Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes the Dai might be similar to the Viets because a lot of Viets did come from Southern Chinese. The Southern Han are a mix of these peoples and those who conquered them.
Isn't "Vietnamese" is the term refering to nationality as well as "Thai". These terms isn't about ethnic.
Majority of Vietnamese are ethnic Mon-Khmer "Kinh" (86%) and majority of Thai are ethnic Tai-Kadai "Dai/Tai" (75%).
So it is wrong to say that Dai (which is ethnic) look like Viet (which is nationality). Viet (nationality) are made up by many ethnics such as Kinh/Khmer/Cham/Chinese and there is no way that all of them will look like a single ethnic.
Isn't "Vietnamese" is the term refering to nationality as well as "Thai". These terms isn't about ethnic.
Majority of Vietnamese are ethnic Mon-Khmer "Kinh" (86%) and majority of Thai are ethnic Tai-Kadai "Dai/Tai" (75%).
So it is wrong to say that Dai (which is ethnic) look like Viet (which is nationality). Viet (nationality) are made up by many ethnics such as Kinh/Khmer/Cham/Chinese and there is no way that all of them will look like a single ethnic.
Mon-Khmer and Tai-Kadai are language groups not ethnic groups. Obviously, I'm referring to Kinh: as for Thais, it's complex, let's just say Central Thais, who are a mix of Dai and earlier groups, maybe Mon, Khmer, Austro-Asiatics...of course a lot of Central Thais are mixed with Chinese.
By the way, you didn't answer my comparison of Hungary and the Czech Republic with Sri Lanka. Just because Hungarians doesn't speak an Indo-European language obviously doesn't mean they're genetically more distant from Czechs than Sinhalese.
Mon-Khmer and Tai-Kadai are language groups not ethnic groups. Obviously, I'm referring to Kinh: as for Thais, it's complex, let's just say Central Thais, who are a mix of Dai and earlier groups, maybe Mon, Khmer, Austro-Asiatics...of course a lot of Central Thais are mixed with Chinese.
By the way, you didn't answer my comparison of Hungary and the Czech Republic with Sri Lanka. Just because Hungarians doesn't speak an Indo-European language obviously doesn't mean they're genetically more distant from Czechs than Sinhalese.
Perhistory Hangarian people were known as nomad people. So it basically means that they may not originally from where they actaully located today.
Quote:
It is thought that Hungarian separated from its closest relatives approximately 3000 years ago, probably in the vicinity of the Urals,[9] so the history of the language begins around 1000 BC. The Hungarians gradually changed their way of living from settled hunters to nomadic cattle-raising, probably as a result of early contacts with Iranian nomads. Their most important animals included sheep and cattle. There are no written resources on the era, thus only a little is known about it. However, research has revealed some extremely early loanwords, such as szó ('word'; from the Turkic languages) and daru ('crane', from the related Permic languages.)
A small number of anthropologists disputed this theory. Among others, Hungarian historian and archaeologist Gyula László claims that geological data from pollen analysis seems to contradict placing the ancient homeland of the Magyars near the Urals,[10] however the growing number of archaeological evidences from present-day southern Bashkortostan found in the previous decades confirms the existence of Hungarian settlements between the Volga river and Ural Mountains.
Based on the source it said that the ancient homeland of Hangarian were in Volga river and Ural Mountains which are located in Russia and not in Europe.
Map of langauge/ethnic families
Also for term "Indo-European" it is seem to be broad family where there are 5 more of supfamilies inside it. Which are Armenian/Indic/Iranian/Slavic/other European.
For Czech Republic and Sri lanka, It is true that both are in main family of Indo-European but they are in different subfamily. Czech Republic is Slavic and Sri lanka is both Indic and Dravidian.
So it is obviously that these terms aren't seem to only refering about langauge. They are also refering about ethnic and where people actually originated too. People who are considered to be same family 90% of the time are shared common root together
I agree you. Finnish is Europeans with rate highest blonde hairs in the world but their language is Asian. Yes, languge isn't race.
Well Finnish is considered as "Uralic" and "Uralic" isn't an Asian language. "Uralic" language have origin from
Ural Mountains which are located in Eastern Russia.
I'm referring to Kinh: as for Thais, it's complex, let's just say Central Thais, who are a mix of Dai and earlier groups, maybe Mon, Khmer, Austro-Asiatics...of course a lot of Central Thais are mixed with Chinese.
