I'm involved with a Cantonese transcription project, which entails trying to write down the colloquial speech of Cantonese speakers, both in Chinese characters and in Yale romanization.
We are having difficulty determining which characters to use to transcribe very common words, like yi4ga0 ("now") and teng0yat6 (tomorrow), which seem to be strictly spoken expressions. Looking up "now" in the dictionary, for example, only yields the formal, written expression, which doesn't correspond to the spoken form at all. I've been told these spoken forms are written with characters borrowed for their sound rather than their meaning, but ask different people and they choose different characters to represent these sounds!
Can anybody tell me where I can go to in order to find out what is the standard way of writing down these type of expressions? Do they appear in comic books? Magazines?
All help most appreciated,
Elizabeth
Writing down the spoken language
-
James Campbell
Re: Writing down the spoken language
Try Cantonese-specific dictionary. Or Cantonese-language textbook.
yiga = 而家
tengyat = 聽日
ngaamngaam (just剛好) = 啱啱
I have a list of dialect dictionaries (50+) on my website. They are all fairly new if you check publication dates. Each of them display the local characters and pronunciations of words.
http://www.glossika.com/en/dict/phon/sources.htm
James Campbell
yiga = 而家
tengyat = 聽日
ngaamngaam (just剛好) = 啱啱
I have a list of dialect dictionaries (50+) on my website. They are all fairly new if you check publication dates. Each of them display the local characters and pronunciations of words.
http://www.glossika.com/en/dict/phon/sources.htm
James Campbell
-
:-)
Re: Writing down the spoken language
I know the dictionary that is perfect for you!
It's called: "A Practical Cantontese-English Dictionary" by Sidney Lau.
copyright 1977, printed & published by THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, Hong Kong. #154013-10L-11/87.
"teng-yat/ting-yat/" (tommorow) is character #3061 (listen/hear + sun/day)
"yi-ga" (now) is character #3417 (moreover + house)
"ngaam-ngaam" is character #2310 (be suitable for x 2) - "mouth" radical on the left + "mountain" over "stone" on the right.
It's called: "A Practical Cantontese-English Dictionary" by Sidney Lau.
copyright 1977, printed & published by THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, Hong Kong. #154013-10L-11/87.
"teng-yat/ting-yat/" (tommorow) is character #3061 (listen/hear + sun/day)
"yi-ga" (now) is character #3417 (moreover + house)
"ngaam-ngaam" is character #2310 (be suitable for x 2) - "mouth" radical on the left + "mountain" over "stone" on the right.
-
Thomas Chan
Re: Writing down the spoken language
Elizabeth wrote:
>
> I'm involved with a Cantonese transcription project, which
> entails trying to write down the colloquial speech of
> Cantonese speakers, both in Chinese characters and in Yale
> romanization.
> We are having difficulty determining which characters to use
> to transcribe very common words, like yi4ga0 ("now") and
> teng0yat6 (tomorrow), which seem to be strictly spoken
> expressions. Looking up "now" in the dictionary, for
> example, only yields the formal, written expression, which
> doesn't correspond to the spoken form at all. I've been told
> these spoken forms are written with characters borrowed for
> their sound rather than their meaning, but ask different
> people and they choose different characters to represent
> these sounds!
> Can anybody tell me where I can go to in order to find out
> what is the standard way of writing down these type of
> expressions? Do they appear in comic books? Magazines?
I would recommend getting a few recent dictionaries (1970s or later),
preferably HK ones, and selecting the written form that most of them
use. That way, you can minimize the idiosyncratic character transcriptions
that you describe (e.g., 比 for bei 'to give', rather that common 俾 or 畀); as
well as minimizing written forms that are just a figment of the dictionary
compiler's imagination (some will make up characters rather than
investigate which ones most people would write), e.g., many of the less
commonly used colloquial words, or particles; or those that are
etymologically correct but not actually used in writing colloquial speech
(e.g., tau 'to rest' is commonly written {口抖}, but {咅攴} is claimed in some
books as the "本字", or ngok 'to raise the head' which is commonly written
咢, but the "本字" is given as {岳頁}).
