Linguistics Information on Hakka (fwd)

[sllee <sllee@mail.asiawind.com>]

I am forwarding the following message to the forum and the Hakka Global
Network to invite more discussion (since some netter have no access to 
the web).  

I am not a professional hakkaologist, and much less a linguist. All I have is
an enthusiasm in learning about the truth of Hakka origin, and trying to
associate what I read with what I experience as a Hakka.  I do try to find
evidence from sources in CHINESE literature and history. 

According to the following argument of Ekki (or Hung J Lu), I think he has
made some very interesting and intriguing implications: 

1. Hakka dialect is definitely southern and not from the north. [This 
implies Hakka people were indigenous to the south and thus all the 
migrations as researched by Lo Hsiang Lin, Chen Yun Dong are historically 
incorrect.]

2. Hakkas were derived from Hun. [Doesn't this contradict Hakka's 
southern phonology theory? Unless Huns were from the south (???) or after 
Hun became Hakka in the south, they totally gave their original tongue 
and adopted the southern tongue. So, if Hakkas are strong in maintaining 
their heritage and tradition, which heritage are they maintaining?]

My writings have been based heavily on Chen Yun Dong's Kejia Ren (Hakka Ngin)
which quoted extensively works from Lo Hsiang Lin and western scholars. 
Frankly I have not gone back to his original source to verify whether his
citation is absolutely correct.  But I believe as a scholar himself,
distortion in citation is not likely. The other sources are from a 
Hakkaology conference held at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a 
publication of Hakkaology magazine. They may not be as authoritative as 
western works but I think they are authentic.:)

I did buy the book from Clyde Kiang himself. And I have read it too. However,
we have had such an extensive discussion before, it is impossible to
reiterate the whole thing here.  Since most of us do not have access to 
the western scholarly works, I think it would be nice if the contents be 
quoted rather than just mentioning the authors. 

The following is the unedited message from Ekki.

SL Lee

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:13:21 -0700
From: Hung J Lu <hlu@U.Arizona.EDU>
To: sllee@infinet.com
Cc: hlu@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: Linguistics Information on Hakka

Hi,

Your observations about the Hakka language is 
very limited the traditional misconceptions.

All Chinese southern dialects/languages are
rich in the finals, but they screw up the
initial consonants badly. Not a single
person with some minimum understanding of
Middle Chinese phonology would claim that
Hakka is closer to the language used in 
Han dynasty or there around. Yes, the rhyme
properties are better, but, that's because
the finals are better kept: Taic languages
are notably tonal (including Thai). But
the initials? Min, Hakka, Cantonese are
all far far from Middle Chinese. Wu fares
better in this regard, and Mandarin initials
actually are not too bad, either.

Hakka has southern phonology. Period.
This unavoidably means that their southern
barbarian component is not negligible.

It would help if you start looking at
Western sources.

Please look at the books by people like Ramsey,
Forrest, Norman, etc. And maybe Baxter if you
like to learn about Chinese phonology.

category: Chinese linguistics
title: The Chinese Language
author: R.A.D. Forrest, M.A.
printed: 1965 (1948)
comment: Chinese dialectology. Very complete. In the Minnan section
         it also gives some interesting facts on the historical
         phonology. By the way, this is the oldest source where
         I have been able to find the word "Hoklo" printed (in English), 
         and it comes from a village's former name near Kowloon City in
         Hong Kong. Of course, I dare to speculate that "Hoklo" has
         appeared printed in Western sources long before this book. 
         (This term appeared already in page 219 of the 1948 edition 
         of this book, published by Faber & Faber Ltd, London.)

category: Chinese linguistics
title: The Languages of China
author: S. Robert Ramsey
printed: 1987
comment: a basic introduction to linguistic aspects of Chinese 
         languages, including Han and minority languages. 
         Not very good in details, but OK as an introduction.

category: Chinese languages
title: Chinese
author: Jerry Norman
printed: 1988
comment: this book reminds me of S. Robert Ramsey's book.
         Both books cover pretty much the same topics.
         Ramsey's is stronger in non-sinitic languages,
         Norman's is stronger in modern grammar, Middle 
         Chinese reconstruction and Southern dialectology.
         All in all, I like Norman's book better.

 CALL #        PL1201 .B38 1992 
 LOCATIONS    Main
  
 AUTHOR       Baxter, William Hubbard, 1949-
 TITLE        A handbook of Old Chinese phonology.
 SERIES       Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 64.
 PUBLISHER    Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.
 SUBJECTS     Chinese language --To 600 --Phonology.
 NOTE         Includes bibliographical references and index.
 DESCRIPTION  xiii, 922 p. ; 24 cm.
 ISBN         311012324X (acid-free paper) : $185.00 (est.)


You should also read the book by Lo, Hsiang-Lin on Hakkas.
This book was already published in 1933, and it's amazing
that Hakka people themselves are not even familiar with it.
You should see the scholastic style of looking at things.
Do not EVER claim Han links before you have evidences.
You can see in his book that he very carefully avoid
the typical exaggeration of Hakka people with the Han
claims. (The title of the book is something like
Ke-Jia Yuan-Liu Dao-Lun: something like "discussion
on the origin of Hakkas" if you allow me a poor
translation)

Read more carefully Clyde Kiang's book. This guy is well
aware of all other explanations regarding the origin of
Hakkas. You on the other hand have read so little,
that you are more basing your arguments on personal
prejudices.

This is not to discourage you. But you should know that
on your homepage you have little scholastic arguments
to your favor. I am sure in a few more years you will
learn more and improve it.

You can't get knowledge by just chatting over the
network. You have to dig into academic materials
and read things on your own. If you can work (like in 
my case, finding language cognate words), so much the better.
Knowledge does not come free. You have to spend time,
money, and sweat.

-- Ekki