Talk:Cantonese

Moved

Archived the move debate. I think however that we should be careful about reverting the wording of the two Cantonese language articles, since we often distinguish Yueyu from Yuehai, and "Cantonese" is ambiguous in such situations. kwami (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why you archived the talk page while it is in the midst of hot discussion. There are lot of oppositions to name of "Yue" anyway.— HenryLi (Talk) 17:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Like HenryLi, I also wonder. Can we say, somebody want to stop the roaring of the truth form other people, so he/she use this trick? If this description is wrong, so what is the TRUTH and how can a such STUPID, IRRATIONAL MOVEMENT happened?!? To prevent somebody evade the truth, and the possibility of the reborning of "Yue Chinese", I mark down the following:--

跟HenryLi一樣，我也質疑為何kwami在題目談得火紅火熱時強行打斷它，放進「紀錄檔案」中。是不是：有人企圖阻撓別人揭示出真相，所以用了這樣的手段？若然不是，為何這樣愚笨、這樣不合理的事會發生？為避免有人逃避真相，為避免日後「Yue Chinese」會死灰復燃，我特別記下以下的內容：--

The discussions on "Yue Chinese":Archive 3 (Nov 2007 - Nov 2008)

對「Yue Chinese」的討論:Archive 3 (Nov 2007 - Nov 2008)

Suggestion and Poll:Talk:Standard_Cantonese/Archive1#Suggestion_and_Poll

建議與投票:Talk:Standard_Cantonese/Archive1#Suggestion_and_Poll

I've corrected the links. It seems that somebody who "invent" the wording "Yue Chinese" wanna stop the discussion from other people, so he/she put everything, included the polling and discussion in progress, inside the so called "Archive"? The "maxim" of that guy, "粵 is "Yue" in normal English usage, so "Yue" is what we need to use", has alreadly shows that he/she's living in a world of illusion(or "Lie without a blink"). We should continue to point out the problem of "Yue Chinese", for preventing its reborn.

我已修正了上方的連結。似乎有些想像出「Yue Chinese」的偉人，企圖透過把正在進行中的討論及投票歸檔，來阻止人們繼續發言吧？那位人兄的『金句』：「在日常英語使用中，我們就是說『Yue』來表示粵，因此我們要用『Yue』」已經顯示出他/她只生活在其思覺世界中（或者是「講大話唔眨眼」）。我們應繼續指出「Yue Chinese」的荒謬之處，慎防它死灰復燃。--Syaoranli☞李小狼 19:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, WP:assume good faith; WP:no personal attacks or you may be blocked from editing. Besides, when you accuse people of being dishonest just because you disagree with them, you give us the impression that you are dishonest yourself. It's not an effective way to get what you want.

As for archiving, simple: We've had a long argument that went around in circles for weeks on two articles, and it's filled up the talk pages with a lot of pointless debate. You yourself are evidence that many people won't bother to read it even with it here, and anyone who wants to read it can just as easily go to the archive. kwami (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusing other editors "Pointless" is a violation of WP:assume good faith, either. It is abnormal to archive a discussion in the course of discussion. It would be better when the discussion come to an end. — HenryLi (Talk) 05:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Debate on moving the article to "Standard Cantonese" is pointless after the move to "Standard Cantonese" has been made. That's why I archived it: We had all sorts of arguments on where to move it, came to a provisional decision, and moved it. The point of doing that was to start the debate over from a less contentious starting point. Archiving the old debate is part of starting over. I didn't mean that the debate on where we should go from here is pointless. kwami (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Discuss anew

Ok, the article has been moved back to its long-standing name. So lets restart the discussion about the merits of the name. The concern that first resulted in the page move away from its current name was whether or not "Standard Cantonese" really is standardised, and to that effect, if the article name is misleading or not. There seems to be disagreement on this issue, so I suggest we talk about that first. Personally, I am neutral to whether or not we say that it is standardised, or even that we have "standard" in the article name. However, I have to be opposed to the name of "Guangzhou dialect", as I think a name with the word "Cantonese" in it is much more common usage. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

