Unmasking AIT

[Husky]

Actually, instead of my earlier statements about the Chinese script, here are sources with some information about it. (Some of these confirm a few of my earlier claims)



p.7 of unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/ch12.pdf

Table 12-2. Blocks Containing Han Ideographs

CJK Unified Ideographs Extension : B 20000-2A6DF : Rare, historic

Note that in total, the Unicode Supplementary Ideographic plane has allocated codeblocks for several tens of thousands of "ancient" Han ideographs (symbols) that are stated as having fallen into actual disuse now.



That's a lot of freedom for PIE-ists to make up stuff about.



en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Chinese

[color="#0000FF"]At the inception of written Chinese, spoken Chinese was monosyllabic; that is, Chinese words expressing independent concepts (objects, actions, relations, etc.) were usually one syllable. Each written character corresponded to one monosyllabic word.[38] The spoken language has since become polysyllabic,[39] but because modern polysyllabic words are usually composed of older monosyllabic words, Chinese characters have always been used to represent individual Chinese syllables.[40][/color]



For over two thousand years, the prevailing written standard was a vocabulary and syntax rooted in Chinese as spoken around the time of Confucius (about 500 BC), called Classical Chinese, or 文言文 wényánwén. Over the centuries, Classical Chinese gradually acquired some of its grammar and character senses from the various dialects. This accretion was generally slow and minor; however, by the 20th century, Classical Chinese was distinctly different from any contemporary dialect, and had to be learned separately.[41][42] [color="#0000FF"]Once learned, it was a common medium for communication between people speaking different dialects, many of which were mutually unintelligible by the end of the first millennium CE.[43] A Mandarin speaker might say yī, a Cantonese jat1, and a Hokkien chit, but all three will understand the character 一 "one".[16][/color]



Chinese dialects vary by not only pronunciation, but also, to a lesser extent, vocabulary and grammar.[44] Modern written Chinese, which replaced Classical Chinese as the written standard as an indirect result of the May Fourth Movement of 1919, is not technically bound to any single dialect; however, it most nearly represents the vocabulary and syntax of Mandarin, by far the most widespread Chinese dialect in terms of both geographical area and number of speakers.[45] This version of written Chinese is called Vernacular Chinese, or 白話/白话 báihuà (literally, "plain speech").[46] Despite its ties to the dominant Mandarin dialect, Vernacular Chinese also permits some communication between people of different dialects, limited by the fact that Vernacular Chinese expressions are often ungrammatical or unidiomatic in non-Mandarin dialects. This role may not differ substantially from the role of other linguae francae, such as Latin: For those trained in written Chinese, it serves as a common medium; for those untrained in it, the graphic nature of the characters is in general no aid to common understanding (characters such as "one" notwithstanding).[47] In this regard, Chinese characters may be considered a large and inefficient phonetic script.[48] However, Ghil'ad Zuckermann’s exploration of phono-semantic matching in Standard Chinese concludes that the Chinese writing system is multifunctional, conveying both semantic and phonetic content.[49]



The variation in vocabulary among dialects has also led to the informal use of "dialectal characters", as well as standard characters that are nevertheless considered archaic by today's standards.[50] Cantonese is unique among non-Mandarin regional languages in having a written colloquial standard, used in Hong Kong and overseas, with a large number of unofficial characters for words particular to this dialect.[51] Written colloquial Cantonese has become quite popular in online chat rooms and instant messaging, although for formal written communications Cantonese speakers still normally use Vernacular Chinese.[52] To a lesser degree Hokkien is used in a similar way in Taiwan and elsewhere, although it lacks the level of standardization seen in Cantonese. However, the Ministry of Education of the Republic of China is currently releasing a standard character set for Hokkien, which is to be taught in schools and promoted amongst the general population.[53]

Excerpts from 2 links mentioned earlier and a new one:



1. pinyin.info/news/2006/misunderstandings-of-biblical-proportions/

The important point here is that character came about through the borrowing of a character for a homophonous word. This is common in the history of Chinese characters. Indeed, phonetic elements, though often obscured by the passage of time and changes in language, are more common than any other.

