|
|
|
|
Leon's Theory about
If you've visited this page
before,
Foreword:
Table of Contents:
Very Brief History of Korea Ancient Period Foreword: Most historians say that the Korean peninsula was inhabited by Paleo-Siberians until around 2333 BC, when they were forced out. [I think this is non-sense, and I'll explain why later]. The "official" history of Korea begins at 2333 BC, with Dangun, but I'm not going to start with the "official" history. I'm going to start with the UNofficial history. Preface: This part is not the "official history" of Korea. It is considered apocryphal by mainstream historians, but mainstream historians are NOT always correct (I can cite some examples, but I won't).
This is where the official history begins:
Another source gives some added information around this time period
End Ancient Period. start... "Three Kindoms Period": From 75 BC to 676 AD There were more than three kindgoms to begin with, like the ones mentioned above, but there was a lot of fighting, and war-mongering, and there were three kingdoms that dominated during this period: Shilla, Gogeuryeo, and Baekje. In the end (676 AD), Shilla dominates and unifies all. start... Shilla Period: From 676 AD to 935 AD Shilla ruled the whole peninsula. Then, began the "Koryo" [old romanization] Period, or "Goryeo" [new romanization] Period, which is where we get the name "Korea".
One day, I typed "Origin of Korean Language" in a search engine (Google), and this is what I found:
MY COMMENT: I knew a Manchurian person while staying in Inner Mongolia, CHINA. The similarities in lexis (between the Manchurian language and the Korean language) were so compelling as to knock my socks off! While the Mongolian language shares not a single lexical similarity with Korean!
At the beginning of this page, I quoted the Encyclopedia Britannica as saying that the Korean language is not closely related to any other language. Intriguing. But is it true? I think NOT. Let me explain why. I have studied Korean (in Korea) for ten years (see my Korean Language Page). I have studied some Japanese, Mongolian, and Manchurian; and now Turkish (all Altaic languages). I have studied Chinese (in China) for 1 year. My FINDINGS: FACT- Korean LEXIS is VERY similar to Chinese LEXIS (in fact, I'd estimate 70% of Korean lexis is from the Chinese language. Some 'more official' estimates say that 50-60% of the Korean language is from Chinese. My studies revealed a much higher percentage, because some words that are NOT acknowledged as being from Chinese are so similar that it is uncanny. A prime example is, the words for this....
in Korean: i-geot The word for "yes" or "okay" (dweh) in Chinese is exactly the same as the Korean word for "okay" (dweh). Are they cognates or false cognates? I don't know. FACT- Korean shares no similarity with Chinese syntax. FACT- Korean LEXIS shares NO similarity with Mongolian lexis or Japanese lexis. {In fact, the Japanese lexis (that portion of it that is not Chinese in origin) is closely related in etymology to that of the Mongolian language.} FACT- Korean LEXIS shares similarities with Manchurian. FACT- Korean syntax is exactly the same as Mongolian, Japanese, Manchurian, and Turkic syntax. My CONCLUSIONS: The Korean people are probably genetically related to the Mongolians, Japanese and Manchurians, and yet the influence of the Chinese lexis is VERY strong and undeniable. This leads me to believe that the Korean people are a Tungusic people, who passed through China, picking up the lexis of the Hahn Chinese (Han Yu), but maintained their own syntax. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. What happens when Pidgins are made? Well, a people adopt the lexis of another language for trading purposes, but quite generally refuse to give up their own grammar rules (e.g., syntax). In essence, I believe that the Korean language started out as a Pidgin, but is now a Creole.
Background Information about how this page came to be... I had spent eight years living and teaching English in Korea. All of my students during that time told me that they firmly believe themselves to be related to Mongolians, and even claim that they have evidence, that evidence being the so-called "mon-gol jeom" (Mongolian Spot). All Koreans have it somewhere on their body when they are born. They told me that only Mongolians and Koreans have the "mon-gol jeom". Now, I don't believe everything that I hear or read. So, I actually went to Inner Mongolia to check it out for myself. Here is the data of my research...
I conducted a survey of my Mongolian students. I told them about how all Koreans have what they call the "Mon Gol Jeom" (Mongolian Spot), which is a birthmark that goes away after several years. I told them how my son is only half Korean, but he has the so-called "Mon Gol Jeom". I also told them that every Korean believes that only Koreans and Mongolians have "Mon Gol Jeoms".
Lastly, I told them I wanted to know if it was true. So, I asked them if any of them had the "Mon Gol Jeom" when they were born. None of them knew. So, I gave them homework to ask their mother and report back to me the following week. Only four students out of maybe four hundred Mongolian students did the homework, (and this is partly due to the sensitive, personal nature of the question, and partly due to the fact that most students could not understand the question). Here are the results of the survey: 1. One boy claims he had none. 2. One boy said that he had one. 3. One girl said that she had one. 4. One girl said that she had one on her bum. Grand Tally 3/4ths have had it. That's pretty good odds. I'll bet that not all Koreans get the Mon Gol Jeom either. I'm convinced. Those statistics are good enough for me. I am fully convinced now of the Korean-Mongolian connection. Question: Wouldn't the Japanese also have the Mon Gol Jeom? And writing of Japanese, we should wonder where the Japanese people and language came from...