I mentioned "recent" and "HK", because 1) even in slightly older sources
(including even Sidney Lau's 1977 dictionary, unfortunately), the de
facto "standard" can be different, because in some cases people are still
figuring out what is the best way of writing words (e.g., the perfective
particle jo used to be {口阻}, but is now {口左}; and gau 'lump' used to be
person-radical {人咎}, but is now {口舊}; the order that the two characters
of gaatjaat 'cockroach' were switched as recently as the 70's or 80's--now
the one that looks like 甲 is written first); and 2) because non-HK sources
will bring in the risk of artificiality, since simplified charactes are used, and
writing colloquial speech is not anywhere as much a norm.
Also, keep in mind not to obsess over getting the actual character written--
it is okay if a 口 'mouth' radical or some other radical is omitted as long as
enough of a phonetic remains (e.g., tingyat 'tomorrow' can be 聽日 or {口聽}
日--offhand, I don't know which is more common, perhaps the former; or
局 rather than {火局} for guk 'to bake'), or if you choose a different but
alternative common way of writing a word because that is a character you
are able to type on a computer. For example, ham6baang6laang6 'all' is a
very confused word--not only do people and written sources differ on its
exact pronunciation (number of syllables, vowel "length", tones, etc), but
the three characters used to write it are always different, with no dominant
written form, although they always revolve around the same few phonetic
elements combined with a not so predictable radical, e.g., for the second
syllable, you find 唪, {口棒}, and {口捧}--奉 is the common piece (despite the
[f-] initial). Or take the case of saai 'to waste', which can be written {口徙},
徙, 漇, 扌徙, and 扌晒--but note that 徙 (and possibly also 晒) are the common
phonetic pieces.
In some cases, there simply is no de facto standard for writing certain
words because they are so rare that a consensus hasn't been gathered,
and you are reduced to either inventing new characters (something that
dictionary compilers are forced to resort to sometimes), or just putting in
empty boxes and let the romanized transcription tier provide the word's
identity.
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu
>
> I'm involved with a Cantonese transcription project, which
> entails trying to write down the colloquial speech of
> Cantonese speakers, both in Chinese characters and in Yale
> romanization.
> We are having difficulty determining which characters to use
> to transcribe very common words, like yi4ga0 ("now") and
> teng0yat6 (tomorrow), which seem to be strictly spoken
> expressions. Looking up "now" in the dictionary, for
> example, only yields the formal, written expression, which
> doesn't correspond to the spoken form at all. I've been told
> these spoken forms are written with characters borrowed for
> their sound rather than their meaning, but ask different
> people and they choose different characters to represent
> these sounds!
> Can anybody tell me where I can go to in order to find out
> what is the standard way of writing down these type of
> expressions? Do they appear in comic books? Magazines?
I would recommend getting a few recent dictionaries (1970s or later),
preferably HK ones, and selecting the written form that most of them
use. That way, you can minimize the idiosyncratic character transcriptions
that you describe (e.g., 比 for bei 'to give', rather that common 俾 or 畀); as
well as minimizing written forms that are just a figment of the dictionary
compiler's imagination (some will make up characters rather than
investigate which ones most people would write), e.g., many of the less
commonly used colloquial words, or particles; or those that are
etymologically correct but not actually used in writing colloquial speech
(e.g., tau 'to rest' is commonly written {口抖}, but {咅攴} is claimed in some
books as the "本字", or ngok 'to raise the head' which is commonly written
咢, but the "本字" is given as {岳頁}).
I mentioned "recent" and "HK", because 1) even in slightly older sources
(including even Sidney Lau's 1977 dictionary, unfortunately), the de
facto "standard" can be different, because in some cases people are still
figuring out what is the best way of writing words (e.g., the perfective
particle jo used to be {口阻}, but is now {口左}; and gau 'lump' used to be
person-radical {人咎}, but is now {口舊}; the order that the two characters
of gaatjaat 'cockroach' were switched as recently as the 70's or 80's--now
the one that looks like 甲 is written first); and 2) because non-HK sources
will bring in the risk of artificiality, since simplified charactes are used, and
writing colloquial speech is not anywhere as much a norm.
