Talk:Yue Chinese

白話

白話 is Cantonese, not Yue, correct? That is, is Taishanese considered 白話? — kwami (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No it's actually quite the opposite - 白話 used in the context of Cantonese is what you'd call the prestigious/"accurate" Cantonese dialect - i.e. Guangzhou. This dialect is spoken with little variation in Nanning and Hong Kong. But in the greater context, 白話 simply means "vernacular"; that is, as opposed to "literary" or "incomprehensible". So in any given situation 白話 could mean something different - i.e. someone from Maoming, Dongguang could call their own language 白話 while speaking to their family members to indicate an in-group context (we speak 白話, outsiders speak another type of 話). Regardless, no GZ/HK dialect speaker will ever call Taishanese 白話, because it is not very intelligible to them - to the point that it has a well-established separate identity. Taishanese is thus not considered 白話. However, to my knowledge there is no other Cantonese (Yue) dialect that has established itself with such a strong separate identity. Everyone else basically thinks they're speaking in "Cantonese", i.e. 廣東話、粵語. Colipon+(Talk) 04:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That's more or less what I corrected the article to; I just didn't want to miscorrect it. I'll also change the trans. of 白話 to "vernacular", as that should be more informative than a literal gloss. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The article refers to 白话 as used by in Guangxi and Guangdong, in Guangxi 白话 in this context refers to the Guangzhou lect which is also spoken in Guangxi in areas along tributaries of the Perl River and the coast, in this context it does not mean "vernacular" . "vernacular" is another use of term 白话 to give it as a translation is to say the least confusing. The meaning of 白话 within the context of the article is clear including another meaning is leaving the topic, there is now a link to 白话 in the wiktionary for those who wish to understand more the various meanings of 白话.Johnkn63 (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

白話: Originally towards the end of the 19th century, there was a 白話 (Bai Hua) movement amongst students and educationalists. Note the Bai Hua was the vernacular of the North, ie modern day Putonghua. The demand was for the use of Bai Hua (the vernacular or plain straight forward speech) in written as well as spoken communications rather than Guan Hua (Speech of Officialdom), so that education could be brought to the masses and masses of poor and ordinary people. Thus the pronunciation of Chinese characters in Bai Hua and Guan Hua are the same, just that Guan Hua was the reading and speaking out of the written literary Chinese characters. In the Guangzhouhuaphone area it was quite natural to read "Bai Hua" in the Guangzhouhua pronunciation "Baak Wa", so for Guangzhouhua speakers Baak Wa refers to natural spoken Guangzhouhua, rather than reading out formal literary-style Chinese characters in Guangzhouhua pronunciations.

Okay, I didn't think it was a synonym for "Yue". Perhaps it should be deleted altogether, or moved to Cantonese if it isn't there already.

But once again, how many more times are you going to change the title of this article? 86.177.122.226 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

None at all. The article was at an improper name; people fought over all other possible names; it was left at a temporary improper name until 'Cantonese' was sorted out; there was consensus to move to the current title but multiple fights in carrying out that consensus. Now that all that is finished, the article should be stable. — kwami (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

白话 is not really a name for Yue, so I'm not sure what it explains to the reader, but no biggie.

Actually in some instances 白话 refers to Yue, certainly in Guangxi, the earlier version of this section somewhat oversimplified the picture. In Guangxi 白话 refers to the Guangzhou dialect, but also to Yue there is 玉林白话, 南宁白话, 梧州白话 Johnkn63 (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, we say that 廣東話 is used by "Cantonese" emigres abroad. However, it's not clear what we mean by "Cantonese". Is it a term used by Taishanese, who make up the bulk of the overseas Yue community? And does it mean both Cantonese and Taishanese if it is? — kwami (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The section "Names" though it rambles a little is acceptable, it is as you say the phrase "Cantonese immigrants abroad" which is unclear and should be clarified by someone who is clear what it means. Johnkn63 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr Kwami, "we" are very clear what Cantonese means. It is "you" (Kwami) who do not know what Cantonese means. Mr Kwami please do not confuse yourself with "us". Mr Kwami, the reason why you do not know what Cantonese means is because you are not one of "us". And it is no wonder you do not know what Cantonese means because you simply do not know Cantonese. Please stop messing about with this article. 86.183.82.223 (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you're the expert, would you please answer the question, so we can fix the article? Or would you prefer the article be wrong, so that you have something to complain about? — kwami (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest you unlock the article. However that still does not make you one of "us". 86.184.41.85 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you want an ethnic walled garden. Sorry, no place for that here. And you are evidently not interested in improving the article, so we have no use for you: Talk pages are for improving the article, not WP:soapboxing. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How does unlocking the article make it an ethnic walled garden? If the article was not messed up by you in the first place, why would it need changing back and forth for "improvements"? 86.178.231.216 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for sniping. You obviously are not interested in editing the article, since you haven't even tried. Please come back when you have something constructive to say. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr Kwami, please leave and don't come back until you have acquired a working knowledge of Cantonese. You have already inflicted enough damage on this article. Please leave the editing to people who do know what they are writing about. In making an encyclopedia trying is not good enough. 86.182.212.198 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.186.82 (talk)

"Cantonese" explanation

The article's "note" on the common name "Cantonese" states: "In English, the name "Cantonese" generally refers specifically to the dialect of Guangzhou (Canton), which has spread to Hong Kong and Macau and emerged as the prestige dialect of Yue."

