[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: references Henan and Hakka
Dear Siu Leung,
Thank you for letting me have some references. I am reading through them
:I just noticed in your references, there is no Chinese citation. Do you have
:access to a good library with Chinese collections? While I try not to play
:down on non-Chinese authors/scholars, as Joseph Needham wrote the best
:encyclopedia on Chinese science and technology better than any Chinese did,
:I would also like to see some references from Chinese literature.
:About Zhongzhou and Henan, please see the following websites:
This is a general gateway to the site only.
There is no mention of how Zhongzhou is another name for Hakka on this page.
This does in fact have several instances of zhongzhou, but none of them
specifically identifies zhongzhou as another term for Hakka people. The passage
I read is talking about the entering tone in Chinese phonology, under the
heading 4. Jindai Yin or Recent Phonology. The paper is only a review of
published papers on the subject of Mandarin phonology from its title "An
Introduction to Academic Works on Mandarin Chinese Phonology in Taiwan
:http://www.sinica.edu.tw/~mingching/NEW/inewbook/stl.htm (this one is quite
The passage of interest is as follows
This states that in Chapter 3, Hakka and non Hakka are indistinguishable. The
author takes Min Taiwanese genealogical records and Luo XiangLin's data and
finds that non Hakkas are just as likely to have come from Zhongzhou, even
though Hakkas maintain that they are the are the real descendents from Henan's
This page also does not state that Hakka people are necessarily commonly called
Zhongzhou people as was the original assertion in the comments to the slide.
All of this may be confusing, since in your statement 6a, "Henan is called
Zhongzhou (the midland) and Hakkas are often called Zhongzhou people." In no way
do any of these links specifically identifies Hakka people alone as being
Zhongzhou people, and therefore, Zhongzhou is, therefore, not a general term
that one can use call ourselves in the narrow sense, because others can lay
claim to this term on the strength of their own genealogical records.