Re: Hagga munti

[Clem Lee <clem2@idt.net>]

Dylan,

My question was not how people could communicate. We all find a way and
learn to communicate with one another, by sign language, by drawing, by
symbols, by writing (as in the case of the Chinese, one writing for
all), by learning one another's language, etc. 

My question was - if the the Hakka dialects, modern Cantonese and most
dialects in Jiangxi were descended from "one common tongue", as stated
by Mr. Liu zinfad, why did the dialects become so different sounding,
even though the Hakkas, Cantonese and people from Jiangxi were
practically neighbours?

Actually, I draw different conclusions from that of Mr. Liu zinfad. I
would like to offer this theory:

Because China is such a vast land, there were many native ethnic groups
occupying different parts of it. Each group probably had their own
culture, language, etc. Through assimilation over time, with the
conquests of the Mongols, Manchus and the different Dynasties, the
multi-ethnic groups of China assimilated rather than become more
diversified as offered by Mr. Liu zinfad ("one common tongue" to
multiple). Mongols(inner), Manchus and today, Tibetans, were or are all
being assimilated. And the language? Mandarin is now considered the
official speaking language of China. So the process of becoming one
rather than from one to many is more true.

There may be similarities, and that's developed over time through
assimilation, amongst the Hakkas, the Cantonese and people from Jiangxi.
They came closer together rather than going from "one mother tongue" to
many. 

One Chinese writing and one speaking language(Mandarin) strengthen
rather than weaken my theory. 

Re. Hag5ga1 mun4ti2 - ko3 nen2 mao2 mun4ti2
    Hag ga mun  thi - ken pun  mo   mun thi 

Clem Lee(Li)   
 
  

Clem,

Re. Hag5ga1 mun4ti2 - ko3 nen2 mao2 mun4ti2

My brother-in-law is a Cantonese speaker, and he can't speak any Hakka.
My mum does not speak Cantonese, but she can understand him. She speaks
Hakka to him, and he understands her. So it is possible to communicate,
even though one does not speak the other's language. It is through
coming into contact and being exposed to the other's dialect that
understanding eventually develops. 

I would think itinerant Hakka folk in the past would be able to
socialise rather being isolationist. The Tower of Babel fable expressed
an immediate change where each person began to speak a different tongue
from his neighbour, nothing like what Zinfad said. He says the opposite,
that the change is gradual, where Hakka and Cantonese today, together
with a few other dialects may have a common ancestor. 

By creolize, Zinfad hit the nail on the head, a common communication
patois must have sprung up when the groups (now diversified) met up.
Think of how much Hakka vocabulary now comes from education in another
dialect, but embraced and converted into a Hakka reading. It has
expanded to include terms for all sorts of modern things, such as tian4
nao3 (computer) or su1 yim1 gi1 (radio) etc. Even without creolisation,
there is a possibility for communication via the most important thing
you've forgotten about - writing! 

Remember, the village, provincial, and imperial examinations are open to
people of all backgrounds, and that being so, there would be
intelligentsia from each and every dialect. Communication may not only
rely on Hakka/Cantonese but GuanHua between the educated also. Classical
Chinese survived until this century, and still being taught in some
places. Don't forget our common culture in your consideration. 

(This brings up WW2 era when Chinese could communicate with Japanese
through writing, as Classical Chinese was and is still being taught in
Japan. You can't get more different a couple of languages than that...)