Hello,
Sheng Jiong wrote:
Because people choose to igonore it, and because it is just so small and it is almost non-existent. But I am not prepared to accept another Cantonese Wikipedia, and then Shanghainese, and then whatsoever trash.
I would appreciate it if you can argue using facts and not simply call other people's proposals trash. It's highly disrespectful.
There are not standard. No one has formalised these "characters", not the Hong Kong government (both before and after 1997),
The HK government has a page explaining and giving links to a code that has all the Cantonese/Hong Kong-specific characters that the standard Big5 code might not have. I don't know what is formalising if this isn't.
Here, you can see for yourself: http://www.info.gov.hk/digital21/chi/structure/cli_main.html
But put characters aside, the grammar is the same for Cantonese and Chinese.
That's...incorrect, to say the least.
We are now seeing a small portion of Cantonese speakers who believe that there should be something as a Cantonese Wikipedia. But for most Cantonese speakers (even if you just limit that to Hong Kongers), most people object such proposals because most people know that Cantonese is NOT a written language.
All languages can be written down in one way or another, if the language speakers want to.
And there's no evidence that most Cantonese speakers would object such a proposal. The three Cantonese speakers who had said anything here are Felix, Cathy, and I. I doubt we three are the only Cantonese speakers on this list or on zh.wikipedia.org.
Again I want you to show me evidence that Cantonese IS a written language (do not tell me X books are written in
I'm now beginning to think that showing you the evidence when we find it is pointless, since you seem to be holding onto your stance based on emotions rather than facts. Any time Felix or I try (tries?) to show you something, your reply is the same: oh, that doesn't count, that's just an exception.
little Alex