Parhae

Thank you for correcting a shitposter with an axe to grind.

Probably pointless though.

Kraskino earthen castle, identified as Yeomju (Yanzhou) castle of Balhae.

Map of Kraskino earthen castle.

They were a Tungus-Korean mix

Whether Goguryeo was Koreanic is suspicious.
They called "mountain" as "達 tar", "rabbit" as "烏斯含 usiɣam", "three" as "密 mir", "five" as "于次 uc", "seven" as "難隠 nanïn" and "ten" as "德 tək".
Their language resembled Japanese for some reason.

Because Japs originate from mainland Asia as well

>Japonic =/= Koreanic ??

I'm still an Altaicist

Due to the way chinese identity works, this doesn't prevent them from being chinese in chinese minds. I actually think it's a positive thing, except when used retroactively like it seems to be the case.

However, Korean peninsula was uninhabited from 15,000 to 7,000 years ago.
How mainland Asians with no population originates island Asians with dense population?

Probably, Buyeo languages are missing link between Japonic and Koreanic.

It's pretty close to Japanese actually: "mountain" is "take", "rabbit" is "usagi", 3, 5, 7 and 10 are "mi", "itsu", "nana" and "too" (not counting suffix つ),

Koreans seem especially incapable of grasping this concept. Maybe it's a leftover from Japanese colonial brainwashing? Or maybe it isn't, because Japanese don't make ridiculous claims on other peoples' cultures.

I'm getting sick of fucking seeing you trip fags everywhere

Tell me about it and it's history, beyond ethnic composition. An ancient state in what would become the jurchen/manchu hearthland may be interesting, but I don't really care much about controversies between modern peoples. It could be martian for all I care.

I've already read the wikipedia article if you're gonna link that.

Why?

the japonic words are only attested from toponyms and they were likely not actual goguryeo words. japonic languages may have been pushed south and marginalized by goguryeo-like koreanic languages. the language of Kaya and the language of the people of baekje (not the ruling class) may have been japonic

任那 is Japanese ancestral land stolen by filthy Korean invaders. Never forget.

sure
The toponyms suspected as words from Goguryeo language existed on former Baekje area.
There had been ports of call in the seaway from Japan to Daifang and Lelang Commanderies of Ancient Chinese dynasties.
It's no wonder to remaining of Japonic influenced toponyms there.

Empress Jingu inherited her territories in the peninsula rightfully to conquer, by her royal lineage of Silla.
lol

Mix of Malgal and Goguryeo,Koreans also fail to mention that Goguryeo was multi ethnic.

>Japanese don't make ridiculous claims on other peoples' cultures.
Even the first historical "Korean" kingdom was in modern day northern Hebei/Liaoxi.

There's no evidence Koreanic originated in Liaoxi/Liaodong.

They were a distant remnant of the Hwan empire not unlike the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms that outlasted the hellenic world of antiquity

No Japonic loans in Manchu attest to language of Koguryo elite not being Japonic

All three Korean kingdoms were multi-ethnic.

There were Malgal living in Silla and Baekje like Koguryo as well as Japonic speakers in Koguryo. Silla's ruling class was proven to have Central Asian links. Even Japan had Malgal and Central Asians

Saying Koguryo was multi-ethnic is not saying much

Red = Proto-Mongolic Homeland

Light green = Proto-Tungusic Homeland

Dark green = Tungusic expansion

Purple = Nivkh/Gilyak homeland

Yellow = Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu homeland

Light orange = Koreanic homeland

Orange = Koguryo boundaries

(cont.)
When Koguryo fell, the Tang dynasty in northern Korea and southern Manchuria (Liaodong and parts of Jilin) deported more than 500,000 Koguryo peoples to China, which allowed the Tungusic speaking Malgal to expand southwards, occupying the rest of Koguryo's territories and incorporating any of their remnants.

