Talk:Written Chinese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Written Chinese article.
Article policies
Good article Written Chinese has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents


[edit] Added additional labels

Added additional labels to running, grass, and regular. Intranetusa 01:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reassessment Request

After refactoring this article, I'd like to request a reassessment from the various projects. How should I go about doing that? Go through the peer review process? BrianTung 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My advice would be to list it at WP:GA. I don't really like to give out A ratings, so you probably won't get any rating increase from me if I reassess it, but it looks like it is probably GA quality.--Danaman5 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to comment on what changes you would like to see made to the article to further justify its upgrade to GA? BrianTung 07:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

Menchi, please don't forget to add in this entry that, in areas where the Cantonese language serves as a formal, or official language, "Modern Standard Written Chinese", though based on Beijing Mandarin, still efficiently serves as the literary, and does so without leading to "Cantonese-Mandarin bilingualism" in the normal sense. In other words, "Modern Standard Written Chinese" is not only the written standard for Mandarin dialects, but also Cantonese and many other major Sinitic languages, perhaps with the exception of extremely divergent ones like Minnan and Dungan.

Chinese written characters are used in Minnan. Curiously Dungan isn't very linguistically divergent from Mandarin (much less so than Cantonese), it's just convention that they don't use characters.

The written language is an important unifying factor for speakers of Sinitic languages world-wide, despite the fact that these socially, regionally and culturally diverse groups sometimes can hardly communicate with each other colloquially.

Actually no. Written Chinese is not much harder to learn than any other language. I've known several adults that have mastered it.

The language does not have to be learned entirely as wrote; rather, the underlying logic and structure are apparent to the initiated. Given its depth and sophistication, it is considered challenging for native speakers to master, and difficult or impossible for foreigners who learn it in adulthood.
It depends on what one means by mastering the language. If mastering the language means being able to use all the different forms of written Chinese, then I don't think that there is a single human being that has mastered it. I would dare say that it is only an extremely small number of native Chinese speakers that could write a coherent eight-legged essay in wen-yan (5-10% at most).
On the other have if you mean mastering the language, being able to have a working functional knowledge of Chinese (i.e. being able to write a letter, read a newspaper etc), I know a lot of adult learners that have been able to get to that level of Chinese. My experience has been that the writing system is much less of a barrier to English speakers than the pronounciation. I know a few native English speakers who can't speak the language very well, but read and write classical Chinese much better than most Chinese.
One other thing, I also know quite a number of Chinese who only learned how to read Chinese after becoming adults. Keep in mind that mass literacy programs were only introduced in the 1950's, and it's not uncommon for someone (especially females) to grow up without learning to read and write the language. -- Roadrunner

My experience with adult learners of Chinese is that the written language is not particularly difficult. What is almost impossible for them to get write if they were originally English speakers are the tones.

I think one reason people say Chinese is "more difficult" is that pronunciation and the shape for most characters are not related.
In an alphabet language, people's ability to write is governed by their ability to spell (some memory and some inference to pronunciation). In Chinese, their ability to write is governed almost entirely by their memory of the character shapes.
This also hinders the ability to read. In an alphabet language, an illiterate speaker needs to learn pronunciation in order to be able to read. In Chinese, an illiterate speaker needs to memorize shapes of sufficient characters in order to be able to read. Of course, both speakers will need practice. --voidvector
I can see that it is not noticeably harder to gain some basic proficiency in written Chinese than in written English. Basic English has 800 or so words (plus inflections) in it that permit the user to get around reasonably, and I'm sure someone could select 800 Chinese characters that would do the corresponding job.
However, in my opinion, enlarging one's written vocabulary in English is easier than it is in Chinese. In English, once gets beyond the very common Germanic words, where spelling is fairly irregular, one gets into the somewhat more regular French imports, and then into the even more regular Latin borrowings. In Chinese, however, one only encounters further arrays of characters that must be memorized. The logic of xingsheng construction is not sufficiently deterministic to allow for someone to "shape out" a Chinese character in the same way that one can "sound out" an English word.
At any rate, certain written languages are easier to "get" than others. In comparison with English, which has exceptions galore, the European languages are rather easier to read out loud--notably Spanish, which has practically no exceptions to speak of. Chinese, by comparison, can be thought of (though somewhat unreasonably) as consisting solely of exceptions, each of which has to be learned separately. Again, the logic of Chinese character construction is just not consistent enough for one to make a reliable determination of how to pronounce a new character.
Speaking of Chinese tones, they certainly are a problem--even for Chinese speakers. Mandarin speakers often have trouble picking up the finer tone distinctions in (say) Cantonese and Taiwanese. I think that it is not difficult to teach the tones of individual characters, but getting beginners to string even a short sequence of them together and still get the tones correct is a task. Not to mention the usual 3-3 sandhi rule, which by Chinese dialect standards is fairly simple. BrianTung 19:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

An idea: How about making all Chinese characters used in Wikipedia articles link to the proper unicode.org pages? For example, the beginning of the article about Wushu could look like this:

Wushu (武術 - wu3 shu4).

