Talk:Xiao'erjing

Origin of term

Seems like it's phonetic? Not sure on this. The TUFS page notes other ways of referring to Xiao-Er-Jin like 小經, which is more transparent (it contrasts with 大經, i.e. the use of Arabic to write the Arabic language, as in the Koran). Also the term for Xiao-Er-Jin differs regionally. cab 22:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Arabic for Arabic is called 本經/本经. --Shibo77 11:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tone marking

See this sample (the bilingual one). It's a fully vowelled script (like the modern Uighur orthography, but unlike Arabic, Persian, Urdu, etc.). I'm guessing the straight diagonal strokes above and below the actual letters are tone marks, but I don't know what the tones should be in that dialect (which looks close to Mandarin, but some of the vowels seem weird, along with the tones --- for example, 性 should be the same 4th tone as 分 or 六 in Mandarin, but it has a double tone mark while the two others have only single tone marks.) cab 22:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tones are not marked, those are vowel marks. --Shibo77 11:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So how do those who read xiaoerjin know which tone to pronounce things with? Fascinating. -- InfernoXV (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Current usage

What is the extent of usage of Xiao-Er-Jin among the Hui today? cab 22:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Very rare. --Shibo77 11:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyrillicization

What's the cyrillicization scheme called?

The Dungans use the Cyrillic script, so it is called the Dungan Cyrillic alphabet. --Shibo77 11:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unique letters

At least some of the letters listed as "unique to Xiao'erjing" are not. 6, for example, is used in Sindhi for [tʰ]. --Ptcamn 04:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[s]- and the entering tone

In the Initials and consonants section, the notes for number 17 (, [s]-) say, "only used for entering tone or formerly entering tone syllables." However, it gives the example 思 sī, which is not an historically entering tone syllable. However, number 19 (, also [s]-) gives the example 色 sè, which is an historically entering tone syllable. Is it possible that the note went on the wrong row? —Umofomia (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this issue still exists in the article, even though I raised it 13 years ago. I marked the note for discussion so that someone with more knowledge can look into it. My knowledge of Xiao'erjing is lacking, but I know for certain that 思 is not a historically entering tone syllable. — Umofomia (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I saw it mentioned on this talk page that much of the content of this article was translated directly from the corresponding article in the Chinese Wikipedia, so I took a look there to see what the corresponding note said. It looks like the note ("仅限于入聲字") used to exist there too, but was removed in this edit in 2013. No edit summary indicating the reasoning was given though, nor was there any discussion on that talk page. The note that remains in that entry is also rather vague ("小儿经特有字母" - "Xiao'erjing special use letter"). — Umofomia (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

image of tombs removed

I've removed the image of the tombs at the Niujie Mosque since it is not actually an example of xiaoerjing. The Arabic script in the image is simply Arabic and the Chinese being a transliteration from that, not vice versa as would be the case w/ xiaoerjing, e.g. the first name艾哈麦德　布尔塔尼 would be "َاىْ هَا مَىْ دْ بُوْ عَر تَا نِ". Yung Wei (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

Interesting article, but without footnotes, most of it looks like original research and any parts that are not properly sourced can be removed. Please note:

“The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.”*

Please add inline citations. --Babelfisch (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the material i added to the article do have inline citations. This article was written by many people before me. There is not original research in this article, the sources are all in the reference section. i will repost the sources here if you did not see them-

• A. Forke. Ein islamisches Tractat aus Turkistan // T’oung pao. Vol. VIII. 1907.
• O.I. Zavyalova. Sino-Islamic language contacts along the Great Silk Road: Chinese texts written in Arabic Script // Chinese Studies (漢學研究). Taipei: 1999. № 1.
• Xiaojing Qur'an Dongxiang County, Lingxia autonomous prefecture, Gansu, PRC
• Huijiao Bizun 154 pp, photocopied edition.
• Muhammad Musah Abdulihakh. Islamic faith Q&A 2nd ed. Beiguan Street Mosque, Xining, Qinghai, PRC, appendix contains a Xiao'erjing-Hanyu Pinyin-Arabic alphabet comparison chart.
• Feng Zenglie. Beginning Dissertation on Xiao'erjing: Introducing a phonetic writing system of the Arabic script adopted for Chinese in The Arab World Issue #1. 1982.
• Chen Yuanlong. The Xiaojing writing system of the Dongxiang ethnicity in China's Dongxiang ethnicity. People's Publishing House of Gansu. 1999.

