Talk:Varieties of Chinese/Archive 2

"Also the amount of "linguistic consciousness" varies between the groups. For example, a speaker of Cantonese dialect living in Hong Kong tends to feel a great deal of common identity with a speaker of Cantonese living in Taishan, even though these two varieties of Cantonese may be almost unintelligible...The Hong Kong and Taishan person would both claim to be speaking Cantonese in the first case, while in the second case only the person from Shanghai would be speaking Shanghainese."

As someone whose family originated in Taishan, I don't think this is true. We call the Taishan dialect "Taishanese" or "Taishan hua" and the Hong Kong dialect "Cantonese" or "Guangdong hua". We don't claim that the Taishan dialect is Cantonese. In Taishan, most people also know how to speak the Hong Kong dialect (or a heavily accented variation that is meant to be like that dialect). --Jiang 02:01, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Cantonese and Taishanese are not comparatively "unintelligible". --Jiang 06:44, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

P0M: Someone added the following sentence: "Chinese dialects can be divided into a number of categories, although it is important to remember that variations within a category be uninteligible." This sentence does not make sense, and I cannot guess what the person is trying to say.

I tried to make it a bit more clear. Basically, getting at the fact that I can't understand a word that Mao Tsetung is saying even though he is theoretically speaking Mandarin. User:Roadrunner

P0M: I am not sure how the decision was made to use the word "dialect" to name the major subdivisions of the Chinese language family. Americans speak of "the Cantonese dialect," "the Taiwanese dialect," "the Cockney dialect," "the Brooklyn dialect" -- as though they are all the same distance apart.

Basically, they found the term fangyan and just translated it as dialect. The problem is that the entire system used to classify language in China is *very* different than the systen used to classify them in Europe. User:Roadrunner

But I can pick up Cockney without much trouble, and yet I could not easily understand the Mandarin of a professor at the National Taiwan University who came from Anhui. (The Han Chinese students at the University didn't find it easy either.) Much less could I pick any meaning out of Cantonese as spoken in the nearby restaurant. We need a better way to distinguish the various levels of differentiation.

Current Dialect Map not widely accepted

File:Y-NL400b.gif

The above map is arbitrary. In China, there are only 10 accepted dialect groups (topolects), Mandarin dialects (Jianghuai, Southwest, Northeast, etc) are considered as part of a SINGLE dialect group (Mandarin) by Chinese linguists, the above map does not make that clear.

The below map is more widely accepted by academia and also has more intuitive shading representing how some dialect groups are more similar to others (for example Ping is similar to Cantonese, Jin is closely related to Mandarin, Wu and Xiang have same Chu 楚 origins, and Hakka and Gan are closely reated):

naus 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This map seems suspect in that it only shows usage in two countries, Taiwan and China. Isn't spoken Chinese also used outside those countries? I've met Vietnamese who claim to be Chinese and at least one who claims his family in Vietnam speaks a Chinese langauge. Readin (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested vocabulary changes

P0M: I am not sure how the decision was made to use the word "dialect" to name the major subdivisions of the Chinese language family. Americans speak of "the Cantonese dialect," "the Taiwanese dialect," "the Cockney dialect," "the Brooklyn dialect" -- as though they are all the same distance apart. But I can pick up Cockney without much trouble, and yet I could not easily understand the Mandarin of a professor at the National Taiwan University who came from Anhui. (The Han Chinese students at the University didn't find it easy either.) Much less could I pick any meaning out of Cantonese as spoken in the nearby restaurant. We need a better way to distinguish the various levels of differentiation.

P0M:http://www.chinesedc.com/4WenYi/Language/sino-tibetan1.htm gives this kind of a picture:

yu3 zu2 (Sino-Tibetan);

yu3 xi4 (Sinitic);

11 qun2 (bei3 yu3 qun2, Ke-Gan qun2, Min qun2 and 4 single yu3 entries );

13 yu3 (Bei3 yu3 (Mandarin), Jin4 yu3, Dungan, Gan, Hakka, Wu, Hui, Xiang, Min Bei, Min Dong, Min Zhong, Pu Xian, Min Nan, Yue,

fang1 yan2 (e.g. Northern Mandarin, Central Mandarin, Southern Mandarin);

ci4 fang1 yan2 (e.g., Beijing hua, Si4 Chuan1 hua4, etc.).

