| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese Union Version article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
I strongly doubt the following assertion.
- For example, some of the phrases used in the CUV are now only used in Cantonese but not Mandarin, and some phrases are even disappearing from Cantonese.
There are other dialects, like Minnan, which still preserve a lot of old Chinese expressions, even more than Cantonese. Why is it Cantonese only, but not others, that preserves these old Chinese phrases?
- The transliteration scheme used by the CUV shows a heavy influence from Cantonese as well as from Mandarin, with many transliterations sounding almost exactly like the original Hebrew when pronounced in Cantonese but sounding wrong when pronounced in Mandarin. Other than a small number of exceptions, standard transliterations are generally not followed.
What makes the writer think that the transliteration is influenced by Cantonese only?
The full name of this version is 官話和合本, where 官話 means exactly Mandarin. If these claims were valid, why would they have still named it a Mandarin version?