> Iv'e never said that cantonese are not chinese, i only said
> that cantonese are not authentic chinese.
If something is "not authentic", then it's not. If someone gave you
some "gold" that was "not authentic" (e.g., it is pyrite), then they
cannot honestly say it was gold. It's either real or its fake.
> The word china
> came after the qin state conquered other 6 states and
> established a unified country. From my opinion i think
> authentic chinese should be define as the people of all 7
> states that were living in the year 221 b.c when the state of
> China was created and the word chinese come about!
Okay, this is good that you are providing us with what your
definition of "authentic Chinese" means before making statements
such as in the name of this thread. It saves a lot of discussion if
everyone isn't talking about different things.
However, now you must tell us how you are defining "Cantonese".
If someone lived in Luoyang in 222 B.C., and 20 years later, we
find him living in Lingnan, would you define this person as
"Cantonese"? If so, then "Cantonese" would still be "authentic
> If you say cantonese are chinese because they speak a
> chinese language; can you define what languages to be
> considered as chinese.
Chinese languages belong to the Chinese (or "Sinitic", if you
prefer) branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. I don't think
I need to tell you which languages are Chinese. (And no, Vietnamese
doesn't belong to Sino-Tibetan.
> I also disagree with ppk that no one
> speaks mandarin before 1400 because there are around 850
> millions people speak mandarin today. This number is too
850 million or whatever is out of about a bit over a billion people.
However, this is a modern population figure, and if you look back
only a few decades, the Chinese population can be counted in
hundreds of millions.
> If mandarin was a language of such a small state in
> the classical time, how come mandarin becomes the most widely
> spoken language by the majority of today's population. I
> don't believe mandarin just pop out from somewhere and
> becomes the most dominant language. From my opinion, i think
> mandarin must have been a widely spoken language of many
> states in the classical time; anything other than that, i
> can't think of a reason why this language is so popular today.
Look at the geography of China. Mandarin is spoken across territory
which is rather flat and accessible, and Mandarin dialects are very
homogenous. Now, look at the other Chinese languages--they are
all squished into the southeast, along the coast. For the other
extreme, look at Min, spoken in Fujian. Its dialects exhibit the most
diversity, and the region is very mountainous--in fact, that was the
last region added to China in antiquity (I'm not counting places like
Yunnan, which are recent in comparison to long-term history) in
Tang times, I recall.
> ...by the way, i brought in the vietnamese topic was because
> many chinese texts and critics always deny that vietnamese
> didn't live in modern day Kwangtung and Kwangsi provinces. I
> might sound like a Jew who wants to reclaim the "promised
> land" but the fact is that vietnamese did live in these
> provinces in the classical era!
I was aware of that fact already, but thanks. I don't know what
these Chinese texts or who these critics are, but it's well known that
there were non-Chinese peoples living in the south--collectively, they
were called the Bai Yue 百越 (Hundred Yue)--the Chinese didn't really
know the differences (and probably didn't really care to know).
BTW, are you familiar with the word Yue 粵? This is the name the
Cantonese have adopted for themselves. But it is really the same
word as Yue 越. In the past, they are used somewhat interchangably.
(Of course, 越 does not always mean Vietnamese.)