From my lexical analysis of the Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian languages, it appears that the Japanese language has a much closer connection to Mongolian. Of course all three languages have EXACTLY the same grammar (same syntax; AND, all three have the same suffix-like particles), and all three have VERY similar phonological traits, such as rules regarding vowel harmony. Yet, when I write "much closer", I simply mean that there are more words in Japanese which bear resemblance to Mongolian, but the connection is still a weak one. The Korean-Japanese ties go way back. It has been told me that the Koreans introduced the Chinese characters to the Japanese. Whether this is true or not, is not known to me, but it seems very plausible, given the geographical situation (i.e., Korean being between China and Japan). The Japanese language, like Korean has "borrowed" a heck of a lot of words from Chinese. But, both the Korean language and Japanese languages have retained many of their "original" lexis as well. It is of this "original" lexis that I write, when I write about the connection to the Mongolian language. However, due to the fact that much of the "original" lexis has fallen out of use and has become lost over the centuries, it is really difficult for linguists to "classify" the two languages. Because the syntax and phonological features are remarkably similar to Altaic languages, it is logical to include them in the Altaic language group. However, due to lexical differences, it is difficult to place them in any specific language group. Look at the following diagram to see what I mean:
One can see where I got the above information from, however, my language map is different (and superior, in my opinion, because it shows more clearly how languages "overlap"). Important Points to consider (refer to diagram above): 1. The diagram shows how the Korean language has roots in the Tungusic Language group AND NOT THE MONGOLIAN language group. Note: Manchurian is part of the Tungusic language group, and Korean may have some roots from the Manchu language. 2. The diagram shows how the Korean and Japanese languages have been heavily influenced by the Han-Chinese language. 3. The diagram shows how the Japanese language has some roots in the Mongolian language group. Hence, the lexis of "pure" Japanese is closer to Mongolian than that of the "pure" Korean. 4. The diagram shows how the Korean language has been influenced by the Austronesian language group. 5. It is not known (by me) whether the Japanese language has been influenced by the Austronesian language group or not. Therefore, I have not extended the Japanese language into that "field". 6. The funny thing is, according to genetic maps (on above SOURCE page), the Koreans and Japanese are more closely related to Tibetans than Mongolians. (see diagram below):
But, look at this language pedigree chart:
All right, now! There is something screwy going on here. The Ainu, Siberians, Tibetans and Eskimos are all closely related genetically, yet the Tibetan language is in a totally different language group (not on chart above; see chart below). If you examine the chart closely, you see that languages are grouped based upon their geographic location (i.e., the location of the people that speak them). And yet, logic tells us that you cannot do that, simply because people move around a lot. For example the Lapp people claim to have come from Tibet; And, I'll bet that there is not one single similarity between the "pure" Lapp language and the "pure" Finnish language. The Samoyeds, likewise are genetically different from the Finnish people. They look more like Eskimos. Notice all the question marks in the chart above. That is to say that most linguists aren't sure of the links, but some linguists go with it out of convenience, I'm sure. I've read in a book about the Korean language (and heard as well) that the Korean language is linguistically related to the Finnish language. I now see why such is reported, but my own studies of the two languages show no similarities, neither in lexis nor in grammar. Japanese and Korean are often linked with Mongolian, because they all share exactly the same grammatical features. They even share some phonological features. Yet, my studies have shown NO lexical similarities between the Japanese language and the Korean language, and NO lexical similarities between the Mongolian language and the Korean language. I HAVE, however, noticed similarities in lexis between the Japanese language and the Mongolian language. Also, I have noticed some similarities between the Manchurian language, which is dying quickly, and the Korean language. It is my goal to study, learn, and document the Manchurian language before it completely dies from the face of the earth. If only somebody would finance the goal. It should be noted that that the Tibeto-Burman language groups consists of roughly 250 languages, and the Chinese language group consists of countless dialects (if you could even call them dialects). The Sino-Caucasian Language group is expanded to look like this (according to "linguists"):
But it is a joke to group the Han-Chinese language and Tibeto-Burman language group together, because they are not linguistically related. It is also a joke to link the Basque language and Caucasian language group together, because they are not linguistically related either. AND, it is an even bigger joke to link the Sino-Tibetan group with the Basque-Caucasian group, because you probably couldn't find a single linguistic similarity. For more information on the Basque language, see (and click on) the link below: http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/larryt/basque.html For more information on the Sino-Tibetan group, see (and click on) the link below: http://stedt.berkeley.edu/html/STfamily.html For more information on the Tungusic language group, see (and click on) the link below: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~trg/endangered.html
However, there is a theory that some linguists have which I fancy, because it matches my own. The following passage is from a web-article contained in the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus (STEDT):
|