As you can see Parhae encompasses all of Koguryo as well as Puyo's lands while including the core region where the Malgal originally dwelt, making the population mixed between the Malgal and Koguryo.

Goguryeo absorbed local Sinitic speakers whether they be Yan/Qi migrants,Han colonists,Sui soldiers etc.

Buyeo,Sam Han,Yemaek and Joseon are separate identities.

>Light orange = Koreanic homeland
There's no evidence Wiman Joseon spoke Koreanic.

The original Joseon was located in modern day Liaoxi.

Records of the Grand Historian notes that Wiman Joseon was a separate polity from Chinbon and Imdun.

All three kingdoms and japan absorbed many Han Chinese immigrants. So?

>This ancient kingdom is neither Chinese nor Korean.

BLASPHEMOUS
GERMANIC
CONFEDERATION

My point is Goguryeo and rest of the "Korean" kingdoms was far from homogeneous and was multi lingual/ethnic.

While Joseon and Sam Han may be synonymous for ethnic Koreans today they clearly weren't in the past.

Goguryeo inhabitants may refer to themselves as man of Mahan/Joseon that doesn't mean Goguryeo came from either polity.

>
Once the Chinese conquered the northern part of Korea, the whole region was split, the southern part of the peninsula dislocated from Manchuria.

The refugees who fled the original Joseon bought with them their language (we can assume to be ancestral to Korea) to Jin in the southern part of the peninsula (as recorded in Samguk Sagi). This began the process of displacement of the language of the Japonic natives with the language ancestral to Korean. We can all easily deduce this.

No one came from either. They all coalesced into a singular Korean identity, but it took a lot later than people think. Probably by Goryeo, since there were attempts to resurrect each of the Three Kingdoms during Unified Silla.

books.google.com/books?id=45qcCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=imdun korea&source=bl&ots=HMMb44IFa6&sig=naPrqR5IAv5OaHiYuHbMAitjteY&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9fa5eXNAhUMzWMKHb0_AqIQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=imdun korea&f=false

see this.

The archeological evidence shows the elite were Chinese and the commoners were culturally similar to their neighbors to their north (which were a lot different from say Tungusic or Japonic). What kind of evidence do you mean? Historical? Historical evidence are passages that directly say all these tribes and states throughout the peninsula had similar language and customs.

>The refugees who fled the original Joseon bought with them their language (we can assume to be ancestral to Korea) to Jin in the southern part of the peninsula (as recorded in Samguk Sagi)
There's no historical basis to Tangun/Gija Joseon. Though the Jizi myth isn't without merit,a Shang allied Ji clan of the Fen River valley settled in the vicinity of the Daling River valley.

The original Joseon was located in modern day northern Hebei/Liaoxi not Liaodong.

There's nothing linking the earliest Joseon polity/toponym with the Joseon ruled by Jun or Wiman.

>No one came from either.
What I meant is even if a cultural Joseon/Sam Han identity arose during the late Three Kingdom era that shouldn't be proof Goguryeo is related to Joseon or Sam Han.

>Historical evidence are passages that directly say all these tribes and states throughout the peninsula had similar language and customs.
There's virtually nothing on the linguistic situation of Wiman Joseon.

Even if we assume the overlap of the Liaoning dagger/Korean dolmen culture is Wiman Joseon you can't derive Koreanic from artifacts.

Chinese sources note that the Yemaek language/custom was similar to Buyeo. The jury is still out on what language family Yemaek and Buyeo belongs to.

The records don't claim Wiman Joseon was Yemaek/Buyeo or Yemaek/Buyeo was equivalent to Sam Han.

Jin Han claimed descent from Qin era refugees.

Everyone knows Tanggun/Gija is a myth. No one take it seriously.

What Joseon in Hebei/Liaoxi? Wiman Joseon is clearly the Joseon I am referring to. I am not referring to a Joseon in Hebei/Liaoxi. I am referring to the Joseon that became Wiman. Maybe they are the same, who knows?

