Jump to content

Talk:Yue Chinese/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Link to Cantonese (Yue) article last vote was here. Benjwong (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving on to Standard Cantonese

Thank you all for taking part in coming to an agreement about the page name for the top level language name. Now that we've achieved that, I propose that all interested parties move on to the Standard Cantonese page since, as we've agreed at some point in this debate, it's not an appropriate name for an unstandardised language. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have two proposals on how to deal with this. We could merge that article into this one and talk about the issue of "Cantonese" in its entirety. Alternatively, we can also rename that article 'Modern Cantonese', which is probably a more accurate description and is used in academic writings. If you disagree with my proposals, fine with me, but please offer a better one. Colipon+(Talk) 21:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Where was the new title decided?

Sorry I haven't been watching the discussion closely, but I don't see where the names were "narrowed down" to Cantonese (Yue) and Yue (Cantonese)? As I said a few times way up above (perhaps no one was reading that high by then, since most of the discussion had moved down lower), this seems like a strange naming choice since the term in parentheses is not a disambiguator, just an alternate name. I asked about this several days ago at WT:DAB#Using alternate names as disambiguators? and, while there was not much of a discussion, the answer seemed to be that over there they don't approve of these kinds of names. And why is Cantonese (Yue) better than Cantonese languages? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that I don't see the need to worry about bending normal dab conventions slightly to accommodate (finally) a solution that is non-nauseating to most editors, there are any number of ways you can read Yue. If you have philosophical problems with reading it as Yue (the language) than you can always read it as Yue (the geographical region) or Yue (the adjective). Cantonese languages just doesn't work. Sure, there are arguments over Taishan and where that fits but you'd have problems finding common references in the literature that talk about Cantonese languages. It is by the vast majority seen as one language with various dialects and subdialects. We don't have the Mandarin Languages either... Akerbeltz (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If the two aforementioned choices are the only ones left, then I vote in favour of "Cantonese (Yue)" above, over "Yue (Cantonese)". However, this is not an endorsemen

t of the current name. I stand behind my position that a "Cantonese" article to describe all Yue dialects + Guangzhou/HK dialect to be the best solution. If we rename the article "Cantonese" and merge the contents of "Standard Cantonese" into this article, I can forsee the intro like this:

Cantonese is a Chinese language with origins in Guangdong province of China. In English common usage, "Cantonese" generally refers to the modern prestige form of the language widely spoken in Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau. Placed in the greater context, it can also refer to all spoken forms classified as "Yue" by linguists.

Due to the complex linguistic situation of the Chinese language, Cantonese is generally not considered a "language" in its own right due to the lack of political legitimacy, but all of its dialects is essentially not mutually intelligible with Mandarin or any other branches of Chinese.

In addition, Yue dialects which have diverged significantly from the prestige form of Cantonese have also taken on separate identities, especially in the case of Toisanese and Danzhouhua. These spoken forms are generally not considered "Cantonese" in the English language but are classified as Yue dialects.

Of course, this is not a perfect introduction, but my vision is that we can succinctly describe to the reader what Cantonese is while incorporating all the issues that we have discussed above. Reading articles with similar levels of complexity, such as Luxembourgish, Norwegian language, or even Mandarin Chinese, may be able to provide some insights into how such articles are written. Colipon+(Talk) 12:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we try and agree on two articles and their names first. We can talk about amalgamating and rewriting the articles when we've cleaned the current articles up.
Bathrobe (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I too, coming late to this discussion, cannot see why the name was changed from Cantonese, i.e. why Yue was added. The former name was and is the common name of the language among English speakers. Adding (Yue) does not clarify this - quite the opposite as someone just seeing the name might think it refers to something else. Even if Yue were an alternate English name for Cantonese it goes against WP:NCDAB. And to say that the current name is non-nauseating implies the old name was nauseating to most editors. Even if this is so the content of articles should only be determined by what is most accurate, not the personal feelings of editors no matter how strongly held.JohnBlackburne (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all of this talk page lays out why Cantonese in English to too vague. In English this term can loosely refer to the totality of Cantonese dialects or certain prestigae variants such as the HK or Gwongjau dialect. As this page deal with the totality of all those variants in a linguistic sense an unambiguous page name is needed. We eventually ended up homing in on using the linguistic term Yue in some way to distinguish the top level language branch Cantonese (Yue) (which contains some dialects not commonly associated with Cantonese colloquially such as Toisan) from the branches lower down. Please take the time to read the page.

With all due respect to people who have "come in late" - a lot of people come in late to Wiki debates and I really feel we need to draw a line under this page's naming debate. It has been debated ad nauseum and eventually a broadly acceptable name was found and voted upon in the traditional 5 day period. We cannot re-open the debate every time in the future someone "comes in late", the talk page of this article is longer than the article as it is.

So can we please please agree that Cantonese (Yue) is not 100% perfect but does the job to distinguish the top level totality of Cantonese lects and move on to improve the articles themselves? Akerbeltz (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

