Ok, this is where to continue the debate about the origins of the Jindaimoji script(s) started in the Chu Nom thread.

Not really sure if it was a debate or not. Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting VROOR's position, but it did seem that he/she was referring to the Shang Oracle Bone script as Jindaimoji. Outside of Japan, this might be the norm. Inside Japan Jindaimoji (神代文字) specifically refers to the hi-fu-mi-yo-i Syllabries. No Logograms (except for the 12 zodiac animals in a couple of the scripts). The Oracle Bone script in Japanese is referred to as Koukotsumoji (甲骨文字). I don't know if this holds true for Chinese, too. They (Oracle Bone Script and Jindaimoji) are related only as far as that all Siniform scripts point to China as their ultimate origin, either directly (ChuNom, Chuang, Kana, Idu) or in the form of idea-stimulus (Jurchen, Tangut, Khitan, Hangeul), with the Oracle Bone script as the apparent Parent of all of them.

What promted this discussion in the first place is that while the creation of Hangeul is pretty well documented, the Jindaimoji of Japan suddenly appear only after the 16th century. There is no verifiable record of them during the Jomon or Yayoi eras. You will find no serious scholarly works in English or Japanese that defend the authenticity of Jindaimoji. Japanese linguist, Yamada Yoshio, put this debate to rest in the early 1950s. Only the Koshintoists and other fringe groups still try to make the claim that Japanese Jindaimoji is the original source behind the creation of Hangeul and Kana.

So, while Japanese Jindaimoji might be totally cool, it is in fact, an old conscript not much more than 300 yrs old....not the origin of Kana and/or Hangeul.

It never was a debate but a discussion but, since both individuals stood upon different grounds, the discussion remained unfruitful; thus, I am calling it off until both individuals can present materials that will be beneficial to both sides.

My stance is a simple one, the jindai moji is nothing more than a form of jiaguwen itself and, the hangeul based itself on the jindai moji. This stance of mine is unsupported by any academic theories, nor by any scholars famous or nay; however, such a fact of life's cruelty cares me not.

After all, there were those days when all scholars claimed earth was flat and, that the earth was the center of the solar system. Scholars have their says and, I have mine. However, like I have stated earlier, the discussion was not fruitful.

With one side vigerously citing academic texts and scholarly documents and, with the other side desperately trying to present a new-frontier which defies the entire academic claims. It was going no-where. Do not mistook my stance, I do not support the Japanese religious claims.

Human beings that we are, we are prone to see things as we wanted to see. Thus, in this discussion so far, no one right, no one wrong. Just let it settle for a while, we need to cool our minds, collect more materials and facts...etc. Then, we will discuss it again.

http://miko.org/~uraki/kuon/furu/text/s ... imonji.htm

Here is a collection of Jindai Moji. Don't know if these are the ones you were talking about, but according to me they look quite artificial, and show little to no resemblance. Some work in the way like hangul, while some in a syllabary, and some like Ge'ez.

Some shapes are just weird. Like a bunch of (crop) circles in 上津(かみつ)文字.

Those are from a supporter of the religious claim and, in historical linguistics we should not mix it with religion and nationalism.



The syllabaric claim is made by Japanese nationalists and religious nationalists. You seriously believe they really understand and know what those writings are? You do not see any resemblances? I sigh and shake my head, since people are lazy to match the jindai moji with the jiaguwen, I will do a brief and quick proof in the following:





Please tell me again if shall you not seeing any resemblances? Am I saying the Japanese scholars do not know what they claim? Aye, indeed I am! Am I saying the Japanese academia lied? Aye, indeed I am!

Are you sure?
I can also say that they look like the Phoenician Alphabet. Just because they look alike does not mean that they are related. Only if they share a kind of sound or meaning resemblance.

And also I cannot recognize the Jiaguwen. The first one is like a 它 and I can only recognise a few 口 in the second one. Can you explain a bit?

Any theories can never be sure of anything because, to be sure is to deny and to dismiss all other possibilities. However, I am firm upon my theory.



Indeed you can but, in historical linguistics we have to consider the geographical facts. To claim that the Phoenicians influenced the Ancient Japanese is not impossible, but it is improbable. Whilst the Ancient Chinese influence theory introduced by me, although can be overthrown, it is much more probable than the Phoenician theory.



