Chinese tradition, ceremony,culture

B.I.B. said:

After looking at the above painting, I wondering why Asian paintings never reflected ideas of linear perspective?

Click to expand...

Icmer said:

According to the most accepted linguistic classifications seen in the chart below, the Wu and Min dialect families are derived from Old Chinese while (1) Yue and Mandarin from Middle Chinese.

(2) It is true that Old Chinese (from the Han dynasty and earlier) was the first Sinitic language associated with Huaxia to be introduced to the south (that is, below the Yangtze and Huai rivers), as Zhou, Qin, and Han dynastic control extended to modern-day Fujian, Guangdong, and Vietnam. However, according to such classifications, only the Wu family (originated in the Yangtze River Delta) and the Min family (originated in Fujian) are said to be descended from Old Chinese. The reason is that the way these linguistic classifications separate the Huaxia languages into separate families with distinct parental lineages is actually quite misleading. As brought up before when I noted the various phonological similarities people noticed in the videos I posted, it seems that despite belonging to separate language families, the southern dialects were all influenced by Middle Chinese pronunciations - some more than others, but the influence universally heavy nonetheless.

For example, in the chart above, Hakka is considered to belong to the Gan family, which has no apparent descent from Middle Chinese. Yet for many words, such as "日", the Hakka pronunciation is obviously influenced by Middle Chinese rather than Old Chinese, since its pronunciation "ngit" is virtually identical to the Middle Chinese /ȵiɪt̚/.


You can also see that the Min pronunciations of this character are more similar to Old Chinese (although this isn't always true). Also note the Taishanese pronunciation is virtually identical to that of Hakka - and by extension, Middle Chinese - while the Cantonese pronunciation "jat" is quite divergent, reflecting the historical losses of the "i" medial and initial consonant "ng" in Cantonese. The contradiction is quite evident if you consider that Taishanese belongs to the Yue family, which is shown as deriving from Middle Chinese, while the Gan family (to which Hakka belongs) is only shown as deriving from Old Chinese.

I think this contradiction reflects how the regions of origin of the language families said to be derived from Old Chinese have had much longer and more relatively isolated Huaxia influence from the ancient period. In other words, Wu/Min regions had an early influx of Han settlers from the Central Plains who spoke Old Chinese, and this founder population retained a much longer influence in those regions as reflected by lasting Old Chinese linguistic influence - whereas, although the Lingnan region/Guangdong initially came under imperial rule after the Qin southern conquest, (3) the founder population of Qin/Han settlers was later overwhelmed by Middle Chinese-speaking migrants from the north in the time of the Tang and Song dynasties. Hence Middle Chinese came to be the dominant linguistic influence in Yue-speaking regions.

(4) Don't get me wrong; the grouping of dialects into separate language families is still valuable. For example, the Min languages retain many Classical Chinese (which is often considered to represent the Old Chinese vernacular) terms in their vernacular, whereas by the Tang and Song dynasties many of these terms were already falling into disuse and relegated to literary/Classical Chinese usage only. Therefore, these terms also did not make their way into the dialects said to be derived from Middle Chinese only.

Click to expand...

taxiya said:

very nice chart, I will study it. thanks.

I am not a linguistic, all my knowledge is from self-learning and a bit from my father who is related in Mandarin teaching but not research, so he know some conclusions agreed in the earlier time, not very latest. So here is something about the highlighted texts of yours that I can share (in the order):

1. Yue, I thought it is from old Chinese only because the region has been reached and incorporated by early Han dynasty, about the same time as Min (Fujian). So I made the guess. But, after you said it, I remember that oversea Chinese of Guangdong decent self styled as "Tang ren" as in 唐人街 (Tang dynasty) rather than "Han ren" of Han Dynasty. That does indicate Guangdong was incorporated during Tang, so the mass settlement by Tang, therefor middle Chinese.

(2) I agree "old Chinese being the first sinitic language introduced to the south". Because the there is only one Sinitic language that is Han Chinese. All other related languages are in the branch of "Tibetan Burman" group. There is no other language can be called Sinitic. As shown by your graph. Remember, all Chinese dialects are understandable by their written form (meaning >80% common in grammar, same way of thinking and composing in mind) even though the pronauciations are very different.

