Revision as of 23:52, 3 May 2022 edit138.36.44.72 (talk) →Korean connection: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:15, 14 May 2022 edit undoErminwin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,529 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
I believe this paper http://contents.nahf.or.kr/directory/downloadItemFile.do?fileName=jn_009_0010.pdf&levelId=jn_009_0010 may help to explain or suggest a possible connection that Koreans were allies or part of them were members of the Xiongnu Confederation | I believe this paper http://contents.nahf.or.kr/directory/downloadItemFile.do?fileName=jn_009_0010.pdf&levelId=jn_009_0010 may help to explain or suggest a possible connection that Koreans were allies or part of them were members of the Xiongnu Confederation | ||
] (]) 23:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | ] (]) 23:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | ||
==To Interpret or to Mis-Interpret== | |||
Four sources are listed to support the thesis that | |||
* Hucker, Charles O. (1975). ''China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture''. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-2353-2. page 136 | |||
* Pritsak, O. (1959). "XUN Der Volksname der Hsiung-nu". Central Asiatic Journal (in German). 5: 27–34. | |||
* Henning, W. B. (1948). "The date of the Sogdian ancient letters". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (BSOAS). 12 (3–4): 601–615. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00083178. JSTOR 608717. S2CID 161867825. | |||
* Sims-Williams, Nicholas (2004). . | |||
Let's evaluate: | |||
* On p. 36 of Hucker (1975), it is written "The proto-Turkic Hisung-nu were now challenged by other aliens groups". So Hucker (1975) is correctly interpreted as supports the thesis that the Xiongnu were proto-Turkic speakers | |||
* Sims-Williams (2004) translated Sogdian Letters 1, 2, 3, and 5. Letter 2 mentioned the Huns (i.e. Xiongnu) yet letter 2 did '''not''' say that the Xiongnu spoke a Turkic language at all. Whoever added Sims-Williams (2004) misinterpreted the source for ] POV-pushing. | |||
* '''Nowhere''' in Henning (1948) are the Xiongnu / Xwn asserted to be as Turkic speakers. The word ''Turkestan'' is found in page 602, footnote 1 "Cf. ''Bartold, Turkestan'', p. 161", a source which Henning uses to support this assertion "No doubt the agents of the 'merchant-princes" of Sogdia'<sup>1</sup> ". Again, whoever added Henning (1948) misinterpreted the source for ] POV-pushing. | |||
* Pristak (1959): : | |||
** in n. 24 on p. 32, mentions Ottoman-Turkish term for the Zaporizhian-Cossacks; | |||
*** {{tq2|Es ist deswegen möglich, daß man ''-yü'' als einen chin. Spottnamen für ihre nomadischen Nachbarn, etwa 'Brei(esser)' nach der Hauptnahrung derselben zu deuten hat. Vgl. hierzu die osmanisch-türkische Bezeichnung für die ukrainischen Zaporoger-Kosaken Potqalï ,,Grützenbreiesserʽʽ (s. darüber Pritsak. Oriens , Bd. 6:2. 1953. 204). Verl. hierzu noch Anm. 25"}} | |||
** Rough translation: | |||
*** {{tq2|It is therefore possible that one has to interpret ''-yü'' as a Chinese derisive nickname for their nomadic neighbours, as 'porridge(-eater)' after their staple food itself. Cf. the Ottoman-Turkish designation for the Zaporizhian-Cossacks ''Potqalï'' ,,Groat-porridge eaterʽʽ (see above). (See on this Pritsak. Oriens, Vol. 6:2. 1953. 204). See also Note 25"}} Yet this is irrelevant to whether the Xiongnu spoke Turkic. | |||
** In n p. 29 Pritsak wrote: | |||
*** {{tq2|5. Die in den ersten chin. Reichsannalen „kanonisierte" Bezeichnung für die (asiatischen) Hunnen 匈奴 Hsiung-nu ist nicht alt. Sie ist erst ab etwa 230 v. Chr. belegt.<sup>9</sup> Sie gehört zu den Bezeichnungen der zweiten Gruppe. Das zweite Zeichen 奴 -nu pflegte schon Otto Franke entsprechend seiner chin. Bedeutung als ,,Sklaven, Knechteʽʽ zu übersetzen.<sup>10</sup>}} | |||
** rough translation: | |||
*** {{tq2|The designations "canonized" in the first Chinese imperial annals for the (Asiatic) Huns 匈奴 Hsiung-nu is not old. It is only from about 230 BCE.<sup>10</sup> It belongs to the designations of the second group. Otto Franke used to translate the second character 奴 -nu according to its Chinese meaning as "slaves, servants".