Talk:Regional language

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Spanish

Why is Spanish not mentioned here? It is a regional language in the U.S. Being predominant in Puerto Rico and parts of California, Texas and New Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.213.195 (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Languages

Somebody should write about Indian Regional Languages too, there is official recognition to about 15 of these languages. India must have the most number of regional languages in the world, what with almost each state in India having its own language. The debate of National vs Regional language has been and still is rampant in the country.

Since you seem to know a bit about the situation, you should feel perfectly free to include this information. Be bold!--Yuje 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but then my style won't fit in because I only know what any lay person from India would. :D Plumenator 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentric

Have tried to put article into some semblance of order. This article is likely to be unwieldy if too many regional languages get a mention, so I have pruned some links (sorry, all!). However, this article is still overwhelmingly Eurocentric and would benefit from some examples from other continents. Man vyi 17:45, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Partly as a result of the recent disputes, and partly because of the difficulties to define what a regional language should be, I have proposed to narrow the scope of this article. See #Narrower approach below. — Insta ntnood 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese

Cantonese is de facto official in Hong Kong and Macau, and are used for official purposes, e.g, by the government, in the law courts, in the meetings of the legislature. There is at least one law in Hong Kong requiring the use of Cantonese, but not Mandarin in audio notice. As for the definition of country, cf. list of countries and list of sovereign states. — Insta ntnood 13:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official language in HK and Macau is the Chinese language, and it is this language which will be reflected here if there is any need to suddenly define the PRC as "three countries, two systems".--Huaiwei 11:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese and English are the official written language as according to the Basic Law and other laws. When spoken, for all official purposes, such as meetings of the legislature, speeches made by government officials, trials in law courts, etc., Cantonese and Putonghua are practically official. As for law courts, however, Chinese languages other than Cantonese and Mandarin are accepted, and interpretation is available anyway. There are laws in Hong Kong specifying that English and Cantonese (but not Putonghua) must be used, e.g. verbal annunciation in lift cars. The word country as in the saying "One Country, Two Systems" is synonymous with State (sovereign state). — Insta ntnood 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do show us the basic law dictating only the written language as the official language of the two SARS if you are able. Otherwise, your argument dosent shift from the fact that Cantonese remains a de facto official language, and not specified as such in any official text describing the official language of the SARS. That a language is used in the law courts or governmental speeches dosent make them any more "official" than de facto. Any Chinese dialect can be used in the Singaporean law courts, and are used in official government broadcasts, so does this make them official overnight?--Huaiwei 17:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't dictate only written languages are official languages. See article 9 in both basic laws. See also section 3 of the Official Languages Ordinance (chapter 5), for the case in Hong Kong. Can a Singaporean MP swear in any Chinese languages she/he prefers when she/he assumes office? Can the Singaporean President deliver his annual address to the parliament in any Chinese languages she/he prefers? — Insta ntnood 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So they dont actually dictate any writtern langaage as official, when in actual fact they simply define "Chinese" and "English" as official language without having to specify whether they are writtern or spoken, as is the case in every single country on earth (other then perhaps the PRC, but again this is debatable). Is it only instantnood who once went around claiming official languages only refer to the spoken, and not the writtern aspect of their respective languages. So it is pretty obvious that you cannot add an entry describing Cantonese as an "official language" in the two SARS, for they simply are not. As for the Singaporean instance, no law forbids one from swearing in any language, so since when do a matter of personal preference become legislature? And since when do the Singaporean president have to deliver his annual address to parliament? Well the president of Singapore cant exactly deliver that in any Chinese language...coz he isnt Chinese! :D--Huaiwei 18:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Singaporean constitution, Malay, English, Mandarin (note: not "Mandarin Chinese") and Tamil are the official languages [1]. Can an MP speaks in Shanghainese when speaking in a parliament meeting [2]? The PRC considers Putonghua to be official (in mainland China), so as the ROC, which considers Kuo-yü to be official. The President of Singapore delivers a "President's Address" to the Parliament annually at its opening, doesn't he? — Insta ntnood 19:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by user:Alanmak