There may be better ways to speak of these divisions in English, but how about something like the following (With a Western example this time):

Language Clans (Indo-European)

Language Families (Germanic)

Language Groups (Western German)

Languages (Low German)

Regional Variations (English)

Dialects (Englisn as spoken in the British Isles)

Sub-dialects (Cockney English)

"Low German" is a bad choice of words, I think, since that generally refers to a particular dialectal continuum. Maybe you should have ingvaeonic, instead.

You can add that to the article (this diagram above...). Add tones to the pinyin though. As stated above, Taishan hua and Guangdong hua are of different names, and therefore obviously not considered the same "dialect", although there are many similarities. We call them different names. Either that, or my family is just weird. --Jiang 06:36, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

P0M: I think the difference between Taishan hua and Guangdong hua is about like the difference between Beijing hua and Tianjin hua, or maybe Taibei hua and Tainan hua. Anyway, the language is Yue. (One problem here is that the city name and the province name are the same, right? So it's useful to have Yue for the province-sized region designation, and Guangdong for the city-sized "metropolitan" designation.) I don't know how complex differentiation is in the Yue area (which is actually larger than Guangdong), and I don't know how substantial the difference is between Taishan and Guangdong hua. If the difference is substantial, the two might not even be two dialects. They might be two "Regional Variations." I suppose the test of whether it is one or the other is what happens when somebody from Taishan, who has never before left home, goes to Guangdong and has to ask for help getting around the city from someone who speaks only Guangdong hua. If both parties really want to communicate but can't get the job done (without writing), then I'd say it's a regional variation. I think I remember learning from my San Francisco Taishan friend that he had no great trouble getting around in Cantonese even though people teased him about his accent, so my guess is that they are both dialects of Yue or "coastal Yue" or whatever the regional differentiation may be. Are there varieties of Yue that you find much much more difficult than Cantonese?

My Cantonese is very bad. If I try to speak it, I have a massive Mandarin accent. I would say that I pick up 75% of conversational Guangdong hua, but only 25% of Taishan hua. The city is Guangzhou, the province is Guangdong, so there's a distinction. But in English, Canton refers usually to the city, so I think that's the confusion. --Jiang 00:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems.

The first is that the classifications that people use socially are just not linguistically consistent. To give a rather jarring example, no one considers Dungan (which is written in Cyrillic) to be even Chinese, even though it is linguistically closer to Mandarin than Cantonese is. The second is that the dialects often do not fit in a nice tree structure because of borrow back and forth.

-- User:Roadrunner

The problem is that this classification scheme really isn't the only way it's done: the terminology that I'm more familiar with are:

Chinese language

fang1yan2 qu1 (dialect groups, lit. dialect areas) - Mandarin, Wu, etc.

ci4fang1yan2 qu1 (sub-dialect groups) - Northern Mandarin, Southwestern Mandarin, Minbei, Minnan

pian4 (sub-sub-dialect groups) - e.g. Wu is divided into pian4; I'm not sure if other dialects, e.g. Cantonese, are usually divided in this way

xiao3pian4 (sub-sub-sub-dialect groups)

Terms like "beijing hua", "sichuan hua" etc. fit at some level in this scheme, but in reality there is no such thing as a unified linguistic entity called "sichuan hua" -- "chengdu hua" or "chongqing hua", for example, are more accurate; but even those can be infinitely divided into more sub-varieties. There is no "lowest level" classification here.

Finally: I can't say I've ever seen "yu3 qun2" as a consistently-applied "level" in the classification of Chinese. Usually the first level people come to are the "yu3" or "fang1yan2 qu1" -- Mandarin, Jin, etc; "yu3 qun2" seems to be a attempt by the author of that particular tree to "regroup" some of the "yu3" together into larger entities.

