holy molly what the heck
ok I'll try to answer stuff to my best capabilities.
I don't know why there are so many points brought up because basically there are only 2 changes.
1. Stuff are now categorised into words not syllables.
2. v --> u (changed)
Other than that we just made the rules more clear and more standardised.
and that's pretty much it. Any other problems that you guys mention are still there even though there are no changes made to the RC. If you want to bring up other Chinese languages as well please be informed that this new proposal addresses other Chinese languages better than the old one. The new proposed rules make sure texts in Hanzi script are not overgeneralised and get the appropriate Romanisation (ea. you can use Jyutping or whatever for Cantonese stuff). As stated in the old thread we are trying to propose a better Romanisation system, not a perfect one. Though this new proposal does not address all the problems in the world, I have firm belief that it's better than the old one.
Tbh I haven't seen any arguments supporting v as an alternative of ü except "v is used as the input for ü on most keyboards" which is not very sensible to be used as a reason here.
Here are my reasons for why u is better than v as a substitution of ü.
1. In the pinyin system ü is pronounced with /y/ kinda like the germanic ü. Germanic umlauts are romanised with two-letter equivalents (ue for ü). However stuff like lüe exists in the pinyin system and if it were to be romanised with the same two-letter equivalent the result would be luee which is nonsensical.
2. u that pronounced with ü exists in the pinyin system already. Stuff like xuan are pronounced with the ü vowel, not u. Though this is limited to j, x and q.
3. How the heck are nv or lv pronounced (do not pronounce nü or lü instead)? It's basically impossible. Can't even represent them with IPA stuff.
However substituting ü with yu might also be a great alternative because it has all the same pros that u does over v (stuff like yue exist as well) and additionally it doesn't change both nü and nu into nu. So if there are no further problems regarding pronunciation and ambiguity arise, I'm going to revise the proposal.
With backing reasons as follows
I hope this new substitution satisfies both parties.
[]
Moving on to the replying stuff. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
2. Can you quote the exact words from the document? also all the reasons as stated in the standard as well. I couldn't read it while working on the proposal because 115 swiss franc is hella expensive.
A number of lines after this are about pinyin being a method of transcription. No comments there this is acknowledged since the beginning that this is just the way to pronounce stuff. And the next few lines are about Mandarin having a lot of homophones.
In English context it would be equivalent to you guys seeing or hearing /tīm/ (IPA stuff. This reads time). Intuitively the first thing that come into your heads would be the time. Tick-tock clocky stuff. However under different contexts:
"Can you buy me some /tīm/. I'm going to use it to cook dinner." In this case /tīm/ is the herb thyme.
"I don't have enough /tīm/ to do my homework. It's due tomorrow." In this case it's "time"
"Two /tīm/ two equal four." In this context it means multiply. 10/10 grammar.
As you can see they are reversible with context. And when you guys speak to each other you're actively tracing back to the original Hanzi characters using their pronunciation. Therefore, saying that it is not reversible is not true. It's harder in Mandarin (410 syllables - crap tons of words. Do the maths) but the fact that there are people speaking Mandarin proves the fact that it's possible.
[]
Gonna stop here for now as it's getting really late. Further replies will be given by Wafu or me. Whoever that gets some free time will reply more to other stuff.
ok I'll try to answer stuff to my best capabilities.
I don't know why there are so many points brought up because basically there are only 2 changes.
1. Stuff are now categorised into words not syllables.
2. v --> u (changed)
Other than that we just made the rules more clear and more standardised.
and that's pretty much it. Any other problems that you guys mention are still there even though there are no changes made to the RC. If you want to bring up other Chinese languages as well please be informed that this new proposal addresses other Chinese languages better than the old one. The new proposed rules make sure texts in Hanzi script are not overgeneralised and get the appropriate Romanisation (ea. you can use Jyutping or whatever for Cantonese stuff). As stated in the old thread we are trying to propose a better Romanisation system, not a perfect one. Though this new proposal does not address all the problems in the world, I have firm belief that it's better than the old one.
Tbh I haven't seen any arguments supporting v as an alternative of ü except "v is used as the input for ü on most keyboards" which is not very sensible to be used as a reason here.
Here are my reasons for why u is better than v as a substitution of ü.
