fjnj 发表于 2011-9-8 04:02

Blench and Post: Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny

核心推测:
 The earliest speakers of Sino-Tibetan were highly diverse foragers living in an arc between the slopes of the Himalayas and Assam/Arunachal Pradesh up to 9,000 years ago and practising arboriculture (sago)
 Some spoke early Sino-Tibetan languages, others unknown languages now present only as substrates and perhaps surviving in Kusunda
 Seasonal foragers exploit the high Tibetan Plateau from 7500 BP
 Perhaps 6-5000 BP ‘livestock revolution’ takes place in the mid-level Himalayas. Yak herders move up and settle the Tibetan Plateau permanently.
 Gathering of wild cereals (buckwheat etc.) and tubers (high-altitude taro) leads to proto-agriculture in the mid-level Himalayas
 Foragers who will become the Naga complex began to practise vegeculture (taro, plantains) (NE India) and animal management (mithun) by 6000 BP possibly through contact with Austroasiatic speakers
 By 5000 BP diverse early Sino-Tibetan groups in the Himalayas begin spreading eastwards to China. Sinitic is not a primary branch but simply one of many migratory groups
 Proto-Tujia, proto-Bai and probably others meet unknown populations (Hmong-Mienic? Austronesians?) with domestic pigs, millet, while also cultivating and beginning to domesticate rice
 Proto-Sinitic speakers encounter early Altaic speakers with foxtail millet and other crops
 The Sinitic languages expand southwards, assimilating or encapsulating many small groups. They encounter Hmong-Mien speakers with rice and switch millet terminology to rice
 Rice moves up from India but also westwards from China (hence hybridised types) and overlays older cereals where ecologically possible
 Ruminants (cows, sheep, goats) spread downwards into China from Central Asia 4400 BP (? Altaic for small ruminants but not cattle)
 Tibetic speakers undergo a major expansion (when?) assimilating linguistic diversity on the Plateau
 Rice invades the lowland vegecultural zones rather later, pushing taro into residual systems
 Groups such as early Burmic spread southwards, fragmenting Austroasiatic-speaking peoples。

hercules 发表于 2011-9-8 14:07

仰韶是唯一能将西部藏缅和东部汉联系起来的文化,把它排斥掉,真是遗憾。

hercules 发表于 2011-9-8 14:14

有理由认为,到了二里头时代,原始汉语已经在中原取得统治地位,跟戎狄什么的还没发生关系。

Yungsiyebu 发表于 2011-9-8 14:21

有理由认为,到了二里头时代,原始汉语已经在中原取得统治地位,跟戎狄什么的还没发生关系。
hercules 发表于 2011-9-8 14:14 http://www.ranhaer.com/images/common/back.gif

什么理由?

hercules 发表于 2011-9-8 14:33

盲人摸象而已,比如有人就认为汉藏词汇相差比较大。根据我的观察,汉藏语在a元音上的对应性较好,在o、u上稍次,在i、e、w上很混乱。这种混乱直接影响到对原始汉藏语的元音数量的看法,认为有四元音的aoue、五元音的aeiou或aeouw,六元音的aeiouw,郑本人是支持六元音的。再看看郑的举例,a元音的同源词占多数,纠结吧。
w表示展唇后元音。

imvivi001 发表于 2011-9-8 17:32

.
       萨兄这种表述恐怕会令人混淆。从甲骨文来看,殷商时期华夏语与古藏语的同源成分不过是四成左右;从古汉语的语序结构看,古汉语是典型的SVO,与藏语是明显不同的。从现代汉族的Y-dna看,O3-M117(假设是夏人主频)也不超过现代汉族男性的3成。因此,把汉语看成是夏人带来的观点无疑是狭隘的。
   上古汉语更像是一种典型的混合语,因此才会具有更鲜明的分析语特点~

fanzhongyan 发表于 2011-9-8 18:40

.
       萨兄这种表述恐怕会令人混淆。从甲骨文来看,殷商时期华夏语与古藏语的同源成分不过是四成左右;从古汉语的语序结构看,古汉语是典型的SVO,与藏语是明显不同的。从现代汉族的Y-dna看,O3-M117(假设是夏人 ...
imvivi001 发表于 2011-9-8 17:32 http://ranhaer.com/images/common/back.gif
汉语是混合的,但汉语不是混合语{:8_206:}

如果汉语是混合语的话,就不会被归为汉藏语系了。而且世界上基本没有混合语。

fanzhongyan 发表于 2011-9-8 18:42

M117两成都不到,加上M134*也不到三成,汉语有很多东夷成分应该没有什么问题,不过既然这里谈的是汉藏语,那么我这里谈的就是汉语的汉藏成分的起源
sahaliyan 发表于 2011-9-8 17:37 http://ranhaer.com/images/common/back.gif
谈华夏族或者早期汉族,还是最好以北汉为标准。

fanzhongyan 发表于 2011-9-8 18:45

本帖最后由 fanzhongyan 于 2011-9-8 18:55 编辑

Blench的观点(尤其是涉及阿尔泰的)显然受Starostin观点的影响,认为阿尔泰人是中国北方早期粟米的种植者。
可以看这篇论文:Altaic loans in Old Chinese 古汉语中的阿尔泰借词
http://anthro.unige.ch/~sanchez- ... OSTIN_CHAP10-OK.pdf
Starostin的观点:
It is possible to localize the Altaic homeland in Northern China and to
propose an association with the Yangshao Neolithic culture that existed alongthe central Yellow River from around 5000 to 2000 bce. The cultural lexiconof Proto-Altaic reveals a much better correlation with Yangshao than that of Sino-Tibetan. The east–west distribution of Altaic (proto-)languages is in good agreement with this proposal, with the original centre now occupied by Chinese speakers.