Wiman Joseon was kind of like a nickname. It suggests a lot of rulers were Chinese ruling over Joseon whose inhabitants were different.

The states that emerged in the south were founded by those "Joseon" natives who were pushed out by the Chinese. These guys spoke languages ancestral to Korean.

Yes, but one of the Hans in Sam Han stated they were descendants of "Joseon" people.

Yemaek and Buyeo is not the main focus. I am focusing on Joseon/"Wiman Joseon" that came before the commanderies. Whose populace should have been speaking a language ancestral to Korean based on linguistic, historical and archeological data.

>Jin Han claimed descent from Qin era refugees

That just means there were lots of Chinese immigrants in the Korean peninsula.

>Gija is a myth. No one take it seriously.
There's no reason to Jizi's authenticity. There is reason to doubt Jizi's purported migration to Joseon.

Shang oracle bones mention a friendly Ji polity in the Fen River valley. Archaeologists have found Fen River clan insignias in the Daling River Valley. Inscriptions also show that a Marquis of Ji(㠱侯) was allied to the Duke of Shao with his powerbase in the Daling River Valley.

Writing of Master Guan,Classics of Mountains and Seas and Strategies of the Warring States makes it clear Joseon was east of Yan and west of Liaodong.

The Marquis of Ji lived in what would later be referred to as the original Joseon.

>Wiman Joseon was kind of like a nickname. It suggests a lot of rulers were Chinese ruling over Joseon whose inhabitants were different.
Wiman usurped Jun. What is not clear is the relationship between Jun's Joseon and the Joseon mentioned in pre Han texts. The earliest Han texts don't even mention Jun.

>Yemaek and Buyeo is not the main focus. I am focusing on Joseon/"Wiman Joseon" that came before the commanderies.
Yemaek is the crux of the argument.

Yemaek Joseon and Wiman Joseon refer to the same polity in the Records of the Grand Historian. Either the Yemaek were a part of Wiman Joseon,Yemaek Joseon was separate from the earliest Joseon or Yemaek and Joseon are two separate entities.

Migrants from Jun's Joseon would have to cross over Yemaek territory(Chinbon,Imdun etc.)

>Whose populace should have been speaking a language ancestral to Korean based on linguistic, historical and archeological data.
Repeating the same sentences over and over again doesn't make it true.

The lack of any sort of linguistic evidence renders your argument null.

lol what is the entire samguk sagi and why was it written in korean then?

why do koreans speak korean? lol ^^ how could you be this thick?!

the linguistic evidence is all there in the placenames and samguk sagi. a huge chunk, even if some are japonic is obviously korean

even the chinese pronounciation of words in korean history are clearly korean. I don't have to speak something that's blarlingly obvious

so there's no evidence for gallic spoken in france. or evidence of germanic spoken in germany. everything in historical records, there is no evidence of anything, we should ignore historical records as it contains no evidence

sound logic you got there pal

basically korean just magically formed after japonic in koguryo. aliens landed and bought korean language to korea.

hahaha ok. you never post any alternatives. you just deny korean ever being spoken in the korean peninsula.

>lol what is the entire samguk sagi and why was it written in korean then?
Classical Chinese. Maybe you could read the document in its original form if Koreans didn't abandon Hanja.

>why do koreans speak korean? lol ^^ how could you be this thick?!
Sillan unification. I'm of the opinion Koreanic came from Buyeo.

>the linguistic evidence is all there in the placenames and samguk sagi. a huge chunk, even if some are japonic is obviously korean
What do Japonic Sam Han toponyms have to do with Joseon?

There's literally no textual evidence you can use to support Koreanic's origins in Liaodong.

Bottom line is the ancient Chinese didn't bother recording the linguistic situation in Joseon. There's no indigenous Joseon script to work off either.

Is it really that difficult to accept that the original Joseon may not have spoken Koreanic?

