Talk:Classical Chinese

Classical versus pre-Classical (and perhaps Literary) Chinese

pinging Balthazarduju, though this is a general topic I meant to bring up here: I think we should be clearer about the starting point for our working, intentionally permissive definition of Classical Chinese, because it's clear from the literature that simply "the Spring and Autumn period" is far too broad. All the sources I've read say that older writings (before, say, the 4th and 5th century BCE) like many poems in the Shijing, are "pre-Classical Chinese", with rather clear distinctions between the two (post facto) classifications.
From the introduction of Vogelsang (2021), which quotes Norman (1988), emphasis in original:

(1) Classical Chinese is clearly distinct from pre-Classical Chinese, that is the language used in inscriptions and literature before the fourth century BC. In particular, pre-Classical Chinese is the language of Chinese canonical literature (which, unfortunately, is also often called ‘classical’), namely the Five Canonical Texts, 五經, which were written in an archaic—or in many instances: archaizing—language that differed considerably from Classical Chinese. Indeed, the vocabulary and syntax of pre-Classical Chinese was so different from the subsequent stages of Old Chinese that it apparently was no longer fully understood in the classical period. Significantly, the Five Canonical Texts ‘rarely served as a model for later writers’ (Norman 1988, 83): in this sense, too, they were not classical.

(2) On the other end of the time scale, Classical Chinese is distinguished from Literary Chinese. Whereas in the classical period the written language corresponded more or less closely to spoken language, this correlation became tenuous in the first and second centuries ad. While spoken Chinese evolved, the written language continued to be modelled on the classical language: it turned into a purely literary language, similar to Latin in mediaeval Europe. However, this literary language by no means remained true to Classical Chinese. While preserving archaisms and most syntactical structures, Literary Chinese was constantly infused with new vocabulary. Many elements of Classical Chinese grammar were no longer understood, so that they came to be used in different ways. Moreover, Literary Chinese developed an abundance of genres that each followed specific linguistic conventions. Thus Literary Chinese, while firmly based on Classical Chinese, developed in various ways that set it clearly apart from the latter.

Due to this, I would suggest that pre-Classical get its own article (or a treatment at Old Chinese), but that Classical and Literary are both treated in this article—but if anyone else has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them. Remsense聊 17:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The terminology Chinese canonical literature should be mentioned. Balthazarduju (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It is an extremely clunky term, I don't think it is necessary per se. "Chinese" is redundant, I hope. Remsense聊 01:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that more relevant to an article about literature than this one about language? In any case, although most authors (including Norman, Pulleyblank and Vogelsang) appear to agree that the Odes, Changes, Spring and Autumn Annals and much of the Documents are written in pre-classical Chinese, so the opening sentence isn't accurate. Kanguole 14:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I originally rewrote it as setting a bounds at the 4th century BCE, but I wanted to establish consensus before reverting it. Remsense聊 21:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Balthazarduju, would you object to specifying the starting bound for Classical Chinese in the article as such? Remsense留 20:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

5th century BCE is okay, but I would prefer a wider starting bound. Or use 6th to 5th cent. BC, per Peyraube "The Classical period proper begins with Confucius (551―479 BC), and ends around the founding of the Qin Empire in 221 BC. The attested language of the period was probably not very different from cultured speech." Balthazarduju (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Balthazarduju, So, with that passage in mind I think the 5th century is perfectly adequate as a label of this kind is ever going to be, when you keep in mind that even going by that definition, a plurality if not majority of Confucius's active writing, whatever that looked like, would've taken place in the 5th century BCE Remsense留 00:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

(Balthazarduju just so you know—if I put it there too, that was my bad—the issue only being that 'circa.' literally means 'around', so it's an obvious case to reduce confusing, ungrammatical redundancy) Remsense留 02:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)