[Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language request, and Chinese Wikipedia again

Thu Feb 24 02:24:44 UTC 2005

Mark:

I appreciate your support on setting up a Cantonese Wikipedia, but I
think it is time to tone down the rhetorics.  If an argument is not
true, let's just state that.  If two arguments are contradictory to
each other, let's just point that out.  There is no need to ridicule
the person at the same time.

On Tue, February 22, 2005 11:21 pm, Mark Williamson said:
> What I find amusing is that he says things about how Cantonese
> isn't written, and then in the same breath he says something about
> how _when_ Cantonese is written, it can't be understood.
>
I would rather say that finally, no one is denying the existence of
written Cantonese, and treat the expression "Cantonese isn't written"
as a figure of speech.  That is a step forward.

> He started out saying that Mandarin and Cantonese are written
> identically, but then he made some concessions. So now they aren't 
> identical, but Cantonese is inferior because - well, because he says
> so.
>
> Formulax, we are going in circles here.
>
I don't really care if other people find it inferior or equal.  At
least now, everyone agrees that they are different.  That is a step
forward.

> Quit telling native speakers of Cantonese what they should have to
> do with THEIR LANGUAGE. Such a movement as the May 4th movement is
> extremely difficult to spark, and usually comes amid great political
> or economic strife, which currently isn't exactly present in Cantonese-
> speaking areas.
>
At least now I understand what is the standard of "widely" used is in
his mind.  We may go on to discuss if that requirement is reasonable,
comparing Cantonese with other languages that have Wikipedias.

> If you can understand Cantonese so well and it's so similar, then
> we're back to the question "Why are my contributions to zh.wikipedia
> in pure unadulterated Cantonese 'corrected' to Baihuawen?" which you
> have already answered with your typical accusations of inferiority
> and lack of standardisation.
>
> As I said, we are going in circles.
>
Actually, I will make the same copy-edits given the same situation
because zh: is supposed to be written in Baihuawen.  I don't find the
attitude of Sheng Jiong important to the issue.  We just need to point
out that this example illustrates that Cantonese is different enough
to warrent a copy-edit.

> And even more interesting is how you act for a moment conciliatory
> buay conciliatory (I think you'd be more likely to hear "act yong
> hor buay yong hor") about how you encourage this enthusiasm... but
> then your true nature rears its ugly head (that's what the "buay
> yong hor" part is for) and you're back to your snappy, 
> Cantonese-is-not-a-written-language-and-if-it-is-I-dont-like-it self.
>
Every person has strong opinions on certain issues and it may not be
possible to change that.  Even if a person *act* conciliatory for a
moment, I appreciate that.  Wikimedia projects are collaborations of
different people of very different ideological backgrounds after all.

> Mark
>
Mark, once again I appreciate your support.  I don't think we will get
the blessing of the community to start a Cantonese Wikipedia soon, but
it does not mean that it cannot be done later.  Let's calm down, find
more supporters and supporting evidence, and earn some credibility by
contributing to the community at the same time.  Eventually, people
will understand.

I hate to see your valuable input being discounted only because of
complaints about your attitude.  I hope you can get my message and
do not find it offensive.

Felix Wan

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:18:24 +0800, Alex Y. Kwan <litalex at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Sheng Jiong wrote:
>>
>>> And now you should start another movement and let the public accept
>>> it before coming to ask for a Cantonese Wikipedia.
>>
>> You could have just stated that was your definition of "widely
>> accepted" before letting all of us get into this long, long discussion.
>>
>>> Yes, there was. But majority of the population know only how to read
>>> some wenyanwen, but not write.
>>
>> Odd that you'd say that. I hang out at this online writing forum and
>> quite a number of the people there write almost perfect wenyanwen. But 
>> that's besides the point.
>>
>>> His examples are just stubs. And in fact I can read it as well.
>>
>> His examples from www.cantonese.org.cn?
>>
>>> are only two possible solutions: 1) do not translate these terms into
>>>  Cantonese, which makes a Cantonese Wikipedia a repetition of Chinese
>>>  Wikipedia, or 2) translate, and no one understands.
>>
>> You just said that written Cantonese is so easy to understand and now
>> you say once a term is translated, no one will understand it?
>>
>>> Whatever it is, it is written. Cantonese is not.
>>
>> I don't get why you're making statements like those when there is
>> evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> little Alex