ciangchiu ci cua is 是誰+啊=ci cua.or only ca in Pinghe
cui+a lost i become cua or ui become ca
Preserving Hokkien in written form
-
hong
Above I was asking about siao -crazy in kangxi dict from玉篇/廣韻 .To study kangxi dict,we need the 4 vol edition along with Wang Li's correction.However,I can't find it is useful because why not go directly to all those yunshu which didn't appeared fully in kangxi dict.
I dont know the hanzi for above kaisi.Japanese loadwords appered in china only before the war in 1930s.We can't speak any chinese languages without using Japanese because it will mean no words for government ,library,police. etc.
I dont know the hanzi for above kaisi.Japanese loadwords appered in china only before the war in 1930s.We can't speak any chinese languages without using Japanese because it will mean no words for government ,library,police. etc.
-
hong
It is not correct for me to say Penang minnan is not pure compare to other minnan in Klang/Kuala Lumpur/Johor/melaka.
Kuala Lumpur minnan in Selayang/Jalan Ipoh say pasat everyday but most minnan I met from North say caici although the better version should be cai-ci-a.
They also use a lot of malay words like those from melacca
In Taiwan's minnan radio program,people speak minnan with mandarin because those guys don't know the correct minnan word for it.
So,it is not that bad for Penang minnan if you don't judge from chuanchiu/chiangchiu/xiamen/tongan sound and vocabulary.Taiwan is just slightly better.
We use gualang for we which is from longyan.
Kuala Lumpur minnan in Selayang/Jalan Ipoh say pasat everyday but most minnan I met from North say caici although the better version should be cai-ci-a.
They also use a lot of malay words like those from melacca
In Taiwan's minnan radio program,people speak minnan with mandarin because those guys don't know the correct minnan word for it.
So,it is not that bad for Penang minnan if you don't judge from chuanchiu/chiangchiu/xiamen/tongan sound and vocabulary.Taiwan is just slightly better.
We use gualang for we which is from longyan.
Re: Preserving Hokkien in written form
Returning to my original topic on preserving the Hokkien dialect in written form:
I am aware that there are a large number of Hokkien sub-dialects co-existing in Malaysia, and even in Penang state alone. However, glossing past this technical issue, and just assuming for the sake of argument that we, say, use Chiang Chew as the reference pronunciation for Hokkien words (with exceptions peculiar to the locality, of course), is it practically possible to read a baihuawen text completely using Hokkien pronunciation? My guess is that it is, but very few local Hokkien speakers can do it.
For instance, there are many common words in baihuawen that do not form the common Hokkien vocabulary as brought over by our ancestors at the turn of the century (when wenyan was still the standard). Take 沒有 for instance. How do you pronouce the character 沒 in Minnan? Even Singapoean Sino-liguists of Hokkien origin tell me that it is "bo2", which I suspect is wrong. I think "bo2" is most likely 無, though some people tell me it is 否).
I am trying to establish how non-Mandarin speaking Hokkien readers (both then and now) manage their reading in pure Hokkien, the same way Hong Kongers do today with Cantonese. It would be very interesting to see this as yet another evidence of the written word uniting all the dialects, and that dialects - especially Min - need not 100% give way to Mandarin pronunciation. Most local Penangites tell me it is impossible - I am not convinced.
I am aware that there are a large number of Hokkien sub-dialects co-existing in Malaysia, and even in Penang state alone. However, glossing past this technical issue, and just assuming for the sake of argument that we, say, use Chiang Chew as the reference pronunciation for Hokkien words (with exceptions peculiar to the locality, of course), is it practically possible to read a baihuawen text completely using Hokkien pronunciation? My guess is that it is, but very few local Hokkien speakers can do it.
