Talk:Yue Chinese/Archive 2

message: "Most only offer Chinese classes in Standard Mandarin because it is the official language of both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. In addition, Mandarin serves as the lingua franca used between people who do not speak the same dialect, and is spoken and understood by virtually everyone in mainland China and Taiwan. In addition, Mandarin was the court dialect formerly used in Qing Dynasty Imperial China."
This belongs in the Mandarin article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.77.167 (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  education section 

message: My reasons are:
*"Cantonese" in common usage refer only to the Guangzhou dialect, not to the whole Yue group nor to other Yue dialects such as the Taishan dialect. 
*To use "Cantonese" to mean both the Guangzhou dialect and the Yue group is confusing.
*"Yue" is the term used in linguistics.
*Consistent with other Wikipedia articles about the major Chinese language/dialect groups, eg Wu (linguistics), Xiang (linguistics)  etc. 
LDHan 13:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but agree with you.  But most sources (if not all) point to Cantonese as the main branch.  Just as Mandarin is the main branch instead of Guan.  Benjwong 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using "dialect" just to mean a variety of language that is a sub-divison of the the larger group, ie the Guangzhou dialect and the Taishan dialect are both classed as Yue. I didn't use "dialect" in the sense of a variety that is distinct from the "standard" version of a language. I'm going to used "Guangzhouhua" etc from now on to avoid this confusion. LDHan 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose move of this article to [[Yue (linguistics)]]

message: There was an incomplete proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move this page to Cantonese language. If that move is desired, please use the instructions on that page to create a full move request, or use a separate discussion here to reach consensus and then contact an administrator to perform any nove that is necessary. Dekimasuよ! 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be confusing. Do you mean "Cantonese" as in Guangzhouhua, or as the Yue group? Or do you mean all the languages in Guangdong? Then it would be better to use "Languages of Guangdong" or "Guangdong Languages" but such an article would be very different to this one because it would include non-Yue Chaozhouhua and Hakka. LDHan 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See Propose move of this article to Yue (linguistics) LDHan 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yue is not a well-known or widely used name in English for Guangdong languages of the Yue family. We do already have an article for Yue (peoples). Badagnani 04:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Yue" is the term used by linguists (in English) for the group. Terms for Chinese language groups such as Wu, Xiang, Min, Yue etc are not going to be well-known or widely used in English anyway, it's not a reason not to use them. LDHan 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see any need to move this page to the Yue section if it doesn't discuss other Yue dialects.  That would just be more misleading. Cantonese is in the Yue family, so why not simply mention that in the Yue article and put a link to this one.Snarfendu 23:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact this article includes all the Yue dialects/variants/sub-divisons.  Your comment illustrates perfectly why using "Cantonese (lingustics)" is confusing, as you, and most people in common usage, are using "Cantonese" to mean Guangzhouhua. At the moment Yue (linguistics) re-directs to this article. LDHan 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Very interesting angles. Hmm.  Benjwong 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, "Yue" was the name used by the ancient Chinese for the various pre-sinicised peoples who lived in what is now southern China. However in modern usage, "Yue 粵" relates to Guangdong province. LDHan 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thus 'Yue people' do not correspond to 'Yue languages' precisely. In other words, Yue people do not necessarily speak Yue. Substitute 'Cantonese' for Yue, and you have 'Cantonese' people do not necessarily speak Cantonese (Guangzhouhua). The point is the Hakka and Teowchiu languages in Guangdong are just as much a Guangdonghua as Guangzhouhua is. What is meant by 'Cantonese' in English must be made clear in an encyclopedia. 81.159.80.99 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In Chinese--not generally in English. Badagnani 20:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Yue" is not commonly used in English, however it is used by academics and specialists. LDHan 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So shall we use what is obviously common usage but a technically inaccurate term, or term with the opposite properties?--Huaiwei 00:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "Cantonese" commonly means Guangzhouhua and not the whole group, it's not even common usage. Whether it's technically correct or not depends on whether you're using "Canton" to mean Canton (province) or Canton (city), but even then "Canton- (province)-ese" could also be technically inaccurate because languages spoken in Canton (province) includes Hakka and Chaozhou which are non-Yue. LDHan 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  It would be true were it not be for the fact that Chaozhou is a city, and the Chaozhou speech is a single language (rather like Guangzhouese), whereas Hakka is more of a family group size and has many branches. Indeed the Guangdong-Hakka speeches have evolved in such a way that those near Guangzhouhua regions have become very similar to Guangzhouhua, and those near the Chaozhou (Minnan) areas have evolved to be very similar to Chaozhouhua.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.100.12 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, obviously by "Chaozhou" I meant Chaozhouhua not Chaozhou the place. Chaozhouhua is one particular variety of Min, Min or Southern Min is the major group. Hakka is a major group with various sub-divisons such as the Hakka spoken in Meixian etc. LDHan (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The more research I do, the more it seems that "Yue" was a name proposed by Mandarin speakers in an effort to claim all languages under it by using pinyin.  As "Yue" is truly a pinyin name.  The southern dialects have never been called Jyut or by any southern origin names. So that leaves "Cantonese" as the only real non-POV English name. Benjwong 02:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of research did you do to support your "findings"? Pinyin is only a romanisation method, not a language, so how is it possible for "Yue" to be a pinyin name? By the same token, shall we declare "Cantonese" as an English word, and dismiss it also for being introduced by Europeans who refuse to pronounce local languages properly? Kindly seperate politics from facts.--Huaiwei 04:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  You said it.  Yue is just a romanization name of the Chinese word 粵.  Not an actual English name of the language. Benjwong 04:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what, may I ask, because you appear to be contradicting yourself? So just what is an actual English name in this regard?--Huaiwei 05:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part is contradicting? I'll continue this tomorrow. Benjwong 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Yue is "English romanisation", what sets it apart from the word "Cantonese" for them not to display the same deficiencies you suggest?--Huaiwei 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "So that leaves "Cantonese" as the only real non-POV English name." Unfotunately 'Cantonese' is rather POV because  the word 'Canton' sounds much closer to 'Guangdong' than 'Guangzhou'. Indeed using the Romanisation standards 'Canton' meaning Guangzhou should be 'Canchow' (as in Hangchow for Hangzhou). So implicit in the English word 'Cantonese' is the misguided meaning of Guangdongese rather than Guangzhouese. 81.157.100.12 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Your comment is it a code word for "mainland Chinese" just sums up this whole situation best. Cantonese, meanwhile, derived from Canton, itself a romanisation of the words 广州, so since when did it become more "English" than a pinyin romanisation?--Huaiwei 01:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My perspective should not be counted out because I don't represent the majority mandarin speaker.  At first I believe it was the right thing to do to move Cantonese to Yue.  But there is little to no sources to support it.  Even Badagnani said it is not the most common English term. Number of sources pointing to Cantonese far overwhelms Yue.  Whoever 77.44.49.36 is also made a good point about Fujian not being Cantonese. I personsally struggle with any toishanese, and that is supposed to be under Yue. What is worse is the serious history of territorial claims by populating areas with mandarin speakers.  It makes this move even more controversial.  The only possible way we can agree on any move is if we do a 3-way using both names.  So that leaves you with Yue (Cantonese), Guan (Mandarin) and Kejia (Hakka). Wouldn't have it any other way. Benjwong 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not use your socio-linguistic background as a bargaining chip, else everyone can jolly well do the same (especially considering we already have a proportionally low PRC-representation in wikipedia). I am not a native Mandarin speaker either, so what's the big deal? Arguments to move or not to move should be supported by good arguments, not because "someone else said something" alone. See my own enquiry above: should we give greater adherence to common usage, or technical accuracy. That you prefer the former is just your opinion. I am still open to either option currently, but if we are to be consistent, I would argue that Min is going to become Hokkien, Wu is going to be Shanghainese etc, despite being technically inaccurate as well in both cases. I have problems understanding what "territorial claims" has anything to do with this discussion. Are you here to debate on language naming accuracies or political policies? Your name suggestions may be worth considering, but I must warn that they will be at odds with the majority of language article names currently in use.--Huaiwei 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is very odd that you want to avoid the political aspect which is possibly the center of all language debates. So please don't think I am saying things for the fun of it.  It has every bit to do with the discussion.  I think what the other people have brought up are very realistic in everyday life.  As I can hardly find enough paper sources to justify a move.  And that's even after saying I agree with LDHan there should have been a Guangdongese.  That being said, I am not entirely against a move, if it makes sense all the way across. Now I hope you mean Min (Hokkien) and Wu (Shanghainese) to go along with the other 3.  Not actually replacing all of Min/Wu with Hokkien/Shanghainese as that seem even more extreme of a move. Benjwong 07:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should replacing Min/Wu with Hokkien/Shanghainese be considered extreme, if common usage is the only reasoning you can give against the move? Are Min and Wu common usage terms compared to Hokkien and Shanghainese? Please be consistent with your arguments here. And it appears that you have no better reasoning to give now other than some self-purported "political reasoning" which you cannot even explain in full. This is about the second time I see you making such politically-laden comments in otherwise completely unrelated discussions.--Huaiwei 07:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic seems to be heating up quite a bit. I would like to remind everyone to be respectful of each other as per the "Civility" page of Wikipedia. Out of the list of "Petty examples" that Wikipedia uses, I see some rudeness, and some ill- considered accusations of impropriety. So please be civil people, because if we don't, then: "This style of interaction between Wikipedians drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community"
Thanks. --Miracleman123 08:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: :What happen to the Archive 1 (January 2003 - Oct 2007)? Where is the Archive 1 (January 2003 - Oct 2007)? Sonic99 (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no agreement with any page move. The archive also got lost in the move process.  Someone find an administrator. I tried looking up Cantonese (linguistics)/Archive and can't find it. Benjwong (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking for admin help at Wikipedia:Help desk#Lost Archive. Hopefully some administrator will come by. Benjwong (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevermind.  The archive is restored. Benjwong (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored archive