2. chinese-forums.com/index.php?/topic/3794-stories-in-the-characters/

It [color="#800080"][christo book asserting the bible was behind the origins of Chinese script/language/thought, aka "Biblical Religion Did It"][/color] also tries to do this "etymology" on the modern character forms, which are different from their original forms. For instance the "丿 Pieh" stroke in the character 造 doesn't actually appear in the older forms of the character.

For those with a more general interest in the nature of Chinese writing and its relationship to the language(s), I recommend _The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy_, by John DeFrancis, ISBN 0-8248-1068-6. This reinforces very strongly that there is a strong phonetic component to the characters. DeFrancis shows that while only about one-third of the character inventory had phonetic components during the time of the Oracle Bones (Shang Dynasty, 1766-1154 BC), this had grown to include 97 percent of the characters by the 12th century AD. It's also worth noting that the Oracle Bones used only 977 characters. This number grew over time:



Shang Dynasty: 977

2nd Century AD: 9,000-10,000

12th Century AD: 23,000-24,000

18th Century AD: 48,000-49,000

And for now, in case you haven't heard of them before or don't recollect what they refer to, just remember the terms Oracle Bones and Shang Dynasty - which is the 2nd formative dynasty as per Chinese' recollection of ancient Chinese history. It is an important part of this whole topic of PIE on China. (As is the 3rd dynasty)

(I hope to paste stuff about it in some future post.)

I found a great number of the proposed etymologies to be far-fetched, as, indeed, Mr. Swanson admits they might seem. To me one of the most blatant examples was the statement that the symbol for fire, which is surely a pictogram of leaping flames, was derived from a glorified man, simply because the two signs are somewhat similar. (But the early forms, as shown, were not.) [I cannot reproduce the list of pictograms that was originally printed with this letter, but the early form for fire looks nothing like a man, it looks more like a bowl with flames rising out of it. -- Ed.]

[...]

Another pictogram, which the book explains as an ideogram, which it is not, is that for clothes. Note the original form. [The original pictogram for clothes looks nothing like the later depiction. -- Ed.]



Another fault of the book is that it often ignores the fact that some Chinese characters are phonetic in nature, so that every single element need not contribute to the meaning



[...]

I do agree that the character for righteousness indicates the time when the sacrifice to make me (see chart) righteous was a sheep or goat. Today, at least in southern China, the pig is the large animal most commonly sacrificed. The pig, or course, is an unclean animal in the Old Testament.

(Roetz already discussed the level of significance of sheep/goat.

Anyway, as seen, it's not just the PIE-ists who choose to read what they want - PIE-ism - into the 'significance' of the sheep/goat in Chinese ethics and law. Babble-peddlers were doing so well before. Both parties conveniently draw the conclusions they want, and both are mutually exclusive: one claims biblical origins, the other IE origins. Well, mutually exclusive unless one equates the two by stating that the babble is PIE-religion :evil-grin: Well, what the babble-thumpers called Japethites, modern PIE-ists call Oryans/IE, so why shouldn't the babble-peddlers have started this trend of interpreting the Chinese script and its origins in similar fashion?)



I must add here, however, that Wilder and Ingram provide an alternate explanation: that I am righteous when I become lamb-like or peaceable rather than belligerent. [3}

[color="#800080"](Yes, and the PIE-ists provide their own explanation: that it was all owing to PIE kultur.)[/color]



[color="#800080"](Then the writer of the above statements ended with this sane observation[/color]



Of course, it's [color="#0000FF"]interesting that only the Chinese knew as far back as the 18th century BC that Jesus was going to be sacrificed[/color] -- which is the whole point of this little exercise.

[color="#800080"](Christians are so hysterical. About as hysterical as the PIE-ists. And about as deadly to heathenism too.)[/color]

3. pinyin.info/readings/texts/visible/index.html

Chinese

From Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems by John DeFrancis, © 1989 by the University of Hawai`i Press. Used by permission of the University of Hawai`i Press.



In contrast to Sumerian writing, whose history can be traced to its very beginning, the origins of Chinese writing are obscure and much debated. The earliest form known to us dates from the Shang dynasty (1200-1045 b.c.). By that time the script was already a highly developed system based on principles which have continued to characterize the system to the present.

(From that mystery developed the need to solve it by speculation: PIE saw an opening and wanted to insinuate itself as the solution to the mystery. But that's not the point of this post.)