@Akerbeltz: Sure, we don't have Mandarin languages, but we also don't have Mandarin (Putonghua), which is essentially the same as Cantonese (Yue). I'm not sure what purpose the current name serves, and I don't see why Cantonese languages or Cantonese language family wouldn't work. To compare, our Mandarin article is titled Mandarin Chinese... Cantonese Chinese would be a terrible name, of course, but the closest comparison is Cantonese languages (since the Mandarin Chinese article is also about several languages/dialects). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Cantonese languages explicitly and Cantonese language family implicitly imply there's more than one Cantonese language. To date, I have not seen linguistic descriptions that suggest a family of Cantonese languages. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The parallel to Mandarin Chinese is, of course, Yue Chinese. But that's the name that was just rejected. The reason we don't have to resort to Mandarin (Putonghua) is that no-one objects to either Mandarin Chinese or Standard Mandarin. kwami (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Kwami, when other people offer their statements, you go and reject them and ask for sources. Yet, when you offer your statements, you merely state them as fact and dismiss everything, with a statement generally following the formula that "X is irrelevant". The parallel to Mandarin Chinese is, of course, Yue Chinese. Why? Because you say so? A lot of other people have put in a lot of thought and effort into this difficult issue. Please at least show some respect to everyone involved, even if you disagree. Colipon+(Talk) 17:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not showing any disrespect. Sources aren't the issue: it's simply a matter of logic. Like those test questions A is to B as X is to ?, there's an obviously correct answer: Beijing : Mandarin Chinese :: Shanghai : Wu Chinese :: Canton : ??
Before you start making accusations, it would be nice if you bothered to use some common sense. (Okay, here I am showing disrespect.) kwami (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop using the Shanghainese argument, as it is not valid. It is incorrect to compare Cantonese to either Mandarin or Wu. Mandarin is a nationally standardized form. There is no argument. Cantonese has no legally standardized form. Shanghainese is only one prestige variety of Wu. Guangzhou dialect dominates as the prestige form of Yue. Before the 1900s the prestige variety of WUwas the Suzhou dialect, and many people to this day consider Suzhou dialect to be more 'elegant'. Wu now lacks a prestige dialect altogether. This means that Shanghainese is not the de facto standard of Wu and very rarely used outside of Shanghai; Cantonese, conversely, does have a de facto standardized form thanks to the political location of Guangzhou and the and entertainment prowess Hong Kong, and is used much more widely.
I'm sorry to say that knowing a language is not the same as regurgitating how it is classified under Ethnologue. I have taken the interest of looking through some of the other contributions made by user Kwami in articles such as those dealing with Indonesian languages, and although I appreciate his efforts, I see the recurring theme that taxonomic formalism often predominates practicality and accessibility. A wide range of cultural and political factors must be taken into account with the way a language is defined, and it should not just linguistic classification that matters. I feel like Kwami's arguments focus so much on the nitty-gritty linguistic nuances rather than the bigger, more holistic picture. If we are talking to linguists and this encyclopedia was run and read by only linguists, then by all means, I support the "Yue" name 100%. But our job here is to write an informative, easy-to-follow, and accessible article that best explains what "Cantonese" is, not just what linguists define it as. This is why I offered to start writing a new introduction to the article so we can move on from circular debates and do some solid work, perhaps in the process opening up to newer possibilities. In any case, if someone can produce a better model than what I have offered repeatedly above (merge "Standard Cantonese" to here and rewrite the article, with name "Cantonese", to avoid ambiguity), my compromise vote is "Cantonese (Yue)". Colipon+(Talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Kwami, Mandarin Chinese is the usual English name for Putonghua. Yue Chinese is not even English, so it's not clear how it is the parallel to Mandarin Chinese. Cantonese is the usual name for Guangdonghua. JohnBlackburne (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"Yue Chinese" is English, just perhaps not the English you're used to. Everyone in this discussion needs to just face the facts that there are different terms for this language(s), and different subgroups of people use them. For people like me and kwami, Yue feels more common; for people like you guys, Cantonese feels common. Rather than just dismissing one another, everyone open their eyes and remember that both names exist. That would make it a lot easier to have a discussion.
Like I said above, I feel Cantonese (Yue) is a far worse name than both of the names this article had before, and doesn't really satisfy the complaints of either parties. (I guess it's like they say: a "consensus" is where everyone is satisfied, a "compromise" is where no one is satisfied.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

@Kwami, if you respect the voting result. Please unlock the article to change the title to Cantonese (Yue). Please don't say there are people objects hence we should wait. There are many people have objected "Yue Chinese" and asked you to change back (you did nothing). After other admin changed it back - you reverted it to your preference. We can start from Cantonese (Yue). Should any change necessary, change again. --WikiCantona (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about Cantona? Kwami did move the article to Cantonese (Yue) after the vote, with a redirect from Yue (Cantonese) as agreed. Can we all calm down please? We're really wasting an enormous amount if time and energy here. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My apology to Kwami and Akerbeltz. I have not seen the updated title on my computer screen.--WikiCantona (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem, it happens! Akerbeltz (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

additional comment

ok.. I do agree Cantonese does not refer to all the Yue Chinese group.

Using your example above, in cantonese we don't call Germans as deutsch. But at least we are not using ENGLISH pronunciation to pronounce them! At least is somehow using the sound of "deutsch" to translate to Cantonese.

But if the title become Yue Chinese. Then it will become using Mandarin pronunciation to pronounce the Cantonese language...

Anyway, Cantonese(yue) is way better than Yue Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwanyeung10 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And Japanese in the Portuguese pronunciation of the Japanese language ... for whatever reason, it's the Mandarin version that was picked up by English, but all we're concerned with is the fact that it was picked up by English. kwami (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to conflating Yue with Cantonese

Colipon was "bold" and made edits that he asked not be reversed until discussed. Well, I was "bold" and reverted them, and ask that they not be restored until discussed.

