Further baseless nonsense. Notice how nearly all of these characters supposedly representing "Genesis in Chinese" include the two trees ("lin") because these people think it refers to the garden of eden? In every case, the two trees are not present in the character to provide meaning, but only pronunciation. It would be just as valid to say that women named Shelly are somehow evil because they contain the word "HELL" in the middle of their names. It's utterly ridiculous.
@leisulin: First: What is the pronunciation of the characters which you are saying use the tree radical as their basis for pronunciation. Second: How can you prove that pronunciation dictated the radicals chosen, rather than meaning? It makes absolutely no sense for a meaning based pictograph to rely on pronunciation as its guide for selection radicals to compose characters, as you suggest; not in an original language.
Originally, all the characters were pictographs, representing words for objects in the real world. As they represented words, each had a precise pronunciation. As the writing system further developed, they would use a pictographic character with a particular pronunciation to "spell" an abstract concept. So, as an example, they might use the character with two trees pronounced lin2 (2nd tone) to write the word meaning "pour/drench". After a while, it became confusing.....
....writing several different words all pronounced lin2 with the two-trees (as an example...there were hundreds of other characters in the same situation but with different pronunciations) because you'd have to tell from context which word was actually meant. This brought about the change where they decided to add semantic components to the characters previously being used only phonetically. Continuing the example, they added "water" to lin2 to mean "pour/drench".....
...or as another example, adding the "disease" radical to the two trees (to write the character pronounced the same as the two trees by themselves, lin2) to form the new character for "hernia". This all happened over 2000 years ago. The meanings I discussed for the mis-analyzed characters all come from a famous dictionary of Chinese completed in 100 A.D. called the Shuowen Jiezi. The final piece to the puzzle is the fact that in the 2000+ years since.....
....all this stuff happened, the pronunciation of the characters in Chinese has changed considerably, most notably in the initial consonants of each syllable, less so in the final portion of each syllable. So to answer your questions: The pronunciation of the characters which use the PAIR of trees as their pronunciation (I assume that's what you mean) is "lin", with a dose of phonetic change over 2000+ years. So most are something like "lin" but others have changed more.
As for you other question, you have it backwards: meaning dictated the radicals chosen FOR ADDITION TO characters being USED only for their sound to clarify and differentiate them. As one further example, "two trees" + "woman" = "covet/desire" = Eve in Eden coveting apples (all of that only in the minds of people wanting to see Genesis in Chinese characters) is now pronounced "lan", but used to be pronounced the same as the two trees by themselves, ....
...so for a while, two-trees was being used to write "two trees" AND to write "covet/desire" because they both were pronounced the same, and they needed a character to write the abstract word "covet"...but it got confusing (that and a lot of other similar cases) so they added the "woman" radical to the "two trees" to clarify it. The "pronunciation guide" was still there, but the woman radical helped sort out what actual word ("covet") was meant.....any questions?
That's how a pictograph (2 trees) could get used to phonetically represent a concept (several different ones actually) having nothing whatsoever to do with trees, and eventually requiring an "additional" semantic component to be added to clear up the semantic mess that had been created. There were even some cases where the semantic component was added where it was already present. There's a character pronounced "mu" originally showing the sun with grass on all sides....
...meaning "evening/sunset" (the sun viewed through tall grass as it prepares to set). It was likewise used to spell a bunch of words pronounced "mu". The same thing happened: radicals were added to clarify which "mu" word was meant, and in the case of "mu" meaning "sunset" THEY ADDED A SECOND SUN, providing clarification where, technically, none was needed. The character still has this form today.
(BTW, how do I know this stuff: I have a Master's in Chinese.)
@leisulin: So, you are using, "lin," as the pronunciation to decide that all the characters which use this pronunciation have no meaning in the use of the radical, but simply use the radical to dictate pronunciation. Am i correct in identifying your argument so far? How is this in any way supported by any evidence other than your conjecture that meaning was irrelevant, and that pronunciation was superlative? It is possible that meaning dictated character design, and pronunciation followed.
