Ian_Lee Posted February 6, 2004 at 07:57 PM Report Posted February 6, 2004 at 07:57 PM Lao Wie Jie wrote: Can Cantonese express all the pronounciation in Chinese character? Which Chinese character that you know cannot be pronounced in Cantonese? Please enlighten me.
Quest Posted February 6, 2004 at 08:01 PM Author Report Posted February 6, 2004 at 08:01 PM I hope one can find the "pure Han" from 2000 years ago to compare the North vs South of present day China. How does he know who's more similar to the ancients otherwise? But I give up, however I do suggest that superior man to look over this post: http://www.chinese-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=572
roddy Posted February 7, 2004 at 01:25 AM Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 01:25 AM an eighteen century survey by Spaniard anthrolopologist Prehaps there aren't any better sources because nobody cares?
Quest Posted February 7, 2004 at 02:01 AM Author Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 02:01 AM Okay I did try to ignore him... but I can't. Can Cantonese express all the pronounciation in Chinese character?if not, then how can these people be original Han people. Sure they can. Also, don't forget that we all used classical Chinese before the 20th century. I hope you see what I mean here. Many people claim that Hakkas were pure blooded Hans but historical records shows that Hakkas have intermarriadge with the local Yueh population in Guangzhou. Please define what "pure Han" is.... Do you measure a pure Han by meters or ounces? Okay if a Han marrried a mongol or tartar or turk or manchu or korean, he's still a pure Han, but if a Han married a Yueh, he's a Malay. Is that what you are saying? Their language were claimed to be ancient Han languange but a recent research by linguist and historians show that Mandarin was the original language of the Hans. Yea, I did a research too, and I found out your ancesters were Martians. The present form of Mandarin spoken have been modified during the Kuomintang era and Lushun movement. All southerners are the children of Yueh. No matter how much we may deny, the physical evidence clearly shows that. Please post us a picture of yourself, so we all know what a pure Han should look like. Eventhough the northern frontier have had much mixed blood (Monggol, Huns and Manchus), Mandarin was always used as the official language of the courts, the Hans did not die away but assimilated these people as well. Yes, if northern Hans mixed with chickens and ducks, they are still pure Hans. 1
Quest Posted February 7, 2004 at 02:12 AM Author Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 02:12 AM i agree that no Chinese Han today are pure Hans but the northern population resembles the pure Hans the most. Heard of the Han migration and conquest to the south? Those were the days where native Yuehs were driven off their fertile region by superior Hans. They fleed to Vietnam' date=' Siam and most of Southeastasia. The remainders settle in Yunnan and southern Guangzhou and eventually disintegrated to the various tribes of Yunnan. But most of them became subjects of Han and intermarried with the Han conquestidors that mostly includes Mechant much dispised by the Hans in the north and soldiers. Yueh chieftains also willingly accept their new masters by adopting Han surnames. This process went on for a few centuries and eventually these southern populations thought of themselves as the pure Hans.[/quote'] Let me tell you another story. When the NuZhen, Mongols, Huns, Turks, Manchus etc invaded the north, all the pure Hans went south. Remaining in the north were barbarians or 汉奸s. By the time of Southern Song dynasty, all the original Hans have moved south. After the Mings regained power, the barbarians in the North thought of themselves as the pure Hans.
Quest Posted February 7, 2004 at 02:20 AM Author Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 02:20 AM According to Mr. Sterling Seagrave (author of Lord of the Rims and a few asian historical title), an eighteen century survey by Spaniard anthrolopologist clearly reveal that the Han likeness decreases as they move southward along China. Yea I am sure a Spaniard from the 18th century could tell what people looked like in the Han dynasty in China. The Cantonese were the most un-Han liked with complexion like Malays and Vietnamnese and also berbers of the arabic world,having bigger eyes, big and flatter nose index (negrito) and having inferior physical qualities. Yes they ran around naked, with hair on their face, two horns on their heads, and vampire teeth sticking out of their mouths. As they move northwards, the Hokkien population were having more Han liked population but a majority of them still have Yueh features. Only when they reach upper-Changjiang river where they find nearly perfect Han features (light yellowish complexion, sharp nose, slanted eyes and physical well-built). They look more and more like God. 1
skylee Posted February 7, 2004 at 03:15 AM Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 03:15 AM The last time I was in Guangzhou, which was Christmas 2002, there was a brand new museum dedicated to the Nanyue Kingdom. Too bad they were still renovating at the time, but it looks promising from the outside. I am going to Guangzhou two weeks later and am quite interested in visiting this museum. Any information on where it is, how to get there and if the exhibits are good, etc?