This is not factually correct. Overseas Chinese who emigrated from what is presently known as the Dongguan-Zhuhai-Zhongshan area all call their home dialect "Cantonese" when speaking in English. These are certainly not dialects based on Guangzhou. Thus it is not correct to say that "Cantonese" generally refers to Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau. If anything, "Cantonese" generally refers to all of Yue. Colipon+(Talk) 03:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, you know that when we decided on the name Cantonese we had a long debate with dozens of references demonstrating to most people's satisfaction that that is the primary use of the name "Cantonese" in English, and that your conclusion above was found to be incorrect. That said, if you want to propose a different wording that you feel would be more accurate, please feel free. — kwami (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cantonese is an independent language and it has many dialects. Isuzu1001 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The specific dialect that is spoken in Guangzhou/Hong Kong/Macau/etc is commonly called Cantonese. This is a fact. The possibility that emigrants from the Dongguan-Zhuhai-Zhongshan area also call their home dialect Cantonese is not in conflict with that fact. If anything, we just need to include the regions mentioned in that article to include the Dongguan-Zhuhai-Zhongshan area. This is not a naming issue, and it's probably better for the talk page of that other article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've raised it a couple of times already. See Talk:Cantonese#Concentric Proposal. I think you disagreed with that approach. Colipon+(Talk) 21:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On this point the article Yue Chinese is a little self contradictory, for the term "Cantonese proper" it includes the Dongguan-Zhuhai-Zhongshan area and links to the page Cantonese.Johnkn63 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Article links

The biggest problem, actually, is article links. Some of the links to "Cantonese" are actually meant to be linked to what is now "Yue Chinese", while some link to the GZ-HK variety "Cantonese". Others are linked to "Cantonese" refer ostensibly to the "standard" form. Others still are ambiguous altogether. In addition, all the inter-language wiki links are also now a mess for good. As some languages may choose to follow this "Yue Chinese" convention, while others will continue to maintain "Standard Cantonese". Of course, everyone who vehemently wanted this article at "Yue Chinese" and argued for it has now left, now the dust has been settled and the pages archived. But the real problems that it has caused this encyclopedia will last for a long time yet. Partly because users like myself have been exhausted by all the back-and-forth posturing and argumentation, I can only sigh at what a colossal waste of time this whole affair had been, and how much more difficult it has become to pass on our collective wisdom about this language to our curious readership. Colipon+(Talk) 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The article links have been a mess for years. I've spent hours cleaning them up, none too successfully. I don't think we should have any links to "Cantonese" at all: they should all be to Yue, Canton dialect, or Standard Cantonese, etc., and can be redirected from there. New 'Cantonese' links will pop up all the time, of course; someone will need to go in periodically and reassign them. This would be the case no matter which article occupied the name 'Cantonese'.

As for the interwiki links, I'll take a look. There will always be a problem when one wiki has two articles to another's one. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A distinct "own written form"?

As indicated in the introduction, Cantonese has its own written form differing from other Chinese dialects. This can be misleading since, if the use of a few foreign phrases is considered an "own written form", it can be said that every single Chinese dialect or language has its distinct written form. Yes, Cantonese people use some words that only exist in ancient Chinese dating back to maybe 1000 years ago; yes, they have characters that aren't in use anymore in the north. But of what proportion? If the written text is still intelligible, as it is, to other Chinese users, what is the point to call it an "own written form"? In fact, even Standard Mandarin has its own vocabulary and grammar borrowed from non-Chinese languages, such as Manchu, Mongolian, etc. In Pekingese, it is hard to complete a sentence without using these foreign languages. To treat Cantonese differently, in my opinion, is not wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.12.47 (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how borrowings are relevant. Cantonese is a written language, as is Mandarin. Other Chinese languages have occasionally been written, but not to the same extent, and I don't know of any other (apart from Classical, of course) that is written in customized hanzi (as opposed to ad hoc hanzi, romanization, or cyrillization) to the extent of Cantonese. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. A Hanzi scheme for writing Taiwanese Hokkien has been developed in Taiwan for implementation in schools. See links here and here. --Szfski (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Written Cantonese is not intelligible to other Chinese users. Nor is it the case that distinctive characters are limited to foreign words. However the phrase "own written form" is rather vague. The differences are similar to that between English and French, would one say "English and French have different written forms"? Johnkn63 (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "written Cantonese", by which I assume you mean the type you find in Hong Kong tabloids is not intelligible to many other Cantonese readers, including people in Guangzhou. This form of "written Cantonese" is never taught in schools, and that includes Hong Kong schools, and is not accepted in written examinations. 86.176.186.82 (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly there are indeed many Cantonese speakers who are only able to read Mandarin and not able to read Cantonese. Every written system requires one to learn it first by formal to informal study. This need to learn written Cantonese even for Cantonese speakers who have been educated in Mandarin proves that it is not just a subset of written Mandarin Chinese. Johnkn63 (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No John. Cantonese readers, as with all Han peoples read and write in Hanzi and not Mandarin. What you call "written Cantonese" is in fact the use of the phonetic element of Hanzi to represent sounds of Cantonese speech, thus bypassing the meaning of the Hanzis themselves. Such uses of Hanzi to represent sounds are also found in classical written Korean and Vietnamese, and also in modern Putonghua. 86.183.80.209 (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have no understanding of written Chinese, if these comments are representative. Also, no personal attacks, please. They will be reverted, and if you continue, you will be blocked. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Who has no understanding of written Chinese? And what representative comments? 86.183.80.209 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to you:

Cantonese readers, as with all Han peoples read and write in Hanzi and not Mandarin. That's like saying we read and write the Latin alphabet, not English. The first part is true, but the second false: we read and write English using the Latin alphabet. That is different than reading and writing German using the Latin alphabet. Most Han read and write Mandarin using hanzi. Some read and write Mandarin using pinyin (the Chinese military) or zhuyin. A minority read and write other Chinese languages using hanzi (e.g. Cantonese) or the Latin alphabet (e.g. Hakka Wikipedia).

