Talk:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue

Pointless

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)

It is an outgrowth of several-year-old arguments here on Wikipedia. I suggest we merge any material worth keeping with Romanization and either delete this or make it a redirect. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I don't see any reasons to merge, excluding individual disinterest in the topic. This article meets inclusion criteria, and seems linguistically, sinologically, and lexicographically informative. In addition, as Bradeos Graphon mentions, there are in-house Wikipedia reasons (note the numerous internal links) not to merge. Since the internal arguments over Daoism/Taoism and Daode jing/Tao Te Ching are ongoing, new and future editors (for instance) will continue needing this article. Could we find someone expert in phonological terminology to correct the inaccuracies about voiced/voiceless stops? Best wishes. Keahapana (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the topic certainly deserves an in-depth treatment somewhere; I'd always received the impression that Taoism and Daoism were different and separate concepts. In fact, I think it would be worthwhile to expand on the differences between the concepts associated in English with Daoism and with Taoism; to differentiate between the most current understanding of the original Chinese philosophy, versus how the West previously popularly imagined that philosophy to be. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK - if some people think that Daoism and Taoism are different, then one might resolve the riddle. One could write something like: "Depending on the romanization scheme, 道 may be transcribed as "Dao" (Hanyu Pinyin), "Tao" (Wade-Giles) or other. Hanyu Pinyin is the international standard (and Wikipedia standard) today. Since Wade-Giles used to be de-facto standard until the 1970s, "Taoism" is still frequently found." THAT'S ALL WE NEED - anything else is interesting for chinese romanisation in general but not Dao/Tao specific. Wassermaus (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and question

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)

A good article but technical

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)

You're correct about this frivolous tag and I'll delete it. Keahapana (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Examples of how it's said

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)

Sorry, but I don't know of any links for these. Keahapana (talk) 23:03, 30 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)

Two questions

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)

Nevermind. I misread the diffs (you were only correcting the mistaken IPA usage) and reverted Carr's original quotation, which seems less dubious than the unsupported assertion that W-G is better. Keahapana (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Romanization of Chinese

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

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151211110432/http://www.daoistcenter.org:80/pwt.html to http://www.daoistcenter.org/pwt.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sixty-two percent deletion?

The following was copied here from User talk:Keahapana#Daoism-Taoism:

Hi. I hope you get the primary point in our difference on the lede. You have introduced something completely absent from the body. I'm sure you are perfectly familiar with the lede function and do not need me to go over it with you. The best approach, if you feel a change in the message of the page is needed is to completely overhaul the body dealing with the origin of the dichotomy. I imagine, if taking on that task, it will rapidly become clear that introducing Wade or Giles or both really contributes nothing at all to the analysis. Indeed, it is more a distraction likely to confuse or overcomplicate a very simple matter (one only barely worth a page more than one line in length in any event). sirlanz 00:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine, we can put a pin in the lead for now. I was just starting a major restoration and revision at the beginning. As a longtime contributor to this article, it was surprising to see the extreme deletion of content on 19 February 2017. While many were skillful edits that improve readability (like cutting the bloated IPA paragraph in the lead, thank you), others were clearly counterproductive and leave readers clueless. For instance, if "focus is on the unaspirated t", after expunging the entire Phonology of 道 section that explained it, how could anyone who hasn't studied linguistics parse "phonemic opposition between aspirated and unaspirated consonants" in the first sentence? Also, have you read Carr (1990)? Please let me know if you don't have access to it and I'll send a PDF. Keahapana (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is fundamentally misconceived. There is no meat in the proposition at all. It's merely a case of a style of Romanisation misleading all but linguists. Taking the article down a long pedagogical road just makes a mountain out of a molehill and leaves those who are not into that sort of thing with the impression there was something behind all the smoke. There isn't. There wasn't. I take your point on the first sentence of the body, i.e. it is pitched wrongly, in a hifalutin justification of a non-article. It needs to be stripped right back to the simple proposition that early romanisers thought it would be nice to use a "t" to sound like a "d" and none-the-wiser readers henceforth got sent down the wrong road. A one-liner to replace the paragraph would be a huge improvement. sirlanz 01:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP this destructive editing and page moving until we reach consensus here on the Talk page. The article has always been about D-T romanization issues, referring to the romanization system differences, mispronunciation problems, academic arguments, etc. While I respect your opinions, I wonder if they concord with the consensus view among the numerous contributors to and readers of this page. According to the Revision history statistics, "This page is very old", and 139 editors have made 296 total edits since the 1 October 2001 start. During the last ten years that I've been contributing to this long-stable page, although there's been lots of normal back and forth among editors, the general arc of development has been gradual expansion and improvement—until two months ago. It appears that you are the first person to believe this article "is fundamentally misconceived" and "needs to be stripped back". If that is true, then I suggest that we roll back to the last stable version of 17 November 2017, and you submit a WP:AFD, where other editors can participate. Also, does not answering the question about the primary reference source of Carr (1990) mean that you haven't, or don't want to, read it? Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Not the first person taking this stance - three right at the top of this page saying precisely what I've said, the only difference being that I have actually done something about it. sirlanz 04:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring is a pointless waste of time, and I've requested a WP:3O here. Keahapana (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This collaborative encyclopaedia can only function if editors engage in the substance of the article. To rush directly to a general complaint without dealing with the content is completely unhelpful. What is the point about Carr? It is not satisfactory to make no point at all and blurt a source name, as if that says anything at all. So far Keahapana has put forward no substantive alternative to the edits made by me. Before any third opinion or anyone else intercedes in this, we should find out if any sort of sensible debate has, indeed, begun. So, Keahapana, please inform us, for example, why you think Wade-Giles has anything to do with the origin of the romanisation here; then tell us why you think Ricci and Trigault collaborated. And then tell us why we should focus on Trigault when Ruggieri did the work decades before and established the "errant", shall we call it, romanisation at the root of this storm in a teacup. And while you do that, you might take on board that the Witek work was done in 2001 and it appears a pretty good certainty that the editors contributing to the article are simply unaware of it. sirlanz 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The landscape here was first and best characterised in the very first Talk comment above, Pointless. The article is remarkable in that it makes something of one particular dichotomy among many that exist right across the entire Chinese language, and it does so as if it is something special. I have not read any material which supports the idea that there is or has been any genuine "issue" rooted in the romanisation alternates. Perhaps there is such material which is fine. I don't think it's sufficient to ground an article but, so be it, I'm not going so far (yet) as putting this one up for AfD, so we need not go there. But what I have done is attempt to bring the article down to what it is really all about: a simple linguistic confusion and explain where it all came from. And to do so without a lengthy general lecture about romanisation of the Chinese language or other diversions which window-dress this up into something that it cannot possibly be. And even if there is a case (though I doubt it) for suggesting the alternates are a factor or fundamental in some alternative views of the belief system, then that does not belong here anyway, but on pages exploring the theological story. I was gobsmacked the first time I spotted this page, at how so much could be written about so little. It contained learned, well-written material but it had the effect of simply confusing and thoroughly misleading the novitiate, and we must communicate with them, not other knowledgeable linguists in any event. sirlanz 00:28, 24 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)

