![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Daoism–Taoism romanization issue article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
this is a rather ridiculous page. Maybe it could be deleted? The "issue" is just a matter of which romanization system is used. The problem of interpretation results in English speakers not knowing the systems and using an English spelling pronunciation. Also the phonetics of word-initial voiced stops are not so accurate (as Angr above mentions). – ishwar (speak) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kawmi鏡, thank you for fixing the IPA formatting. On earlier versions of this article, I used [t̥aʊ] instead of [t⁼aʊ] for the voiceless unaspirated Chinese 道, but now I'm confused whether it should be [taʊ], [t⁼aʊ], or [t̥⁼aʊ]. Which is correct? Keahapana ( talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I found that the article was written very well with plenty of footnotes. In keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines, there is no original research and the tone is not polemic. I don't understand why the article was flagged at the top for being written like a "magazine" article. The accusation itself is odd--magazine pieces are not necessarily biased. They can run the gamut from opinion to factual. Maybe the critic means that it is written like an opinion piece? But this isn't the case; I don't really detect a bias. The only criticism I have is it is a bit pedantic but given the pointless stuff people write about (Texas Longhorns, etc), this seems like a worthwhile article. Ian Johnson ( talk) 09:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Could someone record the three different versions - chinese, tao, and dao? Hearing these things being said might make it more clear (even just the chinese version would be good). El sjaako ( talk) 10:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree: the article is pointless without recorded examples. Running around the bush. Somebody please wake up: it's the age of computers. I can't think of a computer I owned that didn't have a sound card! -- Ziounclesi ( talk) 07:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Kwamikagami, thank you for diligently correcting IPA templates in so many articles. When you have time, I'd like to ask about your recent edits. I knew about {{IPA-cmn but not about using the template with a Hanzi like 道. What does it represent? You wrote, "Wade Giles is actually a better guide for the naive English reader than pinyin is." I've never read (but would like to) anything supporting the phonetic superiority of W-G over Pinyin for English readers. Could you provide some references? Thanks, Keahapana ( talk) 23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It states "Romanization," but then goes on to list several systems of romanization, ending with Zhuyin Fuhao and the Cyrillization of Chinese, neither of which could be classified as Romanization, any way you slice it.
Perhaps opting for the more general term of "transliteration" which allows inclusion of Zhuyin and Palladius...or, keep "Romanization" and leave out those last two non-Roman scripts. Personally I would opt to rewrite it as "Transliteration" and keep them in for a wider showcase of how hanzi can be written phonetically (unless phrasing it like that opens a whole 'nother semantic can of worms vis-à-vis IPA)... 66.176.113.94 ( talk) 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Tom in Florida
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daoism–Taoism romanization issue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The following was copied here from User talk:Keahapana#Daoism-Taoism:
Edit warring is a pointless waste of time, and I've requested a WP:3O here. Keahapana ( talk) 22:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to be slow in replying, owing to health problems, it may sometimes take me a few days to respond here. Yes, I agree, and that's why the previous (admittedly wordy) version was highly wikified to introduce readers with the relevant linguistic terminology. No offense intended about Carr's article, I was just offering to share the best material that I've found about this subject. If you're finished overhauling the page down to 5%, I'll start making revisions and we can begin substantively discussing the content problems, point by point, as you suggested. It's regrettable that we've gotten off on the wrong foot/feet and I hope that we can work together to improve the article. Best wishes, Keahapana ( talk) 00:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly possible that I'm wrong and you're right. Perhaps the non-expert reader would be better informed about Chinese aspiration by the current note that the Baptist missionary Otis Frank Wisner's 1927 Beginning Cantonese "represented the unaspirated initial with the letter "d" instead of "t"" than the deleted quote from linguist Jerry Norman's 1988 Chinese that "The stops and affricates fall into two contrasting series, one unaspirated, the other aspirated. The unaspirated series (b, d, z, etc.) is lenis, and often gives the impression of being voiced to the untrained ear. The second series (p, t, c, etc.) is strongly aspirated." Instead of wasting time going back and forth, let's request outside editorial opinions to help achieve consensus. What do you think is the best way (3O, RfC, something else) to proceed? Keahapana ( talk) 21:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
What content deleted from the last stable version should be restored? Keahapana ( talk) 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
This section has been restored: but it appears to me to be extremely confused, and simply in error, all over the place. A couple of quotes:
Michael Carr appears to say: "the prescriptively correct (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/) is based on Chinese romanization..." What is "prescriptively correct" about mispronouncing an unaspirated labiodental as a voiced labiodental? Who is Michael Carr - can't find anything other than some contributions to Language Log and the like.
