Talk:Cantonese

'a paucity of Cantonese speakers possess comprehensive knowledge of the written vocabulary'

'Both languages can be recorded verbatim, yet a paucity of Cantonese speakers possess comprehensive knowledge of the written vocabulary. Consequently, a non-verbatim formalised written form is adopted, which bears resemblance to the written Standard Mandarin. However, it is only non-verbatim with respect to vernacular Cantonese, it is possible to read Standard Chinese text verbatim in formal Cantonese, often with only slight changes in lexicon that are optional depending on the reader's choice of register. This results in the situation in which a Cantonese and a Mandarin text may appear similar but are pronounced differently. Conversely, written (vernacular) Cantonese is mostly used in informal settings like social media and comic books.'

What does the part in bold mean? Literally and under a normal linguistic and Western interpretation, it should mean that they can neither use nor understand, neither in speech nor in writing, many of the words that occur in the literary, written register of their own language, Cantonese. But the entire context makes me suspect that it means something very different, namely that these speakers don't know the characters for the words of their own vernacular and hence write in a 'formal' variety that is closer to Mandarin instead. Or, in other words, they do know their vocabulary 'comprehensively', they just don't know how to spell it. The way this is formulated in the text would then be a case of the familiar Chinese perspective, where 'language' is equated with characters first and foremost and not with actual speech. But if so, the formulation should be amended, because this is not the contemporary standard linguistic perspective on human language - nor is it the usual Western perspective on it, so readers of the English-language Wikipedia can't be expected to understand it. The wording should instead be something like 'a paucity of Cantonese speakers possess comprehensive knowledge of the characters used to write their vernacular vocabulary'. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

On top of it all, now I have checked the two sources in that paragraph and neither one actually contains it. The first one simply has no discussion of the issue on the page given. The second one, Snow, is actually talking about early texts, which were written largely in Classical Chinese or Standard Chinese, but with occasional Cantonese elements. He doesn't claim that modern writing in Cantonese is done in this way, or that such texts can be said to be written 'in' Cantonese. So the claim, besides its inadequate formulation, seems to be unsourced, unless the present tense is replaced with the past.--62.73.72.3 (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The phrase you have highlighted was inserted quite recently, here by @DanielSnake457:. Perhaps they are able to provide some explanation. William Avery (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

'Cantonese vowels tend to be traced further back to Middle Chinese than their Mandarin analogues'

'Cantonese vowels tend to be traced further back to Middle Chinese than their Mandarin analogues, such as M. /aɪ/ vs. C. /ɔːi/; M. /i/ vs. C. /ɐi/; M. /ɤ/ vs. C. /ɔː/; M. /ɑʊ/ vs. C. /ou/ etc. For consonants, some differences include M. /ɕ, tɕ, tɕʰ/ vs. C. /h, k, kʰ/; M. /ʐ/ vs. C. /j/; and a greater syllable coda diversity in Cantonese (like syllables ending in -p, -t or -k).'

What does this mean? Both varieties originate from Middle Chinese, both of their vowel systems consist of reflexes of the same Middle Chinese vowels, which means that their vowels can both be traced to the exact same period, namely Middle Chinese, so one is not 'traced further back' than the other. Is the idea that the pronunciations of the Cantonese reflexes are phonetically closer to the Middle Chinese pronunciations? Or that the Cantonese vowel system preserves more of the phonemic distinctions that Middle Chinese had? In either case, a comparison with Middle Chinese pronunciations should be added here in order to both prove the point being made and just make it clearer what is being claimed. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The phrase 'traced further back' was inserted in 2015, here, by anonymous/unregistered user using a UCLA IP address. (FWIW, I think your interpretation is correct, but I'm just a second language speaker of Cantonese and Mandarin, not a scholar of their historical phonology.) William Avery (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)