Frankly, i do not see any WP:SYNTH, the article is written in a no nonsense, facts laid out style without anything that remotely looks made up. It explains the history of the script and its functionability, etc., the people who wrote it were just too lazy to check the page numbers of the books they used so they left it like that. By the way, even if there were inline citations, you don't have access to the books anyway, leaving you without verification.Дунгане (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Parts of the article imply that there has been one single orthography of Xiao’erjing. I doubt that.

Дунгане/ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, this is not about you or just the sections you’ve added. The article contained lots of material that wasn’t properly sourced before you began to contribute.

On the sources you’ve copied here (no need, really, but if we’re at it ...):

• Xiaojing Qur'an. Dongxiang County, Lingxia autonomous prefecture, Gansu, PRC — Please add publisher, date and correct (original) title (which is not in English, presumably).
• Huijiao Bizun. 154 pp, photocopied edition. — Please add publisher, date and place. If this is not a regular publication (such as a book), it might be unsuitable as a reference on Wikipedia.
• Muhammad Musah (sic) Abdulihakh (sic) ... — dito. Was this actually published in English? I doubt it. If it wasn’t, please give the original title etc.
• The articles by 陈元龙 and by 冯增烈 were definitely not published in English, so these references are incorrect.

I do not understand what you’re implying or whom you’re addressing by what you write about access to books and verification. The Wikipedia rules on verifiability are very clear. --Babelfisch (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I say that anyone can BS, and pull out random page numbers and publishers, and it may very well be a lie, but if the book was published in China, we have no way of figuring out whether the book even exists or not. Thousands of wikipedia articles have references without publishers and obscure book titles, i invite you to clean them all up before selectively targeting this article, since from your tone i discern that you are hostile to xiaoerjing for some reason.

I do not see anywhere in the article saying that a single orthography of xiaoerjing exists. There are many dialects of mandarin in northern China, two major ones are Lan–Yin Mandarin and Zhongyuan Mandarin, xiaoerjing is used by hui who speak both dialects, so there is bound to be variation, the article pertains mostly to xiaoerjing when writing standard mandarin. Many lin yan and zhongyuan mandarin words are the same as standard mandarin and have the same phonetics and soudns, so xiaoerjing can be used to write all of them. From what i see in your comments, you are hostile to xiaoerjing at the least and at the most doubting the existence of xiaoerjing, my references are linked directly to the books which prove that it does indeed exist, and suggesting that this is a prank article is absurd.

I have already sourced material which was previously lacking in inline citations with the sources i brought in, which verify the material already in the article.

And the books do appear to have been published in China, there is no rule that books have to be published in america to be used.

And according to your logic, since xiaoerjing is unsourced, massive chunks of the Pinyin article should be removed first for having no inline citations, and since the pinyin on virtually every single article on chinese people etc. has no sources, they should all be deleted.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And saying "Parts of the article imply that there has been one single orthography of Xiao’erjing" is NOT' a good reason to delete massive portions of the article, not only does it not say that in the article, it is totally irrelavant as to whether it should be deleted, I'm getting the gut feeling that you are looking for any random excuse to destroy the article.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Many things you note, such as lack of publishers, etc, are true of many other articles, yet you only target this article for suppposed outrage over sourcing. for example, look at Passion Hymns which totally lacks sources like thousands of other articles, yet you only come here to complain.Дунгане (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with this article for a while, but as I remember, when this article was rewritten, it was done so by a user as a translation from the Mandarin WP, which I then helped copy-edit. Someone could probably rewrite the article according to English sources they had access to, but if it removes valid points from the Mandarin sources, then that's not exactly good. Ideally, we need someone with the actual Chinese sources and who can actually read Chinese. The problem doesn't lie too much with OR or the source of the material; it's pretty certain (well IMO) to have come from the Chinese language source. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 20:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese article is GA, and has links for its inline citations. The other refs can probably be had at any decent university library. I don't know if Babelfish's comment was intended as a threat of action, or just notice that the English article is not sourced to GA standards. — kwami (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ/Дунгане (presuming that this is one user with two different accounts), I’ve only been editing on Wikipedia since 2004, so I don’t understand some of the jargon. What does “BS” stand for? Basawala and Kwamikagami, what does “GA” stand for?

