[KS] Tsushima does not mean "Two islands"

gkl1 at columbia.edu gkl1 at columbia.edu
Wed May 30 17:13:03 EDT 2012


   Yes, Ed, but be sure you check the date on that map. Back in the  
etymological times and climes we're speaking of,Tsushima was a single  
island, not two. Prior to the early years of the 20th century--some  
time between 1898 and 1904, the Japanese navy divided the island at  
O-Funakoshi, where up to that time a natural isthmus had connected the  
northern and southern halves of the island. To the East of that  
isthmus was the open sea. To the west was a vast inlet called Aso Bay.  
By digging a cut through that isthmus, a whole island became two  
islands.
   This was a major factor in the Battle of Tsushima (1905), when  
Japan totally destroyed the Russian fleet. The Russians, after the  
seven-months-plus sea voyage of the Baltic fleet, headed for  
Vladivostok. They had a choice whether to take the western route  
through the Korea strait between Korea and Tsushima, or to take the  
route east of Tsushima. Because of the eastern access to Aso Bay Japan  
could post warships on either side of Tsushima, which they did. The  
Russians chose the Korea Strait, and the Japanese warships on the  
other side of the island quickly passed through the newly available  
eastern access and were now able to hit the Russians from both the  
north and the south. Result, total disaster for Russia and victory for  
Japan. (Theodore Roosevelt, cheering them on, quickly encouraged them  
to take over Korea).

Gari Ledyard

Quoting "Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" <ed4linda at yahoo.com>:

> WRT the Japanese word for island "shima¡¡ª·ªÞ¡± being from Korean, I'd  
> point out that the Korean word "seom ¼¶" was earlier rendered "syeom  
> ¼É" and that Japanese "tsushima ªÄª·ªÞ|[?©Ó�" appears to be an  
> adaptation from Korean "dusyeom µÎ¼É," = "two islands." Look at a map.
>
> Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
>
> ed4linda at yahoo.com��
>
> Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil as those who   
> steal from the public purse--Adlai Stevenson
>
>
> --- On Tue, 5/29/12, Edward Kim <wangkon936 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: Edward Kim <wangkon936 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Is Korean an Altaic language?
> To: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2012, 10:54 PM
>
> John,
> John R. Bentley at University of Hawaii did an exhaustive study of  
> the Baekje language from surviving fragments in the Nihon Shoki and  
> the Samguk Sagi and reconstructed 100 Baekje words. ?His conclusion  
> was that Baekje and the language of Silla was more similar to each  
> other than what was being spoken in Japan.
> One interesting tidbit is that the Japanese word for island,  
> "shima," was originally from the old Korean world for enclosed and  
> isolated space, "sima." ?Shima (as in Takashima or?Tsushima) was  
> originally an old Korean word.�
>
> --- On Mon, 5/28/12, John Treat
>  <john.treat at yale.edu> wrote:
>
> From: John Treat <john.treat at yale.edu>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Is Korean an Altaic language?
> To: koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
> Date: Monday, May 28, 2012, 5:48 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     On 5/28/12 2:46 PM, Edward Kim wrote:
>
>
>
>     There are really very few compelling questions in Japanese
>     linguistics (Phonology? No. Syntax? No.), but this is ONE of them. I
>     was taught decades ago that Japanese (likely) has a genetic
>     relationship with Paekche, but Paekche itself was overwhelmed so
>     evidence has been lost. John Whitman toils in the fields, by the
>     way.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Regarding the possible relationship, I would
>                 say that current scholarship is leaning on saying no.
>                  Here is a quick summary:
>
>
>
>               1)�
>                 Christopher I.
>                   Beckwith�(author of Koguryo: The Language of
>                 Japan's Continental Relatives) gives a resounding no.
>
>
>
>               2) Roy Andrew Miller (author
>                   of Languages and History: Japanese, Korean and Altaic)
>                   says yes.
