Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is it true that the Beijing dialect was Mandarin within the period from the end of the Yuan dynasty to the beginning of the Ming dynasty (the second half of the 14th century)? Were the Interpreter Piao (《樸通事》, Piao T ōngshi) and the Lǎo Qǐda(《老乞大》，Lǎo Qǐda) written in the Beijing colloquial language? Whether had the College of the Standard Pronunciation (正音書院 , Zhengyīn Shūyuan) within the period of King Yongzheng of the Qing dynasty (1723-1735) given an impulse to shape the common language of the Chinese? All of these questions mentioned before not only are the key tasks, which have deals with the history of the Chinese language of the modern times; but also are the unavoidable questions in researching the contemporary Chinese language. However, the popular, or the so-called “mainstream” of current opinion looks logical and well argued, but it is specious. Pronunciation is the main basis for estimating the linguistic character of the ancient literature. The Beijing pronunciation (Northern Mandarin) was not the representative of the standard pronunciation of Mandarin of the modern times; the representative was Nanjing pronunciation (Southern Mandarin). The Interpreter Piao and Lǎo Qǐd a were not written in the Beijing colloquial language. And the College of the Standard Pronunciation did not give an impulse to shape the common language of the Chinese; on the opposite, it delayed the process of shaping. Keywords: Mandarin, Beijing dialect, Nanjing pronunciation, the standard and the colloquial pronunciations, the Old China Resume Le mandarin est-il represente par le dialecte de Pekin au quatorzieme siecle ? Putongshi et Laoqida sont-ils ecrits en dialecte de Pekin ? “L’ecole de ton orthodoxe ” dans la dynastie de Tsing a-t-elle promu la formation du language commun de nationalite Han d’aujourd’hui ? Voila les questions cles concernant l’histoire du mandarin contemporain et moderne que les manuels de la langue chinoise moderne ne peuvent pas eluder . Pourtant , le point de vue majeur ou plutot populaire , est faux malgre son apparence bien raisonnable . Les sons du language est la critere principale pour definir la nature languagiere des documents anciens . Le symbole de ton orthodoxe du mandarin contemporain n’est effectivement pas le ton de Pekin , mais le ton de Nankin . En Coree , les manuels de chinois Putongshi et Laoqida ne sont pas rediges en dialecte de Pekin . “L’ecole de ton orthodoxe ” dans la dynastie de Tsing n’a pratiquement pas promu le processus de formation du language commun de nationalite Han d’aujourd’hui , mais bien au contraire , elle a retarde ce processus . Mots-cles: mandarin , language de Pekin , ton de Nankin , ton orthodoxe et ton populaire, Laoqida 摘 要 元末明初漢語官話 “以北京話為代表”？《樸通事》和《老乞大》 “是用北京口語寫的”？清雍正朝的“正音書院”推動了現代漢民族共同語的形成？這是涉及近現代漢語史的關鍵問題，也是現代漢語教材不能回避的問題。然而流行的或曰 “主流”觀點，看似頭頭是道，實則似是而非。判斷古文獻語言性質的依據主要是語音。近代漢語官話正音的代表，並非北方官話的北京音，而是南方官話的南京音；朝鮮漢語課本《樸通事》和《老乞大》不 “是用北京口語寫的 ”；清雍正朝的 “正音書院”並未推動、反而延緩了現代漢民族共同語形成的進程。 關鍵詞：官話；北京話；南京音；正俗音；《老乞大》
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".