>Maybe you could read the document in its original form if Koreans didn't abandon Hanja
Koreans still use and read Hanja

>I'm of the opinion Koreanic came from Buyeo

Isn't that contradictory? Buyeo-Goguryeo speakers would not be as common as Sillan speakers (the direct ancestors of Korean speakers) after Silla unified the peninsula. They were mostly deported by Tang to China.

>Is it really that difficult to accept that the original Joseon may not have spoken Koreanic?

Sillans said the ancestors of Silla came from the area you refer to as Wiman/Yemaek Joseon

>The Samguk Sagi and Bei Shi say that the originally Lelang Commandery area which later became the Jinhan confederacy was the origin of Silla.

>No textual evidence you can use to support Koreanic's origins in Liaodong

Liaodong and Jilin (Buyeo's homeland) is literally right next to each other. You support the Buyeo theory and claim that Koreanic did not come from Liaodong adjacent to Jilin/Buyeo territory.

I don't even make or accept the claim Koreanic came from Liaodong. Only Gojoseon and later Silla. My theory is far more conservative than yours

in moon runes:

新罗者,其先本辰韩种也。地在高丽东南,居汉时乐浪地。辰韩亦曰秦韩。相传言秦世亡人避役来适,马韩割其 东界居之,以秦人,故名之曰秦韩。其言语名物,有似中国人。....其文字、甲兵,同于中国

This is all that I'm trying to say which I believe best matches with historical records, archaeology, and linguistic data:

1. Original Koreanic speakers lived in "Joseon" located somewhere in the Lelang area.

2. Chinese came and conquer Lelang area and created Wiman and Four Commanderies

3. Native refugees of this Joseon came down south and formed Jin/Jinhan/Silla

4. Silla later grew and conquered other kingdoms, thus Sillan language became dominant and ancestral to Korean

Also the natives in the peninsular south were Japonic speakers before Jin/Jinhan/Silla (whose elites were Koreanic). This there is universal consensus on in the linguistic community

>Isn't that contradictory? Buyeo-Goguryeo speakers would not be as common as Sillan speakers (the direct ancestors of Korean speakers) after Silla unified the peninsula. They were mostly deported by Tang to China.
I'm basing this on Baekje. Isn't there evidence that Baekje loans in Japonic are Koreanic and Baekje shares vocabulary with Silla?

>Sillans said the ancestors of Silla came from the area you refer to as Wiman/Yemaek Joseon
I believe you and I are referring to different Joseons.

I'm referencing the earliest known Joseon in northern Hebei/Liaoxi.

I believe Wiman Joseon's paucity of evidence speaks for itself. If the territorial boundaries of Wiman Joseon are suspect then we have even less information on what pre Yan expansion Joseon in Liaodong.

>Liaodong and Jilin (Buyeo's homeland) is literally right next to each other. You support the Buyeo theory and claim that Koreanic did not come from Liaodong adjacent to Jilin/Buyeo territory.
Since when does Buyeo=Yemaek=Joseon?

Chinese texts made it clear that Buyeo and Yemaek shared some sort of relationship but Buyeo descended polities never claimed to be descended from Joseon.

If Yemaek can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they spoke Koreanic then the urheimat of Koreanic/para Koreanic would extend far beyond northern Korea/Liaodong.

What I find strange is why didn't the Chinese include the Sam Han as similar to Yemaek/Buyeo if they switched to Koreanic.

Do you think about some words assumed to be cognate with in Japanese and Korean?

for example:

"火 hi < *pɨ" vs. "불 pur < 블 pɯr" (fire)
"水 mizu < midu" vs. "물 mur < 믈 mɯr" (water)
"目 me < *məi" vs. "눈 nun" (eye)
"芽 me < *məi" vs. "눈 nun" (sprout, bud)
"星 hoɕi < *pəsi" vs. "별 pyər" (star)
"開く hiraku < piraku" vs. "펴다 phyəda" (to open)
"島 ɕima < sima" vs. "섬 səm" (island)
"熊 kuma" vs. "곰 kom" (bear)
etc.