I've edited the Chinese language article , btw., to try to take out terms that suggest one exclusive way of thinking about Chinese -- either as a "language" or as "languages" -- without making the article too abstruse. Also: I suggest that this entire article should be moved over into the Chinese language article, and be reorganized into a "tree structure" classification - the sort that you see on the Romance languages page. There really is no reason why this article should exist independently, now that the Chinese language article is becoming a "catch-all" article to describe all varieties of Chinese. -- Ran 19:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

P0M: I think it might work better if you would discuss changes instead of just jumping in and doing things according to your own preferred system. I agree that the whole things is messed up in some sense because of the word "dialect" getting used by Western people who had no clear idea of the phenomena they were trying to describe. Top-down planning would be a good idea, i.e., starting with a general article on "the" Chinese language. That article should start by taking into consideration the misinformation that most Western readers will already be burdened with. They need to know that there is not a majority language that has the position that English has in the U.S., that it's more like Canada where lots of people speak French as their first language. Then the tree idea seems to me the right way to go. It isn't important what the various branches and twigs are called as long as someone can see that, e.g., Dungan is closer to Beijing hua than is Cantonese.

Sorry about the hasty edit: I was hoping to make the article a little more NPOV. In any case, I think the problem can be more easily resolved if we set aside a separate section to explain the language/dialect issue in the Chinese language article. (On a totally unrelated note: that's a nice map that you made for the Chinese dialects, btw, but you need to tweak the area that you showed for Jin; it's not exactly spoken in a circle around Taiyuan.) -- Ran 2004.01.12 06:35

Protested Revision

P0M: Somebody has written "Although dialect is often used to translate the Chinese term (fangyan), the linguistic difference between the spoken versions of the dialects are greater than what would be considered separate languages in Europe." Separate languages in Europe can be really separate. Not all languages spoken in Europe are Indo-European. Hungarian is one example, and Basque is another. Maybe the writer of the sentence quoted above was thinking of situations like that of Norwegian and Swedish where so-called languages are really (IMHO) dialects. But the average reader will read the sentence to mean that, e.g., Sichuan hua and Beijing hua are more different than are German and Spanish -- which is clearly false. So I am planning on changing this sentence. (It would be nice if we could grab a "linguistic distance" meter somewhere and just whip it out to measure the difference between any two speakers.)

This is an excellent example why and how Wikipedia is inferior to Encyclopedia Britannica as an authoritative source of information. One can very well see that this highly technical topic is being edited by non-linguist, non-philologist and non-specialist on the subject. Yet, Wikipedia may serve some useful purpose in that it is free and Britannica isn't. The fundamental problem with this entry is that the whole article is riddled with the term "dialect". There is no instance with other languages that I find the use of this term in this context more misleading. No discussion about the origins of spoken languages can be complete without considering its history and evolution through time. Let us consider this statement taken from the article;

However, most Chinese view them as variants of a single Chinese language, which is often a prime consideration of a dialect.

This is a load of nonsense and I speak as a person of Chinese origin. Even non-Chinese historians would tell the uninitiated that the various spoken languages on the Chinese sub-continent are actually different languages rather than dialects of a common language. One can say that there are as many languages in China as there are in the Indian sub-continent. One would appreciate this fact if one were to know a little more about ancient Chinese history. Before Hanyu became the standard form of writing in China, each language group had its own form of writing. During that time, one language group could not read what was written by another language group just as an Englishman could hardly make out what is written in Russian. Unlike western powers, China is a country that expanded through external invasion. About three millennium ago during the Qin dynasty (not to be confused with the later Qing dynasty) made a single style as the standard form of writing throughout the land. From that time onwards all language groups have been using a standard form of writing with little variation since. That means, one could read the same letter in Cantonese, Hokkien or any other languages in the land. This impression may have given rise to the appearance of a common language with different dialects but it could not be further from the truth. Another note I would like to comment about is that every time I see the term "Taiwanese dialect", I could not be more amused by it. My father graduated from the National University of Taiwan and my mother is a native of Taipei. One can say half my roots is buried in Taiwan and yet I have not heard of any dialect that can be called Taiwanese. Taiwanese Hokkien maybe but Taiwanese dialect? What is that? I speak my mother's tongue and it is a form of Hokkien also prevalent in southern Fujian. Would anyone care to enlighten me what Taiwanese dialect sound like? --60.50.34.36 (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I added a paragraph on how people learn dialects. -- Roadrunner

P0M: I'm sorry. I removed it. It is quite inaccurate, and groundless. Mainland people who live in Taiwan for decades can remain unable to speak Taiwanese.