1. In the pinyin system ü is pronounced with /y/ kinda like the germanic ü. Germanic umlauts are romanised with two-letter equivalents (ue for ü). However stuff like lüe exists in the pinyin system and if it were to be romanised with the same two-letter equivalent the result would be luee which is nonsensical.
2. u that pronounced with ü exists in the pinyin system already. Stuff like xuan are pronounced with the ü vowel, not u. Though this is limited to j, x and q.
3. How the heck are nv or lv pronounced (do not pronounce nü or lü instead)? It's basically impossible. Can't even represent them with IPA stuff.
However substituting ü with yu might also be a great alternative because it has all the same pros that u does over v (stuff like yue exist as well) and additionally it doesn't change both nü and nu into nu. So if there are no further problems regarding pronunciation and ambiguity arise, I'm going to revise the proposal.
- Songs with Mandarin titles and/or Mandarin artists must use the Hanyu Pinyin method of Romanisation when there is no Romanisation or translation information listed by an official source. The ü vowel should be substituted with yu and all diacritical tone marks should be omitted because of the technical limitations resulting from the limited amount of characters allowed in the Romanised title/artist fields.
- Replacing ü with yu exists in the pinyin system already. Yue (ea. 月) is pronounced like üe.
- Nyu lyu and the likes can be pronounced by a normal english speaking person and the pronunciation is, though not ideal, quite close to the actual ü.
- Replacing ü with yu is seen in practical use among Chinese people as well.
- The substituted Romanised texts can be easily traced back to the original pinyin (with umlauts) and don't cause any ambiguity.
[]
Moving on to the replying stuff. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
For point 1. I just don't see how this is related to our discussion. " In automatic romanizing working progress"Hollow Wings wrote:
1. In automatic romanizing working progress, there're two ways for Chinese Romanisation:
a. semi-automatic romanisation from Chinese words separated by following proper rules.
b. automatic romanisation from Chinese characters one by one.
2. During this period of time, most of other countries aside of PRC can't fully accept that romanizing Chinese characters into separated words according to combinations between Chinese characters, because the works of finding and dealing with the concept of Chinese words are complex, also the grammar of Chinese sentence can even blur it.
after thousand of thoughts, they decide to do the romanization work from Chinese characters one by one.
2. Can you quote the exact words from the document? also all the reasons as stated in the standard as well. I couldn't read it while working on the proposal because 115 swiss franc is hella expensive.
Read more about ideograms here. These are logograms. Modern Chinese characters are logographic.Hollow Wings wrote:
and NO MORE.
- Egyptian hieroglyphs (eg. Ancient Egyptian) ←already dead
- Cuneiform script (eg. Ancient Sumerian) ←already dead
- Seal hieroglyphs (eg. Ancient Indian) ←already dead
- Maya hieroglyphs (eg. Ancient Mayan) ←already dead
- Chinese characters (eg. Chinese)
if you want to know why language system is like that, then that's a long story, i wont start telling them here.
the reason i pick up those truth above, is because i want you guys know the chinese language's specificity and leading to how different romanisation is done between alphabetic language and ideographic language.
A number of lines after this are about pinyin being a method of transcription. No comments there this is acknowledged since the beginning that this is just the way to pronounce stuff. And the next few lines are about Mandarin having a lot of homophones.
This is not exactly true. If it were Mandarin would have been dead a long while ago because the only way to communicate would be carrying a crap ton of paper with you at all time and write stuff when you want to communicate.Hollow Wings wrote:
however, this is not reversible.
In English context it would be equivalent to you guys seeing or hearing /tīm/ (IPA stuff. This reads time). Intuitively the first thing that come into your heads would be the time. Tick-tock clocky stuff. However under different contexts:
"Can you buy me some /tīm/. I'm going to use it to cook dinner." In this case /tīm/ is the herb thyme.
"I don't have enough /tīm/ to do my homework. It's due tomorrow." In this case it's "time"
"Two /tīm/ two equal four." In this context it means multiply. 10/10 grammar.
As you can see they are reversible with context. And when you guys speak to each other you're actively tracing back to the original Hanzi characters using their pronunciation. Therefore, saying that it is not reversible is not true. It's harder in Mandarin (410 syllables - crap tons of words. Do the maths) but the fact that there are people speaking Mandarin proves the fact that it's possible.
[]
Gonna stop here for now as it's getting really late. Further replies will be given by Wafu or me. Whoever that gets some free time will reply more to other stuff.