Talk:Shanghai

Wiktionary:Requests for verification - kept

Kept. See archived discussion of February 2009. 07:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Darts

I'm watching the BDO World Darts Championship and they refer to 'Shanghai' or 'shanghai' as an out shot involving a single, a treble and a double of the same number. Therefore, the total would always be divisible by six to leave and integer. The common one is 120 which involves a single, treble and double 20. For non dart people, the final shot of a leg must either be a double or the bullseye to be a legal finish, so the double 20 must come last. I will try and cite this at some point along with double top and tops. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"Upon-the-Sea"

While I was working on the etymology of the word 'Shanghai', I read something to the effect that Shanghai's position relative to the sea might have changed. Anyway, the Chinese character term 上海#Etymology comes from 上海浦. And I think that "Upon-the-Sea" fits too well into the British worldview where there are placenames like Breedon on the Hill and similar. It's too cute- just like the conventional "translation" of Tiananmen Square/Tian'anmen as "Gate of Heavenly Peace". It was translated into English in a way that fits the English speaking culture, moreover in a way that suits Orientalist beliefs about Asia. So my proposed analogy: "Upon-the-Sea" is to Shanghai and the true meaning of Shanghai as "Gate of Heavenly Peace" and Tian'anmen are to "Gate of Heaven's Peacemaking". Other instances related to this situation include Taiwan#Etymology where it says " Incorrectly understood (via the meaning of the Chinese characters) to mean 'terraced bay' and similar" and Jilin 'lucky forest' stuff. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Wade-Giles and Hanyu Pinyin

Not all Chinese characters in mainland China are simplified Chinese characters- many characters were not simplified. Do we go back to the 1950's to find the origin of those pre-existing glyphs? No, we go to the Han dynasty and before: that character already existed, regardless of what the CCP said about that pre-existing character. Similarly, there are many English romanization words used for mainland China locations that, although consistent with pinyin, pre-exist the pinyin system. Do we then want to write in the etymologies of those words 'well it came from pinyin too lol!' No! The CCP stuck with the pre-existing words in some cases, and those words don't come from pinyin. It is more correct to say that pinyin comes from those pre-existing words.

As I have stated elsewhere, "it would be an anachronism to say (diff) that the English langauge term 'Shanghai' is derived from Wade-Giles, Hanyu Pinyin or Tongyong Pinyin, because there are citations for the English language word 'Shanghai' from before those mentioned romanization systems were created. To say it another way, you can certainly derive 'Shanghai' from pinyin, but the English language term 'Shanghai' is not ultimately derived from pinyin. It is clear that the origin of a loan word in wide use in English in the 19th century like 'Shanghai' will be markedly different from that of a term like 'Beijing', which was created in the mid-20th century." This comment applies to Shang-hai as well.
So when Cambridge-level materials have this kind of content:

1982, “Selected Glossary”, in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of China‎^[1], Cambridge University Press, →ISBN, →LCCN, →OCLC, pages 476, 483:

The glossary includes a selection of names and terms from the text in the Wade-Giles transliteration, followed by Pinyin, […]
Shang-hai (Shanghai) 上海

what are they telling us? They are not telling us the derivation of the terms 'Shanghai' and 'Shang-hai', but instead telling us what forms are consistent with those romanization/transliteration schemes. (This is shown clearly by the entry on page 484 column 2 reading "Sui (Sui) dynasty 隋"- they could not mean that Sui is derived from both pinyin AND Wade (there can be but one origin point), but they list the same word twice indicating that the selfsame form is consistent with both pinyin and Wade.) So Cambridge Encyclopedia or similar resources can be used to show that a given word is consistent with a given romanization scheme, but the final proof of derivation relies on citations to sources (see for instance: diff). Here, Shanghai and Shang-hai were indeed consistent with the romanization schemes in question, but they plainly were not derived from those systems, as is amply demonstrated by Citations:Shanghai and Citations:Shang-hai. This comment today comes as a pre-emption of future attempts to add 'Pinyin' to the etymology of the word Shanghai or similar etymologies. Hanyu Pinyin did and does indeed generate/create a large number of truly new spellings for words. But Pinyin, Wade-Giles and whatever else merely piggy-back on the shoulders of history in some instances; the spellings Shanghai and Shang-hai are two of those instances. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Just know that I really am open to other ideas about my work on romanizations/transliterations from Mandarin, etc. Contact me if you don't like what I do on any particular entry. I am exploring an aspect of the origin of English language loan words that is not fully understood (as far as I know). Some mainstream dictionaries like Collins do mention pinyin in etymologies- see Guangzhou#Etymology, but that's an outlier. I am attempting to understand how romanization schemes fit into the etymologies of English language words derived from Mandarin. This has always been recognized as a nightmarishly confusing part of the English language. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)