[Wikipedia-l] Re: Request for classical Chinese

[Felix Wan]

On Wed, March 2, 2005 7:22 pm, shi zhao said:
>
> Problem is use when of does the classical Chinese write? Ming and Qing?
> Is Tang Sung period? Or does QIN2 HAN4 is period? Or to is more early?
> Each period classical Chinese differ very greatly.The Manchu Dynasty and
> Han dynasty rise of test twice according to the custom of the ancient
> works, be for can let the then person comprehend the people of the past's
> work of classical Chinese.The ancients is still not apprehensibility more
> early the classical Chinese of the ancients, so which period classical
> Chinese we use to write worthwhile discussion.If use the MIng and Qing
> period classical  Chinese writing, that is much more simple, plus some
> 之乎è€
也, delete 的了呢.( this and Chinese  version difference not
> big)If use first Qin's classical Chinese write, having no several
> individuals perhaps can write.
>
> [[zh:user:shizhao]]
>
That is a real concern.  True, even "Classical Chinese" is a blanket
term covering milleniums of evolving written Chinese style.

Since the original proposer is a Japanese, I guess the style that is
most compatible with kanbun or other traditions known to East Asians
should be that of the Tang-Song period.  That is also the period with
the richest literature for reference, and most educated Chinese should
be familiar with the style.  So if we are really going to open such an
encyclopedia, let's fix the reference time frame to the Tang-Song period.

However, my perception is that the grammar of Classical Chinese is more
or less stablized since the Tang dynasty.  New ways of saying things
were introduced, but the real substantial change happens with the
introduction of Baihuawen.

Does the Latin Wikipedia face similar problems in selecting the style?

Felix Wan