Taishan/Thai Connection

[ruisha]

My ln-laws are from Taishan and speak a very different dialect of Cantonese than what I usually hear from Hong Kong/Canton (It is a form of Cantonese referred to as 'Sìyì (四邑粵語 Seiyap'), exemplified by the Taishan dialect (台山粵語)).

The strangest thing is: I understand some of the words because I spent a year in Thailand. Some of the words are straight from Thai! I speak Mandarin, which has absolutely no relation to Taishan, and understand nothing of that dialect except when these Thai-related words jump out at me! Like today. We were at dim sum and the waitress stated that I spoke Mandarin well, she responded in Cantonese/Taishan that I spoke 'bi ta geng'. Geng in Thai means 'proficient/able'. It is not a Mandarin word! So freaky.

From my research, the Taishan peoples were NOT the main immigrant group in Thailand - and there is no record of earlier groups migrating from Thailand.

What, if any, linguistic or cultural connection is there? There are too many common words between the two languages for this to be coincidental. Please also e-mail me with any information or links you have!

Ganxie 感谢 --

Ruisha

[WilsonFong]

Is the "geng" you're referring to 勁/劲? I know it's a commonly used word in Taishanese/Standard Cantonese that sorta has the same meaning as "awesome/powerful". But this word isn't exclusive to Cantonese. It's also in Mandarin, but more commonly used in words like 没劲儿, whereas in Cantonese you'll hear this character more in words like “勁抽/勁秋" which means powerful/excellent

And I wouldn't say Taishanese is very different from Standard Cantonese. The only difference between the two is that some of the tones, initials and commonly-used vocabulary are different.

[ruisha]

Hi, Wilson: I don't know which 'geng' since it was totally oral - but I know the meaning is 'awesome/powerful' (the same as in Thai). I am totally unfamiliar with it's use in Mandarin with this pronunciation, although I'm not a native speaker.

There are other examples over the years where these Thai-like words just stood out over the years - I wish I could remember them!

From everything I've read, Taishanese and 'standard' Hong Kong/Cantonese are not that dissimilar. However, here in NYC, no one really seems to understand Taishan at ALL if they speak Hong Kong Cantonese. They also don't even seem to recognize the dialect or place of Taishan (Toisan)! It does sound quite different to me, although not totally dissimilar.

Perhaps Taishanese is more common still in San Francisco, but in NYC it is mainly Hong Kong Cantonese and this is being 'challenged' by Fukienese.

All the best,

Ruisha

[anonymoose]

Sorry I can't say anything about Taishan dialect specifically, but I don't think it really should be that surprising if there are some similarities with Thai. Languages that are close geographically often influence each other. And "Thai" speaking regions are inextricably linked with China. Laotian, for example, is very similar to Thai, and Laos has a border with China. Dai language spoken by the ethnic Dai people in Yunnan is essentially a dialect of Thai. So you see, from this perspective, one could argue that Thai itself is spoken in China, even though it may not be the standard dialect heard on the streets of Bangkok. So if southern Chinese dialects have picked up some words from Thai, or indeed if Thai has picked up some word from Chinese, this is quite natural.

[Token_287]

You're absolutely right that there exists a high level of noticeable lexical (let alone syntactic) similarities between Thai and Cantonese/Taishanese. There's a pretty easy explanation for this: even though Thai is technically a member of the Tai-Kadai language family, and Chinese languages are all members of the Sino-Tibetan family, the exact relations of Tai-Kadai to other families (or indeed whether the family should in fact be a subgrouping of another family like Sino-Tibetan) is still hotly debated. What we know is that the historical homeland of Tai-Kadai lies in central and eastern parts of southern China, around the historical kingdoms of Yue and Chu, among other places. The spreading into Southeast Asia was a rather gradual process, with what would later become modern Thais (and other Tai-Kadai groups in the region) being pushed by population expansion by groups like the Chinese from their traditional home areas; Thais themselves only really reached the area now called Thailand between the 8th and 11th centuries, depending on how you count the groupings/what counts as historical Thailand. Although it's still debated, it would make sense that Thai and southern dialects of Chinese would have more similarities than Thai and other Chinese dialects, because either the languages have had more historical contact, or because, if Tai-Kadai does turn out to be related to Sino-Tibetan languages, the languages of the Chinese language group which would be most likely to resemble Thai would be the more phonologically conservative southern dialects. Given that Thai (and other members of the Tai-Kadai family) maintains a more complicated phonology similar to Middle Chinese spoken at the time that they would have been making their migration from China, aspects of which are better maintained in say Cantonese than Mandarin, this makes sense. Interestingly, as some other posters have mentioned, there are still Tai-Kadai languages spoken in China, Dai being one famous one, and Zhuang, supposedly China's largest minority language, being the most prominent. (And where is Zhuang spoken? Surprise surprise, eastern and central south China/esp Guangxi province; it's also the second largest Tai-Kadai language by number of speakers).