This article is about Yue, not Cantonese. We can call it Cantonese to placate Cantonese nationalists who are offended by the term "Yue", but that name is still unacceptably confusing for the text of the article, since it covers both Yue and Cantonese, and also links to Cantonese. (This was my primary objection to the current title: I thought that people like Colipon would take it as license to reconflate the confusion that we've spent so much time untangling.) kwami (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it utterly frustrating that all my attempts at good faith changes have been reverted wholesale by User:Kwami. My last edit was an honest attempt at moving along the process because nothing is getting done, and I did what I believe to be the most neutral under our given circumstances. When he reverted, his justification was of course I'll revert. the article is about Yue, not about Cantonese - another bare assertion that perhaps he holds to be true but is certainly not consensus amongst the rest of the editors here.
Even after a change to a title which Kwami does not like, he continues to imply that he was "right all along". As I do not want to engage in any petty edit wars, I simply present to you my version of the lede, compared to Kwami's, and ask you to judge the merits and weaknesses of each. In terms of pure procedure, I object to Kwami's reverts on the grounds that all parts of my edit are erased in the process, even those that are not under dispute. For example, I tried to explain the issue of Taishanese in the lede, but because Kwami didn't like another part of my edit ("Cantonese" vs. "Yue"), he reverts everything anyway.
Colipon
Cantonese (Chinese: 粵語; Cantonese: Jyut6 jyu5 / Yuht Yúh,; Mandarin Pinyin: Yuè Yǔ[1]) is a primary branch of the Chinese language. In common usage, Cantonese can refer to the modern prestige variety of the language as spoken in Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau. But in a greater context, it refers to the Yue dialects spoken in the majority of Guandong and Eastern Guangxi.
The issue of whether Cantonese should be regarded as a language in its own right or as a dialect of a Chinese language depends on conceptions of what a language is. Like the other primary branches of Chinese, Cantonese is considered to be a branch of a unified "Chinese" language for ethnic and cultural reasons, but is also considered a language in its own right because it is mutually unintelligible with other spoken varieties of Chinese. In addition, Yue dialects which are not easily intelligible the prestige variety of Cantonese, such as Taishanese and Danzhouhua, are generally classified under "Yue", but are not called "Cantonese" in the English language due to their separate identities.
Kwami
Yue (粵, Cantonese Jyut6 jyu5 / Yuht Yúh, Mandarin Yuè Yǔ[2]), commonly known as Cantonese, is a primary branch of Chinese. The name "Cantonese" is also generally used more specifically for the Canton dialect, the de facto lingua franca of Guangdong province, as opposed to Taishanese and other dialects of Yue.
The issue of whether Yue should be regarded as a language in its own right or as a dialect of a Chinese language depends on conceptions of what a language is. Like the other primary branches of Chinese, Yue is considered to be a dialect of a single Chinese language for ethnic and cultural reasons, but is also considered a language in its own right because it is mutually unintelligible with other varieties of Chinese.
Please try to be as content-focused as possible. Colipon+(Talk) 00:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
As has been demonstrated numerous times, the primary, prototypical definition of Cantonese is "of Canton". As a variety of Chinese, it is Canton dialect. Yes, it is commonly used for Yue as a whole. However, we're an encyclopedia here, and should place some value on precision, so that our readers can follow the article even if they don't know the subject. We explain that Yue commonly goes by the name Cantonese, but that that name is ambiguous. We shouldn't then engage in the ambiguity ourselves by using the term Cantonese, when context is often insufficient to distinguish the two concepts, at least not without very close reading. We do, of course, use the term Cantonese: but we use it in the article on Cantonese. kwami (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"As has been demonstrated numerous times, the primary, prototypical definition of Cantonese is "of Canton"." - this is just the conclusion of your own synthesis - you may believe it's logical, but it does not make the statement true, nor is it backed up by any RS. In my lede, I tried to clarify that Cantonese is commonly used in both contexts, but in this article it will be used in the context to describe Yue. If you disagree with this you can always just restore part of the old version. It is completely counterproductive to just revert everything at once.
You are also assuming that the "two concepts" always must be described separately to understand the subject of Cantonese, and you offer pedantic "precision" (read: linguistic esoteric-ism) as your only support without considering issues of accessibility and practicality. To me the argument that "Cantonese" can't be used because it's "imprecise" has failed to stand ground from long ago. Please focus on working together and moving forward. Colipon+(Talk) 01:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
As you well know, and as any dictionary will tell you, Cantonese = "Canton-ese". That is the history of the word, and its primary definition. Cantonese = "Canton-ese family" (otherwise known an "Yue") is an extension of that primary meaning, one which isn't even found in many dictionaries. kwami (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Not any dictionary. Cambridge, Reference.com, Longman dictionary, Webster The Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Answer.com defined as the Chinese/spoken language/variety in SE China while Merriam-Webster use your primary definition. @Kwami, you admit you don't speak Cantonese, how you can be so insistent on the difference of "Canton-ese family", while do not seem to see the similarity?!--WikiCantona (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You apparently do not know how to use an English dictionary very well. How can you insist that you know better than native speakers how to use their language? kwami (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Enlighten me. please. I love to learn from you. Do make sure you read each entry carefully --WikiCantona (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
To see what we're talking about:
  • one of the two main types of the Chinese language, spoken in the south of China and used as an official language in Hong Kong Cambridge
  • a Chinese language spoken in Canton, the surrounding area of southern China, and Hong Kong. Reference.com
  • a Chinese language spoken in Southern China and Hong Kong Longman dictionary
  • The dialect of Chinese spoken in Canton and neighboring provinces and in Hong Kong and elsewhere outside China Webster
  • a form of Chinese spoken mainly in SE China and Hong Kong The Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English
  • The variety of Chinese spoken in and around Guangzhou (formerly Canton), China Answer.com
  • the dialect of Chinese spoken in Guangzhou and Hong Kong Merriam-Webster
In fact, the Reference.com version refers to Canton, which likely refers to Guangzhou. Websters Online implies that Canton is a province. Answers.com explicitly refers to Guangzhou (formerly Canton). Others are just vague (Southern China, SE China).
Bathrobe (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent)I do think that by "dictionary definition" it is quite clear that "Cantonese" in general usage is most certainly not the dialect of Guangzhou. To say that it's spoken in "SE China" and "Southern China" essentially implies that they are the macro-Cantonese language, not the Canton dialect. Encyclopedia Britannica takes the same position, as do almost all other versions of Wikipedia. Colipon+(Talk) 15:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You apparently do not know how to use an English dictionary very well. How can you insist that you know better than native speakers how to use their language? This is a rather crude personal attack. I am surprised that an administrator is capable of such derogatory language. Colipon+(Talk) 16:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite?

I don't know the current intro paragraph is savable?! After read Colipon's writing, I quite like it. With some inputs -