For instance, there are many common words in baihuawen that do not form the common Hokkien vocabulary as brought over by our ancestors at the turn of the century (when wenyan was still the standard). Take 沒有 for instance. How do you pronouce the character 沒 in Minnan? Even Singapoean Sino-liguists of Hokkien origin tell me that it is "bo2", which I suspect is wrong. I think "bo2" is most likely 無, though some people tell me it is 否).
I am trying to establish how non-Mandarin speaking Hokkien readers (both then and now) manage their reading in pure Hokkien, the same way Hong Kongers do today with Cantonese. It would be very interesting to see this as yet another evidence of the written word uniting all the dialects, and that dialects - especially Min - need not 100% give way to Mandarin pronunciation. Most local Penangites tell me it is impossible - I am not convinced.
-
Andrew
You have a point there, Andrew. Though, the Hong Kongers got away with it, seemingly via several means:
還 and 沒 - These two words have dual pronunciations/meanings. For 還, it can be huan2 in Mandarin or wan in Cantonese (to return something) or hai2 in Mandarin (still, as yet). For 沒, it can be mo4 in Mandarin or moot in Cantonese (to sink) or mei2 in Mandarin (negative). Since there is no corresponding Cantonese pronunciation for hai2 (well, at least not known by the Cantonese), they adopted wan as the pronunciation and meaning for both huan2 and hai2. Likewise for "mood" in Cantonese.
們 - Both 門 and 們 have the same phonetic in Mandarin, so the Cantonese transposed a 1-to-1 relationship, i.e. "moon" for 們.
But that begs the question - is it really the case that words like 還, 沒 and 們 did not exist in Classical and pre-modern texts (i.e. native only to Northern literature), such that historically there were no pronunciations for them in the Southern dialects? I checked Kangxi, and found that 們 is recorded as the first person plural, which suggests that a definitive pronunciation must exist for it in the Suothern dialects. However, 還 and 沒 retained only single meanings for "return" and "sink", respectively.
還 and 沒 - These two words have dual pronunciations/meanings. For 還, it can be huan2 in Mandarin or wan in Cantonese (to return something) or hai2 in Mandarin (still, as yet). For 沒, it can be mo4 in Mandarin or moot in Cantonese (to sink) or mei2 in Mandarin (negative). Since there is no corresponding Cantonese pronunciation for hai2 (well, at least not known by the Cantonese), they adopted wan as the pronunciation and meaning for both huan2 and hai2. Likewise for "mood" in Cantonese.
們 - Both 門 and 們 have the same phonetic in Mandarin, so the Cantonese transposed a 1-to-1 relationship, i.e. "moon" for 們.
But that begs the question - is it really the case that words like 還, 沒 and 們 did not exist in Classical and pre-modern texts (i.e. native only to Northern literature), such that historically there were no pronunciations for them in the Southern dialects? I checked Kangxi, and found that 們 is recorded as the first person plural, which suggests that a definitive pronunciation must exist for it in the Suothern dialects. However, 還 and 沒 retained only single meanings for "return" and "sink", respectively.
-
niuc
Hi Mark
Really glad to have you here. Thanks for your sharings. I really enjoyed reading them and agree with many of your points.
"Who" ci7-cui7 = 是誰, here ci7 is a variation of si7, usually of E-mng (Xiamen) dialect. Ours is sang5/siang5 = sia*5-lang5 (usually written as 啥人). 底人 ti2-lang5 = tiang5, of Kim-mng (Jinmen) dialect. Btw I don't like 儂 and am not convinced that this is the original character for lang5 (human).
Bed = 眠床 bin5-chng5. bin5 = sleep, 無眠 bo5-bin5 = not enough sleep. If 眠 is also the character for bi5, it means to close eyes or to take a nap.
Thanks Hong, for the info that 開始 khai1-si2 was coined in Japanese. I couldn't find it in Douglas' dictionary (year 1873). I think 起頭 khi2-thau5 is more common than chim2-thau5. I don't know about "chhann/cha*". If 政府 cing3-hu2 was coined in Japanese, may be the original Chinese word is 衙門 ge5-mng5.