>
>
>
>               3) Alexander Vovin
>                   (author of Korea-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common
>                   Genetic Origin) says no.  He had originally started
>                   believing that Korean and Japanese shared a genetic
>                   relationship, but after studying the most archaic
>                   forms of Japanese on the Ryukyu islands, he came to
>                   the conclusion that they were not. Interestingly,
>                   Vovin does believe that a common "Old Korean" was
>                   spoken on the peninsula during the Three Kingdom's
>                   Period.
>
>
>
>               4) J. Marshall Unger
>                   (author of The Role of Contact in the Origins of the
>                   Japanese and Korean Language) says yes, but
>                   with caveats.  He actually believes that Proto Korean
>                   and Proto Japanese were both spoken widely on the
>                   peninsula, but that Proto Korean eventually displaced
>                   Proto Japanese and pushed it into the archipelago.
>                    The main evidence that he has is that Japanese place
>                   names on the peninsula are not just in old Koguryo
>                   areas, but also in other areas on the peninsula as
>                   well.
>
>
>
>               My personal belief, as an
>                   informed lay person, is a combination of three and
>                   four.  Korean and Japanese may have had very distant
>                   genetic relationships somewhere in Manchuria or
>                   Siberia, but separated a very long time ago.  It is
>                   very hard to know for sure because we have fragmentary
>                   information on Old Korean due to Korea's more
>                   turbulent history.  At the same time information on
>                   Old Japanese isn't exhaustive either.�
>
>
>
>               I know there was an
>                   interesting paper by John R. Bentley that took old Han
>                   and Wei documents and glossed Proto Korean and Proto
>                   Japanese words and found out that both had a similar
>                   number of vowels at that time.  It also collaborated
>                   the works of Japanese scholars as well.  Turns out
>                   that Proto Japanese may have had seven vowels as
>                   opposed to the 5 vowels that it has now.  Proto Korean
>                   also had seven vowels back then as opposed to the 10
>                   vowels it has now.  It was also determined that those
>                   vowels were overlapping.  Thus, it appeared based on
>                   this evidence that back then at least the two
>                   languages sounded similar.
>
>
>
>               Again,
>                 based on the dearth of information, we may never really
>                 know.
>
>
>
>
>                 --- On Mon, 5/28/12, Adam Bohnet <adam.bohnet at utoronto.ca>
>                 wrote:
>
>
>
>                   From: Adam Bohnet <adam.bohnet at utoronto.ca>
>
>                   Subject: Re: [KS] Is Korean an Altaic language?
>
>                   To: koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
>
>                   Date: Monday, May 28, 2012, 3:55 AM
>
>
>
>                   Dear Eugene:
>
>
>
>                     My own fealing, having read a little bit about it as
>                     a non-specialist,�
>
>                     is that the safest course is to tell students that
>                     there is a great�
>
>                     deal of debate concerning Korea's relationship to
>                     Japanese and the�
>
>                     so-called Altaic languages, and that otherwise it
>                     has no obvious or�
>
>                     undisputed connection to any other language. I then
>                     direct students to�
>
>                     Sasha Vovin, etc. My own impression (no doubt based
>                     on insufficiently�
>
>                     deep reading) was that all of the participants in
>                     the debate were able�
>
>                     to claim that what other scholars treated as
>                     evidence of a genetic�
>
>                     relationship was actually just the result of
>                     borrowing of words, so�
>
>                     that unless one really wants to wade deep into the
>                     waters of this�
>
>                     debate, it is best to stay dry and on the edge.
>
>
>
>                     In response to Henny's comment, note that Eugene's
>                     question was not�
>
>                     concerned with simple "similarity"� but with
>                     language families. Note�
>
>                     that English speakers have a notoriously hard time
>                     learning Sanskrit,�
>
>                     although Sanskrit is also an Indo-European language.
>                     Perhaps I might�
>
>                     direct list-members to a comment made by Sasha Vovin
>                     on the Yahoo�
>
>                     Manchu Studies List. His comment concerns Manchu,
>                     but in some respects�
>
>                     it applies to Korean as well.