In NO case of any of the characters involved are the two trees the actual RADICAL. Chinese dictionaries have the characters organized by radical. In every case, the two-trees came first, "providing" sound, and the semantic part, the RADICAL, was added later. "Covet" has lin2 (two-trees) + the woman radical. "Drench" has lin2 + the water radical. "Hernia" has lin2 + the disease radical. Your use of the word "decide" and "argument" imply that I'm arguing a case....I'm not.
I'm telling you the actual history of the development of Chinese characters. We know this from many RELIABLE sources (unlike the unreliable source that all this fantasy comes from). I can refer you to Chinese Writing by Qiu Xigui, published by The Society for the Study of Early China and the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 2000. Also the Wiki article on the Shuowen Jiezi talks about the classification of the characters in that work......
....as far back as 100 A.D., when the Shuowen was written, the ACTUAL history of Chinese character development as I've related it was known. The Shuowen classifies characters into various categories, the largest of which are the "phono-semantic compound characters" which we've been discussing. I'm not making this stuff up, it was known to Chinese scholars 2000 years ago. The evolution we've described was already complete then, having occurred during the previous 1250 years or so.
My copy of the Shuowen is in a box somewhere. But "covet" being a phono-semantic compound certainly means that in the Shuowen there's an entry for "covet" (lin2+woman) that says, in ancient Chinese, something like " 'covet' blah blah from 'woman', lin2 (two-trees) sound" meaning "it's derived from 'woman' (with) sound being given by lin2 (two-trees)." This would all be clearer in Chinese.
So, no, I haven't "conjectured" or "decided" that it works this way. I'm not coming up with fanciful OPINION that makes me FEEL good or serves some agenda, as Kang and Nelson did. I'm reporting what I learned in the graduate program in Ancient Chinese at CU, and what appears in probably the most famous Chinese dictionary of all time, written 2000 years ago by a scholar who was a lot closer in time and space to the ACTUAL historical events surrounding Chinese character development.
We CAN conjecture about the two possibilities in Kang/Nelson's case: 1) they wrote that stuff about Genesis in Chinese characters KNOWING FULL WELL it was nonsense, or 2) they actually BELIEVED it was true, but their "knowledge" and/or actual "research" (if we could even call it that) were both so hopelessly flawed and off-base as to be rather incredible. I'm not sure which case is the truth, or which is more reprehensible, but probably it would be case (1).
To clarify: the TWO trees together are not a radical. There are only 214 radicals. ONE tree by itself IS a radical, but none of the characters with TWO trees are using TREE as a radical. They all use something else: covet uses "woman", drench uses "water", hernia uses "sickness", a type of jade pronounced lin2 uses "jade", another lin2 character meaning "continuous rain of long duration" uses "rain". None use TREE as the radical cuz TWO trees is not a radical.
It would be a possibility if it weren't for the fact that, in those characters, the two trees are nothing more than a phonetic component, as I've explained more than once.
@leisulin: No, you have argued that without proof. And I have already explained to you, that pronunciation does not trump meaning, automatically, just because YOU say so. In the end, there are STILL two tree characters being used. You can try and post, "it is meaningless" all you want, but the mantra of your atheistic world view is not applicable as evidence.
I'm sure all cultures cross-pollinated eachother to some extent. For example, our numbers are Arabic, alphabet Roman, days of the week Norse, time divisions Babylonian etc.
I'm surprised that there could be a connection between Genesis and Chinese language though. This would be proof of cross-cultural influence, but not necessarily that the Genesis account is true.
I have heard alittle on the subject before and never really thought much about it but it is truly amazing the parrallels, keep up the great work brother and God Bless!
Further baseless nonsense. Notice how nearly all of these characters supposedly representing "Genesis in Chinese" include the two trees ("lin") because these people think it refers to the garden of eden? In every case, the two trees are not present in the character to provide meaning, but only pronunciation. It would be just as valid to say that women named Shelly are somehow evil because they contain the word "HELL" in the middle of their names. It's utterly ridiculous.
leisulin 5 months ago
@leisulin: First: What is the pronunciation of the characters which you are saying use the tree radical as their basis for pronunciation. Second: How can you prove that pronunciation dictated the radicals chosen, rather than meaning? It makes absolutely no sense for a meaning based pictograph to rely on pronunciation as its guide for selection radicals to compose characters, as you suggest; not in an original language.
