Jeisuke wrote:I was sarcastically implying that you, yourself were promoting a linguistic "flat earth" theory. You do realize that..right?
I often overlook sarcasms and fish for the deeper messages. After all, in a discussion, sarcastical remarks never yield as fruitful results. Unless, the result intented is to anger the other individual. The reason that, I claim to be promoting round earth
whilst you are on flat earth
(not as an insult to you
, please read-on before jump to conclusion) is, back in those days the flat earth
was well documented by academia
whilst Columbus has no proof what-so-ever for his round earth
Thus stated, my situation is just like Columbus. Was Columbus right? No
, he was wrong on many theories but
, he was right
about the round earth
. Hence, like I have advocated for myself: I can be wrong
but, I can also be right
. It is the risk I have to take one way or the other.
Jeisuke wrote:Of course many characters are composites; composed of elements (Bushu部首).
Actually, the bushu system
was not settled and standardrise until a much later time in the devolopement of the chinese writing system
. During the era of jiaguwen
, the bushu system
might be forming but, did not really existed in the writing system. Thus, the ancient composites are not bushu composites
of the modern characters.
Jeisuke wrote: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.
Indeed, they do. Such is how I based my researches upon.
Jeisuke wrote: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.
The writing systems of tangut
(xixia), khitan small-words
(naxi) were not influenced by the chinese writing-system
Jeisuke wrote: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).
I have already given the proof; however, you disagreed with my proofs and, that is your right to disagree. Columbus had many who disagreed with him and, that was that. I respect your views but, like you do not agree with me, I do not stand with you on your points. Each man to his own meat.
Jeisuke wrote: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.
I have stated more than once that, the so-called jindai moji
is just another form of jiaguwen
, have I not? Jiaguwen
is much more predated the hangeul
, is it not? The answer to both questions is, yes
. I believe I have made myself clear; however, to agree or to disagree, that is the right of every individual.
[quote="Jeisuke"]How do you account for the time discrepancy? Please stick to these points and don't deflect to some other straw-man argument.[quote="Jeisuke"]
I have already made myself clear more than once, especially in the abovementioned responses. You have the right to disagree and, I am not denying that right of yours; the same, as I have my own right to stand firm upon my own theories.
Since we have nothing
beneficial to share with each other, I remain on my original suggestion: call the topic a day until we have something beneficial to share with each other