What you call "written Cantonese" is in fact the use of the phonetic element of Hanzi to represent sounds of Cantonese speech, thus bypassing the meaning of the Hanzis themselves. No, the majority of hanzi used to write Cantonese are used logographically, not phonographically. Although hanzi are inherently to a large extent phonographic, they reflect the pronunciation of Middle Chinese, not any extant dialect. Some characters have been created to represent Cantonese pronunciation, just as a lesser (?) number have been for Mandarin, and as AFAIK an even larger number for Vietnamese, but the majority are an inheritance of Middle Chinese, just as in the case of Korean and Japanese. Only a portion of what makes written Cantonese different from written Mandarin are distinct hanzi. Most of it are the different uses of hanzi that Mandarin and Cantonese share. — kwami (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored what John deleted below as "meaningless", and will explain after the original edit:

The wording of the article has now been changed, "own written form" has now been removed, and more objective wording used. As to any of the other questions raised I would be more than happy to carry discussion those on my talk page in either English or Chinese (普通话).Johnkn63 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Own written form" is still in the article. 86.183.80.209 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah,yes. My mistake. The words are still there.Johnkn63 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What would be a better wording? (I haven't read the whole discussion above.) — kwami (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is 2 separate issue. You guys are talking about the character choice issue. The grammar thing is entirely something else. Benjwong (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's partially what I meant by "different uses": diff. vocab and grammar. — kwami (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than a change of wording the best solution would seem to be a paragraph below talking about the written form making it clear what the differences and similarities are. Johnkn63 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami's ignorance is plain for all natural speaking Han Chinese people to see. Hanzi is neither pure logographic or phonographic or ideogrammic/ ideographic. Hanzis can be a mixture of all all three. Kwami is mixed up in his idea of the Latin alphabet used across the written forms of languages ranging from English and German, and by extension to modern Malay and Vietnamese, as well as languages that originally had no written form. Kwami's comparison of Hanzi and the Latin alphabet does not apply across these two completely different language families. Thus his "AFAIK" statement is just that, ie he knows nothing, so his "AFAIK" affirmation is true in this case because his subject knowledge can be expressed mathematically as an empty set. His example of using Hanyu Pinyin and Zhuyin and Hakka written in the Latin alphabet is relevant, but his assertion is once again false, because the use of the various Pinyin systems is simply just that and no more (I mean Pinyin means pronunciation). Pinyin's role is to record and aid the correct pronunciation of a Hanzi; it does not give meaning to a Hanzi. Given the number of homophones and near-homophone words in all Han languages, it has so far proved impossible to communicate meaningfully in written Chinese simply using Pinyin systems.

Now, let us move on to some examples, because Kwami clearly does not know how written Chinese and by extension Cantonese using Hanzis works. Take the spoken Cantonese for the third person pronoun "Koei". In formal written Chinese this would be written as "ta". This is pronounced as "ta" in modern Putonghua and Mandarin, and also pronounced "ta" in Cantonese, although of course a natural speaker of Putonghua and Cantonese can tell the slight difference between the two pronunciations of "ta", which I must add Kwami would never be able to detect. Now, in some HK tabloids and cheap magazines, for the Hanzi "ta", an invented Hanzi "Koei" is used for the pronoun. I have left out the tones to simplify the typing in the Latin alphabet. This Hanzi of "Koei" for the pronoun is written with two radicles, on the right hand side is the Hanzi pronouced as "Koei" in Cantonese and "Ju" in modern Putonghua. On the left hand side is the radicle (or sign) for a man. The Cantonese word and Hanzi "Koei" and the Putonghua word "Ju" (without the man radicle) means exactly the same thing, and used in exactly the same way. The "Koei" with the "man" radicle is used by its inventor to represent the Cantonese phonetic(specially Guangzhouhua) for the third person pronoun. The theoretical corresponding "Ju" in Putonghua does not exist, so although you can write it, this "Koei" for the pronoun or "Ju" (in Putonghua) has no meaning outside of its narrow use in Guangzhouhua. Unfortunately, even in Guangdong, not all the Guangdong languages use "Koei" as a third person pronoun, and the local pronunciation of the Putonghua "Ju" may not be "Koei" or the phonetic used for the third person pronoun.

In may other cases in Hanzi, the "mouth" radicle is used on the left hand side of the Hanzi to indicate that the Hanzi represents a sound (but not meaning) close to the radicle or Hanzi written to the right hand side of the "mouth" radicle. This applies to both modern Putonghua as well as newly invented written Cantonese.

Once again it would be most appreciated that Kwami learn something about the subject matter before he starts to tell people what is "AFAIK", when it is clear his knowledge of the subject matter amounts to a sum total of nil. He is trying to contribute something that is way above his capability, and in doing so damages the credibility and integrity of the discussions and the article. 86.183.80.209 (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that everyone here understands all of this. Besides the fact that 佢 does not consist of two radicals (it consists of one radical, 人, and one phonetic, 巨), hanzi are nearly entirely logographic. They may be used phonographically, for example in English loan words, but nonetheless generally retain their logographic values. I can't think of any ideographic hanzi, unless you mean their historical derivation instead of their current use. But then, I disagree with you, so I must by definition be ignorant. — kwami (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Kwami, you said it, ignorant. Yes people who understands Chinese should understand its principles of writing. That would, by your own admission, bar you, as you do not understand Chinese. If you did understand it, why did you not write it down before? As always you ride on the work of others, then claim you already knew. You can't think of any ideographic hanzis? Then let me help you. It is as simple as one, two, three. Once again please show some consideration for others and stop messing up this aticle. 86.183.80.209 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

一, 二, 三 are not ideographic. You do not, apparently, know the meaning of the word. Rather, they represent the Cantonese words yat, yi, saam. If the idea of 'one, two, three' is not expressed by the words 'yat, yi, saam', then the hanzi 一, 二, 三 would not normally be appropriate. (Perhaps you could find some example in mathematics, but I doubt in normal text.) For example, 'pair' and 'twin' contain the idea of 'two', but are not written with 二, which they would if 二 were ideographic, but with 双, because spoken Chinese does not use the word yi for this meaning, and 二 represents the word 'yi', not the idea of 'two'. Similarly, although 'single' contains the idea of 'one', it is not written with 一, but with 单, because again, the spoken word differs. That's the difference between a logograph and an ideograph.