In response to user:Alanmak's edit summaries [3]: " Hong Kong is not an example for "An official language of a country may also be spoken as a regional language in a region of a neighbouring country", as Hong Kong, Guangdong are within the same nation. " - Please kindly don't confuse the different concepts of country, sovereign state and nation. " Saying "Cantonese is a regional language that is closely related to the state's main language" is POV.It implies Cantonese and Mandarin are two separate languages.Tibetan is a better example for that. " - In what way are Cantonese and Mandarin intelligible? " Cantonese seems not to be a very good example of "regional language" " - Why is it not? — Insta ntnood 21:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese

Cantonese and Wu are recognized as languages by almost all reliable and non-biased sources, such as Ethnologue, most non-Chinese linguists, and most encyclopedias. Furthermore, the situation is exactly the same as with regional languages like Catalan and Sicilian, which in the past were simply regarded as dialects of Spanish and English, respectively. Cantonese is a language with more than 60 million speakers, greater than Italian, and it definitely deserves listing. As for the POV issues, it's already stated in the first paragraphs that regional languages are often considered to be dialects. --Yuje 05:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separatist POV; Wu, Cantonese, mainland China and HK

I think to say that Wu and Cantonese are languages and is separatist POV is itself POV. Tibetan is recognised as a language by the PRC government but I don't think they advocate the separation of Tibet from the PRC. As for whether mainland China and HK are separate countries or not, I don't think HK has ever been defined as a country. What about the phrase:one country, two systems? LDHan 13:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely my point in multiple discussions now, but no, Instantnood insists on calling HK a "country" by insisting that the word "country" can mean jungles, dessert, and cavemen.--Huaiwei 11:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest opeining up a separate section in the article discussing the "special case" for the various fangyan in China. - Alan 06:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it special or particular to China? The situation is the same in many other parts of the world. Languages like Catalan, Sicilian, Venetian, Occitan, Scots, Okinawan, etc, have close relationships to the official languages of their countries, despite not always being mutually intelligible, yet in the past were widely denigrated, not regarded as languages, and frequently demoted to being simply just mere "dialects". If anything, the ones in China are a great poster child for this situation, as not only is this "dialect" issue taken to much further extremes in China, but the number of speakers of each variety outnumbers most other regional languages, and sometimes even entire countries, such as France, Germany, and Italy. --Yuje 06:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can hardly use the relative numbers of speakers as a definitive factor in this language/dialect debate, for this is obviously unscientific. Is Latin demoted to a dialect when its number of speakers drop? Just as you derate others for having an "agenda" in demoting Chinese fangyan as dialects, you obviously also have an agenda in classifying them as distinct languages from each other. The relationships between the Chinese dialects are in no way similar to that between the above examples you list. Chinese dialects evolved from one single language family, and the single major distinctive characteristic between them is in terms of pronunciation, which is hardly surprising considering vast geographies and the relatively limited north-south exchange for centuries of Chinese history. They are, to put it bluntly, corruptions of a single pronunciation standard over time and space, something which occurs frequently and continously as it does today with just about any language. Yet, their grammar and vocabulary remain remarkably similar, and this can hardly be an occurance of chance. How many other language families in the entire world show similar characteristics as this?--Huaiwei 11:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you mentioned this, and openly displayed how lacking your familiarity with linguistics is. Sicililian, Venetian, Occitan, Galician, Catalan, etc all are exactly similar to the Chinese dialects. They all evolved from a single language family, namely the Romance family, and all have a direct descent from Latin, just as the Cantonese, Wu, Mandarin, etc all have a direct descent from Old Chinese. In the past, their ancesters were regarded simply as Vulgar Latin, and even into the Middle Ages, writing continued to be in Latin instead of these varieties. Even long afterwards, they still regarded as being mere "dialects" of the more prestigious Latin-derived languages in their home countries (Sicilian and Venetian dialects of Italian, Catalan and Galician dialects of Spanish, Occitan and Catalan as dialects of French). And this split happaned for the exact same reason as the split in Chinese. "Corruptions" of a single standard pronunciation over time and space, geographic distances, regional variation, and the passage of time. Yet their grammar and vocabulary remain remarkably similar, to the point that some varieties still remain mutually intelligible to a small degree (ie Spanish and Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, etc). I myself can read Spanish and Italian to a small extent using what I remember from high school Latin. Take a read at Romance languages and see all the shared grammataical and vocabulary features. I'm daring to hope you might actually learn something and stop directing personal attacks, hidden agendas, and ulterior motives at me. I'm glad you brought up the question about how many other langauge families in the entire world show such similar characteristics. The answer is "most of the world". The Slavic languages (shared grammatical features and vocabulary, descent from Old Slavonic), the Romance languages, the Germanic languages (except for English), and many of the Indian languages (from Sanskrit) all exist from a similar situation. --Yuje 18:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically the old question of whether "Chinese" is a single language or a group of different but related languages. How about a paragraph to say that linguistically they are languages but for cultural and political reasons they are held to be one language by many Chinese people, with a link to Identification of the varieties of Chinese. LDHan 11:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Huaiwei's view of language, not only of Chinese, is not the one held by linguists, ie scholars who study and describe language scientifically. LDHan 11:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are assuming that linguists have came to a concensus that the Chinese "dialects" are indeed languages. Is this so? My view of the language is common amongst the majority of Chinese speakers in the Chinese mainland, in Taiwan, in Malaysia and in Singapore, where a combination of governmental language policies, and acknowledgement of Chinese history and culture often portrays the Chinese language as one single entity, while celebrating the variety of dialects as a demonstration of "unity in diversity" within the Chinese realm. Some of the biggest opponents of this view, in contrast, tend to be speakers of a single Chinese dialect outside the Chinese Mainland but within the PRC, or overseas Chinese who have never been exposed to the Chinese language in all its linguistic diversity, and who choose to highlight the only dialect they know as distinct from the dialect most commonly associated with a "communist" state.--Huaiwei 12:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is indeed so, and it's not an assumption. Any university-level introductory class in linguistics (or a textbook from such a course) will inevitably present Chinese as the poster child example of languages demoted to being dialects for nationalistic reason. Just look into some of the reputable encyclopedias, linguistics books, or sites like Ethnologue.

