Abstand und ausbau, part 2
« previous post | next post »
The first part of this debate, "Abstand und ausbau" (10/28/25), was so spirited and prolonged, and has recently moved on to significant new ground, that I've decided to launch this part 2.
Before commenting here, please go back and review what was said in the previous o.p. and the subsequent comments thereto, some of which are quite substantial. Here I copy one of the recent observations in the first thread that has not yet been adequately responded to there:
The genetic unity of Sinitic is not only unproven, but it's being challenged increasingly by both paleogenetics studies, as well as paleoanthropological studies, including by mainland Chinese researchers affiliated with mainstream state institutions.
The "Western Xia, Eastern Yi" hypothesis, which says the civilization later known as Han came to be through merger of two large civilizations (one coastal and the other inland), each with their own (unrelated and starkly different) language, proto-writing, spiritual believes (shamanism vs. ancestor worship), economic production (rice vs. millet) and material culture, was proposed decades ago, remains somewhat fringe to this day, but is slowly picking up support.
(wgj)
[The commenter appends two videos in Chinese, here and here, the second of which is not currently working.]
One thing is certain: whatever Hànyǔ 漢語 ("Sinitic") is, it will take decades to figure out its synchronic and diachronic dimensions.
Selected readings
- The works of Søren Christian Egerod (1923-1995), particularly his magisterial "Chinese languages" and other articles in Encyclopædia Britannica. I'm surprised and gratified that Egerod's superlative, prescient scholarship is still being republished in current editions of Encyclopædia Britannica. I read his articles in an earlier, printed edition. I am honored to have met Egerod in person in Taiwan four decades ago and to have heard him pronounce his name in Danish, a mind-boggling experience.
- The works of Jerry Norman (1936-2012), especially Chinese. Cambridge language surveys, (Cambridge University Press, 1988). Norman privately told me that the Sinitic group had more than three hundred different languages.
See also the bibliography at the conclusion of the first part of this series.
Jerry Packard said,
November 11, 2025 @ 10:11 am
“The genetic unity of Sinitic is not only unproven, but it's being challenged increasingly …”
In many ways the genetic unity of Indo-European or PIE are also unproven and subject to more detailed future data analysis.
wgj said,
November 11, 2025 @ 11:43 am
Here's the link to the second video again:
冯时 文字起源与夷夏东西 20200712
https://youtu.be/bKFHZ6biVCw
It's a recording of an online seminar (during Covid), in which a presentation on the origin of Sinitic writing the "Western Xia, Eastern Yi" hypothesis was given by Prof. Feng Shi with (supporting) comments by other experts. Like I said, this hypothesis is still considered fringe, but Prof. Feng's background and affiliation are as mainstream as it gets, graduate of Peking University's Department of History (which used to include archeology before it was split off) and working at Institute of Archeology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the two top authorities in Chinese archeology.
wgj said,
November 11, 2025 @ 12:14 pm
@Jerry: Unlike Sinitic which has been geographically limited until modern times, Indo-European has been so widely spread that it's seems statistically almost certain that at least some IE language would have been a non-genetic cultural adaptation – meaning some group not directly descended from PIE speakers must have taken on IE as a replacement of their previously non-IE language, the way African-Americans have taken on English.
What I've been wondering for a while now: Weren't the Franks originally Germanic? When and how did they drop German and take to Latin instead?
Victor Mair said,
November 11, 2025 @ 1:41 pm
@wgj
You've given us the first video again, and it always worked.
Here's the URL of the second video, and it still doesn't work:
https://youtu.bexZv_FgqgqrA
Philip Taylor said,
November 11, 2025 @ 3:08 pm
For the latter, please try https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1qf4y1m7mL/ — caveat lector : I am not able to guarantee that this is indeed the same video.
Philip Taylor said,
November 11, 2025 @ 3:09 pm
P.S. The original YouTube URL is lacking a slash, but even once interpolated the content is no longer available — https://youtu.be/xZv_FgqgqrA
VMartin said,
November 11, 2025 @ 4:44 pm
@wgj.
Nikolay Marr, the former head of Oriental studies during Stalin claimed that the concept of IE languages is only a bourgeois propaganda. One of his arguments was that French doesn't have declension. Another one was, that IE languages have different words for basic words like good – bonum, хороший, gut, dobrý… Stalin later criticized Marr's concept of the class origin of languages, and modern linguistics has rejected his teaching entirely. Yet it is said he spoke some 20 languages, and his work is now available in Russian in several volumes. Wrong or not – for an amateur like me it is an interesting reading. And it supports your claim, that IE was a language of the ruling class of conquerors implemented on pre-existing languages in Europe.