Talk:Standard Zhuang

name & scope

The newly created Standard Zhuang page is anything but standard, . Since when has Standard Zhuang been a combination of Yongbei and Yongnan Zhuang. The title is about Standard Zhuang, so why is the so much about non standard writing systems as well as Standard Zhuang. The split between Zhuang languages and Standard Zhuang is at best confusing. Whilst the original page Zhuang Language was long at least its scope was clear, when an article gets to then taking sections out to make new pages and including a summary in the original place allows for easy extension. Would it be too much to ask to restore the page to the original form of one article and use such an approach. Johnkn63 (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We generally have articles on languages. Zhuang isn't a language, and I think we should cover more than just Bouyei. 'Standard' may not be the best term: can you suggest another? (I could move it back to Wuming Zhuang.) The idea is to have an article on the language people mean when they say 'Zhuang', and the old article wasn't it: it was merely a synonym for Tai languages as spoken by the Zhuang people.

Officially Zhuang is one of the five languages of China which among other things all laws of China are translated into, and the divisions are called dialects. Ethologue uses macrolanguage for Zhuang, this is both a spoken and written language. . Standard Zhuang is the name of the official language. This official language has a written standard and also a description of it's pronunciation. The code for Standard Zhuang is zha . It does not have a separate code in ethnologue because no body speaks it, though newsreaders read it. Standard Zhuang uses the pronunciation of one part of Wuming, Shuang Qiao, but the vocabulary is taken from a number of different Zhuang dialects. Johnkn63 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't a 'combination of Yongbei and Yongnan Zhuang': classifications differ on whether it's Yongbei (Zhang 1999) or Yongnan (Pittayaporn 2009), so I listed both in the info box. Perhaps it would be better to enter 'none'? Also, whether the writing systems are non-standard doesn't seem relevant to me. We might want to move the sawndip section to Zhuang languages, but AFAICT the example we give is in standard Zhuang, as it is a word-for-word transcription of the romanized text. If it isn't the same language as the romanized text, which one is it? — kwami (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

Here the question is what the article is about. the problem is the current page talks about 3 things. (1) The official standard for Zhuang, (2) Wuming Zhuang and (3) different writing systems. The relationship between these more properly belongs in the article Zhuang languages - so the classification of Wuming Zhuang belongs either in a separate article on Wuming Zhuang, which would be a stub with the amount of material at present, or back in the article on Zhuang languages. Having the Sawndip sample as a comparison to the standard to the writing system is not a problem, rather that current article covers to much. The problem is that material that rightly had a place in the more generic article is misplaced here. The solution is more of removing content that is first off topic material back to the more general article and after that see which sub-topics people are interested enough in to write separate articles on. If you don't have any objections I can do some of that. The title Standard Zhuang could remain is that is what the bulk of the material is about and with work it can become a well written article. Johnkn63 (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what your objection is. Wuming is the standard dialect, correct? So why would we split the article? Also, the different writing systems are all in the standard language, so, again, why would we split the article? — kwami (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst people sometimes say Wuming is the standard dialect this is not strictly speaking correct, that would be like saying Putonghua is based in the Beijing dialect . The phonology of Standard Zhuang is based on one place in Wuming, Shuangqiao, but the vocabulary comes from all the different dialects following the model for Standard Chinese. The phonology of Shuangqiao is different to that of the majority of places in Wuming county, including the county seat itself, but was chosen because it is in some respects similar to Southern Zhuang, the result being that Wuming is considered part of zyb but looking at the standard a scholar like Pittayaporn can say it does not belong to zyb . Furthermore Standard Zhuang only has an alphabetical script see for example http://raeuz.lingd.net/article-4178897-1.html and http://www.rauz.net.cn/Article/faenzcieng/mboengqndawbiengz/naeuzsaehbouxbien/200711/444.html the character based writing system is not part of the 壮文方案 , and is the official standard for all dialects of Zhuang within, though in Yunnan a modified latin script standard has been adopted see for example http://www.wszhuangzu.cn/yuyan/yy/201107/391.html and http://www.wszhuangzu.cn/yuyan/yy/201108/402.html . Johnkn63 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see a couple possibilities, then. Correct me if I'm being overly simplistic: (1) Standard Zhuang is not really a Tai language at all, but a conlang. (2) Standard Zhuang is a mixed language. (3) Standard Zhuang is a Tai languge.