There has been some value in the recent work in clarifying what the article is really all about and narrowing down its viability. Firstly, we can now see quite starkly that there is no issue about romanisation at all. The issue is about whether the choice of romanisation reflects a different view of the tenets of the faith. Thus, the title sets the reader off on the wrong track right from the start. We also now know that the existence of the theological "issue" appears to rely upon just two sources: a solid source from an academic expert in the field, Girardot (with assistance from Miller), and a shaky, undeveloped, few dozens of words on a webpage authored by an asst prof. Its underpinning thus is very weak. There are two ways to go with it: either provide stronger justification for the idea that an "issue" really exists at all other than in the minds of two or three people, or strip it down further and merge it into the Daoism page. If the improvement cannot be made, I shall push for that merge because right now it's skating on thin ice. sirlanz 08:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's review the diffs to understand these valuable contributions towards clarifying and specifying the present article's proper content. Comparing the last stable version (17 November 2017, 2,958 words) and the current one (7 May 2018, 903 words), four of the original five sections have been entirely deleted, with some content from "3 The Taoism/Daoism loanword" merged under "[old 2] Romanizations of 道". "1 Phonology of 道 and its English approximations" introduced the fundamental differences between how Chinese and English contrast the consonant sounds /d/ and /t/ with voicing and aspiration. While three paragraphs from section 3 were kept, the deleted content explained the linguistic origin of D-/Taoism as a calque, Western romanization systems of Chinese, and systematic (mis)pronunciations of borrowings such as I Ching or Yijing. "4 Lexicography of Taoism" dealt with how British and American English dictionaries have glossed the pronunciations of Taoism and Daoism, and ongoing changes in correcting Taoism's pronunciation from /ˈtaʊ.ɪzəm/ to /ˈdaʊ.ɪzəm/. "5 Ramifications" discussed changes in English spelling and pronunciation of Chinese loanwords (e.g., Peking, Pei-ching, and Beijing) within the larger framework of Pinyin replacing Wade-Giles as the standard romanization system for Chinese.

