I agree with this idea. Senshin先秦 and kan漢 writings can always be used
as templates and in reality if we could get close to the tou
唐 writings, that is already good enough.
--- Felix Wan <felixwiki(a)earthsphere.org> からのメッセージ:
On Wed, March 2, 2005 7:22 pm, shi zhao said:
Problem is use when of does the classical Chinese write? Ming and
Qing?
Is Tang Sung period? Or does QIN2 HAN4 is period?
Or to is more
early?
Each period classical Chinese differ very
greatly.The Manchu
Dynasty and
Han dynasty rise of test twice according to the
custom of the
ancient
works, be for can let the then person comprehend
the people of the
past's
work of classical Chinese.The ancients is still
not
apprehensibility more
early the classical Chinese of the ancients, so
which period
classical
Chinese we use to write worthwhile discussion.If
use the MIng and
Qing
period classical Chinese writing, that is much
more simple, plus
some
荵倶ケ手・ケ・ delete 逧・コ・造.( this and Chinese version
difference not
big)If use first Qin's classical Chinese
write, having no several
individuals perhaps can write.
[[zh:user:shizhao]]
That is a real concern. True, even "Classical Chinese" is a blanket
term covering milleniums of evolving written Chinese style.
Since the original proposer is a Japanese, I guess the style that is
most compatible with kanbun or other traditions known to East Asians
should be that of the Tang-Song period. That is also the period with
the richest literature for reference, and most educated Chinese
should
be familiar with the style. So if we are really going to open such
an
encyclopedia, let's fix the reference time frame to the Tang-Song
period.
However, my perception is that the grammar of Classical Chinese is
more
or less stablized since the Tang dynasty. New ways of saying things
were introduced, but the real substantial change happens with the
introduction of Baihuawen.
Does the Latin Wikipedia face similar problems in selecting the
style?
Felix Wan
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l