And I'm afraid the pie in the sky "unity in diversity" view doesn't match up with reality. In Taiwan, Taiwanese and Hakka were supressed, and Mandarin promoted until only the 1990's. There was a history of POJ literature and newspapers in Hakka and Taiwanese, and these were banned after the Nationalists took power there. China, despite allowing native language education for non-Han, doesn't extend this to Han Chinese. From first grade onwards, all classes are taught in Mandarin. China has been so anal about its Mandarin policy it even threatened to fire and ban newscasters who spoke Mandarin in Hong Kong or Taiwanese accents. If you ever go to Shanghai, you'll see people in the subways passing out fliers and billboards encouraging people to speak in Mandarin instead of Shanghainese. They even launched a campaign a while back, requiring that all service-industry workers address customers in Mandarin only, or face having to attend remedial Mandarin classes. And funny you mention Singapore. The language policy of Singapore was set Lee Kuan-Yew, a native English speaker who grew up speaking no Chinese, and up to now, is still not fully literate. He closed down all the Chinese language schools and replace them with English ones. If you read his memoirs, you'll see that he quite openly declared his intentions of replacing Hokkien, Cantonese, Hainan, etc with Mandarin. To that end, he banned radio broadcasts, television, and public speechs in non-Mandarin Chinese (except for his own party when he was politically campaigning, of course). He stated his views that the variety of different Chinese speeches promoted disunity in Singapore's Chinese, and he intended that they switch to Mandarin instead. He most assuredly did not celebrate the "unity in diversity" view. According to his writings, he wasn't a beliver in multilingualism, he believed that learning a new language would come at the expense of previously learned ones, and he cited multiple examples of multilingual countries as examples he did not want to follow. In short, all the governments you mentioned have vested political motives in demoting the Chinese languages down to dialects, and have at times even taken repressive measures against them. --Yuje 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh is it so? Where's the proof? Do all Chinese linguists also take this view? I took linguist classes in university, and no, there is an apparant disagreement in this regard. And it is a fact that linguists are often very enthusiastic in promoting linguistic variations as "languages" in their own right. My lecturer regularly denounced the Singapore government's attempts to degrade Singlish, and calls it a language on its own. Do we therefore take his view unilaterally and disregard all opposing views? You pointed out that the Chinese dialects are being "demoted" due to a "nationalist" cause according to many texts. By your actions, you are effectively disregarding this existance of this problem, and attempting to use wikipedia to sidestep nationalism and politics ever present in this debate. Wikipedia is not your propaganda engine just as you berate others for doing the same.

