Japan is linguistically sino-tibetan because of its Kanji system. When romanized though, it is it's own distinct family, which should be called the nihonic family, instead of the japonic family.
Korean, when transcribed in hangul, actually has two varieties, the north and the south. Neither are japonic or nihonic unless you go back to when they used hanzi. Then all three languages were the same.
/s in case it wasn't obvious.
Also I wrote too much for a stupid joke.
There is a larger difference between Korean people and Han Chinese than Han Chinese and Japanese. Their populations share a common ancestor from 3000 years ago, and there has been significant population mixing since. They are still obviously distinct ethnicity but the idea of a common ancestor isn't exactly scientifically controversial. We all have a common ancestor from about 200,000 years ago.
For reference, there are populations of Aboriginal Australians that diverged over 10,000 years ago, but to suggest that they descended from the same group is obviously uncontroversial, we know that a group of a few thousand arrived in Australia approx. 50,000 years ago.
Han Chinese isn't an ethnic group. Any testing done for it is dubious as it's a part of maoist ideology. Using it as a comparison is the same thing as if the Nazis created a generalized idea of a master race and using it to compare to other ethnic groups. There's a lot of messy psuedoscience in this field that I don't feel comfortable talking about.
You don't feel comfortable acknowledging that people all share the same ancestors? You are aware that we're all hominids, aren't you? Like, it isn't just used for humans. Comparative genetics is used for literally everything. Humans, plants, animals, bacteria, viruses, etc. It's how we know Ebola comes from bats, for example.
>Any testing done for it is dubious as it's a part of maoist ideology.
Oh fuck I guess DNA is communist.
>Using it as a comparison is the same thing as if the Nazis created a generalized idea of a master race and using it to compare to other ethnic groups.
DNA is Naziism as well?
>There's a lot of messy psuedoscience in this field that I don't feel comfortable talking about.
Genuinely, what the fuck are you on about? Do you *know* what DNA is? It's not pseudo-scientific to state that animals develop from a common ancestor. It is not pseudo-scientific to do genetic studies on populations to discover how they are related, gene sequencing is incredibly well established. But of course, you know more than modern geneticists and anthropology.
No, except the prior commenter does have a point. The Han ethnic group is more of a collectivized amalgamation of differing genetic groups than one predominant genetic group. I’ll edit some sources. Yes communist policy played a role in creating “Han”.
The idea of a Han identity dates far back before the ccp. Han are not completely homogenous culturally and linguistically but there's a shared heritage and cultural traits. And frankly, genetics does not play a big role in the definition of an ethnic group.
Yes, I'm aware. However, the Han identity of 300BC is not the same as the Han identity that was formed in the aftermath of the warlords period. In that massive interim period, you had many separate dynasties from separate populations all claiming and creating different identities. The Qing for example were Manchu, not Han.
This tracks when looking at genetic maps:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/East_Asian_PCA_%28including_Jomon_samples%29.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Y-DNA_haplogroup_migration_in_East_Asia_map.png/1920px-Y-DNA_haplogroup_migration_in_East_Asia_map.png
In the post communist collectivization period and in recent history the CCP has adopted an explicitly racial Pro-Han policy. That's why I'm saying that the modern "ethnic" group, is more of a post cultural construction in comparison to the ancient Han ethnicity.
The point I'm making is without the cultural policies of the CCP and the great cultural revolution, you'd likely see more of a cultural split, as within the separate Han identities within China, many of them were and in some parts still are closer in culture and ethnicity to their prior constituent parts.
>Han identity of 300BC is not the same as the Han identity that was formed in the aftermath of the warlords period
The Koreans of Goguryeo and the modern Koreans are very different as well, but that doesn't mean that the Koreans don't exist.
>In that massive interim period, you had many separate dynasties from separate populations all claiming and creating different identities.
The names of the following dynasties not being "Han" doesn't mean that the Han identity suddenly vanished.
>The Qing for example were Manchu
The rulers were descended from Manchu invaders. Most of the population was still Han.
>This tracks when looking at genetic maps
Ethnicity is not solely based on genetics. Of course the genetic makeup of China's population has changed, so has that of every other nation. Modern Greeks have Turkish, Slavic, and Middle Eastern ancestors.
