Talk:Sawgoek

References

This article lists 5 references at the end. It would be most helpful if these could be placed inline to indicate which parts of the article, particularly the statements about sawveh, come from which references. Kanguole 22:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In particular: who says these undeciphered inscriptions record Zhuang? Isn't it anachronistic to speak of a Zhuang language at that early stage? Who identifies these inscriptions with the Sawgoek mentioned in the Baeu Rodo? Kanguole 23:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

These are exactly the questions I asked last time round. It is a huge leap of faith from symbols inscribed on Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery in the region of modern Guangxi to the language of the people who inhabited the area a couple of thousand years later. BabelStone (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The only reference I have access to is #5, where this sentence is referenced:

Liang Tingwang, a professor from the Central University for Nationalities, said (p.c.) that the ancient Zhuang had their own proto writing system but had to give it up because of the Qinshi Emperor's tough policy and to adopt the Han Chinese writing system, which ultimately developed into the old Zhuang demotic script (Figs. 1 & 2) alongside classical Chinese writing during the Tang dynasty (618-907 A.D).

That seems somewhat incidental and unsubstantiated. What do the other 4 say? Kanguole 08:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on the Chinese version of the article, written by the same editor,

• The first sentence is sourced to the Encyclopedia of the Zhuang Ethnicity and Hu (2006).
• The second sentence is sourced to the passage from Huang (2007) quoted above.
• That the myth in the Baeu Rodo may reflect a folk memory of a lost writing system is sourced to Tan (2003).
• The last sentence, about sawndip, is sourced to Fan (2007).

So the question is what the Encyclopedia of the Zhuang Ethnicity and Hu (2006) say about sawgoek and sawveh. Kanguole 11:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC) It seems Hu (2006) is a masters thesis. Kanguole 13:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've appended them next to the sentences. --Shibo77 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please quote for us what the Encyclopedia of the Zhuang Ethnicity and Tan (2003) say about sawgoek and sawveh? Kanguole 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well it states roughly what is written in the article. The points about "proto-writing", "logographic", "Baeu Rodo", "Pre-Qin". --Shibo77 (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The detail is pretty important here. Can you quote them in the original Chinese? Kanguole 15:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that copyvio? Anyway without violating copyright, you can access it here, search "本源书"/"刻划文字". Also I added the original "Liang Tingwang" reference and a link to read "Baeu Rodo · Firemaking" online in the article. Also for the other articles or books, you can download them from sina, docin, or cnki. Talk to you later. --Shibo77 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Urk – I didn't want the links. Quoting a short passage would be fair use, though.

So the Encyclopedia is a bit more circumspect, saying ancestors of the Zhuang, but it does identify the carved symbols with the sawgoek of the legend, presumably without any evidence. I think that if this article is to be kept, it will have to be much less definite about saying this was a real writing system. Kanguole 22:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well it is a verifiable and sourced article, so I do not think it should be deleted. I think I understand your concern, so I changed the sentence to "used by the ancient Zhuang people"/"and/or other people living in the region" without reference to a specific language, and also separated sawveh and sawgoek into two paragraphs. --Shibo77 (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your re-organization is an improvement: the one thing we can say about sawgoek is the legend. That this might be a folk memory of earlier writing needs to be presented as a theory of some scholars, rather than a likely fact. The claim that sawveh is a script is problematic, and something no-one can say with assurance. My understanding is that the finds consist of isolated symbols (which would be hard to justify as a script). Perhaps better to describe the finds, and then mention the theories. Kanguole 01:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)