Or would this type of external linking be wrong?

- Wintran 12:58 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Should add more on Chinese poems, Chinese constraint writings, etc. --Wshun

Chinese poems are, without a doubt, an integral part of Chinese written language, but it deserves it own page on Chinese poetry. You don't need to be comprehensive at the 1st try, of course. Just cover what interests you.
I have no idea what "constraint writings" refer to. Please add it.
--Menchi 02:02 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, that should be constrained writing. Wshun

Input requested at Talk:Chinese_language#Rewrite needed. --Jiang 13:54, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Written Standards

The article mentions "formal written Cantonese" in doing a comparison to "colloquial written Cantonese." To my knowledge, "formal written Cantonese" is standard written Chinese. However, when reading it, Cantonese people will pronounce the characters using Cantonese rather than Mandarin. I don't think it's necessary to make "formal written Cantonese" a distinction. --Umofomia 09:33, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I decided to make an edit that clarifies the situation much better. --Umofomia 09:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

On a similar note, what is the difference, if any, between the terms "古文" (gǔwén) and 文言 (wén yán), and why does the page say 文言? In my experience, studying classical Chinese, the term was always the former. siafu 04:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think both terms are used pretty much synonymously, however in my experience, the latter term 文言 has been more common, especially when talking about it in the context of being a written standard. 古文 may be more common when talking about it in the context of literature. These are just my observations though. --Umofomia 05:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually 文言文 is used in reference to the Classical Chinese language in both Mainland China and Taiwanese sources . 古文 represents the literature in Classical Chinese. 古文 translates directly to "Old Writing(s)" while 文言文 translates to "Written language". --Darthanakin 07:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Direction?

I read this page to find out which direction chinese is written in. The page says nothing about this, but I went on to find some sort of answer in Chinese character. I'm thinking something short should be said about it in this text also, but since I know nothing about written chinese I don't know what to make of this:

On a larger scale, Chinese text is traditionally written from top to bottom and then right to left, but it is more common today to see the same orientation as Western languages: going from left to right and then top to bottom.

I'd try to write something to that effect myself on this page, but I don't know how to interpret the above. What is the larger scale where chinese is written top-bottom,right-left? Other countries than the PRC? The Internet? Maybe someone with better knowledge about this could write something about it on this page, and maybe change the Chinese character page to be more clear? I may try writing something myself, and welcome peer review of that in that case. – Foolip 19:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation

I don't see anything on punctuation here, which is an important aspect of written language, and differs a little between Chinese and English. I know I few things, but does anyone know of an online source with full information on ，、。【】〈〉etc? — Chameleon 14:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wrote them at Punctuation#East Asian punctuation. --Menchi 14:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Great. I've linked to that now. — Chameleon 14:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese written "language"?

As mentioned in Talk:List_of_official_languages_by_state#Official_Written_Languages, I am trully wondering why this article is being refered to as a language, along with the associated confusion over whether Vernacular Chinese is a "language" or not in its own right (Classical Chinese appears to suffer from less self-identity problems). Is it agreed amongst linguists that the Chinese writing system is a language? If so, what is it called in Chinese, because I dont seem to know this despite having writtern in Chinese since decades ago?--Huaiwei 21:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Should be 書面語 or 書面中文. See {{漢語}}. — Instantnood 21:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Should be? Meaning you arent even sure yourself? This is supposed to be a basic concept in the Chinese language. If we cant even pinpoint its Chinese equivalant, then what does this article actually mean? May I point out also, that this article started life as Chinese writing system. What was the rational in turning it into a language out of the blue?--Huaiwei 21:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't tell if the term 書面中文 is universal among users of Chinese. Meanwhile I can't find any sign that this article started under that title [1] [2]. — Instantnood 22:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, who uses that term? I find not more then 10 results on google, so surely it is not exactly widely used. Meanwhile, I was looking at the page's content changes over time. This article only started becoming a "language" with this edit [3] dated 23 June 2003. Prior to that, "Chinese writing system" was bolded [4], as has been so since the article was first created [5] on 25 September 2002 after being split off from Chinese language. Chinese character started life on the same date as a redirect to this page as "Chinese written language" [6], so I suppose the title has been inconsistant with its contents from day one. Interestingly thou, two edits later on 25 February 2003 showed the link "Chinese writing system" appearing in [7], although it was changed back to the redirect a few moments later. Left me wondering if Chinese writing system was really formed as a redirect only on 11 August 2003 [8].
Whatever the case, any objections to changing this title to Chinese writing system?--Huaiwei 00:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that it's an awkward term that I've never seen used in Taiwan, in particular. --Nlu 22:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I have never heard of any of those terms in Singapore either, or that of Chinese writing being a language itself. It would be quite absurd should this be shown to people who basically use the language, and I am surprised no one noticed this earlier.--Huaiwei 00:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Chinese writing system" would refer only to Chinese characters and how they're used. If you want to change the title, you should probably move "written standards" out. -- ran (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

