Talk:Classic of Poetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Poetry (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Please cleanup according to Wikipedia MoS (e.g. the sample is unnecessary), thanks. Aran|heru|nar 13:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary sample cleared, I think this article is generally okay. However, I do admit that it requires improvement.

INTELer 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the item should mention that it is Confucius who select these 305 poems. (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Name inconsistency?[edit]

Why is this called Shi Jing when the other articles have the "Classic of..." titles? In that case, shouldn't this be called "Classic of Poetry"? How do I fix it? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

At the moment we have: Shi Jing, Book of Rites, Book of History, and I Ching. That's two English, one pinyin, and one Wade-Giles. I don't understand the logic there. If no one objects, can we change them all to "Book of..."? I suppose I Ching is simple: Book of Changes, but what about Shi Jing? Book of Odes, Songs, Poems? I prefer Odes. Is someone able to do this? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know how long I have to wait until being able to change the names, to make them consistent? Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dialectical Phrasing[edit]

User:Tricia_Takanawa: (revision 376698095) "All languages spoken today are modern. Cantonese and Minnan may preserve some middle Chinese features which Mandarin doesn't. But Mandarin also preserves many features which those two don't."

"All languages spoken today are modern."

Obviously. However, languages reached their basic "modern" forms at different periods in history: for some, maybe 750 years ago; for others, perhaps 150 years ago.
Both Cantonese and Min nan, especially Cantonese, are heavily palatalized. They both lost voiced consonants........blahblah...that couldn't have happened too long ago.
A) Why not? B)What else palatalized out in Mandarin besides velar initials? (E.g. 加 k --> j, or 皆 and 楷)White whirlwind (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
In Mandarin, (ts ts')精清->(j q) happened at the end of Qing Dynasty. In Beijing Opera, they still song [tsiŋ] instead of [tɕiŋ]. So some of the palatalization happened really late.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, just the sentence "...which are vastly different than the relatively modern and much-altered Mandarin Chinese that is China's official language today." is POV. what do you mean by much-altered?
I wouldn't call that POV, but it is too strong, I admit, and needs to be rephrased. Be careful, though, as it's easy to tell you aren't a native English speaker and you've made some misinterpretations and errors.White whirlwind (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"Even Cantonese, which is older than Mandarin, and Min Nan, which is probably even older than Cantonese, show differences in rhyme from the Odes themselves." By "show differences", I understand it means Minnan and the Odes are petty much similar but there are a few differences, which is absolutely not the case.
Once again you make an English misinterpretation.White whirlwind (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
One proof is departing tones (去声). This is almost a consensus that 去声 didn't exist in Confucius time because in the Odes, all modern 去声 character were rhymed with the other three. And in Min nan, all 去声 are exactly the same with 切韵, 唐韵 and 广韵 which all represent the pronunciation of Middle Chinese.
Especially in the case of 泰祭夬废 four groups, they are singled out in 切韵/广韵. People believe they are between 入声 and 去声 during the writing stage of 切韵, which means they were losing their consonant endings. In Min nan, 泰 group including (贝会最外), 祭 group including (币滞赘税岁卫), 夬 group including (快) and 废 group including (秽) are all hard-core departing tone characters just like Cantonese and Mandarin.
One example from the Odes:
玼兮玼兮,其之翟(Old Chinese[diek], Minnan[t'ik], Cantonese[tik], Mandarin[ti])也,
鬒髮如雲,不屑髢(Old Chinese[diek], Minnan[t'e], Cantonese[tai], Mandarin[ti])也,
玉之瑱也,象之揥(Old Chinese[t'iek], Minnan[t'e], Cantonese[t'ai], Mandarin[t'i])也,
揚且之晳(Old Chinese[siek], Minnan[sik], Cantonese[sik], Mandarin[ɕi])也,
胡然而天也,胡然而帝(Old Chinese[tiek], innan[te], Cantonese[tai], Mandarin[ti])也。
The Old Chinese pronunciations are proposed by Wang Li (王力) and the rhyme in Mandarin is kinda coincident. There are many examples in 诗经 where modern days' 去声 and 入声 are mixed, which is why people say departing tone(去声) didn't exist back then. Duan Yucai(段玉裁) said "去声备于魏晋" and (departing)去声 characters in Minnan are exactly the same with (departing)去声 character in Cantonese and Mandarin(except in Mandarin/Shanghaiese/others, voiced rising(上声) characters later became (departing)去声). Isn't this enough to say that Minnan is just as different from 诗经 as at least Cantonese.
See my bottom comment.White whirlwind (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There are only 305 poems in the odes. I can literally list all of them with Mandarin, Cantonese, Min nan pronunciation next to all the rhymes.

"Cantonese and Minnan may preserve some middle Chinese features which Mandarin doesn't."