• “if the book was published in China, we have no way of figuring out whether the book even exists or not” – What do you mean? If you live in the US, maybe you won’t find the books in your local library, but that’s not the point. This is about verifiability, citing sources (multiple third-party sources!) and maybe about original research. It is not good practice to quote Chinese sources and present them as if they were books published in English. Sources must be quoted with their original title, otherwise it is impossible to identify them. I think China joined the ISBN system in 1986. Basically all books published in the PRC since the late 1980s have ISBNs and

It was not my intention to offend anyone. And actually, I am not from the United States, nor do I live in the United States. In fact, I live in China. It is English that is not quite my native language. I do know Chinese and several other languages in this area, and I do use Chinese sources.

• “And the books do appear to have been published in China, there is no rule that books have to be published in america to be used.” – Of course there is no such rule, and I never said there was. On the contrary, I sincerely hope we’ll be able to overcome Wikipedia’s systemic bias and I’m trying to help with that.
• “from your tone i discern that you are hostile to xiaoerjing for some reason”, “you are hostile to xiaoerjing at the least and at the most doubting the existence of xiaoerjing”, “I’m getting the gut feeling that you are looking for any random excuse to destroy the article.” – I’m rather surprised by your “gut feeling” and I do not appreciate your allegations. I don’t understand how you got that impression and I can’t imagine why anyone would be “hostile to Xiao’erjing”.
• “suggesting that this is a prank article is absurd” – For the record: I didn’t suggest anything like that.
• “... true of many other articles, yet you only target this article” – No, I don’t. I’ve been editing since 2004. Yes, there are problems with other articles as well, and I try to fix them when I can, just as I’m trying with this article.
• “massive chunks of the Pinyin article should be removed first for having no inline citations” – Go ahead, and I’ll support you. Everything on Wikipedia should be properly sourced. If the article on Pinyin contains material that isn’t properly sourced and you have any doubts about it, please do challenge those sections. That’s a completely normal process on Wikipedia. (However, I suspect that it will be easy to find proper sources on Pinyin, which has official status in the PRC [and on Taiwan] as well as at the United Nations, it is a system taught to millions of children in Chinese schools every year and to thousands of non-native speakers who study Chinese. Xiao’erjing clearly has a different level of significance.)
• “since the pinyin on virtually every single article on chinese people etc. has no sources, they should all be deleted” – The status of Pinyin is completely different from that of Xiao’erjing. Pinyin is a well-established transcription system that is widely used; Xiao’erjing isn’t. I suspect it will be very easy to find multiple sources for any Pinyin titles of articles, but as I said: if you have reasonable doubts about Pinyin spellings, I think you really should intervene. I’ve been correcting many Pinyin spellings myself.

But back to this article:

• “I do not see anywhere in the article saying that a single orthography of xiaoerjing exists.” – There are large tables that do suggest a certain standard. There are no sources given for those tables.
• “the article pertains mostly to xiaoerjing when writing standard mandarin” – That’s one of the questions I have. Was Xiao’erjing actually used to write modern Putonghua? There’s a bit of a contradiction: On one hand the article says Xiao’erjing is used “especially [for] the Lanyin, Zhongyuan and Northeastern dialects or the Dungan language”, which is a certain linguistic variety, and on the other hand there are those tables that suggest a certain uniformity, or even that Xiao’erjing was used to write Putonghua, which was probably not it’s main application. I’m not an expert on this topic, I’m just noting that contradiction, and the lack of proper sources.

This article just needs some more work. No offence. Cheers, --Babelfisch (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

GA stands for Good article. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Xiao'erjing help

What would be the Xiao'erjing equivalents for the following words?:

