, spoke in public: > That's pretty recognizably Mandarin. Even earlier from the beginning of the Tang Dynasty, we have poems that are recognizably vernacular Mandarin. What distinguishing qualities of the two cited texts make you state your assertions? My paleolinguistic knowledge of Chinese languages is insufficient to discern differences, therefore it is a genuine enquiry on my behalf. Also, with respect to the Song era, the work «THE NATURE OF THE MIDDLE CHINESE TONES AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT TO EARLY MANDARIN / 中古汉语声调的本质和到早期官话的演变» (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23752830 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23752830) specifically notes the following (page 187): 3. NORTHERN SONG. Somewhat paradoxically, independent sources for the synchronic state of the language in Song are less satisfactory than for either the preceding Tang or the following Yuan periods. The great Song rhyme dictionaries, such as the Guang-yun and Ji-yun, were revisions and enlargements of the Qie-yun, preserving many distinctions which had long been obsolete. The existing versions of the earliest rhyme table, the Yun-jing, date from Southern Song but the work itself must have originated in late Tang times and its categories are those of LMC rather than the more evolved standard language of Song. Later rhyme tables such as the Qie-yun zhi-zhang tu show some contemporary influence but it is not always easy to distinguish what is merely traditional and what is strictly synchronic. Rhyming in poetry, especially «ci», as opposed to «shi» which continued to be dominated by Tang norms, gives important information but only on limited parts of the phonology. It would be interesting if you could shed the light on the available evidence (with references) that has shaped your point of view.