The history of the Japanese language. But, connected to Chinese delusions.

 

The history of the Japanese language. But, connected to Chinese delusions.

I found on YouTube that Chinese people have a wrong understanding of Korea. So, I brought the comment I wrote to understand this correctly.

Previous comments: 

AT6:

Love the side-by-side comparison.

If I may add, genetic evidence points to a patrilineal line based in the South (Y-DNA haplogroup O1b2), but whole genome sequencing says the Japanese and Koreans today are more northern-shifted. There are also other Y-DNA haplogroups that got introduced into the Japanese & Korean populations. MtDNAs are much more diverse. Linguistic evidence, on the other hand, does not yet support the Japanese-Korean relationship, but instead points to an early contact between the two. It may be that the O1b2 line of Japanese and Koreans indeed started off from the south, along the Yangtze, moving east to the coast and then making their way into Northeastern China where they heavily intermixed with the various unrelated "Altaic" people, resulting in the superficial similarity we see today. We're not too sure about the beginning part, but the next part is more clear: We know that the early people whom we refer to as the Mumuns moved into the Korean Peninsula and then became the Yayoi of Japan. The Mumuns that stayed behind in Korea got taken over and assimilated by a northern nomadic tribe that possibly introduced the Koreanic tongue to them. Meanwhile, the Yayoi intermixed with the Jomon on the archipelago, until they both got overwhelmed by the Kofun settlers from the Yellow River in northern China, which a Japanese study confirmed in 2021 to be the ancestors of modern Japanese (making up 70% of their ancestry).

On a separate note, Vovin does not actually dispute the "Transurasian" contact. What he and many other linguists disagree on is the theory that posits the Transurasian link as a language family, instead of a sprachbund, and also the naming of this group of languages as it's conflating with the now largely-obsolete "Altaic" theory.

YO2:

Seafaring migration was extremely small in size and were generally absorbed into local languages. There is no evidence to suggest what type of languages O1b2 people spoke. Also what you call Kofun people, Haplogroup O2 people--i.e. Northern Chinese who lived on the Korean peninsula and migrated to Japan during 4-7th century during centuries of chaos--make less than 20% of modern Japanese.

AT6:

"We find that most of the ancient or modern populations in our dataset are significantly closer to the Kofun than they are to the Yayoi. This finding implies additional migration to the archipelago during the six centuries that separates the genomes from these two periods." "We then explore the possibility that the continental ancestry observed in both the Yayoi and Kofun periods derives from the same source, with intermediate levels of Northeast and East Asian ancestry (table S12). Only one candidate was found to better fit a two-way mixture for Kofun, a population of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age individuals from the Yellow River basin (YR_LBIA) (20), although this was not consistent across the reference sets (nested, P = 0.100; table S13)."

Look up "Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations" (2021) on NCBI and Science. Note that geneticists today look at genome-wide autosomal affinities instead of just their Y-DNA haplogroups.

my reply :

How do people in the Kofun era conclude that they are O2 group? First, you guys were not even on the Korean Peninsula in that era. I know who the Chinese are. Listen to what Chinese descent says. Wu Tae, the founder of Baekje, is a Chinese, and Jumong is a descendant of the Yellow emperor because he writes the same Chinese characters as the Chinese Ko clan. (However, “Ko" means “high” and is a Hanja that was commonly used in all Eastern civilizations.) Japan is a country made by Qin Emperor's order, and at the same time, the Japanese Emperor is a descendant of the Yue. Silla is also a descendant of the Qin Dynasty and a descendant of Soho, China. It's not just a fake lie in ancient times. It's like that in modern times, too. You Chinese descendant says.. Xiongnu is a descendant of King Zhou, and Western Xia is a descendant of ancient Xia 2,000 years ago. The Manchurians are descendants of Song’s General. Yup and Wu during the Warring States period were brothers and were not Chinese. However, it claims to be the ancient Zhou descendant. There is no consistency because all of the Chinese's history were described for the purpose. Truth was not always important to Chinese. For you, history has always been just a means, not an end. How satisfied will the Chinese be with the outside world through fabrication with themselves? And you Chinese desentdant people claim that you are a descendant of the Baiyue people in Vietnam. In Korea, Chinese people claim that they are descendants of Gojoseon, and that the northeastern part of China is the origin of Koreans. From the Japanese's point of view, Chinese people, who were not originally Koreans, swallowed the Korean Peninsula, claimed to be Joseon people, immigrated to Japan after the annexation of Korea, and copied the Japanese, and claimed that the “origin of the Japanese was Joseon”. Wouldn't that naturally lead to disgust and fear? Westerners should stop believing in Chinese records. Of course, there are vain stories in civilizations around China, but this is only a limitation because it is a story of the mythical era of the country, and it does not intentionally lie and propaganda like China. Robert's hypothesis accepted the intended fabrication of more Chinese than Bobbin's. Therefore, the Chinese cheer and the non-Chinese do not believe in the West, which is controlled by the Chinese. The reason why Eastern civilization is insidious and reluctant is because of the mental state of these Chinese people. Their spirituality consists of lies and fabrication only for their people. Isn't it natural for Chinese civilization to fall behind in the West? There is a clear difference between the pagoda built on the truth and the pagoda built on the falsehood. Your Chinese civilization repeats division-unification without help to mankind. You are a mass of cancer cells that assimilate and swallow the surrounding ethnic to maintain life. The Xiongnu, Jie, Qiang, Di, Xianbei, Kitan, Mongol, Manchu apparently existed, but now they are all absorbed or declining by China. If other countries and ethnic groups are normal cells that contribute to the good faith of mankind, it is clear that you are abnormal cancer cells. For the dignity of mankind as a whole and the soul of mankind, China's spirit must be removed. So, did you Chinese people want to spread cancer cells to Japan because they are not enough to the peninsula? If Chinese were a real brother, they would want each other's success apart, not try to stick to lies like you.