An alternative will be to simply take out the last word and call it Chinese writing, or Written Chinese. While we are at it, would you consider Classical Chinese and Vernacular Chinese as "languages" or merely "styles"?--Huaiwei 00:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The two are not mutually exclusive. For example, Written Singlish and Standard Written English are simultaneously different English dialects written down, and two different styles that writers can use to achieve intended effects. Classical Chinese and Vernacular Chinese differ in vocabulary and grammar as much as, say, Latin and Italian. As literate Chinese people are (or were) generally literate in both, the two were also used as two different styles for two different effects. -- ran (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not too sure which two non-exclusive terms you are refering to, but anyway, writtern Singlish and Standard Written English are not exactly "writting styles", as they are mere writtern versions of the either language. It is not possible to write Standard English using Singlish "style" without basically writing Singlish, so I am not sure if this analogy is appriopriate.
On the other hand, I prefer to look at this from an Old English vs Modern English point of view. Anyway who has had to read Shakespear during his school days would agree with me that reading and writing "Shakespearean English" is almost as good as having to learn another language, but they are never considered a language in their own right. They are simply considered an older form of the same language, sometimes still delibrately used now to suggest the attainment of social stature. Not that different from how the best Chinese language students here in Singapore are expected to be deeply familiar with Tang poems and the like, as well as classic Chinese texts most likely writtern in Classical Chinese. Does this constitute learning a new language? Not exactly. Yes, differences do exists, but do linguists actually consider languages to evolve into a new language over time? Vernacular Chinese is in essense born out of frustrations with Classical Chinese, marking a change in style over the years. Does this mean a new language is born?--Huaiwei 01:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
do linguists actually consider languages to evolve into a new language over time? — Of course! How do you think any language in the entire world develops? By your logic, are we typing in Proto-Indo-European right now?
BTW, Shakespeare's English is Early Modern English. It's not even Middle English. Old English looks like this (this is the first three lines of the Beowulf):
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Which translates to:
LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Note that Zhou Dynasty Chinese (upon which Classical Chinese is based) and modern Chinese are separated by three times as much time as Old English is separated from modern English. The reason we don't notice it is because:
  1. The Chinese writing system obscures all the sound changes. The Roman alphabet doesn't do this as well.
  2. Chinese people study Classical Chinese a lot more than English speakers study Old English, so we end up more familiar with Classical Chinese grammar and vocabulary.
In other words, if you want to use Old English and Modern English as your analogy, then they are definitely separate languages, and thus, so are Classical and Modern Chinese. -- ran (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree. In fact there are language codes assigned to Old English, as well as Ancient Greek. — Instantnood 09:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, so the same language which basically changes overtime becomes a new language (I am not refering to languages which branch out into a distinct branch. Say Singlish from English). Btw, I am not indicating that Shakespearen English = Old English. I am simply asking you: are Old English, Modern English, and everything in between different languages?
And in comparison to Chinese, are Classical and Ver. Chinese distinct languages from the "Chinese language" itself? Can we see some linguist views on this, because I have hardly ever seen these appearing in language trees? Is wikipedia breaking new ground in declaring them as distinct languages before others do so?--Huaiwei 10:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think linguists even talk in those terms. All languages change incrementally, and generally become incomprehensible (to its predecessors) in 1000 years, and all but unrecognizable in 5000. It is pointless to ask where one language begins and another ends, just as it's pointless to ask when the Ship of Theseus is no longer the original ship. Linguists talk in factual terms, e.g. this structure was first seen in this century; this sound change occurred in this century, etc. All these changes add up to the wide difference between Old English and Modern English.
For the same reason, linguists tend to avoid questions like whether Chinese is one language or multiple languages, etc., unless they are explicitly trying to promote a political or cultural POV. This is because there is a dialect continuum across Chinese, with small incremental changes that add up to wide differences; every location has its own dialect by definition. Instead, linguists divide Chinese into vague categories according to isoglosses (just as how they divide English and Chinese into stages according to arbitrarily-chosen changes) and describe those in factual terms. -- ran (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
But here we are, daring to call Chinese writing a "language", and calling classical and Vernacular Chinese "languages" too, even as linguists do not. Linguists are well known in not being able to decide if Chinese "dialects" are "languages" or not. Have they reached to the point of ever discussing if classical and Vernacular Chinese are languages? If not, why are we doing this before them?
Languages evolve over time. Sure. But linguists do make distinctions between language evolvements which involve a branch into another language, or one which just involves the evolvement of the same language. If not, we wont have language trees. Linguists do debate over stages in language changes, or else we wont have Old English being said to be distinct from Middle English and so forth. And where there is an evolvement, one naturally has to at least place an approximate temporal marker.
The crux of the issue remains hanging. Are we here to debate amongst ourselves if Classical Chinese is different enough from the Chinese language itself to be called another language? Ditto for Vernacular Chinese? Or should we be the ones debating in the first place? Who authorised wikipedia in calling them "languages", if we cannot pinpoint any said convention or agreement amongst linguists?--Huaiwei 01:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Your misconception about the evolution of languages is exactly the same as how some people misunderstand biological evolution. Ancient primates evolved into all the primates of today, humans included; it's not as if some monkeys "stayed" monkeys and others "became" humans. Humans did not "come from" monkeys. Similarly, ancient languages evolve into modern languages; no language ever "stays" as itself, whether it evolves into one descendent, or hundreds.
Frankly, this kind of hair-splitting debate that doesn't even have any application to historical linguistics is a waste of everyone's time. Classical Chinese and modern Chinese are more different than Latin is from any Romance language. If you wish to call Italian, French etc "modern Latin", there is really no technical reason why you can't. But if you wish to call Classical Chinese the same language as modern Chinese, just as how other peoples with proud literary traditions, e.g. Tamils, Persians, Arabs, Greeks, etc. like to do for cultural reasons, there is no reason why you can't either.
If you're really bothered by the term "language", do what Old English does then. Say that Classical Chinese is a form of Written Chinese that is based on the grammar and vocabulary of Old Chinese. -- ran (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to Huaiwei's claim, there are 12 hits by searching with site:sg, 1 360 with site:tw, 4 830 with site:hk, 40 900 with site:cn, and 17 with site:mo. In an overall search gives 91 800 results.

