Post 5/?
2. So now to the all important footnote 45.
First the body of Mair's text again which references it:
Footnote 45 of course applies the herewith (above) introduced PIE predicate of Cultures Are Integral Packages to make the following predicate:
"new weapons were introduced into EAH by the All-Creative earthly gods, the IEs" -> "therefore all clever Asian literature about war tactics and stratagems are actually IE onlee/IE in origin/in derivation or at least in inspiration or at the *very* least it would not exist without IE impetus" [because the Chinese "obviously" needed IE help every step of the way to build the IE civilisation that the Chinese got credited with]
That sentence again: [color="#0000FF"]footnote 45[/color] of course uses the newly vocalised PIE predicate (but one which was always in white supremacists' minds, Mair merely made it sound scholarly/acceptable to scholars) to claim Sun Tzu's Art of War for PIE-ism.
(They are after *every* thing of value that E Asians have ever produced - starting with the Chinese - you may be certain of that.)
Note how Mair refers to his own work again - the work where he no doubt traces Sun Tzu (aka Sun Zi/Sun Wu <- also author of a mathematical treatise, BTW, to be claimed next) to Indo-Europodism via - ya guessed it - Linguishticks insinuated into Chinese space now (again: you didn't think it was all about you, did ya?)
Important to note is the background of that 'publication' called "Sino-Platonic Papers" - the one with the paper whose title implied Chinese Language and Civilisation originated owing to IE influence - linguistics to the rescue again. And we see that its editor is none other than Victor Mair:
That final line should end with "brilliant new insights into the IE impetus behind the development of Chinese (and preferrably all E Asian) civilization". But Mair is polite and does not want to tell you that he already has the conclusion ready that he and his team are working towards.
At least he admits his "research" is uh... controversial - to put it mildly (but tomorrow it will become received wisdom). And clearly he set up the publication because no one else was willing to publish those of his/like-minded's conclusions he put therein.
BTW, the name of Mair's publication "Sino-Platonic Papers" is very telling. IE-ists would be working on laying the groundwork to use Hellenismos - particularly Greek Philosophy - to claim Daoist religious-thought as an IE-derivative: nothing in native Chinese heathenism will be allowed to be natively Chinese, everything must be derived from the mythical (concocted) IE-ism onlee, to support the white supremacist belief that 'civilisation' (from religio to law to education) in itself is a white/oryan thing that is derived in others by borrowing from IE/by Indo-Europods graciously teaching "lesser" peoples (civilising the savages).
On the topic of Chinese script/language.
In a footnote - on a different topic which I may discuss some other time, though one where he reconstructs old Chinese "Wu" to point to the [PIE word for] magi (but of course) and which linguistic reconstruction Roetz accepted as "provisional, as it can only be" - Mair writes something rather telling:
I should say beforehand that I know very little about the Chinese script and the ideograms it uses. The following is as far as I can understand:
- Each character tends to generally make the sound of a single syllable.
- The same written symbol when read by people speaking different dialects is pronounced as very different words, but carries the same meaning to them (same meaning in their language). How to explain. Say an image of Murugan's ayudham was a reading-symbol that represented a word. The Skt speaker may read it "Shakti", and the Tzh speaker may read it as "Vel". Same meaning - which both people got - but totally different words (not just different pronunciation of the same intended sounds).
- The symbols representing a word (which can be a concrete or abstract notion) changed over time. So some words today were written with very different-looking symbols in the past.
- The same symbol can represent multiple different words. (E.g. this could be because the two words sound the same, and so the same symbol was used)
- Some symbols or was it parts of symbols represent actual sounds, others represent ideas.
- There appear to be a large number of deprecated ancient Chinese symbols: a *huge* chunk of Unicode's supplementary plane has specifically been reserved for Han ideograms that are "rare, historic". Of these historically used Chinese symbols, for some of them the meaning is not known, for others the pronunciation is not known, in some cases both are not known (because they were deprecated long ago - perhaps because the word got a new written symbol or because it and its related ideas fell into disuse, etc).
- And: "the reconstruction of Old Sinitic is still at a very primitive stage"
- Taiwan uses the "Chinese Traditional" character set for reading/writing. Owing to the usual communist goal of blacking out people's connection to their past, in China the communist govt had instituted a whole new character set: "Simplified Chinese". (If you ever bought Asian DVDs, you will have noticed both the subtitle options.)
