User talk:WikiCantona/20080820023312

It makes little sense.

20080819184103

• 有嘢講：/Comment： If they speak cantonese, and they record what they speak, then they are writing cantonese. And "口語" can mean many things

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 18點41分03秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 18:41 (UTC)

• 新評論：

see their idea

20080820025046

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

I agree very much.

One more fact is that written language has many imposed restriction (grammar). When people think of Cantonese in written form, they know none of these restrictions. Written down what they speak is coming to their mind. Therefore, written Cantonese = writing down what people speak in Cantonese.

Bottom line is that, Cantonese does not have a formal written (\regulated, taught, refined) form

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 18:50 (UTC)

• 新評論：

When you are talking, you don't have enough time

20080819185840

• 有嘢講：/Comment： When you are talking, you don't have enough time to form grammatically correct, or even logical sentences. It is true in all languages. It doesn't mean that we should forgo grammar when we speak; rather, we compensate for our inaccuracies with body languages, tones, and other forms of communication. Grammar is the glue that makes a collection of words a language. Notice that there is a slight difference between the language itself and how people use it. A good speaker uses a language well; a poor speaker uses it badly; but the language is still itself.

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點06分05秒。

• 新評論：

And whilst we are on this topic, I must say that I have seen many "official" but illogical

20080819191427

• 有嘢講：/Comment： And whilst we are on this topic, I must say that I have seen many "official" but illogical and grammatically wrong texts written in Mandarin. Does it mean they are "informal"?

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點14分27秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:14 (UTC)

• 新評論：

20080820035425

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

Informal, badly written, careless, the author does think it though.... all many be the cause. Can you understand it?

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:54 (UTC)

• 新評論：

Depends... sometimes we just get used to it

20080819200706

• 有嘢講：/Comment： Consider the question "這句話是什甚意思？" which mandarin speakers use and you may even find it in some books. You would find it awkward if you try to translate it directly into english: "What meaning is this sentence?".

Rather, you would say "What is the meaning of this sentence?" or "what does this sentence mean?" , or even "What meanings does this sentence have?"

The correct mandarin sentences are, respectively "這句話之意思係什甚？" or "這句話意指什甚？", or "這句話有什甚意思？"

Notice that a sentence has meanings, a sentence represents some ideas, a sentence can mean something, but the sentence is not the meaning itself. A sentence cannot be a meaning.

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 20點07分05秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 20:07 (UTC)

• 新評論：

good night

20080820041016

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

I like that more. Some modern philosophers will disagree with you. the text is the idea, the media is the message. I will not go there, good night.

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 20:10 (UTC)

• 新評論：

User talk:WikiCantona/20080820041016 有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

"but the language is still itself"

20080820035215

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

I like that, very Kantian.

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:52 (UTC)

• 新評論：

User talk:WikiCantona/20080820035215 有乜連過來

有乜連過來

i don't know what you mean by "formal written form".

20080819190827

• 有嘢講：/Comment： A written form is simply a record of spoken words. And since you have time to refine a written form, it is usually more grammatical and logical than oral speeches. What exactly do you mean by "formal"?

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點08分27秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:08 (UTC)

• 新評論：

20080820032100

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

sorry, not you have time to refine the form. But, someone refine it for you, called grammar. Double negative is illogical, yet often occur in spoken language. is it illogical because you are taught to believe so, or is it illogical because it cannot be understood. When double negative use in speech, people understood it perfectly.

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:21 (UTC)

• 新評論：

Are you mistaken?

20080819192307

• 有嘢講：/Comment： What do you mean by "double negatives are illogical"??

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點23分06秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:23 (UTC)

• 新評論：

User talk:WikiCantona/20080819192307 有乜連過來

"Someone refines it for you" - How so?

20080819192519

• 有嘢講：/Comment： How so? When I write in cantonese, I refine my own speech by checking what i write, editing, thinking about the best way to express my thoughts, choosing my words...

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點25分19秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:25 (UTC)

• 新評論：

20080820033445

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

My friend, social process - lesson in school. Unless you are a machine (very good computer program), the refinement is written in your software.

To make it clear, you refine your writing. You only refine according to some predefined rules someone "refine" it for you.

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:34 (UTC)

• 新評論：

when i speak, i am actually trying to represent thoughts in my brain with words; i make mistakes because...

