Talk:Sinitic languages

Comments

Changed the redirect from Sino-Tibetan languages to Spoken Chinese, which discusses "Chinese dialects". "Chinese languages" would have been better, except that redirects to Chinese language, which is more Mandarin-centric.

Reasons for this change: a quick Google Scholar search shows the usage to be referring to Chinese dialects, not to Sino-Tibetan languages in general. In fact, the term "Sinitic languages" is used to contrast to "non-Sinitic languages in China" including Tibetan (so "Sinitic languages" should not be equivalent to "Sino-Tibetan languages"). Similarly, all the internal links which pointed here are using it in the sense of "Chinese dialects". cab 12:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

classification

file:SinoTibetanTree.svg shows "Wu-Min" and Chu (Xiang) as separate branches, and only Yue-Mandarin as descended from Middle Chinese. Is this Matisoff? How well supported is it? kwami (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be extensive sources to support that "Sinitic language" is indeed actually a mainstream linguistic grouping. According to most major encyclopedias and scholarly sources, Sino-Tibetan consist of Chinese and Tibeto-Burman; Ethnologue also list it this way [1]. I seriously hope original research isn't used in major articles like this.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sinitic" is the standard terminology. The question is whether or not it's a synonym to "Chinese", which basically depends on whether or not you consider Bai to be Sinitic (it's not Chinese) or Tibeto-Burman. Rather like Greek being a member of a Hellenic family—the only difference depends on whether Tsakonian is considered a separate language or not. kwami (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then cite reputed references to support that "Sinitic languages" actually exist or is the "standard terminology." Otherwise I can't think of this as anything but original research. You haven't answered any of my questions as well.--TheLeopard (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I said I would. Give me more than two minutes. And how am I supposed to answer your questions, when you didn't ask any? kwami (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There are so many questions about your edits and additions my friend. From what I gathered through google search, "Sinitic" or "Sinitic languages" pretty much all refers to Chinese. According to most dictionaries and encyclopedias (Britannica included), Sinitic is the same as Chinese, Chinese (Sinitic); "Sinitic" according to these dictionaries is simply another linguistic term for the Chinese language. Why separate this as an individual article?--TheLeopard (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the information that Bai is classified under Sinitic and not Tibeto-Burman? Do you have reputable sources.--TheLeopard (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes yes. I told you three times that I do, and that I will add them. I'm about to hit 'save' with one reputable source. There is, however, another approach we can take: "Sinitic" is also used to claim that Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. are languages in their own right, not mere "dialects" (which in English implies mutual intelligibility). So we can use Sinitic in place of Chinese in the info boxes. Ethnically, the Bai are not Chinese. Linguistically you could claim they are, since their language (per those who accept this) is descended from Old Chinese. We can avoid the issue by simply using "Sinitic"—with a question mark in the case of Bai—and not breaking it down further. kwami (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, an edit conflict four saves in a row? After I've told you four times I'm working on this? Have some patience. And your idea of sourcing is the EB and the dictionary? Are you kidding me? I thought you were concerned with proper sourcing. Now I see you're not. And you want to merge to Chinese language? Not any of several articles that deal with the Chinese 'dialects' themselves? kwami (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

These are mainstream sources (Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster), that are commonly known and well accepted. And your citation is? George van Driem? Which you know his classification on Sino-Tibetan language is fairly controversial. I'll give you few minutes, but you can't simply remove someone else's contribution because you didn't like the sources.--TheLeopard (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are apparently not yet familiar with Wikipedia sourcing practices. Please read up on them. We do not use other encyclopedias as sources, so the EB ref has to go. Dictionaries are fine for definitions of words, but not for claims of fact. And Sinitic is not the 'plural' form, so that needs to go as well. Also, when you say that Sinitic = Chinese, you're claiming that Bai is Chinese, which very few people would argue (I've come across one scholar who did, but that was decades ago, and no-one believes it today.) The intro states quite clearly that Sinitic is perhaps Bai + Chinese, and that if Bai is excluded, Sinitic and Chinese are synonyms. I don't know what more you could want.

What's controversial about van Driem is his Sino-Bodic hypothesis, which is not relevant here. He's a well respected Tibeto-Burmanist. kwami (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Show me the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:List of guidelines that "states" we don't use other encyclopedia for sources?