If (1) or (2), we need a ref stating this explicitly. (3), then it is a particular Tai language. If it is a particular Tai language, then we should identify which one it is. It would seem that it is the same language as Wuming. Now, perhaps (a) Wuming is not a coherent language, but a mere geographic description, and so is not an adequate identification, or (b) it is not Wuming after all, but some other variety. Loan words from other Tai languages wouldn't change that, any more than Russian words in German make the latter a Slavic language.

Wuming can refer either to a town or a county. Best to say Wuming is a geographic description.Johnkn63 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As for Putonghua being based on Beijing dialect, it is. Putonghua is a standardized form of the Beijing dialect of Mandarin Chinese. It is quite explicitly based on Beijing and not on Sichuan, which had been another contender for the standard language.

The relationship between Standard Zhuang and the Shuangqiao, Wuming lect is the similar as that between the Beijing lect, the Chinese wiki states what standard Zhuang is more exactly '壮文拼写的是壮语标准语，以壮语北部方言为基础方言，以武鸣县双桥镇的壮话为标准音，兼收其他方言的一些词汇' http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A3%AE%E8%AF%AD often in people say 武鸣 when they more accurately they should say 武鸣县双桥镇 . This also says the same http://wenwen.soso.com/z/q114238605.htm . These would seem to be why Zhang and Pittayapor differ as to the classication. That 武鸣县双桥镇 was used is stated in Zhuang Languages that quotes 壮语方言研究 as to the place in Wuming County used for the survey. Johnkn63 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. This is definitely s.t. we should get cleared up. — kwami (talk)

If your only objection is to the name 'Standard Zhuang', do you have a suggestion for a more appropriate name?

My objection is to the inclusion of off topic material that rightly belongs in another article and for which the easiest solution would be to return the general article Zhuang Languages. Until such a time as there are separate articles on Wuming Zhuang or Zhuang writing the sections 'classification' and 'writing systems' belong in the Zhuang languages article. My concern is to stick to the scope of the article. Of course having a clear definition of standard Zhuang would help Johnkn63 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

They're not off topic. All of our language articles cover the classification of the language, and the writing system is specifically for this language. — kwami (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As for the script, the sawndip text appears to be in the same language as the romanized text. If it is not, can you identify which language it is, and why it appears to be the same? — kwami (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The sawndip is a sawndip version of the standard Zhuang text. However it would be incorrect to say that the sawndip itself is part of standard Zhuang. What the article shows at present is the sample written in the 1982 script, which is the script the Zhuang version of the UDHR was written, this has then been transposed to the 1957 script and to a sawndip script. Johnkn63 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say that it's the standard writing system. However, it is in the standard language. I'll think about it. Need food. — kwami (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see anything wrong with it. The Latin Zhuang alphabet was created for the standard language. However, the standard language may also be written in sawndip, as our sample illustrates, so sawndip is a script of the standard language. I see nothing factually incorrect or even misleading about our presentation.

I agree there is no problem having the Sawndip here, though the definition of standard Zhuang needs to be clarified to be a more useful article to many people. Johnkn63 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW the udhr in Zhuang was to the best of my knowledge written by someone from the Youjiang Zhuang dialect not from Wuming. Regardless of where the translator of the udhr comes from it should be noted that whilst there are maybe some 200,000 to 600,000 people who can read and write Standard Zhuang to a fair degree, there are no native speakers. Johnkn63 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The vital point you bring up is the ambiguity of 'Wuming'. That needs to be worked out. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes - the relationship between Wuming Zhuang and standard Zhuang needs to be clearer - whilst it is true to say that many people confuse the two a well written article should not.Johnkn63 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sawndip isn't "written for Wuming Zhuang", sawndip "can be written for Wuming Zhuang". Like how Chinese digraph "中国" can be read as "Zhongguo", "Junggwok" or " Tiong-kok", the Zhuang ideographs can be read differently in different Zhuang languages/dialects/whatever, and still mean the same thing, since they represent an idea and not a reading like an alphabet would. A specific word written in sawndip would be read differently between each Zhuang subdivision/variety, but still maintain the same semantics, as with the varieties of Chinese and Hanzi. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, they do not represent ideas: They represent words, morphemes, and the like. Where the words differ between varieties of Zhuang, sawndip will differ as well, even if the idea is the same. Just as with Chinese. Regardless, the article does not say the thing you object to. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Have made various changes above so the article now has a clear definition and unified content to make way for those with a better writing style than myself to improve.Johnkn63 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Former Classification