<sup>10</sup>}} | |||
** For note 10 Pritsak cited: | |||
*** {{tq2|''Beiträge aus chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntnis der Türkvölker und Skythen Zentralasiens'' (Berlin 1904), 5; ''Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches'', Bd. 1 (Berlin-Leipzig 1930), 134}} | |||
** Rough translation: | |||
*** {{tq2|''Contributions from Chinese sources on the knowledge of the Turkic peoples and Scythians of Central Asia'' (Berlin 1904), 5; ''History of the Chinese Empire'', Vol. 1 (Berlin-Leipzig 1930), 134}} | |||
** Yet Pritsak did not explicitly mention the the Xiongu were Turkic speakers. | |||
** So again, whoever added Pritsak (1959) misinterpreted the source for ] POV-pushing. |
Revision as of 16:15, 14 May 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xiongnu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives | ||||
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kevin Tian06.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
History of İran
user history of iran withdraws my editing even though I have shown my references that are trusted by WP.and not writing the reason why he got it back
Same, user HistoryofIran keeps deleting other edits. Obvious vandalism and edit warring. He deleted the research of Cambridge University without giving any reason at all. Hsynylmztr (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The section in this article under archeological origin has a repeated paragraph.
The section in this article under archeological origin has a repeated paragraph. 173.9.106.241 (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Beckwith reference (Yeniseian connection)
I've edited the Beckwith reference: it originally cited pages 51-52 and 404-405, when its actually referring to end notes 51-52 on pages 404-405. (I'm not sure if I've used the correct formatting though, so that may need correcting). More importantly though, I'm not sure that this is the best source for the claim being made. The book doesn't actually make any arguments for or against a Yenesian connection, just stating that such a connection has been claimed and citing sources: "The case has been made for the Hsiung-nu having been Iranians (Bailey 1985: 25 et seq.), Kets (Pulleyblank 2000; Vovin 2000), or others". Surely it would be better to cite those sources, rather than Beckwith's reporting of them? (I'd update the reference myself, but I don't have the sources to check what they actually say. Iapetus (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- In fact I've just noticed that one of Beckwith's citations (Vovin 2000) is already used as a reference for the same statement, and other works by Pulleyblank are used as sources later on, so the Beckwith reference is probably redundant (at least for supporting the Yeniseian/Ket connection). Iapetus (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages actually prefers secondary sources over primary sources (or at least in addition to primary sources), as they show that a hypothesis appearing in a primary source has been deemed noteworthy enough to merit mention by independent scholars, as opposed to being a failed trial balloon that is subsequently ignored by the rest of the field. It keeps Misplaced Pages more grounded in general scholarly consensus and less 'bleeding edge'. Agricolae (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Korean connection
I believe this paper http://contents.nahf.or.kr/directory/downloadItemFile.do?fileName=jn_009_0010.pdf&levelId=jn_009_0010 may help to explain or suggest a possible connection that Koreans were allies or part of them were members of the Xiongnu Confederation 138.36.44.72 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
To Interpret or to Mis-Interpret
Four sources are listed to support the thesis that
- Hucker, Charles O. (1975). China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-2353-2. page 136
- Pritsak, O. (1959). "XUN Der Volksname der Hsiung-nu". Central Asiatic Journal (in German). 5: 27–34.
- Henning, W. B. (1948). "The date of the Sogdian ancient letters". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (BSOAS). 12 (3–4): 601–615. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00083178. JSTOR 608717. S2CID 161867825.
- Sims-Williams, Nicholas (2004). "The Sogdian ancient letters. Letters 1, 2, 3, and 5 translated into English".