Also, keep in mind not to obsess over getting the actual character written--
it is okay if a 口 'mouth' radical or some other radical is omitted as long as
enough of a phonetic remains (e.g., tingyat 'tomorrow' can be 聽日 or {口聽}
日--offhand, I don't know which is more common, perhaps the former; or
局 rather than {火局} for guk 'to bake'), or if you choose a different but
alternative common way of writing a word because that is a character you
are able to type on a computer. For example, ham6baang6laang6 'all' is a
very confused word--not only do people and written sources differ on its
exact pronunciation (number of syllables, vowel "length", tones, etc), but
the three characters used to write it are always different, with no dominant
written form, although they always revolve around the same few phonetic
elements combined with a not so predictable radical, e.g., for the second
syllable, you find 唪, {口棒}, and {口捧}--奉 is the common piece (despite the
[f-] initial). Or take the case of saai 'to waste', which can be written {口徙},
徙, 漇, 扌徙, and 扌晒--but note that 徙 (and possibly also 晒) are the common
phonetic pieces.
In some cases, there simply is no de facto standard for writing certain
words because they are so rare that a consensus hasn't been gathered,
and you are reduced to either inventing new characters (something that
dictionary compilers are forced to resort to sometimes), or just putting in
empty boxes and let the romanized transcription tier provide the word's
identity.
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu
-
:-)
Re: Writing down the spoken language
I assumed that because Sidney Lau's dictionary is published by THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER in Hong Kong, therefore, has the endorsement by the Government of Hong Kong. As a government publication, wouldn't you think it would be official even though it needs to be updated which perhaps may already have been since mine was purchased dacades ago?
As for overseas Cantonese speaking communities/markets, the sounds represented in Sidney Lau's dictionary is still valid even though they may have disappeared in the current colloquial Hong Kong Cantonese speech (ie: I=ngoh which in Hong Kong the "ng" is droped from ngoh. You=neih which in Hong Kong sounds like leih...).
Cantonese speaking people from rural Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, & Annam will retain the old phonetic sounds when speaking "standard" Cantonese represented by S. Lau's 1977 dictionary, therefore, if you are serving this particular Cantonese community as opposed to just those from Hong Kong, then Sidney Lau's dictionary will satisfy the current language needs. Even though Hong Kong Cantonese is widely accepted to be the dominant Cantonese language spoken, it still isn't regarded as the standard speech for Cantonese among overseas Cantonese communities where Hong Kong Cantonese is a minority among other Cantonese.
Why not recommend & name a better Cantonese dictionary alternative rather than criticizing the one which satisfy the current needs so we can all benefit from the knowledge.
Criticizing a recommended resource does not really help people if they don't know where to start looking, but recommending a better alternative does help everyone, including me.
Unfortunately, some people get trapped in a certain behavioral thinking pattern...
As for overseas Cantonese speaking communities/markets, the sounds represented in Sidney Lau's dictionary is still valid even though they may have disappeared in the current colloquial Hong Kong Cantonese speech (ie: I=ngoh which in Hong Kong the "ng" is droped from ngoh. You=neih which in Hong Kong sounds like leih...).
Cantonese speaking people from rural Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, & Annam will retain the old phonetic sounds when speaking "standard" Cantonese represented by S. Lau's 1977 dictionary, therefore, if you are serving this particular Cantonese community as opposed to just those from Hong Kong, then Sidney Lau's dictionary will satisfy the current language needs. Even though Hong Kong Cantonese is widely accepted to be the dominant Cantonese language spoken, it still isn't regarded as the standard speech for Cantonese among overseas Cantonese communities where Hong Kong Cantonese is a minority among other Cantonese.
Why not recommend & name a better Cantonese dictionary alternative rather than criticizing the one which satisfy the current needs so we can all benefit from the knowledge.
Criticizing a recommended resource does not really help people if they don't know where to start looking, but recommending a better alternative does help everyone, including me.
