On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:31:56 +0800, Lorenzarius <lorenzarius(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am no opinion on zh-min-nan but I have a few things
to say about your message.
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:09:43 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
First and foremost this problem could be looked
at in terms of Cantonese.
Modern Cantonese actually has two different versions, one that is just
reading text written for Mandarin speakers but with Cantonese
readings, the other being using Cantonese grammar and vocabulary words
that Cantonese has but Mandarin doesn't.
Until very recently the latter had the higher status in Hong Kong and
Macau, however upon reunification the former gained the higher status.
Most Cantonese speakers, even if they don't know Mandarin, can read
texts written by a Mandarin speaker with little difficulty, but much
of the sentences are not how they would say them in everyday speech.
I am a Hongkonger and I speak Cantonese. And I think what you're
talking is really messed up. We write "written Chinese" (書面語) not what
you called "reading text written for Mandarin speakers". And this
"written Chinese" is the same "written Chinese" in Beijing or in
Shanghai or in any part of China. Chinese people write Chinese in its
common form: before the New Written Language Movement (AD 192x - 193x)
this common form is "wenyian" (or Classical Chinese), and after the
movement this common form is "baihua" (Modern Chinese).
Exactly. And Baihua is based on Mandarin.
It is true that what we speak is not what we write.
But no one
actually write "Cantonese" except in very vulgar or very casual
occasions, like when I'm IM-ing with my friends. We don't teach how to
write Cantonese in school, and I think that not much people really
know how to write correct Cantonese.
Then there is also an issue with Classical
Chinese which is very
different from modern Mandarin. Until very recently any sort of
reference work like an encyclopedia would've been written in Classical
Chinese which was the literary language.
Perhaps you're right if "until very recently" means several decades ago.
<snip>
Yes, that could be considered "very recently".
--Jin Junshu/Mark