Mark, I agree that all 漢字 Hanji are pronounceable in Hokkien but not all are used. A Hokkien text written in Hanji is different from a Mandarin one, due to differences in diction and even grammar. If we pronounce a Mandarin text word-to-word in Hokkien, as Andrew said: it probably would no longer be Hokkien. At least it would sound very weird. So usually when we read a Mandarin text in Hokkien, we'll substitute some of the words accordingly, e.g. 我們 -> gun2 or lan2, not ngo2-bun5.
For the list of Hokkien pronunciation of 漢字 Hanji, we can refer to http://home.kimo.com.tw/profliim/HARNJI-YM/Big5-all.htm. Please note the different romanization employed in the site.
Really glad to have you here. Thanks for your sharings. I really enjoyed reading them and agree with many of your points.
"Who" ci7-cui7 = 是誰, here ci7 is a variation of si7, usually of E-mng (Xiamen) dialect. Ours is sang5/siang5 = sia*5-lang5 (usually written as 啥人). 底人 ti2-lang5 = tiang5, of Kim-mng (Jinmen) dialect. Btw I don't like 儂 and am not convinced that this is the original character for lang5 (human).
Bed = 眠床 bin5-chng5. bin5 = sleep, 無眠 bo5-bin5 = not enough sleep. If 眠 is also the character for bi5, it means to close eyes or to take a nap.
Thanks Hong, for the info that 開始 khai1-si2 was coined in Japanese. I couldn't find it in Douglas' dictionary (year 1873). I think 起頭 khi2-thau5 is more common than chim2-thau5. I don't know about "chhann/cha*". If 政府 cing3-hu2 was coined in Japanese, may be the original Chinese word is 衙門 ge5-mng5.
Mark, I agree that all 漢字 Hanji are pronounceable in Hokkien but not all are used. A Hokkien text written in Hanji is different from a Mandarin one, due to differences in diction and even grammar. If we pronounce a Mandarin text word-to-word in Hokkien, as Andrew said: it probably would no longer be Hokkien. At least it would sound very weird. So usually when we read a Mandarin text in Hokkien, we'll substitute some of the words accordingly, e.g. 我們 -> gun2 or lan2, not ngo2-bun5.
For the list of Hokkien pronunciation of 漢字 Hanji, we can refer to http://home.kimo.com.tw/profliim/HARNJI-YM/Big5-all.htm. Please note the different romanization employed in the site.
-
Guest
Hi, Niuc,
Yes, I agree with the difficulties in reading a pure Mandarin text using Hokkien word-for-word out loud. 我們ngo2-bun5 would be just one of many manholes involving differences in words used. The Hong Kong Cantonese have a similar challenge, too. They use the approach in newsreading which you described - probably reading about 80-90% of the words ad verbatim, with the remaining being transliterated into colloquial Cantonese on the fly. I think the only exception is song lyrics, where the words are sung out using the Mandarin grammar and Cantonese pronunciation word-for-word.
I also agree with you on your doubts that 儂 is the Hanzi for lang5 (man). My copy of Mathews' Dictionary defines the term as "'I/we' in Old Chinese, now used for 'you' in Jiangsu" - I can comfirm Mathews to be correct, as I have had Shanghainese (technically Wu or Jiangsu) cab drivers greet me with "儂好" (你好).
Actually, I am more convinced that lang5 is simply the baidu (colloquial reading) for 人 - the wendu (literal reading) being jin5. And I have a reason for this theory: I know of two other words where there exists a prefix j-/l- wendu/baidu relationship, i.e. 忍 (jun2/lun2) and 然 (jen5/len5). In some cases, the baidu prefix l- is substituted with n-. I have often heard lang5 being pronouced as nang2 (typical in the Teochew dialect), and I believe na ('if', 'like unto') is the baidu pronunciation for 若 (also 'if', like 'unto').