There's no deletion history for Chinese writing system, therefore the link [9] pointing there was very likely a red link. This article starting with moving out the written aspects of the Chinese language [10] [11], including Han characters, wenyan and baihua, etc. [12], but it was not like an article to address the Chinese written language until this edit when it is reorganised, bridging the two parts of materials on the written langage. Chinese character was split from this article [13] [14] at a later stage in late June and early July 2003. No matter what, edit history of a Wikipedia article is not the evidence to justify if Chinese written language is or is not a language. If it's not a language shared by several spoken languages, are you going to say it's just the written form of Standard Mandarin? — Instantnood 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not know what kind of google you are using, but by clicking on those search links, I get 0 hits by searching with site:sg, 11 with site:tw, 34 with site:hk, 40,900 with site:cn, and 65 with site:mo. (the last one is an apparant error). You seem to be using the Chinese edition to do your searches, while I am using the English. Funny thing is most of your searches are done in English, with only one in Chinese...the one for .cn.
The edit history tells us that the original text of this page refers to tbe "Chinese writing system", and that is all I need to show the fact that this article did not have an appiorpriate page title for a long time before some effort was made to correct it. Even then, it remains doubtful. I dont think I intepret things as simply as you do. And just like for some reason, you again think I am trying to say that "it's just the written form of Standard Mandarin". Like I said before, please grow up and dont constantly give me the impression that I am talking to an early teen. I have much more educated and productive discussions with others, such as with Ran above, even if we have some disagreements.--Huaiwei 01:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that some of the confusion over whether written Chinese constitutes a language probably arises from a difficulting in identifying what it is the written form actually records. In the various "Western" languages, we don't have a lot of trouble covering both the spoken and written variety under the general heading of "language," because the written form records (possibly imperfectly, as in English) the sounds as heard in the spoken form. Even in forms that are fairly old, such as Old English (before about 1000), the written form captures the spoken form, and if one is familiar with the pronunciation rules of Old English, then one can speak it and be reasonably confident that the sounds are close to what they would have been a thousand years ago.

