Rose

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Linguistics: Phonetics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force. China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page needs a lot of work. I will get to it if/when I can.Chris B 07:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we could have discussion of the following terms that I was just looking for but cannot find wiki information about, even on the Chinese page. 精組, 庄組, 端組, 章組. Tibetologist (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC) el[reply]

I'd say the system represented here is really a bit different from what I've learnt and people I know online use. e.g. We think the devision III-3 chongniu has a medial of /-ri-/ (phonologically, not meaning such combination was the case of pronunciation), whose /r/ is not necessarily equal to the /r/ medial of division II's but share the same origin in OC with it, we agree that in EMC the final 模 represents /uo/ but not /u/ (and no pure /u/ existed then after former /u/ became /əu/), and we never conceived or suggested the existence of any "long vowel". I can keep listing, and the problem gets especially noticeable in OC reconstruction which basically is a matter of dispute.

I also seriously suggest that we introduce Chinese characters to name the initials and finals, with IPA of reconstructions beside them, because of their uncertain nature, to reduce disputing and unfamilarity of different systems, and because of the factual practice and tradition of doing so. Agree?

Thanks.

Rethliopuks (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will seriously rewrite this article later when I will be free...In China I have seen absolutely nobody who has ever suggested a long vowel in EMC. EMC does not, in my and our opinion, need a long vowel.

I will introduce Chinese characters (as a main method) with English/IPA accomnapying. I will mainl use phonological/phonemical descriptions but not phonetical.

Rethliopuks (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article suffers from a lack of references, which makes it hard to see where the various forms come from. /-aː-/ for 麻 má in LMC comes from Pulleyblank, I think.

I don't think using Chinese characters for the MC initials would be helpful. There's little dispute about the values of the initials, and the alphabetic notations are much clearer.

On the other hand there's no consensus on the finals, and choosing an IPA form would be difficult. The finals are often referred to by Chinese character and modern pinyin, though I'm not sure that would be very useful to a non-specialist readership. Kanguole 00:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starting from From Old Chinese to Early Middle Chinese long /a:/ is mentioned several times. Could someone clear up whence it (presumably) comes from? Our Old Chinese phonology page mentions only six vowels. Crom daba (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I think it comes from Pulleyblank's Middle Chinese: A Study in Historical Phonology. He has it in Middle Chinese division II finals.

The whole article is in very poor shape. Kanguole 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of references to works such as "Baxter (1992)" but no explanation of which books these refer to. pne (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article badly, badly needs examples. It's really hard to keep track of the changes and their connection to familiar reality otherwise.

2. The explanations in the beginning of the section on the transition from EMC to LMC make it seem as if this part is just based on the editor himself comparing two synchronically described systems by two different authors (Baxter and Pulleyblank) and inferring which changes appear to have taken place between the two. As opposed to being based on a source directly positing the changes themselves. This would make the section OR. And there must be a source that does describe this transition directly. There are a number of works on historical Chinese phonology that have come out since the sources cited here.

3. The text uses traditional terms related to the rime dictionaries and tables such as chongniu, hekou, division 3 and 4 without explaining them, and apparently presupposes knowledge of their meaning on the part of the reader. This is not a reasonable expectation. The text is supposed to be intelligible for any reader with some knowledge of linguistics, not only for those already perfectly familiar with traditional Chinese poetic rules. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]