The text below originally came from Zhuang languages but was moved to this article when created. The first sentence puts the context as that of Zhuang languages not Standard Zhuang. The quote of Zhang does not give a page number and is different to what Zhang says in pages 8 to 11. The it in the follow sentence then becomes vague but does not seem to be Standard Zhuang this quote, which also does not have a page number, whilst clarified would be good in another article does not seem to fit well in the current article. "The Zhuang lnguages form several dialect clusters, which complicate classification. Zhang (1999) considers Wuming Zhuang to be part of Yongbei (邕北) Zhuang, one of the Northern Tai languages. However, Pittayaporn (2009) found that it lies outside Northern Tai, together with several varieties of the putative Yongnan (邕南) Zhuang. (Yongnan as Ethnologue defines it is polyphyletic, as several purported Yongnan varieties lie elsewhere in the Tai family, but Yongnan dialect proper is close to Wuming.)"Johnkn63 (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Johnkn63 (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why this should be removed for lack of a page number. If you are able to find a more reliable classification, great, but meanwhile we should say something. I'll restore it. — kwami (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It was removed because (1) Zhang is misquoted, he does not connect Wuming Zhuang to Northern Thai Languages. I have read the book, it is 924 pages long. He does connect Wuming Zhuang to Northern Zhuang (2) There seems to be confusion between the terms Northern Zhuang and Northern Thai Languages (3) What Pittayaporn is referring to unclear here. Can you verify what Pittayaporn actually says? To misquote someone and then say what they said is wrong is not acceptable. Johnkn63 (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Further confusion is caused by the fact that Yongbei to used both for the area north of the Yongjiang river and for the northern part of Yongning which is south of the Yongjiang river, also Yongnan is used both for the area south of the Yongjiang river and the southern part of Yongning. Regardless of which the whole section talks about the classification of Wuming Zhuang rather than the classification of standard Zhuang. Johnkn63 (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

References

Pronunciation and lexicon

Currently the article has the words "The pronunciation of individual words comes from various Zhuang dialects." I agree this sentence is not very clear. Let me explain the idea it tries to express, and I invite others to suggest a clearer way of saying this. There are two point here namely (1) even though Shuangqiao is taken as the basis for the standard the pronunciation of some words does not follow that of Shuangqiao, the words for head and eye are now in the article as illustrations of this. The word for leg would be another case Shuangqiao Wuming is "ha" but standard Zhuang is "ga“ （2） It is cited that the creators of the standard deliberately included words from different dialects. For example on the 1995 ”壮学论集“ (ISBN7-5363-2988-1/K.38) page 288 ”...从各方言土语中吸收表意比较精确的方言土语词，以形成通用的书面语词汇“. Suggestions for improvements most welcome. Johnkn63 (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So, it is not a fully natural language, then. But it sounds as if it's still Wuming dialect. Are the differences mostly Fuliang?

Do you know yet which branch of the Tai family it's in?