It is without question, that all places you mention do indeed promote Mandarin over other Chinese dialects (although your literature on the Singaporeans situation is unsurprisingly outdated and full of presumptions). When I talk about the "celebrating the variety of dialects as a demonstration of "unity in diversity" within the Chinese realm", I refer not to governmental policies, but to the people on the ground. In every single one of these places you mention, various Chinese dialects continue to be spoken, and continue to thrive dispite the promotion of Mandarin as a unifying language. Every Mainlander I have every come across speaks at least one dialect other then Mandarin. Mandarin, Minnanese, and Hakka names of train stations are announced in its modern subway system in Taipei, and I doubt I need to even mention the promotion of Minnanese (aka Taiwanese) in Taiwan as opposed to Mandarin in the political context of today. I felt very at home when I was in Taiwan, because just about anyone speaks at least one language I know...Mandarin, Minnanese, or even English.

And over here in Singapore, you may have decades of "speak Mandarin campaings", and while Mandarin does become the de facto lingua franca here amongst the ethnic Chinese, it dosent stop people from sticking to their respective dialect groups. Minnanese (or Hokkien as we commonly call it here), is very much alive in my family and in wider society in Singapore, as is Cantonese, Hakka, Teochew, Shanghainese, Hainanese, and just about any southern Chinese dialect you can think of. Parents continue to teach their children Chinese dialects at home, and leave the schools to teach Mandarin and English. Even younger Singaporeans take pride in being able to speak multiple languages, and declare their ability to speak multiple Chinese dialects as thou they were badges of honour.

Your definition of a "native English speaker" seems odd, considering you called Lee Kuan Yew one. For your enlightenment, Singaporeans in general do not consider ourselves "native speakers" of the English language even if its the only language some of us know from birth (which is actually a rarity in itself), or even if we are taught the language as a first language. He didnt "closed down all the Chinese language schools and replace them with English ones." He closed down all the Chinese, English and Malay language schools and replace them with government ones which teach all languages. No school today is called an "English" school or by any language for that matter. The heritage of these former language-based schools continue to thrive, however, via the existance of the SAP schools (Nine elite former Chinese-stream schools who offer advanced Chinese courses) and the Madrasahs (Islamic schools), neither of which are closed down nor supressed.

Multiple Chinese dialects can be heard on Singaporean radio everyday in the form of news broadcast for years, contrary to your claim that is banned. Cantonese songs and opera were heard on national television during government-linked fund-raising shows. It is a requirement for all ethnic Chinese Senior Police Officers to gain proficiency in at least one Chinese dialect other than Mandarin during their training, and it is considered a plus point when police officers are able to speak multiple Chinese dialects. Just about all political parties, including Lee's, use non-Mandarin dialects when making political speeches, of which Low Thia Khiang's fiery Teochew speeches in the Teochew heartland of Hougang is particularly famous for throughout contemporary Singaporean political history. In fact, the opposition parties were the first to use Chinese dialects as a way to enter the hearts of the locals, and continue to outshine the ruling party in this regard.

Mr Lee's memoirs need to be read in context, and not literally as thou he still sticks to these policies in contemporary Singapore. He was right in saying the multitude of Chinese dialects has prevented social unity in early Singapore, most prominently displayed by the numerous secret societies who regularly erupt into major riots and social disturbances for decades on end, usually involving gangs from different dialect groups. That he dosent believe in multilingualism (I would take this comment with a pinch of salt, thou) hasent manifested in the multi-lingual educational polices which has been around since the 1970s, and has never been enforced on wider society who continue to find social space in speaking whatever language or dialect they so prefer. The recent SARS epidemic was a case in point. The government had to recognise the fact that Mandarin isnt quite the lingua franca is wants it to be amongst all ethnic Chinese in Singapore, and swiftly began broadcasting health advise and notices in multiple Chinese dialects.

But in the end, how often do you find Singaporeans going all out demanding to elevate these Chinese dialects as "languages" despite obvious resistance to the use of Mandarin and the "oppresion" of Chinese dialects? It is one thing about keeping a dialect alive by continuing to use it in everyday life. Its another when attempting to twist academic fact to counter governmental policies. You continue to use "academic concensus" as a cover to promote your POV, but just where is this "concensus"? "Concensus" from the "reputable texts" from western world, but not from the very places where the language is used? Are these reputable texts above propaganda?