(I suppose the Suzhou numerals 〡, 〢, 〣 might be ideographic; that I don't know. But I doubt you're going to find such examples outside of mathematics or other non-linguistic disciplines.)

Anyway, what does this have to do with anything? You don't think that people who disagree with you should be allowed to edit? Tough luck.

I shouldn't be feeding the troll. If I make an error, you should correct it. If I don't make an error, then what I do or do not know is irrelevant to improving the article, and therefore does not belong on this talk page. Please respect the community on that. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I have thought of some ideographic hanzi! They are 她, 牠, and 祂. These are a semantic overlay of Western languages on Chinese. Traditionally, and if hanzi were purely logographic, these would all be written 他, since they are the same spoken word as 他. I think we can agree, though, that such characters are a very minor component of written Chinese! — kwami (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As per usual Kwami, attack senselessly rather than admit you need to improve your subject knowledge. Why don't you just look up the meaning of ideograph in a reputable (English) dictionary. It is as simple as one two, three. Hey Kwami, was it not you who said attacking others on this page will earn you a ban? You should now ban yourself. 86.183.80.209 (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is iconic. Unless you're speaking of etymology, but etymology does not affect the function of the script. After all, the English logograph "&" derives from Latin et, but that's irrelevant to the modern use of the symbol. Likewise, the numerals 1, 2, 3 are historically based on one, two, and three strokes just like 一, 二, 三 are. But that doesn't make them ideographs. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No Kwami, that is a word you are looking for, not I. Just go and look up the word in a reputable English dictionary for its meaning. Once again I am perfectly aware you are changing the subject to take attention away from your lack of subject knowledge being scrutinised. If you really want to contribute in a positive way here, please go and acquaint yourself with the substance of the subject. If you think you can contribute here by doing the clerical work, then please do, but please stick with that rather than pretend you have real knowledge of this subject. 86.180.53.189 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would be most appreciated if you may focus the discussion on the topic at hand, and not expend so much energy degrading others over their supposed lack of knowledge. Doing so does not add any weight to your argument, and in fact, I find myself more inclined to lean towards kwami's view.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Huaiwei, (1) perhaps you can tell us which view of Kwami you are inclined to lean towards? (2) If you read the threads, it is Kwami who was degrading me, saying that I have no understanding of written Chinese. Not only that, he was degrading the Han languages, and the Han people. (3) I am focused on the discussion on the topic at hand- in fact I am the first person who gave examples of written Hanzis used in writing Cantonese Hong Kong style and explained how they worked. (4) If you know the history of this article, then you will know how many times Kwami had changed its title with no regards to other people's views. (5) According to Kwami, if Chinese people edited, then this article will be a wall garden; so it should be left to people who know nothing about the subject (such as Kwami himself) to change and shape. And yes, Kwami had already said he doesn't understand Cantonese. This is an actual lack of knowledge, and not a supposed lack of knowledge.

So Huaiwei, tell us which of Kwami's view you are inclined to lean to? 86.180.53.189 (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How would we know if I've attacked you or what you've stood for in the past, since every time you sign in, you appear under a different IP address? It would be easier to deal with you as a person if you weren't just some random number. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I think i have seen people comparing Latin characters to Chinese characters to convince others that the relationship between Mandarin and Cantonese is like English and German. Well, what absurdity. Do "A" "P" and "L" and "E" mean anything, on their own? Well together they become "apple", which is a plant. Same thing applies, Chinese strokes don't have meaning on their own, but together they form characters, which is an equivalent for a WORD. One horizontal and one vertical makes a 十，which is 10. Now, if German and English ever SPELL the same bloody way, well, they become the same language, don't they? Still, both dialects of Chinese spell the same character the very same way, and guess what, the written forms have strict corresponding relationship and the pattern is so apparent while the differences are so limited that they are mutually intelligible. The comparison is just nonsense. 110.174.12.47 (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we all understand that because of the logographic nature of the script, varieties of Chinese are more intelligible in written form than they would be if written phonemically. Hell, even Japanese and Korean are intelligible to a limited degree. That's not the point. Question: Is written Cantonese intelligible to a literate speaker of Mandarin with no exposure to Cantonese? (My understanding is that intelligibility is restricted.) Is written Cantonese a distinct standard than written Mandarin? (Obviously yes.) Is that what you're talking about? — kwami (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I know what 110.174.12.47 is talking about. But it seems like s/he him/herself does not. I cannot answer for written Cantonese, but I can speak for other "dialects" which I have studied. Hokkien, for example, is *not* mutually intelligible in written form with Mandarin.

In general, I must say I am sick and tired of being told that there is "only one Chinese (written) language" because all the dialects are mutually intelligible in written form. They aren't. (Read part two of John DeFrancis' The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy for a detailed exploration of this fallacy.) Any mandarin-speaker who seriously believes this has never actually tried to read something like a simple comic-book written in Wu or Hokkien or Cantonese. In fact, I challenge any Mandarin speaker to tell me what the following specimen of written Hokkien means:

我家己人有淡薄无爽快看啥痟?

If you read it as if it were mandarin and thought it meant something weird like the self of my family is weakly not feeling reinvigorated- Look what a headache?, you were wrong. It just means I'm not feeling well. What the hell are you looking at? I hope this helps finally put to rest the myth that "they become the same language" in writing. It's fallacies like this that make linguists want to start drinking in the morning. Szfski (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

But who would actually read 我家己人有淡薄无爽快看啥痟? as Mandarin? Anyone who knows Chinese would know that it is not Mandarin but some form of regional Chinese dialect, and would not attempt to interpret it unless he already knows this dialect. So the attempt by Szfaski to interpret the Hanzi characters in the sentence is a fallacy. It is rather like a foreigner coming to London and hearing phrases like, "Take these up the apples and pears" or "Use your loaf". These phrases are still English, they use English words, but just not in a way the foreigner think they mean, unless of course if they understand Cockney. What this really demonstrates is that Szfski's grasp of the Chinese languages is somewhat lacking and what he does actually know is extremely superficial and lack any form of scholarship.