Cantonese sensu lato (Chinese:粵語; 粵语, Cantonese:Jyut6 jyu5 / Yuht Yúh, Mandarin:Yuè Yǔ ) is a Chinese language with origins in South China now Guangdong province of China. In English common usage, "Cantonese" (sensu stricto) generally refers to the modern prestige form of the language widely spoken in Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau. Placed in the greater context, it can also refer to all spoken forms classified as "Yue" by linguists.
Due to the complex linguistic situation of the Chinese language, Cantonese is generally not considered a "language" in its own right due to the lack of political legitimacy and shared Chinese writing system, but all of its variants is essentially not mutually intelligible with Mandarin or any other branches of Chinese.
In addition, Yue dialects which have diverged significantly from the prestige form of Cantonese have also taken on separate identities, especially in the case of Toisanese and Danzhouhua. These spoken forms are generally not considered "Cantonese" in the English language but are classified as Yue dialects.
--WikiCantona (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you feel you have to link sensu lato is reason enough to decide against that wording. There's also no point in removing "Yue" from the lede if we're going to use it later. To be consistent, we'd have:
Cantonese in the broad sense (Chinese:粵語; 粵语, Cantonese:Jyut6 jyu5 / Yuht Yúh, Mandarin:Yuè Yǔ) is a variety of Chinese from South China, primarily Guangdong province. "Cantonese" in the narrow sense refers to the prestige form widely spoken in Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau. In the broad sense, it can refer to all varieties classified as "Yue" by linguists.
Due to the complex linguistic situation of Chinese, Cantonese in the broad sense is generally not considered a language in its own right, due to the lack of political legitimacy and shared Chinese writing system,[which is not the relevant issue here] but it is not mutually intelligible with Mandarin or other branches of Chinese.
In addition, Cantonese dialects which have diverged significantly from the prestige form of Cantonese have also taken on separate identities,[clarification needed] especially in the case of Toisanese and Danzhouhua.[dubious – discuss] These are generally not considered "Cantonese" but are classified as Cantonese dialects.
When we're actually clear about what we're saying, it doesn't make much sense, does it? kwami (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
After mentioning several times that he had taken to heart my warning about seeing language in terms of "standard language" and "dialect", WikiCantona immediately falls into the most elementary trap of that particular language model: namely, the belief that dialects somehow "diverged" from the standard language/prestige dialect. I hope that this erroneous belief is not what is causing WikiCantona to persist with his position that the Yue dialects all hang together. The Yue dialects are NOT some kind of Standard Cantonese that has been corrupted or fallen away from the standard. They are speech varieties in their own right. The relationship with the standard is no doubt a complex one, but the "corrupted standard language" model is incorrect and should not be used as a basis for naming this article or pushing for a broad interpretation of "Cantonese". If you want to understand where I am coming from, please see my comments concerning German at the talk page on Canton dialect.
Bathrobe (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Amazing. Kwami, you again show your belief that all speeches from South China is classified together for some conveniences without any internal relationship between them. Do you actually have any proof to justify your belief? Or your analysis again? Do you know any of these languages? @Bathrobe. dialects somehow "diverged" from the standard language/prestige dialect - you have a point. But, "they are speech varieties in their own right" - by that you implying they developed independently from each others? I don't know some variety can even consider "in their own right". Some of these difference is more like the difference in Glasgow and Oxford English. The last paragraph is user:Colipon's writing. here is a revision of last paragraph:
In addition, The current classification of Yue dialects are generally agreed by Chinese Dialectologist. However, in the case of Toisanese, some native speakers in the west objects being labelled as "Cantonese", and classification statue of Danzhouhua is not well-known.
Is this better? And revision to the first paragraph
Cantonese in the broad sense (Chinese:粵語; 粵语, Cantonese:Jyut6 jyu5 / Yuht Yúh, Mandarin:Yuè Yǔ, some linguists refers it as Yue) is a branch of Chinese, widely spoken in South China, primarily Guangdong province, Hong Kong, Macau and Chinese communities in America, Canada and other western countries. "Cantonese" in the narrow sense refers to the prestige form widely spoken in Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau.
I don't think the variety of Cantonese should affect the naming. The outliner should be clearly stated but not in the expense of common name or accessibility.--WikiCantona (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"In their own right" means that they can be described in their own terms, with their own vocabulary, phonology, and grammar. It would be perfectly possible to write a description of Glasgow English (and this has probably already been done). Glaswegian may not be a "prestige dialect". It may not be a written dialect. But it can be described as a form of English in its own right, not merely some debased form of Standard English that has diverged from the standard. As for the origins of Glaswegian, to be honest, I have no idea. It may be a long-established local dialect. It may be descended from the language of settlers from another part of Scotland. But I very much doubt that it is directly "descended" from Standard English.
Incidentally, if you read the article on Old English, you'll discover that "the bulk of the surviving documents from the Anglo-Saxon period are written in the dialect of Wessex, Alfred's kingdom. It seems likely that with consolidation of power, it became necessary to standardise the language of government to reduce the difficulty of administering the more remote areas of the kingdom. As a result, documents were written in the West Saxon dialect". Despite this, the "Modern-day Received Pronunciation is not a direct descendant of the best-attested dialect, Late West Saxon. It is rather a descendant of a Mercian dialect-—either East Mercian or South-East Mercian." In other words, it's possible for the standard to change.
Bathrobe (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
With regard to "standard vs dialect", yes, your revised version (with the English fixed up a little) is much better.
widely spoken in South China, primarily Guangdong province, Hong Kong, Macau and Chinese communities in America, Canada and other western countries. "Cantonese" in the narrow sense refers to the prestige form widely spoken in Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau.
We seem to keep slipping backwards. There are some real problems with the assumptions behind this listing. Guangxi is missing. Southeast Asia is missing. It is totally Guangdong and Western-country centric. I am also curious as to whether Cantonese in the narrow sense is spoken outside Guangzhou, Hongkong and Macau. Ethnologue gives "Cantonese" (along with "Toishanese") as being spoken in Malaysia, and "Guangfu" in Singapore. The vagueness over the geographical extent of "Standard Cantonese" is maintained in this formulation.
Bathrobe (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
User Bathrobe, please, instead of criticizing every revision that's being put forth, could you perhaps offer a revision of your own? That way we can actually move forward. Colipon+(Talk) 10:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
User Colipon, I have already pointed out that this kind of edit is premature. In fact, the reason that we keep getting the kind of problem that I am criticising here is that the bad old fuzzy assumptions about "Cantonese" still keep cropping up! In this case, the equation of "Cantonese = the language of Guangdong", an equation that is directly related to the use of "Cantonese" as the name of the article, has again raised its ugly head, even as someone starts making "constructive" suggestions to the article. Don't get me wrong. Now that we have reached consensus on "Cantonese (Yue)", I'm not actively pushing to change it. But if the article was called "Yue dialects", do you think people would keep inadvertently leaving out Guangxi? I really think we need to get things in order before we can embark on your grand project of amalgamating the two articles.
Bathrobe (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading "back-to-conflating", you will notice that I made a point to include Guangxi in my revision. Colipon+(Talk) 11:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

More food for thought

Although this is not necessarily a parallel situation, there has been disputes over at Spanish language with the name "Spanish" and "Castillian". The compromise there, as far as I can see, was to settle on the more common English name for the language ("Spanish"), but let the two names have almost equal prominence in the lede sentence, the infobox, and within the article body - not to mention a fairly descriptive "names" section (I feel almost like the Belgian parliament ;). We can perhaps think about doing so here as well? Colipon+(Talk) 11:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also taken a look at the way the subject is covered in the French and Spanish wikipedias. In French:


So here it is defined as a "Chinese language" spoken in "Southern China" and in the provinces of Guangdong and Guangxi, as well as HK and Macau. It specifically points that the name of the language in Mandarin is "Yue".

In Spanish:


My Spanish is very elementary; so from what I can read the lede here gives "Cantonese" and "Yue" equal prominence in the first sentence. It then goes on to describe the way "Yue" is used, and says that Yue comprises a number of regional lects in Guangdong, ignoring Guangxi. It then goes on to explain the use of the Chinese character "Yue". The next paragraph talks about mutual intelligibility and its relation with Chinese.

Not that we should follow either models, I hope examining how it is treated in these other languages at least offers some insight into determining how we should write this article. Colipon+(Talk) 11:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Jumping the gun and barking up the wrong tree

For those who have come late to the discussion -- and this has been going on for some time, it's not a matter of five or ten days -- and are pointing out that "Cantonese" is normal English usage, I suggest you are barking up the wrong tree. THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE YOU WANT. Unfortunately, when user Kwami was renaming the articles, the article that should be named "Cantonese" was split into two: Canton dialect and Standard Cantonese. The "Cantonese" that most users are thinking of is at "Canton dialect".

Colipon, I think you are jumping the gun. Before making edits like that, we need to decide to amalgamate the two articles. No consensus has been reached on that, so your edit was premature. That is not to say you don't have a case, but your edits are not merely a renaming; they entail a complete reorganisation of 2-3 articles.

Also for late comers, I would suggest that you read the discussion above, painful as it is. I quoted an academic source which strongly supports the use of "Cantonese" for the prestige dialect and "Yue" for the Yue dialects as a whole. This was dismissed or ignored by several editors, some of whom seemed more motivated by an allergy to Mandarin than other considerations. Contrary to what user Colipon says above, the usage of "Cantonese" to refer to Guangzhouhua also has respectable sources (including Wong 1941, who I quoted at the talk page on Canton dialect).

