[Wikipedia-l] Re: Request for classical Chinese

[Mark Williamson]

Hi Shizhao,

I'm having some difficulty understanding your message. Can you write
it in Chinese so I can understand it better?

Best,
Mark

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 03:22:08 +0000 (UTC), shi zhao <shizhao at gmail.com> wrote:
> abc_root <abcd_root at ...> writes:
> 
> >
> > Dear all:
> >
> > I would like to request a new Wikipedia for classical Chinese or kanbun(
> > 漢文/文言文) which is the standard form of Chinese for about two thousand
> > years and was used throughout East Asia as the formal form of writing. Its
> > importance in East Asia is like that of Latin in Europe. Now that
> > Wikipedias are running or being started for many of the languages in East
> > Asia, it seems that the language which is the backbone of these languages
> > should also have a place.
> >
> > One problem that might be encountered in writing articles for kanbun
> > wikipedia is how the foreign loanwords (e.g. from English) should be
> > phonetically transcribed when there is no corresponding word in kanbun
> > itself. If they are transcribed using kanji (Chinese characters), there is
> > the question of which language should be used to read the kanji. Here I
> > suggest using an alphabet system of East Asia (e.g. Japanese kana or Korean
> > hangul, or Taiwanese chu-yin) for the transcription and also note the
> > original word in English (or any other language of origin or the roman
> > transcription if the language is not written in roman alphabet). This
> > allows kanbun users speaking different languages to know the original
> > foreign word.
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Let's Celebrate Together!
> > Yahoo! JAPAN
> > http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/so2005/
> >
> 
> Problem is use when of does the classical Chinese write? Ming and Qing? Is
> Tang Sung period? Or does QIN2 HAN4 is period? Or to is more early? Each
> period classical Chinese differ very greatly.The Manchu Dynasty and Han
> dynasty rise of test twice according to the custom of the ancient works, be
> for can let the then person comprehend the people of the past's  work of
> classical Chinese.The ancients is still not apprehensibility more early the
> classical Chinese of the ancients, so which period classical Chinese we use to
> write worthwhile discussion.If use the MIng and Qing period classical  Chinese
> writing, that is much more simple, plus some 之乎者也, delete 的了呢.( this and
> Chinese  version difference not big)If use first Qin's classical Chinese
> write, having no several individuals perhaps can write.
> 
> [[zh:user:shizhao]]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>