Veteranewbie
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 402
haha derived, ha thats the word, stupid me
Chinese knight
- Thread starter civclub
- Start date
Tavenier
King
One is talking about the same language if the only difference is the pronounciation. Just like the the difference between an American and an Englishman saying "I can't dance".
If their are completely different words and grammar in it then it is a different language, like Frisian in the Netherlands. In the past their used to be different forms of Dutch, but since the 19th century it is decided by law that Harlem-Dutch is the standard Dutch. Ever since that is the language which is heard on radio or TV and taught on schools. Holland is too small for individual groups to keep their own language.
I did forgot to mention one form of Dutch which is quite different from standard Dutch. And that is the form of Dutch spoken in Belgium. 55% of Belgium speaks Flemmish. That is just Dutch, but in the cause of history it has changed into quite another language, I think. For Flanders it is arguable if we are talking about a language or a dialect.
Actually, Xen you are wrong, the most current mid 2003 estimates put India at 1.068 billion people and China at 1.288 billion. By the way the US population is 291 million out of a total world population of 6.3 billion (est. mid 2003).
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Tavernier: You're aware that the differences between American and British English are not confined to pronunciation, are you? There's lexical and morphosyntactical differences too. I'd be surprised if there's not such also between different varieties of Dutch. And the presence of such differences certainly isn't necessarily enough to motivate considering those varieties different languages.
The split 'tween Dutch and Frisian was centuries ago. Linguists divide the West Germanic languages into one subgroup containing Dutch and German (and Yiddish), and one containing Frisian, English and Scots. (These are genetic groupings - it does not say that Frisian sounds more like English than like Dutch.)
Again, I do not know what grounds the aforementioned scholars have for consider Dutch a whole group of related languages. The majority opinion certain is that it's one or two (depending on how you count Flemish).
The split 'tween Dutch and Frisian was centuries ago. Linguists divide the West Germanic languages into one subgroup containing Dutch and German (and Yiddish), and one containing Frisian, English and Scots. (These are genetic groupings - it does not say that Frisian sounds more like English than like Dutch.)
Again, I do not know what grounds the aforementioned scholars have for consider Dutch a whole group of related languages. The majority opinion certain is that it's one or two (depending on how you count Flemish).
Bluemofia
F=ma
true, Ninjas fight with stealth, and ambush. they are experts in assasinations. in TETkurman's map it has a bit of info on ninjas in the civpedia entry.
Communsim borrows some ideals from Roman culture- nothing that realyl directlyl correlates to communsim persay, but to say that Roman culture has no influence is false, even some of the basic concepts- such as the entire concept of prlitareint (SP) class of workers is a Roman concept
i never said latin was preserved in full in a modern language did I? no, i didntm but fact is, latin has left such a huge mark on modern speech. its silly to even try to argue it- its a fact, latin has left a huge mark on even non latin based languages, and forms the base of Spanish, and french, two languages that are in huge use alone, Spanish being trhe primary language of many nations, and french being a second language to others
Roman law, Roman government, Roman virtues, Roman values, Roman dress styles Ti-shirts and bell bottoms- yes, the bell bottom pants are a Roman development- late Roman infantrymen apperentlyl made use of them- although, its re-develop[ment seems to have been indipendent of rome
) and many other things as well 
indeed, Roman life is very alive and well, but in form adapted to modern cutture- what more, alot of it just sort of re-developed without haveing a direct link with ancient Roman traditios (take modern US bloodsport, like wrestiling, and boxing (neither of which i actually like, well, boxing is an exeption, but it has a long tradition, and isnt as barbaric as wrestiling- and I'm talking "pro" wrestiling, not greco-roman wrestling)as it is, "Gothic" relates to a type of architecture, most middleage germainc development being made not by the goths, or a people of the gothic culture at all, not to mention the fact that all in all, it it didnt have to much of an impact outside the arts anyway
actually, there is a surprisinglyl strong following of the ancient roman religion- i myself am a practitioner of it
a Roman marrage is actually alot like a modern wedding then you migth think- if one had a ceremony, there was no rice throwing like todayl, but there were little peices of chopped nuts, the bride traditionally wore white, and wore a veil, rings were exchanged, and so on and so forthOriginally posted by Veteranewbie
Modern Western building are mainly skyscrapers, even of European buildngs like Cathedrals, or the Big Ben in England, they are not Roman style building.
