Don't learn Traditional Chinese characters, but Peh-oe-ji
Dungan is related to Mandarin Chinese, but Taiwanese is far related to Mandarin Chinese.
If Dungan is not Chinese, then Taiwanese should not be dialect of the Chinese language.
To: truth
Yes, as you said, mandarin isn't equivalent to wenyan, but it's worth mentioning that, a lot of features of classical / literary Chinese still remain in mandarin or other dialects, it's almost impossible to eliminate these features from written form and even colloquial form, for example, idiomatic phrases, metaphors, allusions, and things like that. Once a character were changed into another, no doubt the whole vocabulary or sentence would be converted into different meanings and definitions. In brief, mandarin, sometimes, is generally acknowledged as "half colloquial & half literary". You know?
We have two examples on both Taiwanese "Peh-oe-ji" using in Latin alphabets and "Dungan"(another form of Mandarin Chinese) using in Cyrillic alphabets which have worked successfully for centuries.
Dunganese Quran is printed in Cyrillic and Taiwanese Bible is printed in latin alphabets(peh-oe-ji) and those books have much readers. We never hear that they complain any misunderstandings. So, this proves both Cyrillic and Latinization have been successful for both Mandarin and Taiwanese.
Idiomatic phrases, metaphors, allusions in Taiwanese are used in Peh-oe-ji.
Taiwanese using Peh-oe-ji have longer history than Chinese characters used in Taiwanese.
For example, "Taiwan Church Newspaper" and Taiwanese first dictionary printed in Peh-oe-ji in 19th century. But Taiwanese using Chinese characters happened in the early 20th century when Lian Heng published his Taiwanese dictionary in about 1900.
To: those who support Latinisation or Cyrillisation
Actually, Chinese hardly has any vocabularies, some are combinations of 2 or more characters, some are added unnecessary factors, for example, the character "知" is enough to indicate the definition of "know", and still used in Cantonese, while the vocabulary "知道" has already replaced "知" in daily conversation. But a lot of other characters don't often appear as a vocabulary (combinations of more characters), due to Chinese special word formation, for example, "因爱生恨", strictly speaking, I would rather describe it a free combination than say it a fixed vocabulary. According to this rule of free combination, a great deal of clear definition can be given while reading an articles. Sometimes, in daily conversation, we also have to pay attention to those confusions that resulted from ambiguities once in a while. I wouldn't be able to express the reasons in detail with refined English, even if I would, perhaps those who support Latinisation or Cyrillisation could hardly catch on main points because they lacked a thorough background of mastering Chinese languages.
To: Tai-oan-lang
Would you like to try out the translation with Latin alphabet for some Chinese famous books such as 《白话本国史》 written by Mr. 吕思勉?If you succeeded in it, I wouldn't insist that Chinese can't be Latinised, it's crucial to prove your opinion by this experiment .
"Tionghoa Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:10 am GMT
To: those who support Latinisation or Cyrillisation
Actually, Chinese hardly has any vocabularies, some are combinations of 2 or more characters, some are added unnecessary factors, for example, the character "知" is enough to indicate the definition of "know", and still used in Cantonese, while the vocabulary "知道" has already replaced "知" in daily conversation. But a lot of other characters don't often appear as a vocabulary (combinations of more characters), due to Chinese special word formation, for example, "因爱生恨", strictly speaking, I would rather describe it a free combination than say it a fixed vocabulary. According to this rule of free combination, a great deal of clear definition can be given while reading an articles. Sometimes, in daily conversation, we also have to pay attention to those confusions that resulted from ambiguities once in a while. I wouldn't be able to express the reasons in detail with refined English, even if I would, perhaps those who support Latinisation or Cyrillisation could hardly catch on main points because they lacked a thorough background of mastering Chinese languages. "
Your saying is not a point. The main point is that both Dunganese and Taiwanese can get very well with both Cyrillic and Latinization. How comes you the Tradtional Chinese characters fanatics can't?
"Tionghoa Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:22 am GMT
To: Tai-oan-lang
Would you like to try out the translation with Latin alphabet for some Chinese famous books such as 《白话本国史》 written by Mr. 吕思勉?If you succeeded in it, I wouldn't insist that Chinese can't be Latinised, it's crucial to prove your opinion by this experiment . "
Some native speakers of Taiwanese have done such a thing . So
To: Realtrue
(Your saying is not a point. The main point is that both Dunganese and Taiwanese can get very well with both Cyrillic and Latinization. How comes you the Tradtional Chinese characters fanatics can't? )
Re: No, I'm afraid, what I said, is important information for your question, but you don't understand how to link up theory with practice in mandarin. In fact, I've already replied to you that I don't think Cyrillic and Latinization will match all the demands of Chinese languages.
To: Tai-oan-lang
(Some native speakers of Taiwanese have done such a thing .)
Re: Show me please, don't fool me. Thanks!
riàk bε dîn dûi lài
muã duã ɦuâng ɦǎng rǐ
ɗôu rǒn dō zε jì
ɗiàng guãi kǐ dông vî
Would you kindly tell me what does it mean? Anybody would?
yes, with latin alphabet, you can read and hear the sounds, but what does these sounds mean in Mandarin or Cantonese? It makes no sense to know the sounds without understand its definitions, and how to explain those sounds clearly without characters? There're not a lot of fixed vocabularies, instead, those combination of characters would be the most important thing which can be explained by nothing else but characters.
<<Re: No, I'm afraid, what I said, is important information for your question, but you don't understand how to link up theory with practice in mandarin. In fact, I've already replied to you that I don't think Cyrillic and Latinization will match all the demands of Chinese languages. >>
Dude, it has ALREADY been done. You keep talking as though this is something hypothetical, when it is actually factual. It happened already.
To: blanc
No matter who you're, I'm not going to waste much time talking about it with you. It was just like casting pearls before swine (playing the lute to a cow). Please forgive me for telling you the truth.