AT6 :

Strawman argument & ad hominem (false?). You have pieced together many unrelated fringe historical theories in an effort to counter a peer-reviewed geneticist research conducted by many of scholars who are Japanese themselves. Do these names sound Chinese to you, or are you exposing your own insecurity? Valeria Mattiangeli, Lara M. Cassidy, Kenji Okazaki, Caroline A. Stokes, Shin Onbe, Satoshi Hatakeyama, Kenichi Machida, Kenji Kasai, Naoto Tomioka, Akihiko Matsumoto, Masafumi Ito, Yoshitaka Kojima, Daniel G. Bradley, Takashi Gakuhari, and Shigeki Nakagome. The reason we do know today that the Kofun people were of largely O2 descent is thanks to the discovery and sampling of skeletal remains, compared and contrasted with modern Japanese population. Any of the BS you just said are, well, just that—Empty words not backed by evidence or research. If you want to prove your point, show me the data. Show me the research. Give me a peer-reviewed citation. Thanks. By the way, you seem to imagine anyone that disagrees with you to be of Chinese descent, which is a kind of bias that, in its severity, can be diagnosed as schizophrenia disorder.

In addition, you are conflating genetics with history with archaeology and linguistics. Don't forget that languages are adopted all the time. Just because a lot of people speak English today does not mean they're all of Anglo descent. And then the issue of history and archaeology. While history is a collection of written records, sometimes oral, archaeology for a lack of better word is studying whatever remains physically of the past, which may or may not conflict with historical accounts as it often does.

my reply :

I feel your Chinese-like in linking genetic research to actual historical events. The mainstream academia is wary of interpreting genetic research in combination with real history and performs it carefully. The reason is that genetic research can be interpreted arbitrarily for the purpose of fabricating history like you. In the video dealing with the history of the language, it is not me but you who presented an interpretation that arbitrarily linked genetic research to actual history. I hope you make sure you objectify yourself. Today, “Chinese-like” are criticized for their political correctness in a "Chinese discrimination" way. However, in reality, due to cultural influences, there are differences in the way of thinking for each nation. Who brainwashed all the Chinese as descendants of the ‘Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors? Who has been absorbing ethnic groups around China through political propaganda and historical fabrication? Can't you guess the way of thinking made in this country? I felt your Chinese-like here and answered by analogy. So why don't you answer anything about my "Chinese-like” doubts? The reason for my guess is that estimating through the subject and comments of the video, the people watching the video here are mostly Chinese and Korean, and the remaining few another countries. I just guessed and answered that you were the most likely Chinese for reason. There is no reason to be accused of being a “be diagnosed as schizophrenia disorder”. If my guess is wrong, you have to give a definite answer, not a groundless slander. In addition, references that are not related to appropriate expertise in matters are only 'appeal to authority'. As it is now, the method of writing only the authors of the paper without data is an informal error. If you refer to it, do it accurately and in detail. And to be exact, wouldn't it suit “be diagnosed as schizophrenia disorder” to claim that pizza was invented in China, not Italy?