Balancing out these nearly across-the-board removals, thanks to Sirlanz for adding the Palmer and Siegler (2001) ref, information about a 1912 Cantonese romanization system that transcribed 道 as dao, and two arcane paragraphs (370 words) about early Jesuit romanizations of tao in the c. 1588 Ruggieri-Ricci bilingual Portuguese-Chinese dictionary and tau in Matteo Ricci's 1615 Latin history of the Jesuit China missions. All told, this editing appears to be a single-handed WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT attempt to change the original "Daoism-Taoism romanization issue" article, which has been gradually improving since 2001, to something like a jesuitical "Brief history of Dao-Tao romanization" suitable for merger. Keahapana (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What you are describing (and the page before my intervention), eloquently, is characteristic of the language and its romanisation as a whole, nothing unique or wondrous about the available alternates here. That's a general linguistics debate which can feature on a page addressing that subject. As regards the "issue", there is no issue between the romanisations, merely history. The only grist for the discussion of an issue is the idea that the romanisations can be linked to differing interpretations/expositions of the traditional religion (if that can be identified). And through our vigorous interplay, so far we have determined that there is scant little evidence of this linkage (I'm waiting for more if you have it, since you are its proponent and me its skeptic). So, in conclusion, it would be helpful if Keahapana would direct us to how a lengthy exposition about romanisation generally is a justifiable preoccupation of this article. The danger in including it is that it obscures the subject greatly (especially to non-expert readers) and its elaboration falsely erects castle around a lean-to. As regards the Ruggieri input from me, that was generated in a concession to the idea that, if the article remains (it ought to be merged), a short, accurate (Wade-Giles nonsense removed) preamble providing context for readers is justified, but I am not suggesting it is relevant at all to the issue itself. sirlanz 01:17, 12 May 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)

I have been waiting patiently to see what response there is to your call for a third opinion but it seems that's been met by a deafening silence. We're in a pretty esoteric area and evidently no one's interested. If there are other editors out there who have opinions, let's hear them. Unfortunately, they will have to have some level of expertise, though, to contribute because a novice is just not going to get a grip on it at all. sirlanz 00:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Let’s hope the following request will find some interested editors. Keahapana (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, let's talk more about your support for the suggestion that there is an "issue". I note that you have two sources. Girardot never says one word about any issue about romanisation. He merely says he prefers Daoism because it helps to draw attention to a trend of modern thought. His two-sentence aside in the preface comes nowhere near suggesting there is any tension at all. It appears in a 478-page work about Daoism fielding scholarly work from dozens of respected authors and, as far as I can tell, not another murmur about a romanisation "issue". So your position is propounded by just one writer, also in just several sentences on, in effect, a personal blog, which is not reported or commented upon in any scholarly (or really almost any other material anywhere). The one work (I seem to recall I provided it) reporting Komjathy's views (by direct quotation) does not say a single word about any issue about Romanisation. Apparently, that aspect of Komjathy's ideas was not considered worthy of any comment whatsoever (Palmer). Unless you can come up with something better, we really have to be serious and merge the explanation of the alternate romanisations into the Daoism page and merely as an aside such as that written by Girardot. sirlanz 03:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

On the Girardot work, it bears noting that the source is not the least concerned about matters of romanisation nor even, apparently, capable of the most basic account of the subject: the table provided by Girardot on the page after the cited "Note" begins with the line "b as in 'be', aspirated" (p. xxxii), so Girardot, lead editor, hasn't got a clue. sirlanz 02:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC about content removal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn by poster, unaware that AfD had already started. Keahapana (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

---

What content deleted from the last stable version should be restored? Keahapana (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not a valid RfC. This is too vague a question. Propose restoration of a various parts of the content, have normal consensus discussions about them, and if an issue becomes intractable then have an RfC about that specific matter. What you've done here is the equivalent of getting a referendum or ballot measure put before the voting public that asks, simply, "What should we do about the economy?" It's too open-ended and content- and context-free to produce useful results.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, the question (my first RfC) was badly phrased. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lexicography section

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)

Thanks for your useful criticisms. This is a first draft and any editorial suggestions or improvements will be appreciated. Yes, you are correct about the interlinguistic phonemic differences between Chinese aspiration and English voicing, which was (over)explained in the deleted Phonology section that also needs renovation. The present Lexicography section concentrates upon the changing English pronunciations of Taoism. Keahapana (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Misguided campaign

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)

Thanks for your opinions, and I'll correct the lead. Please revise any language that you consider POV. Or if you prefer, give me a list of specific notes (Where does it say "ought"?) and I'll make changes. I admittedly may be misguided but my only interest is improving this article. Keahapana (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Move title?

Should the present to "Daoism-Taoism romanization issue" be moved to "Daoism/Taoism romanization issue"? Keahapana (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No. (I think it's an en-dash, not a hyphen, but I'll type hyphens.) Daoism-Taoism is correct formal English style. Slashes are not. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

In the news

The present WP article was recently mentioned.

• Victor Mair, Tao vs. Dao: amazing restaurant sign near UPenn, Language Log, 24 December 2019.

"Linguistically, historically, culturally, and lexicographically, this article constitutes a significant contribution to human knowledge." Keahapana (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)