Just sit back and think about it. Your extended stay outside East Asia may mould your views in a certain direction, but it dosent always reflect contemporary views in East Asia today. This statement is sweeping, but I often here of this unspoken acknowledgement that the west, particularly the United States, is often several decades behind in their knowledge of the rest of the world. Just go find out how many Americans continue to think that China is all about bullock carts and nothing else.--Huaiwei 05:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm very glad you've finally conceeded the point that the Chinese languages aren't unique among language families in their close relationships, or that they're somehow incomparible with other regional languages. As I was aware of and fully acknowledged, Taiwan's language policy has changed in the last two decades with the Taiwaniziation movement. Whether or not it will encourage independence forces or a future war, I can't fault them for reviving and protecting their own culture. That you indirectly avoided mentioning the mainland PRC government and mentioned only your friends probably means you're just as aware of PRC policy as I am. While half of the PRC still may not be fluent in Putonghua, this certainly hasn't been for lack of trying on the government's part. When it passes laws that states that non-standard dialects and dialectal characters "carry the influence of colonialism, feudalism, pornography, vulgarism and other unhealthy trends, which are detrimental to cultural progress" and threatens that "transgressors of the law will be given a deadline to correct their behavior, and those who refuse to change or cause serious consequences should be fined", I'm sure even you can see the implications. Given that Mr. Lee's book was published in 2000, I wasn't fully aware just how outdated the information within was. If my summary of Mr. Lee's position is somehow in error, please inform me. He forced the Chinese schools, including the dialect ones, to close down, and mandated English as the language of instruction for all courses, save for "mother tongue" classes (though he named Mandarin as a nonnative stepmother tongue). That's what I meant by English schools, and you'll understand if I didn't name them as multilingual schools. Frankly, I'm sure you're more than familiar enough with those English-speaking Singaporeans who struggle through their "mother tongue" courses and barely muster enough to pass their exams. Of course, I mentioned dialect in political campaigned. As for news broadcast, unless the situation has changed drastically from when I last lived there, the only time dialect would be heard on the news would be during when dialect speakers are interviewed. Of course, I haven't spent a lifetime living in Singapore, and I don't deny the very real existence of dialects in Singapore, but on the other hand, Mr. Lee does give equally real statistics on the declining pecentages of dialect-speaking households (and corresponding increases in Mandarin and English) as a result of his policies. Make of them what you will.

Lastly, thanks for taking the time to answer cordially this time. You almost managed to hold back from a parting insult this time, and quite a mild and indirect one at that. As off-topic as hearing about your personal life is, still glad to hear you views. But back to the topic of regional language, I understand that you still have nothing to say about the issue. And I'd advise you to avoid making sweeping generalizations about Americans, especially when I suspect you yourself lack experience of extended stays in America (correct me if I'm wrong, though). Americans didn't become the world's economic, financial, and trading power, nor gained its lead, reputation, and respect in international relations organizations, nor spread its Golden Arches, Pepsi's, and Levi Jeans across the world through isolation and ignorance of the rest of the world. Nor did they do it by reluctance to admit errors of fact or judgement, or by sacrificing facts and truth to political expediency. The last would be a point the PRC would do well to heed, as would Wikipedia editors. Linguistics is a science, not an evil imperialistic western idealogy; mixing nationalism with science inevitably leads to [Hwang Woo-Suk|embarrasment]].