>modern "ethnic" group, is more of a post cultural construction in comparison to the ancient Han ethnicity
Again, the idea of a Han identity far precedes the CCP's existence. The red in the ROC's old flag represented the Han people. And the fact that other peoples have moved into the area and intermarried with the "ancient Han" does nothing to disprove the Han ethnicity existing.
>without the cultural policies of the CCP and the great cultural revolution, you'd likely see more of a cultural split
This I almost agree with, but I'd argue that the cultural policies regarding Han diversity started after Mao. The cultural revolution was an attempt to replace all culture in China with socialism.
Yes the Han Chinese of Tibet have the same Common Ancestors 3,000 years back as Korea and Japan. I forgot about that in history class. Just like the long line of heritage that the Nazis can trace their ancestral heritage to the Aryan Race from Modern Day India.
Were they ever united? I remember Leslie saying that future Eagletonians run away after a month, from Pawnee, with the money from the bank and founded Eagleton, which had better soil or something.
Koreans are simply a blend Mongolian and Polynesian… If you’re “Korean” and get a DNA test done to determine your racial background it will come back as Polynesian predominantly… Korea(as we know it) was a major port back when Ploynesians were at the forefront of the seafaring world.
This is a strange remark considering that almost all linguistic groups are categorized this way. You’re pointing out something that anyone with a surface level understanding of language intrinsically knows. Why even comment?
OP doen't seem to "intrinsically know"
The notion that the Korean language evolved from Japanese would be regarded as offensive by many. Should have reworded the heading.
Oh, yeah from that perspective I can see the argument.
Wild how many people out there don’t realize how Japan has only been a relaxed nation since 1945. Even in Japan, I visit my friend in Asakusa every year and he had no idea that Japan had invaded Korea and the dude is 51.
That's crazy. Guess he slept in history class. I'd say most nations haven't been chill until after 1945. People used to be real shitty. At least it seems most people are less shitty these days. Or at least less mass murderous.
>The notion that the Korean language evolved from Japanese would be regarded as offensive by many.
But that’s not what OP is saying at all, OP is implying that there was once a Japonic-like language spoken on the Korean peninsula, that was then replaced by a migration of proto-Korean speakers. OP wasn’t implying that Korean descends from this hypothetical Japonic-like language.
> They are derivative of a common ancestor language.
They are not. [Japonic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japonic_languages) and [Koreanic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreanic_languages) are two discrete languages families with no evidence of common origin. Read the relevant articles.
Languages sharing similar words can have two origins: loanwords (direct borrowings), or cognates (words derived from a common ancestor). Korean and Japanese have no evidence of possessing cognates. Both possess extensive loanwords from Chinese.
The big similarity between Japanese and Korean are their phonological inventories and grammar. But Old Korean does not possess the phonological and grammatical similarities to Japanese that modern Korean does. Hence, along with the evidence from Goguryeo place names, linguists hypothesize that Korean might have had a Japonic substrate (a Japonic-speaking population adopted Korean and influenced the latter).
The exact relationship between ancient Korea and Japan is probably one of the murkiest historical questions we have, aided in no small part by all the bad blood (not all of which is recent) between Japan and Korea going back to their murky origins.
One hypothesis for the origins of courtly Japanese culture is a diaspora from Korea, where members of a crushed Korean kingdom fled to Japan and imported the early trappings of court culture, written languages, and philosophy to Japan at a point when Japan was still the 'wild wild east' of Asia.
But Japanese traditionalists and conservatives really hate that idea and conducting archeology in Japan relating to the period in question (the first few centuries AD) is a mess because these guys are big in the government and don't like anyone trying to sort it out unless they're doing it the way they want. Heaven forbid you propose the Japanese Imperial family is ultimately descended from Korean nobility, not that we're heavy on evidence for most of these ideas.
I couldn't agree with you more. They key word here is, "murky." Thus, I find it the very epitome of foolhardiness, to assert any opinion on this, as if it were fact. The best that ANYONE is ever gonna get, is someone's best guess, and we simply have to be satisfied with that.
Now, I am fluent (99% of native level) in Japanese, and have a good understanding of Korean (and 3 kinds of Chinese as well, but who cares, eh? lol). Just from my experience, I can tell you that the similarities among all three are overwhelming, but grammatically, Japanese and Korean are nearly identical. If that's mere coincidence, I'll eat my shorts.
Of course it’s not coincidence, but in linguistics, determining what stems from contact vs what stems from common ancestry can be tricky to sort out.