20080819193938

• 有嘢講：/Comment： when i speak, i am actually trying to represent thoughts in my brain with words; i may make mistakes in this translation/representation process. So I refine my writing/speech, ie i try to figure out the best way to represent my thoughts with words. When we speak, since we have little time, we use gestures to help; when we write, we try our best to use words accurately.

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點39分38秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:39 (UTC)

• 新評論：

learning

20080820034828

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

just repeat myself again. A process - the rules you learnt in school - is refined for you.

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:48 (UTC)

• 新評論：

Only partly. Your school helps you; but you must do it yourself.

20080819195520

• 有嘢講：/Comment： In the sense that you cannot really learn a language unless you are using it.

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點55分19秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:55 (UTC)

• 新評論：

Use it - reinforce it

20080820040222

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

Exactly, you use it as taught, you reinforce what you have been taught. Of course, you may question the fundamental and come up with your own rules. In language, it is rather difficult to question everything you learnt. There are time when you use your own ways, no one understands.

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 20:02 (UTC)

• 新評論：

User talk:WikiCantona/20080820040222 有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

See en:grammar

20080819192839

• 有嘢講：/Comment： And I quote:

「

Each language has its own distinct grammar. "English grammar" is the rules of the English language itself.

」

Every language, including cantonese, needs grammar (or rules) or else what you speak is just a collection of sound and noise without any meaning.

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點28分39秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:28 (UTC)

• 新評論：

Convention comes first

20080820040709

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

Every language needs a convention in which common practice understood by the involved parties. Grammar is outcome of the study of these conventions.

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 20:07 (UTC)

• 新評論：

User talk:WikiCantona/20080820040709 有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

---

This makes even less sense.

20080819184612

• 有嘢講：/Comment： "The core idea is that there is no such thing as "written Cantonese". standard mandarin and Cantonese is one language, both use on written form." - What do you mean?

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 18點46分12秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 18:46 (UTC)

• 新評論：

historicality

20080820031442

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

Chinese has a very abstract written form (the Character) in the past, in classical Chinese, the written form has its own grammar, which nothing resemble real speech. The character itself has no sound in it.

The reform in 1910s abandoned the old written form, in favor of the new form based on the mandarin dialect. Still using the character, yet switch to mandarin's wording and grammar.

Hence, historically, there is no such things as written Cantonese, a written form based on chinese character, Cantonese grammar and wording.

What people tried to write down Cantonese, it is based on spoken form. To make the distinction to the Mandarin based Chinese - taken the place of Written Chinese (to their mind, is the only written form), for the communicative purpose, 口語寫嘢 means something differed from 書面語。

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:14 (UTC)

• 新評論：

文言 was derived and refined from ancient speech.

20080819191607

• 有嘢講：/Comment： And similarly we can write Cantonese in a refined, logical and grammatical form.

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點16分07秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:16 (UTC)

• 新評論：

Constructed more - refinement here mean

20080820032818

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

I am not sure, how much classical Chinese was derived and how much was constricted after many thousand years. I am not denying that you can write refined, logical Cantonese. In the article I only point out the fact that what people think.

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:28 (UTC)

• 新評論：

If you are representing what some people think, please cite the exact source and be clear that it is just an opinion.

20080819193200

• 有嘢講：/Comment： I checked one of the pages that you quoted and i couldn't find anything. Perhaps I was too careless. Sorry.

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點32分00秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:32 (UTC)

• 新評論：

User talk:WikiCantona/20080819193200 有乜連過來

And back to the original question:

20080819193336

• 有嘢講：/Comment： Why do we need the following sentence: "寫出嚟嘅粵語（即係呢 篇文講緊嘅粵文）就等同寫口語"? And what exactly does it mean?

I also write what I say; only that I think more before I write something down, since I have more time, and that I may go back to edit what I have written.

--* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年八月十九號（星期二）格林尼治 19點33分36秒。 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:33 (UTC)

• 新評論：

20080820035628

• 有嘢講：/Comment：

It will be rewritten after I have more time to rethink about it, or put some note to explain.

--WikiCantona 2008年8月19號 (二) 19:56 (UTC)

• 新評論：

User talk:WikiCantona/20080820035628 有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來

有乜連過來