Cantonese Romanization
Very interesting blog and one can "feel" the Cantonese even with the alphabet. That shows that indeed that Chinese can be written using the alphabet and that would open doors so that many more people can enjoy
learning Chinese and its many varieties. Even though I know thousands of Chinese characters I can't understand when people write in Cantonese because they use a different characters and probably might have a different grammar. Can anyone help me on this?
Cheers!!
learning Chinese and its many varieties. Even though I know thousands of Chinese characters I can't understand when people write in Cantonese because they use a different characters and probably might have a different grammar. Can anyone help me on this?
Cheers!!
Now we just have to wait for the typical Chinese nationalists to come and spit propaganda.
"Disproven! Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:04 am GMT
Now we just have to wait for the typical Chinese nationalists to come and spit propaganda. "
I think they should be "Chinese characters fanatics"
Now we just have to wait for the typical Chinese nationalists to come and spit propaganda. "
I think they should be "Chinese characters fanatics"
To: Disproven / Geen
zan1 hai6 m4 zi1 dim2 joeng6 gong2 bei3 nei5 dei6 ting3, seon3 m4 seon3 jau4 nei5 dei6, sik1 m4 sik1 mat1 giu3 gai1 tung4 ngap3 gong2? tai2 m4 ming4 zau6 syun3 sou3 la1.
zan1 hai6 m4 zi1 dim2 joeng6 gong2 bei3 nei5 dei6 ting3, seon3 m4 seon3 jau4 nei5 dei6, sik1 m4 sik1 mat1 giu3 gai1 tung4 ngap3 gong2? tai2 m4 ming4 zau6 syun3 sou3 la1.
Mechanical repetition of the 26 letters is already overly monotonous! Now, with the tiny dots and strokes added everywhere on top of the letters -- it simple makes me unbearably dizzy! What an ugly set of script you guys have come up with! Please don't do this to my beloved Cantonese! Stop it!
Stop right there right now!
Stop right there right now!
"Tionghoa Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:38 am GMT
To: Disproven / Geen
zan1 hai6 m4 zi1 dim2 joeng6 gong2 bei3 nei5 dei6 ting3, seon3 m4 seon3 jau4 nei5 dei6, sik1 m4 sik1 mat1 giu3 gai1 tung4 ngap3 gong2? tai2 m4 ming4 zau6 syun3 sou3 la1.
StarsAroundMyHead Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:02 am GMT
Mechanical repetition of the 26 letters is already overly monotonous! Now, with the tiny dots and strokes added everywhere on top of the letters -- it simple makes me unbearably dizzy! What an ugly set of script you guys have come up with! Please don't do this to my beloved Cantonese! Stop it!
Stop right there right now! "
See, Disproven! You are right! Those Characters trolls like to attack "pro-romanization". Please our dearest webmaster blocks their IP!
To: Disproven / Geen
zan1 hai6 m4 zi1 dim2 joeng6 gong2 bei3 nei5 dei6 ting3, seon3 m4 seon3 jau4 nei5 dei6, sik1 m4 sik1 mat1 giu3 gai1 tung4 ngap3 gong2? tai2 m4 ming4 zau6 syun3 sou3 la1.
StarsAroundMyHead Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:02 am GMT
Mechanical repetition of the 26 letters is already overly monotonous! Now, with the tiny dots and strokes added everywhere on top of the letters -- it simple makes me unbearably dizzy! What an ugly set of script you guys have come up with! Please don't do this to my beloved Cantonese! Stop it!
Stop right there right now! "
See, Disproven! You are right! Those Characters trolls like to attack "pro-romanization". Please our dearest webmaster blocks their IP!
<<Mechanical repetition of the 26 letters is already overly monotonous! Now, with the tiny dots and strokes added everywhere on top of the letters -- it simple makes me unbearably dizzy! What an ugly set of script you guys have come up with! Please don't do this to my beloved Cantonese! Stop it!
Stop right there right now! .>>
Reading shouldn't be about what the writing looks like, it should be about WHAT you're reading. I don't read a computer manual because the writing looks beautiful, I read it to find out how to fix my computer. I don't read a comic book because the writing looks beautiful, I read it to look at the pictures and find out aobut the story. I don't read a newspaper article because the characters look beautiful, I read it to find out what is happening in the world. One doesn't find reading something monotonous because of the script, but because of the monotonous CONTENT of what you're reading. So Chinese characters in this case are a distraction.
And that's on the assumption that Chinese characters are actually beautiful, which is far from my opinion! I find them dreadfully ugly!
<<Now, with the tiny dots and strokes added everywhere on top of the letters -- it simple makes me unbearably dizzy!>>
Better a few dots and strokes than 15 tiny dots and strokes PER CHARACTER! LOL!
Stop right there right now! .>>
Reading shouldn't be about what the writing looks like, it should be about WHAT you're reading. I don't read a computer manual because the writing looks beautiful, I read it to find out how to fix my computer. I don't read a comic book because the writing looks beautiful, I read it to look at the pictures and find out aobut the story. I don't read a newspaper article because the characters look beautiful, I read it to find out what is happening in the world. One doesn't find reading something monotonous because of the script, but because of the monotonous CONTENT of what you're reading. So Chinese characters in this case are a distraction.
And that's on the assumption that Chinese characters are actually beautiful, which is far from my opinion! I find them dreadfully ugly!
<<Now, with the tiny dots and strokes added everywhere on top of the letters -- it simple makes me unbearably dizzy!>>
Better a few dots and strokes than 15 tiny dots and strokes PER CHARACTER! LOL!
