Cantonese is both very cool and very old

Language Log 2025-04-01

See also this paper on "Links Between Cantonese and Ancient Middle Chinese".

I asked Don Snow, a specialist on Cantonese language, if the video and the paper are "cogent, well-done, convincing?".

His reply:

Basically, I would say yes. Obviously the video is designed to be as entertaining as possible – and I might quibble about a few things – but I wouldn't have any trouble with the general thrust and even the details. 

As a side note, it is a little odd that the video and article use almost exactly the same examples, given that in some cases there would have been other options – do they both come from the same person?*
 
And, of course, the video and article should probably mention that more or less the same argument can be made for varieties of Southern Min, Hakka….. But here I begin to quibble.

*VHM:  They're by the same author.

Cantonese is undeniably older than Mandarin, but we should not close our eyes to the longevity of other Sinitic languages, which themselves cannot be demonstrated to be primitive and pristine, inasmuch as they possess substratal and areal features, plus borrowing in various directions. 

As for what the oldest / earliest Sinitic language looked / sounded like, we'll have a much better idea when Jerry Norman's reconstruction, the compilation and editing of which have just been fundamentally completed, is made available to the public at large.  It "is the first one based entirely on the evidence of living forms of Chinese [i.e., Sinitic] rather than philological sources." (David Branner)

 

Selected readings

[Thanks to Alan Kennedy]