S.o. amended the intro to say "Despite no official status, it is a de facto standard language." Since the definition of a standard language depends on it being official or at least quasi-official, as that is what is generally involved in a government to declare a language standard, I think we at least need a reliable source for this, and if none is provided, that we need to go back to saying it's not a standard language. kwami (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you implying that Standard Cantonese is not used in TV news broadcasts and in the educational system? Badagnani (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you please read standard language and prestige dialect? Hundreds of prestige dialects are used on TV, in local newspapers, and in schools. That does not mean they are standard languages. Are standard school textbooks for math and science written in Cantonese, or in Mandarin? Are Hong Kong govt publications in Cantonese, or Mandarin? Is there a govt standardization board for Cantonese? If the answer to these and similar questions is no, then Yuehai is a prestige dialect, not a standard language. kwami (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that while kwami might be looking at a strict interpretation of what it means for a language or dialect to be "standardised", you and others might be looking at a more loosely defined meaning. Do we need some official body in government or academia to specifically state that it is standardised before we say it is so? Or is it standardised by the simple fact of its common usage? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The latter case is what we call a prestige dialect. As far as I can tell, Yuehai has never been standardized. I may be wrong, but would like to be convinced of that. Also, Cantonese may lie somewhere between a prestige dialect and a standard; if so, then we should have a section on its status explaining that, rather than an unintelligible phrase like "de facto standard". kwami (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've read standard language, and in my opinion, Cantonese obviously do not fully meet all of the criteria. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong though. But the problem is, standard language cites no source for these criteria - where did they come from? From WP editors? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sourcing is a problem there, but at least it gets us on the same page. I've reworded the intro to clarify this; let's see if that helps. Even in the USA, people object to the term "Standard English", many preferring "TV news-broadcast English", and US English is AFAIK much more standardized than Cantonese.

BTW, when clearing that up, it became obvious that we were also being ambiguous. Where is Cantonese used on TV news, just Hongkong/Macau, or also Canton?

Another point: Overseas, at least in the West, Taishanese is used for newspapers, radio, and TV. Does that mean there are two Standard Cantonese dialects, Guangzhou and Taishanese? (I'm playing devil's advocate here; IMO they are prestige dialects in different communities, but neither standard.) kwami (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, in the West, Cantonese is used for radio and TV. Newspapers are in written Chinese, as opposed to written Cantonese. To the best of my knowledge, Taishanese is not used on any medium. Not sure if any media outlets in Guangzhou actually uses Cantonese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

When you say "written Chinese", not Cantonese, I assume you mean written Mandarin? But in Hong Kong newspapers are in written Cantonese?

San Francisco street signs are in Taishanese (that is, the transcription only works with a Taishanese pronunciation), but I don't know about elsewhere. kwami (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I avoid the term "Written Mandarin", because speakers of all Chinese dialects read the same kind of written Chinese, which is to say, Vernacular Chinese. At any rate, HK newspapers write in Vernacular Chinese. But there are certainly books in written Cantonese. Though I don't know if there is a "canon" of it as specified in standard language. In my opinion there are really only three criteria from standard language that Cantonese do not fully meet. 1) While there are certainly academic departments dedicated to Cantonese, I don't know if there is an institution that is the equivalent of Académie française or the Royal Spanish Academy. 2) While Cantonese is a medium of instruction in schools in HK and Macau, and probably certain Chinese language schools overseas, Cantonese grammar and written Cantonese is not taught as a subject. 3) While HK's Basic Law (and probably same with Macau) is very specific that "Chinese" is an official language, it does not differentiate between Mandarin and Cantonese, even though Cantonese is used de facto by government. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just had an afterthought - Cantonese is definitely taught as a second language in schools, though just not in HK and Macau. (but maybe in their international schools?) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the govt and schools use Cantonese as a spoken language but Mandarin (whatever you want to call it) as a written language does support the idea that the only standardized language in Hongkong and Macau is Mandarin. There are plenty of cases like this around the world, where a local language is spoken, but not standardized or official, in govt and schools, and a non-local (often colonial) language is used in writing and for official capacities. kwami (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No. That's the point of Basic Law not differentiating between Mandarin and Cantonese - it does not specify that written Chinese documents must be in Vernacular Chinese, it can actually be in written Cantonese, though that is not the practice. All it says is "Chinese", so it can technically be any dialect of Chinese, written or spoken. And to further explain, the reason why I avoid the term "written Mandarin" is because no native Chinese speaker actually thinks of it as written Mandarin (普通話/國語/etc). They just think of it as written Chinese (中文). This is the difference between a 語 and a 文. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mandarin and Vernacular Chinese are different. As for the situation of Chinese languages, Vernacular Chinese is following the steps of Classic Chinese, namely, spoken and written forms would drift apart anyway. § There are a lot of studies in standard Cantonese. All Cantonese are based on the scheme provided by Wong Shik Ling's A Chinese Syllabary Pronounced According to the Dialect of Canton (粵音韻彙). Nearly every study, dictionary and romanisation scheme is directly and indirectly derived by the scheme in the book. — HenryLi (Talk) 05:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true for a great many languages. It's part of being a prestige dialect. A standard language is something more than just having dictionaries and being used on TV. This may be OR, but the fact that the law only makes 中文 official, without specifying whether that should be Vernacular or Cantonese, suggests that 中文 is assumed to mean Vernacular—that Cantonese was not even entertained as a possibility. I may be wrong, of course, but if so I do think we need some direct evidence that Cantonese is a standard language, not just OR based on how many TV channels and dictionaries use it. kwami (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Standard Cantonese reaches quasi-legal status in Hong Kong. It is used in court and legislative council. It is taught in schools and the educational department of Hong Kong Government created a scheme of Standard Cantonese Pinyin for prescription purpose. Hong Kong Government funded the movement of proper Cantonese pronunciation (粵語正音運動). It is everywhere in transcribing personal and place names that in Standard Cantonese pronunciation with Chinese characters to English in Hong Kong, say transcribing 何文田 into Ho Man Tin of Standard Cantonese, not any other dialects of Cantonese including indigenous Wai Tau Wa. Radio Television Hong Kong, a government department, broadcasts Standard Cantonese since 1960. It is much more than dictionaries and TV. All of them are in Standard Cantonese rather than other dialects of Cantonese, including indigenous ones. — HenryLi (Talk) 09:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good argument. It does sound like it may be quasi-official, then. kwami (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) kwami - I'm not going to revert your edit, but I want to point out that the concensus on HK-related articles is basically to call Cantonese the de facto official language. That's why I had put that term "de facto official" in the infobox earlier.

