On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Aphaia <aph...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Aphaia <aph...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I find here a wrong assupmtion. >>> First wrong assumption is "Written Chinese is not very different for >>> millenniums", they aren't same, and consequently Edo period Japanese >>> who were taught Classical Chinese already found difficulty to >>> understand the contemporary which was similar to the modern one. >>> Second wrong assumption is "person who knows Classical Chinese has to >>> know modern Chinese." In East Asia, Classical Chinese had been lingua >>> franca of the literate for millenniums, and there are many written >>> sources, the earliest of them are dated at mid 19th C. And it is still >>> taught in some countries including Japan. I, as a highly educated >>> Japanese, read Classical Chinese to some extent, but I don't >>> understand modern Chinese beyond the tourist level. I know many people >>> who can enjoy zh-classical-Wikipedia but cannot (modern) zhwiki. >>> So I object your statement and it wouldn't be just a fork of ZhWS but >>> preferable to be a multilingual project. >> >> Yes, we have problems with Chinese languages and it is not just about >> Classical Chinese. And if you have some good sinologist around, please >> connect me with him or her. >> >> The logic behind rejecting Classical Chinese Wikisource is: >> >> 1) Wikisource can have sources in various languages. It is useful not >> to duplicate efforts with living languages (and put Japanese text on >> French Wikisource), but, for example, the logical place for texts in >> Slavenoserbian [1] is Serbian Wikisource. Relation between Anglo-Saxon >> and English is similar. According to this premise, Classical Chinese >> should go to Chinese Wikisource. >> >> 2) Just those ancient languages which are significantly different >> structurally in *written form* (as Wikimedia projects are still about >> written language) should be considered for having a separate >> Wikisource. According to this, Slavenoserbian and Anglo-Saxon would >> get projects, while it will be problematic for Classical Chinese: it >> looks to me that native Chinese speakers treat Classical Chinese as >> not so different, while other East Asians treat it so. >> >> 3) Just those ancient languages which don't have modern language which >> speakers consist approximately a superset of those who know that >> classical language -- should be considered for having a separate >> project. Every single person who knows Slavoserbian knows Serbian, >> which is true for Anglo-Saxon, too. But, it is not true for Classical >> Chinese. >> >> 4) Just those ancient languages which had significant productions >> should be considered to have separate Wikisource. Anglo-Saxon had >> significant production, Slavoserbian had, and, of course, Classical >> Chinese had, too. >> >> 5) We need [default] interface in a living language. The most logical >> choice for Classical Chinese is modern Chinese written in Traditional >> Hanji. In conjunction with (1) and (2), it would create a subset-fork >> of Chinese Wikisource. > >> BTW, we are in a wiki world. Everything is changeable, but we need >> good reasons for changes. I would like to hear answers/confirmations >> on the next questions/claims: >> >> a) For Chinese speakers: Do you consider Classical Chinese as a >> language different from your native one or you are fully able to read >> Classical Chinese texts? Probably, it is somewhere in the middle, but, >> please, explain it. >> >> b) I suppose that it is not so hard to make a link from Japanese >> Wikipedia to some text on Chinese Wikisource. Actually, it would be >> similar if it would be about a separate Classical Chinese Wikisource. >> >> c) Are Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean etc. Wikimedian are able to >> contribute to Chinese Wikisource. If not, what is the problem? > > Orthography is a big problem. I think you have known it already on > Serbian language - two different scripts are used and what it evoked. > We are in a similar situation. > > At this moment Classical Chinese sources are hosted on zhwikisource > whose default is simplified Chinese. Formerly some of them were in > traditional and then we at Japanese wikis had no problem, since it is > quasi similar the orthography we were educated in. But with simplified > we have a big problem.
Couldn't the links from Japanese Wikipedia pages be configured to go directly to the traditional Chinese orthography versions? Thanks, Pharos > Please note I don't talk about default I/F. I talk about the documents > themselves. I am okay which zhwiki* choose for their default, but the > written way of Classical Chinese should not be determined by Chinese > native speakers ony I think - rather all concerned people should be > invited. > > >> Other thoughs are welcome, as well. >> >> [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoserbian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > > -- > KIZU Naoko > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) > Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l