3 ms·

Thanks for the interesting link! Nitpicking a bit, but if I understand this page (linked from the wikipedia article? see point 3) https://pinyin.info/readings/

by vlz 2y ago

Thanks for the interesting link! Nitpicking a bit, but if I understand this page (linked from the wikipedia article? see point 3) https://pinyin.info/readings/zyg/what_pinyin_is_not.html https://pinyin.info/readings/zyg/what_pinyin_is_not.html correctly however, the text was not meant as an argument against romanization but as a playful example of how pinyin are unfit for classical rather than modern vernacular chinese.

vitus 2y ago
I'd accept that interpretation. To be more precise, I view it as a demonstration of information loss from replacing classical characters entirely with romanization, as opposed to a forceful argument against any form of adoption of romanization.