message: User: Snarfendu has made this move with this edit summary (move marked as minor): "moved Cantonese (linguistics) to Cantonese (language) over redirect: Linguistics implies for of a phonetic focus while this article also discusses other areas such as history, cultural usage, etc. The Standard Cantonese article discusses linguist(ics)."
First, this move to Cantonese (language) was made without discussion and consensus, the discussion was about moving to "Yue (linguistics)". Second, the reasons given do not justify this move. Linguistics does not imply a phonetic focus, any first year linguistics undergraduate will know that phonology is but one part of linguistics, a languages doesn’t even have to have sounds eg sign language. Linguistics includes many topics; grammar, history, morphology, semantics, social-linguistics, phonology etc. An article on all the Yue dialects, as this article is, will not discuss phonology, instead phonology is going to be found in articles on each particular Yue dialect such as Guangzhouhua, Taishanhua etc. This is exactly the same for example in English, the phonology of English is divided into American English, British English etc. LDHan (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. LDHan (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: How about to standardise what is meant by Language, linguistics is the technical study of any languages. Some of these fields do not consist of a single language but is diversified, as in syntax. While it can be implied here I doubt it really can. The use of the word language would differentiae it from the academic and cultural side of the word Cantonese. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name of ''"Cantonese (linguistics)"'' moved to ''"Cantonese (language)"'' 

message: Actually, there are no exact estimates of how many Cantonese speakers and other Chinese language speakers. There are no statistics about Chinese languages on the National Bureau of Statistics of China website. If you want to find the real estimates, ask the National Bureau of Statistics of China to provide some Chinese languages statistics on their website. I have already contacted the National Bureau of Statistics of China. If more people ask for the language statistics in China, the Chinese government will provide this information and then we can update the numbers of Chinese language speakers of Yue, Wu, Min Nan, Min Bei, Xiang, Hakka and Mandarin on Wikipedia. 
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Email: info@stats.gov.cn   
Sonic99 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ask the National Bureau of Statistics of China 

message: The history section needs a major rewrite. It lacks detail as to the actual origins of the Cantonese language. In particular, it does not say anything about the indigenous languages that the ancestors of modern Cantonese peoples spoke.
Also, the article fails to properly address the idea (with arguments for/against) that the Cantonese language can be regarded as a separate language (in the same way that English and German are separate languages).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.145.206 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient detail in parts of article