There is no reason to localize the Sino-Tibetan homeland in Northern China.
It is more likely that the proto-language was spoken somewhere else, say,
in the sub-Himalayan region, as proposed some time ago (Peiros 1998).
Speakers of Proto-Sinitic began their migration to Northern China after the disintegration of Proto-Sino-Tibetan no earlier than the 3rd millennium bce.

During this migration they came in contact with speakers of local languages,including ancient Austronesian and Korean-Japanese languages.
Their contacts with Proto-Austronesian were bilateral, each language borrowing from the other (Peiros and Starostin 1984).

Ancient contacts between Chinese and Altaic languages were of a different nature, with only Chinese being a recipient of borrowings. This may have begun when the ancient Chinese speakers reached the Yellow River valley. There are some lexical comparisons between Japanese and Austronesian, but so far we do not know whether the Austronesian languages were in contact with Korean. This possibility is yet to be investigated.

imvivi001 发表于 2011-9-8 20:16

上文中‘The cultural lexicon of Proto-Altaic reveals a much better correlation with Yangshao than that of Sino-Tibetan. ’非常令人费解,不知依据何在?

fanzhongyan 发表于 2011-9-8 20:32

不过以前从来没听说过汉语里还有日语朝鲜语借词的,感觉这个比那个南亚语借词问题更不靠谱。

imvivi001 发表于 2011-9-8 20:32

萨兄说的‘汉语中的朝鲜语-日语借词’,可否明确是上古汉语还是中古汉语?

fanzhongyan 发表于 2011-9-8 20:34

以前发过,关于汉语借词,可以看这个:
http://wold.livingsources.org/vocabulary/22

这个统计的是官话,只有标着1的才是毫无争议的借词。

fanzhongyan 发表于 2011-9-8 20:45

http://wold.livingsources.org/vocabulary/22
又看了一遍,发现有南亚语借词嫌疑的还真不少。。。

hercules 发表于 2011-9-8 21:45


这些都是次要的东西,不管怎么说汉语和藏语确实比较接近,而汉语在中原的大规模使用肯定在商朝以前(有甲骨文为证),那么认为夏人带来汉语是比较合理的解释,毕竟“禹兴于西羌”,夏人会不会是来自西部的一小撮征 ...
sahaliyan 发表于 2011-9-8 14:38 http://www.ranhaer.com/images/common/back.gif
关键在于,羌最初的指哪里。小永以前引用的文章说是刘家文化,但刘家文化真正发达在于殷墟中晚期,但羌方在甲骨文里面牛逼的时候是武丁时期,在殷墟早期,而殷墟早期刘家文化的分布很逼仄,这与羌方在早期是殷商西土最大的威胁很不相称。我有个不成文的看法,羌方早期指的是客省庄二期,在商的打击下缩往西土,与西方的文化融合成刘家文化。王明珂先生认为羌最早在山西,可备一说。说明羌早期靠近殷墟。
另外一方面,“禹兴于西羌”是比较迟的文献,早期文献中禹是开天辟地的大神,或许禹是西方文化中开天辟地的大神、

hercules 发表于 2011-9-8 21:50

OC 爪 ćrūʔ 'claw' : Alt. *čŭru (~ -a) 'to scratch, claw' > Kor. *čūr 'file'; Jap. *dɨr-ŋa- 'scratch, claw'; TM *ǯurū- 'scratch, draw'.
      OC 李 rh< ...
sahaliyan 发表于 2011-9-8 20:55 http://www.ranhaer.com/images/common/back.gif
不客气的讲,很多词汇来自于其构拟。不过很多词汇上古汉语形式确实和高丽日语相似。不知道是谁来自谁。{:8_205:}

反恐 发表于 2011-9-8 21:51

把戎跟姜姓对应,正是倒果为因,就因为《左传.襄公十四年》有“将执戎子驹支。范宣子亲数诸朝,曰:‘来!姜戎氏,昔秦人迫逐乃祖吾离于瓜州...’”,所以一些人提起姜姓必曰“姜戎”,但是《左传.庄公二十二年》:“姜,太岳之后也”,《国语.周语.太子晋谏灵王壅谷水》:“其后伯禹念前之非度,厘改制量,象物天地,...共(共工)之从孙佐之,...祚四岳国,命以侯伯,赐姓曰姜、氏曰吕,谓其能为禹股肱心膂,以养物丰民人也。”

姜姓始祖明明是华夏集团成员,姜姓子孙或在中国、或在戎狄那是以后的事了。

imvivi001 发表于 2011-9-8 21:53

这些词汇的关联性似可印证古肃慎人生活在冀北辽西东蒙一带。不知道TM与proto-turkic之间的底层同源词有多少?

hercules 发表于 2011-9-8 21:55

我又认真看了一遍,日语中的词汇比如襟难说不是来自汉语的。有一些词汇横跨阿尔泰和孟,过于夸张。这里有很难说不是偶然的。不过客观的说,确实汉阿尔泰日韩的同源词汇是不少的,不知道这是不是不完全统计的错觉。

imvivi001 发表于 2011-9-8 22:24

以前论证过,‘冀’这个词可能是古夫余词。因为日语中‘北方’的发音是kita,而冀=北+田+共(‘共’许多甲骨文专家解读为鸟面具,不过我解读为蛙,因为冀北地区自古有蛙崇拜部落)。冀的古音拟构为kjij应该不成问题,正好与kita对位。不过郑张与潘均把冀拟构为krɯls,我认为还是陷在传统的汉藏同源的误区(其实我近期看了一下,多位大牛对古汉字的上古音拟构均严重困扰于这个误区~)
页: [1] 2 3 4
查看完整版本: Blench and Post: Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny