A Completely New and Original Idea

[FDW]

Apologies for the late response.

In terms of the linguistic similarities, some of them are discussed in this journal, but it's extremely long, so feel free to look through it when you have enough time. Ultimately, there is no consensus, although most of the viewpoints suggest that the languages/dialects are related in some way. My hypothesis, which may not necessarily be correct, is that the numerous dialects present across the peninsula represent the presence of regional "languages" further diverging over time, as most of them are not mutually intelligible. On the other hand, the current Seoul dialect is probably descended from a version that was originally spoken by the literary elite, so it would have heavily incorporated Chinese loanwords before other dialects followed suit. In regards to this aspect, Goguryeo probably adopted loanwords from Old Chinese, while Silla adopted ones from Middle Chinese, so there might have been some phonological differences. However, the linguistic evidence present in the Samguk Sagi suggests that most of them were not as significant.

I've read that source before, it's where I've gotten some of my ideas about the Korean "languages" during this time period.

Regarding the changes that occurred over time, I will say that it is virtually impossible to track the differences if the butterflies occur more than 1500 years from the present. For example, within the last century, many of the syllables in Sino-Korean which originally began with a "l" sound have been converted to a null consonant due to vowel assimilation, and some syllables beginning with a "d" shifted to "j"s. The presence of two consonants in the finals of some syllables in Native Korean also suggest that they were pronounced in full in earlier times, although not all of them are pronounced today. As another example, while it is possible to somewhat parse the prologue of the Hunminjeongeum, promulgated by Sejong, without prior knowledge of Middle Korean, it illustrates how some sounds have become obsolete, along with a lot of "y" sounds attached to vowels that have disappeared in Modern Korean. We can only piece together some words in Middle Korean through Idu, Gugyeol, and Hyangchal, written in Chinese characters (no phonology) and mixed with Sino-Korean, and there is very little information on the Korean that was spoken before 936, as the Samguk Sagi (1145) is the oldest extant text with significant information on the Korean language. In other words, even with an earlier unification, we can only assume that the language development will occur on similar lines, and although there might be more "northern" influences, the southerners would probably consist of the majority until the language is standardized, so differences would not be significant.

Even with small differences, you can get major changes once standardization comes along. I mean look at different German and Dutch can seem just because of how they decided to spell stuff.

 

[democracy101]

I've read that source before, it's where I've gotten some of my ideas about the Korean "languages" during this time period.

That's fine. My point was that because even experts can't agree on anything substantial, and all have widely differing opinions, we're probably no better off making a conclusion.

Even with small differences, you can get major changes once standardization comes along. I mean look at different German and Dutch can seem just because of how they decided to spell stuff.

I know, but that was not my point. The large number of phonological changes in the last century, of which I only stated a few, suggest that there were far more changes when you consider the history of the language overall, including varying dialects, spanning more than two thousand years. Of these changes, we only have any extant evidence that is remotely substantial after Hangul was created in the mid-15th century, and even that is minimal, because use was generally limited to the literati until the mid-20th century. Idu, Gugyeol, and Hyangchal only give us extremely vague hints as to the phonology, because the systems were written in Chinese characters, which technically give some phonological hints through the radicals, but Chinese and Korean phonology were vastly different for centuries until the latter gradually began to absorb influences of the former.

The linguistic evidence from the period actually in question, specifically around 500-1000, is limited to only around a hundred toponyms at most, with no hints as to their etymological origins, and vague hints as to how they might have been pronounced. As a result, the available evidence tells us virtually nothing about the language(s) spoken at the time, not to mention the potential differences between the dialects. For example, we know only one number from Goguryeo/Baekje, mir, or "three," which sounds nothing like set in Modern Native Korean, but we have no idea how the ancient numeral was conjugated, if at all, or anything about the other numbers, so there is essentially nothing to go by. As an analogy, imagine several pictures, and sheets of paper with some holes which are placed over the former. We might be able to identify some details within each, but they would certainly not be enough to understand the entire situation, let alone attempting to identify the similarities between them. Linguists have made some connections between Old, Middle, and Modern Korean, but they are only limited to the handful of information that is available, and is certainly not enough to paint the whole picture.

As a result, after assuming that the "Korean" languages were probably closely related dialects of each other, with "relatively" minor differences that can technically be glossed over due to insufficient information, it would be much more pragmatic to assume that similar developments will arise ITTL in comparison with OTL.

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

On a side note, since I am assuming WhatIsAUserName is subscribed to this thread, and it is related to the direction this thread is going I wanted to briefly discuss the Baekje "colonies" in China. However, if this turns into a Hi-jack, I will take this offline.

Here are my thoughts and I would like yours and anyone else's feedback? As I am an American of European descendant I am unsure if my understanding actually applies in an Eastern context. I always looked at the Baekje "colonies" in China to be the same as the Venetian "trading colonies" (do not think Cyprus, Crete, or Corfu but Tunis, Alexandria, or Constantinople) in the Med. In the major cities they might have a designated "quarter" or area of the city where they completely control & are mostly populated with their citizens. The might also have "de facto" control of a few minor cities (like they control the economy and/or their marines/soldiers are the local forces), that have good harbors and/or are on good trade route locations.

This is somewhat similar to real life with some of the other groups in Tang China. I don't have exact details, but the Uighurs lived in their part of Chang'an, the Persians lived in another part, etc. I don't remember if this was the case for other cities, but I know there was an Arab community in Guangzhou, but I'm not sure about control. These people would not be technically under Chinese law, and were supposed to be handed over to other members of their communities when crimes were committed. But I've never heard of this being applied to Koreans, because I don't think their community was large enough.

Anyways, this actually has nothing to do with the Paekche colonies in question, which are in Liaoxi and Shandong, and unless I see sources testify to such preferential treatment of Koreans who controlled parts of major cities, I see no reason to think it existed.

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

In addition, there are various Goguryeo inscriptions which utilized a form of Proto-Idu, which was a complicated system used to represent Korean words with Chinese characters, suggesting that Silla, and later Goryeo, borrowed the concept from Goguryeo, which would only be possible if the languages were mutually intelligible.

One bit of contention: The Manyogana system in Japan used Chinese characters to represent Japanese words. If it was borrowed from Korea and the Idu script, then by your argument, Old Japanese must have been mutually intelligible with the language of Koguryo as well.

This doesn't seem likely to me. After all, plenty of people speaking plenty of languages have used the Roman alphabet without speaking mutually intelligible languages.

 

[mightfly]

I haven't finished reading all the earlier post but i am interested in seeing where this goes. Luckily i know a good deal of east asian history and was able to skip alot of the reading.


Korean history is interesting. I have always felt that koreans were given too many opportunities for greatness and some how they nearly missed every last one.

Korea is a hard place to give a ATL to because even slight changes can easily result in a korea wank.

Most korea wanks would end up a regional affair if ATL started after 1500, but before 1300 they could end up a global affair.

 

[democracy101]

This is somewhat similar to real life with some of the other groups in Tang China. I don't have exact details, but the Uighurs lived in their part of Chang'an, the Persians lived in another part, etc. I don't remember if this was the case for other cities, but I know there was an Arab community in Guangzhou, but I'm not sure about control. These people would not be technically under Chinese law, and were supposed to be handed over to other members of their communities when crimes were committed. But I've never heard of this being applied to Koreans, because I don't think their community was large enough.

Anyways, this actually has nothing to do with the Paekche colonies in question, which are in Liaoxi and Shandong, and unless I see sources testify to such preferential treatment of Koreans who controlled parts of major cities, I see no reason to think it existed.

I already stated that if Baekje had established stable "colonies," it wouldn't have made a difference militarily, given what occurred IOTL. Again, I think that the reason for a lack of sources with substantial details was due to the chaos in North China at the time. It would have been extremely difficult to keep track of each state when borders shifted constantly for decades, and after some records were lost, Baekje's possible existence along the northern coast of China Proper would be nothing more than a footnote at most.

One bit of contention: The Manyogana system in Japan used Chinese characters to represent Japanese words. If it was borrowed from Korea and the Idu script, then by your argument, Old Japanese must have been mutually intelligible with the language of Koguryo as well.

This doesn't seem likely to me. After all, plenty of people speaking plenty of languages have used the Roman alphabet without speaking mutually intelligible languages.

There are some theories which suggest that a dialect of Japanese (possibly Western) was closely related to a Korean dialect, but I'll ignore that for now. Anyway, many of the words, mostly taken from toponyms, but others from inscriptions created by Goguryeo or Baekje, along with some titles assigned to officials that have been recorded in the Samguk Sagi. The ones that have been deciphered have been essentially verified as cognates of their southern counterparts, as they have similar pronunciations as the corresponding words in Middle Korean. In fact, Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla often used rough homonyms of different characters to represent the same word in each dialect. However, as I stated earlier, finding out exactly how they were pronounced is impossible for the most part, as Chinese characters provide very little indications of pronunciation, and certainly did not fit the language phonologically. In the future, I would suggest doing some research before making general assumptions.

I haven't finished reading all the earlier post but i am interested in seeing where this goes. Luckily i know a good deal of east asian history and was able to skip alot of the reading.

Thanks for stopping by.

Korean history is interesting. I have always felt that koreans were given too many opportunities for greatness and some how they nearly missed every last one.

Korea is a hard place to give a ATL to because even slight changes can easily result in a korea wank.

Most korea wanks would end up a regional affair if ATL started after 1500, but before 1300 they could end up a global affair.

Well, Goguryeo had the greatest potential to impact global matters, but it was more concerned with maintaining a balance of power both inside and outside of the peninsula in order to maintain its status among other states. However, this situation quickly disintegrated after Baekje and Silla attacked Goguryeo when it was going through political turmoil, and although it was able to withstand attacks from the west and south for another century, it eventually collapsed due to political division, along with a two-front war. Balhae was nowhere near as strong to assert its influence outside of its borders, and after Goryeo was founded, although Korea was certainly able to repulse outsiders who generally had access to more resources, it was no longer able to project its power across its borders. I feel that the only way for Korea to assume a significantly greater position in world affairs would be through political unification during Goguryeo's existence, although there certainly would have been ways for succeeding dynasties to extend their reaches.

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

I already stated that if Baekje had established stable "colonies," it wouldn't have made a difference militarily, given what occurred IOTL. Again, I think that the reason for a lack of sources with substantial details was due to the chaos in North China at the time. It would have been extremely difficult to keep track of each state when borders shifted constantly for decades, and after some records were lost, Baekje's possible existence along the northern coast of China Proper would be nothing more than a footnote at most.

In other words, there is no evidence that this ever happened.

On the other hand, there are plenty of historical works which don't describe Paekche having territories in China (I'm referring to Shandong, whether Liaoxi is Chinese at this time is more debatable). Even if control was temporary, people would remember, whether in written records or legend. If people from Paekche landed on Shandong and temporarily took control of the peninsula, there should be evidence in Northern and Southern Chinese sources.

This is akin to saying that Japan could have had a foothold along the southern coast of the Korean Peninsula. Same situation applies: borders are in flux, and records were lost.

There are some theories which suggest that a dialect of Japanese (possibly Western) was closely related to a Korean dialect, but I'll ignore that for now. Anyway, many of the words, mostly taken from toponyms, but others from inscriptions created by Goguryeo or Baekje, along with some titles assigned to officials that have been recorded in the Samguk Sagi. The ones that have been deciphered have been essentially verified as cognates of their southern counterparts, as they have similar pronunciations as the corresponding words in Middle Korean. In fact, Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla often used rough homonyms of different characters to represent the same word in each dialect. However, as I stated earlier, finding out exactly how they were pronounced is impossible for the most part, as Chinese characters provide very little indications of pronunciation, and certainly did not fit the language phonologically. In the future, I would suggest doing some research before making general assumptions.

I don't remember the research off the top of my head, but the last time I looked into the issue, the Chinese records describe different languages amongst all three kingdoms. Or, something like the rulers of Paekche speaking the language of Koguryo while the Pakeche masses spoke another language, and that Silla's language was different. Again, I don't remember too many specifics, but I'm pretty sure the consensus was not one of mutual intelligibility.

 

[mightfly]

I would have thought the period of Baekje as a sea power of trade would have been the first period where korea could have ended up as a international influencer.

Although one of the most contentious points would be that japan bottles korea in and korea separates japan from the mainland.

There has always been a west looking view in this region making many civilizations look to the Vast landscape of asia.

Looking east away from the continent was rarer. What Korea lacked was unfortunatly imagination, it was constantly dealing with invaders or infighting. The korean kingdoms and empires rarely had the opportunity to think of what they could do with stability before it was gone. Goguryeo probably could have reached that point if it had succeeded in subjugating China( goguryeo dreamed big!) then looked on to the next thing but that would have required unifying korea. Silla unified only the peninsula pactical but didn't think about what could come next. korea was stuck in following its plan and reaching its goal.

I hate to mention a work of fiction but if you've ever watched that great piece of entertainment of korean television called (Great Queen SeonDeok), i loved the big bad Mishil but the character's attitude represented the limited thinking of not considering what comes next.(she just wanted to be queen) she didnt think about what she should do as queen she just wanted to be it.


I wonder how many people actually thought about what a unified korea should do? I wonder if today's korea reunified and got back most of its part of manchuria would anyone say "Now What?"

 

[DanF]

Well, Goguryeo had the greatest potential to impact global matters, but it was more concerned with maintaining a balance of power both inside and outside of the peninsula in order to maintain its status among other states. However, this situation quickly disintegrated after Baekje and Silla attacked Goguryeo when it was going through political turmoil, and although it was able to withstand attacks from the west and south for another century, it eventually collapsed due to political division, along with a two-front war. Balhae was nowhere near as strong to assert its influence outside of its borders, and after Goryeo was founded, although Korea was certainly able to repulse outsiders who generally had access to more resources, it was no longer able to project its power across its borders. I feel that the only way for Korea to assume a significantly greater position in world affairs would be through political unification during Goguryeo's existence, although there certainly would have been ways for succeeding dynasties to extend their reaches.

Within the first century (900s) of Goryeo was first founded would it be possible (militarily speaking) for them to drive north and take back parts of Manchuria (Ussuri to Songhua to Liadodong Peninsula) before the Khitan fully consolidate their position? Besides still having a legitimate reason (Dae Gwang-Hyeon & million+ refugees lived in Goryeo), the area would also still have it’s highest concentration of Balhae people during this time. They could setup a puppet/ally which they could merge with later through marriage, or if they have the will of the people they could just create one united nation.

Oh and I hated Mishil with a passion, which is funny I really was not that interested in SeonDoek until after she became rebel leader then Princess. Actually, on the same vein my above question is similar to the setup of Iron Empress, but no earthquake in Pyongyang and no Kim Chi-Yang.

 

[democracy101]

In other words, there is no evidence that this ever happened.

On the other hand, there are plenty of historical works which don't describe Paekche having territories in China (I'm referring to Shandong, whether Liaoxi is Chinese at this time is more debatable). Even if control was temporary, people would remember, whether in written records or legend. If people from Paekche landed on Shandong and temporarily took control of the peninsula, there should be evidence in Northern and Southern Chinese sources.

This is akin to saying that Japan could have had a foothold along the southern coast of the Korean Peninsula. Same situation applies: borders are in flux, and records were lost.

Well, this doesn't change my opinion. As I stated previously, Baekje was certainly not in a strong position, at least militarily, to make a significant difference in China Proper due to what we can conjecture from OTL events. The records which do suggest that Baekje had a very minimal presence along the coast generally describe the geographical locations, along with some relatively minor conflicts that took place. On the other hand, there is essentially no support for a Japanese presence in Korea, excluding alliances among Baekje, Gaya, and one or several Wa polities. Although the Samguk Sagi records frequent "invasions" and "raids" into Silla before the 5th century, there is no evidence of a stable "occupation" specifically described in terms of either geographic location(s), or military conflict(s) on land between two entities.

I'm also mentioning this because you brought it up before in another thread, but in terms of the Gwanggaeto Stele, the vast majority of scholars reject the interpretation of the sinmyo passage as a Japanese "invasion" on the grounds that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in context. If Japan actually had a stable presence on the peninsula, then Gwangaeto certainly would have confronted them during his incursions south before reaching Wirye Fortress, Baekje's capital, but not a single word concerning the Wa is mentioned during Gwanggaeto's southern campaigns during 391-6, either on the stele, on in the Goguryeo and Baekje records within the Samguk Sagi. They are only mentioned in relation to a later alliance with Baekje, and when Goguryeo heads further south, which suggests that although some of the Wa polities maintained a temporary military presence in Korea due to a Baekje-Gaya-Wa alliance against Silla and Goguryeo, it certainly did not actively control a region or regions within the peninsula.

I don't remember the research off the top of my head, but the last time I looked into the issue, the Chinese records describe different languages amongst all three kingdoms. Or, something like the rulers of Paekche speaking the language of Koguryo while the Pakeche masses spoke another language, and that Silla's language was different. Again, I don't remember too many specifics, but I'm pretty sure the consensus was not one of mutual intelligibility.

My response remains the same: actually do the research. A handful of the same or homonyms of characters used for only the sound components to represent Korean grammatical particles have been confirmed by scholars, which only makes sense if the languages are somewhat intelligible. Also, the journal actually refutes both of your arguments, specifically in pages 119-120 and 132-4, although there are more examples in between. In addition, all of the experts agree that the language spoken in Goguryeo was closely related to either the one spoken in Silla and/or a dialect in Japan, while one (pgs. 112-7) states that Jurchen/Manchu was linguistically influenced by a version of Korean compatible with Middle Korean, although the exact connections are disputed. As before, you're fully accepting sources without attempting to find out what the possible biases are, which isn't reasonable. In fact, a Japanese record states that a Silla interpreter was used to translate correspondence from a Balhae diplomat, and your assumption makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Balhae was located far enough from Silla to not have received significant linguistic influences.

I would have thought the period of Baekje as a sea power of trade would have been the first period where korea could have ended up as a international influencer.

Baekje came close to unifying the southern portion, as Geunchogo technically subjugated Gaya and maintained close ties with Silla, in which the latter had not finished centralizing. However, Baekje was unable to capture Pyongyang even after the latter had suffered a raid on its capital from the Former Yan (Xianbei) in 342, and Gogukwon was slain in 371 while fighting Baekje. In other words, Baekje probably had not fully consolidated its power over the statelets in Mahan, and it would have been overextending its reach if it had attempted to head much further north. In other words, while Baekje certainly was in a strong position to unify the south had it been given more time, Goguryeo continued to hold out in the north because of the Yan's temporary collapse in the west, and Baekje was busy consolidating its newly gained holdings both north and south of the capital. As a result, by the time that Gwanggaeto took the throne in 391, Goguryeo managed to first attack Baekje in retaliation for Gogukwon's death, then swept through the peninsula, along with later attacking the west and temporarily occupying the Yan's capital. Of course, Goguryeo's sudden expansion was certainly not guaranteed, but the unstable political climate at the time allowed it to take advantage of its neighbors within several decades after its setbacks.

Although one of the most contentious points would be that japan bottles korea in and korea separates japan from the mainland.

I'm not exactly sure what this means. Baekje conducted widespread trade with polities both in Japan and China until Gwanggaeto's expansions, and Japan was not powerful enough to send troops overseas until the late 16th century. The fact that Japan was simply unable to conquer a state which was caught completely unprepared in terms of preparation, along with maintaining minimal garrisons in the north, suggests that Japan was considered to be a relative backwater until relatively recently.

There has always been a west looking view in this region making many civilizations look to the Vast landscape of asia.

Looking east away from the continent was rarer. What Korea lacked was unfortunatly imagination, it was constantly dealing with invaders or infighting. The korean kingdoms and empires rarely had the opportunity to think of what they could do with stability before it was gone. Goguryeo probably could have reached that point if it had succeeded in subjugating China( goguryeo dreamed big!) then looked on to the next thing but that would have required unifying korea. Silla unified only the peninsula pactical but didn't think about what could come next. korea was stuck in following its plan and reaching its goal.

The situation was much more complicated than that. Goguryeo initially enacted a tributary relationship with some of the statelets in Southern Manchuria and the Northern Korean Peninsula for about 300 years or so, then gradually absorbed them. The process took a while because of China's presence around what is now Pyongyang until 313, along with occasional incursions from the west. By the early 5th century, however, Goguryeo maintained ties with much more states, and generally began to favor a balance of power in order to maintain stability. For about 150 years, the south consisted of Baekje, Gaya, and Silla, which were nominal tributaries, and the latter was militarily occupied by Goguryeo. In the north, it maintained ties with Buyeo, Beili (Xianbei), and the Mohe and although Buyeo effectively ceased to exist in 494, it is unknown what ultimately happened to Beili because of the lack of sources, and the identity of the Mohe is uncertain. To the west, it allied with the Rouran, initially against the Wei, but after the Northern Yan collapsed in 436, it decided to maintain friendly relations with both. Goguryeo also sent diplomats to the Liu Song in order to counterbalance the Wei's influence, along with maintaining friendly relations with Japan, although the exact extent is unclear due to Baekje's previous connections with the latter.

During the late 6th-early 7th centuries, it was able to maintain close relations with the Gokturks both prior to and during the Sui and Tang invasions, which was one of the reasons why it was able to hold out for so long. In other words, because Goguryeo, unlike the various unified states in China, did not have the capability to sweep through most of its bordering states, it decided to maintain a rough balance of power with its neighbors in order to retain its strong position in Northeast Asia.

I hate to mention a work of fiction but if you've ever watched that great piece of entertainment of korean television called (Great Queen SeonDeok), i loved the big bad Mishil but the character's attitude represented the limited thinking of not considering what comes next.(she just wanted to be queen) she didnt think about what she should do as queen she just wanted to be it.

I haven't watched that particular drama. However, I do know that Seondeok is considered as one of the greatest rulers in Korean history due to her wisdom, although her accession occurred because the royal family lacked male heirs at the time due to the strict hierarchy. Her ability to rule for a significant amount of time also illustrates how there was greater equality between men and women at the time, which continued until Joseon was founded, and its support of Confucian morals eroded the balance.

In terms of the character's actions, based on watching other historical dramas, I will say that in general, characters' actions and motivations are severely skewed, partly because of dramatic license, and partly because we don't have enough information. Of course, historical dramas certainly provide significant historical background to people who don't know much about the time period, but I would certainly not advise anyone to assume that most of it is true, as the ultimate purpose is to portray an entertaining story, not accurately convey the actual situation at the time. In other words, the drama should be viewed as a gross simplification of the story, not a generally factual representation.

I wonder how many people actually thought about what a unified korea should do? I wonder if today's korea reunified and got back most of its part of manchuria would anyone say "Now What?"

That's what I'm trying to answer through this very thread, and I will honestly say that I'm still unclear on what will exactly happen next in the long term.

Within the first century (900s) of Goryeo was first founded would it be possible (militarily speaking) for them to drive north and take back parts of Manchuria (Ussuri to Songhua to Liadodong Peninsula) before the Khitan fully consolidate their position? Besides still having a legitimate reason (Dae Gwang-Hyeon & million+ refugees lived in Goryeo), the area would also still have it’s highest concentration of Balhae people during this time. They could setup a puppet/ally which they could merge with later through marriage, or if they have the will of the people they could just create one united nation.

Oh and I hated Mishil with a passion, which is funny I really was not that interested in SeonDoek until after she became rebel leader then Princess. Actually, on the same vein my above question is similar to the setup of Iron Empress, but no earthquake in Pyongyang and no Kim Chi-Yang.

Wang Geon (Taejo of Goryeo) could have certainly asked for court records delineating former Balhae territory, but the fact that Goryeo recently emerged from a civil war would mean that he would have to first consolidate power before making the decision to head further north. The regional identities still remained strong, which was one of the reasons why the Later Three Kingdoms Period occurred in the first place, and the differences would have to be evened out before costly military campaigns could occur. The fact that Goryeo refused to maintain diplomatic relations with the Khitan until it was invaded illustrates that it still closely identified with what had been Balhae, but Taejo most likely feared that the peninsula would be trampled upon if adequate preparations were not made before launching an invasion. This was probably why OTL Goryeo decided to tacitly acknowledge most of the Liao's possessions, although it continued to view itself as a successor to Goguryeo through Silla.

Another possibility would be Silla actively aiding Balhae while the latter was being attacked by the Khitan, although this would also have similar issues as the ones above.

Regarding Iron Empress, I haven't watched that one either, but my response will be the same in that historical dramas are not necessarily accurate.

 

[DanF]

I figured Goryeo would lack the military strength right especially right after founding. I was just curious cause based on my limited understanding/research of Korean history; both Goryeo and Joseon at a variety of times made claims to lands north of the Yalu river, they never really tried very hard to get the land.

In regards to kdrama it is solely as an easy reference I am quite old enough to be aware the vast differences between "drama" history and real history. For the record, I am not angry or insulted, so please do not take it that way, I am just stating my understanding of what you said.

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

Well, this doesn't change my opinion. As I stated previously, Baekje was certainly not in a strong position, at least militarily, to make a significant difference in China Proper due to what we can conjecture from OTL events. The records which do suggest that Baekje had a very minimal presence along the coast generally describe the geographical locations, along with some relatively minor conflicts that took place. On the other hand, there is essentially no support for a Japanese presence in Korea, excluding alliances among Baekje, Gaya, and one or several Wa polities. Although the Samguk Sagi records frequent "invasions" and "raids" into Silla before the 5th century, there is no evidence of a stable "occupation" specifically described in terms of either geographic location(s), or military conflict(s) on land between two entities.

Alright, it's hard to demolish an argument without knowing the full extent of its absurdity. I'll play.

What geographical locations for Paekche's presence or colonies? Also, when? Start by naming these. You said Liaoxi and Shandong before, so I'll point to the journal you cited to show you what academia thinks (hey, you said to do basic research!):

"Estimated Domain of Early Paekche" -pg. 16. In case you cannot see, this is a map of about two-thirds of the Korean Peninsula. I don't see any part of Shandong or Liaoxi here. Maybe the estimate is off?

"The book attaches a great importance of the geopolitical significance of the Liaoxi, the place where Koguryŏ, the Northern dynasties, and the Inner Asian nomadic powers intersected. Koguryŏ and the Northern dynasties confronted each other here and a triangular balance of power was established with the nomadic powers." -pg 227. Note the absence of Paekche mentioned. If basic research supports the idea that Paekche had a presence in Liaoxi, it certainly isn't mentioned. Probably because it didn't exist.

I'm also mentioning this because you brought it up before in another thread, but in terms of the Gwanggaeto Stele, the vast majority of scholars reject the interpretation of the sinmyo passage as a Japanese "invasion" on the grounds that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in context. If Japan actually had a stable presence on the peninsula, then Gwangaeto certainly would have confronted them during his incursions south before reaching Wirye Fortress, Baekje's capital, but not a single word concerning the Wa is mentioned during Gwanggaeto's southern campaigns during 391-6, either on the stele, on in the Goguryeo and Baekje records within the Samguk Sagi. They are only mentioned in relation to a later alliance with Baekje, and when Goguryeo heads further south, which suggests that although some of the Wa polities maintained a temporary military presence in Korea due to a Baekje-Gaya-Wa alliance against Silla and Goguryeo, it certainly did not actively control a region or regions within the peninsula.

I'm speaking rhetorically. I don't really care whether Yamato controlled a part of Korea or not. I'm just pointing out that, as per your argument, maybe the reason such a foothold is not mentioned earlier is due to the loss of records. After all, it was a chaotic time. What if Kim Pushik made an accidental omission with the Samguk Sagi and didn't put talk about it? (Sarcasm is not conveyed well in the absence of voice.)

My response remains the same: actually do the research. A handful of the same or homonyms of characters used for only the sound components to represent Korean grammatical particles have been confirmed by scholars, which only makes sense if the languages are somewhat intelligible. Also, the journal actually refutes both of your arguments, specifically in pages 119-120 and 132-4, although there are more examples in between. In addition, all of the experts agree that the language spoken in Goguryeo was closely related to either the one spoken in Silla and/or a dialect in Japan, while one (pgs. 112-7) states that Jurchen/Manchu was linguistically influenced by a version of Korean compatible with Middle Korean, although the exact connections are disputed. As before, you're fully accepting sources without attempting to find out what the possible biases are, which isn't reasonable.

This is silly. The words like de, entre, un, and la are shared in the grammar of French and Spanish. Somewhat same sound components, generally same grammar, same way of writing, different languages. Unintelligible too. Anyways, I concede that the language of Koguryo is probably similar or related to the language of Japan. But I'm not talking about Japan right now, but about Three Kingdoms Korea. Another time, probably not another debate. And as I will point out below, not all of the experts (unless Beckwith and Juhanen are academic frauds who happened to be published alongside Unger and Vovin) think the language in Koguryo was closely related to the one in Silla.

Did you bother to read the entirety of the journal, or did you just accept the arguments in it that agreed to your corresponding opinions?

From Beckwith: "The Puyŏ-Koguryŏic people, who came from the Liao-hsi region (as did the Wa, or Proto-Japanese) and overran the Korean Peninsula region in the first few centuries of our era spoke Puyŏ-Koguryŏ, a language related to Japanese. In Liaotung and southern Manchuria, the native peoples spoke Chinese and unknown languages, but in most of the Korean Peninsula itself they spoke Proto-Korean Han languages. The Puyŏ-Koguryŏic rulers who set themselves above the conquered peoples were annihilated by the T'ang-Silla alliance at the end of the Three Kingdoms period. The substratum peoples reemerged under Han-speaking Silla rule and Old Korean became the sole language of Korea." -pg. 34.

"The Puyŏ-Koguryŏic peoples spoke dialects of the Puyŏ-Koguryŏ language, which was different from the languages of the Pyŏn Han (later Kara) and Chin Han (later Silla), and from the native language of Ma Han (later Paekche)."-pg 58.

From Janhunen: "In later times, the territory once occupied by Koguryŏ has continuously been inhabited by several ethnic groups, speaking several different languages belonging to several different language families." pg. 67-68. (Though I think you conceded elsewhere that not all people in Koguryo spoke the same language.)

"The fact that Korean or, more exactly, the immediate ancestor of the Old Korean predecessor of Middle Korean, spread from the territory of the Silla Kingdom, is now more or less generally accepted, although there is disagreement concerning the dating of this linguistic expansion. However, the very circumstance that Korea in the Three Kingdoms period was politically divided into three separate states speaks for the assumption that were also at least three languages on the peninsula. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is therefore natural to assume that the linguistic unification of Korea was a direct result of the political unification under the Unified Silla." -pg. 69.

"The assumption by Vovin (in this volume) that the linguistic unification of Korea would have been completed already before the Three Kingdoms period seems difficult to reconcile with the historical and linguistic realities." -pg 69n.

"Korean was originally the language of Silla ... The language of Paekche was Para-Japonic." -pg. 69-70. (Yes, I know all three states were probably multi-lingual to some extent, but the author is talking about dynastic languages.)

"In particular, there is evidence of 'bilingualism' in Paekche, suggesting that part of the Paekche population may actually have spoken contemporary forms of Korean, while another part spoke the Paekche dynastic language, as used by the ruling elite of the kingdom."-pg 70.

And you honestly can claim I didn't do the research, when it's clear that all you did was scour for scholars whose research suited your opinions. I said that not all scholars are unanimous, and 2 out of the 4 people in the very journal you cited are at least disagreeing with you. One thinks all three states spoke different languages, the other thinks the language of Koguryo and Paekche were the same while different from the language of Silla. I actually don't care whether one language or three was spoken in Three Kingdoms Korea. However, I personally find the arguments for several languages to be more convincing, though I do not think the explanations presented to be too convincing.

And if you're going to talk biases of historical sources, why do you not consider the possibility that the ones mentioning Paekche are biased by some sort of ignorance?

In fact, a Japanese record states that a Silla interpreter was used to translate correspondence from a Balhae diplomat, and your assumption makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Balhae was located far enough from Silla to not have received significant linguistic influences.

This ... is a joke right? You know what interpreters do, right? They interpret, and generally to do so, they have to learn another language.

It seems that not only have you failed to scrutinize the breadth of the academic literature in the very article you cite, you have also failed to critically assess the evidence that does agree with you.

 

[DanF]

Before I offend WhatIsAUserName and Democracy101, my knowledge of Asia and Asian history is very limted compared to my knowledge of European history. So, I might ask something that sounds stupid or obvious to one of you two.

However, your language discussion brings up a few points I did not know and/or never heard of before.

Question 1: There is a possibility that the Proto-Gogoryeo and Proto-Japanese language might be related? I had assumed (based on what I read) that Japan was invaded from the mainland at some time in the past, which seperated the Jomon from Yayoi period, does this go along with/support the fact the languages may be related?

Question 2: Your main discussion appears to be over whether Gogoryeo and Silla spoke the same language? (This sort of relates to the above questions, cause if Proto-Gogoryeo and Proto-Japan are related then Proto-Silla and Proto-Gogoryeo most likely are not related. If that is true then I would think Baekje would be bilingual as her ruling class would speak and are related to Gogoryeo, but her commoners are probably proto-Silla speaking.)

Question 3: I assumed Baekje only had control of parts of Liadong and Liaoxi (this the land just to the west of the peninsula?) during Geunchogo's rein, and it was quickly lost after/during the end of his rein. As I mentioned a few posts back I also assumed Baekje had trade colonies in cities in China, similar to Venice in Europe. Are my assumptions close, right, or am I out in lala-land?

I will be honest your discussion has definitely brought up a bunch of facts and ideas I had not considered before, so I know there are more things I probably would like to ask in the future when I think of them.

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

Before I offend WhatIsAUserName and Democracy101, my knowledge of Asia and Asian history is very limted compared to my knowledge of European history. So, I might ask something that sounds stupid or obvious to one of you two.

However, your language discussion brings up a few points I did not know and/or never heard of before.

Question 1: There is a possibility that the Proto-Gogoryeo and Proto-Japanese language might be related? I had assumed (based on what I read) that Japan was invaded from the mainland at some time in the past, which seperated the Jomon from Yayoi period, does this go along with/support the fact the languages may be related?

Question 2: Your main discussion appears to be over whether Gogoryeo and Silla spoke the same language? (This sort of relates to the above questions, cause if Proto-Gogoryeo and Proto-Japan are related then Proto-Silla and Proto-Gogoryeo most likely are not related. If that is true then I would think Baekje would be bilingual as her ruling class would speak and are related to Gogoryeo, but her commoners are probably proto-Silla speaking.)

Question 3: I assumed Baekje only had control of parts of Liadong and Liaoxi (this the land just to the west of the peninsula?) during Geunchogo's rein, and it was quickly lost after/during the end of his rein. As I mentioned a few posts back I also assumed Baekje had trade colonies in cities in China, similar to Venice in Europe. Are my assumptions close, right, or am I out in lala-land?

I will be honest your discussion has definitely brought up a bunch of facts and ideas I had not considered before, so I know there are more things I probably would like to ask in the future when I think of them.

I think (and I'd have to review the journal again, since Google Books doesn't provide complete copies of the books cited), that some of the arguments are as follows: Vovin and Unger are arguing that all three countries spoke the same language, a Korean language. Beckwith and Junhanen go with your second point, that the Paekche ruling class spoke one language and the Paekche commoners another, but I know Vovin at least rejected this. Beckwith and Junhanen also agree on the connection between the languages of Koguryo and Yamato, but I don't remember their disagreement. Vovin might be arguing against the connection, since I remember he said there weren't Japonic traces or similarities in what he calls the Korean influences on Manchu and Jurchen, which I assume would have noted if Japanese and Koguryoan were related. I didn't read much of Unger for some reason, and I probably should go back, but I think he leans away from a Japanese-Korean connection as well.

Question 1 is obviously correct in some way. Clearly, unless we want to argue against archaeology, humans came to Japan in some way, and that way is from the Asian mainland (unless there's somebody out there who thinks that humans went from Siberia to North America, and then to Japan). The debate is whether the Japanese people came from the south, maybe as Austronesians from Taiwan, or from the west, maybe as Koreans from Korea, or both.

As to Question 2, I think Beckwith's ideas are the closest interpretation. I definitely don't think the Korean Peninsula was speaking one language before unification, but I won't go with any other certainties besides that.

For question 3, you are partly in lala-land, since I don't remember claims that Paekche was in Liaodong, which had firmly been in Koguryoan territory since, what, 400? 500? As for the area west of the Liao River (Liaodong is the pensinsula), I have steadily argued against Paekche holding any territory there. I also don't remember if there were Paekche trading colonies in China, but I don't think there were. If that were the case, I probably would have heard about them. And as I mentioned before, that map of Paekche's territory doesn't show any part of China. If you're stretching colony to mean any settlement, like say the Uighur or Persian settlements in Chang'an, then maybe. But nobody talks about Persian colonies in China in that manner.

I could be wrong, of course, but generally it takes a considerable amount of evidence for me to change my mind.

EDIT: One of the academics cited, Ledyard, put forth the idea along the lines that one of the legendary Japanese emperors, I think Ojin or Suijin, was a Puyo chieftain. I think that's after the Yayoi-Jomon transition though. And another person cited, Hong, also argued for Paekche helping to create the Japanese state. I don't know if it helps. However, I know that Ledyard's expertise is Korea, not Japan, which I think makes him the opposite of Unger and Vovin, who I'm pretty sure are Japanologists who've turned their attentions to Korea.

EDIT2: This is probably not going to inspire confidence in any of the four main academics in the peninsula language debate, but here's the CVs and stuff:

Christopher Beckwith: Ph.D. in Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, Department of Uralic and Altaic Studies, 1977; M.A. in Tibetan, Indiana University, Department of Uralic and Altaic Studies, 1974; B.A. in Chinese, Ohio State University, 1968.

Juha Janhunen: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD, Finnish standard), Univ of Helsinki, 1986; Licentiate of Philosophy (PhD, US standard), Univ of Helsinki, 1983; Candidate of Philosophy (MA), Univ of Helsinki, 1976; Candidate in the Humanities (BA), Univ of Helsinki, 1973.

J. Marshall Unger: Ph.D. in Linguistics, Yale University, 1975; M.A. in Linguistics, Yale University, 1972; A.M. in Far Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago, 1971; A.B. in Far Eastern Languages and Civilizations (General Honors), 1969.

Alexander Vovin: M.A.: St. Petersburg (Leningrad) State University, Department of Structural and Applied Ling., 1983; Ph.D.: St. Petersburg State U & Institute for Oriental Studies, East Asian Section, 1987.

I apologize profusely to Prof. Janhunen, after attempts to spell his name in as many ways as I could. However, his CV doesn't list what he studied. But it seems ironic that we're having a debate about Korean linguistic history by citing two Altaicists (Beckwith and Janhunen) and two Japanologists (Vovin and Unger).

 

[democracy101]

I figured Goryeo would lack the military strength right especially right after founding. I was just curious cause based on my limited understanding/research of Korean history; both Goryeo and Joseon at a variety of times made claims to lands north of the Yalu river, they never really tried very hard to get the land.

In regards to kdrama it is solely as an easy reference I am quite old enough to be aware the vast differences between "drama" history and real history. For the record, I am not angry or insulted, so please do not take it that way, I am just stating my understanding of what you said.

That's fine. That response was a small part of the entire post, so apologies if I seemed a bit blunt there after thoroughly replying to the other points. My general point was that I tend to ignore the specifics regarding dramas because they are not reliable as a whole, so I try not to make any assumptions, general or not, based on them. That's all.



Regarding my response to WhatIsAUserName:

I seriously don't want to go in circles forever, which is exactly why I originally left most of the evidence out of the discussion, and not because of ignorance. I certainly don't want to spend hours upon hours refuting your arguments, and I'm pretty sure that the same applies to you as well.

Alright, it's hard to demolish an argument without knowing the full extent of its absurdity. I'll play.

What geographical locations for Paekche's presence or colonies? Also, when? Start by naming these. You said Liaoxi and Shandong before, so I'll point to the journal you cited to show you what academia thinks (hey, you said to do basic research!):

"Estimated Domain of Early Paekche" -pg. 16. In case you cannot see, this is a map of about two-thirds of the Korean Peninsula. I don't see any part of Shandong or Liaoxi here. Maybe the estimate is off?

"The book attaches a great importance of the geopolitical significance of the Liaoxi, the place where Koguryŏ, the Northern dynasties, and the Inner Asian nomadic powers intersected. Koguryŏ and the Northern dynasties confronted each other here and a triangular balance of power was established with the nomadic powers." -pg 227. Note the absence of Paekche mentioned. If basic research supports the idea that Paekche had a presence in Liaoxi, it certainly isn't mentioned. Probably because it didn't exist.

This paragraph is taken from Wikipedia, but the section cites primary sources, and I've cross-checked the passages in the Samguk Sagi, so they should generally be reliable. The Book of Song states that Baekje held territory in Liaoxi (Tangshan, Hebei), specifically Jinping District, Jinping County, while the Book of Jin and Liang describe an alliance between Goguryeo, Baekje, and the Xianbei against the Yan (clarified by the Samguk Sagi as occurring during Micheon's rule (309-331), in which Baekje would have only sent troops if its possessions were located near or in Liaoxi. The Zizhi Tongjian also explains that Baekje invaded Buyeo in Lushan (Jinzhou, Liaoning) in 346, while the Book of Qi, Zizhi Tongjian, and the Samguk Sagi illustrate how the Northern Wei attacked Baekje in 488 with 100,000 cavalry, but were forced to retreat. The Book of Qi also details how in 495, Dongseong requested titles for generals who had proved merit during the previous battle, and the titles, such as Guangling, Qinghe, and Chengyang, which seem to correspond with place names in Liaoxi. I'm going to ignore the Old/New Book of Tang records for now because it's possible that they could have confused South Buyeo (Baekje after 538), and Buyeo. Meanwhile, a text compiled by the Manchu states that Baekje held territory in Guangning and Jinyi, along with the western portions of the peninsula, suggesting that Baekje had some possessions outside of the peninsula, while Choe Chiwon, a Silla scholar, claims that Goguryeo and Baekje invaded Wu, Yue, You, Yan, Qi, and Lu, which probably means that Baekje's possessions in the west bordered some of the states mentioned.

That's the furthest extent I'm willing to go, and it shouldn't make a difference in this thread because I already stated several times on this thread that Baekje probably did not go much further than trading relations, which should be able to close the discussion on this topic. I also have absolutely no idea why you're citing the journal if it specifically focused on toponyms, which probably changed drastically over time due to far more migrations and political changes within China than in Korea. Either that, or they didn't exist in the first place, which is more likely, because Baekje maintained a minimal presence along the coast, meaning that the names of the cities probably stayed as they originally were.

I'm speaking rhetorically. I don't really care whether Yamato controlled a part of Korea or not. I'm just pointing out that, as per your argument, maybe the reason such a foothold is not mentioned earlier is due to the loss of records. After all, it was a chaotic time. What if Kim Pushik made an accidental omission with the Samguk Sagi and didn't put talk about it? (Sarcasm is not conveyed well in the absence of voice.)

Well, my point was that references to Baekje maintaining a presence along the Chinese coastline pop up here and there. On the other hand, although the Samguk Sagi records that several raids occurred in Silla, specifically during 208 (Nahae), 232 (Jobun), 287, 292, 294 (Yuryae), 346 (Holhae), 364, and 393 (Namul), along with more afterward, none actually state that the Wa actively controlled parts of the peninsula, so it would be extremely odd to state that all of the references were removed in the restatement of the records for all three states, along with the fact that all of the corresponding Korean sources, such as the Gwanggaeto stele, also do not mention an active Japanese presence.

This is silly. The words like de, entre, un, and la are shared in the grammar of French and Spanish. Somewhat same sound components, generally same grammar, same way of writing, different languages. Unintelligible too. Anyways, I concede that the language of Koguryo is probably similar or related to the language of Japan. But I'm not talking about Japan right now, but about Three Kingdoms Korea. Another time, probably not another debate. And as I will point out below, not all of the experts (unless Beckwith and Juhanen are academic frauds who happened to be published alongside Unger and Vovin) think the language in Koguryo was closely related to the one in Silla.

Yes, but the Romance languages all descended from regional versions of Vulgar Latin, meaning that they are closely related, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I never stated that all of the “languages” on the peninsula were identical, but rather that they were different “dialects” of the same language. Also, the comparison makes absolutely no sense when you consider that the Romance languages diverged for over 1500 years, while the “dialects” in Korean diverged for only 300 years or so by the time that each “region” managed to establish a polity around the 2nd-3rd century, so it makes sense that the former group would be much less intelligible with each other. A more accurate comparison would be the “Romance languages” around 500-800, which would certainly have had more similarities with each other than their modern counterparts today.

Did you bother to read the entirety of the journal, or did you just accept the arguments in it that agreed to your corresponding opinions?

From Beckwith: "The Puyŏ-Koguryŏic people, who came from the Liao-hsi region (as did the Wa, or Proto-Japanese) and overran the Korean Peninsula region in the first few centuries of our era spoke Puyŏ-Koguryŏ, a language related to Japanese. In Liaotung and southern Manchuria, the native peoples spoke Chinese and unknown languages, but in most of the Korean Peninsula itself they spoke Proto-Korean Han languages. The Puyŏ-Koguryŏic rulers who set themselves above the conquered peoples were annihilated by the T'ang-Silla alliance at the end of the Three Kingdoms period. The substratum peoples reemerged under Han-speaking Silla rule and Old Korean became the sole language of Korea." -pg. 34.

"The Puyŏ-Koguryŏic peoples spoke dialects of the Puyŏ-Koguryŏ language, which was different from the languages of the Pyŏn Han (later Kara) and Chin Han (later Silla), and from the native language of Ma Han (later Paekche)."-pg 58.

Here’s a rough criticism of Beckwith's methods, suggesting that his research was not as thorough in gathering details, and that some of them were rushed, copied incorrectly, or based on erroneous assumptions, resulting in multiple inaccuracies. I'm certainly not saying that any of the experts are definitively more correct than others, given the limited primary sources, but some have certainly managed to provide more evidence backing their claims. In this regard, I thought Vovin certainly seemed to analyze his claims more thoroughly than some of the others by justifying them through the context of the primary sources in question, which was why I cited him as a reputable source. Yes, Beckwith's claim might be more convincing, but it's based more on conjecture than concrete resources, which is why I generally disagree with his approach.

Also, that post was made in response to you specifically stating that “I'm pretty sure the consensus was not of mutual intelligibility,” although I was originally talking about numerous cognates, not about how they were supposedly “mutually intelligible.” In addition, you're the one who originally suggested that a consensus existed, although my main point was that with the exception of several preliminary agreements, there was none in the first place. If you actually read over my previous response to FDW near the beginning of this page, I specifically stated that “because even experts can't agree on anything substantial, and all have widely differing opinions, we're probably no better off making a conclusion.” As a result, I certainly acknowledged the contrasting viewpoints before you suddenly accused me of making erroneous assumptions, which I find to be unacceptable.

In addition, I certainly understand that Goguryeo was subjected to influences from the Tungusic languages, due to its geographical location, although this was probably limited to Goguryeo borrowing some terminology, as it did with Chinese. As a result, the core components, such as grammar, would not have been significantly affected.

From Janhunen: "In later times, the territory once occupied by Koguryŏ has continuously been inhabited by several ethnic groups, speaking several different languages belonging to several different language families." pg. 67-68. (Though I think you conceded elsewhere that not all people in Koguryo spoke the same language.) [Emphasis added]

What does this have to do with the dominant language spoken in Goguryeo? This is like saying that Modern Turkish is related to the original languages spoken in Anatolia.

"The fact that Korean or, more exactly, the immediate ancestor of the Old Korean predecessor of Middle Korean, spread from the territory of the Silla Kingdom, is now more or less generally accepted, although there is disagreement concerning the dating of this linguistic expansion. However, the very circumstance that Korea in the Three Kingdoms period was politically divided into three separate states speaks for the assumption that were also at least three languages on the peninsula. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is therefore natural to assume that the linguistic unification of Korea was a direct result of the political unification under the Unified Silla." -pg. 69.

"The assumption by Vovin (in this volume) that the linguistic unification of Korea would have been completed already before the Three Kingdoms period seems difficult to reconcile with the historical and linguistic realities." -pg 69n.

There is no word on how they may have been related or not. Again, the languages/dialects certainly exhibited significant differences due to the distance and geography, but the point in contention is whether they were “separate” languages, or were ultimately members of a larger “Koreanic language” family. In other words, we're just going in circles here. It looks like both sides are flawed in some aspects, so I'm just going to focus on the evidence provided by the primary sources.

"Korean was originally the language of Silla ... The language of Paekche was Para-Japonic." -pg. 69-70. (Yes, I know all three states were probably multi-lingual to some extent, but the author is talking about dynastic languages.)

Well, this is another problem. The fact that each state was somewhat multilingual suggests that we can't thoroughly understand the situation, especially when you consider that the Samguk Sagi occasionally talks about "regional terminology," separate from the standard dialect, within a state.

"In particular, there is evidence of 'bilingualism' in Paekche, suggesting that part of the Paekche population may actually have spoken contemporary forms of Korean, while another part spoke the Paekche dynastic language, as used by the ruling elite of the kingdom."-pg 70.

I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing up the “bilingualism theory” in Baekje again even though I showed you how Vovin specifically stated that this assumption was based on a single passage in the Book of Zhou, and because this logic does not hold: "For example, in Western Old Japanese there were several terms of reference for the sovereign" (119-20), the assumption becomes meaningless. He then goes on further (121-32) to provide examples of 18 words in the "Baekje language" with cognates in Middle Korean after eliminating the ones with questionable etymologies, so the evidence suggests that the Baekje and Silla dialects were related.

And you honestly can claim I didn't do the research, when it's clear that all you did was scour for scholars whose research suited your opinions. I said that not all scholars are unanimous, and 2 out of the 4 people in the very journal you cited are at least disagreeing with you. One thinks all three states spoke different languages, the other thinks the language of Koguryo and Paekche were the same while different from the language of Silla. I actually don't care whether one language or three was spoken in Three Kingdoms Korea. However, I personally find the arguments for several languages to be more convincing, though I do not think the explanations presented to be too convincing.

You previously stated that there was a supposed "consensus," so I think you're contradicting yourself here. In addition, I thought that Vovin made a convincing claim in regards to the Jurchen/Manchu cognates of Middle Korean, because neither the Jin nor the Qing had “frequent” close contacts with Goryeo or Joseon during their periods of existence, at least not to the extent that Goguryeo did. However, similar words seem to exist, along with some similarities in grammar, suggesting that the tribes in Manchuria had been heavily influenced by the dominant language spoken in Balhae, which was related to the one previously spoken in Goguryeo.

Also, Toh Soh Hee explains in detail (pgs. 20-4) how many of the toponyms were changed from representing Native Korean to those conveying the original meanings through Chinese characters. The fact that Goguryeo actually thoroughly considered the individual components (radicals) in the "Baekje language" before changing them, while leaving the grammar intact, suggests that the two "languages" were somewhat related. In addition, although Silla systematically changed most of the toponyms to Sino-Korean after ignoring the grammar, the fact that the "meanings" themselves remained even though the sound components shifted drastically suggests that the three "languages" were closely related.

And if you're going to talk biases of historical sources, why do you not consider the possibility that the ones mentioning Paekche are biased by some sort of ignorance?

In terms of the supposed “biases” in sources mentioning Goguryeo and/or Baekje, I don't think it's possible that all of the sources, such as the Gwanggaeto Stele, Jangsu Memorial, the Seven-Branched Sword, and other Goguryeo/Baekje inscriptions, all have “biases,” especially considering the fact that most of them were created by either Goguryeo or Baekje. If you look carefully, Vovin attempts to cite as many primary sources in context as possible, which makes his main argument much more stronger.

This ... is a joke right? You know what interpreters do, right? They interpret, and generally to do so, they have to learn another language.

The passage does not indicate that the Silla interpreter had prior knowledge of the "Balhae language", and it's strange that a Silla translator in a Japanese court would be expected to translate what the Balhae diplomat was stating, if his main objective was to solely translate what was being stated by another individual in the Silla language into Japanese. Of course, there is the remote possibility that he might have been “trilingual,” but I'm pretty sure that most professional translators generally have fluency in only one other language, due to the difficulties associated with thoroughly conveying concepts, not the specific words themselves.

It seems that not only have you failed to scrutinize the breadth of the academic literature in the very article you cite, you have also failed to critically assess the evidence that does agree with you.

Again, my response would be to actually analyze the context of the sources, not blindly accept one set of viewpoints. I have clearly stated on this thread that experts disagree based on how they decide to interpret the limited evidence, so I understand that there is no "right" answer.

I hope that clears things up.

Before I offend WhatIsAUserName and Democracy101, my knowledge of Asia and Asian history is very limted compared to my knowledge of European history. So, I might ask something that sounds stupid or obvious to one of you two.

However, your language discussion brings up a few points I did not know and/or never heard of before.

Question 1: There is a possibility that the Proto-Gogoryeo and Proto-Japanese language might be related? I had assumed (based on what I read) that Japan was invaded from the mainland at some time in the past, which seperated the Jomon from Yayoi period, does this go along with/support the fact the languages may be related?

Question 2: Your main discussion appears to be over whether Gogoryeo and Silla spoke the same language? (This sort of relates to the above questions, cause if Proto-Gogoryeo and Proto-Japan are related then Proto-Silla and Proto-Gogoryeo most likely are not related. If that is true then I would think Baekje would be bilingual as her ruling class would speak and are related to Gogoryeo, but her commoners are probably proto-Silla speaking.)

Question 3: I assumed Baekje only had control of parts of Liadong and Liaoxi (this the land just to the west of the peninsula?) during Geunchogo's rein, and it was quickly lost after/during the end of his rein. As I mentioned a few posts back I also assumed Baekje had trade colonies in cities in China, similar to Venice in Europe. Are my assumptions close, right, or am I out in lala-land?

I will be honest your discussion has definitely brought up a bunch of facts and ideas I had not considered before, so I know there are more things I probably would like to ask in the future when I think of them.

Short answer: There is no consensus because of the limited evidence, and it is your choice to believe which set of viewpoints makes more sense. The linguistic evidence mostly points in favor of the languages spoken on the peninsula to be closely related languages based on numerous similarities, while other evidence suggests that each region was subject to multiple influences through migrations, but neither opinion is technically more correct than the other.

 

[DanF]

Democracy101 and WhatIsAUserName thank you both for your thoughts, ideas, and insights.

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

Regarding my response to WhatIsAUserName:

I seriously don't want to go in circles forever, which is exactly why I originally left most of the evidence out of the discussion, and not because of ignorance. I certainly don't want to spend hours upon hours refuting your arguments, and I'm pretty sure that the same applies to you as well.

And this is where you are incorrect. I am willing to spend as long as it takes to refute ideas I find completely erroneous. In this discussion, this only applies to the Liaoxi debate. For the language debate, I will argue that different languages were being spoken in the Korean Peninsula during the period in question, because the idea makes more sense, but I will not argue as firmly. I shall point out that either Unger or Vovin accepts the possibility of different languages too.

This paragraph is taken from Wikipedia, but the section cites primary sources, and I've cross-checked the passages in the Samguk Sagi, so they should generally be reliable. The Book of Song states that Baekje held territory in Liaoxi (Tangshan, Hebei), specifically Jinping District, Jinping County, while the Book of Jin and Liang describe an alliance between Goguryeo, Baekje, and the Xianbei against the Yan (clarified by the Samguk Sagi as occurring during Micheon's rule (309-331), in which Baekje would have only sent troops if its possessions were located near or in Liaoxi. The Zizhi Tongjian also explains that Baekje invaded Buyeo in Lushan (Jinzhou, Liaoning) in 346, while the Book of Qi, Zizhi Tongjian, and the Samguk Sagi illustrate how the Northern Wei attacked Baekje in 488 with 100,000 cavalry, but were forced to retreat. The Book of Qi also details how in 495, Dongseong requested titles for generals who had proved merit during the previous battle, and the titles, such as Guangling, Qinghe, and Chengyang, which seem to correspond with place names in Liaoxi. I'm going to ignore the Old/New Book of Tang records for now because it's possible that they could have confused South Buyeo (Baekje after 538), and Buyeo. Meanwhile, a text compiled by the Manchu states that Baekje held territory in Guangning and Jinyi, along with the western portions of the peninsula, suggesting that Baekje had some possessions outside of the peninsula, while Choe Chiwon, a Silla scholar, claims that Goguryeo and Baekje invaded Wu, Yue, You, Yan, Qi, and Lu, which probably means that Baekje's possessions in the west bordered some of the states mentioned.

That's the furthest extent I'm willing to go, and it shouldn't make a difference in this thread because I already stated several times on this thread that Baekje probably did not go much further than trading relations, which should be able to close the discussion on this topic. I also have absolutely no idea why you're citing the journal if it specifically focused on toponyms, which probably changed drastically over time due to far more migrations and political changes within China than in Korea. Either that, or they didn't exist in the first place, which is more likely, because Baekje maintained a minimal presence along the coast, meaning that the names of the cities probably stayed as they originally were.

Again, the 346 battle is meaningless because Paekche can ally with a state and send soldiers without having territory nearby. The 488 examples are meaningless because they do not state or mention where the battle took place: whether in China or in the Korean Peninsula.

I couldn't find Jinping County in Hebei from Wikipedia, but that's fine because Chinese cities are often renamed, so I'm not sure what Jinping is called today. But your journal, on page 17, there's a Jinping (斤平) labelled at 68 under A. If a Chinese historical source describes Paekche holding "斤平", I'd assume it's the one on the Korean Peninsula. Likewise, if the Samguk Sagi describes Paekche holding "廣州" (I'm fairly certain it does), it probably refers to the one in Korea (number 83 on the map on page 17 of the journal) and not the one in China. Searching on Google Books "The Government of the Qin And Han Empires: 221 BCE-220 CE" indicates during the Han Dynasty that Guangling was in Jiangsu, Chengyang was in Shandong, and Qinghe was inland in Shandong. All three are mentioned as kingdoms of the Han Dynasty by Wikipedia. Now, I don't know if there are cities in Liaoxi named Guangling, Chengyang, and Qinghe too. But, given that all three names correspond to Han-era kingdoms or Chinese Three Kingdoms titles, still used today, I can say that any enfeoffments related to these names have more to do with the old noble titles associated with these titles than with the areas in Liaoxi. (The closest analogy I can think of would be a Texan going to Queen Elizabeth asking and receiving the title of Duke of London)

In addition, remember that the five kings of Wa asked the Southern Dynasties for plenty of lofty titles too. The kings of Wa may have requested to be titled as rulers of Silla, Paekche, etc, even when they did not control those territories. If a Paekche general wanted to be styled as duke of a Liaoxi territory, it does not mean Paekche actually controlled that territory.