Quest Posted February 7, 2004 at 03:39 AM Author Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 03:39 AM The museum is not new, it has been there for a while. It is a pyramid like structure near the Sun Yat Sen Memorial at North JieFang road. I've never visited it myself though, sadly.
Guest Lao Wei Jie Posted February 7, 2004 at 11:11 AM Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 11:11 AM To Mr.Ian Lee and Quest, I have nothing against the southern Chinese but just to clear up the facts. As i have said earlier, both Southern and Northern population are no more pure Hans. If you are so interested in ancient features take a look at the terracota armies. Do they have big eyes and large nostrils like Negritos. I am not the one creating all this, you can vent your anger towards the Chinese researchers and Mr.Sterling Seagrave who are more than qualified than you two in anthropology. Why show so much anger in a logical discussion? No Quest, i am sure they have cloths on and don't run around naked. A decent study by the Spaniards is treated by you as a humour eh? Have you traveled as extensive as these explorers? I am not here to humiliate anyone but merely for a rational discussion. Forgive me if anyone is offended.
Guest Lao Wei Jie Posted February 7, 2004 at 11:23 AM Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 11:23 AM 嗌交（吵架) Check the Chinese dictionary does this have any meaning to you 嗌交 吵架 = argue but how about the cantonese version 嗌交? 嗌交 have no meaning in Han languange Dictionary, it is just used tto represent Cantonese version for argue (ai kao).
Guest Lao Wei Jie Posted February 7, 2004 at 11:32 AM Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 11:32 AM 你估我唔知咩？（呸，你认为我不知道？) 唔(Gu in Canton) is this word same as the word for guess in Han language? Check the dictionary my friend
Guest Lao Wei Jie Posted February 7, 2004 at 11:33 AM Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 11:33 AM sorry is the word 估
Quest Posted February 7, 2004 at 07:50 PM Author Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 07:50 PM To Mr.Ian Lee and Quest' date=' I have nothing against the southern Chinesebut just to clear up the facts. As i have said earlier, both Southern and Northern population are no more pure Hans. If you are so interested in ancient features take a look at the terracota armies. Do they have big eyes and large nostrils like Negritos.[/quote'] Very funny you-call-it "facts". Which survey tells you southerners have "big eyes and large nostrils like Negritos?" On average, the only difference between north and south I find is in the eyelids. Northern population tend to have single eyelids, and the Southerners tend to have double eyelids. Also, I find Beijing'ers to have very round faces. I am not the one creating all this Too bad you are the one spreading the rumor. you can vent your anger towards the Chinese researchers and Mr.Sterling Seagrave who are more than qualified than you two in anthropology. Oh so you want the southerners to dig up Mr. Seagrave's grave, and maybe eat his remains? I am a "Chinese researcher" too, what makes me "less qualified"? Why show so much anger in a logical discussion? Because it is hardly logical. No Quest, i am sure they have cloths on and don't run around naked. A decent study by the Spaniards is treated by you as a humour eh? I have no doubt that the Spaniard had a pair of eyes, but so do I. Have you traveled as extensive as these explorers? Around the world in a boring boat? No. Within China? Probably. Btw, I've also travelled to the moon and Mars, albeit virtually. I am not here to humiliate anyone but merely for a rational discussion. Forgive me if anyone is offended. First of all, no one is humiliated here, so you don't have to worry. Second of all, rational discussions are always welcome. Forgive me though, if I don't find a bit of rationality in your discussion. 1
Quest Posted February 7, 2004 at 08:02 PM Author Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 08:02 PM 嗌交（吵架) Check the Chinese dictionary does this have any meaning to you 嗌交 吵架 = argue but how about the cantonese version 嗌交? 嗌交 have no meaning in Han languange Dictionary' date=' it is just used tto represent Cantonese version for argue (ai kao).[/quote'] In my character dictionary: 嗌: 古书上指咽喉痛 交：相互 Literally 嗌交 implies an action that involves more than one person, and it involves soring one's throat. Ever heard of the word 性交? You can interpret it the same way. 估：评估，估计 I don't see how you can't translate it as "guess". These are old Han vocabulary, that are no longer used in Mandarin. If the Han dictionary that you said means a modern Mandarin dictionary, then too bad I don't think you can find Cantonese vocabulary in it, either. Of course, since you are equating modern Mandarin to Hanyu, you couldn't have realized that.