On the ubiquitous Hokkienese "ga gi lan", the cognate of this in Putonghua is "ziji ren"; in Guangzhouhua "ji gei ngen"; and Hakka "chi ga ngin", and in Irish "Sinn Feine" (as in the political party in Ireland). But the usage of this term in Putonghua, Guangzhouhua and Hakka is not as ubitiquous as among the Hokkiens. Indeed, the nickname for Hoklos/ Hokkiens among Cantonese speakers is "gagilan". Using the character "jia" to represent "ga" may have been because it is pronounced "ga" in Hokkien.

I think the only people who would say that there is just form (written or spoken) of the Chinese language are people who do not understand China or the Chinese (and these can include Chinese from within China or Chinese descendants outside of China). Anyone with any sense will tell you that there are many spoken forms of Chinese, but for communication amongst Chinese people, one form has been adopted as a standard in both spoken and written form, and it is expected that most Chinese and eventually in the future all Chinese will understand and adopt as a lingua franca. This is a more pedantic explanation of the phrase "there is only one form of Chinese" and is generally taken to be understood amongst the Chinese people. 86.179.144.80 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What is meant by written Cantonese (by which you mean Hong Kong Cantonese) and Hokkien (by which you mean Minnan, and not the whole of Hokkien ie Fujian) is the use of Hanzis to represent the sounds of these vernacular languages. Such uses have not been standardised, and as noted in above discussions even one group of Cantonese speakers may not understand another group of Cantonese speakers' written Cantonese. When used in such a way the hanzis may not mean what they are supposed to mean in Mandarin (by which we mean the classical written Mandarin). Indeed the same is true for written Putonghua. Non Putonghua speakers equate Putonghua with Mandarin Chinese when this is not the case at all. Educated Cantonese and Hokkien people trained to read and write in Mandarin may not fully understand written Putonghua (even allowing for differences in the simplified and classical scripts). And indeed Putonghua speaking Chinese who read and write in Putonghua may not necessarily fully understand written Mandarin (of the classical style used by Cantonese peoples), which in China is usually only taught in university level Chinese courses. 86.177.126.129 (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(a) There does exist a standard Hanzi set for Taiwanese Hokkien whose teaching has been mandated in schools. Moreover, a de facto standard for Hanzi representation of Taiwanese Hokkien has existed for the better part of a century. It's the script in which Hokkien poets write and are read.

(b) There is also a set of Standard Characters For Cantonese used in Hong Kong. The very fact that this set includes several Hanzi unique to Cantonese should be enough to dispel the notion that Cantonese doesn't have its own writing system. As for the notion that different Cantonese speakers write Cantonese in mutually unintelligible ways, you are either misinformed, misstating your premise or drinking far too heavily. While it is true that, say, comic books and tabloids written in non-Mandarin versions/dialects/languages may use non-standard methods (such as ad-hoc phonetic loans) to render colloquial words and slang, and that many speakers (particularly if they speak a "dialect" natively but have only been educated in Mandarin) may employ Hanzi purely as phonetic loans when writing, that's a far cry from lacking a standard script altogether. Find me a Cantonese-literate person who can't read the Cantonese Wikipedia.

(c) You seem to be conflating Classial Chinese (the language mainly taught at university level, which you preposterously refer to as "Mandarin") with the standard written language of mainland China. The latter is written Mandarin whereas the former bears no more structural resemblance to it than Latin does to Italian. I've seen my fair share of nutjobs on the internet, but even I never thought I'd see the day when someone tried to insist that the language of Du Fu and Li Bai should be called in Mandarin. Then again, in retrospect, considering that the Chinese Mainland usually responds to Chinese linguistic diversity with psychotic denialism, I shouldn't really be that surprised. Do your delusions keep you warm at night? Szfski (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all Szfski, thanks for the insults, but it can easily be demonstrated that it is you who are drunk or suffering from psychotic denialism, or simply making things up. Nobody in Taiwan calls a local dialect there Taiwan Hokkien; it is called Daiwanwei or Minnanyu, so you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Indeed Minnanyu was banned in Taiwan by the KMT. It is true that I have not heard Minnanyu is taught in Taiwanese schools, but then again all the Taiwanese people I have met have told me that schooling in Taiwan is done in "Mandarin". But then again if it was at one time banned by the government there, how could it have been taught for the past 100 years? Cantonese is not written in its own script, it is written in Hanzi. Come on Szfski, name me a character in Cantonese that is not a Hanzi (except of course for stars, circles, exclamation marks etc used as expletives in comic books). And why don't you try and find me some Cantonese literature from 200 years ago then? They don't exist do they Szfski. And yes, the vast majority of people in Guangdong (the home of Cantonese) do not understand Cantonese Wikipedia. Szfski, does your self-centered opinions based on self-created language fantasies keep you on a mental high (the IQ claim in your talk page just made me cringe, just try to have your EQ measured next time)? 86.162.138.103 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You have quite plainly either misread my comment, or are simply pretending that I said things I didn't with the hope of making future readers of this talk page think I said them.

(a) I didn't say Cantones wasn't written in Hanzi, but that it used Hanzi that are unique to it. Here, I'll name two: 喺 and 嗰. (in case your computer is using Big5 or some other character set that doesn't accommodate Cantonese, that's 係 and 個, each with the 口 radical on the left.) I dare you to try and find them in any Chinese character set that isn't specifically cantonese-inclusive. Not even the Morohashi or the Hanyu Da Zidian has them. Yes, Cantonese does have its own written form. Of course, that's not to say that the script is totally unique. It's not. In fact, very few languages of the world use scripts that were originally developed for them. The vast majority (such as English) have borrowed the writing systems of other languages and adapted them to their needs. If Cantonese doesn't have its own writing system, then neither does any language that uses the Roman alphabet except Latin.