Bathrobe (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there has already been apparent consensus that Canton dialect and Standard Cantonese should be merged; there was discussion for a while as to which parts of the latter should be merged into the former, and which (smaller part) into this article, but that petered out. (I originally split them because argument about those names was contaminating the arguments over the name of this article.) kwami (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What?? Where was this consensus? Canton dialect is different from HK Cantonese. If we merge those two we have to merge HK Cantonese as well. Colipon+(Talk) 12:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems like some people are sore they didn't get their own way, and are now taking swipes at others. Please, the persistent incivilities and personal attacks are unproductive, and need to stop. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems like some people are sore they didn't get their own way, and are now taking swipes at others. This itself is an incivility. It is also incorrect. My point is that a good source for the use of Yue was provided but this was ignored and dismissed without an proper grounds being provided. People who have jumped in without reading the arguments are again attacking the linguistic term and asking for citations, and at least one user has again raised the point about Yue being Mandarin and thus unacceptable. The crux of the matter is that the article on the Cantonese dialect (the one about the language familiarly known as "Cantonese") is at "Canton dialect". The cries that Yue is Mandarin and shouldn't be used is irrelevant at this article, which isn't about the familiar dialect known as "Cantonese", it's about the group of dialects that has been identified by linguists, and for which a linguists' term is at least as appropriate as the "familiar" term.
Bathrobe (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • No it isn't an incivility, and I don't see how it could even be seen to be one. I was merely talking about the impression this whole slanging match was giving me. There is plenty in the foregoing discussion since the complex page move was executed which is in breach of WP:CIVIL, so please don't turn that around and use it against me. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it is incivil; it is a gratuitous comment and imputes motives to other editors that do not necessarily exist. The call for civility is appreciated, but it doesn't necessarily help things to simmer down. It may even add fuel to the fire.
Bathrobe (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Bathrobe, I do not dispute that Yue is a correct linguistic term. That does not make it English. The name as it is follows neither general naming conventions nor those recommended for languages. If Yue were the only name for the language then "Yue Chinese" might be appropriate, but as there is a much more common name, given in the first sentence of the article, then that should be used. JohnBlackburne (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is used in English language publications as an unquoted term, hence it is English. Mayhap not common but English, same as Tabasaran or Kannada. We can't always brings things to the level of the most common denominator, few of Wikipedias pages on taxonomy would work if we insisted that all pages relating to felines used the word cat because in common usage everything from a tiger to a tabby is a "cat".

Secondly, it may not follow general conventions but can we take the Wiki guidelines as that, guidelines? They're not gospel or tax law and if there are good reasons the bending the guidelines surely is acceptable. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That does not make Yue English. "Homo Sapiens" is used in English without quotes, as is "allegro". That does not make them English words. If you read an English newspaper you'll see many foreign names foreign words used, but they do not become English words because of it. JohnBlackburne (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Homo sapiens redirects to Human. Allegro is a disambiguation page. Under Tempo (which is where Allegro (music) redirects), there are an awful lot of terms that aren't English. You were saying....?
Bathrobe (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My point was that there are many words used in English that are not English, such as homo sapiens (Latin) and allegro (Italian). Perhaps a clearer example would have been allegretto which redirects to Tempo#Italian_tempo_markings. A word is not English because it appears in English language publications. JohnBlackburne (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That seems an extremely random distinction. For some reason, my Collins English dictionary lists (in normal type) allegro, delphinium, mujaheddin and anorak. None of them are Anglo-Saxon in origin, yet they are in the dictionary. English (and most other living languages) are full of words that started out live somewhere else.
Can we please re-focus on re-writing the page and fiding a name for the Standard Cantonese/Canton dialect pair? Akerbeltz (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess "Peking" is English (just as English as "Cantonese" is) and "Beijing" is Chinese. This should not be an argument against using "Beijing". The problem is that while you declare that "Yue" is not English, it is used by linguists in an English-language context. It is not as far along the road to nativisation as "Beijing" is, but then, the city of Beijing is far better known to English speakers than the Yue dialects. In fact, I am not against using "Cantonese" in English. The problem is that Cantonese in the familiar sense refers to Guangzhouhua (i.e. Canton dialect), which is also the language used in Hong Kong. This article refers to the various "patois" that belong to the group of dialects known to linguists as "Yue" and not necessarily known to native speakers as a single language at all. (This is simplifying. If you read the discussion, you will know that we have discussed this to death).
Bathrobe (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, this is a moot point. Whether or not Yue is "English" or English in origin doesn't really matter. Lingua Franca is also not an English phrase. But it's used anyway. What matters is which name is more accessible and more practical in conveying to the reader what s/he wants to find out about a topic. Colipon+(Talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need an article at the top of the talk page laying out how we got here :b Akerbeltz (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I almost agree with that, and was thinking of creating a talk page FAQ section. :) But then we'd probably edit war over that so I decided against it. Colipon+(Talk) 09:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Different concepts

In our current system, when editing the intro it is important to know that Cantonese (Yue), Standard Cantonese, and Canton dialect all describe separate concepts. Kwami continues to assert that Standard Cantonese is the same thing as Canton dialect. It is not. Hong Kong Cantonese and Canton dialect are arguably two competing modern forms of the prestige dialect. Although the differences are minimal, they are generally treated as two different things. Therefore the levels look something like this:

  1. Yue
  2. Standard Cantonese
  3. Hong Kong Cantonese, Guangzhou dialect

Colipon+(Talk) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you're making accusations without knowing what you're talking about. I do not claim they are the same thing. Also, the way things look is Yue > Cantonese (Canton dialect) > Hong Kong, Guangzhou, etc. Cantonese. kwami (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
So do you still want "Standard Cantonese" merged with "Canton dialect"? Let's look at this edit: You say that (Canton-ese is normally considered one dialect; also, Standard Cant. will soon be merged). Standard Cantonese will "soon be merged"? Really? Just because you say so, you can use this as an edit summary? Even if there is some kind of consensus on this issue, it would seem somewhat hypocritical to make these "premature" changes when the merge hasn't taken place, don't you think? Colipon+(Talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you please stop insisting on your own ignorance, and actually read something? I'm quite tired of your pointless tirades. There was consensus on those articles to merge. It was not my decision, though I support it. kwami (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, Canton dialect, as the name implies, is the dialect spoken in Canton (Guangzhou). It is not the equivalent of the collective variety spoken in Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau. The collective of those three places is currently titled "Standard Cantonese". Colipon+(Talk) 01:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"Canton dialect" is the dialect of Canton, yes, but also of the surrounding areas, plus Hong Kong and Macau. Once again, it would be helpful if you took the time to know what you're talking about. "Standard Cantonese" is largely meaningless, as technically there is no such thing; it could be used as a synonym with Canton dialect, perhaps, but we've had editors who were quite insistent that it is actually Canton dialect spoken with a Guangzhou accent. Argue with them if you like, but I personally do not see the point of two articles. kwami (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, your personal attacks such as 'it would be helpful if you took the time to know what you're talking about' is not getting you anywhere, and frankly is terribly offensive. You lay some bare assertions from your personal opinion and synthesis, call X "irrelevant", say Y is Z, and then dismiss everything else and tell others to "know what they're talking about". Focus on the argument, not the people behind the argument. I cannot believe as an administrator this basic talk page guideline somehow escapes you. Colipon+(Talk) 07:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the term "Canton dialect" has to be changed. It's rather an old usage and shouldn't be used for the title of the article on "(Standard) Cantonese". I think the name came about because user Kwami, somewhat unilaterally, came up with two new article names in an attempt to disentangle the two concepts of broader and narrower Cantonese. One he called "Yue Chinese", the other he called "Canton dialect". On top of this he also spun off an article on "Standard Cantonese", which only confused things further. I think the adoption of the article name "Canton dialect" was rather unfortunate. It diverted the ire of all "Cantonese-lovers" (if I may use that term) to the "Yue Chinese" article, leaving the article on the narrow meaning of "Cantonese" tucked away in a corner where nobody noticed it. User Colipon is quite right in challenging this usage.
Bathrobe (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it helped straighten things out, because before I did that, we had a three-way argument as to what this article was about, with arguments as to whether Cantonese is a standard language or not muddying up the issue here.
I'm not wed to the name "Canton dialect". The name came about because the relevant section of this article had long been labeled "Canton dialect"; I merely applied this existing, consensus name to the article after heated objections to calling it "Standard Cantonese". If you wish to find a new consensus, fine, but I've yet to hear one that works as well. The best may be "Cantonese (prestige dialect)", but IMO that is not nearly as clear as "Canton dialect".
As for the term being dated, Google Books has over a hundred hits dated from 2000 on; it is certainly still current even if Canton is being replaced by Guangzhou. kwami (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
To my understanding, Guangzhou dialect (which kwami always calls "Canton-ese") is the historical root of the language, but not synonymous with modern "presitge Cantonese", which is the article now over at Standard Cantonese. In fact, whether or not Cantonese would have a "standard" at all is questionable had Hong Kong never promoted its use through its wealth and entertainment industry. Therefore I would actually argue that Cantonese retains a "prestige version" in recent times not because of Guangzhou, but more because of Hong Kong. I also would like to refer to a comparable case with Mandarin. Beijing dialect is not synonymous with "Standard Mandarin".

I also do not believe there has ever been consensus on the issue of article mergers, as Kwami claims, "There was consensus on those articles to merge.", but if he can show me where this 'consensus' was it would be helpful. Colipon+(Talk) 07:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Canton vs Guangzhou

I also want to raise a relatively unrelated point. The current English name of the city of Canton is "Guangzhou". This is the romanization used in all legal documents, maps after 1978, international agreements, and encyclopedias (including our very on wikipedia). The usage of the word "Canton" has not been in common use to describe the city itself for several decades (although, of course, some other languages retain this romanization, and a small minority of english speakers continue to use it anyway). But it is basically parallel to Beijing. We have Beijing dialect, not "Peking dialect". It raises a real issue of whether or not we should call the Canton dialect 'Guangzhou dialect' in order to remain consistent with modern English use. Colipon+(Talk) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, you're one of the ones insisting we use "Cantonese" because that's the common name. Fine, but as a consequence we describe it as the dialect of Canton--after all, that's the name associated with it: Canton, Cantonese. Of course, in the article itself we do use Guangzhou. kwami (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This is absurd. "Peking duck" and "Peking University" all retain their former romanizations but in their articles we do not see the word "Peking" pop up to describe Beijing. Here it's the same thing. Cantonese is Cantonese, Guangzhou is Guangzhou. We don't have to say "Cantonese is from Canton" just because "Canton" is part of the name. Colipon+(Talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
But if we had an article on "Pekinese", it would be appropriate to say, "for the dialect of Peking (Beijing), see X". kwami (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with user Colipon. "Cantonese" is the language name. "Guangzhou" is the name now used for the place. User Kwami says that using "Cantonese" means we have to continue using the name "Canton" for the place. A fine legalistic argument this, but common usage doesn't agree. In which case we should go with what common usage is, not with someone's interpretation of what it should be.
Bathrobe (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a disagreement about what to call the city in the article text, it's about how to word the dab at the top of the page: "Cantonese (Yue): This article covers all Yue dialects. For the dialect spoken in Canton, Hong Kong, and Macau, see Canton dialect." "Guangzhou" is rather beside the point: "Canton" is appropriate here because it is that name is the source of the confusion, one of the reasons we are redirecting people in the first place. kwami (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It is still obsolescent and shouldn't be used. If used, it should be clarified: "Guangzhou (Canton), Hong Kong and Macau".
Bathrobe (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a minor point, but I think there should be clear instructions for those looking for "the dialect of Canton".
Taking the analogy of having a dab on an article named "Pekinese" worded for the dialect of Peking (Beijing), see X, I've changed it to For the dialect of Canton (Guangzhou), see Canton dialect. Does this do the trick? It uses the word "Canton", which might be a point of confusion for readers seeing the title "Cantonese", but also the modern spelling "Guangzhou". kwami (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not a minor point. There is no need to be hell-bent over the notion that Cantonese is the equivalent of Guangzhou (Canton) dialect. This is an assertion that does not withstand scrutiny. The word "Cantonese" in present-day usage often refers to "Cantonese as spoken in Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Macau", not "Guangzhou dialect". Some simple logic will do.