And this is as much a function of motivation and opportunity as anything else.

The difference between Taiwanese and Mandarin is about like the difference between German and English or maybe even between Irish and English. I think that no speaker of English who lives in a German-speaking area or an Irish-speaking area just "picks it up."

I know of people in the Peace Corps who pick up a language very quickly when they are just dumped in an area and forced to sink or swim.

Nobody in the U.S. who decides to learn German just "picks it up" either. U.S. high school students who want to get their language requirement out of the way generally take Spanish because it is grammatically simpler. German is hard! Taiwanese is hard!

The sociolinguistics of China is vastly different from the United States. U.S. high school students are not exposed to German 24/7 and there isn't a linguistic continuum between English and German.

Also I think it's a linguistic consensus that no language is inherently easy or hard.

(And, like German, it has some sounds that are hard for adults to learn to produce.) And, for Taiwanese speakers, Mandarin is hard (If you don't believe it, try figuring out the Mandarin of somebody over 65 who was not taught Mandarin formally because under the occupation he was taught Japanese.)

Note that I didn't say it was easy to pick up a dialect via osmosis (it's actually total hell).

Roadrunner 09:48, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

P0M: It is possible, according to my Chinese friends, for a Beijing speaker to go to Sichuan and learn that dialect of Mandarin by osmosis in a fairly short time.

Any I personally know people who have picked up Wu, Min-Nan, and Cantonese by osmosis. It takes a few years, but it can be done.

But some of the Chinese who have written in the Wikipedia talk pages say that they require an interpreter whenever they go to Sichuan. Since I, as an Anglophone, can pick up Sichuan hua without difficulty I think they are just suffering from the "suddenly dropped in the cold sea" phenomenon, and would do o.k. if they could get relaxed about it. That is what the Chinese friend I asked about it on last Saturday said, anyway.

Something to keep in mind here. There is no particular reason to think that you as a Mandarin second language speaker ought to have a harder time picking up Sichuanese than a native Mandarin speaker from Beijing. Among other things, your brain is already tuned to learning a new language, and its likely that your standard for comprehension is a bit lower. Also, its possible that somewhere along the way, that you might have gotten in contact with people from Sichuan that allowed to you tune your ear.

Roadrunner 09:48, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

§ A major problem: "In the past, it was viewed as closely related to Hakka dialects, because of the way Middle Chinese voiced initials have become voiceless aspirated initials, that those in Hakka." The last phrase is totally meaningless to me. Something must have dropped out, but I have no idea what the intended meaning was. Could the original writer of that sentence please fix it? P0M 07:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Hopefully, reads better now. Dylanwhs 22:34, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner 09:11, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Changed the statement that linguists generally classify languages by intelligibility. Most of the linguistic literature I've read uses self-identification and in general tries to duck the language-dialect issue entirely. Also, I don't know of any linguistic that would for example classify Hindi and Urdu or Dutch and Afrikaans as single languages, not withstanding the fact that they are easily intelligible.

Roadrunner 12:54, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Min derivation

I'm rather curious about this statement:

Min is the only group of Chinese dialects that cannot be directly derived from Middle Chinese.

Is there a source for this? Looking at the Chinese language tree, it looks as though Wu, Hui, and Xiang are more distant than Min. How does this reconcile with the statement above? --Umofomia 09:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doubtlessly most Chinese dialects have very ancient roots, predating Middle Chinese or even Old Chinese. But a standardizing influence has been strong enough throughout history that all languages/dialects except Min, such as Mandarin, Wu, Cantonese, etc. can now be "taken as" directly derived from Middle Chinese.

What I mean by this is that: other than a few odd exceptions and traces here and there that reflect earlier influences, the modern phonology of these languages can generally be explained as either retentions of or innovations upon the Middle Chinese system, represented in rime books like the Guangyun. But Min is different, in that it has systematically retained features that predate the system of Middle Chinese.

This is why there are two versions of the Chinese language family tree, one version showing Min splitting off before everyone else, and the other showing everyone splitting off together.

