Talk:History of Standard Chinese/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nothing about phonology?

Why doesn't this page contain anything about historical Mandarin phonology? There's not even a single IPA letter on the page. The historical changes are only presented in terms of vocabulary grammar, which is likely to be more conservative than the phonology. There are some well-known shifts in Mandarin phonology over the past two centuries, and for this reason modern names like Heilongjiang and Nanjing were once romanized as Heilongkiang and Nanking, and names like Ningxia and Xing'an were once Ninghia and Hing'an. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.223.106 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't know much about historical Mandarin phonology, because the only phonetic representations of chinese before modern times were written by foreigners. And the examples you are giving have nothing to do with historic changes in phonology, the differences you show are between the Beijing and Nanjing dialects.Rund Van (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the "Modern Mandarin vs. historical Mandarin" section

Where do these dialogs come from. Some of them are inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.40.247 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This article was originally split from the article now called Standard Chinese. There, the historical dialogues were added in this edit, with an appeal for a native speaker to supply modern translations. The dialogues come from pages 2, 14, 30 and 98 of Boussole du langage mandarin, a 1903 translation by Henri Boucher of a Japanese textbook (官話指南), but converted to simplified characters. The translations were added by a different editor in this edit. Traditional characters for the first historical dialogue were added later.

The whole section is original research, and as such I am removing it. Kanguole 10:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Inaccessible

An encyclopaedia article should provide an introduction to a subject that can be understood by someone who has not studied that subject before. However, this article, in particular the dialogues that form the lower half, do not meat that requirement. Only someone with advanced Chinese study would be able to read or understand what is being shown. As it stands this article is inaccessible. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of English which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)