You stating in your summary "you need sources that comply with Wikipedia guidelines", well list them right here!--TheLeopard (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your view on the whole "Sinitic languages" certainly isn't mainstream at all. Most sources equtes Chinese with "Sinitic." However, you seems to have quite a different interpretation of it. I also never said Bai is related to Chinese, which I have questioned you why group Bai here instead of Tibeto-Burman. Chinese + Bai = Sinitic is perhaps the view shared by few linguists, but no major sources has listed it as "the" classification.--TheLeopard (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you being purposefully obtuse? The intro clearly says that Sinitic = Chinese if Bai is excluded, and that the inclusion of Bai is debatable. It never claims this is "the" classification. It also clearly says that Sinitic = Chinese when authors wish to emphasize that the primary Chinese topolects are distinct languages. What more do you want? It is not true as a general statement that all of Sinitic can be subsumed under Chinese, not unless you accept Bai as Chinese, which neither you nor I do.

You need to read up on Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. It's not my job to spoonfeed them to you. The EB and the self-published websites you've been finding are not acceptable sources. It's also considered vandalism to remove fact tags without resolving the issue that's being disputed. kwami (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to vandalize the article, I will ask to have it protected. The 'dubious' tag stays until you resolve the dubious claim that Bai is Chinese. kwami (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did I claim Bai is related to Chinese? The reason why I'm putting the statement of "Sinitic is often refer to as Chinese", because these sources explicitly stated it. The first source [2] is an electronic version of the Encyclopedia of Modern Asia's entry on "Sinitic languages", the second source [3] is an American government website on elements of languages, the third source [4] is Britannica. You are repeating "The EB and the self-published websites you've been finding are not acceptable sources", yet I checked Wikipedia guidelines of reliable sources, not a single guideline stated that we can't cite prominent encyclopedia articles. You are the one who is vandalizing the article's content by eliminating sources that you did not wanted (the article was completely unsourced until I asked you to) and pushing a view that is not mainstream.--TheLeopard (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The intro very clearly explains the linguistic uses of the word "Sinitic". Surely you can understand it: it's quite straightforward. One of those uses is Chinese and any other languages we may find that are closer to Chinese than they are to Tibeto-Burman. (As of now, that means (possibly) Bai.) Sinitic can only be the same as Chinese if there aren't any such languages. By saying Sinitic = Chinese, you are deciding that there are no such languages, which is OR and pushing a POV on your part. Yes, of course many sources use the two terms synonymously. The intro already says as much. But we need to disambiguate the uses of Sinitic = Chines from Sinitic > Chinese, and you are failing to do that. In so doing, you are claiming that if Bai is Sinitic, it is also Chinese, which is false. The article is not pushing a non-mainstream view. First of all, Bai as Sinitic is mainstream, even if it is not the majority view (read the refs in the Bai article, for Christ's sake. I mean, Thurgood, La Polla, Starostin, van Driem, and I forget how many others). Secondly, the article clearly states that the issue is debated. It doesn't decide one way or the other, except for your claim that all Sinitic languages are often collectively referred to as Chinese. That is false: only the Chinese branch of Sinitic is collectively referred to as Chinese. kwami (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It took me about thirty seconds to find source guidelines at WP:Reliable sources.

• Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. That is, we don't use the EB to argue a specific claim. Find an actual book or peer-reviewed article, something by Matisoff maybe. Something more reliable than Wikipedia.
• Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so. Someone posting a claim on a web page, unless you can demonstrate they are respected in the field (say Matisoff on his webpage), is not considered reliable. Again, find a book or article.

But the issue is wider than that. I'm not arguing that many (reliable) sources don't use Sinitic and Chinese synonymously. Of course they do. I said as much in the intro. I'm arguing that we do not promote one use as standard when both are standard. kwami (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's the crux of the issue, and the reason I restored the 'dubious' tag which you once again deleted. I've established that Sinitic = Chinese + maybe Bai. (Okay, one source says Sinitic = Chinese and that if Bai is related the family would be Han-Bai,—that is, Sino-Tibetan would have two branches, Tibeto-Burman and Han-Bai,—but that is AFAIK idiosyncratic to that one author.) You are claiming that Sinitic is "often collectively referred to as Chinese". In order to justify that claim, you need to show that numerous sources collectively refer to [Chinese + maybe Bai] as "Chinese". I've only seen two cases where that is true: the Han-Bai author, where Han-Bai = Bai + Sinitic, and one other who (decades ago) thought Bai was closest to Miin, and therefore a Chinese dialect. That does not approach "often". kwami (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