The situation in Chinese is rather different. In other languages, the writing units (letters, typically, although they may be syllables) correspond to phonemes; in Chinese, the characters correspond to morphemes. They make no less sense when spoken with modern Mandarin pronunciations than with Old Chinese (say, Han dynasty) pronunciations. And yet, from a historical perspective, it leaves us speaking a language that never existed as such--one with modern pronunciations but with a grammar and meaning frozen in time over two thousand years ago. Conversely, we have Classical Chinese and Vernacular Chinese, both of which use the same set of characters, but with considerably different syntax and somewhat different semantics.

It's not a situation we're accustomed to in Western languages and it may make it more difficult for us to identify the written form as a language on the same level as modern Mandarin and the Confucian-era Chinese (which are undeniably two distinct spoken languages, just as Old English and modern English are). I don't think it's unreasonable to refer to the whole as simply "Written Chinese," because although there are considerable differences between Chinese as written in Confucius's time and as written today, there are enough commonalities to warrant a single article to cover them. BrianTung 20:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Written Chinese spoken as acrolect?

The article says " Standard written Chinese spoken aloud using Cantonese pronunciation (usually with some colloquial words substituted in) serves as an acrolect used in newscasts and other formal contexts. ". In fact the situation is not very true for Cantonese. Newscasts are seldom in written language being spoken, although the range of vocabularies used is affected by the written language. It's used in public announcements tho, say, in underground stations, but people would just consider it as plain reading from the written text, not speaking. As far as I know this is more true for Min Nan, that newscasts in Min Nan on CCTV are written Chinese spoken with Min Nan pronunciations. — Instantnood 21:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Number of chinese characters and how chinese dictionaries work

It would be good to have a section on the number of Chinese characters - Hanzi(?), Simplified, etc..

It would also be good to have another section on how Chinese Dictionaries 'work' - Radical/number of strokes, initial stroke/number of strokes, etc., then reference to main body of dictionary...Duncan.france 04:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Writing direction

Easy question, but unfortunately not answered yet in this article: in which direction does one read Chinese written language? From left to right? Are there special rules of reading (like right column first, then next left column), as there are in Japanese written language (see Yokogaki and tategaki for the issues I mean)? --Abdull 15:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Of particular problem, if you're not very familiar with the language, are store signs, which can run in any of three directions: top to bottom, left to right, or right to left. Often times, there are cues that can tell you which way it goes (for instance, the presence of the two characters jiu lou), but there are plenty of other times when you're just on your own. BrianTung 19:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically the same as Japanese for Traditional Chinese. For Simplified Chinese, vertical writing is very rare. -- ran (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Written Chinese

The title is just unnecessarly verbose. The "language"-part is used for language articles only when there's a need to disambiguate from articles that could have an identical title. See Hindi and Inuktitut for examples.

Peter Isotalo 22:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

True. I too requested for a rename of this article to Writtern Chinese as you can see above.--Huaiwei 09:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help with some names

hi i need help with some names bigmike tyi brittani jehemiah little michael

thanks i need the names ok all these or att lease the bigmike one. thank you bigmike

[edit] Chinese is not logographic

It is sad that the myth that Chinese is logographic is being perpetuated here. Chinese is not logographic. Each character does not have a meaning. Each character is a syllable. Most characters have associated meanings when used in context, but this is no different than English with our prefixes and suffixes. The whole article is a complete mess and gives the reader a completely incorrect idea of the Chinese language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.162.143.21 (talk • contribs)

"Logographic" and "ideographic" are not the same thing. The whole purpose of the word "logograph" as opposed to "pictograph" or "ideograph" is to get across the idea that the characters don't correspond directly to ideas. Written Chinese is in fact the epitome of a logographic system. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken Language came first, then written

Numerous parts of this artcle talk about Chinese spoken languages/dialects (let not split hairs on this one) "deriving" from a unified written. First off, the spoken language came first historically and people learn to speak before they learn to read. Second, the written language was historically elitist. Talk of "literate Chinese" would include a few thousand among millions of people. Third, there was never a unified Chinese spoken language/dialect. This means that Cantonese and Mandarin had their languages applied to characters (as Japanese did at one point) ratehr than their languages being derived from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.162.143.21 (talk • contribs)

