Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel-eecis!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!192.35.251.21!news.spss.com!uchinews!not-for-mail
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Chinese dialects (Again and forever!) [was: Re: languages &
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ellis-nfs.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <E5rDM3.3F1@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <853605030.2652@dejanews.com> <5e2ehm$ib4@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <330817D4.AAF@scruznet.com> <5e9tk7$2ob@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:51:39 GMT
Lines: 86

In article <5e9tk7$2ob@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Jonathan Badger <badger@aquarius.scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>Well, from this I can conclude one of three things -- please tell me
>which is correct:
> 
>1) The "universal written Chinese language" is a myth. Texts written 
>   by a Holo speaker are unreadable by a Mandarin speaker -- different 
>   characters are used for the equivilent words. 
> 
>2) The same characters are used by both Holo and Mandarin speakers in
>   writing , but just pronounced differently when spoken -- this is 
>   what I thought before this discussion, but I might be wrong.
> 
>3) The written language uses different characters unrelated to how the
>   word is spoken in either Mandarin or Holo. In this case the differences
>   between the dialects are essentially slang, and could be avoided by 
>   speaking the word as it is formally written. (Even if this was the case
>   I'm not saying that people actually *do* this in practice, just in theory
>   that they could).

None of the above.

Modern standard written Chinese is actually standardised written
*Mandarin*.  Although texts do exist in Cantonese, Holo, Shanghainese,
etc., they are marginal (e.g. song lyrics, one or two novels) or rare or
both--much rarer than they are in European countries.  When "dialect"
speakers read texts aloud, they tend to do some rephrasing and
substitution--in effect, partial translation.
  
Because of differences in pronunciation, your suggestion in (3) above is
impractical.  What actually tends to happen is that literate Chinese who
do not share a common spoken language communicate by writing.  Illiterate
non-Mandarin speakers do not know the written Mandarin terms and,  there-
fore, would not be able to use them in conversation, with or without a
dialectal pronunciation.

Also keep in mind that any deviation from the written standard, in Chinese
or English or any language, is not simply "slang".  Standard languages
often have highly artificial features that have no basis in colloquial
speech.  The colloquialisms which replace them are a far cry from the
specialised jargon of certain social groups. 
   
>>I would say that Holo is about as different from Mandarin as English is
>>from Swedish or Dutch, or Portuguese from Italian or French. (Of course,
>>that's just a wild guess, not a statement of scientific fact.) 

Holo and other so-called "Min" languages are the most divergent of the
Chinese dialects.  The other major "sublanguages" (Yue, or which  
Cantonese and Toishan are dialects; Wu, of which Shanghainese is a
dialect; Northern Mandarin; Hakka; etc.) are all derived from Tang dynasty
vernacular, which broke up roughly around the time that Vulgar Latin did.
Hence, an analogy with the Romance languages is not off the mark.

If you wanted to extend this analogy to include Min, I would suggest
comparing them to the Celtic languages.  So, imagine a neo-Carolingian
empire with Paris as its capitol and Parisian French as its only written
standard.  In this example, Taiwan would correspond roughly to an Ireland
where spoken Standard French has been foisted upon the Irish Gaelic-
speaking natives by emigrees from the continent.  However, even in the
neighboring island of Grande-Bretagne, the natives write only Standard 
French and not their local barbarian dialect.

>Again, this seems to suggest that you are considering spoken
>vocabulary to be the principal difference in languages. I just don't
>see how the Chinese dialects can differ that much in grammar if Chinese
>texts are universal. Of course if Chinese texts aren't as universal as
>the rumor goes...

Here's the analogy that works best for Westerners:  Early Medieval Europe. 
People write overwhelmingly in Latin, but all speak the local dialect,
which--in much of the continent--is itself a form of Vulgar Latin.
Dialect texts are rare and marginal (e.g. popular songs, the occasional
receipt, etc.).  Clergy and other educated people speak accented Church
Latin to each other.

There are many flaws in this analogy (it works better for pre-modern
China, when Classical Chinese and not Northern Mandarin was the written
standard), but it helps give one some idea.



-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