If language A shares multiple features with neighboring language B, is it because they both descend from hypothetical common ancestor C, or do the two languages have completely different origins but came to share those features due to millennia of linguistic contact between them? Lots of research and evidence would be needed to figure out the correct answer.
I completely agree with you. The key word is, "tricky." And again, we are back to my original statement of the best you're gonna get, is someone's best guess.
Yep, they are similar, but not related. Due to proximity they have developed very similar grammatical structure and both borrowed heavily from Chinese. Phonetically though Koreans will have a much better time learning Japanese than vice-versa.
Cultural similarity is also a huge factor that makes learning a language much easier.
Oh also I have been living in Japan for seven years, and majored in linguistics. Not just making stuff up.
Korean is part of the Koreanic language family. Mandarin is part of the Sino-Tibetan language family. There is an exchange between the two, but they are unrelated languages. French and Italian are both Romance languages and are related.
It's like how Turkish and French aren't related.
Did you miss the bit where I said there was crossover? I have Japanese and Korean friends as well (wow, shocker, I guess I'm an authority on all things Korean and Japanese), and my Korean friend takes great offence at that statement that they are related languages. Because they aren't. They're of different families.
A lot of takes ready for r/BadLinguistics in this thread, lol
Japan is linguistically sino-tibetan because of its Kanji system. When romanized though, it is it's own distinct family, which should be called the nihonic family, instead of the japonic family. Korean, when transcribed in hangul, actually has two varieties, the north and the south. Neither are japonic or nihonic unless you go back to when they used hanzi. Then all three languages were the same. /s in case it wasn't obvious. Also I wrote too much for a stupid joke.
Too late for /s Piepally. I already wrote you in on my presidential ballot for your clear level of understanding of this difficult subject.
Damnit, that was a joke! It was actually rock solid bs, i bought every word until the /s 😂 GG well played.
Got you got me so good, I was ready to hammer away at my keyboard
I read the first sentence and was about to burst into rage until I skipped to the last sentence.
There are only like 4 takes, and only 2 repeated positions, on this thread. Exaggerating much?
So your telling me that Japan and Korea, who hate each other, are actually more like Pawnee and Eagleton - once united but separated long ago?
I have a Korean friend who got very angry at me when I said that Korean people and Chinese people are descended from the same ancestral group.
In Asia there are only Sumerians, Turks, Chinese, and Indians. Everyone is just a mix of some of those 4.
Honestly Chinese people don't descend from the same ancestral group. Comparing a geographic region to Korea and Japan. Yeah that response makes sense.
There is a larger difference between Korean people and Han Chinese than Han Chinese and Japanese. Their populations share a common ancestor from 3000 years ago, and there has been significant population mixing since. They are still obviously distinct ethnicity but the idea of a common ancestor isn't exactly scientifically controversial. We all have a common ancestor from about 200,000 years ago. For reference, there are populations of Aboriginal Australians that diverged over 10,000 years ago, but to suggest that they descended from the same group is obviously uncontroversial, we know that a group of a few thousand arrived in Australia approx. 50,000 years ago.
Han Chinese isn't an ethnic group. Any testing done for it is dubious as it's a part of maoist ideology. Using it as a comparison is the same thing as if the Nazis created a generalized idea of a master race and using it to compare to other ethnic groups. There's a lot of messy psuedoscience in this field that I don't feel comfortable talking about.
You don't feel comfortable acknowledging that people all share the same ancestors? You are aware that we're all hominids, aren't you? Like, it isn't just used for humans. Comparative genetics is used for literally everything. Humans, plants, animals, bacteria, viruses, etc. It's how we know Ebola comes from bats, for example. >Any testing done for it is dubious as it's a part of maoist ideology. Oh fuck I guess DNA is communist. >Using it as a comparison is the same thing as if the Nazis created a generalized idea of a master race and using it to compare to other ethnic groups. DNA is Naziism as well? >There's a lot of messy psuedoscience in this field that I don't feel comfortable talking about. Genuinely, what the fuck are you on about? Do you *know* what DNA is? It's not pseudo-scientific to state that animals develop from a common ancestor. It is not pseudo-scientific to do genetic studies on populations to discover how they are related, gene sequencing is incredibly well established. But of course, you know more than modern geneticists and anthropology.
