A clip of Fengshenbang (封神榜) dubbed in Zhengzhang reconstruction (1995)
Guanjiu (關雎) from Shijing (詩經) with Zhengzhang reconstruction (1995)
Baxter-Sagart’s 2014 reconstruction.
ocbaxtersagart.lsait.lsa.umich.e … -09-20.pdf
Don’t see any video with Baxter-Sagart’s reconstruction, too bad, it seems legit. Baxter-Sagart incorporated the idea that tones were derived from the disappearance of morpheme suffixes or infixes. For example, the lost of *-s seem to have evolved into the rising tone in Middle Chinese.
Wish there’s an IPA to speech synthesizer out there, so I can just dump a bunch of IPAs to hear what it sounds like.
Many have said Zhengzhang’s reconstruction sounds Tibetan, I guess it’s supposed to sound more similar to Tibetan or Burmese. To my hears though, it sounds a bit like Vietnamese.
Commenting so I can come back and see this later.
This looks intriguing but I really don’t get what it is supposed to be.
Reconstructed languages is what people in comparative and historical linguistics do. In case certain aspects of ancient languages weren’t fully documented, they make speculations of what it was supposed to be. They examine how languages usually evolve, compare with related languages, examine translations to and from the language back during that period, and come up with a reconstructed language. The IPAs of said reconstruction would have an asterisk * to indicate that this wasn’t ever documented.
For Indo-european languages, there’s Proto-Indo-European, for Austronesian there’s PAN (Proto-Austronesian), and for Chinese, there’s Old Chinese (as opposed to Middle Chinese and Modern Chinese).
Some (Sagart) have suggested a cultural diffusion or an earlier shared lineage between the users of Sino-Burman-Tibetan and PAN based on some morphemic and phonetic similarities. Although it’s like 10 words out of Swadesh’s 100-word list. The morphemic evidence is more convincing, but supports the earlier shared lineage possibility in my opinion.
Sagart’s thoughts on the issue.
bartos.web.elte.hu/sinotib/papg1.pdf
Sagart’s thinks that shared agriculture terms were brought to Taiwan via a migration from the coastal regions between Huanghe and Huaihe about 5500 years ago, and that people were absorbed by the Austronesian speakers already on the island. Southern China cultures (Zhujiang area cord marked pottery) was introduced to Taiwan through contact even before the introduction of millet and rice. Tai-Kadai languages weren’t sister groups of Austronesian that didn’t make the trip into Taiwan before the last ice-age, but rather daughter groups of Austronesian that moved to SAE from Taiwan.
The videos of ancient Chinese texts read with a reconstruction are just for fun.
Did they also reconstruct that awful heavy reverb?
(Sorry, as a pro audio editor, it annoys me…lol.)
[quote=“Taiwanguy”]Did they also reconstruct that awful heavy reverb?
(Sorry, as a pro audio editor, it annoys me…lol.)[/quote]
probably put there to hid the fact that they were using terrible microphones.
Reconstructed languages is what people in comparative and historical linguistics do. In case certain aspects of ancient languages weren’t fully documented, they make speculations of what it was supposed to be. They examine how languages usually evolve, compare with related languages, examine translations to and from the language back during that period, and come up with a reconstructed language. The IPAs of said reconstruction would have an asterisk * to indicate that this wasn’t ever documented.
For Indo-european languages, there’s Proto-Indo-European, for Austronesian there’s PAN (Proto-Austronesian), and for Chinese, there’s Old Chinese (as opposed to Middle Chinese and Modern Chinese).
Some (Sagart) have suggested a cultural diffusion or an earlier shared lineage between the users of Sino-Burman-Tibetan and PAN based on some morphemic and phonetic similarities. Although it’s like 10 words out of Swadesh’s 100-word list. The morphemic evidence is more convincing, but supports the earlier shared lineage possibility in my opinion.
Sagart’s thoughts on the issue.
bartos.web.elte.hu/sinotib/papg1.pdf
Sagart’s thinks that shared agriculture terms were brought to Taiwan via a migration from the coastal regions between Huanghe and Huaihe about 5500 years ago, and that people were absorbed by the Austronesian speakers already on the island. Southern China cultures (Zhujiang area cord marked pottery) was introduced to Taiwan through contact even before the introduction of millet and rice. Tai-Kadai languages weren’t sister groups of Austronesian that didn’t make the trip into Taiwan before the last ice-age, but rather daughter groups of Austronesian that moved to SAE from Taiwan.
The videos of ancient Chinese texts read with a reconstruction are just for fun.[/quote]
Ah i initially read the thread title as Videos of Old China which made your first post confusing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUIEuG5Ox6A
Here’s a video that goes through each phases of Chinese phonetic changes throughout history.
Around the time of Late Song is where a Holo speaker can probably understand without looking at the Hanji annotations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6RryduW5U
Using the book Fangyan written by Yang Xiong in the Western Han era to reconstruct Old Chinese languages.
While doing so also proves Holo stayed close to Han phonology.