nold_1702 wrote:
Wafu's Arguments
1. Cantonese is a minority language (on osu!). As such, we do not need to Romanise Cantonese.
2. To Romanise Cantonese the community needs to discuss which Jyutping is the most appropriate to use, therefore, in avoidance of this inconvenience, it is better for the community not to discuss.
3. The tones are to be taken into consideration, and it is troublesome. Thus, the community should not discuss it.
Okay. First of all, if you call someone's argument "fallacious", you're on a high wire and should be absolutely sure that you read the arguments properly. And that's how you simply flipped two of my arguments into something they are absolutely not supposed to mean.
1. Yes, I think that. And I think that despite the argument about German. The reason for that is because with German, you are replacing a couple of characters, that's it. You're not implementing a Romanisation system that needs quite some discussion.
2. I never said that you should not discuss it. I implied it wouldn't be worth to do, considering how many Cantonese maps are there. Yes, 20 maps is rare (and there are 44 German song, we need to consider this language just because we can choose "German" in search, it's implemented on the website). Most Cantonese maps are quite old, and I think that people who check metadata (e.g. metadata helpers) of qualified maps are able to see someone is Romanising a different language than they are supposed to. Never said you shouldn't discuss it, I said it would need discussion if we wanted to implement it, so that everyone agrees we can use Jyutping. (and as you've seen in this thread, it's not very easy to reach an agreement. Chinese was a big deal, not as much as Cantonese, that's why I don't think we should waste the time discussing another Romanisation system)
3. Quote me. I never said anything even close to that. I never said community shouldn't discuss it. I never said tones are to be taken into consideration, I never said it is troublesome. You suggested a system that doesn't have characters we can't type into "Romanised title". That's good, but Jyutping does use numbers for accents, which makes the Romanised text hard to understand for anyone who doesn't know Jyutping. The question is, ignore the numbers or keep them? Again, agreement from the community is needed.
nold_1702 wrote:
Arguments (2) and (3) are also flawed in a way that they are not factually correct. For (2), Jyutping is the most widely used and the most authoritative. It is supported by a University dictionary and is the most accessible. Yales Cantonese Romanisation is also backed by Yales University, but it does not have an online dictionary and is not widely used at all. For (3), the tones in Mandarin are not taken into account when romanising, I see no reason one will be interested in the tones in the romanisation of Cantonese Jyutping.
Yup, I agree with the first part about Jyutping and Yales. Never said anything against that. You, however, need community to agree on that. If we were about to implement a system that you and me would agree on, it would be pretty ignorant of the community. Regarding the second part, you can't just suggest a system that does use tones (which are the numbers) and act like they are not here. You didn't say if we just ignore the numbers or include them (which as I said, wouldn't be understandable for majority of people, that was my argument, not that tones are needed and shouldn't be discussed). If you don't say anything about a feature used in the system you suggested, I will assume you are for including it. Otherwise it would be hypocritical to suggest a system and then talk about its modified version. That's why I pointed out the numbers.
The next paragraph, as I said, German is officially added in the list of searchable languages, that's why we need to care about how we handle it. And there are 44 German songs according to it.
nold_1702 wrote:
It is one thing not to Romanise Cantonese, but it is quite another thing to Romanise Cantonese in a wrong way by using a different language system to Romanise it. Perhaps I am not clear enough. What I mean is that in the old days, where the rule that presently concerns us was yet in existence, mappers had the liberty to use Jyutping to Romanise Cantonese titles. However, once this rule is passed, all Cantonese titles will be in need to be Romanised by using the Mandarin Pinyin system.
As I said, the wording is incorrect, it should say "Mandarin", this is an error coming from the fact that someone forgot to replace it because the proposal about Chinese and Metadata overall were split. The wording will be fixed, obviously. Yes, it is important to differentiate Mandarin and Cantonese, and as I said, these days, people who check metadata of qualified maps are intelligent enough to check that you are using a Romanisation system for a correct language. Yes, current wording leads to mixing Cantonese and Mandarin, but that is an error that will be fixed. You still, in every situation should use a system designed for the language of the song.
Assuming that something just simply doesn't exist because it's not used in Hong Kong is quite funny, especially if you want to make someone look bad. There is an equivalent of Pinyin for Cantonese that is different from Jyutping.