Re: [tied] Re: Why borrow 'seven'? (was: IE right & 10)

From: Exu Yangi
Message: 34155
Date: 2004-09-15

exuyangi@...
http://kickme.to/exuyangi
http://exuyangi.home.attbi.com/
ICQ: 76799701





>From: "petusek" <petusek@...>
>
>From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
>To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 7:13 PM
>Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Why borrow 'seven'? (was: IE right & 10)
>
>
> > Exu Yangi wrote:
> > > As for being a taboo word, and hence borrowed from elsewhere ---
> > > usually taboo words find their replacements from within the native
> > > stock. Withness Japanese shi (death;four) being replaced from another
> > > counting heirarchy.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I never studied sinology but I have a colleague which is chinesse and
>she
> > told me in chinesse the word for "death" is the same as the word for
>"four"
> > and that word is "s1". Appropiate phonetic to Japanese "shi" and has the
> > same meaning.Is this a loan from Chiness in Japanesse or both developed
>from
> > the same root?
>
>Well, I am no sinologist (nor a japanologist), either, but I think that:
>
>1. Japanese is an Altaic language (belonging to the "wider" Altaic
>(super-)stock, whereas Turk., Mong. & Tung. form the "core-Altaic"), and
>Altaic languages are thought to belong to the Nostratic macrophylum.
>
>2. Chinese belongs to the Sino-Tibetan family, which is considered a
>member of the Sino-Caucasic or Dene-Caucasic macrophylum.
>
>3. We would have to compare the proto-language forms to learn what the
>Proto-Japanese (Altaic, Nostratic) & Proto-Sinetic (Proto-Sino-Tibetan,
>Dene-Caucasian) reconstructions might have looked like. By the way, what
>was
>the Old Japanese form of "shi", what was the Old Chinese form???
>
>4. Yes, the words could be both from a single "root", but, perhaps,
>rather than any common "heritage", one of them was a loan. As far as I can
>remember (but I may be wrong (but I have read things like that so many
>times
>(as far as I can remember, I should write, again :)))), there was a time
>when Chinese had a certain influence on the Japanese culture and language
>(e.g. Kanji and so on, 'right?), therefore it is quite probable that the
>way
>of borrowing was Chinese > Japanese, and not vice versa.
>
>I hope I have answered your question a little. If the word means "4" &
>"death" in both languages, the word being a loan is, in my view, the only
>posssibilitiiieeeyeah...
>
>Petusek
>
It is probably a loan from Chinese.

one = Chinese erh = Japanese i(chi)
two = chinese ni = japanese ni
three = chinese sam = japanese san
four = chinese shi = japanese shi
five = chinese go = japanese go

There are a HUGE number of chinese borrowing in Japanese (a bit like the
situation with english and french). It would not a stretch to find both
"four" and "death" are borrowed from the Chinese.