Hi Felix,
as regards what term can be used in English without causing
controversy, I would say "Chinese speech variety" instead of
"Dialect", or "Shanghai speech" or "The speech of Shanghai"
instead of
"Shanghai dialect" or "Shanghainese language".
Also possible to use is "regional speech variety", a more literal
translation of fangyan, which translates the Chinese intent and
meaning more accurately: it doesn't suggest how similar or unsimilar
this speech is with other related varieties, it merely distinguishes
it from others as "Shanghai regional speech variety" vs "Guangzhou
regional speech variety".
This can even be used to refer to different languages, such as
"Tibetan regional speech variety" or "Nei Menggu regional speech
variety", or "Japan regional speech variety" and it is still an
accurate description - it is the speech variety unique to that region.
As far as the expiriment you've set up, it doesn't seem anybody has
written yet. Maybe Alex and co. are away on the weekend? Do you know
any Cantonese to write a sample article, Felix?
Mark
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 11:27:36 -0800 (PST), Felix Wan
<felixwiki(a)earthsphere.org> wrote:
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