The graph apperantly is made by non-Chinese linguistists who make Chinese dialects as languages, making Chinese a language family rather than a single language.
​

It is important to note that in Chinese linguistic terms, phonology does not play a decisive role in defining language, it is the grammar. That is different from European linguistists who emphasize phhonology to the point that they define Danish, Swedish, Norwaigen and Islandic as different languages which in Chinese terms are the same language of different dialects because their grammar are >90% common and pronouciation is >90% common between Swedish and Norweigen, >60% (Danish to Swedish listeners), >80% if reversed. Same goes with Serbo-Croat languages (Serbian, Croation, Montenegrian, Slovanian) or Russian, Bylarusian and Ukranian. It is difference definition, that leads to different catagorization. There is no common ground in this, personal choice.

The positon of Hakka in the tree runs counter to my belief of Hakka being from middle Chinese, but rather from old Chinese through Chu (kingdom before Qin unification). The very reason Hakka is called "客家", literally the Guest Family, is because they are regarded as later comers by other Southern Chinese. That indicates that they has to reach south later than Guangdong and Fujian people, so no earlier than Tang.

Once again, I trust Chinese linguistic research than Europeans in Chinese research. After all who is better knowledged about Greeks than Greeks themselves? Besides, it is a study of human culture, so a preset mind and belief makes the fundation. Gray is white to people who is surrounded by darkness.

(3) It is very true, although Ling Nan was counqured by Qin, until Tang it was still very less populated by Han migrants, until Tang dynasty Ling Nan was still regarded as place for exile/bannish (发配岭南), pretty much like Heilongjian or Xinjiang in Qing dynasty (发配黑龙江给披甲人为奴, exiled to Heilongjiang to be slaves for the officers).

(4) I won't because dialect or family is terms used by linguistists who has fundamental disagreements of what constitute a language. Nothing there to agree or disagree.

However and once again, sharing similar vocabulary is not a defining character of language. There are many words sharing (both meaning and phonology) between very far apart languages, that does not make them related. Examples are Morden English has over 60% of its vocabulary being derived or directly imported from Latin and Greek, two distinct languages (even by Chinese standards). Same goes to Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese having even higher percentage??? of Chinese vocabulary, for exampel Japanese vocabulary is made of 1. Kango (Chinese word), 2. Wasei-Kango (Japanese made Chinese word 和制汉字) and native Japanese word.

So if the difference in vocabulary is used as an argument for language/dialect debate, I can't buy it.

[Edit],
I realized why you asked "old Chinese being the first sinitic language introduced to the south?", that is apperantly relevant if one treat Chinese dilects as seperate languages as the graph did. The question would be irrelevant if one believe Chinese was and always is a single language.

Click to expand...

taxiya said:

What do you mean by "linear perspective"?

The one thing differentiate western and Chinese paintings is the lack of attention to accurate optical perspective. Is that what you meant? Not only painting, but sculptures lack the accuracy of proportion, comparing Greco/Roman sculptures and Chinese figures. The most accurate proportional Chinese sculptures are the Terracotta warriors, even that is only on the early Greek sculptures during the proto-Greco era (Mycenaean and Minoan period before the Greeks were called Greeks).

As of the reason, I heard one theory which I think is reasonable is that Chinese does not enjoy the idea of bodily portrait or sculpture in art. Portrait of a living person is mostly used as representation after their death with few exceptions. Sculptures are either deities in temple, or burial accessorial. Something to do with the view of living and deities (dead ancestors are deities).

Click to expand...

solarz said:

Hanfu is not "traditional" Chinese clothing. It is historical Chinese clothing. In fact, a mishmash of the historical fashions of various dynasties, with a generous dose of modern interpretation added in.

"Tradition" means a set of customs and beliefs that are transmitted from generation to generation. Hanfu has not been worn by anyone for 300 years.

Click to expand...

taxiya said:

The current "Hanfu" is a reinterpretation and mix of clothing of Han/Huaxia people from various dynasties and historical periods. Clothing of Han/Huaxia has changed drastically in the past 3000 years. If we put clothes of Ming female dress on the side of Tang female dress, you would not even call them the same.

The current "Hanfu" trend is more based on Qin and Han dynasty. While the cloth in your video is more of a creation of modern TV shows. It is IMO a mix of upper side of Qin/Han with a lower side of Tang (and afterwards).

Basically, there is no one type of Chinese traditional clothing that can be defined by today's "Hanfu" concept.

Click to expand...

SilentObserver said:

Demo of Ming dynasty fighting techniques

Click to expand...

solarz said:

I can't help but wonder why they're fighting in bulky robes, and that guy keeps looking at the ground every time he blocks with his shield.

Click to expand...