Unfortunately, some people get trapped in a certain behavioral thinking pattern...
-
Thomas Chan
Re: Writing down the spoken language
wrote:>
> I assumed that because Sidney Lau's dictionary is published
> by THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER in Hong Kong, therefore, has the
> endorsement by the Government of Hong Kong. As a government
> publication, wouldn't you think it would be official even
> though it needs to be updated which perhaps may already have
> been since mine was purchased dacades ago?
Paying attention to the qualifications and reputation of who writes and
publishes things is a good habit, but I wouldn't take it to the level of taking
everything a particular writer says as gospel. You'll find that academic
authors and publishers don't necessarily agree with the government, nor
even amongst themselves. That is normal. Given that Cantonese isn't
standardized in spoken or written form, it becomes even more important
to consult multiple resources and make one's own observations.
> As for overseas Cantonese speaking communities/markets, the
> sounds represented in Sidney Lau's dictionary is still valid
> even though they may have disappeared in the current
> colloquial Hong Kong Cantonese speech (ie: I=ngoh which in
> Hong Kong the "ng" is droped from ngoh. You=neih which in
> Hong Kong sounds like leih...).
> Cantonese speaking people from rural Guangdong, Guangxi,
> Hainan, & Annam will retain the old phonetic sounds when
> speaking "standard" Cantonese represented by S. Lau's 1977
> dictionary, therefore, if you are serving this particular
> Cantonese community as opposed to just those from Hong Kong,
> then Sidney Lau's dictionary will satisfy the current
> language needs. Even though Hong Kong Cantonese is widely
> accepted to be the dominant Cantonese language spoken, it
> still isn't regarded as the standard speech for Cantonese
> among overseas Cantonese communities where Hong Kong
> Cantonese is a minority among other Cantonese.
For purposes of writing down colloquial speech, the pronunciation given
in any source doesn't matter. All that matters is what characters are used.
My recommendation for using HK sources for the characters was because
that community produces the most colloquial writing, and thus is a de facto
standard for the characters used. For writing purposes, I don't care what
pronunciations each source promotes.
> Why not recommend & name a better Cantonese dictionary
> alternative rather than criticizing the one which satisfy the
> current needs so we can all benefit from the knowledge.
You've missed my entire point. I'm not singling out Sidney Lau's 1977
dictionary for criticism, nor did I say much about it except mention it briefly in
passing. There is no *single* better dictionary--I recommended getting
several recent dictionaries and comparing them, including even Sidney Lau's
(I said 70's or later).
If I really wanted to criticize Sidney Lau's dictionary, then there are other
issues I would have brought up, such as it being a small resource and is
missing many common colloquial words (and thus, their characters). e.g.,
you cannot find tong1 'to slaughter' in it (written {當刀}). Or I could have
focused on its age, such that it thinks lip1 'elevator/lift' is not written
{車立}.) But it wasn't my goal to criticize it or provide a review of it.
> Criticizing a recommended resource does not really help
> people if they don't know where to start looking, but
> recommending a better alternative does help everyone,
> including me.
Overfocusing on a small comment and taking the discussion off on a tangent
doesn't help.
> Unfortunately, some people get trapped in a certain
> behavioral thinking pattern...
Such as zealously defending their favorite dictionary?
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu
-
:-)
Re: Writing down the spoken language
> You'll find that academic authors and publishers don't necessarily agree with the government, nor even amongst themselves.
The problem is, The Government decides what is official rather than what is academically correct. Standardization is a government function not an academic fuction.
For example, is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? Academically, it is a fruit but the government says it's a vegetable. So who's right? The government, because business forms are legal documents and on the forms, tomatoes are "by legal definition" a vegetable even though it's really a fruit.
>you cannot find tong1 'to slaughter' in it (written {當刀}).
How often do you even use the word "slaughter" in English let alone Cantonese? There are words in English that aren't even in the English dictionary.
> Or I could have focused on its age, such that it thinks lip1 'elevator/lift' is not written
{車立}.)