1. 昂 áng = ءْاݣ‎ or ءْا ?
2. 擦 cā = ?
3. 純 chún = ?
4. 綽 chuò = ?
5. 粗 cū = ?
6. 但 dàn = دًا‎ or دً ?
7. 的 de = دْ or دِؤ‎ ?
8. 額 é = عـَ‎ or عَ?
9. 非 fēi = ﻓُﻮِٔ or فِ‎?
10. 附 fù = ﻓُﻮْ or حْ ?
11. 更 gèng = قْعݣ‎ or ﻗْﻊ?
12. 何 hé = حـْ‎ or حْ?
13. 紅 hóng = خْوݣ‎ or ﺡْﻮ?
14. 解 jiě = كِئ‎ or دِﻰٔ?
15. 卡 kǎ = ?
16. 看 kàn = ?
17. 考 kǎo = ?
18. 肯 kěn = ?
19. 坑 kēng = ?
20. 空 kōng = ?
21. 跨 kuà = ?
22. 虧 kuī = ?
23. 拉 lā = ?
24. 來 lái = ?
25. 蘭 lán = ?
26. 浪 làng = ?
27. 勞 láo = ?
28. 樂 lè = ?
29. 類 lèi = ?
30. 冷 lěng = ?
31. 力 lì = لِر‎ or لِ‎?
32. 倆 liǎ = ?
33. 料 liào = ?
34. 林 lín = ?
35. 流 liú = ?
36. 柳 liǔ = ?
37. 攏 lǒng = ?
38. 樓 lóu = ?
39. 路 lù = ?
40. 旅 lǚ = ?
41. 卵 luǎn = ?
42. 論 lùn = ?
43. 邏 luó = ?
44. 呣 ḿ = ?
45. 滅 miè = ?
46. 那 nà = ?
47. 耐 nài = ?
48. 難 nán = ?
49. 囊 náng = ?
50. 腦 nǎo = ?
51. 呢 ne = ?
52. 內 nèi = ?
53. 嫩 nèn = ?
54. 能 néng = ?
55. 年 nián = ?
56. 娘 niáng = ?
57. 鳥 niǎo = ?
58. 捏 niē = ?
59. 您 nín = ?
60. 寧 níng = ?
61. 農 nóng = ?
62. 努 nǔ = ?
63. 暖 nuǎn = ?
64. 虐 nüè = ?
65. 挪 nuó = ?
66. 喔 ō = ?
67. 爬 pá = ?
68. 拍 pāi = ?
69. 判 pàn = ?
70. 旁 páng = ?
71. 跑 pǎo = ?
72. 配 pèi = ?
73. 朋 péng = ?
74. 皮 pí = ?
75. 片 piàn = ?
76. 票 piào = ?
77. 品 pǐn = ?
78. 平 píng = ?
79. 剖 pōu = ?
80. 普 pǔ = ?
81. 洽 qià = ?
82. 千 qiān = ?
83. 強 qiáng = ?
84. 巧 qiǎo = ?
85. 請 qǐng = ?
86. 球 qiú = ?
87. 區 qū = ?
88. 全 quán = ?
89. 缺 quē = ?
90. 群 qún = ?
91. 然 rán = ?
92. 讓 ràng = ?
93. 繞 rào = ?
94. 認 rèn = ?
95. 仍 réng = ?
96. 容 róng = ?
97. 柔 róu = ?
98. 入 rù = ?
99. 軟 ruǎn = ?
100. 瑞 ruì = ?
101. 潤 rùn = ?
102. 若 ruò = ?
103. 傻 shǎ = ?
104. 曬 shài = ?
105. 善 shàn = ?
106. 上 shàng = ?
107. 少 shǎo = ?
108. 社 shè = ?
109. 身 shēn = ?
110. 手 shǒu = ?
111. 書 shū = ?
112. 刷 shuā = ?
113. 帥 shuài = ?
114. 雙 shuāng = ?
115. 睡 shuì = ?
116. 順 shùn = ?
117. 說 shuō = ?
118. 台 tái = ?
119. 談 tán = ?
120. 躺 tǎng = ?
121. 討 tǎo = ?
122. 藤 téng = ?
123. 提 tí = ?
124. 天 tiān = ?
125. 跳 tiào = ?
126. 貼 tiē = ?
127. 挺 tǐng = ?
128. 透 tòu = ?
129. 兔 tù = ?
130. 團 tuán = ?
131. 腿 tuǐ = ?
132. 屯 tún = ?
133. 陀 tuó = ?
134. 脫 tuō = ?
135. 習 xí = ?
136. 下 xià = ?
137. 現 xiàn = ?
138. 謝 xiè = ?
139. 醒 xǐng = ?
140. 雄 xióng = ?
141. 修 xiū = ?
142. 需 xū = ?
143. 選 xuǎn = ?
144. 雪 xuě = ?
145. 尋 xún = ?
146. 陽 yáng = يْاݣ‎ or ݣْاݣ‎?
147. 業 yè = لٍ or اِئ‎?
148. 一 yī = ىِ or ءِ‎?
149. 雜 zá = ?
150. 贊 zàn = ?
151. 贓 zāng = ?
152. 造 zào = ?
153. 這 zhè = جـْ‎ or جْ?
154. 住 zhù = ﺟُﻮْ or ﺟُﻮ?
155. 總 zǒng = ?
156. 走 zǒu = ?
157. 租 zū = ?
158. 鑽 zuān = ?

