Talk:Chungshan

Unusual
This is the only word I know of that is claimed to be simultaneously derived from Mandarin and Cantonese. That's 100% fine and theoretically possible for an English loan word. But if it is possible to use the word "and" in this etymology legitimately, then it means (as I understand it) that the word was known to be derived from both Cantonese and Mandarin by the earliest creators/users of the word. That seems totally possible and plausible in a hypothetical sense, but it would take more knowledge than I have to demonstrate that type of origin into English. I would like to find an example of a singular English loan word claimed to originate from two non-Chinese character languages and how that word's etymology is understood by scholars. I'm putting this note here just to make sure that Wiktionary doesn't conflate any original source for the origin of an English language loan word with a secondary or third potential method of derivation of origin for that word. Wiktionary is not throwing darts based on sounds in different languages but asking a historical question of derivation. Someone could sit in their office and realize that 中山 leads to Chungshan via both Mandarin and Cantonese and then generate the loan word Chungshan. But the question is: is that what happened historically? Is it more likely that the word came from one language instead of the other? If there's just "uncertainty" on which langauge it came from, then the "and" in the etymology should be "or" or perhaps "and/or". If the intent is to say that the Chinese characters for 中山 came from one langauge and then were romanized using the pronunciation of the other language, then this is seemingly analogous to Kaohsiung. Now I myself would tend to expect and believe that this English loan word is Mandarin-derived, but that's because I don't have the knowledge of Cantonese romanizations that you would have and because the word was applied to the Guangdong Zhongshan in 1925. However, 'Chungshan' seems very old in other contexts: --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC) (modified)
 * Regardless of the above, I preliminarily determined that the word was in existence in at least 1912 . If the word existed at that time in reference to locations in North China, then it seems dubious that the word 'Chungshan' is derived from Cantonese since the Zhongshan of Guangdong we are thinking of was only so named in 1925. Obviously my conclusion could be overturned with other evidence or theories of writing this article, but it seemed likely when I made these new edits. I have never split etymologies when the same alternative form of a loan word from the same Chinese characters refer to multiple areas/things, but that could be an option too. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC) (modified)
 * The author in the 1931 text likely had the Cantonese pronunciation of 中山 in their mind (compare the other Cantonese romanizations in the quote), while the Chungshan in the 1962 quote may be a Mandarin romanization (compare Hsiaolan). At least for the sense "Zhongshan (city in Guangdong)", the Cantonese and Mandarin romanizations coincide, and in my opinion there is no point in determining whether the romanization Chungshan originated from Cantonese or Mandarin. The quote you added is about the state of Zhongshan during the Warring States period, the Chungshan in which is probably from Mandarin. RcAlex36 (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will just say this in response (and then I want to abandon this conversation as not productive of mainspace results; also, the point I'm making is not really that important). In terms of the pure etymology ('Etymology is the study of the origins of words.') of the English language loan word 'Kaifeng', it does not matter that Kaifeng is consistent with Hanyu Pinyin or Tongyong Pinyin and that the reason the PRC still uses the spelling 'Kaifeng' is because that spelling is consistent with Hanyu Pinyin. We know, based on the 1938 example on the Kaifeng page, that Kaifeng is derived from a pre-Hanyu Pinyin system. Once that system of romanization is confirmed, I will add that to the etymology there. Reference to the fact that Hanyu Pinyin piggy backed on earlier systems is irrevelant to the origin of this word. So too, I imagine that Chungshan may not be "from" Cantonese. If Chungshan is actually "from" Cantonese for the Guangdong sense, then that is a seperate etymology ('Etymology 2') in my theory of etymology. Again I reemphasize, this is a technical point from me and you must ignore it if it gives you no guidance. You write this how you think best- you have proved to me you are a real expert. Love your work! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)