[est]

However Chinese and Cantonese share the same writing system.

And don't put gibberish Cantonese scripts as an example, it's called 白字 which means illiterate writing style. You can type that online in forums and IM, SMS to friends but it's not something official nor standard. Should Ebonics be taught in schools instead of standard English?

[bsznjyewgd]

Mandarin and Cantonese share the same writing system in the sense that English and French share the same writing system: mostly the same characters, innumerous cognates, and I can read the back of my cereal box.

Spoken Cantonese is a different language from spoken Mandarin, with different grammar and vocabulary, and when you write them down you get correspondingly different written languages. That written Cantonese hasn't undergone a formal standardization the way Mandarin did in the early 20th century doesn't make written Cantonese gibberish, just not fully standardized. And written Cantonese isn't only used for memeing on forums or text-speak, it's also widely used for casual writing in newspaper columns or in advertisement, or to authentically transcribe spoken Cantonese (rather than paraphrasing in Mandarin). See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Cantonese

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=written+ca...

[Edit: That kids were (and perhaps are) taught to read and write in Mandarin at school using Cantonese sound values, rather than writing in Cantonese, also doesn't say all that much about Cantonese as a written language. Rather, it demonstrates that Hong Kong is a diglossic (well, polyglossic) society.]

[UIZealot]

> Mandarin and Cantonese share the same writing system in the sense that English and French share the same writing system: mostly the same characters, innumerous cognates, and I can read the back of my cereal box.

Completely wrong. A Chinese character is more or less equivalent to a word in English/French. Are all the words the same in English and French? Can you look at French text and know what it's saying if you didn't speak French already? Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue. The reverse is less true, see below.

> Spoken Cantonese is a different language from spoken Mandarin, with different grammar and vocabulary, and when you write them down you get correspondingly different written languages.

Wrong again. They use largely the same grammar and vocabulary.

Because Cantonese is ancient Chinese, over the years they have lost track of what semantic characters to use for some of the Cantonese words.

Tracking down which semantic character corresponds to which Cantonese word could be done if there's enough interest and funding for such work. Once the mapping is done, you will be able to write down Cantonese and have it understood all over China.

Since the work hasn't been done, you can only write down Cantonese with the help of some phonetic characters, which denote only pronunciation but not meaning. It's not gibberish, but neither is it proper written Cantonese. EDIT: Even in its current form, written Cantonese is still 80% intelligible to Mandarin speakers.

[bsznjyewgd]

> A Chinese character is more or less equivalent to a word in English/French.

Most Chinese characters are monosyllabic, and most Chinese words are polysyllabic consisting of multiple characters. A Chinese character is a morpheme, and it also happens that many common words are also single character morphemes.

> Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue.

Because we've all been taught to read and write in Mandarin from the very beginning of our education. Again, Hong Kong is a diglossic society.

> They use largely the same grammar and vocabulary. Because Cantonese is ancient Chinese, over the years they have lost track of what semantic characters to use for some of the Cantonese words.

They share a lot of grammar and vocabulary (...but not all of it) because they share a language ancestor. Cantonese is not ancient Chinese, but it's a descendant that conserved a lot more consonants than Mandarin (and a lot of sound merger is actually happening right now in Hong Kong over the last 100 years, but it's commonly derided as "lazy sound").

> Once the mapping is done, you will be able to write down Cantonese and have it understood all over China. Since the work hasn't been done, you can only write down Cantonese with the help of some phonetic characters, which denote only pronunciation but not meaning. It's not gibberish, but neither is it proper written Cantonese.

See [https://books.google.ca/books?id=pFnP_FXf-lAC&pg=PA51] for a description of common strategies for writing Cantonese. Phonetic borrowing is one strategy, and the most common one, yes, but that's no different than characters in standard Chinese, the vast majority of which are a radical with a semantic category (but not a complete meaning) + a phonetic component.

A Mandarin-only speaker can decide for themselves how intelligible that colloquial Cantonese exchange on page 52 is, what with the difference in vocabulary and grammar.

[UIZealot]

> Most Chinese characters are monosyllabic, and most Chinese words are polysyllabic consisting of multiple characters.

Most modern Chinese words are polysyllabic, but these words are the same in Cantonese and Mandarin. Your comparison to English and French is still false.

> > Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue.

> Because we've all been taught to read and write in Mandarin from the very beginning of our education.

I doubt that. Suppose you were only ever taught written Cantonese. I believe you'd still be able to read Mandarin writings, simply because you would still recognize all the words.

> They share a lot of grammar and vocabulary

So they are not so different after all.

> Phonetic borrowing is one strategy, and the most common one, yes, but that's no different than characters in standard Chinese, the vast majority of which are a radical with a semantic category (but not a complete meaning) + a phonetic component.

Phonetic borrowing, or other ways of making up new characters, might not have been necessary. If we could be bothered to trace the origin of a made-up Cantonese character and find the original Chinese character.

For example, 冇 is wholly unnecessary when we already have 無.

Even with the lazy approach of making up Cantonese specific characters willy nilly, I counted only dozens of them from the Wikipedia article you linked. So how different is Cantonese really from Mandarin, besides the pronunciation?

[UIZealot]

Looks like you are a Hong Kong nativist. I can totally understand, and even support, your desire and struggle for ever higher level of autonomy and self determination.

However, spewing blatant lies about your own language, culture, or heritage invites only ridicule and scorn from honest people who know any about Hong Kong and China.