An invasion by Paekche or Koguryo over the Warring States Period states of Yue, Qi, Lu, etc is so obviously wrong as to be laughable. E.g., if the Lu in question refers to Kongzi's home state which was extinguished roughly 250 BCE. Anyways, references by the Manchu, who didn't become literate until roughly 16th century, to Paekche territories can be explained in several ways. One: they committed to oral memory Paekche holdings in Liaoxi, over 1000 years prior, while neither Chinese or Korean historical nor oral record did, or two: they were mistaken.

In addition, names probably change at about the same rate in China as they do in Korea. After all, Seoul was once called Hansong and Hanyang, amongst other names.

Well, my point was that references to Baekje maintaining a presence along the Chinese coastline pop up here and there. On the other hand, although the Samguk Sagi records that several raids occurred in Silla, specifically during 208 (Nahae), 232 (Jobun), 287, 292, 294 (Yuryae), 346 (Holhae), 364, and 393 (Namul), along with more afterward, none actually state that the Wa actively controlled parts of the peninsula, so it would be extremely odd to state that all of the references were removed in the restatement of the records for all three states, along with the fact that all of the corresponding Korean sources, such as the Gwanggaeto stele, also do not mention an active Japanese presence.

AS I mentioned before, I don't really care for this argument and I'm speaking rhetorically, so I'll just drop this if you don't understand the problem.

Yes, but the Romance languages all descended from regional versions of Vulgar Latin, meaning that they are closely related, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I never stated that all of the “languages” on the peninsula were identical, but rather that they were different “dialects” of the same language. Also, the comparison makes absolutely no sense when you consider that the Romance languages diverged for over 1500 years, while the “dialects” in Korean diverged for only 300 years or so by the time that each “region” managed to establish a polity around the 2nd-3rd century, so it makes sense that the former group would be much less intelligible with each other. A more accurate comparison would be the “Romance languages” around 500-800, which would certainly have had more similarities with each other than their modern counterparts today.

Here’s a rough criticism of Beckwith's methods, suggesting that his research was not as thorough in gathering details, and that some of them were rushed, copied incorrectly, or based on erroneous assumptions, resulting in multiple inaccuracies. I'm certainly not saying that any of the experts are definitively more correct than others, given the limited primary sources, but some have certainly managed to provide more evidence backing their claims. In this regard, I thought Vovin certainly seemed to analyze his claims more thoroughly than some of the others by justifying them through the context of the primary sources in question, which was why I cited him as a reputable source. Yes, Beckwith's claim might be more convincing, but it's based more on conjecture than concrete resources, which is why I generally disagree with his approach.

Also, that post was made in response to you specifically stating that “I'm pretty sure the consensus was not of mutual intelligibility,” although I was originally talking about numerous cognates, not about how they were supposedly “mutually intelligible.” In addition, you're the one who originally suggested that a consensus existed, although my main point was that with the exception of several preliminary agreements, there was none in the first place. If you actually read over my previous response to FDW near the beginning of this page, I specifically stated that “because even experts can't agree on anything substantial, and all have widely differing opinions, we're probably no better off making a conclusion.” As a result, I certainly acknowledged the contrasting viewpoints before you suddenly accused me of making erroneous assumptions, which I find to be unacceptable.

In addition, I certainly understand that Goguryeo was subjected to influences from the Tungusic languages, due to its geographical location, although this was probably limited to Goguryeo borrowing some terminology, as it did with Chinese. As a result, the core components, such as grammar, would not have been significantly affected.

What does this have to do with the dominant language spoken in Goguryeo? This is like saying that Modern Turkish is related to the original languages spoken in Anatolia.

There is no word on how they may have been related or not. Again, the languages/dialects certainly exhibited significant differences due to the distance and geography, but the point in contention is whether they were “separate” languages, or were ultimately members of a larger “Koreanic language” family. In other words, we're just going in circles here. It looks like both sides are flawed in some aspects, so I'm just going to focus on the evidence provided by the primary sources.

Well, this is another problem. The fact that each state was somewhat multilingual suggests that we can't thoroughly understand the situation, especially when you consider that the Samguk Sagi occasionally talks about "regional terminology," separate from the standard dialect, within a state.

I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing up the “bilingualism theory” in Baekje again even though I showed you how Vovin specifically stated that this assumption was based on a single passage in the Book of Zhou, and because this logic does not hold: "For example, in Western Old Japanese there were several terms of reference for the sovereign" (119-20), the assumption becomes meaningless. He then goes on further (121-32) to provide examples of 18 words in the "Baekje language" with cognates in Middle Korean after eliminating the ones with questionable etymologies, so the evidence suggests that the Baekje and Silla dialects were related.

You previously stated that there was a supposed "consensus," so I think you're contradicting yourself here. In addition, I thought that Vovin made a convincing claim in regards to the Jurchen/Manchu cognates of Middle Korean, because neither the Jin nor the Qing had “frequent” close contacts with Goryeo or Joseon during their periods of existence, at least not to the extent that Goguryeo did. However, similar words seem to exist, along with some similarities in grammar, suggesting that the tribes in Manchuria had been heavily influenced by the dominant language spoken in Balhae, which was related to the one previously spoken in Goguryeo.

Also, Toh Soh Hee explains in detail (pgs. 20-4) how many of the toponyms were changed from representing Native Korean to those conveying the original meanings through Chinese characters. The fact that Goguryeo actually thoroughly considered the individual components (radicals) in the "Baekje language" before changing them, while leaving the grammar intact, suggests that the two "languages" were somewhat related. In addition, although Silla systematically changed most of the toponyms to Sino-Korean after ignoring the grammar, the fact that the "meanings" themselves remained even though the sound components shifted drastically suggests that the three "languages" were closely related.

In terms of the supposed “biases” in sources mentioning Goguryeo and/or Baekje, I don't think it's possible that all of the sources, such as the Gwanggaeto Stele, Jangsu Memorial, the Seven-Branched Sword, and other Goguryeo/Baekje inscriptions, all have “biases,” especially considering the fact that most of them were created by either Goguryeo or Baekje. If you look carefully, Vovin attempts to cite as many primary sources in context as possible, which makes his main argument much more stronger.

The passage does not indicate that the Silla interpreter had prior knowledge of the "Balhae language", and it's strange that a Silla translator in a Japanese court would be expected to translate what the Balhae diplomat was stating, if his main objective was to solely translate what was being stated by another individual in the Silla language into Japanese. Of course, there is the remote possibility that he might have been “trilingual,” but I'm pretty sure that most professional translators generally have fluency in only one other language, due to the difficulties associated with thoroughly conveying concepts, not the specific words themselves.

Again, my response would be to actually analyze the context of the sources, not blindly accept one set of viewpoints. I have clearly stated on this thread that experts disagree based on how they decide to interpret the limited evidence, so I understand that there is no "right" answer.

I hope that clears things up.

Short answer: There is no consensus because of the limited evidence, and it is your choice to believe which set of viewpoints makes more sense. The linguistic evidence mostly points in favor of the languages spoken on the peninsula to be closely related languages based on numerous similarities, while other evidence suggests that each region was subject to multiple influences through migrations, but neither opinion is technically more correct than the other.

I don't know much about European medieval history, but ironically, if we're going to cite Wikipedia, it says under "Romance Languages" the following:"Over the course of the 4th–8th centuries a.d., Vulgar Latin, by this time highly dialectalized, broke up into discrete languages that were no longer mutually intelligible." So, ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages#cite_note-price-4 seems your more accurate comparison, while probably being true in the sense that the Romance languages were closer in relation, is still incorrect in the sense that there are different languages being spoken. However, this source is Wikipedia, and I will gladly accept pretty much any reliable evidence that says it's wrong.

When I talked about consensus, I was talking about non-linguists. This is something I admit I'm not sure, so I will drop it. While I think there is a consensus amongst historians (particularly those without the time to do reconstructions of phonology), I can't prove it, so I will not continue to claim it exists.

Your part about radicals and renaming makes no sense. Toh quite obviously says, as his work is titled "About Early Paekche Language Mistake as Being Koguryŏ Language", that there must be a language for Early Paekche and a language for Koguryŏ.

As for bilingualism, the argument against is bizarre. Looking at the text, the Book of Zhou says something like, adding from Lee and Ramsey, "Gentry call him elaha, and commoners call him kenkilci. In Chinese it equals 'king'." So the text says specifically that the people have a different word for 'king' than the gentry.

Contrast this with what Vovin is saying about Japan, which is something like: "Nobility call the king epokimi [great lord], and commoners call mikado [honorable gate]." That's it. No statements that epokimi and mikado actually have the same meaning.

An analogy to these statements would be something like "The Spanish call him presidente and the Koreans call him daetonglyong. They both mean 'President'" versus "The informal call him Mister President and the formal call him The Honorable."

Dialects is a linguistically meaningless word. If you're going to say people, or at least the rulers, of all Three Kingdoms spoke one language, then that's how you should be phrasing your speech. I agree that languages can have regional variations, the way Americans and British speak in different ways, but they're still English.

The interpreter argument is just grasping at straws. A Silla-language translator in the Japanese court was expected to translate for the Parhae ambassador. That doesn't mean Silla and Parhae are similar in language. It's a circular argument: "Silla and Parhae must have been similar in language because the Silla translator could understand the Parhae speech. The Silla translator was able to understand both the languages of Parhae and Silla because they were similar."

Why not "The Silla translator was able to understand both the languages of Parhae and Silla because he knew both" or something like that?

If you find it unacceptable that I'm accusing you of making erroneous assumptions, you are being rather sensitive.

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

Democracy101 and WhatIsAUserName thank you both for your thoughts, ideas, and insights.

I'd be happy to provide my thoughts, ideas, and insights, but I'll only make 1 or 2 more posts in this thread regarding this debate, because there's really no need to distract from the timeline itself.

You can try a PM though, since those won't bump this thread.

 

[democracy101]

This will be the last post on this thread that I will make concerning the two topics. Anyone is free to PM me (the shorter, the better) if they have any further comments or questions, but bear in mind that my responses will probably be delayed due to other issues, such as updating the timeline.

Democracy101 and WhatIsAUserName thank you both for your thoughts, ideas, and insights.

No problem. I'm glad I could help.

And this is where you are incorrect. I am willing to spend as long as it takes to refute ideas I find completely erroneous. In this discussion, this only applies to the Liaoxi debate. For the language debate, I will argue that different languages were being spoken in the Korean Peninsula during the period in question, because the idea makes more sense, but I will not argue as firmly. I shall point out that either Unger or Vovin accepts the possibility of different languages too.

You may continue to talk about the issue concerning Baekje (not on this thread, though), but a discussion requires both sides to participate. Both the issues concerning Baekje territory in China Proper, and whether the “languages” spoken in the peninsula were related or not, are very marginal to this thread, and I also have other things to think about. I participated in the discussion because the issues were somewhat related to this timeline, but because of the very limited primary sources, it will probably not impact my future updates, because Baekje was already discussed, and I'm not going to talk about linguistic issues, at least not in depth.

Again, the 346 battle is meaningless because Paekche can ally with a state and send soldiers without having territory nearby. The 488 examples are meaningless because they do not state or mention where the battle took place: whether in China or in the Korean Peninsula.