you need to show that numerous sources collectively refer to [Chinese + maybe Bai] as "Chinese". The majority of mainstream sources I've seen are simply stating Sinitic = Chinese language; it is not stating "Sinitic = Chinese" because Bai is included as part of Chinese, its because there is no Bai in this, and Bai is Tibeto-Burman. You are the one who presented information about Bai "might" be diverged from Old Chinese, thus might be "Sinitic", and thus created this article. All these dispute about Bai's status in this "Sinitic" family came from your persepective. I think you are creating a hypothesis here.--TheLeopard (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You evidently haven't bothered to read any of the refs I provided, nor the quotes, nor the Bai article, if you still think I'm making this up. If you're not going to be serious, it's a waste of time to talk with you.

Sinitic may or may not include Bai. That's neither your call nor mine to make. For people who do not include Bai, or simply don't deal with it, Sinitic = Chinese. For people who do include it, Sinitic ≠ Chinese. We already say that for the many people who do not include Bai, Sinitic = Chinese. That's all that your sources support. But what you're claiming is that Sinitic = Chinese regardless of Bai. None of your sources support that.

Read up on the issue if you want me to continue this discussion. Then find something to back up your claim. Otherwise I will delete it. kwami (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording to what is factually correct. It's redundant, but let me know if it says what you're trying to say. kwami (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you re-adjust the chart you made. Move the branch of the Bai language from the top to the bottom, especially since the language's status is "disputed" and you put a question mark before it. It would look less like we're putting on something we're unsure of.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think minor branches should be at the top where they're visible. Putting "? Bai" there makes it obvious how Sinitic differs from Chinese when it does, and why it often doesn't. I reverted your latest change, because it gave the impression by placing Bai under unclassified that it is also unclassified, and also that "Unclassified Chinese" is a branch of Sinitic. It's also difficult to read the chart and know which level of branching it occurs at, because it's so separated from the primary branch Chinese. Ethnologue does things that way, and I notice that when people copy them, they interpret that as meaning an additional branch of a family. kwami (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I think minor branches should be at the bottom, because you are giving a lot of visibility to something that is not commonly accepted. You said yourself that in many linguistic sources Bai isn't classifed under Sinitic, so why give it more visibility? Perhaps you should do it horizontally. I don't think the chart is suitable for the article at all at its present stage.--TheLeopard (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because a diagram should display what we know of the topic, not what you have decided that people should know about it. Minor things belong at the top where they're most visible; otherwise they get overlooked. (It can go at the bottom of the info box because that list is so short.) The question mark, 'disputed' tag, and discussion of classification are sufficient to alert people to its uncertain status. kwami (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would it get over looked? I don't see the problem with placing it at the lower part of the chart instead of placing it at the top, considering the diagram is quite small. If you placed it on the top, it would make it seem like Bai is the most widely known Sinitic languages. I think the diagram needs to be re-adjusted to either function horiziontally or placing the branch to the bottom half, or to be removed, since this diagram is overly-simple and differs considerably from Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla's Sino-Tibetan tree.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because that's not the source! —kwami (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-adjusted the diagram's branches, this way both languages are primary languages, but the diagram is still the same format you started. I really don't want to pro-long this argument. I added the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition, but kept your Oxford English Dictionary definition first. This way there is no "falsifying sources" like you claimed and now there is also an electronic source attached to it, so readers can verify themselves. Shall we leave it as it is.--TheLeopard (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with European Languages