Music wise, I would like to be told that hip-hop is Roman music
Living habit wise, I have yet to see a roman marriage.
there is evidence that pasta was in italy long before marco-polo- it is related that it was not uncommon for legionaries to give up eating red meat, and take up th eeating of pasta, as red meat was "barbarian food"
post Civil War of 69, Vespasian has an official declaration of Emperor's powers, including how an emperor had to act under Roman law
good for them, but you expect to equal what Rome pioneered in 509 BCE with what that tang apperentlly did in the years between 618 and 906 CE? the origional Roman repuclic is the great example of a multi-tired government because it didnt rely on a single ruler- the people could make thier own laws- yes, towrds the end of the republic it had its pit falls- but if the reforms of Tiberius grachus had been passed i think a great deal of that stress would not have come about, though a few other reforms would have been needed to truelly iron everything out- but i'm biased in this case- generally, i dispise pure monarchies that dont give the citizens of the empire a say in the matter so fthe government, but I suppose the over all point is, a multi-tierd government in favor of the emperor, and not of the ruled is not exactley what i was trying to exemplify
thats not the poitn if they really are or not, and you know it- the point was that some person said that there was no one claiming to be roman since the fall of the western empire, a blantantlly false point if there ever was one
and if you count the Byzantine EMpire, a roman state has a continous, uniterrupted existence for 2206 years- Roman time isnt marked in dynasties
- ther eis also the little fact that the chou are a pre-Chinse state- they were conqoured by the chin, the creators of the first chinses state, but neither fo them count, for the modern chinese state is a descentdent of the post mongol state, if not a new construct in and of itselfyou clearlly do not relaize how close the modern U.S sytem of geverment is to the ancient Roman republic, and not just in form, but in function as well, how you could love your life without understanding such a thing is very beyond me
well, really you just took care of your own point didnt you- after all, if china has had no form of democratic government ever until the modern period, anyway, what your saying is clearlyl false- if it were true, then democracy would have been a far more common thing throughout history, wouldnt it?
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Exactly. Ninjas are assissins - you don't have armies of them.
Bluemofia
F=ma
but ninjas can assasinate the leaders of the roman legion, and then they turn chaotic, because the leaders are getting killed, and their sense of disipline breaks down. this is something like the snipers of WWI. the commanding officers stoped wearing identification stripes and stuff, so they will live longer.
this happend in several differnet wars against the claedonian/picts/ celtics peoples in northern Britain.modern scotland- the answer to this was simple- commend was just assumed by wither the next rank up, or the next rank down, as the officer core of legions actually goes FAR beyond the simple centurions, and standar bears people are taougth about in history class- and, as history shows, the chain of command, and following it worked superblly
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
And this proves what? Ninjas still aren't soldiers, and comparing ninjas to legions are still a laughable exercise.
On top of which the last Roman legion* was long gone when the first ninjas turned up.
* The last of what we normally understand under the term anyway. I don't know how long the actual term continued to be in use among the Eastern Romans - I'm sure Xen can enlighten us!
hard to say, in effect, the legion died with constantine, in a name well, the Romanic legions died out when the tagmatic system of the byzantine military fell out due to those ever greedy nobles, and rather incompitent rulers, who were afraid of thge military...
i assum ethe legions you talk abotu would be the earlt imperial type of legions, which i can assure you, would be able to withstand a great deal of ninja assualts
i assum ethe legions you talk abotu would be the earlt imperial type of legions, which i can assure you, would be able to withstand a great deal of ninja assualts
This goes back to Xen's post on page five. sorry it took so long, but RL has its dues. I've requoted below from this original.
"well first off, there is the obvious reflection of the Roman rule of law, and system of politics coming back into play"
Roman Politics of the Empire was autocratic rule at its worst. Transitions between rulers was often bloody and involved family members killing one another. In many cases it was the Praetorian Guard who selected the next Emperor.
Only if you were a Roman citizen, were you protected by Roman law. Rome was a slave based society that tolerated diversity among its population because it had to. The empire encompassed a very diverse group of people and cultures. But if you bucked the Roman system, they cracked down hard, without mercy (ie Jerusalem 70AD).