— kwami (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It really is not the Wuming dialect, this is something that speakers of the Wuming dialect tell me. The tones and sounds are those of Shuangqiao with the sounds "ɲ" along with "ei" and "ou" coming from Fuliang. The lexicon however is not based on the Wuming dialect but in the first instance on the other northern Zhuang dialects and with a few items from southern dialects. I don't know if anyone has tried to classify standard Zhuang in this way. The only classification I have ever seen for standard Zhuang is one that has it under the whole Thai family rather than under a particular branch - to do so would to the best of my knowledge be original research, in short to say standard Zhuang comes from Zhuang which comes from Thai, whilst it looks rather boring is certainly all that has been published. Pittayaporn researched Wuming Zhuang, however standard Zhuang is not Wuming Zhuang. Using Pittayaporn classification standard Zhuang is start with the sounds of an M family dialect extend them a little, then take the lexicons of N type Zhuang combine them, add in a dose of the original M type Zhuang then add a sprinkling of other families, and what do you end up with? Whatever it is I am not aware of a published answer to the question which branch of Thai it belongs to. Johnkn63 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but the section was still about the standard language. We can correct it based on your sources. We can mention that it's not a single natural language and therefore perhaps not classifiable that way. — kwami (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The new wording does fit better the article, however does not make it clear that Pittayaporn is in a minority of one, also to the best of my knowledge is talking about the classification of Shuangqiao Zhuang, and Pittayaporn has a different classification to Chinese scholars and enthologue. Furthermore in each county one can find villages that speak the dialect of other areas, just because Fuliang is in Wuming County does not mean that the dialect spoken common with the rest of Wuming county. The county of Jingxi, which was resurveyed more recently, for example has five different dialects spoken in it. Whilst the number of dialect spoken in Wuming county has not been worked out yet in the same way, no one who knows the area would expect the answer to be just one.Johnkn63 (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is at least which language the standard is based on. It's an unusual situation where we have a standard, and can't identify which language it is. — kwami (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as one does not go to far down there is no trouble answering this Standard Zhuang comes from Zhuang which in turn comes from Thai, since Standard was created by a committee and used as it's sources Zhuang dialects that come from different Thai families then then language itself does not fit the pattern of a naturally form language. Unusual but as they say fact is stranger than fiction Johnkn63 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't branch from Zhuang, because Zhuang is not a valid clade: it's an ethnic group, not a linguistic one. So the classification simply becomes Tai : Standard Zhuang. That's so uninformative that Shandard Zhuang could hypothetically be as close to Siamese as it is to Wuming. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point here. Because of how Standard Zhuang was formed and using your above concept of what is a valid clade, the simplest solution would be to say "Tai:Northern Tai Languages:Zhaung" and let the article say the rest. This is the current view of scholarship - I don't think even Pittayaporn would protest. This is one of the many aspects of Zhuang that is need of more research, but until then we have to do the best with what there is and "Tai:Northern Tai Languages:Standard Zhaung" is better than "Tai:Standard Zhaung". Johnkn63 (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

N. Zhuang is not a valid clade either, except as a synonym for N. Tai. Tai : Northern Tai / North Zhuang would work (or maybe Tai : Northern Tai : (mixed N. Zhuang), but are we sure it's N. Zhuang? Wuming has been listed under both N and S Zhuang, which is why I'd be reluctant to say. — kwami (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies I missed out a Northern above, but have now added it. The classification "Tai:Northern Tai:Standard Zhaung" is IMHO the best that can be said at present. There are uncertainties come from (1) the lack of research into the question (2) the unusual way in which the language was formed.Johnkn63 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you correct the vowel IPA? Is there a more general length distinction (ɐ aː, ɔ oː, ɛ eː)? — kwami (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

In brief yes I will correct it if no one else does first and yes it is a general length distinction for all six vowels of Zhuang a,e,i,o,u and w, tough of the 72 possible combinations only 60 are used and hence standard namely 9 before p/b, 11 before t/d and 10 before k/g.Johnkn63 (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So, what are they, then? ae /a/, a /a:/, e /e, e:/, i /i, i:/, oe /o/, o /o:/, u /u, u:/, w /ɨ, ɨ:/, with only 8 of 12 distinguished in writing? And are the short vowels really [a], [o], etc, or are they reduced? — kwami (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yunnan Zhuang

The topic of Yunnan Zhuang both the language and the writing are something that needs its own separate article, however I am not the person to write the page.Johnkn63 (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I've seen Bouyei (also spoken in Yunnan) called Zhuang, so I thought that's what was meant. — kwami (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can you clarify Yoy and Yay? I think they might have gotten mixed up in the N.Tai article and elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yoy in a group of Northern Tai speakers in Thailand, and the Yay is one of the many names used for the Giáy people in who are Bouyei speakers in Vietnam. It is not unusual for closely related groups to have similar names. Mind you elsewhere in wiki Giáy is used so to change to that would make the difference clear. I have changed the article so that both Yoy and Yay are clearer. Pittayaporn talks about both in his Ph.D thesis and probably uses the name Yay because he has Gedney as a major source. Unfortunately the N. Tai article needs a lot of work to get it up to speed. Johnkn63 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it just an error that Pittayaporn includes Thailand Yoy as SW Tai? — kwami (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The word Yoy is only used once in the thesis, that I know of that is in table 7-5, with no supporting analysis. Yay has a large number of examples. Johnkn63 (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sawndip

When you say, "Sawndip characters have never been officially standardised", what about printed sawndip publications? Are the characters in them just whatever the author happened to choose, so that a different author may have chosen different characters for the same words? — kwami (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer is both "yes" and "no". "Yes" for some authors it is the case that they choose for some characters. "No" because most writers of Sawndip have teachers, or follow existing traditions, as to what character, or spelling to use for a word. So there are for some words many different characters or spellings. see for example "2) Pingguo Collection" in http://gdzhdb.l10n-support.com/docs/report.html which compares seven modern authors found in the five volume "平果嘹歌" published in 20006 . Though different character they are readable. Johnkn63 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's not really standardized at all, then. Rather like English before Caxton.