Now, more on the legal status of Cantonese in HK - the Basic Law was deliberately ambiguous in referring to any specific dialects of Chinese to be used in official capacity. The reason why Vernacular Chinese is used in written documents is because that has always been the practice long before HK's handover back to Chinese rule, and one of the advantages of Basic Law not specifying a dialect of Chinese is to avoid controversy and arguments about usage of Mandarin versus Cantonese - which, by the way, is fast becoming irrelevant because HK's population is become more and more fluent in Mandarin as well as their native Cantonese. This way, both Mandarin and Cantonese can be used in official capacity, and Vernacular Chinese can be used in written documents, without it becoming an issue to argue about.

Having said all that, however, I am not arguing for us to state in the article that the dialect is "standardised". I remain neutral on that. If anything, I think the burden of proof is on the proponents of having "standardised" in the article to argue for why it should be there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit as you like. I'm not going to argue against a thoughtful rationale. As for the wording "de facto official language", I'll defer to consensus. I don't care for it, though, because it doesn't make any sense to me: if it's official, it's de jure; from my POV you're saying it's de facto de jure, but not de jure de jure. kwami (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually don't really like the term "quasi" anywhere on WP. It sounds weasel-like to me. But the reason why it can be de facto without being de jure is precisely as I said - the law is deliberately ambiguous on what dialect of Chinese to use in official capacity. In that sense it is not de jure. But the fact that Cantonese is the modus operandus in Hong Kong would make it de facto. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. It would still be only the official spoken language, though. Since Cantonese has a well developed written form, that's probably a point worth keeping. kwami (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've added that in the infobox. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous shifts

One shift that affected Cantonese in the past was the loss of distinction between the alveolar and the alveolo-palatal (sometimes termed as postalveolar) sibilants, which occurred during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This distinction was documented in many Cantonese dictionaries and pronunciation guides published prior to the 1950s but is no longer distinguished in any modern Cantonese dictionary.

Publications that documented this distinction include:

Williams, S., A Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect, 1856. Cowles, R., A Pocket Dictionary of Cantonese, 1914. Meyer, B. and Wempe, T., The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1947. Chao, Y. Cantonese Primer, 1947.

