Talk:Chinese poetry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
is this a poem or a type of poem?
"Shi" is just the simple Chinese translation for the word "poem." It is inapproprate to use this for a article title. This article is about Chinese poetry / Poetry of China and should be renamed as such. --Jiang 23:33 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Why is it okay when Japanese terms like Sake, Haiku are accepted into the English language but Chinese terms like Jiu and Shi had to be translated to Chinese wine and Chinese poem. Basically Sake is just Japanese Jiu and Haiku is just Japanese Shi. Is this a culture bias? Can someone explain this phenominon? Kowloonese 08:05 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-
- Haiku is a specific type of poem. Sake is a specific type of wine. "Shi" is just a general term. Sake and Haiku are specific things that were invented by the Japanese and therfore have Japanese names. Jiu and Shi already have English names "wine" and "poem" and are not exclusive to the Chinese nor invented by them. (Note that "Haiku" has not replaced the English word for poem because it is not just any poem--a poem that conforms to a specific style.) --Jiang 08:15 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-
- The article says it itself: "Chinese poems came in many forms. Ancient poem (古詩) and Modern Chinese poems (新詩 vers libre) usually did not follow any prescribed pattern." I vote to move this to Chinese poetry. --Jiang 23:35 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- This example I used was not very good. But there is a different trend in how Japanese is accepted in English and Chinese is not. For example the Issei Japanese American, Nisei Japanese American, Sansei Japanese American articles are no better than labelling Chinese poetry as Shi or Chinese wine as Jiu. If you search all the Japanese articles in wikipedia, you can find 99% of the articles could be moved to "Japanese this" and "Japanese that" with no loss of meaning. But instead many of these terms become part of the English language, such as Tsunami, Sushi, Karake, Karaoke, Kanji etc. You don't see the same pattern in Chinese terms except perhaps the martial arts related terminology.
- In my opinion, it is a matter of cultural pride. The Japanese would insist their rice wine to be called Sake, not Japanese wine. On the contrary, the Chinese (like -Jiang, though NOT me) would rather call their rice wine Chinese wine instead of insisting on forcing a Chinese term into the English language. If the Japanese term "Issei" can be added to the English language to mean "First Generation", so can Jiu and Shi be added into the English language if enough Chinese take pride in their own heritage. I am really interested to see some linguists or social scientists to comment on this behavior. Kowloonese 10:24 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have nothing against using Chinese names, provided people know what they are. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), we have to place the article where people can actually expect to find it. Only people fluent in Chinese know that Shi=poem. If you put it at shi, few people will find it. I searched "jiu" in a search engine and all I got was "jiu jitsu", and nothing about Chinese wine.
-
-
-
-
-
- I think most of the "problem" here lies with exposure, and not specifically with cultural inferiority. English speaking people were/are exposed much more to Japan than China, because of Japan's economic position.
-
-
-
-
-
- The bottom line is, that in adherance to our naming conventions, the article should be placed under the most common name. How do you expect people to discover that Shi=poem if they don't find the article in the first place? It's good that they learn in the article, but it's more important that they locate the article first.
-
-
-
-
-
- --Jiang 21:27 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Old debate, but to clear something up: Although Chinese "jiu" and Japanese "sake" are written with the same character, they do NOT have the same meaning, especially when borrowed into English. "Jiu" in Chinese means any type of wine, but when people say "sake" they generally mean one specific type of wine. Also how many words in Chinese are pronounced jiu and shi, and how many in Japanese are pronounced sake? 219.77.98.166 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Moved. The original article Shi is turned into a disambiguation page.
I've expanded the content significantly, to cover the forms in more detail and adding forms not already covered. The structure at the moment is based on the forms used in each period (early, classical, modern), which I think (hope) works OK.
Markalexander100 07:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This article needs an intro/abstract — Sverdrup (talk) 17:11, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Now it's quite a good article, thanks to Mark, and also to Jiang who made the fluid final layout. (Sorry for not contributing - I'm interested but doesn't know a lot! :-) Gj, all. — Sverdrup 00:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We need something that we can link to to explain the different forms when we mention them in other articles. I think that means either spinning off each of the forms to its own page (like ci-poetry), or section headings for each form. Comments? Markalexander100 07:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely spin-off new articles. They are literary forms with tremendous amount of works. --Menchi 11:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Underway. ;) Markalexander100 05:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Come on Chinese poetry, you can do better than that! Check out the page on Japanese poetry -- and Japan doesn't have nearly as rich a tradition as the Chinese!
Bathrobe 22 August 2005
[Confused by a redirection]Thomashauk 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
This article and the shi article show some misconceptions of Chinese poetry. Terminology is a problem. I've tried to correct them. But there are still too many things to do.--K.C. Tang 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
