[Wikipedia-l] Re: Request for classical Chinese

[Adam Bishop]

>From: "Felix Wan" <felixwiki at earthsphere.org>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Request for classical Chinese
>Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:50:12 -0800 (PST)
>
>On Wed, March 2, 2005 7:22 pm, shi zhao said:
> >
> > 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]]
> >
>That is a real concern.  True, even "Classical Chinese" is a 
blanket
>term covering milleniums of evolving written Chinese style.
>
>Since the original proposer is a Japanese, I guess the style that is
>most compatible with kanbun or other traditions known to East Asians
>should be that of the Tang-Song period.  That is also the period with
>the richest literature for reference, and most educated Chinese should
>be familiar with the style.  So if we are really going to open such an
>encyclopedia, let's fix the reference time frame to the Tang-Song 
period.
>
>However, my perception is that the grammar of Classical Chinese is more
>or less stablized since the Tang dynasty.  New ways of saying things
>were introduced, but the real substantial change happens with the
>introduction of Baihuawen.
>
>Does the Latin Wikipedia face similar problems in selecting the style?
>
>Felix Wan
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

On the Latin Wikipedia I think we try to be as classical as possible - the 
style of Cicero, or Caesar, or Vergil, or that sort of era (1st century BC - 
1st century AD).  It's not always possible; for example if we want to write 
about modern people or places, we may have to use a neo-Latin construction, 
or ecclesiastical Latin to write about a religious topic.  (Personally, I 
admit that I let a few medieval Latin constructions slip through once in 
awhile, as horrible as that may be to the purest classicists :))

Adam Bishop