I propose that this article be renamed to "Cantonese language" or "Cantonese (language)" so that an article on "Cantonese people" can be created and "Cantonese" can then be turned into a summary page. Any ideas? Handels584 09:13, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
I am concerned that the following text is mostly liberal brainwashing:
Cantonese preserved many features found in Ancient Chinese that are lost in Mandarin. It kept many of Ancient Chinese's final consonants (i.e. "m", "n", "ng", "p", "t", and "k") and has at least six tones, compared to Mandarin's two final consonants (i.e. "n" and "ng") and Mandarin's four tones. Cantonese also has fewer initial consonants but it also has about twice as many distinctively different syllables compared to Mandarin. Therefore, colloquial Cantonese words tend to be more monosyllabic compared to Mandarin, whose words tend to be more polysyllabic, because Cantonese does not differentiate as many homonyms.
The above text raises one very serious question: given that the Cantonese people are of Tai origin, how come the article claims that the Cantonese language is related to Ancient Chinese? Isn't this just a blatant contradiction of the fact that all languages spoken by Tai peoples are not related to any Chinese language? It seems that this is yet another thinly veiled attempt to tell falsehoods about the actual identity of the Cantonese people.
Needless to say, I have deleted the offending text. Handels584