Why do you need to rely on work published in 1856, 1914, and 1947? Were there no Cantonese/ HK films with recordings prior to 1950? It is more likely than not the guys with the European names could not tell apart Standard Guangzhouhua from non-Standard Guangzhouhua. There were and are more non-Standard Guangzhouhua speakers than there are Standard Guangzhouhua speakers, and alveolar and postalveolar sibilants most certainly exist in some non-Standard Guangzhouhua's. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Most recent move

Just to say that while my immediate reaction was that the move back to Standard Cantonese might have been premature, on reflection I think it was a good idea. The new name has some relatively minor issues, but the name Guangzhou dialect had major issues and no good arguments in its favour, and we'd had plenty of discussion to find them if they had been there to find.

As I'd already said, I think the new name is acceptable but possibly not optimum. Perhaps there is no ideal solution. Andrewa (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the new name that you're referring Guangzhou dialect? I agreed with the titles going back to the originals, but the current title is not really based on a fact.--Caspian blue 01:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The new name is a result of the move back to Standard Cantonese. That is, the name to which I am referring is Standard Cantonese. Clear now? Andrewa (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea of moving the articles back was really based on the fact that, in retrospect, more time was necessary to reach concensus in the page moves that were performed. We had so many different ideas and disagreements, it wasn't even a choice between just two article names (per article). There are many different options that were discussed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving back to the one of previous consensus is much better than staying in the name of great controversy. It need much more time to reach new consensus. — HenryLi (Talk) 05:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one of the many problems with the name Guangzhou dialect was simply procedural... the article was moved there without sufficient discussion. Andrewa (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Many months ago I opposed the "Guangzhou dialect" name since it is so obscure. But I have become more ok with that term. Technically "Standard cantonese" is equally as obscure. Benjwong (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Both names are somewhat unclear, but I think "Standard Cantonese" is more aligned with the prevailing English usage of Cantonese, meaning "the standard (regular) language of Canton (Guangzhou as it is known today)". In light of this, the move - in the case of this article especially - was well-advised IMO. The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We could just call it "Canton dialect". That is commonly used in the lit, is common English, and is unambiguous. The real problem is the article currently at "Cantonese", which really isn't Cantonese. kwami (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"The native speakers of Cantonese customarily call their language "Guangzhou Prefecture Speech".[3] In Guangdong province people also call it "Provincial Capital speech".[4] In Hong Kong and Macau, people usually call it "Guangdong (Province) speech".[dubious – discuss][5]. Outside of Guangzhou, people also call it as "Baak Waa"[6]"

In the so called reference section in the Chinese, all the various description of the speech really just mean the "Speech of Guangzhou City". "Baak Waa" simply means plain speech. This is from the Putonghua 'Bai Hua'. There was a student movement in the early part of the 20th century to promote 'Plain Speech' over 'Guan Hua/Yu' (Language of Officialdom) so that the masses could have more access to education. 'Baak Waa' was therefore just street Guangzhouhua (still spoken with a Guangzhou accent), whereas the 'Guan Yu' in Guangzhou would be the reading of official documents and literature (written in classical style Chinese) in Guangzhouhua (still with a Guangzhou accent). 'Baak Waa' has now taken on the meaning of Guangzhouhua whether with (the Standard) or without (non-Standard) a Guangzhou accent. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples?

Why does this article not have any examples of Canto words? I saw that the other dialect pages do. Even Taishanese does a fine job of it. But not this page...? It'd be interesting to show the world how different Cantonese is from Mandarin. Even the way we write is different (ex. it'd be pretty informal, so everyone broadcasts in Mandarin-styled writing). ★Dasani★ 08:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You might read sub-articles like Written Cantonese and Hong Kong Cantonese. — HenryLi (Talk) 07:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did, but Shanghainese and the Mandarin articles, even Teochew, all have a list of sample words. I suppose this is rather difficult because Cantonese generally do not rely on Pinyin... ★Dasani★ 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Need Cantonese

Need Cantonese reading at Lü Wencheng. Badagnani (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Standard Cantonese

There is a lot of confusion about what is meant by Standard Cantonese. Standard Cantonese (the English term) is Guangzhouhua spoken with a Guangzhou accent. Move over a few kilometers into Panyu, and you'll hear Guangzhouhua spoken with a distinct Panyu accent, which is not regarded as standard Guangzhouhua by the native people of Guangzhou. It is distinctly a 'peasant' speech, rather than a 'city' speech. On the other hand, the spoken Cantonese of British Hong Kong is very close to the Guangzhouhua of Guangzhou, and is again a 'city' speech. Move a bit further into Guangxi, there you can still hear Guangzhouhua, but its accent is so thick that it is nothing like the Guangzhouhua of Guangzhou. As for native Taishanwa, it is not Guangzhouhua at all. This is similar to the definition of standard British English, which is defined as the English speech spoken around the area of Oxford. English is still spoken all over England, and the local speech in these other parts of England is still English, just not standard English