Yes like English before Caxton, even Chinese was like that if one goes back far enough. Johnkn63 (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't get all of the Pingguo characters to display on my browser. Could you take a screen shot and upload it for the sawndip article? — kwami (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot some of the characters are not in Unicode yet and so use PUA code points, if you download the open source font Sawndip.ttf from http://gdzhdb.l10n-support.com/sawndip-fonts/Sawndip.ttf then the characters will show up fine in Mozilla Firefox. Johnkn63 (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I made an image for the sawndip article.

Glad the font worked. The image looks clear. Johnkn63 (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why they tried making a separate Unicode code point for every character. So much easier just to encode the radicals and phonetics and let the font combine them. Maybe separate points for the most common 5,000 characters or so. We wouldn't even need extra planes, and all it would require is the occasional addition of some obscure, forgotten element. Sure, the result would be 16-bit for some characters, but the Chinese standards are 16-bit anyway. And 11,500 code points for incomplete coverage of hangul seems ridiculous too. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean, however encoding as components would have caused other problems.Johnkn63 (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

IPA

I see that at last someone has noted that the so called IPA column in the table is not actually correct IPA. What is shown is usually called "国际音标" in Chinese publications but is in fact a broad phonetic transcription commonly used in China for transcribing Zhuang. Johnkn63 (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you fix it up? Do some transcribe more than one phoneme? — kwami (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the correct ipa for Shuangqiao, Wuming imediately available, nor for that matter do I know for certain the reason for using the broad phonetic transcriptions shown.Johnkn63 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Stub rating

Johnkn63 just asked me to explain my recent raiting.

thank you for a prompt and clear reply.Johnkn63 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to rate "Standard Zhuang" as a language article. As such, it should contain more detailed information on

1. how the phonology of individual Zhuang languages corresponds to the standard orthography

Yes a good idea a general answer could be given here. I will see what I can do.Johnkn63 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

1.1 how particular phoneme sequences are written

The answer to the above should cover this I think.Johnkn63 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

2. what kind of grammar Stnadard Zhuang employs (this could be answered both in a more general way and in relation to the different Zhuang languages)

On the whole Standard Zhuang and Zhuang languages have the same grammar, differences are the exception that proves the rule. I could write about some aspects of the grammar but an overall description would need to be someone else.Johnkn63 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As there is no satisfactory information on Zhuang languages as well, this information should be provided here. The impression that this article aims to be a language article is also reinforced by having "Writing system" as a separate section. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree the second part of the section on writing is misplaced, I have previously tried returning it to the Zhuang languages article where it came from but these edits get undone by the same person each time, the original title was not Zhang languages. The first section should I think remain, because Standard Zhuang by definition includes both it spoken and written forms, and furthermore the spoken form is almost entirely restricted in use to contexts where it has a written source such as reading the news, lessons in textbooks on learning Zhuang etc, to separate the spoken and written forms would be rather like separating the spoken and written forms of Esperanto. Johnkn63 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea is less that you should separate spoken and written form, but that you may relate these to each other. E.g. provide a phoneme table and relate words of different spoken dialects to the written version. E.g. look at Alsatian language! Or provide some info about the grammar as in Akhvakh language! (You can alternatively do the latter on Zhuang languages, but it should be present. Either would comfortably raise this article to start class, and if you do both one might even consider C class. The problem of the article is currently not the absence of useful information, but the total lack of such linguistic information. (I might consider rerating start class even now, but it would be very weak start class.) G Purevdorj (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights Zhuang Sawndip.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

/ˀj/, /ˀw/

These phonemes lack orthographic representations, and lack examples - I would appreciate it if someone with access to the source used to make the phoneme tables were to add it to the article. Stan traynor (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)