For the above reasons, I think learning Thai as a Chinese speaker is really easy; the grammar (esp syntax and wordbuilding) operate on very similar principles, the phonology isn't that different, and there's definitely a lot of similar words (laaeo-"le," in both its preterite and currently relevant state functions; mai/mei2 "not", etc). I still remember how much I freaked out when I learned to count and realized the numbers were almost the same as in Cantonese, not that I speak Cantonese.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling answer, I hope this helps.

[trien27]

You're absolutely right that there exists a high level of noticeable lexical (let alone syntactic) similarities between Thai and Cantonese/Taishanese.

I'm sure there's many exceptions to this: Chinese people are EVERYWHERE?! They migrated first to Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, & Indonesia, which collectively is called "南洋". Due to trade, etc... there would be loans of common everyday words. There's a place where a mixture of Chinese & Russian is used.

It's not common for Chinese dialects to be borrowed into other languages: A lot of Cantonese speakers immigrated to New York bringing their Taishanese/Toisan dialect with them. In those early days, saying "Cantonese" = the same as saying "Toisanese", not "Guangzhou hua" or "Cantonese spoken in Hong Kong [Cantonese + Chinglish + English]". A lot of Fujianese people traveled to "南洋" and brought with them their dialects, so that's why you see some Fujianese words in Bahasa Melayu [Malaysian + some Fujianese + Arabic + English] & Singaporean languages [Fujianese+Mandarin+English+Cantonese].

Thai numbers and those in Chinese dialects are totally different. But I did find this:

http://www.apex.net.au/~jgk/taishan/people.html

And also this: ".... some of the Hakka words

resemble Toisanese words such as the word for "man", "gold", "salt",

"drink" and others as well that is unrecognizable to a person who speaks

standard Cantonese."

Source: http://www.asiawind.com/pub/forum/fhakka/mhonarc/msg00452.html

From above: Are the words for "man, gold, salt & drink, etc..." in Thai pronounced the same as in Toisanese, which it says here are Hakka words?!

I still remember how much I freaked out when I learned to count and realized the numbers were almost the same as in Cantonese

That's most likely that they were borrowed from Cantonese?!

The Cantonese word for "three", sam, is borrowed into Korean [http://www.lifeinkorea.com/language/korean.cfm?subject=numbers] also, not just in Thai [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/thai.htm]!

Edited April 11, 2010 at 05:29 PM by trien27

[renzhe]

Keep in mind that roughly 50% of the Bangkok population have some sort of Chinese ancestry.

The Cantonese word for "three", sam, is borrowed into Korean

Source?

BTW, "sam" in Korean is ordinal, it means "third", the Korean word for "three" is "set".

[chrix]

Just one thing here: Thai and Lao are often considered to be dialects of the same language.

Also:

Thai, like Vietnamese, was thought to be a Chinese language until fairly recently, but linguistic research seems to have established now direction that they are in fact members of different language families, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic respectively, that have been heavily influenced by Chinese languages due to long language contact. Any connection beyond Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic with Sino-Tibetan will be very hard to prove due to the limitations of the comparative method and thus any linguistic theory proclaiming that there are definitive links should be approached with the utmost caution...