Let's evaluate:
- On p. 36 of Hucker (1975), it is written "The proto-Turkic Hisung-nu were now challenged by other aliens groups". So Hucker (1975) is correctly interpreted as supports the thesis that the Xiongnu were proto-Turkic speakers
- Sims-Williams (2004) translated Sogdian Letters 1, 2, 3, and 5. Letter 2 mentioned the Huns (i.e. Xiongnu) yet letter 2 did not say that the Xiongnu spoke a Turkic language at all. Whoever added Sims-Williams (2004) misinterpreted the source for pan-Turkist POV-pushing.
- Nowhere in Henning (1948) are the Xiongnu / Xwn asserted to be as Turkic speakers. The word Turkestan is found in page 602, footnote 1 "Cf. Bartold, Turkestan, p. 161", a source which Henning uses to support this assertion "No doubt the agents of the 'merchant-princes" of Sogdia' ". Again, whoever added Henning (1948) misinterpreted the source for pan-Turkist POV-pushing.
- Pristak (1959): :
- in n. 24 on p. 32, mentions Ottoman-Turkish term for the Zaporizhian-Cossacks;
Es ist deswegen möglich, daß man -yü als einen chin. Spottnamen für ihre nomadischen Nachbarn, etwa 'Brei(esser)' nach der Hauptnahrung derselben zu deuten hat. Vgl. hierzu die osmanisch-türkische Bezeichnung für die ukrainischen Zaporoger-Kosaken Potqalï ,,Grützenbreiesserʽʽ (s. darüber Pritsak. Oriens , Bd. 6:2. 1953. 204). Verl. hierzu noch Anm. 25"
- Rough translation:
Yet this is irrelevant to whether the Xiongnu spoke Turkic.It is therefore possible that one has to interpret -yü as a Chinese derisive nickname for their nomadic neighbours, as 'porridge(-eater)' after their staple food itself. Cf. the Ottoman-Turkish designation for the Zaporizhian-Cossacks Potqalï ,,Groat-porridge eaterʽʽ (see above). (See on this Pritsak. Oriens, Vol. 6:2. 1953. 204). See also Note 25"
- In n p. 29 Pritsak wrote:
5. Die in den ersten chin. Reichsannalen „kanonisierte" Bezeichnung für die (asiatischen) Hunnen 匈奴 Hsiung-nu ist nicht alt. Sie ist erst ab etwa 230 v. Chr. belegt. Sie gehört zu den Bezeichnungen der zweiten Gruppe. Das zweite Zeichen 奴 -nu pflegte schon Otto Franke entsprechend seiner chin. Bedeutung als ,,Sklaven, Knechteʽʽ zu übersetzen.
- rough translation:
The designations "canonized" in the first Chinese imperial annals for the (Asiatic) Huns 匈奴 Hsiung-nu is not old. It is only from about 230 BCE. It belongs to the designations of the second group. Otto Franke used to translate the second character 奴 -nu according to its Chinese meaning as "slaves, servants".
- For note 10 Pritsak cited:
Beiträge aus chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntnis der Türkvölker und Skythen Zentralasiens (Berlin 1904), 5; Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches, Bd. 1 (Berlin-Leipzig 1930), 134
- Rough translation:
Contributions from Chinese sources on the knowledge of the Turkic peoples and Scythians of Central Asia (Berlin 1904), 5; History of the Chinese Empire, Vol. 1 (Berlin-Leipzig 1930), 134
- Yet Pritsak did not explicitly mention the the Xiongu were Turkic speakers.
- So again, whoever added Pritsak (1959) misinterpreted the source for pan-Turkist POV-pushing.
- in n. 24 on p. 32, mentions Ottoman-Turkish term for the Zaporizhian-Cossacks;
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Mongols articles
- Top-importance Mongols articles
- WikiProject Mongols articles
- C-Class Central Asia articles
- Top-importance Central Asia articles
- WikiProject Central Asia articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class Chinese history articles
- Mid-importance Chinese history articles
- WikiProject Chinese history articles
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Mid-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- C-Class Classical warfare articles
- Classical warfare task force articles