I couldn't find Jinping County in Hebei from Wikipedia, but that's fine because Chinese cities are often renamed, so I'm not sure what Jinping is called today. But your journal, on page 17, there's a Jinping (斤平) labelled at 68 under A. If a Chinese historical source describes Paekche holding "斤平", I'd assume it's the one on the Korean Peninsula. Likewise, if the Samguk Sagi describes Paekche holding "廣州" (I'm fairly certain it does), it probably refers to the one in Korea (number 83 on the map on page 17 of the journal) and not the one in China. Searching on Google Books "The Government of the Qin And Han Empires: 221 BCE-220 CE" indicates during the Han Dynasty that Guangling was in Jiangsu, Chengyang was in Shandong, and Qinghe was inland in Shandong. All three are mentioned as kingdoms of the Han Dynasty by Wikipedia. Now, I don't know if there are cities in Liaoxi named Guangling, Chengyang, and Qinghe too. But, given that all three names correspond to Han-era kingdoms or Chinese Three Kingdoms titles, still used today, I can say that any enfeoffments related to these names have more to do with the old noble titles associated with these titles than with the areas in Liaoxi. (The closest analogy I can think of would be a Texan going to Queen Elizabeth asking and receiving the title of Duke of London)

In addition, remember that the five kings of Wa asked the Southern Dynasties for plenty of lofty titles too. The kings of Wa may have requested to be titled as rulers of Silla, Paekche, etc, even when they did not control those territories. If a Paekche general wanted to be styled as duke of a Liaoxi territory, it does not mean Paekche actually controlled that territory.

An invasion by Paekche or Koguryo over the Warring States Period states of Yue, Qi, Lu, etc is so obviously wrong as to be laughable. E.g., if the Lu in question refers to Kongzi's home state which was extinguished roughly 250 BCE. Anyways, references by the Manchu, who didn't become literate until roughly 16th century, to Paekche territories can be explained in several ways. One: they committed to oral memory Paekche holdings in Liaoxi, over 1000 years prior, while neither Chinese or Korean historical nor oral record did, or two: they were mistaken.

晋平 =/= 斤平, and Jin =/= Geun (Sino-Korean). Even after zooming in, the alternate character in parentheses looks different from the one originally presented in the Book of Song, which again shows that you have to refer to the primary sources, not conjecture, whenever possible. That's all I have to say concerning that particular matter. Your theory concerning the noble titles make sense, although my main point was that the Wei (which did not possess territory on the peninsula) and Baekje must have fought on land due to the specific wording in that particular passage, but I will admit that the particular location remains unknown. Choe Chiwon could have been referring to the “regions” in general due to the instability and constantly shifting borders within China, although I will admit that I don't know what the Manchus based their assumptions on.

Also, I've said this several times before, but your arguments concerning Baekje in China aren't going to affect this thread in any way, so you can try all you want, but the result will remain the same. I already adopted most of your viewpoints in a previous update, and I'm just making these particular points because I feel that various sources suggest that Baekje had a minimal presence. However, I have admitted numerous times that the extent is ultimately unknown, and can be generally ignored. Also, in terms of the outcome, I don't think that there is a significant difference between a state only having widespread trade connections overseas, and another one having a presence along the coast, but with a minimal military presence. Both cases concern the economy, but have very little to do with the military.

In addition, names probably change at about the same rate in China as they do in Korea. After all, Seoul was once called Hansong and Hanyang, amongst other names.

I have no idea where you're getting the basis for these arguments, not to mention that Hanseong and Hanyang virtually mean the same thing. For more than 2,000 years, China went through far more periods of (fragmented) division and dynastic changes than Korea did, and it was occupied by two foreign dynasties in the second half, specifically the Yuan and Qing. This suggests that each Chinese dynasty would have renamed a significant amount of cities, which is why many cities have had many names throughout history, while the fact that Korea only went through three dynasties for about 1200 years (Silla, Goryeo, Joseon), suggests that the changes were less frequent and chaotic.

AS I mentioned before, I don't really care for this argument and I'm speaking rhetorically, so I'll just drop this if you don't understand the problem.

That's fine. The issue isn't that relevant to this thread anyway.

I don't know much about European medieval history, but ironically, if we're going to cite Wikipedia, it says under "Romance Languages" the following:"Over the course of the 4th–8th centuries a.d., Vulgar Latin, by this time highly dialectalized, broke up into discrete languages that were no longer mutually intelligible." So, it seems your more accurate comparison, while probably being true in the sense that the Romance languages were closer in relation, is still incorrect in the sense that there are different languages being spoken. However, this source is Wikipedia, and I will gladly accept pretty much any reliable evidence that says it's wrong.

Wikipedia also states that each regional form was first considered as a “distinct” language around 842, when the Oaths of Strasbourg were written down, although individuals from different states (England and France, which isn't exactly a good comparison) had a hard time understanding each other by 722. In other words, the divergences were gradual, and although we know that varieties of Vulgar Latin were roughly similar around 400-500, and were generally unintelligible with each other by 800, the languages still retained numerous similarities, and were still probably somewhat intelligible until 600-700 or so, so the actual “split” isn't clear. As a result, if Korea had been “unified” around 450, then the “dialects” would probably have been more “intelligible” by the time that standardization occurred after around 200-300 years of divergence.

When I talked about consensus, I was talking about non-linguists. This is something I admit I'm not sure, so I will drop it. While I think there is a consensus amongst historians (particularly those without the time to do reconstructions of phonology), I can't prove it, so I will not continue to claim it exists.

Ultimately, there is no consensus, and we just happen to support opposing viewpoints. That's all. I disagree with the alternate approach because it's based on conjecture mixed with very limited evidence, and I could make another hypothesis that migrants spread from Liaodong into Manchuria, then further south into the peninsula, and finally from the southeast of the peninsula to Kyushu. The remnants left in Manchuria could then have spread from Goguryeo to Baekje, and eventually reestablished contacts with the islands, representing a diglossia of sorts. Considering that Silla was the closest to Japan among all of the states within the peninsula, and that Baekje was the last of the southern states to establish relations with Japan through Gaya, it seems more likely to me that Silla would have closer linguistic “ties” to Japan. The fact that linguists have established that there are numerous similarities between the “dialect” spoken in Silla and the ones spoken elsewhere across the peninsula, culled from primary sources wherever possible, suggests that they are generally different “versions” of the same “language,” although the situation is probably not exactly clear-cut.

Your part about radicals and renaming makes no sense. Toh quite obviously says, as his work is titled "About Early Paekche Language Mistake as Being Koguryŏ Language", that there must be a language for Early Paekche and a language for Koguryŏ.

Please read the actual work instead of solely making inferences from the title. If I'm planning to make long-winded arguments, I would at least read what's been presented so that I can reasonably respond to them. The author's point was specifically that Baekje toponyms were changed (with analysis) by Goguryeo into Sino-Korean with bits of Native Korean thrown in, and you would not have made that particular statement if you had actually read the pages that I cited (pgs. 20-4, presented again for your convenience).

As for bilingualism, the argument against is bizarre. Looking at the text, the Book of Zhou says something like, adding from Lee and Ramsey, "Gentry call him elaha, and commoners call him kenkilci. In Chinese it equals 'king'." So the text says specifically that the people have a different word for 'king' than the gentry.

Contrast this with what Vovin is saying about Japan, which is something like: "Nobility call the king epokimi [great lord], and commoners call mikado [honorable gate]." That's it. No statements that epokimi and mikado actually have the same meaning.

An analogy to these statements would be something like "The Spanish call him presidente and the Koreans call him daetonglyong. They both mean 'President'" versus "The informal call him Mister President and the formal call him The Honorable."

Vovin was a Japanologist, as you specifically stated, so he probably knew what he was referring to. For a loose analogy, if the general population was used to the rule of local chiefs, but a king eventually ended up taking over, then they would probably call him a “great chief,” which isn't exactly semantically the same as “king,” but both terms technically convey the same concept. Also, the Persian ruler was a shahanshah, or “king of kings” → “emperor” (similar to the Goguryeo taewang, who had reign and posthumous names), but this was frequently shortened to shah, or “king,” and there was no separate “word” for emperor. Another method would be to explain the differences in terms of honorifics, as Joseon rulers were referred to with various terms, including but not limited to Jeonha (전하/殿下), Geumsang (금상/今上), and Jusang (주상/主上), depending on social status and/or the relation to the ruler, although all of the terms are in Sino-Korean. The analogy concerning Korea and Spain doesn't really make sense because it doesn't imply a distinction between social classes, which is probably what Vovin was aiming for. Regardless, the argument for “two languages” is flimsy if there is no other supporting evidence, while Vovin cited much more connections between words in Baekje and Silla in comparison.

Dialects is a linguistically meaningless word. If you're going to say people, or at least the rulers, of all Three Kingdoms spoke one language, then that's how you should be phrasing your speech. I agree that languages can have regional variations, the way Americans and British speak in different ways, but they're still English.

The distinction between a “dialect” and a “language” is generally made based on political, not linguistic, grounds. For example, Spanish and Portuguese, Hindi and Urdu, and Malay and Indonesian are distinct “languages,” but are they more different from each other than Mandarin and most of the southern Chinese “dialects,” such as Cantonese, Wu, and Min? Probably not. Sure, each “language” in the first three examples might use different terminologies for some concepts, but the core components still remain similar. In fact, the “dialects” within China are probably more divergent, as they have more grammatical and phonological differences. Using English as an example doesn't really make sense, as the Western colonial powers managed to spread their respective languages across far-reaching corners of the globe, which is generally the exception, not the rule.

The interpreter argument is just grasping at straws. A Silla-language translator in the Japanese court was expected to translate for the Parhae ambassador. That doesn't mean Silla and Parhae are similar in language. It's a circular argument: "Silla and Parhae must have been similar in language because the Silla translator could understand the Parhae speech. The Silla translator was able to understand both the languages of Parhae and Silla because they were similar."

Why not "The Silla translator was able to understand both the languages of Parhae and Silla because he knew both" or something like that?

I'll withdraw this argument because I don't know the specifics, and it's a minor issue.

If you find it unacceptable that I'm accusing you of making erroneous assumptions, you are being rather sensitive.

That point should be taken into context, specifically in response to how you made various statements in that particular post such as “I'll play,” “Sarcasm is not conveyed well in the absence of voice” “This is silly,” “Did you bother to read the entirety of the journal,” “When it's clear that all you did,” “This . . . is a joke, right?” “not only have you failed to scrutinize . . . you have also failed to critically assess,” which seem to be generally demeaning, considering the context as a whole. Yes, I also made some statements which can be interpreted as having a similarly condescending tone, and I will sincerely apologize if they offended you in any way. However, they were much more limited in scope, and I was generally trying to clarify my points in most cases, instead of accusing the other side of being ignorant. In other words, I only requested for you to tone down your arguments so that we can focus better on the matters at hand, and nothing more. We are both human, so it makes sense that both of us made several mistakes on this thread, and we should give the other side a chance to clarify previous arguments before resorting to a barrage of blunt statements stopping short of personal attacks.

To clarify: I don't mind a few "negative" comments as long as they're limited in scope, and I have absolutely no issues with the post that I'm responding to. However, making a significant amount, such as the ones made in that particular post, only convinces me that you're decided to focus on berating the other side, instead of attempting to provide constructive criticism. I'm letting it go for now, but in the future, if you make similar comments, I'll just assume that you're just attempting to force your arguments through, instead of maintaining a rough decorum when providing criticism, and I'll probably ignore you for being one-sided.

I'd be happy to provide my thoughts, ideas, and insights, but I'll only make 1 or 2 more posts in this thread regarding this debate, because there's really no need to distract from the timeline itself.

You can try a PM though, since those won't bump this thread.

Try not to make further posts concerning those topics on this thread, though. The main issues have been mostly fleshed out for others to view, so a PM would be sufficient.

 

[democracy101]

This will be my last update for the year. Happy holidays to all, and have a happy New Year.

一刻千金/일각천금 [1]

영락/永樂 17-21 (407-11)

When Damdeok finally returned to Guknae Fortress after months of fighting, he was greeted once more by his people in the streets, who celebrated his accomplishments and continued to vocally praise him wherever he went. However, he remained worried that the Yan would attempt to enact revenge for wrecking devastation, so he decided to retain around half of his forces, and sent the mercenaries home after paying them for their efforts. The ruler then decided to reorganize administrative affairs, as although he had temporarily set up generals in former Baekje and Yan territory in order to govern the population in those areas, he wanted to integrate the areas further in order to firmly establish the foundations for a greater state. As a result, he began conferring official titles on some of the individuals who were already in power, while sending officials of his own to replace other temporary governors. Although there were some grumblings among the foreign populations newly governed by Goguryeo, and some tensions occurred, there were no major incidents due to the fact that the Yan and Baekje had been greatly weakened after years of conflicts. The entire process continued to be carried out for two seasons, in which he began to systematically organize his recently gained possessions, roughly equal to twice the area that he had controlled when he had first come to power [2]. However, he suddenly received news that Murong Xi had been overthrown in a coup and executed soon after, and that Murong Yun, an adopted member of the royal family, had been installed in his place. As a result, he decided to send ambassadors to the Yan court, hoping to establish friendly terms.