Here's something I found: [1]. Except for Wen-chou, which has been classified as Wu, the others are Min dialects, and the generally accepted view that Min branched off directly fro Old Chinese makes it easy to understand why the final glottal stop turns up in these dialects but hardly anywhere else.-- ran (talk) 17:31, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Xiang and Pinghua

Someone might want to pick up the two articles I threw together, Xiang (linguistics) and Pinghua (linguistics). I know little about Chinese, but it seemed to be a conspicious omission and I was able to find some information on the internet which I collated together. Daniel Quinlan 03:22, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Manifestations of Language Differentiation

Could someone clarify what "awkward sentence" and "more colloquially" mean in this section? By awkward, is the Minnan-based sentence still understood by the average Mandarin speaker, or are there archaic / scholary terms that only well-read Mandarin speakers would know about? And by "more colloquially" -- does this imply the use of regional slang? We should probably keep the examples to standard Minnan and Mandarin speech, not overly formal but without the use of regional slang either. Otherwise people will get the impression from these examples that the differences between Minnan and Mandarin are more due to regional colloquialisms rather than more fundamental differences. That is, it would have the same effect as reading an article on English Language which uses the example of British "fag" (regional slang) to translate American/Canadian "cigarette" (standard speech) in order to emphasize differences between British and American, when in fact "cigarette" exists in standard British English as well.

no collective term for all of the variations of the spoken language

Quote Within Chinese, there is a collective term for the Chinese written language (中文 zhōngwén), while there is no collective term that encompasses all of the variations of the spoken language. Terms used to describe spoken Chinese, such as 汉语 hànyǔ or 国语 guóyǔ refer only to one specific variation of spoken Chinese, overwhelmingly Standard Chinese in modern usage.
How about kouyu (口语)? In my dictionary it means "spoken language". LDHan 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it works that way. If you say in English, regarding someone living in Europe, "She spoke in the vernacular," then what you actually mean will depend on what the "nice" or the "formal" language is wherever she is. She might speak "vernacular German," "vernacular Italian," or whatever. But nobody would conclude that German and Italian are closely related languages.

The ordinary way to indicate that somebody is speaking a "dialect" that you don't understand is to say that the person speaks another 方言. But there doesn't seem to be a term that groups all those fang1 yan2 into one family. Think of the way children know the names for many kinds of mammals but don't know that they are mammals. Typically, "mammal" is school vocabulary. The default way of speaking about generic Chinese is, I think, to use (somewhat inappropriately) 中文.

In more formal writing, the term 漢語 (Han4 yu3) seems to serve as the envelope term, e.g. one might say that Hanyu consists of several fangyan. P0M 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

translation

hi,

I would like to translate this page and its associated ones, to Catalan and Spanish. I am new as a registered wikipedia user and I could not figure out how to do this. I also realize that these pages are changing quite a lot lately and that therefore it may be better to wait until they achieve a stable status.

BTW, the Chinese language page translation to Catalan appears to be very incomplete. I may also review and complete it.

I will not do anything of the aboveif no one tells me to, I don't want to interfere in your excellent work.

Since Wikipedia is free for anyone to copy as long as they give it credit, you are basically free to translated whatever you want. It would be appropriate to indicate that you have taken material from this article, at least until your own page begins so different by reason of corrections, your own work, etc., that it stands as a "complete rewrite." P0M 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Feeling a little ill in Min-nan yu

Re the recent change from Goá kā-kī lâng ū tām-po̍h-á bô sóng-khoài. (我家己lâng有淡薄á無爽快) I checked my Taiwanese-Mandarin dictionary where I found that 家 is glossed as ge and 自 is glossed as ju, 自己 is glossed as ju gi. (I'm transliterating from Bopomofo to pin-yin. The "u" above is the "open" u found in words like "wu". not the umlaut u (ü) found in Mandarin, e.g., "jü-zi zhi" (orange juice). That dictionary accepts 人 as the right way to write "lang" = "person," but the old Giles dictionary (which gives pronunciations for Chinese regional languages, Japanese, etc.) does not.

Giles dictionary gives "F. ing, nöng" for 人 and it gives "F. chöü, chü, chei, chi" for 自.

Giles pronunciations (which are what we now call Wade-Giles pronunciations) are separated both in time and in space from current usage in Taiwan. However, 人 seems to be s "simplified" version of whatever was originally written for "lang" (my guess would be 郎"F. loung", "gentleman").