If "Cantonese" is the same thing as Guangzhou dialect, then the article on Hong Kong Cantonese is actually talking about "Hong Kong Guangzhou dialect". I don't know how this seems to make sense to anyone.Colipon+(Talk) 07:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Canton dialect includes Guangzhou, surrounding areas, Hong Kong, and Macau, as minimal research on your part would show. "Cantonese" is ambiguous, as I hope you've understood by now, but its prototypical meaning is Canton dialect. kwami (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate to spoil the fun. I came across another academic article: Anne Yue: Meterials for diachronic study of the Yue dalects. The Joy of Research: A Festshrift in Honor of Professor William S-Y Wang on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. By Feng Shi and Zhongwei Shen, pp.246-271, 2004 Tianjin: The Nankai University Press which was unfortunately largely written in Chinese. But many reference materials are in English. The term "Canton dialect" appears many times in the old records and mentioning some other Cantonese dialects like "Taishanese". To my best of interpretation, the Canton dialects seem to mean Gwongdong Speech, i.e. Cantonese in the broad sense. You are welcoming to disagree. When you do, please read the article at least. --WikiCantona (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the phrase only appears three times, and it's not clear what it means. The refs are also from the 19th century, which is essentially irrelevant to us. We should be looking at sources from the last quarter century. kwami (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No?! what about you took Canton for its 16 Century meaning, the "purest" of pure meaning, yet you said 19th century usage is not relevant. Amazing! What appear relevant is your own interpretation of meaning of the word. Kwami, meaning of the word evolves. Like it or not. Whatever you said, some people will have different interpretation. --WikiCantona (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, meanings evolve. "Canton" is obviously cognate with Guangdong, but today it is synonymous with Guangzhou. Any decent dictionary will tell you that, several of which have been cited. "Cantonese" is widely understood to mean "of Canton", as again several good dictionaries have been cited to show. kwami (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree. Your definition of decent/good dictionary escape me. A few web/online dictionaries may not be authoritative, But some (which has the paper form used by million of students) are more than decent. I would not exclude other sources when they don't fit my understanding? The trouble is that Wikipedia is not Google knol, you own knowledge/definition may not be the only one --WikiCantona (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Your argument supports my POV and contradicts your own. Do you actual have evidence for anything you say, or are we supposed to accept it merely because you say so? kwami (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people like you prefers authoritative sources - old paper form reputable dictionary. Some people will accept online dictionary for which some regard as un-authoritative. However, some online dictionaries are the versions of the old paper form used by millions. The examples I cited earlier included these you should accept as decent (like Cambridge and Longman) and some you will reject (like Answer.com). Your "good/decent dictionary" is circular. Good dictionary gives such such definition and only dictionary with such such definition is good. The cited dictionaries have more inclusive/broader definitions of Cantonese. Your insistence on strict definition of "Canton-ese" is not well found as you have claimed --WikiCantona (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why you want to restrict relevance to pre 19th century - could you elaborate please kwami, maybe I'm just not getting it. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to restrict relevance to pre-19th century. Just the opposite: the exact usage of the phrase "Canton dialect" in the 19th century is irrelevant to whether it is current terminology in the 21st century. For that we'd want to look at how the phrase is used now. Google Books suggests that it is still current usage. kwami (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah got you now. Yes, 19th century usage might provide interesting insights into the historical development of the language name(s) but it's not authoritative for 21st century usage. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. the contemporary use counts. What do you think Canton mean now? If I tell people in Guangzhau that your city is called "Canton", s/he is most likely confused or correct me by saying "GwongJau" or "GwangZhau". People in the West may have no clue either, or may think some sort of Cantonese restaurant or some township. Canton to mean Guangzhau is like Peking to Beijing or Nanking to Nanjing. Put this way, if you think the use of the term Cantonese is fussy, the use of the Canton is no better. --WikiCantona (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you use a dictionary instead of just talking about using one? We've been over this numerous times. "Cantonese" means "of Canton". "Canton" means "Guangzhou". Just as "Pekinese" means "of Peking", and "Peking" means "Beijing". (Check the OED, Merriam-Webster, etc etc etc.) If you want to argue to the contrary, you really need to present some evidence rather than merely insisting you're right because you say so. kwami (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Pekinese means dog. :-) Please, sticking to the strict definition is not good. As I said before, if you like to do a piece in Google Knol, I will definitely not argue with you. If you look at the example dictionaries I linked above, it is demonstrated the strict definition is not the primary definition. Therefore, I, amongst others, cannot agree with your only use of strict definition in Wikipedia. --WikiCantona (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still a bit confused about why User Kwami continues to insist that "Canton" should be used to represent the city of Guangzhou. I feel this is done because he feels assigning the name "Canton" lends legitimacy of saying "Cantonese" should be strictly defined as the "language of Canton" along the same lines as "Shanghainese" being the language of Shanghai. I mean, why would someone argue so adamantly to use "Canton" in place of "Guangzhou"? Colipon+(Talk) 01:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that user Kwami may be partly motivated by a desire to bolster his case for the definition of Cantonese. But that does not mean that his definition of Cantonese is wrong.
I urge editors to also check the talk page for Canton dialect. There is some discussion there that is relevant to what is being discussed here.
Bathrobe (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the article user WikiCantona refers to. There is one reference in the article that supports a "Canton = 广东" interpretation: A Vocabulary of the Canton Dialect (《廣東省土話字匯》) by Robert Morrison, dated 1828. The other references are unclear. But it should be noted that the place of publication of many articles is listed as "Canton", which could only be the city.
There is also this sentence: "Yue-Hashimoto bases her study on Cantonese yes / no questions on a much larger investigation of other dialects, including different varieties of the Yue language." This is a nice example showing both a broader interpretation of "Cantonese" (Yue-Hashimoto appears to include more than just Standard Cantonese in her analysis) and a narrow interpretation (Cheung, the person being quoted, implicitly accepts only Standard Cantonese and characterises Yue-Hashimoto's examples as being from "other dialects, including different varieties of the Yue language").
Bathrobe (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That's the way I like this reference. Everyone finds something useful. this McCoy, John. 1966. Szeyap Data for a First Approximation of Proto-Cantonese. Ithaca: Cornell University dissertation is a nice example to show Szeyap data (Taishanese) has been considered as Cantonese. BTW, I asked people why Taishanese should considered Cantonese (broad sense) (mind you it was carried out in Chinese). The answer was that the grammar and vocabularies are shared by other regiolect such as Cantonese (strict sense).
Terms like "Canton Colloquial Dialect" and "Canton Dialect" could just be as what User:Bathrobe said. However, reading the article as whole, it also seems to mean Cantonese in the broad sense. --WikiCantona (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"Proto-Cantonese" is not necessarily the same language as "Cantonese", and there is nothing wrong with using Toisan to try and deduce what Proto-Cantonese was like. However, Colipon's point is taken. "Proto-Cantonese" (instead of, say, "Proto-Yue") does suggest that this author would call these dialects "Cantonese" rather than "Yue".
Bathrobe (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is denying that "Cantonese" is used for both Canton dialect and Yue as a whole. In fact, that's precisely the problem: Given that ambiguity, how do our readers know what we mean if we just say "Cantonese"? kwami (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Canton is the mostly used corrupted form of Kwang Tung (Kwangtung, or Guangdong in pinyin). Your probably found some other forms like Kanton. Portuguese came and settled in China dated from Ming Dynastry, but their translated names of places was not quite systematics. In fact, the province of Kwangtung has wide variety of languages. While Chinese characters are the same, their pronunication varies a lot. Further distortion evolved upon the transcription by various Europeans of different language background. Some transcription is more popular and became final consensus. Although various Catholic missionaries have found its way to translate Cantonese languages, it was of very limited use. The place name such as Macao, Lantao, Kowloon, Hong Kong, Chung-Hue, person name such as Lam Qua, are illustration of corrupted transcription of Cantonese language.

Back to the name of Canton, it is largerly related to the government system of Chinese Empire. The concept to name a place is quite different from nowaday in republic China. In the Imperial day, where the seat of the head of government is an alternative name of place. For example, the seat of the government of the County of San On (or Sun On) is located in the Walled City of Nam Tau. The City can be alternative called San On County City, or simply San On.