The Chinese govt's goal - as explained by a Taiwanese friend - was specifically so that communist China's Chinese population would no longer to be able to read their historical texts (and hence would be malleable into thinking/believing whatever the communists wanted them to believe about their past. C.f. how Indian communists and christos and DMK have worked hard to wipe out Skt). As a result of this, many Chinese apparently can't read the Traditional Chinese character set. Meanwhile, many aliens however *are* learning it.
China has university depts to keep in touch with their ancient stuffs, but you never know how the wind will blow with communist govts.
Taiwanese fortunately know Chinese Traditional, but they're a relatively small population. And there's never many people in any given population that specialises in "deciphering" ancient texts anyway, especially not when it's a living heathen tradition and when heathens read and understand their ancient texts traditionally (i.e. the correct and heathen way) rather than trying to "decipher" it the way aliens would, let alone noticing how aliens are misreading their stuff and giving new meanings to their symbols (such as for the purpose of springing "PIE did it" type conclusions on you).
(Again, bearing in mind that my understanding of the Chinese script and its history is negligible) Considering factors like those above though, can only guess what a field-day linguistic reconstructionists of the PIE variety are going to have in reconstructing Old Sinitic from written texts. With a bit of wriggling and handwaving and massaging of the primary source (as Mair actually did in his article), they could make it fit (closer) to what they want it to say: to say "PIE did it". Since Old Sinitic's reconstruction is at its more formative stages, they could "form" it to their will.
The only advantages the E Asians seem to have is that 1. the Chinese govt so far does not like Mair types or their PIE-ist direction of "research" into China's history, 2. Chinese of Taiwan and China and other Chinese regions have proper translations of their works (as Hindus had of their works, but aliens waltz all over Hindu views on Hindu works and modern Indians prefer reading alien books explaining Hindooism) and 3. younger generations of Chinese are becoming aware of the problem.
And this last is meaningful because Chinese are less likely to roll over - unlike the way Indians have done:
- India got offered a carrot: it gets to play wannabe Oryans amongst themselves (while being totally ignored by Euro IE-ists). That is, Indians got the deal of "You get to join PIE [as something the Euro IE-ists are stuck with, and albeit as miscegenates]". And some Indians are quite happy with that: e.g. the twitter feed of one Neena Rai reposted tweets by a native Indian highly active on behalf of Kashmiri Hindus and listing cases of ethnic cleansing. His handle was "Proto-Indo-European". <- So can't say it hasn't worked and hasn't sunk in and worked its magic. And this is something that can never be reversed. It's been totally internalised. =Something Indians just have to come to terms with: you can *never* go back. And there's also nowhere to go from here - nothing worthwhile to become hereafter. But you can stop the gangrene from infecting countries that have nothing to do with IE - and remember no one had claimed E Asia civilisation was derived from IE until more recent times, when the jealous demon of PIE-ism looked further east and coveted yet more for itself.
- In contrast to the Indians, the Chinese - and other E Asians hereafter - get very little out of the IE proposition for China*. So far the deal that the Chinese get is the 'choice' to give away everything and not even get phantoms in return: "Chinese civilisation is all IE onlee, not yours in any sense. It's our ancestral accomplishment. Not that of native Chinese." Which in a way is the better deal, because there's no self-delusions about how hollow it is.
(* Unless PIE-ists next come up with the miscegenation trick there as well, or something. Which won't bother western PIE-ists, since they already only tolerate and otherwise ignore Indians' existence as an "IE population" anyway. India is only ever involved - but never mentioned as India - when PIE-ists reference the Vedas and what your ancestors did, but reference all these things as being their [PIE-ists'] own stuff and their own [unmiscegenated] Oryan ancestors. India is not of remote interest for anything you are, or for you as the product of your ancestors. Being mere miscegenates and all. They don't think you're worthy of claiming. Not counting claiming Oryan credits for a pretty Indian face.)
If China ever succumbs to this disease - either by lack of watchfulness, or by collaboration as happened in the Indian case, or for any other reason - it will result in a domino in the east. PIE for the far east spells nothing more than permanent mental colonisation and subjugation to a hierachy with the "white man" at the the top. Their pasts will never be their own again.* Indians have made peace with this in their own case - or are still making it or will soon enough, give or take a few generations. The heathen east is less subvertible: it deserves to remain heathen and untouched. Sigh.
