5,000 years my &ss!

[geek_frappa 3]

There is clear differences in Chinese, but there is no equivalent in English phonetics to transliterate the differences.

the romanization / romanisation and the politics has brought us from Hua --> Zhong ....

in fact, it's hard to know what is real sometimes.

either way, every interesting.

[林彪 0]

China comes from 晋 (Jin), not likely from 秦 (Qin).

This is the part I don't get. Sometimes 晋 (Jin) is transcripted as Chin, and sometimes 秦 (Qin) is transcripted as Chin too. Then there's the Qing/Ching too.

What is the correct pronunciation? Is there no difference between how "J", "Q" and "Ch" are pronounced?

晋 in Wade-Giles is Chin.

秦 in Wade-Giles is Ch'in. (Note the apostrophe, which is often erroneously left out)

[geek_frappa 3]

yes! don't forget the ' <----

this converter keeps the integrity of the conversions.

http://primezero.com/en/kelvin1.php?w=chin

hope this is useful to you.

[Quest 19]

can you tell me what the difference is between its and it's? or Ch'in and Chin?

Let's just stick w/pinyin...

I think Wade-Giles were foreigners, were they not?

http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Wade-Giles

They simplified everything to "ching ching ching ching chinq", I wonder why "Chinaman" was replaced by "Chink". but not that it matters anyways

Beijing became Pei Ching, Zhongguo became Chong kuo. so here it goes "ching chong ching chong" again

[geek_frappa 3]

can you tell me what the difference is between its and it's? or Ch'in and Chin?

Let's just stick w/pinyin...

I think Wade-Giles were foreigners' date=' were they not?

[url']http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Wade-Giles[/url]

They simplified everything to "ching ching ching ching chinq", I wonder why "Chinaman" was replaced by "Chink". but not that it matters anyways

Beijing became Pei Ching, Zhongguo became Chong kuo. so here it goes "ching chong ching chong" again

first, let's not confuse issues. its and it's are homonyms of the English language. its is the possessive (it belongs to it) ... it's is the contraction for "it is".

its = (possessive)

it's = it is

second, here is an excerpt from ..

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Wade-Giles

A common complaint about the Wade-Giles system is the representation of the unaspirated-aspirated stop consonant pairs using apostrophes: p, p', t, t', k, k'. Westerners unfamiliar with the system often ignore the apostrophes, even so far as leaving them out when copying texts, unaware that they represented vital information. The Pinyin system addresses this problem by employing the Latin letters customarily used for voiced stops, unneeded in Mandarin, to represent the unaspirated stops: b, p, d, t, g, k. 

[Quest 19]

By difference, I meant in terms of pronunciation, I knew what its and it's mean -.-

[geek_frappa 3]

By difference, I meant in terms of pronunciation, I knew what its and it's mean -.-

oh...

[Quest 19]

My post was more a complaint to the Wade-Giles system

If you know what "ching chong ching chong" is.

[geek_frappa 3]

in that case, there is no different between it's and its.

you must look at the context.

they sound identical.

it makes its own trouble.

it's a great day to be a bird.

it's nice that its teeth clean.

bu hao yi si ... hehe,,,,

[geek_frappa 3]

My post was more a complaint to the Wade-Giles system

If you know what "ching chong ching chong" is.

ya, i just got it.

i must be getting old.

[Guest Wuliao]

We are all Africans.

[Guest Wuliao]

And America is the greatest "CIVILisation" of all time.

[Guest Emerald Eye]

There are many people and many nations who have long history going back hundreds of years and sometimes thousands of years,

the Greeks, the Hindu, the Gaels, Mongolians, Jewish, Egyptians, Sumerians, Scandanavians, Celts ...

however 5,000 years does seem a bit much..."5000 yrs my ass" try telling that to Isreal, I don't think they would welcome your statement, or would it be called Anti-semitic ? The Chinese may have been involved in many wars during the past but looking at the religious wars in the world and Chinese opinion today... I don't think Chinese are so concerned about their history.

[Ian_Lee 6]

There was no concept of "China" 5,000 years ago. It's a stretch to claim that "China" has a history of even half that length of time.

Recent new discoveries have shown that China indeed have existed longer than half of the 5,000 years.

Not only oracle bones, but huge architectural remain have been excavated from the city that was built during the Shang Dynasty (1600 B.C. - 1045 B.C.) Read:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0307/feature3/zoom1.html

[DaMo 0]

There was no concept of "China" 5,000 years ago. It's a stretch to claim that "China" has a history of even half that length of time.

Recent new discoveries have shown that China indeed have existed longer than half of the 5,000 years.

Not only oracle bones, but huge architectural remain have been excavated from the city that was built during the Shang Dynasty (1600 B.C. - 1045 B.C.) Read:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0307/feature3/zoom1.html

Hmm. Shang Dynasty artifacts have been excavated for decades.

Many still older cities have been excavated since. One example is the 5,500 year old city excavated in Anhui not too long ago ( http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/38057.htm ), as well as the 4,500 year old cities of the Dadiwan culture and of ancient Shaanxi ( http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200401/11/eng20040111_132325.shtml ).

More about ancient Chinese cities: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Apr/63445.htm

yay, it's my 10th post

[bathrobe 3]

Actually, if you're looking at cities, then I think the ancient Middle East goes back even further.

The general definition of 'history' seems to have something to do with written records. Even if you had a city, you were 'pre-historic' if you had your city before written records.

Recently a chap in England has taken exception to all this -- wrote a book about it (can't remember his name or what it was called). His thesis is that through our narrow definition of civilisation/history, we are slighting the achievements of prehistoric man. We tend to think of prehistoric people as highly primitive and living in caves, whereas there was much that was sophisticated about them (especially in late prehistoric times, which had their own cities, etc.)

Do you remember the fellow that they found in the glacier in the Alps? He was several thousand years old -- prehistoric Europe -- but well-dressed and well fed. Trade already existed in that era and, if I remember rightly, he had marks on his body that would make sense to a modern acupuncturist. But like Banpo and everthing else, he was 'prehistoric'.

Anyway, I think the problem with 5,000 years is that it has nothing to do with 'history' and a lot to do with the one upmanship of the modern Chinese, who are affronted by Europeans saying that their history is not as long as that of the Middle East -- they see it as just another way of putting the Chinese down.

[Ian_Lee 6]

I would say there is slight difference between Chinese civilization and other civilizations that have similar span of history.

In China, there had been a tradition that a new dynasty assigning a historian to compile the detailed history of the previous dynasty. So after the 24 dynasties fell into demise, there were credible and legible (Thanks to Chinese characters) historical records of the previous period.

For other civilizations, either they didn't have such good tradition or their written languages had changed, tracable historical records are hard to find.

[bathrobe 3]

I would say there is slight difference between Chinese civilization and other civilizations that have similar span of history.

In China, there had been a tradition that a new dynasty assigning a historian to compile the detailed history of the previous dynasty.

And possibly different views of history/historiography, too. Since each dynasty had the task of compiling the history of the previous dynasty, it had to show that it was the legitimate heir of that dynasty. This concept brought about its own contortions in the interpretation of history, especially for dynasties like the Southern Song, who didn't control the historic heartland but wanted to assert themselves as the legitimate heir of earlier dynasties.