PS. Hong Kong policy is that of "biliteralism and trilingualism" (兩文三語) [4] [5]. And if you continue to believe that Mandarin and Cantonese were the same language, why would the Hong Kong government need speakers trilingual in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese? [6] (And dialects in written form aren't the same as written Mandarin, either; else why would the novel Flowers of Shanghai (海上花列傳) need to be translated from written Shanghainese to standard Chinese?) For that matter, you have stated before (when presented with a documentary) that you can't understand Cantonese; how can you claim to be speaking the same language yet uncomprehending?--Yuje 07:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(response to user:LDHan's comment at 13:53, August 28) That depends. The English word country is sometimes synonymous with State (or sovereign state), but very often it's not. — Insta ntnood 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That you have to constantly remind others on the above ironically serves to demonstrate the fact that the word "Country" is actually commonly considered synonymous with an independent political entity.--Huaiwei 17:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know that country in one country, two system meant nation state or sovereign state, but I still question whether HK has ever been a country. Under British rule it was a colony, territory or overseas territory, after the handover it became a SAR. Countries which are not currently sovereign states eg England, usually were at some time in the past, I might be wrong this though. LDHan 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See list of countries, which was thoroughly discussed when and before it was compiled, and was later voted to be a featured list. Nation-state is another thing. Neither nation nor nation-state is equivalent to State (sovereign state). Some inhabited territories, such as colonies, external territories, unincorporated territories, etc., are countries but are not States. Hong Kong was in the past a crown colony of the UK, the term crown colony was later replaced by dependent territory by Westminster. It was subsequently replaced by overseas territory in 2002, but that's not related to Hong Kong since Hong Kong's sovereignty was transferred in 1997. — Insta ntnood 18:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly pulling up list of countries will not serve any purpose, because I have to remind you yet again, that this list is not authoritative and is not immune from contestations. Your long-winded text on what is what and what is not what is nothing more then a confused mess. Mind explaining to us just what is your definition of the word country before we go further?--Huaiwei 18:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of countries on Wikipedia has been contested before it became what is is now like. It wouldn't have been a featured list if it's flawed and problematic. I don't have and I don't make up my own definition. — Insta ntnood 18:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the definition of "country" on that list is weird, eg it doesn't include Scotland or Wales, it you told a Scot that Scotland isn't a country ('cuz it said so on wiki) you would no doubt get quite a robust reply. LDHan 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That definition of country is not the subject matter of the list of countries. You won't find, for instance, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland being listed on the last page of The Economist, where figures and indicators are provided. — Insta ntnood 22:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will find them in any listing of "Commonwealth countries" thou, so just where is your consistency? Yes, the definition of the word country is not the business of the article list of countries. Perhaps you may have to therefore explain your constant reference to that list in justifying your definitions of countries, including the two SARS.--Huaiwei 23:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narrower approach

The definition of regional language, as for the purpose of this article, is the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. What about narrowing the scope of this article - discuss only the languages recognised as regional languages as a result of the charter? — Insta ntnood 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

Re [7] - A language does not automatically become a regional language just because it's spoken in some certain places. — Insta ntnood 18:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Huaiwei 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a language automatically become a regional language? Are Hmong and Somali regional languages in the Twin Cities region of Minnesota? — Insta ntnood 18:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you established the meaining of the phrase "regional language" in the first place before throwing up extreme examples to push a point? Is the Chinese dialect in question as obscure as Hmong and Somali?--Huaiwei 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as I am concerned, it is the Chinese language which is the official language in the PRC (and its two SARS), ROC, and Singapore." is Huaiwei's excuse to remove regional languages.
"Mandarin happens to be considered official language in the PRC, in ROC, and in Singapore" the very next day.

His very own positions aren't consistent with each other. Anyone else get the feeling that he's not so much motivated by the actual facts, but constantly shifting his argument to whatever seems convenient to justify a revert?--Yuje 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- In what way am I shifting my position, when Chinese and Mandarin are considered synonymous as far as my society is concerned?--Huaiwei 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the first edit summary you quoted, my view is that when we're comparing between Putonghua and the regional languages in the PRC, whether Chinese is official in whatever countries is irrelevant. The same applies when we're discussing Scots, Frisian, Walloon, Aranese, Basque, Sorbian, we don't care whether English, Dutch, German, French and Spanish are official in any other countries. We mention only the UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and Spain, but not the US, India, Puerto Rico, Gibraltar, Bermuda, Canada, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Côte d'Ivoire, Haiti, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Seychelles, Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, etc. " is Huaiwei's excuse to remove regional languages " - Yes, absolutely. He's reverting more than what he's talking about in his edit summary. — Insta ntnood 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulty understanding how the first statement is "irrelevant", when a few paras down this page, you argue that only languages spoken in official capacity can be considered for inclusion in this list? Secondly, my explaination and action is plain obvious. Non of the Chinese dialects qualify to be regional languages except Mandarin, so its either you add Mandarin or do not add any Chinese dialect at all (as elaborated below). Adding Cantonese only is ridiculously inaccurate and misleading.--Huaiwei 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese - administrative language

