[4cao]

If, as you are claiming, the Taiwanese don't have their own Taiwanese Mandarin, with their language being just the same as the Mandarin used in China, how can it be that at the same time they also don't get to have a say in what constitutes the "standard" of that "common" language they share with the "mainland?"

Also, there is no reason for constantly calling it "Mainland China" where you could just as well call it "China," unless it is to further a political agenda.

Anyway, this is all beside the point. The concept of a "standard" language is political not linguistic. If Google is run as a business, not a political entity, their linguistic choices should reflect the language actually being used in any given market, and not be based on purported "standards" promulgated elsewhere. The same simple concept that somehow already works well for other language pairs that could be construed as similar to the point of being the same should also be applied here.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> If, as you are claiming, the Taiwanese don't have their own Taiwanese Mandarin, with their language being just the same as the Mandarin used in China

This is like saying the Canadians and the Americans each have their own unique language. They speak the same language, with small dialectal differences, and small differences in official standards (semi-official, in the case of the US). The internal differences in Mandarin as spoken in different regions of China are far larger than the differences between the ROC and PRC standards.

In the case of the PRC and ROC (now commonly known as "Taiwan"), the PRC standard is derived from the ROC standard, so emphasizing the differences is somewhat strange. They're very closely related to one another.

> Also, there is no reason for constantly calling it "Mainland China" where you could just as well call it "China," unless it is to further a political agenda.

"Mainland China" and "China" are not synonymous. Mainland China comprises the provinces of the mainland and Hainan. However you define China, at a minimum, it also contains Hong Kong and Macau, which are not part of "Mainland China." Hong Kong notably uses traditional characters, and it has slightly different standards than Taiwan.

> If Google is run as a business, not a political entity, their linguistic choices should reflect the language actually being used in any given market, and not be based on purported "standards" promulgated elsewhere.

Google's Chinese translations are so utterly terrible that this entire discussion is almost moot. I seriously doubt that Google is trying very hard to adhere to any particular standard version of Chinese. If you want decent Chinese <-> English translations, use DeepL.

[4cao]

Whether Taiwanese Mandarin is a separate language or not is a matter of opinion. Delving further into this debate will not lead to an interesting discussion as the definition of what constitutes a language is ultimately blurry. So I'm not making a claim either way, just an observation that you can't have it both ways: if the languages are separate, whatever goes on in China is irrelevant. If it is the same language, then the way it is spoken in Taiwan is no less "standard." It seems you agree with the latter, so let's leave it at that.

I don't think the website is trying to "emphasize the differences," just point out the issues with Google Translate: namely that the output for "zh-tw" does not reflect the language actually used by people in Taiwan, and to that end it betrays the trust of the user. Of course it only lists where the problems are, so it's not a balanced view by definition. It focuses on what needs to be fixed.

In particular, as similar as the two languages or variants are to each other, nearly all the vocabulary relating to modern technologies developed separately, and is fairly distinct. I've never tried it but I can imagine a Google-translated text heavy on computer-related vocabulary can easily end up being unintelligible to a Taiwanese, which constitutes poor quality of service on Google's part.

Taiwan is a separate market for Google, and from the business perspective they would do best not to alienate their users there. Of course it is a free service with no reasonable expectation of quality. But if someone went to the trouble of listing all the issues, the problem might be worth addressing even for purely reputational reasons. I read through the whole word list and I'd say it's at least 95% accurate. Frankly, I'm surprised it sparked such a debate.

As for "Mainland China," you are technically correct about the scope. The term has its use in certain contexts if one is aiming to be very precise (or pedantic). But here it's tangential to the discussion.