(b) As for the fact that most Cantonese-speakers don't understand written Cantonese, of course they don't, since the majority of them have been educated exclusively in Mandarin, to the point of even being punished for speaking Cantonese to one during free time in school (let alone reading books in it.) So it's no wonder. On the other hand those fortunate to have grown up in Hong Kong or Macau, under a government that doesn't view linguistic diversity (or Youtube) as a national threat, can and do read Cantonese Wikipedia. That's why I told you to find a Cantonese-literate person who couldn't read it. One can speak a language without being literate in it. And a standardized writing system for a language is no less so because most of that language's speakers have been deprived of literacy in it. Your logic is no less absurd than justifying the claim that women are naturally worse leaders than men by citing the fact that men constitute overwhelming number of modern heads of state. As for your claim that I am self-centered: yes, I am. I fully admit this. Forgive me, father, for I have sinned. But this is a Talk Page, so if you want to continue detailing my irrelevant personality flaws in your responses, they will only prove to me that humor really is more precious when unintentional.

(c) Regarding written Cantonese literature from more than 200 years ago, there is an ample amount of it, starting with the "Wooden Fish Books" (木魚書) of the late Ming dynasty, which contained popular poetry and other things which interested popular readership. The fact that there was a large reading public for such material is evidenced by the fact that there was a vast number of book-sellers and book-lenders in Guangzhou during the late Ming, and Qing, which distributed vernacular reading material. If you're really interested in the early development of literary Cantonese during the imperial period, I suggest getting yourself a copy of Donald B. Snow's Cantonese as written language: the growth of a written Chinese vernacular.

(d) Regarding the fact that Taiwanese don't call Taiwanese Hokkien that at all, you're right, I guess, though I fail to see how that adds to your argument. After all, Americans don't call their language "American English" on a regular basis either. They just call it "English" just as a sizable number of Hokkien speakers, both on the Mainland and to some degree in Taiwan as well, refer to their language as simply "Hokkien" (福建話 or, in romanization, Hok-kiàn-oē. The English word "Hokkien" is just an Anglicization of that language's native word for "Fujian." Wikipedia itself will confirm that much) While it is true that you're more likely to hear 臺灣話 or 閩南語 than the former in Taiwan itself (just as in the Spanish speaking world you're more likely to hear the local language called either "Castellano" or "Español" depending on the country,) I fail to see how this is relevant other than that it allows you to pretend to have a reason to insist that I don't know what I'm talking about.

(e) As for the fact that Taiwanese Hokkien was banned, you're right. Which is why I clarified that the standard that existed, such as it was, and as it was used by those who wrote the language despite the ban, was a de facto one and not an official or de jure one. And yes, Mandarin is the predominant language of instruction in Taiwan. But Taiwanese Hokkien has also been taught for about a decade and a half in schools, and as part of the effort to officially standardize the Hanzi used for Hokkien (which had been in use for quite some time, mainly by poets and others who for one reason or another prefer not to write in Pe̍h-oē-jī romanization) the Taiwanese government has indeed released standard character sets (the first of which can be confirmed here, in case you start insisting that I'm an outright liar.) And just in case you start doubting the possibility that there is any pre-modern Hokkien literature, I invite you to read this article on the Mandarin Wikipedia. Szfski (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's pretend we're civilized here, okay?

We go by reliable sources. Everything else is fluff. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Szfski, you call yourself a queer on your Talk Page. You can of course insult yourself if you choose to, but I do not find you a queer, just weird. I don't know whether you have any proficiency in spoken Hokkien or Cantonese, but how written Hanzis are used to represent venacular Hong Kong Cantonese has already been explained a few paragraphs above before you so rudely joined the discussion. Did I say the characters were not used several hundred years ago? And did I say it does not have a written form? See above, I was the first person here to explain this written form. So it is you who have clearly misread other people's comments and hoping that future readers think what you have written is what other people have originally "said". The links you gave which you claim prove the standards are not standards at all. The Hong Kong Government's character set is just that, a character set, not a standard for Cantonese. Why don't you go and try to find legal documents written in this "Cantonese" in Hong Kong, say laws and ordinances of Hong Kong. Can you find any? No? Real life spoken Cantonese is different from so called written Cantonese- that happens with all languages- that is the point I am trying to get across.

Have you ever had any schooling in Hong Kong or China? No one is punished for speaking Cantonese in China or Hong Kong. You are just being libellous, and hoping that there are people silly enough to believe you. In Hong Kong the textbooks for Chinese language lessons were called "Guo Yu" which you call "Mandarin", but it is taught in "Cantonese". Again I point out to you that you do not know the difference between the English word "Mandarin" and "Putonghua" used to describe the Chinese languages.

With regard to Hokkien, the only places where this vernacular is called Hokkien is in S E Asia. Hokkien is/means Fujian; where the speakers' ancestors came from was mainly Fujian, so as they come from Fujian, their language must be THE language of Fujian. This as you no doubt know is not true. Their language is just one of the many languages in Fujian. Back in the region where these people's ancestors were from, the language is not called Hokkien but Hoklo, and this covers the regions of South Fujian and North-East Guangdong. And yes Taiwanese people do not generally call a language there Taiwanese Hokkien, in the same way Americans do not generally call their language American English, but then again it was you, and not I, who coined the term Taiwanese Hokkien; perhaps you should at least try to be consistent in how you make an argument, so that other people should at least know what your argument actually is and not the random assortment of empty and boastful talk that it is.