Relatively new to the edit dispute here, but one small thing - I believe Cantonese and English are used as administrative languages in HK. But I'm not 100% sure. I am certain that the "official" languages/dialects in HK are all three of Cantonese, Mandarin, and English. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by administrative langauges? It's true that for many purposes, practically speaking, only Cantonese and English are used. The secretariat of the Legislative Council, for instance, does not always provide interpretation of its meetings in Putonghua. The Chief Executive rarely speaks publicly in Hong Kong in Putonghua (the last time he spoke Putonghua publicly in Hong Kong, as far as I can recall, was that on a press conference he replied in Putonghua when a question was directed to him in Putonghua.) According to law, for instance, lift cars are required to provide verbal annunciation only in Cantonese and English, but not Putonghua. — Insta ntnood 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well it looks like you took out the "administrative language" wording anyway. But on a slightly related note - Cantonese is not just the "de facto" official language in HK, it is one of the official languages in HK. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official languages in Hong Kong are English and Chinese. Neither Putonghua nor Cantonese is defined to be official in the same manner. — Insta ntnood 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese regional language province-wide

Quote from edit summary: ...Hakka is not regional language province-wide...
I would suggest Wu and Cantonese are also not "regional language province-wide" either and therefore not a reason to exclude Hakka. The Wu speaking areas do not correspond to one province, and there are Chaozhou and Hakka speaking regions in Guangdong. LDHan 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regional_language&action=edit&section=9[reply]

Cantonese is used by the government of the Guangdong Province, for instance, to a certain extent. Is Hakka used by the government of any prefecture-level cities, prefectures, districts or counties? — Insta ntnood 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the government of Guangdong Province uses Cantonese has nothing to do with my point that Wu or Cantonese are also not "regional language province-wide". Are you saying Cantonese is used by the government of Guangdong Province in Chaozhou and Hakka speaking areas? LDHan 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Used to precisely what extent by the provincial governments? Citations please? In which province are any of the Chinese dialects used in official capacity? If the language must be a designated as an official language by any institution at any level, than practically non of the Chinese dialects will qualify except Mandarin. Could you explain why Mandarin dosent appear in this list then?--Huaiwei 23:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese is used by the Guangdong provincial government? I mean, for official government business? I thought only Autonomous regions in China are allowed to use native/local dialects and languages for official government business? Anyway, regardless of exactly what wording we choose, Cantonese is definitely a regional language of Guangdong. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan is not a regional language

I don't agree with the inclusion of catalan as a regional language, or I don't agree with your definition of regional language (you can choose...). That's the starting definition of regional language in your article:

1. traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population; and 2. different from the official language(s) of that State.

Well, basically I don't agree with point nº1 cos in Catalonia catalan speakers are (more or less) twice in number than non-catalan speakers. The fact that we catalan-speakers know to speak spanish (and non-catalan-speakers they don't want, or at least it seems they don't like to speak in catalan with us) doesn't mean that there is more spanish-speakers than catalan-speakers in Catalonia. The definition of regional language as a language spoken by "a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population", then, excluides the catalan.
And I don't agree with point nº2 cos Catalan is "the natural and official language in Catalonia" (as is written in our Constitution), and is used in all the official places: presidency, TV, shops, schools (we learn all in catalan)... And it can't be "different from the official language(s) of that State" because it is one of the official ones.

When we refer to catalan, we shold know that is like if we refer to french in Quebec, to dutch in Belgium...

The only thing we (catalans) dislike is the Spanish Government's politics, that shows an untrue idea of what Spain is. And the reality of Spain is that is a country where over the 33% of people has got a mother tongue (or usual language) different than spanish/castillian. And lots of spaniards are uncomfortable with the idea. That's why you'll find that lots of us (catalans and basques) don't like the idea of being spaniards.88.23.209.44 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we agree with the European Charter's definition or not, it's a definition established by treaty so it's of encyclopaedic value. Spain has ratified the European Charter in respect of Catalan as a regional or minority language within the meaning of the Charter. There are certainly other definitions possible. Man vyi 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local language

Local language redirects here, but I'm thinking that this term deserves a separate article. The term is used (or misused) fairly widely in ways that are sometimes very different than regional language. I'm posting this to see if there is any interest, feedback, etc.--A12n (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frisian languages

Hello,

the article says the following:

*The Frisian languages, regional languages of the Netherlands and Germany, belong to the Germanic family. The article Frisian languages has a plural title, which suggests that the sentence should be split up.Sarcelles (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

new"s in tamil language

கூகுள் செய்திகள் தமிழில் 2409:408D:507:796D:ECB7:D37A:22B9:D31F (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]