The same can be said of Indians in India educated in English. These Indians can speak perfectly good and grammatically correct English intelligible to all Englsih speakers around the world. However their accent makes the English they speak non-Standard. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article is not actually about Standard Cantonese (which in any case is not standard), but about Canton dialect. I've reworded parts of the article so as not to be so misleading, though the title is still incongruous. kwami (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pal, the title of this article is 'Standard Cantonese', so what on earth do you mean that it is not actually about Standard Cantonese? Kwami for heaven's sake you know nothing about Cantonese, standard or non-standard, so please could you stop making such ignorant edits and comments on a subject in which you know nothing about? Please leave the article and its discussion to people who do know and want to improve the article. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Guangzhouhua. "Standard Cantonese" was a political choice for the title, because people could not agree on calling it "Canton dialect". (I would prefer to move it, as I've said before, because the current title is factually incorrect.) It's fine to state that a Canton accent is the prestige form of the dialect, but your wording has consistently been POV and often irrelevant in the context in which you put it. You also erroneously speak of "accented Guangzhouhua", as if the pronunciation of Canton were not itself "accented", and you use Chinese words as if they were English without defining them. This is hardly "superbly put", and does little to "clarify" the issue. As for the "standard pronunciation" of the dictionary (speaking of logic, there is no picture of a dictionary in the article), is that really the pronunciation of Canton, or of Hong Kong? kwami (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, you don't have any personal knowledge of any of the languages spoken in Guangdong or Guangzhou. Let me explain to you in a way perhaps you can appreciate. One would say all English people in England speak English. However there is just one form of Standard English. It is called Oxford English, BBC English, the Queen's English, Received Pronunciation and so on. I am sure there are historical reasons why Oxford English (ie the pronunciation of English around the Oxford area) was chosen as the Standard or becoming the Standard. London English is not Standard English even though London is the capital of England. Now tell me Kwami, do you think there are more or less English people who speak Standard English in England? If you don't know the answer, let me tell you. There are many more people in England who do not speak Standard English than there are people who do. That is the there is a vast majority of people in England who do not speak Standard English.

Now let's move onto the Guangzhouhua. This article is about Standard Cantonese. One needs to define what is Standard Cantonese. I have given you the definition. It is Guangzhouhua spoken with a Guangzhou accent. One could have chosen the Panyu accent or Guangxi accent as a Standard, but they were not chosen. So just like Oxford English is the Standard for English, Guangzhouhua with a Guangzhou accent is the Standard for Cantonese (meaning Guangzhou speech). Londoners often say they speak 'London', or people in Newcastle UK often say they speak 'Geordie'. Panyu people say they speak 'Panyuhua' which is understood to mean Guangzhouhua with a Panyu accent. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such thing as "Standard Cantonese", because Cantonese is not a standardized language the way, say, English or Mandarin are. The phrase is shorthand for the prestige accent of Cantonese, which, as you've said, is the Guangzhou accent.

Secondly, this article is not about the Guangzhou accent, it's about the Guangzhou dialect, of both "standard" and non-standard accent. It's called "Standard Cantonese" because that was the result of a debate on how to differentiate Guangzhouhua from Yueyu: Guangzhouhua = "Standard Cantonese", Yueyu (including Taishanese) = "Cantonese". I do not think these labels are accurate, but there you are. These articles existed long before their current titles were decided on.

