On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:32:52 -0400 Reef Fish wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:29:09 -0400, Michael Levy <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >> >origin:
> >> >http://www.chinalanguage.com/Language/chinese.html
> >
> >Try again seems to work for me every time
>
> Nope.  Still didn't work.

Do you have frames turned off?
It is a page with frames...

>
> >> Here's a page from an encyclopedia which is more authoratative
> >> than either of us, and especially Robert Delfs based on
> >> all the MISINFORMATION Delf's gave.
> >>
> >> http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Chinese_language
> >>
> >> *>  regarded as a single language
> >>
> >> *>  However, all of the spoken varieties of Chinese share a common
> >> *>  formal written language, Vernacular Chinese, written using a
> >> *>  nearly identical set of Chinese characters
> >>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >Of course one could have also selected this partial text from that page
> >to show the opposite:  ;-)
>
> Not the opposite.  What I cited was at the FRONT PAGE, top section --
> the commonly accepted definition, by linguists.
>
> What you refer to was the mention of other theories, back down in
> about the last page, that it is not on;y ill-defined, but NOT
> generally accepted.

No.. I went to this section from the contents page:>
Is Chinese a language or a family of languages

A logical place for me to go as a non Chinese IMO.

>
> >So the consensus is split...as you both are.
>
> I'll accept that I followed the MAIN STREAM definition and Robert
> dived in the side streams.
>
> >I'm not of the opinion that it is as black and white as you would like
> >to make it..... though I will accept that your stance is more acceptable
> >for written Chinese only.
>
> But that is the mainstream definition of a LANGUAGE vs dialects.
> The classification by sounds is applicable for languages that have
> NO written version, such as many tribes in PNG all speaking their
> own languages.  There ain't no dialects.
> >
> >
> >When I looked here I thought I saw differences between the characters
> >for lin, ling.
>
> Really?  Where did you see TWO different characters for LIN and LING?
> Not to mention Lam Lum and Lim.

Select search from main page and input for pinyin lin and ling to see
the variety of characters....
I see double tree for lin but not ling.


> >
> >So much so that I would say you should call yourself Double-Wood Forest
> >Lin.
>
> LOL.  YOUR confusion here is that character was phoneticized to
> LIN because it had to use SOME dialect -- and the one used was
> the Beijing Mandarin (the capitol of China NOW), whereas the
> old Capitol was in Nanjing (or Nanking).  LING was the phonetic
> used for the Mandarin there.  We have family friends from Peking
> who spells their LING LIN.  We also have Cantonese friends who
> phoetizise their double-forest Lum.  But it's the same CHARCTER.
>
> After all, if you divide a BILLION Chinese who have one of the
> 100 surnames that are written the same, you'll get 10 million
> double-woods, and they are PRONOUNCED dozens of ways in different
> dialects.
> >
> >Imagine that, all this while LING has been an imposter. ;-)))
>
> Why don't you look for the LING character in the Chinese vernacular,
> or those with sir names of Lim, Lam, and Lum alone.  I assure you
> that they did NOT change their names to LIN and the number of
> Chinese by the same double-wood character far out-number the LINs
> from Beijing.  BTW, the difference between Beijing (Nortern Capitol)
> and Nanjing (Southern  Capitol) Mandarin is analogous to the
> Northern and Southern accents for grits and greeeeets.
>
>
> >I did not see it that way.... It clearly showed me there were two camps,
> >single language and multiple.
>
> With single on the main stage and multiple in the back alleys.
> >
> >> But the key FACT is that the common WRITTEN language that makes it
> >> a single language is understood by Chinese of all spoken dialects.
> >
> >Not sure I accept written as being the 'only' measure for deciding on
> >the situation of one or multiple languages.
>
> When there IS a common written language, it's the ONLY way,
> according to mainstream linguists I know.
>
> For PHG and other regions WITHOUT a written language or without
> a common written language, OF COURSE the spoken language is
> the only language.
>
> But to use the PNG language classification for Chinese is like ...
> oh hell, there are too many ridiculous analogues.
>
> But as a Canadian, you should know that the Montrael French
> speaking Canadians claim that THEIR French is the true French
> and the Parisienne French os not;  and vice versa.
>
> Are those two different LANGUAGES of French?   Merde!  :-)
>
> What about the Polynesian French, the Cook Islands French, the
> Pogo French, etc., etc.  They are not even considered dialects
> of the same language.  The French French or the Canadian French
> will not fare well with the natives who speak Tahitian French!
>
> Double-wood Forest LING-LIN-LIM-LAM-LUM ...
>
> >
> >> Double-Wood Forest LING
> >
> >
> >--
> > <>

--
 <>