"and it is a firm government that can ensure a firm military"
Every two bit dictator and God anointed king from the rise of Sumer to Saddam Hussein has had a firm government with a firm military (until deposed by the next firm government). That is human and not Roman.
"but more importantly, take a look at al those uniforms- in form, and in function Europeans were striving to recreate the Roman legions, orderly blocks of infantry, with a prestigious and heroic commander at the front, shouting orders, and giving stern punishment- although nothing a severe a roman commander might have dealt when choosing a punishment for an infraction"
Roman military systems were only significant as long as they kept winning. Which they didnt. By the fall of the western empire in 576 AD their orderly formations could not withstand the modern tactics of the invaders. No army in Modern Europe (1648 to 1914) was trying to recreate the formations of the Roman legions. Commanders used the most appropriate formations for the weapons at hand. Hand to hand combat usually means a block formation. It doesnt matter if you are Roman, Greek, Persian, Chinese or Carthaginian. The adoption of Roman symbolism, like the French Eagles of Napoleon, were only stylistic and used to instill a willingness to fight for the regiment, the army, the Emperor and France. (At my most cynical: marketing). Even in ancient battles, generals rarely put themselves in harms way deliberately. They were smarter than that. They knew they were the leader and the army might not survive their death. There are exceptions. Alexander and Murat come to mind.
Marching in step was invented by the Greeks (hoplites) and improved by Phillip/Alexander (phalanx). The Romans built on that foundation, adopted the Spanish short sword and added their own twists over the years.
"and in culture, dear sir, do you forget what the ver renaissance itself was all about!?!"
The Renaissance was many things. Yes, it did involve Europes looking back to Greece and Rome and classical art and thinking. But it also encompassed the sciences, economics, and trade. At that time the Arab world was the leading storehouse of scientific knowledge. Much of Europes soon to appear industrial dominance was built on a foundation laid by Muslims, not Romans.
I think what you want to say Xen, is that the principles of republican and democratic government that were first codified in the cultures of ancient Rome and Greece were later adopted and adapted by philosophers and governments of western European nations. Theres no disagreement here.
"the difference is that western- and therefore roman- culture has overtaken all the world, and is nearly universal to a great extent now- Chinese and Japanese are, at best, and interesting departure from the norm for some people in the west, sometimes even spawning temporary fads- but in the end, as it always has, it loops back to a Roman cultural core"
Most of the world does not in any way live within a western culture. Just because Chinese women make Nike shoes doesnt mean they live a westernized lifestyle. Please dont be that naïve. Very little of the world is like Florida.
The current popularity of Western culture has nothing to do with any Roman heritage that lingers in the background. People respond to it because they believe that under a market system they can have more to eat, have more money to spend on things they want and will be less apt to be arrested and murdered in the middle of the night. Its not always true, but most of the world thinks so. For all its faults, the British Empire made this popularity possible. Its world reach implanted both English and market economy concepts everywhere. Television and satellites made it blossom. Blame it on TV. I am over simplifying here to make a point. Rome did not invent English, Rome did not invent the marketplace, Rome did not invent scientific inquiry. Rome did not invent Law. Rome did not invent the nation state. Rome did not invent the alphabet. Rome did not invent 0. Rome did not invent thinking. Rome did not invent innovation.
Whew!
"well first off, there is the obvious reflection of the Roman rule of law, and system of politics coming back into play"
Roman Politics of the Empire was autocratic rule at its worst. Transitions between rulers was often bloody and involved family members killing one another. In many cases it was the Praetorian Guard who selected the next Emperor.
Only if you were a Roman citizen, were you protected by Roman law. Rome was a slave based society that tolerated diversity among its population because it had to. The empire encompassed a very diverse group of people and cultures. But if you bucked the Roman system, they cracked down hard, without mercy (ie Jerusalem 70AD).
"and it is a firm government that can ensure a firm military"
Every two bit dictator and God anointed king from the rise of Sumer to Saddam Hussein has had a firm government with a firm military (until deposed by the next firm government). That is human and not Roman.
"but more importantly, take a look at al those uniforms- in form, and in function Europeans were striving to recreate the Roman legions, orderly blocks of infantry, with a prestigious and heroic commander at the front, shouting orders, and giving stern punishment- although nothing a severe a roman commander might have dealt when choosing a punishment for an infraction"
Roman military systems were only significant as long as they kept winning. Which they didnt. By the fall of the western empire in 576 AD their orderly formations could not withstand the modern tactics of the invaders. No army in Modern Europe (1648 to 1914) was trying to recreate the formations of the Roman legions. Commanders used the most appropriate formations for the weapons at hand. Hand to hand combat usually means a block formation. It doesnt matter if you are Roman, Greek, Persian, Chinese or Carthaginian. The adoption of Roman symbolism, like the French Eagles of Napoleon, were only stylistic and used to instill a willingness to fight for the regiment, the army, the Emperor and France. (At my most cynical: marketing). Even in ancient battles, generals rarely put themselves in harms way deliberately. They were smarter than that. They knew they were the leader and the army might not survive their death. There are exceptions. Alexander and Murat come to mind.
Marching in step was invented by the Greeks (hoplites) and improved by Phillip/Alexander (phalanx). The Romans built on that foundation, adopted the Spanish short sword and added their own twists over the years.
"and in culture, dear sir, do you forget what the ver renaissance itself was all about!?!"
The Renaissance was many things. Yes, it did involve Europes looking back to Greece and Rome and classical art and thinking. But it also encompassed the sciences, economics, and trade. At that time the Arab world was the leading storehouse of scientific knowledge. Much of Europes soon to appear industrial dominance was built on a foundation laid by Muslims, not Romans.
I think what you want to say Xen, is that the principles of republican and democratic government that were first codified in the cultures of ancient Rome and Greece were later adopted and adapted by philosophers and governments of western European nations. Theres no disagreement here.
"the difference is that western- and therefore roman- culture has overtaken all the world, and is nearly universal to a great extent now- Chinese and Japanese are, at best, and interesting departure from the norm for some people in the west, sometimes even spawning temporary fads- but in the end, as it always has, it loops back to a Roman cultural core"
Most of the world does not in any way live within a western culture. Just because Chinese women make Nike shoes doesnt mean they live a westernized lifestyle. Please dont be that naïve. Very little of the world is like Florida.
The current popularity of Western culture has nothing to do with any Roman heritage that lingers in the background. People respond to it because they believe that under a market system they can have more to eat, have more money to spend on things they want and will be less apt to be arrested and murdered in the middle of the night. Its not always true, but most of the world thinks so. For all its faults, the British Empire made this popularity possible. Its world reach implanted both English and market economy concepts everywhere. Television and satellites made it blossom. Blame it on TV. I am over simplifying here to make a point. Rome did not invent English, Rome did not invent the marketplace, Rome did not invent scientific inquiry. Rome did not invent Law. Rome did not invent the nation state. Rome did not invent the alphabet. Rome did not invent 0. Rome did not invent thinking. Rome did not invent innovation.
Whew!
Boy, this thread is getting hotter and hotter... thank god people are pretty self-control over here...
Now my turn to counter...
Quote Xen:
"but now its time to clear up what I mean by "there is no political connection"- alright,I say the period of disunity, AKA the three kingdoms era is the beginning, because at the time there were several indipendent states of the former han CHinese empire, of which only one was actually a legal descendent (and by that I mean a direct successor to the former Han empire)
but all of them wanted to cvlaim a rule over china, but, the real clencher is the Mongol Invasion, which severs the link between "pre' china, and modern China, politically- with a foriegn people in power, China could no longer claim to be the same state as it was from han times, and yes, even though the rulers eventually Siniscized, and were eventually repelled from the throne, all future rulers of China were stepping up to the state that the Mongols created, and not the state of the han, or previous dynasties"
You are still missing my point. So by your account, do you mean only if there is a "blood" connection between each successor than one can consider this as a political continution? So in today;s US where majority of the president is unrelated, would you say after each US general election, the connection is severed? Or perhaps in a broader sense, if the democrats replace the republicans, than there is no "political connection"??? And I still don't understand why mongol rule, which lasted less than 100 years in history, would severe the continuity. Perhaps you fail to understand that the mongols in china actually ADOPT the chinese way of ruling to rule china after it conquer the Sung dynasty... So all this back to my point, the figurehead may change, but what is important is the system, and to me, the mongols still use the Sung's (which can be traced back to pre-Hans) to rule china, so what is broken? And lastly, a bit of legend (and perhaps some truth), for all "true" descendent of Han Chinese people, we consider ourselves the descendent of Huang Ti (Yellow Emperor, legends have it that he has more than 100 children and thousands of grandchildren, and each of this "branch" out to given our surname, like Lee, Chan, Li, Zhu, Zao, etc etc), whom successfully unite the Yellow River Region and gave birth to the Chinese culture... Therefore there is a saying in chinese that 3000 years ago, we are probably within the same family. So using this analogy, one can even argue that emperor A establish dynasty A, which after few hundreds years, due to corruption, was replaced by emperor B and dynasty B, are actually "blood" relative?
"that is the inhereint flaw in the chinese military fo 9old- the only professional service men werent out in the feild guarding the borders of the empire, but at home guarding thier master, that said, there really werent all that many were there? compare this to the roman military, which had all of its serivce men as professional, full time, full trained soldires, including Auxilla, and with the exception of mercenaries, but considering mercenaries were full time troopers anyway, as they had taken it on as a profession, that point is rather null... there is also Sun Tzu- he wrote a good book, but as far as actually military works go, tacitus comes to mind as immedtaley being more to the point, and other Roman, and eventually byzantine military manulas, such as the "Strategicon" dot offerthe broad, rather elusive advice, sop prone to a persons self interpretaition that sun szu gives, but they get donw and dirty and say, "When counter attacking the persians, surround their camp at three sides, leaving the rout back to persia open, engage that Infantry, and force a shock, if you you can rout the infantry, the nobles will not stay, and the host will be routed back to persia" and other things along those lines, actually giving real combat strategems"
Time and time again I see in your post that because idea A arise in Roman Empire, although it is not applied during Roman Empire, and applied at a later date, you will say that it is influenced by Roman Empire... So by your own account, Art of War is the world first tactic book, and how can you be sure that the roman, or even the byzantine didn't actually come across this book and read it? After all, this book is written few hundreds year BEFORE the establishment of Roman Empire. So by your account, one can argue that this is a Chinese Influence....
And in your post, you probably sum up quite nicely that the Chinese don't employ elite troops. By our history account, the Chinese are fairly peaceful nation, that's why there is no need for professional soldiers. The half-peasant half-soldier system work well in china as defensive strategy, not as an aggressive invaders. Afterall, to defend behind a city wall, is there really a need for professional soldiers?
"the difference is that westerm- and therefore roman- culture has overtaken all the world, and is nearlly universal to a great extent now- chinese and japanese are, at best, and interesting departure from the norm for some people in the west, somtimes even spawning temporary fads- but in the end, as it always has, it loops back to a Roman culteral core"
In what ways has it always loop back to Roman Cultural Core??? And note your usage of the word "departure from the norm"... here is another classic example that the current English speaking world (and by your account Roman Empire descendent) attitude of: "comply with me or be destroyed". As i said in my last post, one need to learn to respect other cultures, which is clearly lacking from your statement here.
"actually, its Indian, as India surpassed chinas population about three years ago"
Make a search in BBC nation profile:
CHINA FACTS: Population: 1.3 billion (UN, 2003)
INDIA FACTS: Population: 1 billion (UN, 2003)
Again, check your facts first. Also, i wouldn't count that all indian people will known Hindi, but you can probably count on the fact that ALL chinese people (in china anyway) will known Mandarin. In fact, this is largely thanks to the fanatics amount of effort by Chairman Mao to make the whole population to comply with speaking mandarin, in addition to their "local dialects".
And by the way, i would like to point out that although there is a Chinese language, but one cannot SPEAK Chinese.... Instead, there are Mandarins, Cantonese, Hokkien, etc etc There are however a written Chinese language.
To Longsac: Thanks for the effort... i am probably still as confuse as before... my brain is too old now...
actually... it is too late at night, but my interest is definitely arouse now, will look it up in future, cheers!
A wiseman once said, you can never win an arguement/debate.
I think this is probably the case here. We are all grown-ups, or at least i hope we all are, you never know, in this cyber age...
I am not denying that Romans Empire has no influence in today's world, even the American Indians has their influence in the culture of US today, but this didn't prove anything. All my arguements is directed to highlike some errors and prejudice made in this thread. And for some of you, i can only sincerely hope that you will open your eyes to other cultures, to be tolerant, and perhaps even learn to appreciate them! Remember, Western culture may seems a dominant cuture for you here (afterall, this is the world you live in, and Earth IS really a big place), but for many millions others, they are an alien language and culture, and some may not even encounter throughout their whole life! And even if those that do encounter this, how can one be sure they will fully embrace it? And if all of us are all the same, the world will become a VERY dull place to live in. Let me give you an example, I live in UK, and already, i find it difficult to visit different places like liverpool, manchester, york, etc etc.... they may have different churches and cathedrals, but if one go into the town centre, it is the same old chain shops all over again, WHSmith, M&S, Virgin, HMV, Dixon, Tesco, etc etc... how boring... can you imagine living in a world where you live in US and visit India and find the local shops are exactly the same, do you still felt the urge to visit???? sigh.... maybe i talk too much... time to stop now... until next round...
Now my turn to counter...
Quote Xen:
"but now its time to clear up what I mean by "there is no political connection"- alright,I say the period of disunity, AKA the three kingdoms era is the beginning, because at the time there were several indipendent states of the former han CHinese empire, of which only one was actually a legal descendent (and by that I mean a direct successor to the former Han empire)
but all of them wanted to cvlaim a rule over china, but, the real clencher is the Mongol Invasion, which severs the link between "pre' china, and modern China, politically- with a foriegn people in power, China could no longer claim to be the same state as it was from han times, and yes, even though the rulers eventually Siniscized, and were eventually repelled from the throne, all future rulers of China were stepping up to the state that the Mongols created, and not the state of the han, or previous dynasties"
You are still missing my point. So by your account, do you mean only if there is a "blood" connection between each successor than one can consider this as a political continution? So in today;s US where majority of the president is unrelated, would you say after each US general election, the connection is severed? Or perhaps in a broader sense, if the democrats replace the republicans, than there is no "political connection"??? And I still don't understand why mongol rule, which lasted less than 100 years in history, would severe the continuity. Perhaps you fail to understand that the mongols in china actually ADOPT the chinese way of ruling to rule china after it conquer the Sung dynasty... So all this back to my point, the figurehead may change, but what is important is the system, and to me, the mongols still use the Sung's (which can be traced back to pre-Hans) to rule china, so what is broken? And lastly, a bit of legend (and perhaps some truth), for all "true" descendent of Han Chinese people, we consider ourselves the descendent of Huang Ti (Yellow Emperor, legends have it that he has more than 100 children and thousands of grandchildren, and each of this "branch" out to given our surname, like Lee, Chan, Li, Zhu, Zao, etc etc), whom successfully unite the Yellow River Region and gave birth to the Chinese culture... Therefore there is a saying in chinese that 3000 years ago, we are probably within the same family. So using this analogy, one can even argue that emperor A establish dynasty A, which after few hundreds years, due to corruption, was replaced by emperor B and dynasty B, are actually "blood" relative?
"that is the inhereint flaw in the chinese military fo 9old- the only professional service men werent out in the feild guarding the borders of the empire, but at home guarding thier master, that said, there really werent all that many were there? compare this to the roman military, which had all of its serivce men as professional, full time, full trained soldires, including Auxilla, and with the exception of mercenaries, but considering mercenaries were full time troopers anyway, as they had taken it on as a profession, that point is rather null... there is also Sun Tzu- he wrote a good book, but as far as actually military works go, tacitus comes to mind as immedtaley being more to the point, and other Roman, and eventually byzantine military manulas, such as the "Strategicon" dot offerthe broad, rather elusive advice, sop prone to a persons self interpretaition that sun szu gives, but they get donw and dirty and say, "When counter attacking the persians, surround their camp at three sides, leaving the rout back to persia open, engage that Infantry, and force a shock, if you you can rout the infantry, the nobles will not stay, and the host will be routed back to persia" and other things along those lines, actually giving real combat strategems"
Time and time again I see in your post that because idea A arise in Roman Empire, although it is not applied during Roman Empire, and applied at a later date, you will say that it is influenced by Roman Empire... So by your own account, Art of War is the world first tactic book, and how can you be sure that the roman, or even the byzantine didn't actually come across this book and read it? After all, this book is written few hundreds year BEFORE the establishment of Roman Empire. So by your account, one can argue that this is a Chinese Influence....
And in your post, you probably sum up quite nicely that the Chinese don't employ elite troops. By our history account, the Chinese are fairly peaceful nation, that's why there is no need for professional soldiers. The half-peasant half-soldier system work well in china as defensive strategy, not as an aggressive invaders. Afterall, to defend behind a city wall, is there really a need for professional soldiers?
"the difference is that westerm- and therefore roman- culture has overtaken all the world, and is nearlly universal to a great extent now- chinese and japanese are, at best, and interesting departure from the norm for some people in the west, somtimes even spawning temporary fads- but in the end, as it always has, it loops back to a Roman culteral core"
In what ways has it always loop back to Roman Cultural Core??? And note your usage of the word "departure from the norm"... here is another classic example that the current English speaking world (and by your account Roman Empire descendent) attitude of: "comply with me or be destroyed". As i said in my last post, one need to learn to respect other cultures, which is clearly lacking from your statement here.
"actually, its Indian, as India surpassed chinas population about three years ago"
Make a search in BBC nation profile:
CHINA FACTS: Population: 1.3 billion (UN, 2003)
INDIA FACTS: Population: 1 billion (UN, 2003)
Again, check your facts first. Also, i wouldn't count that all indian people will known Hindi, but you can probably count on the fact that ALL chinese people (in china anyway) will known Mandarin. In fact, this is largely thanks to the fanatics amount of effort by Chairman Mao to make the whole population to comply with speaking mandarin, in addition to their "local dialects".
And by the way, i would like to point out that although there is a Chinese language, but one cannot SPEAK Chinese.... Instead, there are Mandarins, Cantonese, Hokkien, etc etc There are however a written Chinese language.
To Longsac: Thanks for the effort... i am probably still as confuse as before... my brain is too old now...
actually... it is too late at night, but my interest is definitely arouse now, will look it up in future, cheers!A wiseman once said, you can never win an arguement/debate.
I think this is probably the case here. We are all grown-ups, or at least i hope we all are, you never know, in this cyber age...
I am not denying that Romans Empire has no influence in today's world, even the American Indians has their influence in the culture of US today, but this didn't prove anything. All my arguements is directed to highlike some errors and prejudice made in this thread. And for some of you, i can only sincerely hope that you will open your eyes to other cultures, to be tolerant, and perhaps even learn to appreciate them! Remember, Western culture may seems a dominant cuture for you here (afterall, this is the world you live in, and Earth IS really a big place), but for many millions others, they are an alien language and culture, and some may not even encounter throughout their whole life! And even if those that do encounter this, how can one be sure they will fully embrace it? And if all of us are all the same, the world will become a VERY dull place to live in. Let me give you an example, I live in UK, and already, i find it difficult to visit different places like liverpool, manchester, york, etc etc.... they may have different churches and cathedrals, but if one go into the town centre, it is the same old chain shops all over again, WHSmith, M&S, Virgin, HMV, Dixon, Tesco, etc etc... how boring... can you imagine living in a world where you live in US and visit India and find the local shops are exactly the same, do you still felt the urge to visit???? sigh.... maybe i talk too much... time to stop now... until next round...
Xen you have an intellectually unhealthy need for Roman purity. And its a bogus concept to begin with. Every culture, nation empire, or people of measureable significance in the world, have been mongrol. If they weren't they wouldn't have had any significant impact. It is the hybridizing process, the mixing of cultures and ideas that produces change and innovation. Rome, unlike Athena, did did not spring fully formed into the world. The great events in society, science and thinking occur not at the core, but at the edges where mixing with the outside is most likely.
The western fixation with Rome perhaps says more about a Western European need for roots than it does about any actual purely Roman cultural connection.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
If you're going to count people who learn Mandarin in school, you can add several hundred million to the number of English-speakers. And get all sorts of interesting boundary problems re: what kind of competence is required to count as a speaker of language X.
And by the way, i would like to point out that although there is a Chinese language, but one cannot SPEAK Chinese.... Instead, there are Mandarins, Cantonese, Hokkien, etc etc There are however a written Chinese language.