Min Nan is not descended from Middle Chinese. The scholarly consensus on this is pretty strong.
Min Nan is too descended from Middle Chinese, where is your evidence? I hope the evidence are convincing, because the vowel system in Min nan is just so consistent with Qieyun/Guangyun(切韵/唐韵/广韵). Well, for me, this is incontrovertible that Min nan derived from Middle Chinese. --Tricia Takanawa (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The view that Min Nan is descended from Middle Chinese is a commonly taught view here in China but is generally considered to be inaccurate in current Sinology. See, for example, Thurgood and and La Polla's Sino-Tibetan Languages (published 2003) - an SVG of the tree can be found here. The most current research indicates The entire 闽 family descends from Old Wu-Min.
I admit this too. I didn't realize this. Actually, it is also being taught in China now. This is why I backed up in the Middle Chinese claim--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Min Nan is considerably consistent with Qieyun, Tangyun and Guangyun.
I guess you mean ch ch' zh (知彻澄娘) in Cantonese and Mandarin are still t t' d (端透定泥) in Min nan. But t t' d (端透定泥) have been preserved up till mid Tang Dynasty.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
<经典释文> by Tang Dynasty 陆德明
端知互切: 猪(丁鱼反) 长(丁丈反/丁两反)
透彻互切: 卓(吐浊反) 坦(敕但反)
定澄互切: 濯(大角反) 值(徒力反/徒吏反) ...
Also in Min nan, f v ɱ(非敷奉微) are still in p b m(帮滂并明), but this is still a feature of Middle Chinese described by Qieyun, Tangyun and Guangyun again.
<经典释文> by Tang Dynasty 陆德明
帮非互切: 贬(方犯反) 闭(方结反) 编(方千反/方绵反/甫连反)
滂敷互切: 憋(芳灭反) 辟(芳益反) 剽(方妙反) 扑(敷卜反)
并奉互切: 貔(扶夷反) 飘(扶摇反)......
There are also evidences in <一切经音义> by Tang Dynasty 玄应
"中國漢朝末年的三國時代,中原發生戰亂,北人開始進入福建,造成福建地区除原有「百越族」土著民族的語言以外,另外也带来了一部分的北方语言。然而,漢人大規模入閩,則是始於「永嘉之禍」,由於晉室南遷,大批北方漢人入閩,而帶來了上古—3世紀時中原的語言,「泉州腔」亦於此時漸漸形成。" I guess sentence like this makes you think Min nan was descended from Old Chinese(上古). But 永嘉之乱 happened in 307 AD and Confucius died in 479BC. It's even self-contradicting.
Ok, I admit Min dialect most likely kept the features of Jin Dynasty (265–420). And Old Chinese is from very old to Han Dynasty and Middle Chinese is mainly described by Qieyun and Guangyun most likely from Southern and Northern Dynasties up to Song Dynasty. So Chinese in Jin Dynasty (265–420) is vaguely defined and it might keep features from the Old Chinese but on route to Middle Chinese. --Tricia Takanawa (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Of all that, I find the t t' d most compelling! That's an excellent point of which I was not aware! White whirlwind (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"But Mandarin also preserves many features which those two don't."

