Talk:Song of the Yue Boatman

Page movement and loss of link

No objections to moving the page, however just noticed that whilst the Chinese wiki still links to this, the link from the English wiki to here no longer displays. Anyone any ideas what to do?Johnkn63 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed on Wikidata. (I expect there's a bot that would do this before long.) Kanguole 11:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you. Not sure if there's a bot yet for this, as the link system has changed fairly recently. When in the interim state it is not possible to fix the link by setting it up again as it is already there, but does not display.Johnkn63 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sawndip

What did Wei say about this song and Sawndip? Kanguole 15:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

According to Qin Xiaohang quite detailed summary of Wei's 1953 article 《广西壮族的方块文字》 that, among other things, Wei wrote that since 《方言》，《越人歌》, etc only used Chinese characters to write Zhuang and so do not count as Sawndip, which started in the Tang dynasty, they where only predocessors of Sawndip not examples of it. Qin Xiaohang points out some aspects that others differ or agree in opinion with Wei, inlcuding observing that Wei was the first to suggest that Sawndip started in the Tang dynasty and that most scholars have tended to agreed with this view of his.Johnkn63 (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that Wei draws such a sharp distinction between the two, we should avoid misleading the reader with vague suggestions of a connection. Kanguole 23:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Not all scholars use this narrow definition of Sawndip, as say Li Ming explicitly points out (李明 《古壮字来源新论》 in 《学术论坛》 2007 Vol 10)) therefore whilst Wei's distinction is clear, it should not be stated in should a way that gives the impression this is the only definition of Sawndip, nor for that matter that this is Wei's complete statement of a definition of what are Sawndip. Johnkn63 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Or to put it another way many scholars would agree with Wei's statement that the song does not count as Sawndip, but not necessarily his reasoning why. Johnkn63 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Then there is no reason for much mention of Sawndip in this article. In addition, whatever Wei said in 1953 was surely superseded by what he said in 1981 when he had produced a complete interpretation of the song. Kanguole 08:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed the word Sawndip appeared to many times. Now it just appears once. The paragraph now flows a little better, Holm's works quoted here are is responses to Wei's two works of 1953 and 1981, and Zhengzhang's a resopnse to 1981 article.Johnkn63 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Wei's views in 1953 are superseded by his more developed views of 1981; there is no reason to cite the former. It appears that Holm agrees entirely with Wei on the question of a relationship to Sawndip. Kanguole 00:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Since Wei, Holm and Tan all consider the relationship between Old Zhuang script/OZS/Zhuang Square Characters/Sawndip to be one of similarities and differences worth commneting on at length then it is worth citing. It is not correct to say that Wei had one view that susperseded another, neither Holm nor Qin Xiaohang who talk about Wei's ideas say that. Other scholar's of lesser note than Holm and Qin Xiaohang, also say much the same. Since number of highly reputable scholars in their publications consider the relationship worthy of mention it is part of the body of knowledge about this song that should be included.Johnkn63 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Those are comprehensive treatments, but here we have a short article. Anything more than a short mention here is undue weight. We should have a short note that briefly and clearly says what they say, rather than using vague terms like "predecessor". And what Wei and Holm say is that this use of Chinese characters by Chinese scribes to transcribe a short passage in a language related to Zhuang is quite different from the Sawndip writing sytem. If Wei said something different in 1953, then clearly his views had changed by 1981. Incidentally, the other songs mentioned are presumably the Pai-lang songs, which are now generally accepted as being in a Lolo-Burmese language. Kanguole 08:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The term precedessor comes from the Chinese citation where it is 前身 it is not something I have made up, this is what the citation says. The current article is a stub the way to improve it is by adding relevant verifiable information not skipping it. How the song is viewed and the ways in which it has been reasearched are clearly relevent. This information is verifiable. There is not requirement that the information be either online or in English. I was aware that the other songs where proabably the Pai-lang songs, however the source I was using for Wei's views did not mention them by name. The "Zhuang" connection to this song has been discussed in print regarding not only the meaning by also the script used and the poetic style. The three authors cited Wei, Qin and Holm all talk about the script side. The paragaph shows Wei has some ideas about the song and how subsequent scholars have responded to those ideas. Johnkn63 (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The aim here is not to repeat authors's words (indeed we're supposed to avoid that), but to say what they mean. For that we need to be clear and precise, and avoid ambiguous terms like "predecessor", even if authors use it. The problem is the lack of clarity, especially when we know Wei"s view. Kanguole 22:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between verbatim use of someone's words and using a word that is the same, neither is predecessor a paticularly ambiguous term. We are in danger here of running around in circles. To go foward we need to step back a little. You rightly point out the article should not put undue weight on Sawndip, this I agree. The article is short but could be extended. So the question then is should it be extended, and if so how? I would argue that expansion is good in this case, yes there are more wide ranging articles that are stubs such as say Garden of Stories, however my expertise and what I have does not lie in that area. A way forward would be to create sections this would give a template that would help the article develope and hopefully stop us treading on each others toes. Johnkn63 (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This is indeed getting circular. Let's try to be specific. To say that A is a predecessor of B could convey a range of meanings: A occurred earlier than B, B was inspired by A, B developed from A in some way, A was replaced by B, and so on. In the case of the transcription of this song and Sawndip, only the first of these meanings is accepted by the experts in the field. Thus it would be more informative to simply say that Sawndip came later, and is a fully-fledged writing system developed and used by native speakers. Kanguole 11:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Our difference here is not the meaning of predecessor but rather what the published experts in the field think. Qin Xiaohang definitely considers this term when used by Wei to mean " B developed from A in some way" namely to mean that the Sawndip system developed from the system of the type used in this song of simply transcribing sounds, and points out where Zhang Yuansheng talks about this general possibility (pages 6-10 of 《方块壮字研究》）. Johnkn63 (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably not controversial to say that the Chinese practice of using characters to phonetically transcribe foreign words may have contributed to Sawndip and similar systems. But that general claim is not the same as connecting the transcription of this song with Sawndip. Kanguole 15:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

But the point is not do we agree with what Qin and others say but rather what does they say, what do they see. Qin a Zhuang person talks a song sung by a distant ancestor in a language that developed in to among others into his own language written into a script that developed into Sawndip the traditional script of his language, and therefore a predecessor. A point of view that applies particularly to these 32 characters. This view is different to that of Holm, one Qin attributes first to Wei. Johnkn63 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, so this should be attributed to Qin, because if Wei said something like that in 1953 he certainly changed his mind later. What exactly does Qin say about the relationship between the transcription of this song and Sawndip? Kanguole 10:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply put Qin considers the song an example of the earliest stage of 方块壮字 the 独体字阶段 (pages 80-81). Johnkn63 (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Only looked at pages 80-81 closely today. Qin does say that at this stage can not consider 方块壮字 to be a writing system (真实意义上的文字系统) but that things started like this and then developed.Johnkn63 (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)