Actually, "lip"1 for "lift" is character #1905 on p.510
> But it wasn't my goal to criticize it or provide a review of it.
Good! Now I can go on with my life freely and live life to it's fullest as if this theatrical moment never ever took place. Flop flop fizz fizz, Oh what a relief it is...
> Such as zealously defending their favorite dictionary?
Oh my gosh! I hadn't realized I had a favorite dictionary until now. For now on, I will genuflect to it everytime I open it and splash holy water under my armpits everytime I see a hidden message.
Actually, I have a problem with people who systematically discredit other people's resources while rarely ever providing alternative resources/solutions. These are the people who will tell The Little Trian that Could: "Nah, that'll never work." It's an attitude that negates: "Nothing Ventured...Nothing Gained..."
The problem is, The Government decides what is official rather than what is academically correct. Standardization is a government function not an academic fuction.
For example, is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? Academically, it is a fruit but the government says it's a vegetable. So who's right? The government, because business forms are legal documents and on the forms, tomatoes are "by legal definition" a vegetable even though it's really a fruit.
>you cannot find tong1 'to slaughter' in it (written {當刀}).
How often do you even use the word "slaughter" in English let alone Cantonese? There are words in English that aren't even in the English dictionary.
> Or I could have focused on its age, such that it thinks lip1 'elevator/lift' is not written
{車立}.)
Actually, "lip"1 for "lift" is character #1905 on p.510
> But it wasn't my goal to criticize it or provide a review of it.
Good! Now I can go on with my life freely and live life to it's fullest as if this theatrical moment never ever took place. Flop flop fizz fizz, Oh what a relief it is...
> Such as zealously defending their favorite dictionary?
Oh my gosh! I hadn't realized I had a favorite dictionary until now. For now on, I will genuflect to it everytime I open it and splash holy water under my armpits everytime I see a hidden message.
Actually, I have a problem with people who systematically discredit other people's resources while rarely ever providing alternative resources/solutions. These are the people who will tell The Little Trian that Could: "Nah, that'll never work." It's an attitude that negates: "Nothing Ventured...Nothing Gained..."
-
Kobo-Daishi
Re: Writing down the spoken language
Dear all,
I couldn’t find either of those 2 characters (當刀) ‘slaughter’ or (車立) ‘lift, elevator’ using the search input feature at the chinalanguage on-line dictionary.
But they do have the characters at the following web pages:
http://www.chinalanguage.com/cgi-bin/vi ... in,english
http://www.chinalanguage.com/cgi-bin/vi ... in,english
The only time I use the word “slaughter or butcher” is when we talk about slaughtering a chicken, pig or cow, usually for a special event. But, some people who prefer freshly butchered meats will go to Chinese butchers and would use the word. Of course in my dialect of Taishanese we pronounce it “hohng”. This is one of those characters with a t- initial sound in Cantonese and Mandarin that has an h- initial sound in Taishanese.
Since they don’t have this character in Mandarin, I guess the Mandarin reading is an artificial reading.
Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.
I couldn’t find either of those 2 characters (當刀) ‘slaughter’ or (車立) ‘lift, elevator’ using the search input feature at the chinalanguage on-line dictionary.
But they do have the characters at the following web pages:
http://www.chinalanguage.com/cgi-bin/vi ... in,english
http://www.chinalanguage.com/cgi-bin/vi ... in,english
The only time I use the word “slaughter or butcher” is when we talk about slaughtering a chicken, pig or cow, usually for a special event. But, some people who prefer freshly butchered meats will go to Chinese butchers and would use the word. Of course in my dialect of Taishanese we pronounce it “hohng”. This is one of those characters with a t- initial sound in Cantonese and Mandarin that has an h- initial sound in Taishanese.
Since they don’t have this character in Mandarin, I guess the Mandarin reading is an artificial reading.
Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.
Government printer
wrote:>
> I assumed that because Sidney Lau's dictionary is published
> by THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER in Hong Kong, therefore, has the
> endorsement by the Government of Hong Kong.
No. I think, conventional wisdom is that no HK government ever bothered to do such a thing. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to know.