Murong Yun's birth name was Gao Yun (고운/高雲) [3], and during one of the Yan raids into Goguryeo, his grandfather had been captured and dragged away by his captives. His family then remained in Yan territory for three generations, and when he grew up, he decided to take part in politics in order to know more about the world, and ended up gaining the favor of Murong Bao, who took him in as a stepson after becoming impressed with his character. In this manner, he managed to gain favor among the officials in the court, which led Feng Ba to promote him as the ruler after the coup. He then reverted back to his original name in order to signify his ethnic ties to Goguryeo. As a result, both sides were willing to compromise, as Damdeok was pleased with an individual of Goguryeo descent taking the Yan throne, while Feng Ba decided to promote a foreigner in order to establish cordial ties after severe conflicts for about half a century. The ambassadors emphasized the “kinship” between the two nations, while the Yan ruler pledged to disband most of his troops stationed in the east as a token of goodwill. In return, Goguryeo agreed to withdraw from most of its possessions west of the Liao River, as the Goguryeo court had ultimately decided that the areas in question were too large to be governed effectively for long in the current situation. However, it reserved the right to maintain minimal garrisons along the coastlines of Liaoxi and Shandong, for the purpose of monitoring the Yan's movements in accordance with the treaty.

The peace treaty lasted for three years, in which both sides were able to pay more attention to economic and internal political affairs. However, they continued to maintain their militaries by launching attacks across other borders. The Yan recaptured some of the border fortresses in the west from the Wei and Qin, while in 408, Goguryeo invaded East Buyeo (동부여/東夫餘) [4] for failing to pay tribute, and it was overrun within a few weeks. As a result, other tributary states began to cater more actively to the Yan and Goguryeo in fear of subjugation, while both regional powers began to secretly prepare for an imminent confrontation in the future. The process was further accelerated when Gao Yun was assassinated by his guards due to his weak stance and numerous compromises, which led to Feng Ba finally taking the throne in 409. Although he decided to maintain the terms of the treaty, he decided to amass troops near the capital in order to transfer them to the east, while gradually withdrawing his forces from the west. Even after the Yan had recovered most of its territory without bloodshed, the officials had feared that Goguryeo would consolidate power, and that the western alliance would attempt to seek foreign aid once more, causing the Yan to be eventually trapped between two alliances. As a result, in the winter of 409, Feng Ba broke the terms of the treaty by sweeping through Goguryeo's garrisons, then launching a full-scale attack across the Liao River with 50,000 soldiers [5]. Although they managed to capture several fortresses, they failed to break through the defensive lines after some held out, causing them to retreat once more and plan new strategies.

Enraged at this unprovoked attack, Damdeok decided to raise 100,000 troops once more in order to destroy the Yan completely. He immediately sent messengers to his tributaries, along with the component states within the western alliance, informing that he was preparing to attack the Yan in the spring, causing mass mobilizations across regions. By the time that preparations were finalized in May, both the Yan and Goguryeo managed to gather over 100,000 men, while the western alliance responded with around 40,000. The first skirmishes took place later in that month, and although the Yan had established structures in order to slow down the enemy's advance from the sea, Shandong's coastline was swiftly taken over within two weeks, causing the Yan to concentrate forces in the north once more. However, the resistance was not effective, and Goguryeo managed to recapture the territory that it had previously seized in 407, then continued to press westward towards the capital. Although Feng Ba belatedly realized that his state was falling apart, and futilely attempted to sue for peace in order to retain his throne, neither alliance was willing to listen to his pleas. Eventually, Zhongshan (中山) capitulated after three months of fierce fighting [6]. The Yan was no more, and Feng Ba would live his last days in exile after he was captured and brought to Goguryeo.

However, the war took its toll on the victors as well. Infighting quickly broke out among the western states as each strived to establish dominance over the others, and continued for almost a decade. Goguryeo was also exhausted after two costly wars, and it left its western neighbors alone in order to consolidate its newly acquired territories. In addition, Damdeok's health had been greatly deteriorating for several years, and although he had continued to fight on the battlefield, he was finally bedridden by the winter of 410. As it became clear that he was slowly losing his grip on life, officials and generals across the country came to greet the taewang for the last time, while ambassadors also arrived to pay their respects for the ruler. Eventually, one warm day in June of 411, he requested for his oldest son, Georyeon (거련/巨連) [7], to be brought to him.

“Are you feeling better, father?”

“I'm still feeling the same, as always. However, I called for you because I feel that my time is limited, and you'll eventually have to take the throne shortly in the future.”

“That will never happen, father. You're still alive today, and will continue to lead us for decades.”

“I would be grateful if that will be the case, but I have accomplished enough during my lifetime. It is now time for you to take the throne and lead the masses with a fair hand.”

“Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I feel that there is still much more to do. You were able to accurately pinpoint what the people needed, and how to manage the complex and continuously shifting system of alliances, along with sending the right amount of troops at the right time. These efforts helped to resurrect a more powerful Goguryeo, and allowed the people to prosper once more. As a result, only you can guide us further into the future.”

“You will have numerous officials who will be willing to help. Although you must certainly understand the general picture before listening to advice, it is extremely difficult to keep track of everything, and other individuals might have better ways to approach a problem. I knew what I wanted to do when I first took the throne, but I always consulted my advisors, along with previous historical and military sources, to make sure that I didn't forget anything, so you'll have plenty of resources to draw upon.”

“But I'm worried that I might not understand the intricacies of your policies, and that some officials might oppose my opinions for being too idealistic. What should I do then?”

“Remember this: the people must always remain as your most loyal supporters. The officials might have individual motives related to their well-being, so you will encounter some opposition, but because you are the ruler of an entire country, the people's desires must always come before your own. This approach will also allow you to also understand the situation within other countries, and analyze their politics, military, and economy when making decisions concerning foreign policy.”

“I will keep that in mind.”

“I'm glad that you understand. I need to get some rest now, so you may leave.” He closed his eyes.

“Don't leave us . . . father.” His eyes were filled with tears.

“Death is inevitable, and it is the will of heaven to decide when that will occur. I'm grateful that our officials, from the foundation of our state until now, were consistently able to support our revered ancestors and me, even during times of crisis. I'm also content that you will be able to eventually follow in my footsteps after I die. As long as we continue to possess numerous able rulers and officials, we will be able to prosper and spread our light across the world [8].”

The following morning, when a retainer attempted to administer the daily dose of medicine, he discovered that the ruler had quietly passed away in his sleep [9]. When the news was finally announced to the public, millions of people grieved for his loss, and the entire nation remained in morning for months. Although he was posthumously named in accordance with tradition [10], and contained the location of his final resting place, this would later be shortened in Korean to Gwanggaeto (광개토왕/廣開土王), as he had more than tripled the size of Goguryeo within two decades. His will contained the provision that only men of Han (한/韓) and Ye (예/穢), representing the natives scattered across the peninsula, were allowed to tend to his grave, representing his wishes for unity among all Koreans [11].

Although he was the only heir when he took the throne at the young age of 17 [12], and Goguryeo had been struggling for survival after suffering from crushing losses to the Yan and Baekje only a few decades earlier, he managed to successfully carry out his plans after not only defeating both states, but also entirely destroying their capability to fight back. These exploits were mostly possible due to his complex system of tributaries, along with always keeping the people's interests in mind. His accomplishments also meant that Goguryeo was able to claim that it had finally regained its position at the center of the world [13]. As a result of his numerous deeds, Chinese chronicles would posthumously record him as the first huangdi (皇帝), or emperor, and founder, of the Gao Dynasty (高朝/고나라) [14]. It would be the first time that a Korean ruler would be recognized as such, along with establishing the only dynasty to be simultaneously recognized as both a Korean and Chinese one. His reign would have enormous consequences after his death, not only during Goguryeo's existence, but also for the succeeding dynasties within Korea, China, and Japan.



[1] This saying can be parsed as “one quarter-hour thousand gold,” and implies that even a short period of time can be very important/precious, depending on the context involved. It is taken from a book composed by Su Shi (1037-1101) during the Song Dynasty.

[2] In 391, Goguryeo controlled most of Southern Manchuria and the Northern Korean Peninsula, but at this point ITTL, it also controls the Han River Valley, Liaodong, Liaoxi, and Shandong, making it either the largest or second-largest state with a presence in North China. It also vassalized or continues to vassalize Buyeo, Beili (Xianbei/Khitan), Mohe (Malgal), Baekje, Gaya, Silla, and numerous states in the Japanese archipelago.

[3] His surname suggests that his ancestors had been members of the Goguryeo royal family.

[4] This incident occurred in 410 IOTL.

[5] IOTL, the Yan did not invade Goguryeo after 407, because it essentially became a buffer state between the Wei and Goguryeo after its second collapse in that year. However, ITTL, considering its relative hegemony in North China, although greatly weakened, it would probably have sought to confront the more powerful state when the latter was unprepared for such an attack.

[6] The Yan never relocated its capital further east to Longcheng ITTL.

[7] Posthumously known as Jangsu (장수왕/長壽王).

[8] I included this as a veiled reference to the founder's posthumous title, King Dongmyeongseong (동명성왕/東明聖王), roughly translating to “Bright holy king of the east.”

[9] IOTL, he passed away in 413. However, his cause of death is unknown, and as battle fatigue was the most likely reason based on the situation, I thought that it would be reasonable for his death ITTL to occur earlier, as he would have traveled more widely.

[10] One variant of his full posthumous name was 국강상광개토경평안호태왕/國岡上廣開土境平安好太王 (Gukgangsang-gwanggaetogyeong-pyeongan-hotaewang), and if he had not been known for his accomplishments, he would have probably been called “Gukgang” (국강왕/國岡王), as the majority of Goguryeo rulers were referred to based on their burial locations. Chinese and Japanese sources refer to him with the last three characters.

[11] These details are found near the end of the Gwanggaeto Stele (which had inscriptions written on all four sides), and is the first extant record in which people scattered across Southern Manchuria and the Korean peninsula were grouped together into one ethnic identity. “Han” means “great” in Native Korean, a cognate of “Khan,” and is still used in the Korean name for the country “Hanguk” (한국/韓國). “Ye” is most likely an abbreviation for “Yemaek” (예맥/濊貊), initially used by China to refer to the native names of the various tribes scattered across Southern Manchuria and the Northern Korean Peninsula. The actual Chinese meanings of the latter two component characters are derogatory in order to mark them as “barbarians,” although the appellations eventually stuck.

[12] He became crown prince when he was only 12, suggesting that he had no male siblings, and that there were no other contenders. If there had been no suitable male heir at that time, it is highly likely that a female member of the royal house would have been picked, similar to the situation in Silla when Seondeok became the ruler.

[13] The first passage in the Gwanggaeto Stele states that Chumo, the founder of Goguryeo, was the son of the Celestial Emperor, implying his heavenly origin. Similar mythologies can also be found in other civilizations across the world, so the “beliefs” were based on perspective.

[14] This never occurred IOTL, as the Chinese states continued to view the Goguryeo rulers as “kings.” “Gao” is the Mandarin pronunciation of the first letter of “Goguryeo,” and although it means “high, lofty” in both Chinese and Sino-Korean, it was probably a cognate of “dae” (대/大), or “great” in the context of the title. As a result, Goguryeo technically translates into “Great Guryeo” (Great walled city), with the latter two characters representing Native Korean pronunciations, not meaning.