There is no linguistic point whatsoever to the "Comparison to European Languages" chart. There is no relationship, there is no borrowing, it is just an exercise in looking up words in a dictionary. I'm removing it as a waste of space with no function whatsoever. --Taivo (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This inclusion of European languages here is still just a pointless exercise in looking up words in a dictionary and serves no valid linguistic function. If you want to show valid differences between the Sinitic languages, then find a chart that does that, but the inclusion of European languages isn't any more valid than including Australian languages or Bantu languages or any other non-Sinitic languages. It's a pointless waste of space that serves NO valid linguistic function. --Taivo (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point, since the chart isn't even sourced, it is original research and is an invalid Wikipedia addition anyway. --Taivo (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The chart's been here for a long time, and people have put a fair amount of work into it, so let's get some consensus to delete before we edit war over it. AFAIK the function is simply to show the diversity of Chinese lects in comparison to the diversity of Romance and Germanic. The reason Bantu isn't used is simply that English speakers are less likely to be familiar with Bantu. — kwami (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Such notions as "see how this is like/unlike Europe" are extremely antiquated. And "people have put a fair amount of work into it" shows that it is WP:OR. And even if it is a valid point, sandwiching the Chinese dialects between no less than 7 Indo-European columns is extreme overkill. Someone has made a beautiful, but ultimately useless chart of questionable linguistic utility. --Taivo (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Putting work into something doesn't make it OR. I won't venture an opinion as to whether it should be there or not. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the offending table. I could be wrong, but I highly suspect that it is OR. --Taivo (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Taivo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.185.74 (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Symane is back trying to peddle his Europe-Sinitic "comparison". If anyone thought there was a relationship between Europe and East Asia, it would be relevant, but a chart showing common vocabulary between Sinitic and Uto-Aztecan is just as relevant as this pointless original research. --Taivo (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well some people do believe there is a relationship between Europe and East Asia: Borean languages. But that is pretty fringe, and I don't see it as a reason to include a comparison to Romance languages here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.185.162 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point. It's not trying to show a connection between Chinese and anything else. It's simply trying to show the diversity of Chinese (which is commonly accepted as a single language) is comparable to the diversity of Romance (which are accepted as a family of languages). That may be OR, and it may not be beneficial to have here, but I don't understand the repeated mischaracterizations of it. Comparisions to UA would be just as relevant if most English speakers were familiar with UA, but they're not. What percentage of English speakers do you think could identify Hopi or Shoshone as a UA language? Most English speakers have at least a passing familiarity with French, Spanish, or Italian, or with Romance in general, if for no other reason than the huge number of loans in English, which is why they're more relevant to English speakers than the many other comparisons which could be made. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with this chart. First, I'm fairly certain that it is OR. Second, unless there are reliable sources that make such a comparison in chart form, it's simply vanity. I'm certain that there are probably sources that state something like, "The differences between the Sinitic languages is comparable to Romance", I doubt there are charts out there. I'm not opposed to referenced text, but adding this huge chart is an undue use of space to make a simple statement. It places undue emphasis on the issue for the casual reader, who is generally unsophisticated linguistically, and may lead some to see a comparative chart. --Taivo (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good argument. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Taivo. Chart should stay out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.185.169 (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox error (minor)

Greetings and felicitations. The infobox reference (ref. no. 1) is giving the error "|chapterurl= missing title". Hopefully someone more knowledgable than I can fix this. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language family.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Chinese languages" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chinese languages and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Chinese languages until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NasssaNser - T 14:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent removal of Min and Waxiang from infobox

@TheLeopard: I am quite confused by your recent removal of Min and Waxiang from the infobox. Their addition to the infobox as top-level branches of Sinitic wasn't to suggest the Greater Bai languages are Chinese, but rather because it's theorized that Min and Waxiang (especially Min) split from Old Chinese rather than Middle Chinese like other Chinese languages. And the theory that the Greater Bai languages may have been an early split from Old Chinese is the reason for their inclusion as a possible top-level branch of Sinitic. It'd be ludicrous to use one set of criteria for the Greater Bai languages but then throw that set of criteria out for the Min and Waxiang languages because they're commonly said to be Chinese dialects/languages. And of course, I don't mean to suggest that the Min languages aren't Chinese either, they certainly are in a sociolinguistic sense (and Sinitic being named Sinitic specifically is a rather superficial detail that doesn't change the phylogenetic relationships between the languages in question), but that's beside the point. The point is if the Greater Bai languages are considered a potential top-level branch of Sinitic because they may have split from Old Chinese, then the Min and Waxiang languages have to be included as a top-level branch based on the same criteria as Min is widely accepted to have split from Old Chinese rather than Middle Chinese like other varieties of Chinese, and Waxiang is sometimes theorized to have similarly split from Old Chinese. And if they aren't included despite that criterion, then it wouldn't make sense to include Greater Bai. ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree , i think the previous layout was sufficiently clear Remsense聊 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Remsense: I appreciate your response, I wasn't sure if wrote my point clearly or not. ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)