Fri Jun 13 15:57:40 CEST 2008
sed on Mandarin than on other dialects=2C but that there is no one-to-one c=
orrespondance the way there would be with a Romanized alphabet.
(I'll look sometime myself for more references=3B not right now).
Thanks. Best wishes=2C
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com From: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>Subject: Re: LANGUAG=
E SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: pinyin > Gerard Meijssen scripsit: >> It is exa=
ctly when you are talking about Pinyin that there is no relation at>> all b=
etween the written text in the logograms and the text written in the>> Lati=
n script. > Of course there's a relation: they are written forms of the sa=
me language=2C> Mandarin Chinese (subject to the qualifications I discussed=
in my last post). -- > John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi=2C I do not know where to go on the argument as to whether written Chine=
se is Mandarin or not. =3B All I have is the Wikipedia article and such=
to go on (see <A href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_writing_syst=
em">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_writing_system</A>)=2C which makes=
some sense to me.<BR>
Does anyone have any other references on this to suggest? =3B Or does t=
he Wikipedia article cover everything here?<BR>
More information about the Ietf-languages