| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Zhou adopted the East Asian lingua franca of Shang
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Zhou adopted the East Asian lingua franca of Shang

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Zhou adopted the East Asian lingua franca of Shang
    Posted: 17 Jun 2014 at 05:46


Taken from the last pages of Scott DeLancey's paper "The Origins of Sinitic"

Focusing on the highlighted parts, the Zhou were Tibeto-Burmans whom were culturally Sinicized by the Shang demographic before they went on to Tibeto-Burmanize the lingua franca the Shang had used.  The Zhou were using a typologically alien language to which they fused to Shang's lingua franca with genetic components such as pronouns and relict lexical morphologies.

There is a disagreement that Tibeto-Burmans were the original Sinitic and did not accrue cultural knowledge from Shang.  If Tibeto-Burman had been in control of the Sinitic and the Shang had already been Tibeto-Burman what need was there to Tibeto-Burmanize the Shang's lingua franca?


Edited by literaryClarity - 19 Jun 2014 at 15:22
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4902
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2014 at 06:16
Literary Clarity:
Apart from your dishonest, ad hominem attacks on Easy772, this thread has to do with what?
 
When discussing the Shang, you may wish to research the Xia, who were the Dynasty before the Shang, and who introduced civilisation to China, albeit in the Central North.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2014 at 08:54
http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/China/Geneva%20paper%202004%20submit.pdf

His rationale (not mine) that Cishan-Peiligang farmers were highly unlikely to have produced linguistic imprint.

Quote
Wherever Sinitic originates within Sino‑Tibetan, there is a broad consensus that its main spread has  been north–south, from the millet‑growing to the rice‑growing areas and that it has assimilated or overwhelmed a diverse in situ population (e.g. Fitzgerald 1972; Lee 1978; LaPolla 2001). It is therefore unlikely that Sinitic can be identiied with the earliest Neolithic communities in north China such as the Péilígăng or Císhān (6500 BP onwards) and it is more helpful to think of Sinitic as one of Barnes’s (1993: 108) ‘Late Neolithic Elites’ emerging between 3500 and 2000 BC. The notable feature of the end of this period is the appearance of bronze vessels in the archaeological record and it easy  to imagine the inception of the Shang as marking the take‑off of Sinitic. Presumably, a major element in the in situ population was Hmong‑Mien‑speaking, but unless these groups were considerably north of their present location, the agriculturists of Císhān were not Hmong‑Mien either. Van Driem (1998) has canvassed Sichuān as the likely original homeland of Sino‑Tibetan (Tibeto‑Burman in his terms). A  comparable view is supported in a study of Y chromosome haplotypes reported in Su et al. (2000) who argue that proto‑Sino‑Tibetan was spoken in northern Sichuān and dispersed westwards to the Himalayas and east and south to create the Chinese dialects. However, they also argue that this nucleus was the lineal descendant of early Neolithic millet‑growers, which seems highly unlikely. There is no obvious candidate for the ethnolinguistic identity of the millet‑growers of Péilígăng and it may be that they have no linguistic descendants.


It does not matter what subclades were coalescing in great concentration in that area if they didn't immediately evolve Sinitic linguistics, which undoubtedly transformed into lingua franca used during Shang.  Chinese civilization's urheimat, not the whole Sino-Tibetan affiliation was designed around the premise that culture could be spread by civilization, through language and writing just as any other civilization had.  Without linguistic descendants how would we even begin to talk about culture, or the records of that culture?  I don't think I have to belabor the point so many linguistic scholars have already made which distinguish Sinitics apart from Tibeto-Burmans.  Tibeto-Burman like the Austronesian which it split from was agglutinated speech, moreover it is SOV syntax.  Sinitic is monosyllabic and SVO syntax.  How do you expect to write Shang oracle while using agglutinated speech?

Sinicization took place as early as 3000 BC, by the people of Liangzhu.




Edited by literaryClarity - 18 Jun 2014 at 16:02
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.