>
>
>
>                     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ManchuStudy/message/390
>
>
>
>                     "Manchu belongs to the Tungusic language family,
>                     namely to its South
>
>                     (Nanaic) branch. The Tungusic language family is
>                     spread from Western
>
>                     Siberia to Pacific, and includes about a dozen
>                     languages, among which
>
>                     Ewenki, Ewen, and Nanai alongside with the Sibo
>                     dialect of Manchu in
>
>                     Xinjiang have the most number of speakers. Manchu,
>                     as well as other
>
>                     Tungusic languages have a remarkable similarity to
>                     languages belonging
>
>                     to languages families found in Central and East Asia
>                     (Turkic,
>
>                     Mongolic, Korean, and Japonic) that used to be
>                     called 'Altaic', but
>
>                     the similarity is superficial, mainly due to the
>                     fact that all these
>
>                     languages have SOV word order. Students of Manchu
>                     who make use of the
>
>                     Japanese translation of the Manwen laodang will
>                     notice that the
>
>                     Japanese text placed beneath each line of Manchu
>                     text follows the same
>
>                     word order as Manchu. But they should keep in mind
>                     that a similar
>
>                     translation into Hindi or the Sepik language (a
>                     Papuan language) would
>
>                     enjoy the same privilege, as these languages are
>                     also SOV. Meanwhile,
>
>                     this will not work for Ewen, which, although
>                     obviously related to
>
>                     Manchu, has developed SVO order in certain types of
>                     clauses. Though
>
>                     linguists have debated whether Altaic languages are
>                     actually
>
>                     genetically linked or whether their similarities
>                     merely reflect
>
>                     extensive borrowings from one another, most of
>                     Western and Japanese
>
>                     specialists in 'Altaic' languages believe that these
>                     similarities are
>
>                     the result of centuries long contacts. In other
>                     words, we deal here
>
>                     with a Sprachbund situation."
>
>
>
>
>
>                     Quoting Henny Savenije <webmaster at henny-savenije.pe.kr>:
>
>
>
>                     > I am not a linguist either but I do remember
>                     that Turkish and
>
>                     > Hungarians and even Finnish have a relative
>                     easy time learning Korean.
>
>                     > I have met people from each group telling me
>                     so. Which indicates to me
>
>                     > the similarity between the languages.
>
>                     >
>
>                     > At 02:29 PM 5/27/2012, you wrote:
>
>                     >> Dear all,
>
>                     >>
>
>                     >> On a somewhat related note: what is the
>                     latest consensus, if any, among
>
>                     >> historical linguists on whether Korean (as
>                     well as Japanese) is an
>
>                     >> Altaic language? I am not a linguist, but
>                     would it be fair for me to
>
>                     >> tell my students that Korean is either a
>                     member of an Altaic language
>
>                     >> family or a language isolate to which
>                     Altaic languages, more than any
>
>                     >> others, are probably most closely related?
>                     My own very limited
>
>                     >> understanding of the literature on
>                     historical linguistics seems to
>
>                     >> suggest to me that if one were to place
>                     Korean in a language family,
>
>                     >> then the Altaic seems to be the best
>                     choice.