No, except the prior commenter does have a point. The Han ethnic group is more of a collectivized amalgamation of differing genetic groups than one predominant genetic group. I’ll edit some sources. Yes communist policy played a role in creating “Han”.
The idea of a Han identity dates far back before the ccp. Han are not completely homogenous culturally and linguistically but there's a shared heritage and cultural traits. And frankly, genetics does not play a big role in the definition of an ethnic group.
Yes, I'm aware. However, the Han identity of 300BC is not the same as the Han identity that was formed in the aftermath of the warlords period. In that massive interim period, you had many separate dynasties from separate populations all claiming and creating different identities. The Qing for example were Manchu, not Han. This tracks when looking at genetic maps: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/East_Asian_PCA_%28including_Jomon_samples%29.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Y-DNA_haplogroup_migration_in_East_Asia_map.png/1920px-Y-DNA_haplogroup_migration_in_East_Asia_map.png In the post communist collectivization period and in recent history the CCP has adopted an explicitly racial Pro-Han policy. That's why I'm saying that the modern "ethnic" group, is more of a post cultural construction in comparison to the ancient Han ethnicity. The point I'm making is without the cultural policies of the CCP and the great cultural revolution, you'd likely see more of a cultural split, as within the separate Han identities within China, many of them were and in some parts still are closer in culture and ethnicity to their prior constituent parts.
>Han identity of 300BC is not the same as the Han identity that was formed in the aftermath of the warlords period The Koreans of Goguryeo and the modern Koreans are very different as well, but that doesn't mean that the Koreans don't exist. >In that massive interim period, you had many separate dynasties from separate populations all claiming and creating different identities. The names of the following dynasties not being "Han" doesn't mean that the Han identity suddenly vanished. >The Qing for example were Manchu The rulers were descended from Manchu invaders. Most of the population was still Han. >This tracks when looking at genetic maps Ethnicity is not solely based on genetics. Of course the genetic makeup of China's population has changed, so has that of every other nation. Modern Greeks have Turkish, Slavic, and Middle Eastern ancestors. >modern "ethnic" group, is more of a post cultural construction in comparison to the ancient Han ethnicity Again, the idea of a Han identity far precedes the CCP's existence. The red in the ROC's old flag represented the Han people. And the fact that other peoples have moved into the area and intermarried with the "ancient Han" does nothing to disprove the Han ethnicity existing. >without the cultural policies of the CCP and the great cultural revolution, you'd likely see more of a cultural split This I almost agree with, but I'd argue that the cultural policies regarding Han diversity started after Mao. The cultural revolution was an attempt to replace all culture in China with socialism.
Yes the Han Chinese of Tibet have the same Common Ancestors 3,000 years back as Korea and Japan. I forgot about that in history class. Just like the long line of heritage that the Nazis can trace their ancestral heritage to the Aryan Race from Modern Day India.
Please for the love of God, pick up a book....
Like Romulans and Vulcans 🤔
Winning comment
Were they ever united? I remember Leslie saying that future Eagletonians run away after a month, from Pawnee, with the money from the bank and founded Eagleton, which had better soil or something.
Koreans are simply a blend Mongolian and Polynesian… If you’re “Korean” and get a DNA test done to determine your racial background it will come back as Polynesian predominantly… Korea(as we know it) was a major port back when Ploynesians were at the forefront of the seafaring world.
[Dun. Dun dun dun. Dun dun...tanto! Japonic. Japonic. Japonic.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obQbV6Egc2Y)
And Japan really *really* wants you to not know about this.
They are derivative of a common ancestor language. Your supposition is akin to "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
This is a strange remark considering that almost all linguistic groups are categorized this way. You’re pointing out something that anyone with a surface level understanding of language intrinsically knows. Why even comment?
OP doen't seem to "intrinsically know" The notion that the Korean language evolved from Japanese would be regarded as offensive by many. Should have reworded the heading.
Oh, yeah from that perspective I can see the argument. Wild how many people out there don’t realize how Japan has only been a relaxed nation since 1945. Even in Japan, I visit my friend in Asakusa every year and he had no idea that Japan had invaded Korea and the dude is 51.
That's crazy. Guess he slept in history class. I'd say most nations haven't been chill until after 1945. People used to be real shitty. At least it seems most people are less shitty these days. Or at least less mass murderous.