According to the introduction chapters of his books, Sidney Lau was employed by the colonial HK government to teach Cantonese to British civil servants. Writing his books can be considered part of that job, so they have been published by a government agency. It does not mean that the government wanted to make anything an official rule. If it were so, I would expect that to be written explicitely in Lau's books.
Btw. S.Lau also introduced his own romanisation in his books, all published by the Government Printer. 30 years later, the HK government itself still ignores that and uses its own age old way of romanising place names. It was meant for teaching, not to be something official.
-
James Campbell
Re: Writing down the spoken language
I don't think people need to respond to this "flip flop" character since it's not willing to at least leave a name. In such a case it is easy to ignore this kind of 不要臉 person.
My dialect dictionaries leave a lot of boxes for words lacking characters. However, if a character has been assigned to a word that has its phonology proven by linguistic sources, then these dictionaries will print the character. Since these are linguists writing these dictionaries, not just lexicographers with an interest in publishing their created characters, I take them seriously.
My Guangzhou dictionary has the t'ong character as described above {當刂} (t'ɔŋ).
It lists sai3 as 晒. Funny, this is the simplified character for the one we use in Taiwan: 曬. I didn't know HK was using some simplified characters.
I couldn't find a 'guk' entry in the dictionary. Since it's in IPA, it would be under 'kuk'. But I also notice that it would be paired with 'kung' and it doesn't have that either. Wait a minute, maybe it's 'kok'. I take it back, there is a 局 under 'kok'. And it does indeed have {火局} with the following entries (how many of these do you people know and use?):
{火局} :1. 房間冇開窗,好~. ~到死. 2. {火局}飯, {火局}鵪鶉, {火局}茶, {火局}熟�. 3. {火局}魚, {火局}番薯, {火局}麵包, 鹽{火局}鷄
{火局}署
{火局}雨
{火局}爐
{火局}親
{火局}汗
{火局}傷風
{火局}盅
{火局}腳
And 'ngɔk' to raise the head, is listed as {岳頁}. They give linguistic reasoning for the use of this character as follows:
廣韵覺韵五角切:"說文云面前岳岳也"
{咅攴} is given as the character for 't'ɐu'. The following linguistic reasoning is provided:
集韵厚韵他口切:"展也"
Sample sentence: 等我{咅攴}下先.
James
"flip flop" character since it's not willing to at least leave a name. In such a case it is easy to ignore this kind of 不要臉 person.My dialect dictionaries leave a lot of boxes for words lacking characters. However, if a character has been assigned to a word that has its phonology proven by linguistic sources, then these dictionaries will print the character. Since these are linguists writing these dictionaries, not just lexicographers with an interest in publishing their created characters, I take them seriously.
My Guangzhou dictionary has the t'ong character as described above {當刂} (t'ɔŋ).
It lists sai3 as 晒. Funny, this is the simplified character for the one we use in Taiwan: 曬. I didn't know HK was using some simplified characters.
I couldn't find a 'guk' entry in the dictionary. Since it's in IPA, it would be under 'kuk'. But I also notice that it would be paired with 'kung' and it doesn't have that either. Wait a minute, maybe it's 'kok'. I take it back, there is a 局 under 'kok'. And it does indeed have {火局} with the following entries (how many of these do you people know and use?):
{火局} :1. 房間冇開窗,好~. ~到死. 2. {火局}飯, {火局}鵪鶉, {火局}茶, {火局}熟�. 3. {火局}魚, {火局}番薯, {火局}麵包, 鹽{火局}鷄
{火局}署
{火局}雨
{火局}爐
{火局}親
{火局}汗
{火局}傷風
{火局}盅
{火局}腳
And 'ngɔk' to raise the head, is listed as {岳頁}. They give linguistic reasoning for the use of this character as follows:
廣韵覺韵五角切:"說文云面前岳岳也"
{咅攴} is given as the character for 't'ɐu'. The following linguistic reasoning is provided:
集韵厚韵他口切:"展也"
Sample sentence: 等我{咅攴}下先.
James