User talk:Chantaiman

i dont know what chantaiman is but i kinda am wondering it sounds interseting enough to learn about!! <3

Chinese Written Standards

You are wrong: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Cantonese#Written_Cantonese and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Cantonese.68.148.164.166 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Chinese is a very general term, in fact, it is so unspecific, that it is hard to exactly know what one is talking about when they say they speak Chinese. It is accurately established that many dialects of Chinese are not mutually intelligible. Cantonese and Mandarin are perfect examples. I used the word 中文, when the Written is established on MANDARIN. Many articles have a 粵語 version and a 中文 version. When read to an PURELY Cantonese speaker, a 粵語 version of an article will be intelligible, but the same 中文 version will not be intelligible.68.148.164.166 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that your comment: "... is dotted with linguistic jargons and in a half-witted pseudo-academic style." is racist. It is a fundamental linguistic principle that any dialect is capable of expression equally well as any other dialect.68.148.164.166 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Whatever you want to call it, linguisist. But I know, my very first linguistic class even said, that any dialect, language, grammer etc. etc. is equally adept in expressing anything they want. Would you argue that Irish is for fairy tales and that it couldn't be used to express academic literature?68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to blame other people for you just slightly imperfect english.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's hypocritical.68.148.164.166 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the principle has a name. But I am sure it exists. You are talking about translative semantics, which has nothing to do with "...linguistic jargons and in a half-witted pseudo-academic style...", which is what I am talking about, which is the racist statement that you made. You are saying that Cantonese, compared with Mandarin, has "...linguistic jargons...", which is impossible, because the definition of "...jargons..." excludes the context of this use. Second, you are saying these jargons are used "...in a half-witted pseudo-academic style...", meaning that these jargons are incompentent. Or you are saying that Cantonese is "...a half-witted pseudo-academic style...", blatantly meaning that Cantonese is lower in calibre than Mandarin.68.148.164.166 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]