Are they from Silla or had used in southern part of the peninsula and having Japonic origin originally?

How do you think about some words assumed to be cognate with in Japanese and Korean?

for example:

"火 hi < *pɨ" vs. "불 pur < 블 pɯr" (fire)
"水 mizu < midu" vs. "물 mur < 믈 mɯr" (water)
"目 me < *məi" vs. "눈 nun" (eye)
"芽 me < *məi" vs. "눈 nun" (sprout, bud)
"星 hoɕi < *pəsi" vs. "별 pyər" (star)
"開く hiraku < piraku" vs. "펴다 phyəda" (to open)
"島 ɕima < sima" vs. "섬 səm" (island)
"熊 kuma" vs. "곰 kom" (bear)
etc.

Are they from Silla or had used in southern part of the peninsula and having Japonic origin originally?

bampu

Koguryo was known to be partially Japonic speaking.

The formation of Korean and displacement of Japonic was an ongoing process that occurred throughout all Three Kingdoms and was finally cemented when the peninsula was unified under Silla to Koguryo.

The language of elites of all Three Kingdoms may have been different, but they all had a part in forming Korean which came into existence rather late (700 to 1000 AD)

I disagree with one original Korean form, ie "Silla language." Silla may have been dominant, but the majority would speak languages akin to Buyeo-Koguryo-Baekje languages

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128448

Also Koguryo having much affinities with Japonic lexicon suggests the linguistic situation was VERY similar throughout all Three Kingdoms (a Japonic substratum with a language similar to Korean as the language of the elite)

In the process of gradual displacement of Japonic, you would expect a lot of shared lexicon and features to appear between both. But, that doesn't mean they are genetically related.

This sort of phenomenon happened to "Altaic" languages and the broader North Eurasian languages. When heavy contact and borrowing ultimately intangibly shaped each others' languages to appear they are related.

I think you are overthinking the issue. The whole region is relatively small, present day North Korea is as big as Ohio. Of course all these languages would have some relationship with each other and a shared culture.

It's how you perceive how Korean was formed. I'm starting to think It did not form directly from one predecessor, but from a collection of languages (who were either similar to each other or different) spoken throughout the region over a long time.

If you look at Joseon and Koryo's history in the last 700 years, it was only during that time forced homogenization took place. Each dynasty made sure to keep settling Koreans all over the place. For example people in the north moved south and vice versa.

They did a study of Jokpo and proved regional differences don't really matter, since origins of different clans and families are spread randomly through out.

And I took a giant shit which strangely resembled that of a unicorn. Both our arguments are equal in merit

There have been a bunch of not-quite-right answers here. Unfortunately they're missing an important part of the history and modern language. There are also a lot of answers you're getting that are just incorrect, by people who don't really know what they're talking about.

To give some background, I'm a historical linguist working in mostly Sinotibetan/Tibetoburman but also by extension the languages of the area in general, including Korean. My particular emphasis these days is in tone systems. So that's where I'm coming from with this.

There are two different answers here, both accurate but speaking to different time periopds:

Korean was tonal

Korean is tonal, at least in some dialect groups.

(cont.)

And actually some modern dialects have re-developed tone. For historical tone, in the Hunmin Jeong-eum Eonhae, one of the earliest writings in Hangeul (the Korean alphabet), shows tone marks in the form of dots to the side of the syllable. These mark tone. This is a separate tone system from what Chinese had at the time, however at least one of the four tone categories in Korean was a reflection of the tone category of borrowed words which had that category.

That is, Middle Korean (the Korean of the period when Hunmin Jeong-eum Eonhae was written) had tone on native words as well as borrowed words. There were three tone categories for native vocabulary, and while borrowed words maintained some semblance of their Chinese category, the native words were found with a greater distribution. That Korean borrowed the terminology so completely from the Chinese tradition probably doesn't help the confusion.

