Talk:Shenglei

Thank you Kanguole

Hi @Kanguole: Thanks for your corrections and for adding the Ting 2012 reference (which is only partially available on Google Books). I've got more materials that I'm tentatively putting into Interpretations and Significance sections, and look forward to your improvements. One question you might be able to answer: What was the first usage of shēngmǔ 聲母? Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but I expect it would be associated with rime table phonology. The oldest extant tabulation of the initials is the Dunhuang fragment British Library Or.8210/S.512: 《歸三十字母例》 Guī sānshí zìmǔ lì.

One thing I was wondering about was the distinction between "linguistic syllable rime" and poetic rhyme. Kanguole 10:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks, it was an awkward lead sentence. What do you think about moving some or all of the Ting, Baxter, and Pulleyblank paragraph under History down into the new Interpretations section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keahapana (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I had a go at that, trimming the resulting repetition. I also removed the register split of the level tone, which is much later. The Qieyun and its successors also split the level tome between two volumes, but not based on a register distinction, just half the rhymes in each volume because the level tone had more words than the others.

On the "two interpretations", does anyone suggest that the Shenglei was organized by initials? Although it seems a small leap from fanqie to designating equivalence classes of upper fanqie characters as initials, I don't know of anyone who did that before Chen Li in the early 19th century. The rime table tradition of the Song (or possible late Tang) worked with lists of initials, but these seem to have been inspired by the Sanskrit alphabet, and were a bit different from the initials implied by the fanqie, as Chen Li discovered. So Yong and Pengs's translation "The Dictionary of Initial Consonants" seems anachronistic. See also this review criticizing their translated titles. Kanguole 19:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kanguole: We don't seem to have the necessary consensus yet for your proposed edits. What would be your reasoning for changing the article in the manner you propose? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Helmut von Moltke: my edit was based on the above discussion, but WP:BOLD means it is not necessary to have prior consensus to made edits, e.g. see this essay. We edit, if someone objects to the changed content, they revert and then we discuss their objections. Do you have any objections to the content, as distinct from the boldness? Kanguole 19:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Yong and Peng's translation is groaningly anachronistic. I removed their second "interpretation" and noted it under Title. Thanks for all your help and improvements. Keahapana (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)