[Token_287]

That half of Bangkok's population is Chinese explains, for example, why the Chinese word for "chair" has been borrowed into Thai, as there were few "above the ground" seating arrangements before the time of opening up and large-scale migration of Chinese to Thailand. It doesn't really explain, though, deeper lexical similarities which at the same time are distinct enough to represent a related but separate evolution; I believe this is the case with Thai and Cantonese numbers.

Take a look:

Thai (I'm transliterating with an eye to general pronunciation, but as people who have studied Thai will well know, there's not one transliteration method)

1. Neung low

2. Soong rising

3. Sam rising

4. Sii low

5. Haa falling

6. Hok low

7. Jet low (J=unvoiced unaspirated /ch/ sound)

8. Bpaairt low (bp=unaspirated p, aair sounds like a longer version of a from "cat")

9. Gao falling

10. Sip low

11. Sip low et low

12. Sip low soong rising

20. Yi falling sip low.

Cantonese:

1. Yat1

2. Yi6

3. Saam1

4. Sei3

5. Ng5

6. Luk6

7. Chat1

8. Baat3

9. Gau2

10. Sap6

11. Sap6yat1

12. Sap6yi6

20 Yi6Sap6

As you can see from comparing the two lists, the overall structure of numbers (especially numbers above 10, where both languages' numbers become compounds) is the same. Many of the numbers from 1-10 are extremely similar but distinct; I believe we can separate them into three groups. Group one is nearly the same but for slight vowel and consonant alterations, as in the respective words for 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Group two are similar if one takes historical sound changes into account: /ng/ in many older Chinese dialects became /h/ or /w/ initial in later dialects (c.f. Cantonese 'ngo' and Mandarin 'w'); if Tai-Kadai were related to Sino-Tibetan languages, it's reasonable to assume that similar changes might occur. /L/ is often also substituted for /h/, though this is a less commonly seen change. Numbers 5 and 6 reflect this grouping. The final group shows little similarity, specifically numbers 1 and 2. But, if you look at higher number combinations in Thai that yield 11 and 20, you can see that, rather than reflecting the lower numbers 1 and 2 unique to Thai, the units for one in "Sip et" and for two in "Yi sip" reflect what are most likely older number forms that more resemble the respective Cantonese numbers "Yat" and "Yi". The reason I had "freaked out" when I realized they were so similar is exactly because Sino-Tibetan and Tai-Kadai are classified to be distinct language families, but that such similarities based on easily observable historical changes suggest that the languages are related, especially when one takes into account the relative rarity with which languages borrow basic cardinal numbers from each other (not that this never happens, but the wholesale borrowing of such things is not seen very often).

Trien_27,

You're wrong that Cantonese numbers (or any other Chinese number system) were directly borrowed into Thai. The above are close enough to show perhaps some historical relation, but are distinct enough that, even taking into account differences in Thai and Cantonese phonology which might have led Thais to "mispronounce" Cantonese numbers, the more likely situation is that they're related but have separated over time. This is born out by the fact that large scale Chinese migration to Thailand only began about mid-19th century (previous migrations had been less intensive), and so if the numbers had been directly borrowed, you'd expect the numbers to not have diverged quite as much as they have. Your reference to Korean is misguided; Korean possesses two basic sets of cardinal numbers, one of native Korean origin, and one of Chinese origin. My understanding is that each system is used to count objects whose etymological origins are the same as that number set (i.e., Chinese objects tend to be counted with Chinese based numbers, Korean objects tend to be counted by Korean based numbers). While this is certainly an odd situation, even in this case, Korean numbers were not completely supplanted by Chinese numbers, rather, they merely serve to compliment them. Thai has a similar situation with the first three Sanskrit numbers "ek, do, tiin," (c.f. Hindi), which are used to show, among other things, degrees or rankings ("First Sergeant x" would probably use the word "Ek" for "First"). Though the use of these numbers is no where near as extensive as Chinese numbers in Korean, no one would say that Thai is related to Sanskrit, even if there has been lots of borrowing from the latter to the former.

