From: adam@address.invalid   
      
   [combining related replies here]   
      
   Jim Beard wrote:   
   > On 05/25/2012 09:43 AM, Adam wrote:   
   > I would not go so far as to consider Cantonese and Mandarin as   
   > different languages. The grammar is basically the same, and   
   > excluding pronunciation the vocabulary is basically the same. The   
   > pronunciation may be radically different, but I do not see this as   
   > justifying a "different language" label.   
      
   The only comparable thing that I can think of is Yiddish, which I gather   
   (corrections welcome) is similar to German but written in Hebrew   
   characters using the Hebrew pronunciation of those characters.   
      
   > China's communist government has since 1949 provided "national"   
   > radio and television in "standard Chinese" (roughly, Mandarin with a   
   > few tweaks, labeled Pu-tong-hwa).   
   [...]   
   > The emphasis is on making everyone learn standard Chinese.   
      
   I can understand that.  Some countries with more than one official   
   language have had intra-national clashes because of it.  OTOH the OS   
   we're using was created by a Swedish-speaking Finn.  (In Finland, both   
   Finnish and Swedish are official languages.)   
      
   > The crux of the thing is, language is independent of its   
   > written form, or if it even has a written form. Hence, saying that   
   > the written form of a language is difficult does not imply that the   
   > language is difficult.   
      
   I agree.  That reminds me... I just received a parcel from China (cheap   
   cable on eBay), and of course some of the label is in Chinese.  If I   
   were to copy the Chinese characters by hand, I'd probably miss the   
   important and distinguishing features and change the meaning, whereas a   
   Chinese schoolboy/girl would (I assume) have little problem making a   
   recognizable copy, even if not perfectly drawn.  It's like that page of   
   what I'm told is the character for "black" that I posted where, despite   
   their differences (and lack of similarity to me), all contain what's   
   essential for native speakers to instantly and unconsciously recognize   
   the character.  The preceding page had a collections of very   
   different-looking characters which I immediately recognized as all being   
   the letter "A".   
      
   >> I remember we discussed simplified Chinese a while back. IIRC   
   >> it's a one-for-one substitution of old characters with new ones   
   >> simpler to write... am I remembering correctly?   
   >   
   > Correct. In a small number of cases, two different traditional   
   > characters were both simplified to a single "simplified" character.   
   > These were usually homonyms, and may have associated meanings as well.   
      
   So would "converting" a document be basically a mechanical task, with no   
   change in meaning?   
      
   >>> Most characters have only one pronunciation, but there are   
   >>> exceptions.   
   [...]   
   > The Chinese example that comes to mind is a character that may be   
   > read xing or hang.   
      
   By the same person?  With two different meanings?  Would it be fairly   
   clear which one it was from the context?   
      
   > The same character in Japanese may be pronounced in Sino-Japanese   
   > fashion as kou, gyou, or an, or in native Japanese fashion as iku,   
   > yuku, okonau, yaru, or kudari plus an assortment of variants on these.   
      
   And different meanings for each of those?  In Japan, 'Kimitake Hiraoka   
   later took the pseudonym Yukio Mishima, which he scripted in Japanese so   
   that the characters also read "mysterious devil betwitched with death."   
   As he liked to tell friends, "It's eerie, but that's the way to write my   
   name."'  If there are that many choices for each character, I can see   
   how that could be possible.  In English, I think the only way to do   
   something like that would be with trick calligraphy.   
      
   >>> Kim must be the surname for well over 75 percent of all Koreans.   
   [...]   
   > It merely emphasizes that (almost) all Koreans are one   
   > great big extended family. In group-centered societies such as found   
   > in the Far East, this association is of practical importance.   
      
   I didn't know that.  It shows how culture and language are interrelated.   
     Here, I assume anyone with my surname (within the 1500 most common in   
   the U.S.) is a stranger unless I already know they're a relative (or   
   unrelated friend).  OTOH over half of my relatives have different   
   surnames, such as all of Mom's relatives.  Would something like that be   
   true in Asian cultures?   
      
   Adam   
   --   
   Registered Linux User #536473   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)