A major point of contention is, How did the idea of writing come into the minds of the Chinese? There are two opposing views of the matter based on different explanations for the emergence of civilized societies and the existence of specific elements of culture, including writing. One approach stresses "independent invention," the other "stimulus diffusion."



Chinese scholars tend to espouse the first approach. In support of this view a number of writers have attempted to push Chinese writing back before Sumerian by claiming a connection between some symbols of Shang date and those inscribed on pottery several millennia earlier (Chang 1983; Cheung 1983). However, as noted in the previous criticism of scholars who see a connection between Easter Island symbols and those of the Indus Valley, it is methodologically unacceptable to advance as evidence miscellaneous instances of similarity among the necessarily limited number of scratchings that can be made using only two or three lines. There is involved here is a sort of chauvinistic scholarship that seeks to prove an independent invention for Chinese writing by methodologically suspect means.



Exponents of the "stimulus diffusion" approach sometimes use the same dubious methodology to claim that some of the symbols found in China have been copied from earlier ones found in the Near East. Most diffusionists advance a broader and more general argument based on the amount and quality of correspondence between civilizations. They argue that while some simple aspects of culture, such as stone knives and drawings of familiar things, may have been independently invented by various peoples, more complicated ones like writing must have had a single origin. In support of this thesis, diffusionists cite evidence of borrowing of some other specific cultural items to prove the borrowing of the idea of writing. Thus the prominent Near Eastern scholar Cyrus H. Gordon states that "China heard about casting bronze from the West; and what impelled China to invent her own system of writing was diffusion of the idea from the Near East" (Gordon 1971:16).



But here too the methodology is open to question. The borrowing of one item-if it really is a case of borrowing-does not necessarily prove the borrowing of another, though to be sure evidence of extensive borrowing is suggestive. Conversely, when instances of alleged influence are shown to be based on dubious scholarship, this saps confidence in the whole approach. Gordon 's overall case for stimulus diffusion is hardly helped by his advancing the claim that "Chinese in pigtails" (actually found only in the Manchu period, from 1644 to 1911) "are portrayed unmistakably in the art in pre-Columbian Middle America" (Gordon 1971:171).



My own view of the matter is that the arguments for both approaches are seriously flawed and that at present there is simply not enough evidence to provide convincing proof for either claim about the origin of Shang writing. (But that won't stop the speculators, let alone those on fire for PIE to claim it all.) However, while keeping an open mind on the matter, I feel that the burden of proof rests with the diffusionists. I therefore incline toward the belief that the Chinese independently invented writing, not because there is any proof for this, but chiefly because I believe that human beings are sufficiently inventive to have come up with the same idea more than just once.



Moreover, it seems to me that while some of the principles underlying Chinese writing are in fact similar to those underlying Sumerian writing, in all probability the reason for this is not that one was influenced by the other. The distances in time and space, unlike the Sumerian-Egyptian and Phoenician-Greek situations (discussed in chapters 4 and 5, respectively), militate against such a hypothesis. A more reasonable explanation is that the two peoples independently thought up somewhat similar solutions to somewhat similar problems. It is underlying principles, not the superficial outward form of symbols, that should occupy most of our attention.



In approaching an analysis of the Chinese script we encounter quite a different problem from that of Sumerian. In the case of Sumerian, the language represented by the writing was completely unknown and had to be reconstructed from scratch, in part with the help of information provided by peoples such as the Babylonians and Assyrians, who took over both the language and the writing system, applied the latter to their own language, and developed bilingual texts of various kinds. In the case of the Chinese, there is continuity, with gaps that can at least partially be filled in, between the earliest extant writing and that of the present day. And given the considerable amount of archaeological work going on in China and the exciting finds that have been made in recent years, there is hope of being able to fill in more gaps. Chief among these gaps is the huge void that must have contained an earlier stage of writing before the full-grown system emerged on the scene during the Shang dynasty.



(PIE-ists will fill that void with PIE-ism as the source. Because PIE-ists claim that the first Chinese dynasty is a "myth". That's what they had been claiming of the Shang dynasty until these were proven to exist, at which point PIE turned it's greedy gaze to encroaching on the Shang dynasty and to thereby also present PIE as being influential in all that followed in China's history. I.e. that PIE was the impetus behind and the source of Chinese civilisation.

But Shang dynasty and the Oracle Bones will be brought up later.)

[...]