* E Asians have one ace remaining though, and that is themselves: their current achievements and especially creativity cannot be taken away from them. (Just one small example: alien 2-bit "composers" are fiercely, vindictively, embarrassingly jealous at how much better - and effortlessly better - certain E Asian composers are compared to anyone in all of the west, Russia inclusive. And the bitterness really shows: pages and pages of forums venting their jealousy to the point where aliens started getting personal and spewing about E Asia and everything surrounding these composers, all while buying every single album that the impossibly-prolific E Asian composer released. They hate that these people are better - and will threaten plagiarism at a hat - but they can't stop listening to the music. So funny: claims to Oryan Supremacy obviously didn't hold there in practice.
Sadly, if Hindus were to do anything superlatively at all, aliens will pounce and just claim it's owing to the oryan genetic component of your miscegenated ancestry and thereby credit themselves/oryanism with it.)
2. So now to the all important footnote 45.
First the body of Mair's text again which references it:
Quote:If this investigation has shown anything, it is that the diverse early cultures of Eurasia were integrated, not isolated. Neither were the individual cultures of Eurasia isolated from each other, nor were the religions, technologies, arts, and other components that they shared transmitted separately. Cultures are integral packages. Thus, for example, when late Neolithic pastoralists brought their sheep and goats eastward, they also brought their sacrificial practices and moral precepts with them; when early Iron Age metallurgists introduced their new weapons and tools to the EAH, they perforce injected new ideas about war, death, and the cosmologies within which they smelted their iron and fought their battles. 45
Footnote 45 of course applies the herewith (above) introduced PIE predicate of Cultures Are Integral Packages to make the following predicate:
"new weapons were introduced into EAH by the All-Creative earthly gods, the IEs" -> "therefore all clever Asian literature about war tactics and stratagems are actually IE onlee/IE in origin/in derivation or at least in inspiration or at the *very* least it would not exist without IE impetus" [because the Chinese "obviously" needed IE help every step of the way to build the IE civilisation that the Chinese got credited with]
That sentence again: [color="#0000FF"]footnote 45[/color] of course uses the newly vocalised PIE predicate (but one which was always in white supremacists' minds, Mair merely made it sound scholarly/acceptable to scholars) to claim Sun Tzu's Art of War for PIE-ism.
(They are after *every* thing of value that E Asians have ever produced - starting with the Chinese - you may be certain of that.)
Note how Mair refers to his own work again - the work where he no doubt traces Sun Tzu (aka Sun Zi/Sun Wu <- also author of a mathematical treatise, BTW, to be claimed next) to Indo-Europodism via - ya guessed it - Linguishticks insinuated into Chinese space now (again: you didn't think it was all about you, did ya?)
Quote:45 Mair, Victor H. (tr. and intro.), The Art of War: Sun Zi's Military Methods, Columbia: Columbia University Press 2007a, 37-46; Chang, Tsung-tung "Indo-European Vocabulary in Old Chinese: A New Thesis on the Emergence of Chinese Language and Civilization in the Late Neolithic Age", in: Sino-Platonic Papers 7 (January) (1988), 35-39; Eliade, Mircea, The Forge and the Crucible, Stephen Corrin, tr. from the French Forgerons et alchimistes, New York: Harper and Row 1971; 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Important to note is the background of that 'publication' called "Sino-Platonic Papers" - the one with the paper whose title implied Chinese Language and Civilisation originated owing to IE influence - linguistics to the rescue again. And we see that its editor is none other than Victor Mair:
Quote:SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS
FOUNDED 1986
Editor-in-Chief
VICTOR H. MAIR
Associate Editors
PAULA ROBERTS MARK SWOFFORD
SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS is an occasional series dedicated to making available to specialists and the interested public the results of research that, because of its unconventional or controversial nature, might otherwise go unpublished. The editor-in-chief actively encourages younger, not yet well established, scholars and independent authors to submit manuscripts for consideration.
Contributions in any of the major scholarly languages of the world, including romanized modern standard Mandarin (MSM) and Japanese, are acceptable. In special circumstances, papers written in one of the Sinitic topolects (fangyan) may be considered for publication.
