[Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language request, and Chinese Wikipedia again
Alex Y. Kwan
litalex at gmail.com
Sun Feb 20 08:48:49 UTC 2005
Hello,
Sheng Jiong wrote:
> Is Baihuawen not the standard Chinese?
Currently, yes.
> It was created after the May Fourth Movement in 1919,
Was it? I seem to recall many novels and anthologies, etc. written in
something similar before the May Fourth movement. I actually think we
have a similar situation here. In the old days, the standard Chinese was
wenyanwen and baihua was seen as below par and people shouldn't write in
baihua because it's "only a spoken language".
The May Fourth movement changed that. And now...
> You are deliberately associating the concept of "standard Chinese"
> with classic Chinese (Wen Yan), which is actually not the standard
> Chinese today
I was trying to compare the two situations, which to me there are
similarities.
> (for it is neither taugt in schools as a way of writing,
> and neither is it used in most publications).
I can't speak for the situation in mainland China today, but it's
definitely taught, not as a way of writing, no, but I've seen many
people's attempt at writing it and some attempts are good enough to
pass. I think many people, especially the older generations in Hong
Kong, still write with a smattering of wenyanwen.
And I seem to recall something on the news a couple of years ago about a
young man who managed to write an essay completely in wenyanwen in his
university entrance exam or some such.
> there is any school teaching Cantonese is to question if written
> Cantonese has been widely accepted.
And yet as we keep pointing out examples of whether it's widely accepted
or not, you keep dismissing it, even when the evidence is valid.
> one of the most read Hong Kong tabloids. Among the six headlines in
> their main page, only one uses Cantonese characters;
It's a weekly magazine, I don't know if the headlines I read are the
same as those you've read, but I'd say that more than one uses Cantonese
characters and the sentence structure/grammar for all of them are in
fact Cantonese.
> and if you read
> the articles, all of them are written in baihuawen (if you prefer
> using this term and purposely confusing it with classic Chinese).
I don't think anyone is confusing baihuawen with Classical Chinese...
> 1)Not even Cantonese native speakers can understand an article
> entirely written in Cantonese written language, if it concerns
> encyclopediac topics;
I think I understood the examples Felix provided just fine, thank you
very much. Mind you, my Chinese education ended at Primary 5. So if I
can understand it, it's pretty understandable. And as the article is
written by a mainland Chinese, I assume there are at least some mainland
Chinese people who can understand an article written completely in
Cantonese.
> 2)Few people have written in Cantonese;
And both Cathy and I have said that we and many Hong Kong people do
write often in Cantonese. For short messages, granted, but for the
purpose of this experiment, I think it counts. Then again, who knows
what's your definition of "few people".
> 3)Wikipedia should not advocate the use of Cantonese written language.
> Instead we should only allow it when it has already been accepted by
> the society.
So says the person who keeps insisting that Cantonese can't even be written.
> But as I have
> suggested both Mandarin and Cantonese are just spoken languages, but
> when it comes to writing everyboy today in China, Hong Kong or Macau
> uses the same written language: Baihuawen.
And baihuawen is based on Mandarin grammar, syntax, etc. So essentially
baihuawen *is* Mandarin.
little Alex
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list