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@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