Although it is true that Chinese regionalects did not derive from a unified written system, it is nevertheless inaccurate to say that Cantonese and Mandarin had their languages applied to characters in the same way that Japanese did. Mandarin is a fairly recent development, having appeared in its present form only several centuries ago. Cantonese is somewhat older, but there is consensus that both derived from Middle Chinese, as spoken during the early Tang dynasty (6th or 7th century). To the extent that Middle Chinese was not unified, it was still considerably more unified than the Chinese spoken language is today, and it is considered the wellspring for just about all of today's regionalects.
The written language is, of course, even older than that, having arisen in some form during the Shang dynasty in the second millennium B.C. and being more or less standardized with the advent of the Qin dynasty. By that time, the spoken language must have already been around for some time, but that would have been Old Chinese, and would have borne as little resemblance to today's regionalects as proto-Indo-European bears to English.
In short, the article should emphasize that the written language was developed to represent the spoken language, rather than the other way around, but it was developed organically, not applied after the fact to existing tongues like Mandarin and Cantonese. BrianTung 19:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I moved these 2 comments to the bottom, the traditional place for new topics. Someone should archive this page.... --Alvestrand 11:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Although lingustically incorrect, this view that the many Chinese languages/dialects are just different readings of the characters is commonly held by Chinese people, in particular people who do not speak Modern Standard Chinese (putonghua). Yes, historically only a very small minority of the Chinese were literate, but this is perhaps not so very different from other regions of the world in the pre-modern era. LDHan 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote Mandarin is a fairly recent development, having appeared in its present form only several centuries ago. Cantonese is somewhat older, but there is consensus that both derived from Middle Chinese
All the current Chinese languages/dialects today developed from Old and Middle Chinese, it is inaccurate to say that Cantonese is "older". All the Chinese dialects have developed and changed in different ways, Cantonese has lost some features which have been retained by other dialects from Old and Middle Chinese. So the idea that Cantonese somehow is "older" is linguistically and historically wrong. Standard Chinese (Putonghua/Guoyu), or Standard Mandarin as wiki and no one else calls it, is a 20th Century development, but it is based on the Beijing variety of the Mandarin group of dialects (spoken in N and SW China), and can be traced back to at least to the Yuan Dynasty. LDHan 15:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree that Cantonese is a more conservative tongue (retaining more properties of MC) than Mandarin? Based on what you wrote, I'm not sure we disagree on a matter of fact. I admit I put that pretty crudely. BrianTung 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Needs Re-factoring...Badly

I started editing the first couple of sections of this article, because of numerous errors in language and fact, but it's apparent that the entire article badly needs to be re-factored. The principles of character formation are repeated throughout the article, and the presentation is substantially out of order. I'm willing to take a crack at this if people are agreeable to that. BrianTung 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's a mess. -Adjusting 00:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm making a massive refactor, with some initial citing that needs to be refined. Feel free to revert, but I think it will be an improvement. BrianTung 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Written Chinese. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Comment While WP need not be stuffy, I have my doubts about this: "Written Chinese" would apply equally well to Chinese in pinyin transliteration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose A move is useless energy wastage; current title is good enough. --Alvestrand 20:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it wasn't a waste of energy until Anderson moved it from the uncontroversial section and turned it into a vote about... uhm... a waste of time. I think. / Peter Isotalo 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I see the move's not uncontroversial, anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • That's pretty darned contrived, I'd say. Opposing moves by complaining that the move itself is problematic is about as relevant to the issue as the pinyin-argument. / Peter Isotalo 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support since it defuses any Chinese language/languages strife. —  AjaxSmack  06:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • A point; but is it a problem for writing? The position I know, even from someone who holds that there are several Chinese languages, is that they all use the same written language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, they use the same script just as English, French, and Swahili use the Latin alphabet but "language" implies tongue or spoken form. The written form of "Have you eaten yet?" is written 你吃飯了沒? in Mandarin but 汝食飽未? (or 汝有食飯無?) in Minnan. Both of these are Chinese but cannot be said to have the same "written language" any more than English and Dutch. —  AjaxSmack  04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Removes the need for piping of links, follows guidelines and does not make the title more or less ambiguous. Peter Isotalo 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No sufficient reason for a change. This is a quite reasonable name for a subset of Chinese language. Gene Nygaard 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Analogous to "spoken Chinese", in agreement with WP guidelines on usage of "language" in titles, and definite improvement over clumsy/amateur current title. But even better would be Chinese writing system, which is now a redirect, because it would enable simply writing The Chinese writing system originated... instead of the current clumsy beginning The Chinese written language is a writing system that originated.... (A short look at the WP intro and comparison with Britannica's opening sentence [Chinese writing system - basically logographic writing system using symbols of pictorial origin to represent words of the Chinese language[s].] shows that the intro is clearly amateur, clumsy, and user unfriendly for other reasons too, including unnecessary immediate use of technical terms like "character" and "morpheme" without prior explanation -- not to mention the article's contradictory statements on whether the system is logographic or not. Instead of the current The Chinese written language is a writing system that originated roughly 3,500 years ago in China. It employs about 5,000 commonly used characters that each represent a Chinese morpheme. something similar to Britannica would be better, e.g. The Chinese writing system employs about 5,000 symbols (usually called characters) to represent words of spoken Chinese. The system originated about 3,500 years ago in China...) --Espoo 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Espoo above. It makes perfect sense. Titles should be precise and concise. No need to get overly wordy. 205.157.110.11 03:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. "Chinese written language" is awkward and grammatically suspect. --Nlu (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