Although the chief focus of Sino-Platonic Papers is on the intercultural relations of China with other peoples, challenging and creative studies on a wide variety of philological subjects will be entertained. This series is not the place for safe, sober, and stodgy presentations. Sino- Platonic Papers prefers lively work that, while taking reasonable risks to advance the field, capitalizes on brilliant new insights into the development of civilization.
That final line should end with "brilliant new insights into the IE impetus behind the development of Chinese (and preferrably all E Asian) civilization". But Mair is polite and does not want to tell you that he already has the conclusion ready that he and his team are working towards.
At least he admits his "research" is uh... controversial - to put it mildly (but tomorrow it will become received wisdom). And clearly he set up the publication because no one else was willing to publish those of his/like-minded's conclusions he put therein.
BTW, the name of Mair's publication "Sino-Platonic Papers" is very telling. IE-ists would be working on laying the groundwork to use Hellenismos - particularly Greek Philosophy - to claim Daoist religious-thought as an IE-derivative: nothing in native Chinese heathenism will be allowed to be natively Chinese, everything must be derived from the mythical (concocted) IE-ism onlee, to support the white supremacist belief that 'civilisation' (from religio to law to education) in itself is a white/oryan thing that is derived in others by borrowing from IE/by Indo-Europods graciously teaching "lesser" peoples (civilising the savages).
On the topic of Chinese script/language.
In a footnote - on a different topic which I may discuss some other time, though one where he reconstructs old Chinese "Wu" to point to the [PIE word for] magi (but of course) and which linguistic reconstruction Roetz accepted as "provisional, as it can only be" - Mair writes something rather telling:
Quote:It should be noted that the reconstruction of Old Sinitic is still at a very primitive stage compared to that of Proto-Indo-European. In any event, no Old Sinitic reconstructions should be taken as giving actual pronunciation values for particular characters. Rather, they should be understood as schematic representations of phonological relationships within an overall system of writing.
I should say beforehand that I know very little about the Chinese script and the ideograms it uses. The following is as far as I can understand:
- Each character tends to generally make the sound of a single syllable.
- The same written symbol when read by people speaking different dialects is pronounced as very different words, but carries the same meaning to them (same meaning in their language). How to explain. Say an image of Murugan's ayudham was a reading-symbol that represented a word. The Skt speaker may read it "Shakti", and the Tzh speaker may read it as "Vel". Same meaning - which both people got - but totally different words (not just different pronunciation of the same intended sounds).
- The symbols representing a word (which can be a concrete or abstract notion) changed over time. So some words today were written with very different-looking symbols in the past.
- The same symbol can represent multiple different words. (E.g. this could be because the two words sound the same, and so the same symbol was used)
- Some symbols or was it parts of symbols represent actual sounds, others represent ideas.
- There appear to be a large number of deprecated ancient Chinese symbols: a *huge* chunk of Unicode's supplementary plane has specifically been reserved for Han ideograms that are "rare, historic". Of these historically used Chinese symbols, for some of them the meaning is not known, for others the pronunciation is not known, in some cases both are not known (because they were deprecated long ago - perhaps because the word got a new written symbol or because it and its related ideas fell into disuse, etc).
- And: "the reconstruction of Old Sinitic is still at a very primitive stage"
- Taiwan uses the "Chinese Traditional" character set for reading/writing. Owing to the usual communist goal of blacking out people's connection to their past, in China the communist govt had instituted a whole new character set: "Simplified Chinese". (If you ever bought Asian DVDs, you will have noticed both the subtitle options.)
The Chinese govt's goal - as explained by a Taiwanese friend - was specifically so that communist China's Chinese population would no longer to be able to read their historical texts (and hence would be malleable into thinking/believing whatever the communists wanted them to believe about their past. C.f. how Indian communists and christos and DMK have worked hard to wipe out Skt). As a result of this, many Chinese apparently can't read the Traditional Chinese character set. Meanwhile, many aliens however *are* learning it.
China has university depts to keep in touch with their ancient stuffs, but you never know how the wind will blow with communist govts.
Taiwanese fortunately know Chinese Traditional, but they're a relatively small population. And there's never many people in any given population that specialises in "deciphering" ancient texts anyway, especially not when it's a living heathen tradition and when heathens read and understand their ancient texts traditionally (i.e. the correct and heathen way) rather than trying to "decipher" it the way aliens would, let alone noticing how aliens are misreading their stuff and giving new meanings to their symbols (such as for the purpose of springing "PIE did it" type conclusions on you).
