Study the History of Mandarin On the Base of Lǎo Qǐdà(《老乞大》)

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》, Piáo Tōngshì) and the Lǎo Qǐdà(《老乞大》，Lǎo Qǐdà) written in the Beijing colloquial language? Whether had the College of the Standard Pronunciation (正音書院 , Zhèngyīn Shūyuàn) 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 Qǐdà 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. Key words: Mandarin, Beijing dialect, Nanjing pronunciation, the standard and the colloquial pronunciations, the Old China Résumé : Le mandarin est-il représenté par le dialecte de Pékin au quatorzième siècle ? Putongshi et Laoqida sont-ils écrits en dialecte de Pékin ? “L’école de ton orthodoxe ” dans la dynastie de Tsing a-t-elle promu la formation du language commun de nationalité Han d’aujourd’hui ? Voilà les questions clés concernant l’histoire du mandarin contemporain et moderne que les manuels de la langue chinoise moderne ne peuvent pas éluder . Pourtant , le point de vue majeur ou plut t populaire , est faux malgré son apparence bien raisonnable . Les sons du language est la critère principale pour définir la nature languagière des documents anciens . Le symbole de ton orthodoxe du mandarin contemporain n’est effectivement pas le ton de Pékin , mais le ton de Nankin . En Corée , les manuels de chinois Putongshi et Laoqida ne sont pas rédigés en dialecte de Pékin . “L’école de ton orthodoxe ” dans la dynastie de Tsing n’a pratiquement pas promu le processus de formation du language commun de nationalité Han d’aujourd’hui , mais bien au contraire , e