On Fri, February 4, 2005 11:27 pm, Mark Williamson said:
Please don't use the term "dialect" or "language" in this case without understanding the background.
[snipped]
Thank Mark for the accurate description of the situation of Chinese speeches. Much misunderstanding has been caused by the translation: yu3yan2 <-> language fang1yan2 <-> dialect Usually words in unrelated dialects cover different semantic spaces.
Let me explain some more to the list.
When I use the word "language" and "dialect", I try to be careful to stick to its definition in English. So I say "Chinese languages". But to avoid controversy with Chinese speakers, I will say "Chinese dialects", but not the inaccurate "One Chinese language".
The concept that "Chinese is a group of related but different languages" can be represented as "Chinese consists of many related dialects that are not mutually intelligible among each other", and I believe no one will object to the second statement.
The current situation of Chinese is more complicated because all spoken varieties share a common formal written language. See [[en:Chinese Language]]. It is comparable to the time when all Romance languages shared Latin, when serious literature should all be written in Latin.
Now, there is a growth in number and extent of publications in some local Chinese vernaculars, and some of those speakers requested for their own Wikipedias. How should we respond?
I have started an experiment without requesting too much resources. I say: let them try and see what happens. Meanwhile we can think about the possibility of setting up a fair language policy.
Felix Wan