Talk:Chinese language/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Czhu1995.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amber MWY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language family.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

HSK 1

My name is inin 202.93.13.227 (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

hello! do you have a question or comment about how to improve the page? Remsense留 10:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Problem with the def of "Chinese dialects"

According to the text of the article, there are multiple versions for the definition of the term "Chinese dialects" which are all acceptable. ("The spoken varieties of Chinese are usually considered by native speakers to be dialects of a single language. However, their lack of mutual intelligibility means they are sometimes considered to be separate languages in a family." )
I have no personal preference for any of which, but the fact that Min Chinese have diverged from other branches of Chinese prior to the formation of Middle Chinese is recognized by most scholars and is therefore needed to be specified in the infobox. In addition, if Min Chinese is not considered a Chinese dialect(According to @Kwamikagami:), all other Chinese dialects mentioned in the article will then need to be removed from the text as well. Hank2530 (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

First, you don't have to say "dialect", you could just leave it off. Second, Min is a language family -- call them "dialects" if you like, but there are dozens of them. There is no "Min dialect" either way. I mean, would you claim that the non-Min "dialect" derives from Middle Chinese? Finally, we used to say "all but Min" (if I recall correctly, I was the one who added that claim to begin with), but that was removed because the preponderance of sources does not support the claim. — kwami (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguous "Standard Cantonese"

In Hong Kong, Written Cantonese has basically no official status, and has never appeared on any official document historically. The Standard Written language is largely based on Modern Standard Chinese, with a few influences from Cantonese. The spoken variety has always been Cantonese (de facto official), together with a system reading Mandarin into Cantonese. When the local use the term "中文", one usually means this complex system. This is why I made an edit, later reverted by 123.195.224.196, then redid and undid by Remsense. The efn statement

• "De facto—while no specific variety of Chinese is official in Hong Kong and Macau, Cantonese is the predominant spoken form and the de facto regional standard, written in Traditional characters. Standard Chinese and Simplified characters are only occasionally used in some official and educational settings. The Hong Kong government promotes biliteracy in Chinese and English, and trilingualism between Cantonese, Mandarin, and English; while the Macau government promotes triliteracy between Chinese, Portuguese, and English, and quadrilingualism between Cantonese, Mandarin, Portuguese, and English, especially in public education."

doesn't explain it well because the Hong Kong government never actively promotes literacy in Cantonese (it does promote Written Cantonese in the similar extent how mainland China promote dialects, though). 209.2.227.244 (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I was rash on this: feel free to put it back for now, I don't want to appear possessive on things where I am not remotely an expert. Remsense留 23:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/1190834510. 209.2.231.4 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hongkongers usually emphasize that their Written Standard Chinese contains Classical Chinese, but that's true to all Written Standard Chinese around the world to various degrees, though the one in Hkng Kong contains slightly more. 209.2.231.4 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What about Special:Diff/1202574855 then? 209.2.228.41 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Ba–Shu

I have reverted the addition of Ba-Shu to the infobox, because it seems to have no coverage in any overviews of Chinese dialects or Chinese language history. There is a Wikipedia article Ba–Shu Chinese, but it appears to be a synthesis of one of the dialect areas mentioned in Fangyan and studies of poetry from Song-era Sichuan. Kanguole 23:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you please tell me why you thought this BaShu issue couldn't be solved in the two infoboxes way above, Given that Ba-Shu seems to be well-accepted as an extinct linguistic area but not so clear as an extinct comparative family? Or you just reverted the re-addition of Ba–Shu because it is improper to put it into a single infobox and that the two infoboxes way was "prose"? 209.2.231.4 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned, it seems to have no coverage in any overviews of Chinese dialects or Chinese language history. Kanguole 10:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not covered primarily because its relative importance is not as high as those living topolects, but there is strong evidence of its existance as a historical topolect. IMHO it can be here with an asterisk. 209.2.228.41 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to be based on coverage in reliable secondary sources, to avoid original research and undue weight. If those sources don't find it worth mentioning, nor should we. Kanguole 10:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)