[Token_287]

Chrix,

I agree with you that Austro-Asiatic and Tai-Kadai have not been shown to be Sino-Tibetan (especially in the case of Vietnamese, similarities between Vietnamese and Chinese are certainly due to language contact alone), Tai-Kadai is still being debated; I don't believe Tai-Kadai to be related to Chinese languages directly, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was another branch under Sino-Tibetan. At present though, this is difficult to show through historical comparative method, as you noted. There are certainly large similarities in terms of syntax and morphology even beyond lexical similarities, though such similarities aren't always indications of genetic relation.

[Ah-Bin]

Token 287's response is based on real academic research. What he/she has written are basically the same conclusions you'll actually find in the writings of people who spend (or spent) their lives researching the relationships between Sinitic and Kam-Tai and Austroasiatic. (Li Fang-kuei, Anne Yue-Hashimoto etc.)

I decided to remove my mean comment about someone else's post.....

Edited April 12, 2010 at 08:11 PM by Ah-Bin

[xiaocai]

"Mandarin, which has absolutely no relation to Taishan"

I think the relation between Mandarin and Taishan is much much closer than that between Thai and Taishan...

[Hofmann]

I'm transliterating with an eye to general pronunciation, but as people who have studied Thai will well know, there's not one transliteration method

There are at least 2: Royal Thai General System of Transcription and IPA.

It is surprising, though, that almost all general use numerals are Sinitic. I wonder if there were ever native Thai numerals.

[chrix]

yes, there were, and the Sinitic numerals are most likely borrowed. Don't have the reference handy, but I'll look it up.

[Shi Tong]

Japanese borrows from Mandarin, Hakka, Cantonese and Wu [shanghainese] and possibly Fujianese too.

As far as I'm aware, the fujianese spoken in Taiwan for 1-10 is very similar to the Japanese;

1: yi

2: ji

3: sa

4: xi

5: gou

6: la

7: qi

8: bue

9: gao

10: zap

11: zapi

Also, the Taiwanese natives (not the hakka/ Hanren, but the actual natives who live in the mountains) apparently speak various dialects which are indonesian and can still be understood if Taiwanese natives and Indonesians meet.

Interestingly

[chrix]

no, they're not Indonesian dialects they all speak languages that are part of the Austronesian language family.

And the languages are related but so far away that most definitely there's no chance of being understood, except for certain numbers...

[Ah-Bin]

It is true that if you count one to five in Malay or Indonesian, or even Maori most Formosan Aboriginals will understand at least that you are counting.

With some words they get surprised, like "What? How come you know words in our language?" Telu, lima, and apuy (three, five, and fire)

It's harder to do with Atayal people, they seem to have the most different words.

I think Shi Tong meant "Austronesian", but even so, a couple of words that are similar is a lot different from actually being able to understand each other.

[chrix]

lima is quite ok, but 1, 2, 3 (satu, dua, tiga) in Malay are already quite anomalous, as are 7, 8, 9. So 4, 5, 6, not a big rate (satu is obviously related to sa/se in Proto-Austronesian, but dua is a loan from Sanskrit and tiga is anomalous).

[Shi Tong]

no, they're not Indonesian dialects they all speak languages that are part of the Austronesian language family.

That may be so, but I read a news article talking about Taiwanese natives from a certain tribe meeting with (Indonesian.. may have been somewhere else because my memory of this article may not be perfect) people and being able to converse fluently.

I understand that if that's only 1 tribe, it's only 1 tribe, but it still gives a relation between the two in this instance. Also, I'm not as blinkered to think that because 1 tribe happens to speak some form of Indonesian, that it means they "all" do, but clearly in this instance there was.

The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian peoples, with linguistic and genetic ties to other Austronesian ethnic groups, such as peoples of the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Madagascar and Oceania (Hill et al. 2007; Bird, Hope & Taylor 2004).

[xiaocai]

Yes they are related languages for sure, but I think chrix's point was that Taiwanese Aborigines may not be very happy if you call their own languages "Indonesian dialects", since they are not Indonesian after all.