If I recall correctly there was never a consensus in
zh.wikipedia that
a Minnan Wikipedia should be created.
That is why it has made Minnan Wikipedia a big joke. Extremely few
Minnan speakers (even in Taiwan) can understand what the hack these
guys are writing about in their Minnan Wikipedia. Because Minnan
simply do not yet have a standardised writing system (despite
Taiwanese government's effort to establish one, most grown-ups in
Taiwan sitll cannot comprehend written Minnan, and there is no Minnan
newspaper, only one TV channel)
Its original creation was as an entirely separate
project "Holopedia"
due to extreme community opposition from zh.wikipedia and the
probability that people like Jimbo would at the time have been
unwilling to consider it if his anonymous Chinese advisors said
"閩南話與白話文是統一語言".
And Holopedia does not grow too.
As it was eventually turned into a small Wikipedia
with a small number
of articles (rather than 0), the general Wikipedia community accepted
it somewhat hesitatingly although on zh.wikipedia it was widely
disputed as to whether it should exist.
Because people choose to igonore it, and because it is just so small
and it is almost non-existent. But I am not prepared to accept another
Cantonese Wikipedia, and then Shanghainese, and then whatsoever trash.
Especially different in this case is use of Cantonese
characters
instead of Whites' languages' characters.
There are not standard. No one has formalised these "characters", not
the Hong Kong government (both before and after 1997), not the
Guangdong government, not any governments in the world. There is also
not a standard developed by any influential non-government
organizations.
Some people will ask "What
is the difference?" but many of these people are the same people who
would "correct" vernacular content posted to zh.wikipedia itself,
showing that there really is a difference (I tried it once - it kept
being reverted to the "correct" grammar ie baihuawen).
Your edit is reverted because you used these non-standard characters.
But put characters aside, the grammar is the same for Cantonese and
Chinese.
This is the issue of self-determination of this
community of people
writing colloquial Cantonese, it is not fair to let others decide to
make them choose between writing Baihuawen or not write at all.
We are now seeing a small portion of Cantonese speakers who believe
that there should be something as a Cantonese Wikipedia. But for most
Cantonese speakers (even if you just limit that to Hong Kongers), most
people object such proposals because most people know that Cantonese
is NOT a written language. Again I want you to show me evidence that
Cantonese IS a written language (do not tell me X books are written in
Cantonese, because these are just 1 or 2 exceptions. What I want to
see is 1) has any school began teaching WRITTEN CANTONESE; 2) has any
newspapers/magazines started writing in Cantonese)
[[User:Formualx]]
As for the bible in Cantonese, yes there are, and they
are still used.
There are also versions in Hakka (kejiahua), Wu, Minnan, and all other
Chinese vernaculars. Most of them use hanzi, but some use Whites'
languages' characters, and some use a mixture (representing only some
functions words with the roman letters).
I daresay that most of these aren't widely used but this is for the
alternative reason that Christianity is, for various reasons, not well
tolerated in China (except in ethnic minorities), and outside the
mainland most Chinese speak Cantonese, Minnan, and Hakka besides
Mandarin. Thusly Minnan and Hakka bibles are used by some peoples in
Taiwan, and Cantonese and Hakka bibles is used by some people in
Hongkong and maybe Macao.
This delves into the debate on whether the Bible should be written in
an extra formal literary language that is difficult to imagine
happening (in most of the widely-used English translations, it's
difficult to imagine real people in real situations speaking that
way), or to use a colloquial style that is easier for people to
understand and relate to.
I, not being religious (and what religion I do have is an amalgamy of
Judaism and Christianity but with more Atheism than either), don't
have a preference, but in Bible translation it is always a
consideration.
Some Arabic churches prefer to read the Bible with God's speech in a
formal manner, while others use local colloquial forms because it is
easy to imagine people saying the words, in real life, although I
think most Arab churches use vernacular versions (the exception would
be churches where there is populations from many different dialects -
it would be difficult to read vernacular Bibles in a church which is
25% Algerian, 25% Yemeni, 25% Lebanese, and 25% Bahraini, you would
need 4 different bibles)
Mark
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:18:47 +0800, Sheng Jiong <sheng.jiong(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Guys, I do admire your passion and your
enthusiasm (although I have no
idea how long will that last). I am not against you having a try on
writing serious things in Cantonese (which you have not yet quite
started, as far as I know, since till now all you have written are
just stubs less than even 200 characters). I still hold my opinion
that there is not a necissity for a Cantonese Wikipedia(or any other
Chinese dialect Wikipedias) to exist, but I encourage helpful
discussions and even a vote if necessary should you decide to formally
propose setting up one. What I do not want to see is the set up of a
Cantonese Wikipedia without the consent of the entire Wikipedia
community, especially the Chinese Wikipedia community (as in the case
of Ming-nan Wikipedia).
(Someone mentioned about Bible translated into Algerian Arabic. I just
wonder: is there any Cantonese translations of Bible, and if there is,
is anybody still uses this version?)
[[User:Formulax]]
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l