Talk:Cantonese grammar

Untitled
I was led to believe that 依 ji1 is an older form of saying "this". Is this true?


 * No. It is not older form. &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 10:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be a section on sentence aspect and how it is conveyed with particles.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.130.11 (talk • contribs)

general comment
The most important thing is: Cantonese grammar is almost identical to that of Mandarin, which is well covered in Chinese grammar. Yes, there're differences between Mandarin and Cantonese in aspect markers, and in some cases even word order, but the most significant differences between Cantonese and Mandarin lie in vocabulary and sound, not really in grammar. This way one can write an grammar article on every Chinese spoken variant. For Cantonese-speaking wikipedians, the most dangerous, and surely the most tempting, thing is exaggerating the unique-ness of Cantonese. Perhaps what we need to do for this article is only to mention the few grammatical differences between Mandarin and Cantonese.--K.C. Tang 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, i am a Gwai lo and I can speak cantonese but dont understand mandarine, its like saying that german and english are very similar, or French and Italian, they are in grammer with a few differences and a lot of words are similar (Sea/Sea, Heal/Healen etc). I think this should be expanded as an independant language. Enlil Ninlil 17:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the grammatical difference between German and English (say, the word order), or that between Italian and French (say, that the former is pro-drop), is way much greater than that between Cantonese and Mandarin...--K.C. Tang 08:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying Cantonese (Guangzhouhua) and Putonghua grammer are very similiar is not very precise. Could you give the percentage of similarity or difference? I think spoken Guangzhouhua grammer and spoken Putonghua (Putonghua is also a written language) grammer are significantly different apart from the SVO structure. 81.155.96.136 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cantonese "original" characters?
"Cantonese archeology". Should their results be listed in the tables as well?

Though most of them are not so commonly used, evidence by definition, by Middle Chinese reconstruction, etc., is often solid. Example: 爾 is most likely the precursor of 呢, 也 to 嘢, 令 to 靚, 無 to 冇, etc. Seeing as there is no standard set, I don't see why they shouldn't be added as a valid choice in Written Cantonese, were someone to come to this page to learn about it.

For references, there is the zh-yue:wp:粵語本字, and also several discussions on Cantonese discussion boards. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micro01 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Verbal Aspect Marker Table
Should the character 會 wui5 (equivalent to 'will/shall' or 'would') be in the Verbal Aspect Marker Table? If not, then which category should it be under? 92.40.249.83 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)