Szfski, of course if you really know enough Cantonese, Hokkien or other Chinese spoken languages to a proficient level, you should contribute to the discussions here, but so far it would appear that you pick up a bit of information here and a bit of information there and try to bluff your way through hoping people would be stupid enough to believe you. 81.159.181.144 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of Romanization

Is Yale Romanization going to be used, as it appears so in the Sound section? Personally Jyutping would look a bit tidier. Micro01 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Yale. I would oppose any transcription for a general audience (as on WP) that uses numerals as letters. That's quite off-putting for most people. As a consequence, Jyutping is often used without the numerals, making it an inadequate representation of Cantonese. — kwami (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as long as it's consistently used over other ad hoc romanizations. 76.69.70.143 (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Khanhoo

Hello User:Yue Chinese, I wonder if you could find me some historical information on the game Khanhoo. User:Ccyber5 kindly provided some historical info on the game and I wonder if more could be found. I don't know if there is any Chinese (Cantonese) Google books where informations could be found, but if so it might be a good start. Maybe the game is known in Canton under the name Kanhu, or Dohu. Dates, names and places are also important. I'll see if other Editors could give me a hand on this too ! Regards, Krenakarore (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a fairly inactive talk page so you would be better off asking at the reference desk, WP:RD, though I'm not sure which one. Perhaps humanities, as it seems to come under society, or even miscellaneous. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cantonese written form...complete unintelligible?

Really? I swear i can read and understand most of what is on zh-yue.wikipedia.org. For example: "人口方面，舊時統計有6600萬人講各種口音嘅粵語，全球排十六位；亦有啲統計數字話粵語使用人口有1億2千萬1。雖然粵語響中國大陸無法律地位，之但係廣東地區開放歷史有幾百年，經濟發展先過內陸，加上有香港經濟同文化發達，令粵語有好大影響力，成為香港文化同粵文化嘅根基。由18世紀開始，因為大量講粵語嘅人移民行出國，令粵語成為海外華人之中比較多人講嘅語言。

由於香港所用嘅語言一樣係廣州話，加上香港對外交流頻繁，同係講廣州話嘅香港，通過大量粵語流行曲，電視劇，電影，對粵語發展同弘揚有好大嘅影響。另外，由於香港曾經係英國殖民地，期間同廣州嘅交流少咗好多，令到好多香港人用嘅廣州話詞彙（廣東話）同廣州人用嘅有少少出入。"

I propose rephrasing it to "...and has its own written form, which is intelligible/unintelligible to a certain degree." --LLTimes (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Limited intelligibility" is a common phrase for that. The Romance languages are largely mutually intelligible in written form, though we seldom judge them on that basis. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, however I still believe its wrong to put it as just "unintelligible" when it's clearly not.--LLTimes (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the passage is intelligible to educated Chinese people, because it is written in pretty formal/standard Hanzis and Guoyu grammar. It was not written to represent spoken Guangzhouhua or Cantonese that is used in daily life. 86.162.138.14 (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

in terms of vocabulary choice and grammar the above Chinese passage is completely Cantonese. There's hardly an ounce of Northern influence in it. How then do you propose one could make it less "Guo-yu"? Of course, it doesn't contain any Yue-specific swear words, slangs or HK triads jargon, but that I wouldn't describe as "Guo-Yu" influence. 202.171.163.7 (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yue and Wu are the only Chinese languages known to have split a tone, rather than merge two or more of them, since the time of Late Middle Chinese

How can this be - Mandarin tones 1 and 2 are the result of a more recent split, yes? --JWB (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

They're claiming that all dialects descend from an 8-tone system, so Mandarin only merged. That seems dubious to me, and I see it's unsourced. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yuehai is the prestige dialect and social standard of Yue

I'm not sure this makes sense - Cantonese is a prestige dialect along with Mandarin in all of Guangdong, much of which is Min, Hakka, or Tuhua territory, and half or so of Guangxi; and on the other hand, there are villages near Guilin with isolated Yue dialects and no knowledge of Cantonese, only Mandarin. --JWB (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No. 86.176.187.22 (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of Yue Chinese Speakers

Relevant citations should be on the article that states the recent population of Yue Chinese speakers. Referencing to just a book without even citing a page number and a page link is irrelevant. Conjuring up any content is vandalism and should be deleted. Sonic99 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Steady on, there. Nationalencyklopedin is an online encyclopedia in Swedish and behind a paywall, which is inconvenient, but it's a bit of a leap to call it fabrication or vandalism. I gather the reason for using it is that it provides a set of fairly recent comparable figures for a large number of languages, and nothing similar is available in more convenient sources. Kanguole 12:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethnologue gives 55M [1] but without a specific date. But I'm happy to accept the Nationalencyklopedin citation too. Deryck C. 12:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethnologue does provide a date. http://www.ethnologue.org.uk/show_language.asp?code=yue. 1984. The editor Kwamikagami didn't provide a page reference from the source. How do we know that the number is from the Nationalencyklopedin book? You can't say this is right without seeing the evidence. Sonic99 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The same as you do for any reference: Look it up. That's your responsibility. The article is given; for a multi-volume encyclopedia, that's more useful than a page number. No-one has argued there is anything wrong with the NE figures. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2007 figure from NE is an outdated figure. There has since been a change in NE on 02/14/2011 that puts the number of speakers at "around 70 million". Although the public does not have free access, it can be viewed as an archived page under the category of Chinese (Kinesiska in Swedish), where in addition to Cantonese/Yue, you will see the updated figures for other dialects as well. The archive can be accessed at the following address: http://www.inarchive.com/page/2011-02-14/http://www.ne.se/kinesiska. --Miracleman123 (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong becoming prestige dialect

I've taken the liberty to add the following lines to the article:

However, some may argue that Guangzhou is gradually losing prestige to Hong Kong, due to later generations of Chinese citizens in Guangzhou having a lower proficiency at the dialect (as it is not supported by the government), and hence often use Mandarin phrases instead of the more archaic Cantonese phrases (example: 往前走 as opposed to 向前行).

The some may argue part obviously needs citations, to which I believe is correct, but am not able to find reliable sources to support my claim. Also, I believe the Chinese characters shown requires a bit more transliteration into English as it is not quite apparent what the differences are. Suggestions, suggestions, please. 天佑吾國 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right that a judgement like this needs citations – weasel wording like "some may argue" doesn't help. Kanguole 00:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Cantonese is not written in Simplified

Firstly it cannot be written in Simplified because no HKSCS that is required, and just because they try it doesn't mean it's correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.146.1.19 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't [jyːt̚˧˥] be [jyːt̚˨]?