What I point out is that your founder ’Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors’ have nothing to do with Koreans, Japanese, Mongolians, Manchu, Xinjiang, Tibetan, and Vietnamese. It's your own myth, and it's only a Chinese myth. Stop being delusional. Admit that your Zhonghua minzu is fake. And don’t insert your myth into the history of other countries again. That’s All.

AT6 :

Another strawman argument. If you scroll up, you'll see that whatever myth or legend you're spouting was not once mentioned above. Your lack of knowledge in the neolithic period, along with your poor understanding of genetics and how that is actually different from linguistics, is truly showing. Whether you believe it or not, all humans are ultimately related (yes, even Chinese, Koreans, Manchus, etc) and can be traced back to a common ancestor in Africa. What geneticists and anthropologists are working on today is not as simple as "who is related to whom," but rather how did the first homo sapiens split into different groups as they migrated into various parts of the continents? Thus your entire argument is built on a false premise that Group A is related to Group C but not Group B. It is unfortunate that ultranationalism has clouded your judgement.

On a separate note, the so-called "Chinese-ness" parts of theory that you so suspect is actually what linguists around the world proposed. The graph on the right in this video was theoreticized by none other than Alexander Vovin. The same Martine Robbeets on the left side was the one that suggested Koreans and Japanese had once resided in present-day NE China. The third theory that suggested the Dongyi may have spoken a Pre-Proto-Austronesian language was, in fact, Laurent Sagart. So, sorry for breaking the news for you, but you'd be surprised to learn that what you just attributed as "Chinese" comes from researchers outside of China.

my reply :

First, The ‘appeal to authority’ I pointed out means the area of logic. Seeing that you don't understand my point, I hope you can develop your self-objectivity once again. I read the paper even though you provided it very insincerely. According to your argument “To further screen the source of additional ancestry in the Kofun individuals, we tested a three-way admixture by re- placing the Yayoi ancestry with Jomon and Northeast Asian ancestry (table S10). Only Han were successfully modeled as a source of ancestry in the model (Fig. 5B)“ this. But, Han, Northeast Asian, and Jomon are the only data presented in Fig. 5B. In Fig. 2C, the difference in genes between Han and Northeast Asian is actually the difference in ratio. It says "broad East Asian component (represented by yellow)”. It can be classified as a broad East Asian component group according to the gene ratio, but the table is forcibly classified to fit into the existing Joseon ethnic hypothesis in northeastern China. Since the gene classification was forcibly fitted into the wrong hypothesis in the first place, there is no choice but to be dissatisfied with the paper. The race you classified as Kofun is not a race consisting only of the O2, and this is your instinct to distort history. In my opinion, there is some forced interpretation in the paper, but it is entirely your fault to distort and delusionalize high-quality papers. And, The study regarding to Kofun population is misleading as the researchers only had a very few samples. It was only 3 individuals from the Kofun period and it was all from the same burial site. Also, personally, I think the interpretation of history through genes is pseudo-history. This is because there are many Chinese-like who want to reflect delusions in historical interpretations like you, and their limitations are clear. Nevertheless, I wrote this to fix your Chinese-like spirit. Reference: Cooke, NP, Mattiangeli, V and 16 author, “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations”, Science Advances, 2021, pp. 4 ~ 8. The correct way of reference is as above. And of course, it is highly likely that all mankind originated in Africa, and all mankind are brothers. However, can I like my psychopath cousin who wields a knife because he is a brother? What I point out is not the genetic problem caused by your genetic supremacy, but the Chinese spirituality. I'm sure that C-fabrication tradition should be excluded and extremely unhelpful to the world. You point out that my lack knowledge, but you only list the authors of the paper. It does not comply with the correct attached form in logic area. Seeing that you are commenting on Monday evening, it is highly likely that you are minors, uneducated-teen, free-timer or else. I don't want to talk to an arrogant and self-righteous Chinese nationalist impecuniousness person. Your time price and my time price is not equal. You came to the linguistic video and listed low-level pseudo-history, a mixture of genetic delusion and histology. I'm shocked and terrified that you keep writing comments like a psychopath.

Please refer to the other post for a second objection to this.

from : https://youtu.be/OUYMYZ5PNEQ

이 저작물은 크리에이티브 커먼즈 저작자표시-동일조건변경허락 4.0 국제 라이선스에 따라 이용할 수 있습니다.