To: blanc
If you also think I'm a Chinese nationalist, OK, just ignore what I'm going to say.
If not, I'd like to repeat, the reason why we've kept using characters is not mainly because it's beautiful, of course, you have the right to think it dreadfully ugly too.
If you want to know a key point of the reasons, I'm not bored with telling you again, when we're reading a newspaper or a literary book which are written in Latin alphabet or another system, we also want to understand detailed contents easily and smoothly, instead of wanting it to be confused or ambiguous for native Chinese (not only for non-native Chinese as a big priority), if everything is considered thoughtful for foreign learners, it may put the cart before the horse. I would rather like you to call me a person who seeks truth from facts than a nationalistic characters fanatics. Do you still think that all Chinese were, are, and will be crazy about a writing system which actually can't match the demands of Chinese language such as Latin or Cyrillic alphabet?
If you also think I'm a Chinese nationalist, OK, just ignore what I'm going to say.
If not, I'd like to repeat, the reason why we've kept using characters is not mainly because it's beautiful, of course, you have the right to think it dreadfully ugly too.
If you want to know a key point of the reasons, I'm not bored with telling you again, when we're reading a newspaper or a literary book which are written in Latin alphabet or another system, we also want to understand detailed contents easily and smoothly, instead of wanting it to be confused or ambiguous for native Chinese (not only for non-native Chinese as a big priority), if everything is considered thoughtful for foreign learners, it may put the cart before the horse. I would rather like you to call me a person who seeks truth from facts than a nationalistic characters fanatics. Do you still think that all Chinese were, are, and will be crazy about a writing system which actually can't match the demands of Chinese language such as Latin or Cyrillic alphabet?
（blanc ： Please our dearest webmaster blocks their IP! ）
Are you sure that you've already known what democracy should mean?
Are you sure that you've already known what democracy should mean?
for native Chinese (not only for non-Chinese as a big priority), if everything is all considered thoughtful for foreign learners, ....
Now I'd like to add one point before I run out of patience with you, even everything is all considered thoughtful for foreign learners, I mean that if Chinese were Latinised, westerners would still meet with more problems while reading and trying to understand its meaning than native Chinese would. If you don't believe what I said, just manage to learn some Chinese and see whether I'm telling you a lie or not. A real nationalist won't talk to you about the truth in a friendly manner like me.
Now I'd like to add one point before I run out of patience with you, even everything is all considered thoughtful for foreign learners, I mean that if Chinese were Latinised, westerners would still meet with more problems while reading and trying to understand its meaning than native Chinese would. If you don't believe what I said, just manage to learn some Chinese and see whether I'm telling you a lie or not. A real nationalist won't talk to you about the truth in a friendly manner like me.
<<we also want to understand detailed contents easily and smoothly, instead of wanting it to be confused or ambiguous for native Chinese>>
It may be confusing at first but you will get used to it.
<<a writing system which actually can't match the demands of Chinese language such as Latin or Cyrillic alphabet>>
Some native Chinese speakers already use Cyrillic without any problems, so Cyrillic CAN and DOES match the demands of Chinese.
Please note: I agree that characters should not be removed. However I think so for CULTURAL reasons, NOT technical linguistic reasons. That is, i think it is POSSIBLE to write Chinese using any alphabet. However just because it is possible doesn't mean you should.
It may be confusing at first but you will get used to it.
<<a writing system which actually can't match the demands of Chinese language such as Latin or Cyrillic alphabet>>
Some native Chinese speakers already use Cyrillic without any problems, so Cyrillic CAN and DOES match the demands of Chinese.
Please note: I agree that characters should not be removed. However I think so for CULTURAL reasons, NOT technical linguistic reasons. That is, i think it is POSSIBLE to write Chinese using any alphabet. However just because it is possible doesn't mean you should.
Hi Person,
You just neglected that, "theory of absolute" does not exist objectively in the world , and only "theory of relativity" is really applicable to all kinds of contradiction or argument. That is to say, actually we don't, also can't use "completely pure" colloquial Chinese just like saying hello, bye, thanks, good morning, OK, that's a deal, I'm very happy......& so on, and plenty of classical or half classical components have melted into modern Chinese languages, it might be the reason why Chinese grammar seems quite easy to start learning, it has no 4 or 6 cases like German or Russian, it has no agglutinative elements like Japanese or Korean, and it has no discouraging difficulties like Arabic or Hebrew, mainly because Chinese, on the whole, relies entirely on obvious differentiation with the help of characters' writing system . Then why should we have to adapt ourselves to such an inconvenient and unreasonable new system?
You just neglected that, "theory of absolute" does not exist objectively in the world , and only "theory of relativity" is really applicable to all kinds of contradiction or argument. That is to say, actually we don't, also can't use "completely pure" colloquial Chinese just like saying hello, bye, thanks, good morning, OK, that's a deal, I'm very happy......& so on, and plenty of classical or half classical components have melted into modern Chinese languages, it might be the reason why Chinese grammar seems quite easy to start learning, it has no 4 or 6 cases like German or Russian, it has no agglutinative elements like Japanese or Korean, and it has no discouraging difficulties like Arabic or Hebrew, mainly because Chinese, on the whole, relies entirely on obvious differentiation with the help of characters' writing system . Then why should we have to adapt ourselves to such an inconvenient and unreasonable new system?
<<Then why should we have to adapt ourselves to such an inconvenient and unreasonable new system? >>
I didn't you have to. I'm saying you could if you wanted to.
I didn't you have to. I'm saying you could if you wanted to.