BreshiBaraElohim 4 months ago
@BreshiBaraElohim
Originally, all the characters were pictographs, representing words for objects in the real world. As they represented words, each had a precise pronunciation. As the writing system further developed, they would use a pictographic character with a particular pronunciation to "spell" an abstract concept. So, as an example, they might use the character with two trees pronounced lin2 (2nd tone) to write the word meaning "pour/drench". After a while, it became confusing.....
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin (continued)
....writing several different words all pronounced lin2 with the two-trees (as an example...there were hundreds of other characters in the same situation but with different pronunciations) because you'd have to tell from context which word was actually meant. This brought about the change where they decided to add semantic components to the characters previously being used only phonetically. Continuing the example, they added "water" to lin2 to mean "pour/drench".....
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin (continued)
...or as another example, adding the "disease" radical to the two trees (to write the character pronounced the same as the two trees by themselves, lin2) to form the new character for "hernia". This all happened over 2000 years ago. The meanings I discussed for the mis-analyzed characters all come from a famous dictionary of Chinese completed in 100 A.D. called the Shuowen Jiezi. The final piece to the puzzle is the fact that in the 2000+ years since.....
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin (continued)
....all this stuff happened, the pronunciation of the characters in Chinese has changed considerably, most notably in the initial consonants of each syllable, less so in the final portion of each syllable. So to answer your questions: The pronunciation of the characters which use the PAIR of trees as their pronunciation (I assume that's what you mean) is "lin", with a dose of phonetic change over 2000+ years. So most are something like "lin" but others have changed more.
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin (continued)
As for you other question, you have it backwards: meaning dictated the radicals chosen FOR ADDITION TO characters being USED only for their sound to clarify and differentiate them. As one further example, "two trees" + "woman" = "covet/desire" = Eve in Eden coveting apples (all of that only in the minds of people wanting to see Genesis in Chinese characters) is now pronounced "lan", but used to be pronounced the same as the two trees by themselves, ....
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin (continued)
...so for a while, two-trees was being used to write "two trees" AND to write "covet/desire" because they both were pronounced the same, and they needed a character to write the abstract word "covet"...but it got confusing (that and a lot of other similar cases) so they added the "woman" radical to the "two trees" to clarify it. The "pronunciation guide" was still there, but the woman radical helped sort out what actual word ("covet") was meant.....any questions?
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin (continued)
That's how a pictograph (2 trees) could get used to phonetically represent a concept (several different ones actually) having nothing whatsoever to do with trees, and eventually requiring an "additional" semantic component to be added to clear up the semantic mess that had been created. There were even some cases where the semantic component was added where it was already present. There's a character pronounced "mu" originally showing the sun with grass on all sides....
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin (continued)
...meaning "evening/sunset" (the sun viewed through tall grass as it prepares to set). It was likewise used to spell a bunch of words pronounced "mu". The same thing happened: radicals were added to clarify which "mu" word was meant, and in the case of "mu" meaning "sunset" THEY ADDED A SECOND SUN, providing clarification where, technically, none was needed. The character still has this form today.
(BTW, how do I know this stuff: I have a Master's in Chinese.)
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin: So, you are using, "lin," as the pronunciation to decide that all the characters which use this pronunciation have no meaning in the use of the radical, but simply use the radical to dictate pronunciation. Am i correct in identifying your argument so far? How is this in any way supported by any evidence other than your conjecture that meaning was irrelevant, and that pronunciation was superlative? It is possible that meaning dictated character design, and pronunciation followed.
BreshiBaraElohim 4 months ago
@BreshiBaraElohim
In NO case of any of the characters involved are the two trees the actual RADICAL. Chinese dictionaries have the characters organized by radical. In every case, the two-trees came first, "providing" sound, and the semantic part, the RADICAL, was added later. "Covet" has lin2 (two-trees) + the woman radical. "Drench" has lin2 + the water radical. "Hernia" has lin2 + the disease radical. Your use of the word "decide" and "argument" imply that I'm arguing a case....I'm not.