The version of the Chinese text that is currently in use seems to be better than what it replaces. P0M 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• According to Axel Schuessler, Min lang "person" is cognate to 儂 (Mandarin nong), which also happens to be the Wu word for "you". 203.67.110.184 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Changsha dialect

Another editor has created the article Changsha dialect. The article may need to be edited or moved. Could you please take a look at Changsha dialect and make any changes that seem to be appropriate? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Currency of the term cí (词/詞)

I first ran across this notion that the term cí (词/詞) is unfamiliar to Chinese speakers in Ramsey 1987, and it never rang true for me. I've mentioned it to other folks, and no one has ever found it an unfamiliar term. Granted, I tend to know college-educated folks, but no one ever suggested it was something esoteric that you would have to go to college to learn about. Any thoughts? BrianTung 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ramsey and this article both note that cí was historically unfamiliar. In modern times, it is much more widely known, though people still think much more readily in zì (字) anyway. —Umofomia (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In China they use symbols like -   exept closser and that symbol means 3
                               -
                               -  

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.20.190 (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitals on Map

To conform to NPOV requirements, the map should not show Beijing with a larger dot than the other cities as this suggests that Beijing is the capital while Taipei is shown with a smaller dot. Shrinking the Beijing dot would solve the problem. Does anyone know how to edit the map? Readin (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which particular city you consider to the the capital of China is highly bias. Besides, the traditional capital of the ROC is Nanjing, not Taipei!DOR (HK) (talk)

Since both insist they're one country, they have two capitals, Beijing and Taibei. South Africa and Bolivia have more than one capital-sized dot on the map, so why not China? kwami (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Showing Taipei and Beijing as capitals of their respective countries would work too. But the topic of spoken Chinese isn't political. Why mark capitals at all? Why open a door for people like to User:DOR (HK) to claim that we should be showing Nanjing as the capital of Taiwan? The article is about a language family, not about politics. Readin (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Languages and dialects again

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language#cite_note-2 for what I think is a good summary, although it omits the more extreme view that the varieties of Chinese don't even constitute a language family let alone a single language. But as it says well, the situation appears to be unique.

So I've done a little rephrasing of the lead, to avoid taking a stand either way. This seems best when it's possible, as here.

I wonder where this important principle should be (hopefully) documented? It goes beyond the relevant naming convention. Andrewa (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't over-politicise the question. When speaking about the Chinese language, we most likely mean Standard Chinese or Mandarin. Cantonese is referred to as Cantonese. If someone speaks a Chinese dialect, we can refer to them as speaking a particular Chinese dialect (using the name of a dialect). It by no means, downplays dialects. Even in China, they use -hua (话) for a specific dialect (e.g. 上海话) but Hanyu 汉语, Zhongwen 中文, Zhongguohua 中国话 are used as synonyms of Putonghua 普通话 or Guanhua 官话 (also applies to Guoyu 国语 or Huayu 华语). There is enough feeling of identity and belongingness to Chinese among Chinese people, so that despite some superiority complex, in 99% of cases one can refer to Standard Chinese language as simply "Chinese". Anatoli (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-Mandarin dialects on the maps and Mandarin

The non-Mandarin zones have a lot of Mandarin speakers and local people are, at least bilingual, especially in the large cities. Should the map reflect this, show mixed colours, perhaps? Mandarin is also widely spread in Taiwan as a spoken language. The map doesn't show this either. --Anatoli (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard to do, unless you have several maps. There are language majority and minority areas that overlap with other languages, but on a single map, they get distorted out, as big blobs of colours conveying the sense that only a particular lect resides there. Clearly this is not the case. Once, Shenzhen was mostly a mixed Cantonese-Hakka speaking area, but now, you could class it as mostly a Mandarin speaking area, due to the vast influx of migrants into the area. However, that would be mapping only the lingua franca. People of all parts of China have come to this area, making it even more difficult to show on a single map of where other language speakers are. IMO, it makes the language maps misleading. Dylanwhs (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Are the other non-Chinese language vocabulary items necessary?