I don't see the problem, Anderson. The article already includes a section on romanization, albeit rather minor. It would indeed be very stuffy to claim that transliterations aren't a form of written language and even moreso that "written Chinese" would be more ambiguous than "written Chinese language". The "language" is there to disambiguate and there's nothing to it disambiguate from. At least I don't see any candidates.

Peter Isotalo 20:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] GA review

OK this is the first time I've ever reviewed a GA. Having substantial knowledge of the article's subject myself, I think I can carry out the review without problems.

Comments added as subitems. BrianTung 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The first problem is that the lead section of this article does not have any inline citations. May sure every statements, claims and findings in the article are cited, and by using inline citations, it is easier for the reader to check the source. See WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:V.
Interesting! I've seen a reviewer say (in regards to another article) that he did not want to see citations in the lead. I'll put them back in there for now, but someone might contest them.
  • "Many characters have been definitively traced back to the 商 Shāng Dynasty about 1500 BCE, though the process of creating characters likely began some centuries earlier. Recent archaeological discoveries suggest to some researchers that prototypes of certain characters may date back as far as about 6000 BCE, but this conclusion is disputed." - this entire statement needs source(s).
Done as two separate citations. (But see above comment regarding citations in the lead.)
  • "When Chinese characters were standardized under the 秦 Qín dynasty (221–206 BCE)." - cite with a source!
Done. (Ditto.)
  • "Educated Chinese know roughly 4,000 characters." - this is statistics and needs a source.
Done with two citations. (Ditto.)
  • The entire lead section needs improvement. Currently it is mostly about "the history of chinese characters". See WP:LEAD for more information. The lead section should be a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. So it needs a bit of work.
Done.
  • this article will use the somewhat contentious but more familiar term "dialect." - Using the term "this article" is not ideal, please improve it with a better phrase.
Please suggest an alternative that does not require an awkward circumlocution.
  • A Mandarin speaker might say yī, a Cantonese yat, and a Hokkienese tsit, but all three will understand the character 一 "one." - Is this cited by ref No.9? If not then this is original research and it needs to be cited with a source.
In my opinion, this seems pretty much common knowledge. However, done anyway.
  • "The Role of Chinese Characters" should be "The role of Chinese characters" per WP:MSH. And "Chinese Characters in Other Languages" needs to be changed too. As well as all the other headings in the article.
Done. In my defense, I was raised on an upstyle newspaper.
  • "At the time, Japanese had no native written system, and the characters were used for the most part to represent Japanese words with the corresponding meanings, rather than similar pronunciations." - cite!
Done.
  • There are 2 sentences here that sounded awkward, please re-word them:
    • "Chinese characters were first introduced into Japanese sometime in the first half of the first millennium CE, probably from Chinese products imported into Japan, possibly by way of Korea."
    • "Altogether, the Jōyō Kanji, a list of kanji for common use standardized by the Japanese government, lists 1,945 characters, roughly half the number of characters commanded by typical educated Chinese."
Removed "possibly by way of Korea" as not central to sentence. Not sure what you find awkward about the second sentence, but slightly reworded.
  • "In contrast to the popular conception of Chinese as a primarily pictographic or ideographic language, by far the vast majority of Chinese characters (about 95 percent of the characters in the Shuōwén Jiězì [17]) are constructed as either logical aggregates or, more often, phonetic complexes." - ref No.17 should be placed at the end of this sentence.
Done.
  • "sun," "blue/green," "candle," "host." - the commas and full stops should be placed outside the speech marks. Unless it is a dialogue or a quote from a statement, then the commas and full stops go inside the speech marks.
Damn, I knew that. (Obviously, I'm a USian.) Done, I think, but there are so many of them I suspect I'll be catching them for a while.
  • "These five categories are not sharply delineated, so that one may write Chinese that is, say, halfway between two styles" - the "say" in this sentences makes it sound colloquial.
Replaced by "for example".
  • "In addition, regular script imposes a stroke order, which must be followed in order for the characters to be written correctly. (Strictly speaking, this stroke order applies to the clerical, running, and grass scripts as well, but especially in the running and grass scripts, this order is occasionally deviated from.) Thus, for instance, the character 木 mù "wood" cannot be written in just any fashion. Instead, the horizontal stroke must be written first, from left to right; next, the vertical stroke, from top to bottom, with a small hook toward the upper left at the end; next, the left diagonal stroke, from top to bottom; and lastly the right diagonal stroke, from top to bottom." This entire statement seems more fitted to the "Structure of Chinese characters" section. But this is just my suggestion.
The "structure" in that section title refers to how the canonical form is assembled, rather than orthography like stroke order. I think I'll leave it where it is.
  • "Throughout this article, Chinese text is given in both simplified and traditional forms when they differ, with the traditional forms being given first." - once again, statements like these tend to diminish the article's quality.
Not sure what you're referring to. "This article"? It is standard procedure in academic papers to identify conventions (such as notation) used throughout the paper, and the usual term for referring to itself is "this article" (or "this paper"). Can you suggest an alternative?
  • Don't wikilink Jerry Norman because there is no article for it.
Removed.
  • In the "Chinese Dictionaries" section, the explanation for radicals and stroke counts seem to go into excessive detail. Try summarise it further.
Done. (Removed most of the examples.)
  • When citing websites, like ref No.12, No.22 and No.28. It should be given a title and retrival date.
Umm, they already had titles. Retrieval dates now added.
  • Finally, the inline citations should follow directly after the full stop, comma or the last letter in a sentence. Currently all of the article's inline citations have a gap in front of them. This needs to be fixed.
Done, although like the US periods and commas, I may catch a few later.

