Thanks for the interesting presentation Prof Galambos. I have a question about the illustration at 3:35. As you also say, the characters in the two lines look similar. To me, this similarity seems to go far beyond random occurrence. Why do you say the direct genetic connection between them is inconceivable?
Well, because in that illustration the two sets of signs are placed next to each other to look like each other. But in reality, they are taking 7 very simple signs and finding similar ones in a group of 6,000, which is bound to produce results. In fact, they are probably taking 15 simple signs and trying to find matching ones among the thousands of oracle-bone characters, but only 7 of them work. If you think of it, some simple signs (like a cross and two more or less parallel lines) are likely to be part of any inventory of signs. Then they are re-drawn here in a way that they look even more similar. The main reason why a connection seems inconceivable to me is that there these two groups are thousands of years apart, and so signs would evolve and change over time, they will not remain the same.
4:29 "Chinese writing [is] at least 3300 years old. It may be older." 4:53 "Claims that Chinese characters go back 5000 years are simply not true." WTF? How do you know they're not 5000 years old? You just yourself they may be older. We only know that they are AT LEAST 3300 years old, but how much older than that they are, we don't know. Why say it's not true without presenting any evidence at all that would lead one to believe such a claim that it is not true?
You are of course right, we do not see the beginnings of Chinese writing. At the same time, there is no evidence that would allow us to push it back to 5,000 years. There is 1,700 years lacking, which to me seems too big a gap to go undocumented. Also, arguments for a 5,000-year history typically connect it with earlier scripts (or proto-scripts) in China, which is again unrealistic because the time gap is too large. I do think that to argue that Chinese characters are 5,000 years old necessitates some sort of concrete evidence, rather than the other way around. But I agree that there is a logical problem in my own reasoning. So maybe I should rephrase what I said and say that there is no evidence whatsoever for Chinese characters being 5,000 years old. And also that they are not connected with any of the sign systems that are 5,000 years old. Thanks for the comment!
@@TheChineseAlphabet Cangjie is said to have originated Chinese characters during the reign of the Yellow Emperor, who reigned from about 2697 - 2597 B.C., so just a bit less than 5000 years ago. That may or may not be true, but that is what is said. Just because written Chinese characters from that time haven't been found in modern times (that we know of) doesn't mean it didn't exist. Even oracle bones were only discovered fairly recently. It would be very easy for older writings to still be hidden somewhere, or equally easy for them to have all been destroyed at some point. I am not claiming that Chinese characters are 5000 years old, but I am claiming that they very well may be, and there's no reason at all to believe that they are not. But there is reason to believe that Chinese characters existed long before the oldest discovered writings, simply because the writings that have been found are not some rudimentary etchings, but a full fledged system that would have taken time to develop to that point.
They are older but very few handed down compared to the amount of chinese/greek ancient books, which makes studying those ancient language pointless for amateurs.
Thank you for such an excellent presentation
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for the interesting presentation Prof Galambos. I have a question about the illustration at 3:35. As you also say, the characters in the two lines look similar. To me, this similarity seems to go far beyond random occurrence. Why do you say the direct genetic connection between them is inconceivable?
Well, because in that illustration the two sets of signs are placed next to each other to look like each other. But in reality, they are taking 7 very simple signs and finding similar ones in a group of 6,000, which is bound to produce results. In fact, they are probably taking 15 simple signs and trying to find matching ones among the thousands of oracle-bone characters, but only 7 of them work. If you think of it, some simple signs (like a cross and two more or less parallel lines) are likely to be part of any inventory of signs. Then they are re-drawn here in a way that they look even more similar. The main reason why a connection seems inconceivable to me is that there these two groups are thousands of years apart, and so signs would evolve and change over time, they will not remain the same.
Great content! Keep it up!
Thank you!
4:29 "Chinese writing [is] at least 3300 years old. It may be older."
4:53 "Claims that Chinese characters go back 5000 years are simply not true."
WTF? How do you know they're not 5000 years old? You just yourself they may be older. We only know that they are AT LEAST 3300 years old, but how much older than that they are, we don't know. Why say it's not true without presenting any evidence at all that would lead one to believe such a claim that it is not true?
You are of course right, we do not see the beginnings of Chinese writing. At the same time, there is no evidence that would allow us to push it back to 5,000 years. There is 1,700 years lacking, which to me seems too big a gap to go undocumented. Also, arguments for a 5,000-year history typically connect it with earlier scripts (or proto-scripts) in China, which is again unrealistic because the time gap is too large. I do think that to argue that Chinese characters are 5,000 years old necessitates some sort of concrete evidence, rather than the other way around.
But I agree that there is a logical problem in my own reasoning. So maybe I should rephrase what I said and say that there is no evidence whatsoever for Chinese characters being 5,000 years old. And also that they are not connected with any of the sign systems that are 5,000 years old.
Thanks for the comment!
@@TheChineseAlphabet Cangjie is said to have originated Chinese characters during the reign of the Yellow Emperor, who reigned from about 2697 - 2597 B.C., so just a bit less than 5000 years ago. That may or may not be true, but that is what is said.
Just because written Chinese characters from that time haven't been found in modern times (that we know of) doesn't mean it didn't exist. Even oracle bones were only discovered fairly recently. It would be very easy for older writings to still be hidden somewhere, or equally easy for them to have all been destroyed at some point.
I am not claiming that Chinese characters are 5000 years old, but I am claiming that they very well may be, and there's no reason at all to believe that they are not.
But there is reason to believe that Chinese characters existed long before the oldest discovered writings, simply because the writings that have been found are not some rudimentary etchings, but a full fledged system that would have taken time to develop to that point.
*1400 BC ONLY BYE BYE CHINA.EGYPTIAN, BABYLONIAN,SUMERIC ARE MUCH OLDER AND HAVEEVEN MORE INTERESTING CULTURE.*
Definitely much older…
They are older but very few handed down compared to the amount of chinese/greek ancient books, which makes studying those ancient language pointless for amateurs.