As an English language article on Spoken Chinese, the English gloss would have sufficed. All the French, Spanish, Portugeuse etc additions are irrelevant, IMHO, since they serve no purpose in the comparison of Chinese vocabulary items. They should be removed, which will free up table width space for additional regionolects. Hanyu Fangyan Zihui and Hanyu Fangyan Cihui each give several Mandarin dialects, and multiple dialects of Min, two of Yue, Xiang and Wu, but one of Gan and Hakka. Maybe something like this could be helpful to show say differences in different Mandarin dialects, etc. Dylanwhs (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the non-Chinese items from the table as it serves no purpose in a discussion on the differences in Chinese languages. If it was originally intended to show the dialect versus language issue, a new article should be created instead of cluttering this article. Dylanwhs (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Need a citation source for the clade tree

Chinese	Min   Min Bei  Min Bei Shaojiang Min Dong Min Zhong Puxian  Min Nan  Hokkien Teochew  Qiongwen  Leizhou Hainanese  Middle Chinese   Guan  Jin Mandarin Dungan Huizhou  Wu  Wu Wenzhou Gan Hakka Xiang Pinghua  Yue  Cantonese Taishanese

Please can you source this diagram? What basis is used to define the various language groupings, and how do you resolve common wordstocks, for example, Yue Min and Hakka words and phrases using such a simplistic diagram? Dylanwhs (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What's with Min being separated from others ? This clade tree is simply not correct nor accurate according to most searches. Either it is a kind of phylogenetic tree then one needs to precise how ones derives from another, [including old chinese, middle chinese, and original sichuanese language (now dead language)] something which it CLEARLY is not as such; either it is NOT a kind of phylogenetic tree and then it only becomes a mere chart of actual spoken varieties of Chinese, and Min has to be put on an equal footing with others dialects/topolects.

What if one set Wu out, differently from the others on the basis of a specificity ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.197.86 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Min was separated out because it cannot be derived from Middle Chinese. But that seems to be an effect of reconstructions of Middle Chinese, which was not the ancestor of modern Chinese dialects but a series of literary standards, and so is irrelevant for phylogenetic classification. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of vocabularies

I did my best to add tones to the Mandarin column of this chart, and clear up some of the IPA. As I know none of the other varieties, someone else will have to pick up where I've left off. Also, I notice that there is a smattering of non-IPA symbols in there, presumably from sinological tradition. Those should be converted to IPA by someone... Also, since the large majority of these words are related and share hanzi, should we add a column for them? (and if so, what should we do when an unrelated word is used?) — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:72.82.80.129's edits

User:72.82.80.129 recently removed a significant chunk of this article (12,625 of 39,091 bytes), much or most of which seems to be useful, relevant information. I'm going to go ahead and revert the edits, but it's quite possible some of the removal was warranted. It should probably be discussed first, or at least explained a bit in the edit summary. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Spoken"

I'm not quite sure I understand why this article is located at the current title rather than, say, "Chinese languages", "Varieties of Chinese" or some such (leaving aside for the moment the already-messy overlap we have between this and two more poorly-defined articles, Chinese language and Sinitic languages). The differences between Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, Gan, Min, Hakka, and Xiang are not just in "spoken language" (or, as I assume is meant by that, pronunciation); there are also differences in vocabulary and grammar. It seems inaccurate to have an article title like this that suggests the only differences among them are the way they are spoken; even in writing, Mandarin and Cantonese may not always be mutually intelligible. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good point, however I think this topic probably still merits a separate entry because many people do believe in a spoken Chinese language. The topic refers to this belief more than to the reality of "spoken Chinese". The emphasis of this article should be on the perception more than the practicalities. I suspect advocates of "spoken Chinese" would concede that the actual varieties are separate languages while still maintaining they share a "Chinese" quality, much as we might refer to Germanic or Romance languages. Ben Lowsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.20.126 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Although the previous two posts were 10+ months and 2+ months ago, it's still ironic that I came to this talk page intending to post about the very same subject. With the exception of Arabic, it's hard to think of any other language (group) where there could plausibly be a page called "Spoken X" as a subset of "X" language. Some kind of verification/validity for the concept is important. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't determine facts, it determines facts about facts, i.e. what has been said about "X" rather than what "X" really is, so there probably is nothing else that need be done. . .--71.111.229.19 (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Comparison of vocabularies" section

Since it's comparing vocabulary, shouldn't they be in or at least include Chinese characters? Especially as the vocab varies quite a bit.Micro01 (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)