Because there is still several areas of this article that need to be improved, I have failed this article for GA. Please renominate this article when the suggested improvements have been made.

OK, basically done, I think (pending my finding all of the pre-reference spaces and US punctuation). I've left the references to "this article," which is standard operating procedure in English-language scientific papers. If an appropriate and non-awkward alternative is suggested, I'll go with that. Incidentally, I think some of these were FA fails rather than GA fails, but we might as well smooth the way to FA as much as possible. BrianTung 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been a week or so, and I've seen no suggestion for an alternative to "this article", which I think is perfectly acceptable terminology. I am therefore resubmitting for GA--if this usage is still deemed objectionable, please suggest an alternative or "be bold". BrianTung 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. The coverage of facts in this article are very well done. And the prose are quite well-written too. I think once the improvements are made, the article can possibly go into FA.

Oidia (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

I find the following paragraphs confusing. They seem to assume some unstated context which was obviously clear to the writer but may be unclear to readers who don't already understand what points are being made.

Chinese characters do not unambiguously indicate their pronunciation, even for any single dialect. There is therefore considerable appeal in transliterating a dialect of Chinese so that it may be read by those who are not literate in either the traditional or simplified scripts.

Does "transliteration" mean transliteration into the Roman alphabet or from one Chinese dialect to another? I would have assumed the former, but the phrase "transliterating a dialect of Chinese" makes it sound like its talking about the latter. The section title is also offputting in this respect: "Transliteration and romanisation" suggests that "transliteration" in this section means something other than Romanisation. The purpose of the "therefore" in the second sentence isn't clear. "Considerable appeal" to whom, and for what purpose? If it's actually talking about transliterating from Chinese characters into the Roman alphabet for Western readers then the main motivation is much less to do with Chinese characters not unambiguously indicating their pronunciation in whatever dialect it might be, and much more to do with the fact that the characters are all completely unintelligible and unrecognisable. But are the people "who are not literate in either the traditional or simplified scripts" supposed to be Chinese people or non-Chinese?
Into the Roman alphabet. I've made the appropriate change in the article. I hope that this establishes sufficient context to resolve the following ambiguity as well.
With respect to transliteration vs Romanization, zhuyin fuhao (mentioned in this section) is an example of a transliteration that is not a Romanization—it goes to a completely different set of symbols (derived from Chinese characters, but generally not characters themselves).
I contend that the motivation is still (at least in part) not unambiguously indicating their pronunciation. The issue here isn't homographs, but instead the imperfect functioning of the rebus system in constructing most characters. Any transliteration—whether it's a Romanization or not—would help people who are fluent speakers of the dialect but not literate. I welcome any suggestions on how to better indicate this in the article. BrianTung (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In the modern world, the dominant candidate for such transliteration is Mandarin, as about two-thirds of the Chinese population speaks some variety of Mandarin. (There exist variations throughout the Mandarin dialect region of China, but these variations do not generally impact mutual intelligibility.)[52]

"Candidate" in what sense? Does this mean transliterating from another Chinese dialect into Mandarin, or from Mandarin into the Roman alphabet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.47.125 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)