linguoboy wrote:I dare say you're correct about my limited understanding.
Since your knowledge and understand of the chinese linguistic culture
is limited. Do you honestly believe your unknowledgeable
claims are valid?
linguoboy wrote:However, that doesn't change the fact that I heard Beijingren use originally Cantonese words (although with Mandarin pronunciation) like 的士 and 埋單 while I was there.
閣下又是如何知道與確認那些人是道地的「北京人」，而不是正巧在說「普通話」的「奧客」呢？ 您又是如何知道他們的發音是道地的「北京腔」，而不是「廣東腔」呢？ 對於您這樣的外行洋仔，能真正理解漢語多種方言的腔調，是不可能的事。
said those people are beijingers
? Just because they speak the Standard Chinese
, they are beijingers
? All Chinese can speak the Standard Chinese
. Yet you failed to conclude those could be Cantonese in Beijing just happened
to be speaking the Standard Chinese
. How could you tell their accent
is the beijing accent
and not the canton accent
? Note that, accents are NOT the same with pronunciations.
Because, the Standard Chinese is an exception to the rule which you claimed above.
linguoboy wrote:There's not a standard language in the world that doesn't enrich itself with borrowings from related dialects. I don't see why you think Standard Chinese would be an exception.
Like I have stated before, we the chinese
speak the conlang dialect
known as the Standard Chinese
each with our own dialectal influences
(be the influences on vocabularies and/or pronunciations), and NOT vise versa.
Our own dialectal influences
were not and are not (perhaps, will not) accepted into the Standard Chinese
of which, all the textbooks and media published in the Standard Chinese will thus lack the dialectal usages
, unless they are materials for studying the dialects. Thus, the Standard Chinese
itself lacks dialectal borrowings
(the borrowings practised by a few individuals does not
speak for the entire language/dialect), it is the speakers
themselves who will add their own dialectal influences.