Talk:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


this is a rather ridiculous page. Maybe it could be deleted? The "issue" is just a matter of which romanization system is used. The problem of interpretation results in English speakers not knowing the systems and using an English spelling pronunciation. Also the phonetics of word-initial voiced stops are not so accurate (as Angr above mentions). – ishwar  (speak) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an outgrowth of several-year-old arguments here on Wikipedia. I suggest we merge any material worth keeping with Romanization and either delete this or make it a redirect. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but I don't see any reasons to merge, excluding individual disinterest in the topic. This article meets inclusion criteria, and seems linguistically, sinologically, and lexicographically informative. In addition, as Bradeos Graphon mentions, there are in-house Wikipedia reasons (note the numerous internal links) not to merge. Since the internal arguments over Daoism/Taoism and Daode jing/Tao Te Ching are ongoing, new and future editors (for instance) will continue needing this article. Could we find someone expert in phonological terminology to correct the inaccuracies about voiced/voiceless stops? Best wishes. Keahapana (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the topic certainly deserves an in-depth treatment somewhere; I'd always received the impression that Taoism and Daoism were different and separate concepts. In fact, I think it would be worthwhile to expand on the differences between the concepts associated in English with Daoism and with Taoism; to differentiate between the most current understanding of the original Chinese philosophy, versus how the West previously popularly imagined that philosophy to be. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
OK - if some people think that Daoism and Taoism are different, then one might resolve the riddle. One could write something like: "Depending on the romanization scheme, 道 may be transcribed as "Dao" (Hanyu Pinyin), "Tao" (Wade-Giles) or other. Hanyu Pinyin is the international standard (and Wikipedia standard) today. Since Wade-Giles used to be de-facto standard until the 1970s, "Taoism" is still frequently found." THAT'S ALL WE NEED - anything else is interesting for chinese romanisation in general but not Dao/Tao specific. Wassermaus (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and question[edit]

Kawmi鏡, thank you for fixing the IPA formatting. On earlier versions of this article, I used [t̥aʊ] instead of [t⁼aʊ] for the voiceless unaspirated Chinese 道, but now I'm confused whether it should be [taʊ], [t⁼aʊ], or [t̥⁼aʊ]. Which is correct? Keahapana (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A good article but technical[edit]

I found that the article was written very well with plenty of footnotes. In keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines, there is no original research and the tone is not polemic. I don't understand why the article was flagged at the top for being written like a "magazine" article. The accusation itself is odd--magazine pieces are not necessarily biased. They can run the gamut from opinion to factual. Maybe the critic means that it is written like an opinion piece? But this isn't the case; I don't really detect a bias. The only criticism I have is it is a bit pedantic but given the pointless stuff people write about (Texas Longhorns, etc), this seems like a worthwhile article. Ian Johnson (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You're correct about this frivolous tag and I'll delete it. Keahapana (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Examples of how it's said[edit]

Could someone record the three different versions - chinese, tao, and dao? Hearing these things being said might make it more clear (even just the chinese version would be good). El sjaako (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know of any links for these. Keahapana (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree: the article is pointless without recorded examples. Running around the bush. Somebody please wake up: it's the age of computers. I can't think of a computer I owned that didn't have a sound card! --Ziounclesi (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Two questions[edit]

Kwamikagami, thank you for diligently correcting IPA templates in so many articles. When you have time, I'd like to ask about your recent edits. I knew about {{IPA-cmn but not about using the template with a Hanzi like 道. What does it represent? You wrote, "Wade Giles is actually a better guide for the naive English reader than pinyin is." I've never read (but would like to) anything supporting the phonetic superiority of W-G over Pinyin for English readers. Could you provide some references? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I misread the diffs (you were only correcting the mistaken IPA usage) and reverted Carr's original quotation, which seems less dubious than the unsupported assertion that W-G is better. Keahapana (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Romanization of Chinese[edit]

It states "Romanization," but then goes on to list several systems of romanization, ending with Zhuyin Fuhao and the Cyrillization of Chinese, neither of which could be classified as Romanization, any way you slice it.

Perhaps opting for the more general term of "transliteration" which allows inclusion of Zhuyin and Palladius...or, keep "Romanization" and leave out those last two non-Roman scripts. Personally I would opt to rewrite it as "Transliteration" and keep them in for a wider showcase of how hanzi can be written phonetically (unless phrasing it like that opens a whole 'nother semantic can of worms vis-à-vis IPA)... (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Tom in Florida

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daoism–Taoism romanization issue. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)