284:
varieties are highly analytic and homophones abound even in the more phonetically rich Middle
Chinese pronunciations of many words whose modern reflexes generally carry on as homophones as well. Homophony and its consequences are universal linguistic features among Chinese varieties that merits an article unto itself and falls within the scope of wikipedia and meets its guidelines. Not only for humor, but it also leads to some serious confusion among its speakers. It can even focus on homophony in regional Mandarin, for example speakers who pronounce the syllables "lei" and "nei" as only "lei" or only "nei" and do not possess the distinction, which may lead to puns or confusion among these speakers or others. Or for example, there's a clothing chain called 衫国演义 "Romance of the Shirt Kingdom" which sounds like 三国演义 or the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" in many southerners' regional Mandarin. There may also be a section on Japanese names with unfortunate Mandarin pronunciations as well. These are phenomena which are painfully obvious to most Chinese and encountered on a daily basis. They form an integral part of Chinese linguistic culture. Knowledge exists precisely to provide a medium for documenting phenomena like this which may have few other appropriate outlets. There are difficulties in proving the speakers' perceptions of puns since there are few well-known works on the matter but a similar difficulty holds true for
272:- I see the point, primarily in the advertisement section which is clearly inappropriate and which I've just removed. It is not a synthesis of information from other articles, most of the target content is currently non-existent on wikipedia, but many of the examples in the article are because of the ease with which they can be found. Even so, how are articles like "List of Argentinians/Danes..." anything more than synthesizing information from other articles? Furthermore, there is nothing about it which advances a position, since the information can be immediately inferred from the material itself to any individual competent in the language. Stating that "pear" and "pair" are pronounced the same is as original as 2+2=4, and maybe an individual came to the conclusion independently, but the conclusion itself is a necessary result of systemic constraints.
362:- article can be improved to meet standards. The topic itself is a notable one and deserves to be expanded. Homophones and near homophones are a very important part of Mandarin Chinese. I do however, find the "Chinese" in the title slightly problematic. The other chinese languages are similar in their prominence of homophony but the article seems to actually be about Mandarin and should be labeled as such. The pronunciation for other chinese languages would be different, and since homophony is about pronunciation, the article should go ahead and be titled as being about Mandarin Chinese. The specific claims of
370:
do not apply here since no original argument is being made. The most general ideas in the article are all either cited or are common knowledge to anyone familiar with the language. For the latter, sources can be found and added, the article is new. The specific ideas in the article are cited and the
274:
I don't see how mentioning how "'Chinese' is not a language" is in any way appropriate. The article clearly outlines the scope as intending to encompass both
Standard Mandarin and other Sinitic varieties and in no place claims that Chinese is a language as "Chinese" can be an all-encompassing term.
294:
I do not believe this article merits deletion. I acknowledge some current content issues, but its the inappropriate content which needs deletion not the article. Furthermore, this article was created with the stated purpose of being a seed for later development and was never intended to be a good
283:
which despite superficial phonetic differences clearly point to something universal among them. Every variety of
Chinese has these particles, and anyone could learn how to sing the Internationale in their dialect and indeed before a standard form was chosen many people likely did. All Chinese
327:- I strongly disagree with deleting this article. The examples given are real, although just a very small selection of common puns. The article is also informative, it should eventually be expanded. The political part should probably be toned down, since we normally avoid to use the
162:
371:
article does not attempt to form a new conclusion based on those ideas. It states other widely held ideas which connect them and cites the sources, though not all. The article can and will be improve in the near future.
295:
article in the first place. What the article needs is more careful attention and more meaningful contributions. Given the variety of other analogous articles on wikipedia, it should in principle be permitted.
201:; it's possible that a decent article could be created here eventually, but none of the content is suitable as it stands. Indeed, 'Chinese' is not a language; Cantonese and Mandarin (amongst others) are. →
253:
The content should be closely reviewed by those with experience in the usage of such puns within the language and culture of the
Chinese to avoid possible embarrassments for the Wiki... --
156:
123:
96:
91:
100:
250:
224:
83:
343:, namely a written language (Chinese characters). Mandarin and Cantonese are spoken languages and their speakers use Chinese language for writing.
177:
144:
311:
87:
61:
17:
138:
380:
352:
315:
262:
238:
216:
65:
280:
276:
134:
49:
285:
79:
71:
184:
395:
36:
394:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
376:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
331:
word in any language unless it is totally necessary to understand the subject, which is not the case here.
236:
150:
333:
But nobody will like to be working on this article as long as it is tagged for deletion. I suggest to
299:
258:
372:
307:
170:
57:
348:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
231:
367:
254:
198:
328:
303:
289:
209:
53:
344:
363:
194:
117:
292:
yet these articles appear perfectly permissible and have been there for a while.
202:
335:
remove the tag in one week if the 'keeps' are still in the majority
275:
Using "in
Chinese" in the title is no different than the articles
48:. A move away from "Chinese" can be discussed on the talk page. (
388:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
113:
109:
105:
169:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
398:). No further edits should be made to this page.
183:
8:
249:I agree with the decision to move this too:
223:Note: This debate has been included in the
288:as well English language phenomena such as
251:list of China-related deletion discussions
225:list of China-related deletion discussions
222:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
281:Chinese exclamative particles
277:The Internationale in Chinese
415:
286:Mandarin Chinese profanity
80:Homophonic puns in Chinese
72:Homophonic puns in Chinese
239:21:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
217:19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
391:Please do not modify it.
381:20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
353:01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
316:14:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
263:20:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
66:18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
341:Chinese is a language
193:This reads as pure
44:The result was
339:Also, of course,
319:
302:comment added by
241:
228:
50:non-admin closure
406:
393:
318:
296:
229:
214:
207:
188:
187:
173:
121:
103:
34:
414:
413:
409:
408:
407:
405:
404:
403:
402:
396:deletion review
389:
297:
255:User:Warrior777
210:
203:
130:
94:
78:
75:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
412:
410:
401:
400:
384:
383:
373:Metal.lunchbox
356:
355:
338:
332:
321:
320:
293:
290:Elephant jokes
273:
266:
265:
243:
242:
191:
190:
127:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
411:
399:
397:
392:
386:
385:
382:
378:
374:
369:
365:
361:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
336:
330:
326:
323:
322:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
291:
287:
282:
278:
271:
268:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
245:
244:
240:
237:
235:
234:
226:
221:
220:
219:
218:
215:
213:
208:
206:
200:
196:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
390:
387:
359:
340:
334:
324:
298:— Preceding
269:
246:
233:I, Jethrobot
232:
211:
204:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
45:
43:
31:
28:
157:free images
360:Keep/Move
304:D.s.ronis
54:Roscelese
368:WP:SYNTH
345:Shenhemu
312:contribs
300:unsigned
199:WP:SYNTH
124:View log
62:contribs
247:Comment
163:WP refs
151:scholar
97:protect
92:history
135:Google
101:delete
364:WP:OR
325:Keep!
195:WP:OR
178:JSTOR
139:books
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
377:talk
366:and
349:talk
329:f***
308:talk
270:Keep
259:talk
205:ROUX
197:and
171:FENS
145:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
58:talk
46:keep
279:or
185:TWL
122:– (
379:)
351:)
337:.
314:)
310:•
261:)
227:.
165:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
60:⋅
52:)
375:(
347:(
306:(
257:(
230:—
212:₪
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
120:)
82:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.