3 ms·

Not really, under the old Wade-Giles romanization system the city was transliterated as 'Peking'. Under the newer (~65 year old) pinyin system it's transliterat

by glxxyz 4y ago

Not really, under the old Wade-Giles romanization system the city was transliterated as 'Peking'. Under the newer (~65 year old) pinyin system it's transliterated as 'Beijing'. The pronunciation in Mandarin never changed, just the way that sounds which don't have any exact equivalent in our alphabet are represented. Chang used to be a very common Chinese surname, but Zhang is now. It's the same name.

mc32 4y ago
Yep, this is the reason. The same reason they use 'q', 'c' and 'x' etc., they don't correspond to English, or Italian pronunciation of those letters. They are "pronunciation keys" and Wade-Giles was the same. Just represented differently.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> under the old Wade-Giles romanization system the city was transliterated as 'Peking' Not even close. Under the old Wade-Giles system the name of the city is transliterated as 'pei-ching'. That is because, as you note, the pronunciation in Mandarin didn't change. You seem to be imagining a sound that might be interpreted as a K or, alternatively, might be interpreted as a J, but there is no such sound.
- glxxyz 4y ago
  Well, at least close-er, yes the 'k' is older than Wade Giles, the changes in spelling are still just changes in romanizations systems.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    No, that's not correct. The 'k' in Peking is there because Peking is not a transcription from Mandarin. The change was in what language to use for the name of the city, not in what romanization system to use.
    - glxxyz 4y ago
      I didn't say the k was a romanization, I said it was older.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- glxxyz 4y ago
  > You seem to be imagining a sound that might be interpreted as a K or, alternatively, might be interpreted as a J No, not at all
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    >>> The pronunciation in Mandarin never changed, just the way that sounds which don't have any exact equivalent in our alphabet are represented. What did you mean by this? It was your only comment, other than a factual error, on a contrast of the name "Peking" with the name "Beijing".

by glxxyz 4y ago

mc32 4y ago

Yep, this is the reason. The same reason they use 'q', 'c' and 'x' etc., they don't correspond to English, or Italian pronunciation of those letters. They are "pronunciation keys" and Wade-Giles was the same. Just represented differently.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> under the old Wade-Giles romanization system the city was transliterated as 'Peking' Not even close. Under the old Wade-Giles system the name of the city is transliterated as 'pei-ching'. That is because, as you note, the pronunciation in Mandarin didn't change. You seem to be imagining a sound that might be interpreted as a K or, alternatively, might be interpreted as a J, but there is no such sound.

glxxyz 4y ago
Well, at least close-er, yes the 'k' is older than Wade Giles, the changes in spelling are still just changes in romanizations systems.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  No, that's not correct. The 'k' in Peking is there because Peking is not a transcription from Mandarin. The change was in what language to use for the name of the city, not in what romanization system to use.
  - glxxyz 4y ago
    I didn't say the k was a romanization, I said it was older.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
glxxyz 4y ago
> You seem to be imagining a sound that might be interpreted as a K or, alternatively, might be interpreted as a J No, not at all
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  >>> The pronunciation in Mandarin never changed, just the way that sounds which don't have any exact equivalent in our alphabet are represented. What did you mean by this? It was your only comment, other than a factual error, on a contrast of the name "Peking" with the name "Beijing".