The place where currently urban Kwangchow (Guangzhou in pinyin) was a Walled City in Ching Dynasty (Qing in pinyin). The City helds four seats of the governments, namely the Provincial of Kwang Tung, the Perfecture of Kwang Chow, the County of Nam Hoi and the County of Pan Yu. Both four names can refer to the Walled City. Canton is the established form of Kwang-tung. The name refers both the City and the Province. The lesser Canton(Kwangtung) is the city, the greater Canton (Kwangtung) is the province. Likewise, the lesser Kwangchow is the city, the greater Kwangchow is perfecture. The lesser Pan Yu is the city, the greater Pan Yu is the county.

There are various Cantonese languages. The best illustration of Cantonese is naturally from the provincial capital of Canton (Kwangtung). It is the most influential one among various Cantonese languages. This is similar to Japanese languages. The language spoken in Tokyo, the capital city of Japan, is the prestiged example of Japanese languages. Most academic studies of Cantonese is the one from in the captial city.

Cantonese is adjective to describe things related to Kwangtung, for example, Cantonese languages, Cantonese opera, Cantonese cuisine, Cantonese people and so on. It is definitely not limited to the captial of Kwangtung.

In conclusion, Canton is the corrupted transcription of Kwangtung (province). Canton means both the province and the capital city of the province. Cantonese languages are the language of Kwangtung, and finally, the prestiged example of Cantonese is the Cantonese of the captial. Cantonese of the capital is regarded as Standard Cantonese.

— HenryLi (Talk) 09:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This is what I've been saying all along and I'm glad someone with some sense and native experience can come here and say it again. Please also take a look at the discussion over at Canton dialect. There are multiple issues being discussed here and we are trying to figure out a naming scheme. Please offer your suggestions on the way pages should be named. Colipon+(Talk) 10:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Henry Li's comment is quite interesting. In my personal experience, I have found Chinese speakers referring to the provincial capital of Mongolian provinces by the provincial name! No doubt one reason is the fact that Mongolian names are hard for them to get their tongues around, but perhaps this old tradition is still current in Chinese...
Bathrobe (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This is quite off-topic, but calling provincial capitals by the province (or the other way around) is hardly 'Chinese' practice. You see it in central Asia (especially Kazakhstan) and in some Russian "oblasts". Colipon+(Talk) 05:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The word Zhou (country subdivision) itself means a region, but there are many cases, like Guangzhou, where it became part of the name of the principal city of the region, in Japan and Korea as well as China. --JWB (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The original explorers have diaries etc that reference very loosely to "Canton". If you look at a map. They largely have to step foot in Guangdong first, before stepping into Guangzhou (Canton). Benjwong (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To all involved

I am asking everyone involved to seriously consider this proposal for an overall treatment of the Cantonese articles. I await your feedback. Colipon+(Talk) 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of speakers/ranking

I've just updated these: I noticed the ranking (16) was completely at odds with the ranking (23) at List of languages by number of native speakers, which is automatically linked to by the Infobox. The reference for 16 was this, which seems simply to be pulled from an old (13 years or three editions) reading of Ethnologue. The reference for the number of speakers was a dead link so definitely needed fixing. I've replaced them with the latest numbers from Ethnologue. JohnBlackburne (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any indication where Ethnologue gets its figures? The higher figures seem to be widespread. --JWB (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Are there any sources for it/them? The reference I removed was from an old version of Ethnologue, so an updated figure from the current edition should be much better. It would be better to have other sources, as long as there are good quality references, even if they disagree, and we can add an appropriate note. This is their bibliography. A quick look through shows various books on China, though none very recent. One or more of them might be more enlightening. JohnBlackburne (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I used the wayback machine to look at the dead link I removed. It too seems to be relying on out of date Ethnologue information. JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
If Ethnologue has revised downward that much I'm curious about their methodology. Perhaps we should email them if there isn't already something on their site. --JWB (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The difference is that they've gone with the 1984 estimate of 52M in mainland China + HK & Macau that they've always used, adding to this their estimates for other countries, rather than the 1999 World Almanac estimate of 71M for the world total. So they come up with 54.8M total in the 15th ed. and 55.5M total in the 16th, whereas in the 14th they'd said there were 52M in mainland China and 71M total, which didn't make much sense. kwami (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There should have been a good deal of natural increase since 25 years ago. Only 3M abroad also sounds low. --JWB (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I just added the date, and used the figure for China only. It makes little sense to combine census data from different decades. kwami (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That does seem the best approach: any newer data seems to be seriously flawed, so putting the data we have with a date will encourage anyone with access to more up-to-date, reliable information to provide it. I'm sure the data exists somewhere, as China seems keener than most countries to investigate the state and status of its languages.

On JWB's last point I would be very sceptical of any claim of natural growth, especially in Yue speakers, without data. It will be affected by China's One-Child policy, which depresses growth generally and should impact urbanised areas in the South more; its language policy, which means often young people today speak Puthonghua even if their family speaks Yue; and emigration which is disproportionately from the South due to existing family and home town/village connections - emigrants do not lose their native tongue but many of their children and grandchildren will speak other languages. JohnBlackburne (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My own experience is that teenagers I've met speak Puthonghua, among themselves and even to the older generation when they can, as their Yue (Pinghua to be precise) is nowhere near as good. But the plural of anecdote is not data. JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
If it is Pinghua this is an area much farther from the Pearl River Delta and Cantonese metropolises and apparently less influenced by them. If the local Yue speakers are not of high enough status to present an attractive model, there will be little drive to adopt or maintain that dialect. Even farther afield, speakers of Jeopardized Lingui Dialects near Guilin apparently have no contact with prestige Cantonese, are of low status in the local pecking order, and rapidly assimilating to Guilinese which is a variety of Southwestern Mandarin.
So far we have several reports of shift from non-Yue towards Cantonese in Guangdong and two reports of shift from Yue towards Mandarin in Guangxi. The perception of Cantonese as the language of Guangdong may well be in line with current trends. --JWB (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It's of course no evidence but Cantonese people do talk about Cantonese "heading North" (i.e. extending its speaker base northwards (向北). I faintly recall this being described in the literature somewhere too but I can't recall just now where. JohnBlackburne's comment I can support for many Chinese languages but not Cantonese on the whole (not in the narrower sense of Yuehai Cantonese, possible some of the more distant dialects) - my experience with most Wu speakers is that they will only communicate withing the local Wu dialect community in Wu but in Putonghua with Wu speakers from other Wu dialect areas. Cantonese people on the other hand I've personally never heard resorting to PTH to communicate, even on the mainland. Maybe my folks are just brash but a lot of them will even speak Cantonese at PTH speakers when in Guangdong or overseas. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ethnologue
  2. ^ Ethnologue
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yue_Chinese/Archive_7&oldid=1074618271"