Another thing is can you explane what make "Thai" more complex than "Vietnamese"?
It is true that in Center Thailand people are generally mixed of Dai/Chinese and a few Khmer. For Vietnamese let say Center Vietnamese, they are totally mixed of Kinh/Khmer/Hoa(Chinese) and a few Cham(Malay). So what makes Thai more "complex" than Vietnamese?
This is one of the example that I said ealier that you alway giving exception about mixing of Vietnamese, while pointing out mixing of Thai.
Based on the source it said that the ancient homeland of Hangarian were in Volga river and Ural Mountains which are located in Russia and not in Europe.
Map of langauge/ethnic families
Also for term "Indo-European" it is seem to be broad family where there are 5 more of supfamilies inside it. Which are Armenian/Indic/Iranian/Slavic/other European.
For Czech Republic and Sri lanka, It is true that both are in main family of Indo-European but they are in different subfamily. Czech Republic is Slavic and Sri lanka is both Indic and Dravidian.
So it is obviously that these terms aren't seem to only refering about langauge. They are also refering about ethnic and where people actually originated too. People who are considered to be same family 90% of the time are shared common root together
Genetic tests of the Hungarian people reveal they have very limited Asian admixture. The peoples of the Urals were originally quite Asiatic in appearance, like Siberians or Arctic peoples. Indeed the Buryats of Russia are the only ethnic group that is predominantly Buddhist in Europe! So while a small group of invaders might have brought along some cultural imports like language, it's quite obviously that culturally Hungarians are far more like their neighbours that the indigenous peoples of Russia. The same can be said of Turkish people. They obviously look more Greek or Levantine than Central Asian like the Turkic peoples. The shift of Celtic culture might also have been more cultural. In the same way, we can see how say the Manchus who conquered China adopted Han Chinese culture and were totally absorbed. Now the mighty Manchu language is nearing extinction! Ethnicity and language do not always correlate. A further example are the coastal tribes of Papua New Guinea. These are Papuan peoples who speak Austronesian languages but who are genetically totally distinct from Polynesians. Need I go on?
Also in the case of Vietnamese and S.Chinese, a lot of the mixing occurred before there were even such things as Mon-Khmer or Sino-Tibetan...these are, remember, human classifications and are still the subjective classifications of human beings...before Tai-Kadai was part of Sino-Tibetan too. 8,000 years ago there was likely a proto language, like proto IE, in China/SE Asia that branched off into different families.
Another thing is can you explane what make "Thai" more complex than "Vietnamese"?
It is true that in Center Thailand people are generally mixed of Dai/Chinese and a few Khmer. For Vietnamese let say Center Vietnamese, they are totally mixed of Kinh/Khmer/Hoa(Chinese) and a few Cham(Malay). So what makes Thai more "complex" than Vietnamese?
This is one of the example that I said ealier that you alway giving exception about mixing of Vietnamese, while pointing out mixing of Thai.
Well you're the one going by language = ethnicity, since you claim that language always defines genetics...in that case, Vietnamese has less liguistic diversity than Thailand. 90% of Vietnamese speak Vietnamese. Only 20 million or 1/3 of Thais speak 'Thai' as a first language! That's right, the majority of people in Thailand do not actually speak the language known as Thai. Another 20 million speak Isan, which is pretty much a dialect of Lao. Then you have Malays, and the various minority groups. Northern Thai is pretty different. So Thailand is less homogenous than Vietnam in that sense.
Like I've said, however, while language is a guide sometimes it is totally misleading when trying to determine the origin's of a people. I gave you countless examples. I myself say there are many different Vietnamese looks. First off, central Vietnam was actually never Khmer, that's south Vietnam. It was Champa. I have seen some individuals with very distinct looks in Nha Trang, one man looked almost Indian but he was very unique. I don't know his background either. Chinese mixture would be most common in the coastal parts, especially Hue and Hoi An. For a time Hoi An was dominated by Chinese merchants and even Japanese merchants, and many of the prominent local families are of mixed Sino-Vietnamese ancestry. There were even Europeans living in Faifo (Hoi An) so there are probably people with mixed Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese backgrounds.
Genetic tests of the Hungarian people reveal they have very limited Asian admixture. The peoples of the Urals were originally quite Asiatic in appearance, like Siberians or Arctic peoples. Indeed the Buryats of Russia are the only ethnic group that is predominantly Buddhist in Europe! So while a small group of invaders might have brought along some cultural imports like language, it's quite obviously that culturally Hungarians are far more like their neighbours that the indigenous peoples of Russia. The same can be said of Turkish people. They obviously look more Greek or Levantine than Central Asian like the Turkic peoples. The shift of Celtic culture might also have been more cultural. In the same way, we can see how say the Manchus who conquered China adopted Han Chinese culture and were totally absorbed. Now the mighty Manchu language is nearing extinction! Ethnicity and language do not always correlate. A further example are the coastal tribes of Papua New Guinea. These are Papuan peoples who speak Austronesian languages but who are genetically totally distinct from Polynesians. Need I go on?
Also in the case of Vietnamese and S.Chinese, a lot of the mixing occurred before there were even such things as Mon-Khmer or Sino-Tibetan...these are, remember, human classifications and are still the subjective classifications of human beings...before Tai-Kadai was part of Sino-Tibetan too. 8,000 years ago there was likely a proto language, like proto IE, in China/SE Asia that branched off into different families.
What you are talking about are something like mixing and influence case ,but what I was talking about is "original root".
Hungarians are influenced culturally by their current neighbours, for genetic they could also mixing with their currently neighbours too, which is created modern day Hungarian. So what do know about ancient Huangarian? The source telling that they are nomadic people which definitely mean they don't from where they are located today. We all know that nomad could just traval thousand miles away from their original home land. So definiately if they are condiered to be Uralic, they much have shared same "common root" with other Uralic ethnics. Think aboout it, how could people who currently located so far away from one another are placed into same family if they don't share common root at some point of the time?
Well you're the one going by language = ethnicity, since you claim that language always defines genetics...in that case, Vietnamese has less liguistic diversity than Thailand. 90% of Vietnamese speak Vietnamese. Only 20 million or 1/3 of Thais speak 'Thai' as a first language! That's right, the majority of people in Thailand do not actually speak the language known as Thai. Another 20 million speak Isan, which is pretty much a dialect of Lao. Then you have Malays, and the various minority groups. Northern Thai is pretty different. So Thailand is less homogenous than Vietnam in that sense.
Like I've said, however, while language is a guide sometimes it is totally misleading when trying to determine the origin's of a people. I gave you countless examples. I myself say there are many different Vietnamese looks. First off, central Vietnam was actually never Khmer, that's south Vietnam. It was Champa. I have seen some individuals with very distinct looks in Nha Trang, one man looked almost Indian but he was very unique. I don't know his background either. Chinese mixture would be most common in the coastal parts, especially Hue and Hoi An. For a time Hoi An was dominated by Chinese merchants and even Japanese merchants, and many of the prominent local families are of mixed Sino-Vietnamese ancestry. There were even Europeans living in Faifo (Hoi An) so there are probably people with mixed Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese backgrounds.
So now you are talking about dialect lol??
20 milions of Thai nationality speak Thai/Tai as first langauge lol ? What you are talking about is dialect and not the langauge itself and that 20 millions is represent to the dialect of Center Thailand.
Another thing is Issan and Northern are also count under Thai/Tai , all kinda of Tai-Kadai count under Thai/Tai. So definitely when we count all first langauge speakers of Thai/Tai/Tai-Kadai in Thailand, They definitely made up over 80%. Only Chinese/Malay/Khmer and a few minority are actaully speak something else as first langauge those aren't fall under Thai/Tai/Tai-Kadai.
You tried to point out differnt dialect in different areas in Thailand (which most of them are actually count as Thai(Tai) except Khmer/Malay and something those aren't Tai-Kadai) but you are claiming that all Vietnamese speak only one dialect for the whole country? lol?? I doubt that, becasue Vietnamese also have different dialect depend on area. They have Northern/Southern and such.
So based on what you claim by saying that Center Thai dialect is different from Northern/Issan Thai dialect that is alredy like saying Northern Vietnamese dialect is different from Southern Vietnamese dialect.
You obviously alway giving exception when Vietnamese are different, while alway pointing out when Thai are different. I kinda think you have agenda now.
Last edited by Ezio_Auditore; 08-25-2013 at 03:01 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