You can argue that an article should be about whatever its title says it's about, and that therefore this article should be about Standard Cantonese. I take the opposite approach, that the title should reflect whatever the article is about, which in this case is not Standard Cantonese. kwami (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, please go and learn to speak Cantonese of whatever variety you like fluently before you start to make comments on this article. You are making a fool of yourself. One can swear, curse, use street vocabulary in English with the Oxford accent, and that would still be Standard English. Standard Guangzhouhua is Guangzhouhua spoken with the Guangzhou accent. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a simple way to resolve this: present evidence from reliable sources for your claims. Calling people 'fools' or 'morons' for disagreeing with you is not a way to win an argument. Things are not true just because you repeatedly say they are. As long as you spout apparent nonsense, I will continue to revert everything you do. Meanwhile, like Akerbeltz, I'm done with this discussion. kwami (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK Kwami, why don't you present some evidence from reliable sources for your claims? By relaible I mean accurate. Oxford English is the Standard for the spoken English of England. Why do I need to present a reliable source on this? Does anyone in his right mind dispute this? Standard English is known by several other names as already pointed out. It is however not called 'prestige English'. Standard Guangzhouhua (Putonghua Pinyin for simplification)is often just called Guangzhouhua. It is never called prestige Guangzhouhua. Is there anybody of sound mind who disputes this? 'Prestige' appears to be a term you like to quote, so please give a reliable reference to where such a term is used.

Just because the speech or accent of a certain region of a country has been deemed Standard, it does not follow that the majority of the people would speak in the Standard way. Indeed as far as speeches are concerned people are free to develop to speak how they like. I have already pointed out to you that the vast majority of people in England do not speak Standard English, just as in the Guangzhouhua regions, a vast majority of people do not speak Standard Guangzhouhua. Why the speech of a certain region is deemed the Standard for a much wider land area or even country is lost in the clouds of history. It has to do with customs and practices. It generally has nothing to do with officialdom. There is no official or government body or legislation in the UK that specifically says that Oxford English is Standard English, and if you do not conform to this Standard we'll punish you. This is just accepted by the whole country, and indeed the whole world. Indeed legislations and official business rely on the written word, not the spoken word. In China it is accepted that Guangzhouhua spoken with the Guangzhou accent is Standard Guangzhouhua. This is official in the sense that there is now just one Guangzhouhua Pinyin system in use in China, and dictionaries are produced and published by scholars representing the country's official language body, based on this system. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I just ask if there are any readers out there reading these posts, is it Kwami or I who is spouting apparent nonsense. Kwami seems to think he has the right to revert other people's contribution based on his own POV when he clearly has no knowledge of the subject. Please give your comments below. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is not such a gap between you as your altercation would suggest. Kwami's edits use the standard linguistic vocabulary, where it is quite normal to use the term'prestige dialect'. The problem with "Standard Cantonese" is that there is no actual standardised Cantonese language, with standardised dictionaries, grammar, pronunciation, etc., unlike standardised languages like German, French, Japanese, or Mandarin. 86.137.251.212 is correct in pointing out that Guangzhouhua with Guangzhou accent is regarded by speakers as "standard" -- that is how standard languages come about -- but in the absence of true standardisation as found in national languages, the correct term is 'prestige'.

Bathrobe (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Bathrobe is at least 20 years out of date. The Chinese government has Standardised Guangzhouhua dictionaries for more than 20 years, after scholars worked for many years to perfect a pinyin system to note down (not to change) the pronunciation of Standard Guangzhouhua using a modified Latin alphabet. The variations in Guangzhouhua is no different from any other language be they as mentioned by Bathrobe, Japanese, French, German, Putonghua and so on. There are reports of how the older Japanese do not understand the lexicon of younger Japanese due to the mass influx of borrowed foreign vocabulary. It simply shows that these so called 'standard linguistic vocabulary' is deficient and insufficient when dealing with real languages, and these short-comings have not been solved by your 'standard linguist'. Perhaps no equivalent of Einstein has yet appeared on the linguistics scene. Oxford English has been the Standard English long before scholars of linguistics noted it down and before recording technologies were available. Yet once people such as peasants heard it, they knew it was Standard English. In the same way, any Guangzhouhua speaker on hearing Standard Guangzhouhua knows immediate that it was Standard Guangzhouhua, whether some so-called European scholar had written it down or not. Just as in English, French, German, Japanese and any other language you can think of, the vast majority of users do not speak or use their standard language. They use it in the way they have been brought up, ie to use local variants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.144.242 (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Taishanese/ Taishanwa

I have never come across anyone claiming Taishanwa is the most common Guangdong speech in Europe. Has anyone got a reliable source for this? Indeed, prior to the mass legal and illegal migration of Chinese into Europe from the 1990s onwards, the majority of Chinese in Europe were Hakka speakers. If no proof is put forward, I will delete the claim. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Another naming problem. What was meant was that Taishanese is the most common dialect of Cantonese (Yue) spoken abroad. kwami (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not in Europe it isn't. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is? kwami (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See beginning of this section. 86.150.144.242 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)