Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2090Re: Dating Chinese writing Re: [ANE-2] Cherubim Origins

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Aug 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      To: ANE-2
      On: Previous Thread
      From: Bruce

      We seem to be in an irascible zone, but herewith a few notes for any irenic
      lurkers.

      PETER: Like it or not, the international language of scholarship is
      currently English.

      BRUCE: Just so, and it behooves an international language to behave with
      diplomatic tact. If its conventions can be adjusted to be more comfortable
      for non-natives using that international medium, so much the nicer.

      PETER: ISBNs begin with "1" for books in English, "3" for books in German,
      etc. Perhaps "0" is used for books in Chinese?

      BRUCE: Without leaning over very far at my desk, I find A Cohen (ed), The
      Psalms [Hebrew Text and English Translation], 2ed Soncino 1995, ISBN
      1-871055-65-2 (formerly ISBN 0-900689-32-3), part of a 14v set whose current
      ISBN is 0-871055-70-9); also Erhard S Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part 1 / With
      an Introduction to Cultic Poetry, Eerdmans 1988, ISBN 0-8028-0255-9; also
      Michael Goulder, The Prayers of David: Psalms 51-72, Sheffield 1990, 2001;
      Clark 2004, ISBN 0567082180 [sic; PB]. Doesn't look particularly Chinese to
      me.

      PETER: The origins of Chinese civilization are vastly off-topic for ANE-2
      List, . . .

      BRUCE: Not for the original Cherubim topic, it would seem. I trust we have
      at least succeeded in clarifying the dragon question as it affects that
      discussion. As to the general principle, let me put it this way: the next
      ANE conference to be organized on the principle of divine kinship might with
      interest include representatives who can speak to the case of India, that of
      China, and for that matter, the later stages of Alexander's career.

      PETER: [on Chinese writing] I would refer you to the article by Michael
      Puett in the same Mair volume, on the scholarly pendulum regarding "outside
      influence" on China in the 2nd millennium. He argues for a middle ground, .
      . .

      BRUCE: Michael had an interesting function at that conference. It was to be
      the peacemaker, and for that reason he was spotted as the critical speaker
      on the final, and public, morning of the conference. Nobody with an
      experience of diplomacy will miss the symbolism. I thought Michael did it
      very well, and told him as much at the time. But his overview might not be
      the last word on any one of the specific points which it included.

      PETER [on Chinese language]: The graphonomist . . . is struck by its
      typological _similarity_ to Sumerian and Mayan writing.

      BRUCE: The typical Chinese character is made up of two elements, one
      conventionally called the "radical" in the belief that it represents the
      root meaning, and the other conventionally called the "phonetic." Best
      current thinking is that the "radical" is what at least some Near
      Easternists call the "determinative" or semantic-area designator, and the
      "phonetic" carries not only the sound, but [as in all languages] the meaning
      associated with the sound. It would be nice to know exactly what NE script
      is closest to this system, given that the "phonetic" part is pictorial
      rather than alphabetic. Peter implies Sumerian. Does that find general
      agreement on this list?

      PETER: . . . any number of articles of mine, including, of course, my
      explanation of why writing came to be independently invented in exactly
      three locations that we know of: Sumer, China, and Mesoamerica. Bibliography
      can be provided if requested. In every known instance, "stimulus" results in
      a syllabary, not a logography.

      BRUCE: Bibliography welcome. As for "stimulus" resulting in a syllabary, it
      seems to me, from what little I know of writing systems in general, that the
      most general tendency is for cultures to take one step at a time. We have a
      syllabic system of writing in China, but not a syllalbary (a transition to
      pure phonetic script). That step was later taken when Chinese writing was
      borrowed into Japan [I trust nobody will take offense at this notion], and
      there used not only in its original form, but in a reduced and abbreviated
      form as a syllabary (still in use today). Presumably the third step, perhaps
      more easily taken when ideas cross a frontier than when they do not, is from
      a syllabary to its single-sound constituents, producing a further economy in
      the inventory. That seems to have happened in Korea.

      GEORGE SOMSEL: My Moslem friend, however, has a different view since their
      calendar is based on the date of the Hegira. Thus even expressing the date
      as 0200 rather than 200 B.C. or 200 B.C.E. is not culturally neutral.

      BRUCE: Point taken. I might better have said "linguistically neutral." But
      even that may be something, in a sometimes difficult world.

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic