Talk:Peninsular Japonic

Exclusion of Sillan
I find this statement problematic: "The Fuyu languages hypothesis does not include the language of Silla, considered to be the ancestor of the modern Korean language..."

There are Korean linguists who say Buyeo language, more specifically the Goguryeo language, to be the "mother of the modern Korean language". According to this, such words as "Hae" meaning sun and "Byeoseul" meaning government post in modern Korean, came from directly the Buyeo language. Also, the Han and Buyeo language have cognates such as the word for city/town: "Büri" (Baekje), "Hol" (Goguryeo), and "Bör" (Shilla). However, this is not to say that these names were only specific to one kingdom. For example, "Hol" appears in Shilla and Baekje town names. The difference between Buyeo and Han language is more viewed as a difference like Low German to High German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezant (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 March 2005 (UTC)
 * Baekje and Goguryeo people lived adjacent to Silla, so if some Silla words resemble those in Fuyu languages, they are more plausibly loanwords, or at least this possibilty should not be excluded. Furthermore the resembling words in Silla and Fuyu languages don't seem to have "law of sound (Lautgesetz)", so it's still a "hypothesis" and they are not something compared to Germanic languages which have been proven to be cognates. We should also remember that Chinese histories like Hou Han Shu and San Guo Zhi record that Baekje and Goguryeo people had similar dialects while the Silla people spoke a different language from them.


 * What is interesting with this theory is that in Japanese, whose speakers are (were) located far from Korean peninsula, there are "similar" words looking like those found in Goguryeo language (though some documents say some Japanese people also lived in ancient Korean peninsula). But again, the obstacle is that there's no sound law found between the "similar" words in both languages, and the number of those words are too few. -222.4.16.15 03:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that there are no old Chinese records mention that the Silla people spoke a different language from Baekje or Goguryeo languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.90.70 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there are any old records pointing out the difference of language between the royalty and the commoners in Baekje. The misinterpretation of a passage in the Zhou Shu (周書), mentioned that the king has a title that is different from the name given to him by the people, is the only basis of the hypothesis, arguing that there were two separate languages in Baekje distinguished by classes. As the same case happened during the time of Joseon kingdom, it is very probable that the people of Baekje used a special honorific form to refer to the king of Baekje.-Jagello 14:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The hypothesis of language difference between the royals and the commoners in Baekje. is based on neither by old historical records nor linguistic traces to be considered as Baekje language. The misinterpretation of a single passage in the Zhou Shu is the only basis supporting the hypothesis. The Liang Shu (梁書) and the Nan Shi (南史) mention merely that the language of Baekje was similar to that of Goguryeo, while the Hou Han Shu (後漢書) and the San Kuo Chih (三國志) provide a detailed description that the people of Samhan spoke different languages distinguished by province.-Jagello 11:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some Korean dialects spoken in south Cholla and Jeju Island, Southwestern part of Korea, preserve some typical elements of so-called Buyeo languages. This means that the people of Baekje, who lived extremely far from the center of Baekje, probably spoke the language which was similar to that of the capital area.-Jagello 14:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is very poor. It doesn't reveal what Buyeo Languages was (the style, conjugation, etc) that much, but committed to the relation with Japanese language. Should correct more data and citation. -- 61.207.170.201 19:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Buyeo language doesn't have any relation with modern Japanese, that's just hypothesis. Korean or proto-Korean language would have been lot closer to Buyeo language than any other languages of Asia. Japanese language is modern language that only spoken in Japan. If Japanese language is in fact related to Buyeo then modern Japanese language came from Proto-Korean language which modern japanese scholars rejects, so where is relation? Not a single evidence was presented by Japanese scholars.123.243.51.103 (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Post moved by --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC) placed here:

People who aren't expert on Korean History or Korean Language. They all have similiar in common. They really don't know what Puyo Korean tribe means. Puyo is Korean tribe that settled in center core of Manchuria/ North Korea region. Puyo founded the nation called Ko-Chosun, Korguryo, Baekje, Shilla, and Kaya, Parhae Kingdom. Korguryo, Baekje, Shilla people are from Puyo racial and cultural origins. It's same with languages from all four kingdoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PuyoKoreans (talk • contribs) 01:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some noob needs to learn how to use talk pages properly. Do not alter the syntax of templates! People these days... --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you are an expert? Rather than making Ad hominem attacks against other contributors, perhaps you could make sourced, verifiable contributions to improve the article, rather than complaining about the academic credentials of other users. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because the article is about the Japanese-Koguryo hypothesis, which links Japanese to the language of Koguryo. Perhaps it should be moved back to its old title. "Just a hypothesis"--it's also "just a hypothesis" that Korean is related to Koguryo. kwami (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems with references to Chinese sources
The "Difference from some Old Manchu languages" section is not well supported by its references. The statement "According to some ancient Chinese records, Buyeo languages looked different from ancient Manchu languages like Mohe language." is supported by the following two quotes:

三國志卷三十-魏書十-烏丸鮮卑東夷傳第三十挹婁傳 "其人形似夫餘,言語不與夫餘句麗同"

"Records of the Three Kingdoms, Scroll 30, History of Wei 10, Commentaries on the Wuwan, Xianbei and Dongyi Number 30: 'The people of [that place] are physically like the Buyeo, their languages are not like Buyeo or Goryeo'".

The problem with this supporting argument is that the passage is not talking about Mohe, but Yilou. In order for the quote to support the claim, you have to assume that Yilou were the same as the Mohe, which is not substantiated. The other supporting quote (from section 82 of the Northern History) is:

北史勿吉傳, "勿吉國在高句麗北, 一曰靺鞨. … 言語獨異" "History of the North, Commentary on Wuji, 'The Wuji country is to the north of Goryeo, it is also called Mohe...the language is solitary and different.'"

The problem with this is that it is talking about Wuji, not about Buyeo. Lastly, where it says "And some say Buyeo languages were similar to Xianbei language", the supporting reference does not mention a source, but merely says:

另一說是扶餘人的語言與鮮卑相似 "In other words, the language of the Buyeo people is similar to Xianbei".

--68.49.1.69 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Lack of sources
The entire section "Problems and Contradictions of Japanese-Koguryoic hypothesis" has zero sources and also has quite bad grammar and unprofessional sounding sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennznl (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is either WP:OR, or an essay based on a not further specified piece of research by A. Vovin. I will therefore delete it. If somebody knows the source and can check whether its content is properly rendered, this material can be restored according to WP standards. —Austronesier (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Movement to Japanese–Koguryoic languages
To User:Kwamikagami： When moving, isn't it necessary to make a proposal in Requested moves in advance?--ABCEdit (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No. That's for if you can't move the article. — kwami (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Topic and title of this article
It seems that the topic of this article is the evidence for an extinct relative of Japonic formerly spoken on the Korean peninsula, particularly among the glossed placenames from Goguryeo in chapter 37 of the Samguk sagi. (Thus, the section of a possible Korean–Japanese relationship is off-topic.) Many authors agree that many of these words are Japonic, but most disagree that they represent the Goguryeo language, pointing out that they come from an area of central Korea that Goguryeo had taken from Baekje two centuries before, and the few Goguryeo words found in Chinese texts such as the Book of Wei appear to be related to Korean. Vovin, for example, calls the placenames pseudo-Koguryŏ; other authors call them Baekje. Thus it would be best to avoid an article title including "Koguryoic", which begs this question. One possibility is Vovin's "Peninsular Japonic". Kanguole 17:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support a new name. "Peninsular Japonic" would be a good name. This article could than also include Vovins and Janhunens theories about Pre-Baekje and "Pre-Tamna".--AsadalEditor (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved the page and overworked the article. I hope this is ok.--AsadalEditor (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a bit late, but I fully support the move. The title "Japananese–Koguryoic" limits the subject to a controversial hypothesis. There is wide consensus about the presence of some kind of Japonic-related language(s) on the mainland, the major controversy being which attested kingdoms/tribes can be identified as Japonic-speaking. The name "Peninsular Japonic" is adopted from a reliable source, and although the choice is somewhat arbitrary (other terms in use are "Japanic", "para-Japonic"), "Peninsular Japonic" is sufficiently neutral for an inclusive synopsis (NB: not synthesis!) of all proposals related to this topic. –Austronesier (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand the terminology:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! !! Janhunen !! Vovin !! Beckwith
 * Whole family || Japanic || Japonic || Japanese–Koguryoic
 * Japanese + Ryukyuan || Japonic || Insular Japonic || Japanese
 * extinct relatives in Korea || para-Japonic || Peninsular Japonic || Koguryoic
 * }
 * so different names, but talking about the same structure, except that "Koguryoic" carries extra implications about ethnic identification. Kanguole 12:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have just looked up a few articles about this topic. Janhunen's terminology seems to be (or become) prevalent; at least Unger and Robbeets adopt his "Japanic" and "para-Japonic". –Austronesier (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that neither is widely used: Unger only says "para-Japonic" in a context of saying what Janhunen calls them, and Robbeets hasn't done anything with these materials, talking only about the whole family. There are also plenty of authors using "Japonic" in a way that includes the material from Korea.  Kanguole 16:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * so different names, but talking about the same structure, except that "Koguryoic" carries extra implications about ethnic identification. Kanguole 12:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have just looked up a few articles about this topic. Janhunen's terminology seems to be (or become) prevalent; at least Unger and Robbeets adopt his "Japanic" and "para-Japonic". –Austronesier (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that neither is widely used: Unger only says "para-Japonic" in a context of saying what Janhunen calls them, and Robbeets hasn't done anything with these materials, talking only about the whole family. There are also plenty of authors using "Japonic" in a way that includes the material from Korea.  Kanguole 16:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Formulation of the opening paragraph
It's inappropriate to keep pushing downplaying language like "some linguists" or "proposed" when the cited source says this is the consensus position. The scholarly consensus is what Wikipedia articles should reflect. Kanguole 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I don't read it that way, tbh. We don't know enough to say whether the Peninsular languages formed a genuine subgroup within wider Japonic, or actually were para-phyletic (what we would expect for "stay-at-home" languages). But of course, we can circumvent the issue by not talking about a "subgroup" at all. –Austronesier (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed avoiding "subgroup" solves this. There doesn't seem to be much discussion of grouping in the literature to base it on anyway. Kanguole 13:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This looks good! –Austronesier (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)