I noticed that the IPA transcription of Yue is [jyːt̚˧˥] but the Jyutping transcription has jyut⁶. So shouldn't the IPA reflect the low checked tone, [jyːt̚˨]? --Chris S. (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Yue Chinese → Yue Language – Yue Language is an independent language, not a dialect of Chinese. Quibano (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• oppose – Yue is not a language under the mutual intelligibility criterion, as it contains mutually unintelligible varieties, but it is certainly a branch of Chinese. The title does not include the word "dialect". Kanguole 15:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Chinese is not a language under the mutual intelligibility criterion, as it contains mutually unintelligible varieties, but it is certainly a branch of Sino-Tibetan. Why not call it Chinese Sino-Tibetan Quibano (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• oppose – it is not a single language, so Yue language would simply be wrong (note "language" does not need capitalising). It is not a dialect either, more it is a group of languages or dialects. So by any criteria the suggested name is not an improvement. --2A04:4A43:90AF:FBEC:3C87:F399:9E22:42D5 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Chinese is not a single language too, Why can call them Chinese language? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language Quibano (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you have an issue with the title of that article then you should discuss it there. It is not a similar topic, Yue is but one group of closely related dialects or languages, the Chinese of that article includes Yue and other mutually unintelligible groups. --92.40.47.88 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Chinese is a metalanguage with sublanguages, so it is Yue Chinese -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  English belongs to Germanic languages,Russian belongs to Slavic languages. So,why not call they English Germanic and Russian Slavic Quibano (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Germanic isn't a metalanguage and English isn't a sublanguage of Germanic. English is a language from the Germanic language family. English itself isn't very Germanic, if you haven't noticed the enormous amount of Court French it absorbed in the Middle Ages. Slavic isn't a metalanguage either. However, if you take a subset of Slavic, you could define that as a metalanguage with sublanguages, but that hasn't been done in linguistics. Similarly, Nordic languages could serve as a metalanguage within the Germanic langauge family, but hasn't been defined that way. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  English is a West Germanic language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages

  Russian is an East Slavic language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages Quibano (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  And the West Germanic languages are Germanic languages, and the East Slavic languages are Slavic languages, and the Slavic languages are Balto-Slavic languages, and all of these are Indo-European languages. Yes, most languages have been classified into family trees. What is your point here? Please make the analogy more explicit. If you are arguing for the title Yue languages, plural, I for one (in my ignorance) would be happy with that. —Tamfang (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Serbo-Croatian is a metalanguage with sublanguages.But Serbian language/Croatian language/Bosnian language/Montenegrin language,they are called language Quibano (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yue is not a language under any definition I know of. It isn't a language under the mutual intelligibility criterion, because as User:Kanguole says, it contains mutually unintelligible varieties. And it isn't a language under the social definition, because most of its speakers consider it to be a topolect or group of topolects of the Chinese language. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support

1.The narrative conventions：In Wikipedia, Hindustani language is classified into Hindi and Urdu and is described as different languages. Also, Malayic languages, either basis for national standards Malaysian in Malaysia and Indonesian in Indonesia. Also the title of Malayic languages in Borneo, Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, etc. They are not described as Malayic/Malays but language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayic_languages#Languages

2.In the above discussion, it is regarded as no condition can be called an independent language. It has also been pointed out that Modern Standard Chinese and those languages ​​are not mutually intelligible. As a speaker with full command of Cantonese and partial command of Min & Wu languages. I can confirm the speakers of Modern Chinese and the above languages ​​cannot understand each other without learning each other's language.

From my perspective, non-Mandarin Sinitic Languages ​​in southern China such as Wu, Min and Yue can and are more suitable to use “language” rather than “Chinese” for suffixes. Furthermore, this also conforms to the translation principle of "吳語" to "Wu language" which is more literal.

3.From the people: Internationally, Yue Language, which uses Cantonese as the standard, is regarded as "Languages" along with Mandarin. This is similar to the case of Hindustani.

Within the border of China, Wu, Yue and some other languages ​​are regarded as dialects, a partial confusion based in part on the specific relationship between Chinese ethnotypes and languages. But when you seriously explore this question, the answer may not be so superficial. Based on the fact of the non-interoperability, many Chinese people will be confused by this and even directly regard it as a different language, so this does not have Absolute direction.

In my point of view, calling “吳/閩/粵語” as “Wu/Min/Yue Chinese” is controversial and ambiguous, while “Wu/Min/Yue language“ isn‘t.

Chakanamo (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose 1) The target should be Yue language with small L. 2) Yue language currently is a redirect to Yue#Languages, as it is indeed ambiguous. Yue language can also refer to the undocumented ancient language of the Yue people. So the OP should also tell us what to do about the redirect. 3) Yue Chinese does not violate NPOV. NB, it's not "Yue Chinese dialect", for the simple fact that "Chinese" itself is a metalanguage. It would however be very much a violation of NPOV to say that Yue Chinese is not Chinese (apparently based on the fallacy that only Mandarin is the "real" Chinese).

So what about WP:COMMONNAME? "Yue language" is just as commonly used as "Yue Chinese". In Google Ngrams Viewer[2] "Yue language" has more counts than ""Yue Chinese", whereas in Google Scholar, the opposite trend is visible. In such cases, WP:Naming conventions (languages) elegantly suggests to use titles like "Yue Chinese". Varieties of Chinese are explicitly mentioned there. –Austronesier (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yue, or Cantonese as most people know it, is considered to be a variety of Chinese and not a language. Although Cantonese is mutually unintelligible with the other Chinese varieties to be considered a variety, it isn't a language. TSE101 (talk/contribs) 22:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.