Talk:Jin Chinese

Untitled
What about the theory that disyllablic morphemes descended from Old Chinese consonant clusters?


 * Yeah, some of them did, like &#35282; > &#35282;&#33853; -- ran (talk) 00:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if monolingual speakers of Mandarin can understand Jin. Something about mutual intelligibility should be mentioned here, as this is an important criterion for claiming a variety of speech is an independent language and not just a dialect. --156.56.153.51 19:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

reconstruction
The examples of reconstruction look odd, for example, pəʔ ləŋ < 蹦 pəŋ "hop". The old monosyllabic form should be something like *pləŋ, with initial consonant cluster, if you believe that the current disyllabic form comes from a monosyllabic one.--K.C. Tang 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

bullshit meter
i'm sorry, but this page (and the glossika page it's base on) sets off my bullshit meter. a single feature such as preservation of final glottal stop cannot by itself make a dialect into a language. is there any other evidence for this? Benwing (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Is Jin mutually intelligible with the Beijing dialect? Because if it is, I don't see how they could be considered separate languages - glottal stop or not. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 02:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The tonal merger between T1 and T2 is quite significant, too. And looking at the phoneme inventory, there is a distinction between voiced and voiceless fricatives, which is also major.
 * I do not know how mutually intelligible Jin is for people who speak the standard language though. Nevertheless, it is considered a top-level group by several important specialists, and that's arguably already reason enough for Wikipedia to treat it separately. Mutual intelligibility is not the most important criterion either. What matters most is when the language split off and which distinctive properties it developed. In the case of Jin dialects, it must be almost a millenium ago because the rù tone disappeared in Northern Mandarin many centuries ago.
 * (This opens the discussion as to whether Jianghuai Mandarin shouldn't be a separate group either, but no linguist has seriously proposed that yet so Wikipedia shouldn't even begin to put that up for debate) 139.18.118.32 (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Jin wikipedia
Are there Jin wikipedia in incubator?--Kaiyr (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What does this mean? Barefoot Banana (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Jin Chinese → Jinyu Chinese – queried move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * move? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This move was originally proposed as an uncontroversial technical move request, with the rationale "Official ISO name per SIL website". I have objected, because the proposed name is inconsistent with our naming of sister articles, and not commonly used in reliable English-language sources.  The element yǔ 语 (Chinese for 'speech') appears in the Chinese names of several of these dialect groups: Wúyǔ = Wu Chinese, Gànyǔ = Gan Chinese, Xiāngyǔ = Xiang Chinese, Mǐnyǔ = Min Chinese and Yuèyǔ = Yue Chinese.  It is not common in English, where these groups are typically called just "Jin", "Wu", "Gan", "Xiang", "Min" and "Yue".  Kanguole 22:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sounds unnatural and tautological: it would mean "Jin language Chinese (language)". -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contemporary typology
Is the status of Jin as a separate variety group from Mandarin well-accepted these days? Remsense 诉  03:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)