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin
I'm telling you the actual history of the development of Chinese characters. We know this from many RELIABLE sources (unlike the unreliable source that all this fantasy comes from). I can refer you to Chinese Writing by Qiu Xigui, published by The Society for the Study of Early China and the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 2000. Also the Wiki article on the Shuowen Jiezi talks about the classification of the characters in that work......
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin
....as far back as 100 A.D., when the Shuowen was written, the ACTUAL history of Chinese character development as I've related it was known. The Shuowen classifies characters into various categories, the largest of which are the "phono-semantic compound characters" which we've been discussing. I'm not making this stuff up, it was known to Chinese scholars 2000 years ago. The evolution we've described was already complete then, having occurred during the previous 1250 years or so.
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin
My copy of the Shuowen is in a box somewhere. But "covet" being a phono-semantic compound certainly means that in the Shuowen there's an entry for "covet" (lin2+woman) that says, in ancient Chinese, something like " 'covet' blah blah from 'woman', lin2 (two-trees) sound" meaning "it's derived from 'woman' (with) sound being given by lin2 (two-trees)." This would all be clearer in Chinese.
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin
So, no, I haven't "conjectured" or "decided" that it works this way. I'm not coming up with fanciful OPINION that makes me FEEL good or serves some agenda, as Kang and Nelson did. I'm reporting what I learned in the graduate program in Ancient Chinese at CU, and what appears in probably the most famous Chinese dictionary of all time, written 2000 years ago by a scholar who was a lot closer in time and space to the ACTUAL historical events surrounding Chinese character development.
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin
We CAN conjecture about the two possibilities in Kang/Nelson's case: 1) they wrote that stuff about Genesis in Chinese characters KNOWING FULL WELL it was nonsense, or 2) they actually BELIEVED it was true, but their "knowledge" and/or actual "research" (if we could even call it that) were both so hopelessly flawed and off-base as to be rather incredible. I'm not sure which case is the truth, or which is more reprehensible, but probably it would be case (1).
leisulin 4 months ago
@BreshiBaraElohim
To clarify: the TWO trees together are not a radical. There are only 214 radicals. ONE tree by itself IS a radical, but none of the characters with TWO trees are using TREE as a radical. They all use something else: covet uses "woman", drench uses "water", hernia uses "sickness", a type of jade pronounced lin2 uses "jade", another lin2 character meaning "continuous rain of long duration" uses "rain". None use TREE as the radical cuz TWO trees is not a radical.
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin: If two trees is not a radical, then the fact that there are two may be significant for meaning. It is a possibility.
BreshiBaraElohim 4 months ago
@BreshiBaraElohim
It would be a possibility if it weren't for the fact that, in those characters, the two trees are nothing more than a phonetic component, as I've explained more than once.
leisulin 4 months ago
@leisulin: No, you have argued that without proof. And I have already explained to you, that pronunciation does not trump meaning, automatically, just because YOU say so. In the end, there are STILL two tree characters being used. You can try and post, "it is meaningless" all you want, but the mantra of your atheistic world view is not applicable as evidence.
BreshiBaraElohim 4 months ago
You made some interesting points there.
I'm sure all cultures cross-pollinated eachother to some extent. For example, our numbers are Arabic, alphabet Roman, days of the week Norse, time divisions Babylonian etc.
I'm surprised that there could be a connection between Genesis and Chinese language though. This would be proof of cross-cultural influence, but not necessarily that the Genesis account is true.
Certainly worth some further investigation.
markmansell 1 year ago
@markmansell: I purposely tried not to interpret this stuff too much.
But i do think the connection is noteworthy, and worthy of further investigation.
BreshiBaraElohim 1 year ago
Awesome! Hope to see more and more. God bless you!
ThickShades 2 years ago
I have heard alittle on the subject before and never really thought much about it but it is truly amazing the parrallels, keep up the great work brother and God Bless!
disofchrist 2 years ago
Very interesting and insightful.
This ties in with Babel nicely.
In Jesus,
Mike
BornAgainWatcher 2 years ago
Yes. : )
overseasfriends 2 years ago
this is facinating, well done, important, work. Love it keep it up
diflowers 2 years ago