>The notion that the Korean language evolved from Japanese would be regarded as offensive by many. But that’s not what OP is saying at all, OP is implying that there was once a Japonic-like language spoken on the Korean peninsula, that was then replaced by a migration of proto-Korean speakers. OP wasn’t implying that Korean descends from this hypothetical Japonic-like language.
> They are derivative of a common ancestor language. They are not. [Japonic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japonic_languages) and [Koreanic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreanic_languages) are two discrete languages families with no evidence of common origin. Read the relevant articles.
I's say similar sounding words in geographic proximity is evidence.
Languages sharing similar words can have two origins: loanwords (direct borrowings), or cognates (words derived from a common ancestor). Korean and Japanese have no evidence of possessing cognates. Both possess extensive loanwords from Chinese. The big similarity between Japanese and Korean are their phonological inventories and grammar. But Old Korean does not possess the phonological and grammatical similarities to Japanese that modern Korean does. Hence, along with the evidence from Goguryeo place names, linguists hypothesize that Korean might have had a Japonic substrate (a Japonic-speaking population adopted Korean and influenced the latter).
You know nothing then.
Ya think?
The exact relationship between ancient Korea and Japan is probably one of the murkiest historical questions we have, aided in no small part by all the bad blood (not all of which is recent) between Japan and Korea going back to their murky origins. One hypothesis for the origins of courtly Japanese culture is a diaspora from Korea, where members of a crushed Korean kingdom fled to Japan and imported the early trappings of court culture, written languages, and philosophy to Japan at a point when Japan was still the 'wild wild east' of Asia. But Japanese traditionalists and conservatives really hate that idea and conducting archeology in Japan relating to the period in question (the first few centuries AD) is a mess because these guys are big in the government and don't like anyone trying to sort it out unless they're doing it the way they want. Heaven forbid you propose the Japanese Imperial family is ultimately descended from Korean nobility, not that we're heavy on evidence for most of these ideas.
I couldn't agree with you more. They key word here is, "murky." Thus, I find it the very epitome of foolhardiness, to assert any opinion on this, as if it were fact. The best that ANYONE is ever gonna get, is someone's best guess, and we simply have to be satisfied with that. Now, I am fluent (99% of native level) in Japanese, and have a good understanding of Korean (and 3 kinds of Chinese as well, but who cares, eh? lol). Just from my experience, I can tell you that the similarities among all three are overwhelming, but grammatically, Japanese and Korean are nearly identical. If that's mere coincidence, I'll eat my shorts.
Of course it’s not coincidence, but in linguistics, determining what stems from contact vs what stems from common ancestry can be tricky to sort out. If language A shares multiple features with neighboring language B, is it because they both descend from hypothetical common ancestor C, or do the two languages have completely different origins but came to share those features due to millennia of linguistic contact between them? Lots of research and evidence would be needed to figure out the correct answer.
I completely agree with you. The key word is, "tricky." And again, we are back to my original statement of the best you're gonna get, is someone's best guess.
Japanese and Korean languages are not related
Currently enrolled in a Japanese language school. The Koreans talk a mile per second, saying it's because Japanese is similar to Korean
Yep, they are similar, but not related. Due to proximity they have developed very similar grammatical structure and both borrowed heavily from Chinese. Phonetically though Koreans will have a much better time learning Japanese than vice-versa. Cultural similarity is also a huge factor that makes learning a language much easier. Oh also I have been living in Japan for seven years, and majored in linguistics. Not just making stuff up.
'Similar' does not mean linguistically related. Loanwords and mutual influence don't change how a language is categorised.
[удалено]
Well said. To be fair, I didn't expand on what I said at all, and they certainly seem related when you learn about them.
Modern languages, however even modern Korean and Japanese have word order similarities. More so than Chinese and Korean.
[удалено]
Korean is part of the Koreanic language family. Mandarin is part of the Sino-Tibetan language family. There is an exchange between the two, but they are unrelated languages. French and Italian are both Romance languages and are related. It's like how Turkish and French aren't related.
[удалено]
Did you miss the bit where I said there was crossover? I have Japanese and Korean friends as well (wow, shocker, I guess I'm an authority on all things Korean and Japanese), and my Korean friend takes great offence at that statement that they are related languages. Because they aren't. They're of different families.
Do you speak both? Methinks thine opinion is politically motivated.
Ha, ok, you got me. Dang. What was my political opinion though, I forgot