CZ Talk:Romanization/Chinese: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (Tone marks) |
imported>Derek Harkness (→Tone marks: not the same as accents in the west) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The problem with tone marks is that most people won't know what they mean, or how to interpret them. To hope that we will get correct pronunciation out of our Romanization scheme is, I think, 'a bridge too far'. There's a similar discussion over at [[CZ Talk:Romanization/Ancient Greek]]. I think the best we can hope for is 'ability to recognize this place-name/personal-name in other written works', along with 'not too horribly mangled when spoken'. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:11, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | The problem with tone marks is that most people won't know what they mean, or how to interpret them. To hope that we will get correct pronunciation out of our Romanization scheme is, I think, 'a bridge too far'. There's a similar discussion over at [[CZ Talk:Romanization/Ancient Greek]]. I think the best we can hope for is 'ability to recognize this place-name/personal-name in other written works', along with 'not too horribly mangled when spoken'. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:11, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
:I'm suggesting that the tone be shown on the first instance of the words use. The aim is not perfect pronunciation, but rather readability. Without tone marks, the meaning of the transliterated text may be confusing and ambiguous or worse, completely meaningless. Chinese cannot be compared to Greek. Tone marks are not the same as western accents and cannot be considered in the same way. Tone marks in Chinese are not simply an aid to correct pronunciation. Rather, tone is the fundamental aspect of the language. [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 19:53, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 18:53, 13 May 2008
Tone marks
The problem with tone marks is that most people won't know what they mean, or how to interpret them. To hope that we will get correct pronunciation out of our Romanization scheme is, I think, 'a bridge too far'. There's a similar discussion over at CZ Talk:Romanization/Ancient Greek. I think the best we can hope for is 'ability to recognize this place-name/personal-name in other written works', along with 'not too horribly mangled when spoken'. J. Noel Chiappa 12:11, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
- I'm suggesting that the tone be shown on the first instance of the words use. The aim is not perfect pronunciation, but rather readability. Without tone marks, the meaning of the transliterated text may be confusing and ambiguous or worse, completely meaningless. Chinese cannot be compared to Greek. Tone marks are not the same as western accents and cannot be considered in the same way. Tone marks in Chinese are not simply an aid to correct pronunciation. Rather, tone is the fundamental aspect of the language. Derek Harkness 19:53, 13 May 2008 (CDT)