That's like saying modern French preserves some features that Vulgar Latin doesn't, isn't it? If a language is much younger than some of its relatives, it's probably not going to preserve features the others don't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, though: name four or five and we can see if I've just misunderstood.
Oh, dude, of course I didn't mean features developed later.
In Minnan, 毛门马骂妈 now start with the consonant 'b', which was 'm' in both Old and Middle Chinese. This is not a preservation. Mandarin and Cantonese don't
In Minnan, 禅 group has been merged with 心 group which also happened in Cantonese. This is why 成植臣晨常尝乘承垂春... start with consonant 's'. This merge didn't happen in Mandarin.
In Minnan, 床 and 审 groups also merged with 心 group. This is common in southern Chinese dialects. The 卷舌音翘舌音 deal. Although, the Mandarin way of pronouncing these groups might not be the same as Middle Chinese, at least 床审 are separated with 心 in Mandarin.
In Minnan(spoken), the merge of 来 group, 日 group and 泥 group results in the same starting consonant [l]. They have different consonants in Mandarin.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In Minnan, some f and v (非敷奉) has been merged with [x] (晓/匣), another general truth for non-Cantonese southern Chinese. So 海好汉... have the same starting consonants with 非副凡服...
In summary, Mandarin is better at preserving starting consonants, which preserves 3 sets of affricates and fricatives and the difference between 来日泥. Cantonese and Minnan preserves only 1 set of affricates and fricatives.
Another thing, in Minnan and Mandarin, 邪 group has been merged with 心 group which doesn't happen in Cantonese.
Besides, Cantonese and Min nan are severely influenced by southern non-Chinese minority's languages。--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The Min Nan 'm' -> 'b' is believed to be due to influence from the old 闽越 peoples and Austronesians (台湾原住民等,Malay, etc.), so it's a really interesting phenomenon but not at all germane to our discussion. I like seeing your examples, although I'm a bit dubious on one of them (you sound like a native 闽南 speaker, while I am only basically conversant in it, I must admit). Did the 日 group all turn into [l]? 泥 and 来 are obvious, but 日 certainly isn't pronounced [l] in standard Min Nan? It's 'jit' or 'zit', right? White whirlwind (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I gave the previous examples to show that Mandarin keeps some features of Middle/Old Chinese which other Chinese don't preserve. I just want to show Min nan and Cantonese are no less altered than Mandarin in the consonant. The 'jit' and 'zit' sound of 日 is the 文读 pronunciation. [l] is 白读 pronunciation. Min nan show strong 文白异读.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, there are few historic records on Chinese dialects/languages. I don't think in there is any consensus with in academic world. Besides, especially the case of Min nan, research on dialects/languages are heavily politicized, for obvious reason. Besides, my major references are original <广韵> and <汉语语音史> by 王力/商务印书馆 and <汉语方言学基础教程> by 李小凡/北京大学出版社.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
But my point is : This sentence needs rephrasing.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It does need rephrasing. I can't give great rebuttals because I'm back in China and don't have access to all the modern phonological research from the recent scholars like Bill Baxter and Axel Schuessler and William Boltz. I love 王力 as much as the next man and admire him a lot, but much of his reconstructions (like the ones you quoted in 君子偕老) are believed to be a bit inaccurate. This site has a relatively more comprehensive search and may be of use to you (and me!). I'll rework that sentence, but I hope you understood what I was saying. I look forward to studying your reasoning. I rarely meet people who can seriously reason with me on this subject and I'm really happy to have met you! White whirlwind (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I am flattered, thank you. I exhausted my brain to clear the fame of Mandarin. I am a native Mandarin speaker. I reacted strongly at first when you say Min nan didn't come from Middle Chinese because I assumed you meant it came from Old Chinese. Many Wikipedia pages say so or hint so. The wiki page for Wu Chinese even unmistakably stated Wu Chinese derived from Middle Chinese. But for all I know, Wu was the earliest to form. It was just heavily influenced. You were in China to study or work? I though wikipedia was blocked in China.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Precision: Shouldn't we note that "punctuation and damaged characters added" in the caption for the shijing excerpt? I've added this. Or perhaps it's obvious. Thoughts. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Stanza length[edit]

I've changed an inserted claim that 95% of poems consist of 4-line stanzas to just saying most of them do, but I'm not sure even that is true, though 4-line stanzas are certainly common. It would also be better to rely on secondary sources, rather than an article in the Buritanika Kokusai Daihyakka-jiten, which appears to be a Japanese translation of an article from Britannica. Kanguole 15:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not a translation. Like the vast majority of the articles in the Japanese encyclopedia in question, it was written in Japanese by an expert on the topic. It is only "tertiary" in the sense that all general overview sources that summarize a large amount of primary and secondary material are "tertiary"; it was not written by someone who has no knowledge of the primary sources, and is therefore not the kind of tertiary source we are discouraged from using. Use of tertiary sources like this is perfectly acceptable. Of course, we should check to see if other sources say the same thing, and the relatively small number of poems in the text itself would mean it isn't too hard for us to check the primary source ourselves to see if what the source I used says is correct. (In the past I have been accused of "OR" for doing this in the past -- it's not OR if we have a secondary source that says it and that is the source we cite in the article, and we are just checking ourselves as well.)
By the way, the wording used in the source was "詩の形式は4言で1句,4句で1章となるのが基本。", which doesn't translate to "most" -- "the basic structure of the poems is ..." would probably be better. But of course an English-language scholarly source that provides more detail would be preferable. Do you know of any other sources that discuss this?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's understandable, if we read kihon 基本 here as "basic[ally]" or something to that effect, but there really is a significant amount of variation. It took me awhile, but I found this:
"The number of stanzas and lines appears almost random throughout the "Xiao ya" and "Da ya", and all but six of the "Song" consist solely of one long stanza. In contrast, the "Guo-feng" verses present a nearly consistent standard of three stanzas (zhang), which are usually repetitive and consist of four lines." (Jeffrey Riegel (2001), "Shih-ching Poetry and Didacticism in Ancient Chinese Literature", in Victor Mair, ed., The Columbia History of Chinese Literature, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 97-109)
citation is on p. 107. I pinyin-ized the quotation.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much better. Kanguole 17:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Classic of Poetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)