Thanks. --JackonLee54 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Difference between certain Xiao'erjing letters?

I have some questions regarding some letters used in Xiao'erjing.

- ث can refer to "q-" or "x-" in Hanyu Pinyin. In what contexts is it "q," and in what contexts is it "x-"? Are there cases where it should be used instead of ٿ for "q-"?

- د can refer to "d-" or "j-". In what contexts is it "j-"?

-س can refer to "s-" or "x-". In what contexts is it "x-"?

- What's the difference between س, س with dot, and ص for "s-"?

- ش can refer to "sh-" and "x-". In what contexts is it "x-"?

- What's the difference between ط and ظ for "z-"?

- In what contexts is م "n-"?!???!

I find Xiao'erjing beautiful, and I want to start writing in it. My issues with it so far are shown in the above questions. Does anyone have the answers??? OmegaGmaster (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I know it's been four years lol BUT , the letters overlapping, as you point out, is the outcome of the fact that the writing system didn't have a single standard version (it still does not). It had two generic standards, one from Xining, another Lanzhou, and another from the NE. Also, some writers took the liberty to just do whatever. Anywho, since you're interested in writing in Xiao'erjing, I am currently working on a project, that you would appreciate a lot. I have been studying the old manuscripts and how they wrote, also have been reviewing the works of a few Chinese teachers of the language online, asking them questions if need be. I am compiling a list of Chinese characters and their corresponding Xiao'erjing writing. The modern accepted way of writing is:

• ث is "x-"
• ش is "sh-"
• ٿ or ٹ is "q-"
• د is "d-"
• ڭ is "j-" (and not "-ng" as explained in the wiki page. No historic manuscript used this letter as -ng)
• both س and ص are "s-", and there are rules for when to use which. Generally if the letter is followed by "_o" or "_u", you use ص
• both ت and ط are "t-", same rule as "s-" applies
• both ح and خ are "h-", same rule as "s-" and "t-" applies
• both ز and ظ are "z-". I've seen some standards use ذ instead of ز, your call. same rule as "s-", "t-", "h-" applies
• apparently س with a single dot was used for a specific tone that no longer exists in most dialects of Mandarin, and especially the NW dialects, so, just treat it as a س
• idk what context uses م for "n-", my guess is that it was something carried over from Middle chinese's NW dialects.

so .... while there's a lot of variations on what's the correct consonant, and it can be a headahce, it's nothing compared to the headache the vowels, diphtongs, triphthong, front nasal ending, back nasal ending, all of that, and their variations among various ways people write. I am working on the package that will organize chinese characters and address this. BasilLeaf (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

apparently س with a single dot was used for a specific tone that no longer exists in most dialects of Mandarin, and especially the NW dialects, so, just treat it as a س

Curious: do you have more sources on this? For a while I have been searching far and wide for the single-dotted seen: I haven't really found actual examples of this (except *maybe* one but I think the dot is a sukun). If you have some sources for the historic orthography with the single dot I think that might be quite useful to me. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 19:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Arabic and Persian in Xiao-er-jing

I assume Arabic and Persian loanwords are written the same, but how are they pronounced? ~~ א. א. אינסטלציה (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The image posted on the page itself is an appropriate example: here The arabic words are written as they would in Arabic, so I assume they're pronounced however they would be in Arabic, as best as possible. For example this line, 3rd line, right hand side page: «فِْی جَمِیع اِلاَوْقَاتِ وَالْاَحْوَالِ قًازًا وِیدُ نَقَه جُو», the first half of the phrase is Arabic, and gone a bit overkill with the diarectics lol, and it basically means "all in all", and the chinese bit, my guess was that it is "感赞唯独那告诸"? anyone else wanna correct me? 17:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Image of Tomb

Image of the tomb is not Xiaoerjing, It's an actual typical arabic, so it's not approporiate to present it as Xiaoerjing. BasilLeaf (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I noticed it was first removed by Yung Wei (talk · contribs) in 2009, who cited the same reasoning previously on this talk page, but was later added back in 2019 in this series of changes by 2409:4072:628D:EAAC:480E:5921:403F:2C8F (talk · contribs). I removed it again in this change. I encourage you to be bold and make such changes if you see similar issues in the future. — Umofomia (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)