>
>                     >>
>
>                     >> Best,
>
>                     >>
>
>                     >> Gene
>
>                     >> ---
>
>                     >>
>
>                     >> Eugene Y. Park
>
>                     >> Korea Foundation Associate Professor of
>                     History
>
>                     >> Director, James Joo-Jin Kim Program in
>                     Korean Studies
>
>                     >> University of Pennsylvania
>
>                     >> http://www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/park.shtml
>
>                     >>
>
>                     >>
>
>                     >> On 5/26/2012 11:02 PM, gkl1 at columbia.edu
>                     wrote:
>
>                     >>> Hi List,
>
>                     >>>
>
>                     >>> Admittedly a huge number of Chinese
>                     words and compounds have become
>
>                     >>> part of Korean's vocabulary, just as a
>                     huge number of Greek and and
>
>                     >>> Latin words have become a part of the
>                     vocabulary of English (and the
>
>                     >>> other European languages too). But it's
>                     distressing to learn that
>
>                     >>> people might think ANY Korean word
>                     would be writable with Chinese
>
>                     >>> characters. If that were so, then
>                     Korean would be a language in the
>
>                     >>> Sino-Tibetan family. It's hard enough
>                     to get scholarly agreement on
>
>                     >>> what language family CAN claim Korean's
>                     ancestry, but any linguistic
>
>                     >>> reference work would make it clear that
>                     it's not a Chinese-type language.
>
>                     >>>
>
>                     >>> Gari Ledyard
>
>                     >>>
>
>                     >>> Quoting Clark W Sorensen <sangok at u.washington.edu>:
>
>                     >>>
>
>                     >>>> Caren,
>
>                     >>>>
>
>                     >>>> Namaksin is a native Korean word,
>                     so it doesn't have corresponding
>
>                     >>>> Chinese characters. However, any of
>                     the on-line dictionaries will give
>
>                     >>>> the characters for Korean words
>                     such as at naver.com. The problem is
>
>                     >>>> you have to input the Korean in
>                     hangul.
>
>                     >>>>
>
>                     >>>> Clark Sorensen
>
>                     >>>>
>
>                     >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012, Freeman, Caren
>                     (cwf8q) wrote:
>
>                     >>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>> I¢®¯m asking this question on
>                     behalf of a colleague who is a
>
>                     >>>>> sinologist. He asks:
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>> ¢®¡Æi want to see what chinese
>                     characters correspond to korean
>
>                     >>>>> "Namaksin" wooden clogs.
>                     Namaksin (©ø¨£¢¬¡¤¨ö�)
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>> Is there an online dictionary
>                     that gives the classic readings for
>
>                     >>>>> korean words entered in pinyin
>                     type western alphabet?¢®¡¾
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>> Many thanks for your
>                     recommendations,
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>> Caren Freeman
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>>>
>
>                     >>>
>
>                     >>>
>
>                     >>>
>
>                     >>>
>
>                     >
>
>                     >� � � � �  
> � � � � _��?
>
>                     >� � � � �  
> � � ���(o) (o)
>
>                     >� � � oOOO----(_)----OOOo---
>
>                     > Henny (Lee Hae Kang)
>
>                     > -----------------------------
>
>                     > http://www.henny-savenije.pe.kr
>                     Portal to all my sites
>
>                     > http://www.hendrick-hamel.henny-savenije.pe.kr
>                     (in English) Feel free
>
>                     > to discover Korea with Hendrick Hamel
>                     (1653-1666)
>
>                     >   
> http://www.hendrick-hamel.henny-savenije.pe.kr/indexk2.htm
>                     In Korean
>
>                     > http://www.hendrick-hamel.henny-savenije.pe.kr/Dutch
>                     In Dutch
>
>                     > http://www.vos.henny-savenije.pe.kr
>                     Frits Vos Article about Witsen and
>
>                     > Eibokken and his first Korean-Dutch dictionary
>
>                     > http://www.cartography.henny-savenije.pe.kr
>                     (in English) Korea through
>
>                     > Western Cartographic eyes
>
>                     > http://www.hwasong.henny-savenije.pe.kr
>                     Hwasong the fortress in Suwon
>
>                     > http://www.oldKorea.henny-savenije.pe.kr
>                     Old Korea in pictures
>
>                     > http://www.british.henny-savenije.pe.kr
>                     A British encounter in Pusan (1797)
>
>                     > http://www.genealogy.henny-savenije.pe.kr/
>                     Genealogy
>
>                     > http://www.henny-savenije.pe.kr/phorum
>                     Bulletin board for Korean studies
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list