Guest Lao Wei Jie Posted February 7, 2004 at 09:28 PM Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 09:28 PM 你估我唔知咩(nei gu ngo ngu sze ya) = you thought i don't know? the word 估 means estimate in Han language and it has no meaning when put into such phrase. It translate to you estimate i don't know in Han language. Cantonese is a language that borrows Han characters with similar sounds to suit their language. The phrase above have literally no meaning in Chinese. This is the correct way to express it .. 你认为我不知道. The word 唔 is not the same as not in Mandarin. The correct word is bu(不) or pat in Cantonese.
Quest Posted February 7, 2004 at 09:37 PM Author Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 09:37 PM 你估我唔知咩(nei gu ngo ngu sze ya) = you thought i don't know?the word 估 means estimate in Han language and it has no meaning when put into such phrase. It translate to you estimate i don't know in Han language. Cantonese is a language that borrows Han characters with similar sounds to suit their language. The phrase above have literally no meaning in Chinese. This is the correct way to express it .. 你认为我不知道. The word 唔 is not the same as not in Mandarin. The correct word is bu(不) or pat in Cantonese. omg, live in your own world. 同你再讲落去都嘥我口水。
Guest Lao Wei Jie Posted February 7, 2004 at 09:44 PM Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 09:44 PM Quest, i have not heard of your so-called Han dictionary in my entire life. Maybe your so-called old Han dictionary is just a copy of a Cantonese dictionary. There is a reason why the modern Chinese Han dictionary is called Han Yu Ci Dian (汉 语 词 典). It reflects that Mandarin is the original Han language. And the present population of Guangzhou as i said earlier in my post resembles more Han features than Yueh features because of better nutrition and more influx of Han blood. If you were to travel back a few centuries to the time of the Spaniard explorers. You will be astonished to find the population of the Guangzhou resembles Vietnamnese and Southeastasians more. Please refer to Mr.Seagraves book if you are still not convinced of the origins of the southern population. The title of the book is "Lords of the Rim". I think you will find it a very useful book not only covering their origins but also their success overseas. There are many more books available that supports my claim and it will take you some effort to find them. Good luck in your journey to find the answer.
Guest Lao Wei Jie Posted February 7, 2004 at 10:23 PM Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 10:23 PM 1) http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/95/20/11501.pdf 2 http://hgm2002.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopPosters/WorkshopPoster11/hgm0599.htm 3)http://www.cmj.org/information/full.asp?id=871 4)http://www.scienceinchina.com/yk/yc/0005/yc0472.pdf This is a research done by the Chinese Genome project that shows Northern Chinese are more homogenous compared to southern population while Southern Chinese are closely related to Vietnamnese and Southeastasians. The fourth paper is rather interesting attributing the phenomenon to geographical reasons.
Guest Lao Wei Jie Posted February 7, 2004 at 10:25 PM Report Posted February 7, 2004 at 10:25 PM Mr. Quest, hope that these limited resources can help you in your research. It is the truth that we all seek to discover not lies to console and boast ego.
Recommended Posts