From: Exu Yangi
Message: 34174
Date: 2004-09-16
>From: "petusek" <petusek@...>From what I understand, there were two main times (both fairly well
>Reply-To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Why borrow 'seven'? (was: IE right & 10)
>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:47:50 +0200
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Sender: petusek@...
>Received: from n42.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.67.17]) by
>mc12-f18.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Wed, 15 Sep
>2004 03:49:05 -0700
>Received: from [66.218.66.158] by n42.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Sep
>2004 10:47:57 -0000
>Received: (qmail 6794 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2004 10:47:54 -0000
>Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP;
>15 Sep 2004 10:47:54 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO adriana.gin.cz) (212.71.175.4) by
>mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Sep 2004 10:47:54 -0000
>Received: from petus (adsl1012.in.ipex.cz [213.194.209.12])by
>adriana.gin.cz (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A908DC27Bfor
><cybalist@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:47:54 +0200 (CEST)
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jHvn6LOcNk97Z/bej4EAMos
>X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email
>X-Apparently-To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>Message-ID: <000a01c49b11$72c9beb0$0e00000a@...>
>References: <BAY2-F7RTY7wb4pCEJl00002638@...>
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2741.2600
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2742.200
>X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 212.71.175.4
>X-Yahoo-Profile: hrubisp
>Mailing-List: list cybalist@yahoogroups.com; contact
>cybalist-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>Return-Path:
>sentto-1279838-32207-1095245275-exuyangi=hotmail.com@...
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2004 10:49:05.0154 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[9EA46620:01C49B11]
>
>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).
>
>Yes, exactly.
>
> > It would not a stretch to find both
> >"four" and "death" are borrowed from the Chinese.
>
>Do you know or have you read when this huge borrowing took place?
>Thanks for the list of the first five numerals in Japanese. In OldI have seen that. Kind of like organizing English as
>Japanese,
>the first decade was organized in pairs:
>
>1 fit� 2 futa
>3 mi 6 mu
>4 y� 8 ya
>5 i-tu 10 t�w�
>("7" nana, "9" k�k�n� < according to R.A. Miller an old multiplication
>"3x3")
>
>The difference is apparent.
>
>Petusek
>