(cont.)

Adding to this confusion is that MK didn't appear to be a contour-tone language; In native vocabulary. the rising tone was almost certainly a combination of L+H, either from contraction of disyllabic words or through attaching a H suffix to what was otherwise L. This is also clear in descriptions of the category as having a longer duration compared to the other two categories. There are exceptions, but they're few.

It's probably fair to describe MK as a pitch accent system which — under influence from the Chinese tradition supported by the many borrowings — was developed into a tone system more like (but not entirely like) what was found in Chinese at the time.

Then, tone in Korean was mostly lost, especially in the Seoul dialects.

However since the 1960s it has started to reappear in a number of dialects, including those of Seoul and surrounding areas. In other words, tonal pitch distinctions are coming back, and in another 20 years we're likely to see a very clear tone system in Seoul Korean.

(cont.)

There's also a false black-and-white distinction between "tonal" and "non tonal". There are many languages which have simple or developing or semi-tonal systems. There are pitch accent systems like many Korean and Japanese languages have, and there are languages which can be argued to be both true lexical tone systems and pitch accent systems, like Shanghainese. It's a difference of degree, not of kind.

The important factor in both cases is that tone is what's called an areal feature. You have languages like Vietnamese and Thai and Burmese and Cantonese, all spoken near each other, and all with tone systems, but they're not actually related (or at least not closely related as with Burmese and Cantonese). Tone gets motivated in nearby languages even if those languages aren't what we call genetically related (meaning the languages are related by common ancestor language, not anything to do with DNA)

tl;dr: Korean most definitely was tonal in the past.

Sources:

Kingston, John 2011, Tonogenesis in The Blackwell Companion to Phonology pp. 2304-2333.

Lee, Peter H. A History of Korean Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Silva, David J 2006, Acoustic evidence for the emergence of tonal contrast in contemporary Korean. Phonology. vol. 23 pp. 287-308.

Sohn, Ho-Min (2001), The Korean Language.

Yi, Ki-mun, and S. Robert Ramsey. A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/3yemgi/why_isnt_korean_tonal/cydh3bb

They were the ancestors of best Korea.

this is somewhat true

all my grandparents and ancestors came from northern korea from Pyong'an and Hamgyong province and I look like a Korean-Tungusic hybrid. I guess this is what Manchu people look like

Lol no. Delusional jap subhumans stealing our history.

Japanese was a shitty copy of baekje, koguryeo language. Korean is an amalgamation of baekje, shilla, koguryeo languages

Baekje and Silla were initially Japonic in their development

For some reason, everything changed and shifted to more pure Korean. We still have yet to know the reason why

Also you are mistaken in that baekje, koguryeo, shilla were distinct separate languages. They were probably variation in the old Korean languages. What are saying is grounded with no proof and probably created by jap buckteeth historical revisionists.

ehess.academia.edu/AlexanderVovin

Old Korean came later from all these languages combined (Baekje, Koguryo and Shilla) but without Japonic substrata. Probably elites spoke pure Korean, while commoners spoke butchered Korean-bastardized Jap speech

>this fucktard thinks 쌀 = rice was from proto-japonoic
JEJ

lol
Your pic says Tungusic is a common ancester of Japanese and Korean.
How delusional!
Finally, did Koreans recognized themselves as originated from barbaric Evenks in northern badlands in Siberia!?

Go back 2 /int/ netouyo

Evenks are mixed with Buryats, Yakuts, and Yukaghit

They have nothing in common with Koreans

Figure at is saying that 톤고스어("Tungusic language" in Korean) is common ancester of Korean (한국어) , Japanese (일본어) and Manchu(만조어) indeed. (and it says Manchu language is already exstinct (소멸)).

None of the popular atheists know Scripture well enouh to settle debates; neither do I follow the popular nor do your deluded retarded memes apply to me. My post was antitheist. I somewhat doubt your kind can learn new proper words...