# Which is more accurate? Wade-Giles or Pinyin **URL:** \ **Category:** Learning Chinese\ **Created:** [July 27, 2004, 10:04am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247 "2004-07-27T10:04:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Anonymous](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/8491ac/32.png) [@Anonymous](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 7:19am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247/41 "2004-08-02T07:19:42Z")
Hanyu pinyin is definately more accurate cos in Chinese ㄓ have a ‘z’ sound. :bouncy: ---
**Author:** ![Tetsuo](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Tetsuo](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Tetsuo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 7:22am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247/42 "2004-08-02T07:22:26Z")
And since you’ve clarified the “hanyu” reference, let me counter again: I’d say, although I have no data on hand either way, that there’s a good chance there was some form of Hanyu syllabary then. For one, there was already Wade’s syllabary. And Legge would’ve had to be using something when dealing with names and such, right? Also about that time was the big push for orthographic reform, so it wouldn’t be a surprise. And anyway, even if there wasn’t a formally establish syllabary, someone had to be the first, right? ---
**Author:** ![Tetsuo](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Tetsuo](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Tetsuo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 7:24am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247/43 "2004-08-02T07:24:36Z")
> [@Orange+Blue](#): > > Hanyu pinyin is definately more accurate cos in Chinese ㄓ have a ‘z’ sound. Actually it’s closer to a “j” sound if you want to compare with Englsh. ---
**Author:** ![Anonymous](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/8491ac/32.png) [@Anonymous](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 7:32am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247/44 "2004-08-02T07:32:40Z")
Tetuo are you saying that in Hanyu pinyin zhen should be jen? That sounds weird though. :bouncy: ---
**Author:** ![Tetsuo](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Tetsuo](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Tetsuo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 8:12am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247/45 "2004-08-02T08:12:07Z")
No I’m not. I’m saying that it’s not a ‘z’ sound. The closest English equivalent is a ‘j’ sound. I’m not saying anything about any of the romanization systems. ---
**Author:** ![Tyc00n](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/838e76/32.png) [@Tyc00n](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Tyc00n)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247/46 "2004-08-09T15:08:29Z")
I think some of you guys have missed the point. That is that no amount of romanization is ever going to let an individual with no experience read something in pinyin or that other system and inherently speak Chinese. There are just so many sounds in Chinese that cant be expressed with romanization. The problem is that (myself included) had the idea that u can just read it like its english and the result will be Chinese. If taught correctly, either system can be just as accurate in terms of pronounciation. However, the reasons posted above for learning pinyin are right… simply that its so widespread ---
**Author:** ![ironlady](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/i/d2c977/32.png) [@ironlady](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/ironlady)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247/47 "2004-08-09T17:59:52Z")
Pinyin is pretty much phonetically spelled; English is not. Would you like to argue that the English writing system is inherently flawed because people can’t read it and then be able to speak English? ANY written system is a way of representing sounds. The brain needs to be familiar with the sounds first before it can make the correspondence correctly and accurately. For example, if a beginner is taught the word “xihuan” (to like) orally and hears it enough times (50-70) as well as being able to use it himself independently and without hesitation, then when he is presented with the word in written Pinyin, he will merely say, “Oh, that’s pronounced xi3huan1, just like the word I know.” He will not be trying to decode some unknown that doesn’t exist in his head. ---
**Author:** ![cranky\_laowai](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/fbc32d/32.png) [@cranky\_laowai](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/cranky_laowai)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 6:25am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247/48 "2004-08-10T06:25:32Z")
Are we still on this topic? Well, OK then… > [@](#): > > no amount of romanization is ever going to let an individual with no experience read something in pinyin or that other system and inherently speak Chinese. Yes. > [@](#): > > There are just so many sounds in Chinese that cant be expressed with romanization. Nope. [Mandarin has around 420 distinct syllables](http://www.pinyin.info/romanization/hanyu/basic.html), not counting tones (which bring the number up to about 1,200 – I forget the exact number). All of them can be romanized no less effectively than those of any other language. > [@](#): > > The problem is that (myself included) had the idea that u can just read it like its English and the result will be Chinese. If taught correctly, either system can be just as accurate in terms of pronounciation. Yes. Somewhere along the way, part of this thread veered off from talking about which of the two romanization systems is more accurate to which one is better. As an orthographic system for modern Mandarin (i.e. for writing the language itself instead of just a word here and there), Hanyu Pinyin is worlds better. It was designed to be a real writing system, not just an adjunct to characters, unlike the clunky Wade-Giles system. As for the romanization charts on my site, I’ve spent a lot of time and trouble checking them. I think they’re probably the most accurate on the Web. Reports of any errors would be gratefully received. ---
**Author:** ![nishishei](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@nishishei](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/nishishei)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 6:31am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247/49 "2004-08-10T06:31:18Z")
cranky laowai, just want you to know, your site is excellent. Look forward to more readings. ---
**Author:** ![bob](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/ea666f/32.png) [@bob](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/bob)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 9:46am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247/50 "2004-08-10T09:46:17Z")
God I love Pinyin. [Previous page](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/which-is-more-accurate-wade-giles-or-pinyin/11247.md?page=2)