(Again, bearing in mind that my understanding of the Chinese script and its history is negligible) Considering factors like those above though, can only guess what a field-day linguistic reconstructionists of the PIE variety are going to have in reconstructing Old Sinitic from written texts. With a bit of wriggling and handwaving and massaging of the primary source (as Mair actually did in his article), they could make it fit (closer) to what they want it to say: to say "PIE did it". Since Old Sinitic's reconstruction is at its more formative stages, they could "form" it to their will.
The only advantages the E Asians seem to have is that 1. the Chinese govt so far does not like Mair types or their PIE-ist direction of "research" into China's history, 2. Chinese of Taiwan and China and other Chinese regions have proper translations of their works (as Hindus had of their works, but aliens waltz all over Hindu views on Hindu works and modern Indians prefer reading alien books explaining Hindooism) and 3. younger generations of Chinese are becoming aware of the problem.
And this last is meaningful because Chinese are less likely to roll over - unlike the way Indians have done:
- India got offered a carrot: it gets to play wannabe Oryans amongst themselves (while being totally ignored by Euro IE-ists). That is, Indians got the deal of "You get to join PIE [as something the Euro IE-ists are stuck with, and albeit as miscegenates]". And some Indians are quite happy with that: e.g. the twitter feed of one Neena Rai reposted tweets by a native Indian highly active on behalf of Kashmiri Hindus and listing cases of ethnic cleansing. His handle was "Proto-Indo-European". <- So can't say it hasn't worked and hasn't sunk in and worked its magic. And this is something that can never be reversed. It's been totally internalised. =Something Indians just have to come to terms with: you can *never* go back. And there's also nowhere to go from here - nothing worthwhile to become hereafter. But you can stop the gangrene from infecting countries that have nothing to do with IE - and remember no one had claimed E Asia civilisation was derived from IE until more recent times, when the jealous demon of PIE-ism looked further east and coveted yet more for itself.
- In contrast to the Indians, the Chinese - and other E Asians hereafter - get very little out of the IE proposition for China*. So far the deal that the Chinese get is the 'choice' to give away everything and not even get phantoms in return: "Chinese civilisation is all IE onlee, not yours in any sense. It's our ancestral accomplishment. Not that of native Chinese." Which in a way is the better deal, because there's no self-delusions about how hollow it is.
(* Unless PIE-ists next come up with the miscegenation trick there as well, or something. Which won't bother western PIE-ists, since they already only tolerate and otherwise ignore Indians' existence as an "IE population" anyway. India is only ever involved - but never mentioned as India - when PIE-ists reference the Vedas and what your ancestors did, but reference all these things as being their [PIE-ists'] own stuff and their own [unmiscegenated] Oryan ancestors. India is not of remote interest for anything you are, or for you as the product of your ancestors. Being mere miscegenates and all. They don't think you're worthy of claiming. Not counting claiming Oryan credits for a pretty Indian face.)
If China ever succumbs to this disease - either by lack of watchfulness, or by collaboration as happened in the Indian case, or for any other reason - it will result in a domino in the east. PIE for the far east spells nothing more than permanent mental colonisation and subjugation to a hierachy with the "white man" at the the top. Their pasts will never be their own again.* Indians have made peace with this in their own case - or are still making it or will soon enough, give or take a few generations. The heathen east is less subvertible: it deserves to remain heathen and untouched. Sigh.
* E Asians have one ace remaining though, and that is themselves: their current achievements and especially creativity cannot be taken away from them. (Just one small example: alien 2-bit "composers" are fiercely, vindictively, embarrassingly jealous at how much better - and effortlessly better - certain E Asian composers are compared to anyone in all of the west, Russia inclusive. And the bitterness really shows: pages and pages of forums venting their jealousy to the point where aliens started getting personal and spewing about E Asia and everything surrounding these composers, all while buying every single album that the impossibly-prolific E Asian composer released. They hate that these people are better - and will threaten plagiarism at a hat - but they can't stop listening to the music. So funny: claims to Oryan Supremacy obviously didn't hold there in practice.
Sadly, if Hindus were to do anything superlatively at all, aliens will pounce and just claim it's owing to the oryan genetic component of your miscegenated ancestry and thereby credit themselves/oryanism with it.)