Then "the American publications were faster to rectify the mistaken (/ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/) pronunciation to (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/)". Well, no, this suggests a failure to understand the issue. Chinese has a distinction between aspirated and unaspirated labiodentals, which I'll call "t" for convenience. English has this difference too (but not phonemically): it's more or less the same as the difference between the 't' in 'top' and the 't' in 'stop'. You probably cannot hear the difference, but you can detect it easily by putting your hand in front of your mouth: you feel a puff of air in 'top', but no puff of air in 'stop'. This is not the same as the difference in pronunciation between English 't' in 'tot' and 'd' in 'dot', which is a difference of voicing. Unless someone can correct any error I have in understanding the issue, it seems to me that the stuff from Carr is simply incompatible with a correct description. Imaginatorium ( talk) 06:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The article at present appears to be no longer an encyclopedic description of anything -- it is a campaign to persuade us that the (English) word Taosism is "mispronounced", or "ought" to be written differently. This is not what WP is for. The first sentence of the lede starts the confusion: "The English words Daoism (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/) and Taoism (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/ or /ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/) are alternative romanizations for the same-named Chinese philosophy and religion." No: the English words are English words, they are not romanizations of anything. The English word "Taoism" is pronounced (obviously) with an initial aspirated dental consonant ("t"), just is the initial 't' of every English word where is is followed by a vowel (exceptions, anyone?). Of course I understand that in Chinese the syllable Dao/Tao (WG/py) is pronounced with an unaspirated dental consonant, like the 't' in English "stop", which is neither an initial English "t" nor "d". So there is no "correction" to be done. @ Keahapana: has been making a good faith effort to promote this campaign, but I think this is not what WP is for. The campaign can be described, but all the POV language should be removed. Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Should the present to "Daoism-Taoism romanization issue" be moved to "Daoism/Taoism romanization issue"? Keahapana ( talk) 00:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The present WP article was recently mentioned.
"Linguistically, historically, culturally, and lexicographically, this article constitutes a significant contribution to human knowledge." Keahapana ( talk) 01:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Daoism–Taoism romanization issue article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
this is a rather ridiculous page. Maybe it could be deleted? The "issue" is just a matter of which romanization system is used. The problem of interpretation results in English speakers not knowing the systems and using an English spelling pronunciation. Also the phonetics of word-initial voiced stops are not so accurate (as Angr above mentions). – ishwar (speak) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kawmi鏡, thank you for fixing the IPA formatting. On earlier versions of this article, I used [t̥aʊ] instead of [t⁼aʊ] for the voiceless unaspirated Chinese 道, but now I'm confused whether it should be [taʊ], [t⁼aʊ], or [t̥⁼aʊ]. Which is correct? Keahapana ( talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I found that the article was written very well with plenty of footnotes. In keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines, there is no original research and the tone is not polemic. I don't understand why the article was flagged at the top for being written like a "magazine" article. The accusation itself is odd--magazine pieces are not necessarily biased. They can run the gamut from opinion to factual. Maybe the critic means that it is written like an opinion piece? But this isn't the case; I don't really detect a bias. The only criticism I have is it is a bit pedantic but given the pointless stuff people write about (Texas Longhorns, etc), this seems like a worthwhile article. Ian Johnson ( talk) 09:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Could someone record the three different versions - chinese, tao, and dao? Hearing these things being said might make it more clear (even just the chinese version would be good). El sjaako ( talk) 10:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree: the article is pointless without recorded examples. Running around the bush. Somebody please wake up: it's the age of computers. I can't think of a computer I owned that didn't have a sound card! -- Ziounclesi ( talk) 07:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Kwamikagami, thank you for diligently correcting IPA templates in so many articles. When you have time, I'd like to ask about your recent edits. I knew about {{IPA-cmn but not about using the template with a Hanzi like 道. What does it represent? You wrote, "Wade Giles is actually a better guide for the naive English reader than pinyin is." I've never read (but would like to) anything supporting the phonetic superiority of W-G over Pinyin for English readers. Could you provide some references? Thanks, Keahapana ( talk) 23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It states "Romanization," but then goes on to list several systems of romanization, ending with Zhuyin Fuhao and the Cyrillization of Chinese, neither of which could be classified as Romanization, any way you slice it.