I am voicing the jindai moji is a form of jiaguwen of which, they are logographs that do not register sounds. If shall we base everything on sounds, the jiaguwen would not have been deciphered and, those new ancient writings found in Shandong will never be known as the Chinese language.



在那些甲骨文字中，根本就沒有它字與口字。 那些甲骨文中有：玄，山，川，非，心，天，羽...等眾字。

If I am misrepresenting your approach, please correct me. It seams from the picture you posted, you are inferring that the Jainguwen is a composite of the Jindaimoji. If that is the case, then wouldn't it stand to reason that JindaiMoji came first (in order to be available to create the composite)?
Further, it would also infer that the X and H and U and Δ would add some sort of phonetic element or meaning to the composite character you listed otherwise why have a composite?
By the same reasoning, couldn't one make the claim that Ugaritic is actually the precursor to Sumerian because the Ugaritic elements are found in Sumerian? Shall I go on ad absurdium?

Your theory of composites is not unique....Clyde Ahmed Winters proposed the theory that the Olmec script evolved from the Mende script in Africa back in the late 1990s. However, he ignored pertinent facts such as Mende script is not ancient and most likely came about because of contact with the VAI in the mid 1800's and that his linguistic methodology could not be duplicated after the discovery of more Olmec script items.

On the surface, the RongoRongo script "looks" very similar to the Indus Valley script, but only fringe elements still think they are related.


kaenif is right.....no you can't. Idea diffusion / influence is far more likely than one script being secretly buried within another. Read GELB, read Daniels, read Bright if you want to make claims regarding Grammatology (not historical linguistics as that doesn't deal with glyphs but with evolution of the language, grammar and phonology).

Some people are still firm upon the theory that the world is flat because that's the way it looks to them. Likewise it's OK for you to be firm in your theory regarding Jindaimoji and the Oracle Bone script, but for those of us "grammatological round earthers", just telling us the earth is flat without any demonstrable proof is no different than the Koshintoists saying Jindaimoji was brought to the land of the rising sun by Amaterazu Oomikami.

Indeed, you totally misrepresented and misunderstood my stance and message.



Nope, that was not what I said. My message was jindaimoji is a style of jiaguwen of which, the jindaimoji simplified and dismembered then mix-n-match the original jiaguwen characters. Thus, the jiaguwen came first.



The composite writing style is an Ancient Chinese system which is still practised in chinese calligraphy where a group of words are written into one combined character. I suggest you reference some chinese calligraphies and jiaguwen.



It is possible but, not probable. In the field of linguistics, when you started to deny, you start to go blind.



in historical linguistics we have to consider the geographical facts. To claim that the Phoenicians influenced the Ancient Japanese is not impossible, but it is improbable. Whilst the Ancient Chinese influence theory introduced by me, although can be overthrown, it is much more probable than the Phoenician theory.

You have no idea of the Chinese ancient language do you? The writing is not based on phonologies.



Like I have said, I do not support the religious claims, nor do I side with your flat earth theories. Like Columbus, with insults and laughers from others, I will sail for the new world with those who dare to challenge. If shall I be wrong, then I am wrong; however, there is also a chance, that I am right.

I apologise for misrepresenting what I thought you were trying to say. But I do have to question if you have truly read anything I typed. I was sarcastically implying that you, yourself were promoting a linguistic "flat earth" theory. You do realize that..right?

Of course Jianguwen came first. Of course it is ancient. Of course many characters are composites; composed of elements (Bushu部首). Of course, for a large percentage of them, one element gives a hint to the meaning, and the other gives a hint to the reading. Of course, Kanji(漢字) greatly and profoundly influenced the the writing of East Asia (Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Xixia, Jurchen, Khitan, Lolo-yi, Naxi, Lisu, Miao, Yao...and a few more that I'm forgetting). These are not what I am in disagreement about. This is all common knowledge for anyone who has studied Kanji(漢字)....which I have done as I am fluent in Japanese. You are making straw man arguments.

What is being challenged is your claim about Jindaimoji, it's influence on Hangeul, and it's age. You haven't proven that Jindaimoji is ANCIENT nor have you proven its usage prior to the invention of Hangeul and the Imjin invasion (which undoubtedly brought the concept of Hangeul into view of the Japanese invaders). Historically, you have put the cart before the horse as I previously pointed out that Hangeul is recorded as having been developed in the 14~15th century and Jindaimoji did not come about until the 17th. How do you account for the time discrepancy? Please stick to these points and don't deflect to some other straw-man argument.