People who study Chinese for a living have told me that "modern written Chinese" is simply Mandarin reduced to writing. Native speakers of Cantonese have told me there is a written form of Cantonese, as well as of Shanghainese and several other Sinitic languages. So, I don't know exactly what I'm to make of your above statement.
Hey 135 posts, over 2052 reads, all in 4 days! I think Civclub deserves a round of applause for getting us all started. It was his third post so we have probably scared him half to death. Hang in there!
Amon Savag
The Great
The Ninja's were often used as ambushers durring the feuding states period of Japan...Although they were usually pretty slender,so that they could be quick.So smashing into the tower shields of the Roman infantry would be quite unintelligent,and therefor I wouldn't suggest it to anyone leading some ninja.
The Last Conformist:
"People who study Chinese for a living have told me that "modern written Chinese" is simply Mandarin reduced to writing. Native speakers of Cantonese have told me there is a written form of Cantonese, as well as of Shanghainese and several other Sinitic languages. So, I don't know exactly what I'm to make of your above statement."
Hmmn... you lost me here... Maybe you are confusing with Traditonal Chinese "words" and Simplified Chinese "words". After the communist take over the mainland china, Chairman Mao suddenly has this "fantastic" idea that to make more chinese people know how to write, it will be good to "simplify" the current written language. Bang... therefore "simplified chinese" (written language" is borned. This is used in China (obviously) and other coutries like Malaysia, Singapore etc. However, the KuoMingTang (the Nationalist party whom lost to communist) retreated to Taiwan, and till today, they still use the "traditional chinese" written language. Country or areas close to KMT still uses the traditional chinese, like Hong Kong for example, although she is part of China now... hmmn...
Anyway, as a native speake and writer of chinese (both mandarin and cantonese), i can confirm to you that there is no other written form of cantonese.... unless you want to count in the vulgar forms of cantonese... hmmn... how should i put it, mandarin is quite a polite language, there is not much vulgar words in it (really, i am not making this up). this is not true in other dialects, especially cantonese (no offense to cantonese of course), and because the mandarin is the official spoken language, and therefore the written language is mainly based on it. So what to do with some words that doesn't exist in mandarin (eg those vulgar words), the cantonese themselves have a special way to put them into writing (how polite of them!), which probably can only be understood by a cantonese speaker. I imagine that's probably the case for ShangHainese. Is that what you are confused with? Or am i wrong?
"People who study Chinese for a living have told me that "modern written Chinese" is simply Mandarin reduced to writing. Native speakers of Cantonese have told me there is a written form of Cantonese, as well as of Shanghainese and several other Sinitic languages. So, I don't know exactly what I'm to make of your above statement."
Hmmn... you lost me here... Maybe you are confusing with Traditonal Chinese "words" and Simplified Chinese "words". After the communist take over the mainland china, Chairman Mao suddenly has this "fantastic" idea that to make more chinese people know how to write, it will be good to "simplify" the current written language. Bang... therefore "simplified chinese" (written language" is borned. This is used in China (obviously) and other coutries like Malaysia, Singapore etc. However, the KuoMingTang (the Nationalist party whom lost to communist) retreated to Taiwan, and till today, they still use the "traditional chinese" written language. Country or areas close to KMT still uses the traditional chinese, like Hong Kong for example, although she is part of China now... hmmn...
Anyway, as a native speake and writer of chinese (both mandarin and cantonese), i can confirm to you that there is no other written form of cantonese.... unless you want to count in the vulgar forms of cantonese... hmmn... how should i put it, mandarin is quite a polite language, there is not much vulgar words in it (really, i am not making this up). this is not true in other dialects, especially cantonese (no offense to cantonese of course), and because the mandarin is the official spoken language, and therefore the written language is mainly based on it. So what to do with some words that doesn't exist in mandarin (eg those vulgar words), the cantonese themselves have a special way to put them into writing (how polite of them!), which probably can only be understood by a cantonese speaker. I imagine that's probably the case for ShangHainese. Is that what you are confused with? Or am i wrong?
Bluemofia
F=ma
actually, the statisticts mean that the first language spoken, because English is the official language of trade and commerce, but mandrian chinese has the record # of native speakers. with over 700,000 native speakers. India has over 100 different languages, so that kind of puts Mandrian chinese into a lead.