Perhaps opting for the more general term of "transliteration" which allows inclusion of Zhuyin and Palladius...or, keep "Romanization" and leave out those last two non-Roman scripts. Personally I would opt to rewrite it as "Transliteration" and keep them in for a wider showcase of how hanzi can be written phonetically (unless phrasing it like that opens a whole 'nother semantic can of worms vis-à-vis IPA)... 66.176.113.94 ( talk) 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Tom in Florida
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daoism–Taoism romanization issue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The following was copied here from User talk:Keahapana#Daoism-Taoism:
Edit warring is a pointless waste of time, and I've requested a WP:3O here. Keahapana ( talk) 22:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to be slow in replying, owing to health problems, it may sometimes take me a few days to respond here. Yes, I agree, and that's why the previous (admittedly wordy) version was highly wikified to introduce readers with the relevant linguistic terminology. No offense intended about Carr's article, I was just offering to share the best material that I've found about this subject. If you're finished overhauling the page down to 5%, I'll start making revisions and we can begin substantively discussing the content problems, point by point, as you suggested. It's regrettable that we've gotten off on the wrong foot/feet and I hope that we can work together to improve the article. Best wishes, Keahapana ( talk) 00:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly possible that I'm wrong and you're right. Perhaps the non-expert reader would be better informed about Chinese aspiration by the current note that the Baptist missionary Otis Frank Wisner's 1927 Beginning Cantonese "represented the unaspirated initial with the letter "d" instead of "t"" than the deleted quote from linguist Jerry Norman's 1988 Chinese that "The stops and affricates fall into two contrasting series, one unaspirated, the other aspirated. The unaspirated series (b, d, z, etc.) is lenis, and often gives the impression of being voiced to the untrained ear. The second series (p, t, c, etc.) is strongly aspirated." Instead of wasting time going back and forth, let's request outside editorial opinions to help achieve consensus. What do you think is the best way (3O, RfC, something else) to proceed? Keahapana ( talk) 21:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
What content deleted from the last stable version should be restored? Keahapana ( talk) 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
This section has been restored: but it appears to me to be extremely confused, and simply in error, all over the place. A couple of quotes:
Michael Carr appears to say: "the prescriptively correct (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/) is based on Chinese romanization..." What is "prescriptively correct" about mispronouncing an unaspirated labiodental as a voiced labiodental? Who is Michael Carr - can't find anything other than some contributions to Language Log and the like.
Then "the American publications were faster to rectify the mistaken (/ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/) pronunciation to (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/)". Well, no, this suggests a failure to understand the issue. Chinese has a distinction between aspirated and unaspirated labiodentals, which I'll call "t" for convenience. English has this difference too (but not phonemically): it's more or less the same as the difference between the 't' in 'top' and the 't' in 'stop'. You probably cannot hear the difference, but you can detect it easily by putting your hand in front of your mouth: you feel a puff of air in 'top', but no puff of air in 'stop'. This is not the same as the difference in pronunciation between English 't' in 'tot' and 'd' in 'dot', which is a difference of voicing. Unless someone can correct any error I have in understanding the issue, it seems to me that the stuff from Carr is simply incompatible with a correct description. Imaginatorium ( talk) 06:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The article at present appears to be no longer an encyclopedic description of anything -- it is a campaign to persuade us that the (English) word Taosism is "mispronounced", or "ought" to be written differently. This is not what WP is for. The first sentence of the lede starts the confusion: "The English words Daoism (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/) and Taoism (/ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/ or /ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/) are alternative romanizations for the same-named Chinese philosophy and religion." No: the English words are English words, they are not romanizations of anything. The English word "Taoism" is pronounced (obviously) with an initial aspirated dental consonant ("t"), just is the initial 't' of every English word where is is followed by a vowel (exceptions, anyone?). Of course I understand that in Chinese the syllable Dao/Tao (WG/py) is pronounced with an unaspirated dental consonant, like the 't' in English "stop", which is neither an initial English "t" nor "d". So there is no "correction" to be done. @ Keahapana: has been making a good faith effort to promote this campaign, but I think this is not what WP is for. The campaign can be described, but all the POV language should be removed. Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Should the present to "Daoism-Taoism romanization issue" be moved to "Daoism/Taoism romanization issue"? Keahapana ( talk) 00:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The present WP article was recently mentioned.
"Linguistically, historically, culturally, and lexicographically, this article constitutes a significant contribution to human knowledge." Keahapana ( talk) 01:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)