Since 開始 was coined by the Japanese, it would mean that none of the other dialects would have used it for "start". If so, I wonder what the original official Chinese term for start was (simply 始, or 起, or 初, or 行?). The word "start" must have existed in wenyan! Food for thought...
Thanks for the URL to the Taiwanese pronunciation list. Wow, it really is comprehensive! That will serve me very well as a guide to tabulating and proof-reading my Penang Hokkien mini-dictionary (with a number of pronunciation transposing required, of course, e.g. -ui for -ng)... I believe Andrew is waiting to see some excerpts from me!
Regards,
Mark
Yes, I agree with the difficulties in reading a pure Mandarin text using Hokkien word-for-word out loud. 我們ngo2-bun5 would be just one of many manholes involving differences in words used. The Hong Kong Cantonese have a similar challenge, too. They use the approach in newsreading which you described - probably reading about 80-90% of the words ad verbatim, with the remaining being transliterated into colloquial Cantonese on the fly. I think the only exception is song lyrics, where the words are sung out using the Mandarin grammar and Cantonese pronunciation word-for-word.
I also agree with you on your doubts that 儂 is the Hanzi for lang5 (man). My copy of Mathews' Dictionary defines the term as "'I/we' in Old Chinese, now used for 'you' in Jiangsu" - I can comfirm Mathews to be correct, as I have had Shanghainese (technically Wu or Jiangsu) cab drivers greet me with "儂好" (你好).
Actually, I am more convinced that lang5 is simply the baidu (colloquial reading) for 人 - the wendu (literal reading) being jin5. And I have a reason for this theory: I know of two other words where there exists a prefix j-/l- wendu/baidu relationship, i.e. 忍 (jun2/lun2) and 然 (jen5/len5). In some cases, the baidu prefix l- is substituted with n-. I have often heard lang5 being pronouced as nang2 (typical in the Teochew dialect), and I believe na ('if', 'like unto') is the baidu pronunciation for 若 (also 'if', like 'unto').
Since 開始 was coined by the Japanese, it would mean that none of the other dialects would have used it for "start". If so, I wonder what the original official Chinese term for start was (simply 始, or 起, or 初, or 行?). The word "start" must have existed in wenyan! Food for thought...
Thanks for the URL to the Taiwanese pronunciation list. Wow, it really is comprehensive! That will serve me very well as a guide to tabulating and proof-reading my Penang Hokkien mini-dictionary (with a number of pronunciation transposing required, of course, e.g. -ui for -ng)... I believe Andrew is waiting to see some excerpts from me!
Regards,
Mark
-
Guest
Hi Andrew,Andrew wrote:Mark,
... I am surprised that you consider Tan Choon Hoe's book to be excellent. I have not seen the book myself, but judging from the excerpts cited in http://thepenangfileb.bravepages.com/au ... 2023-1.htm , the author has either a very bad ear or a very lazy orthography. Unfortunately most Penangites have not learnt any of the systematic romanisation systems such as the missionary romanisation that is used by most people on this board.
A.
I have the book, and I agree. I admire the initiative he took to do it, but I'm saddened that it's quite an unsystematic attempt.
Below is an excerpt I wrote to a fellow Hokkien enthusiast some time ago:
[EXCERPT:]
I have just got my hands on the book: "Penang Hokkien Dialect", which is a slim volume giving basic vocabulary and some sample conversations. A cute book, but marred by a number of things:
1) There are no tone indications.
2) Nasalization is indicated by an -n- after the initial consonant: knia5 (to walk), thni7 (to sew) etc. You probably know that this is a convention used in Malaysia in personal names. My major objection to it is that it becomes impossible to indicate nasalization in words which don't have an initial consonant. And indeed, he does not write any nasalization in this case.
3) He hasn't bothered to write a little introduction describing the background of the dialect (e.g. contrasting the -ui* (PgHk) vs. -ng (AmoyHk)), nor even mentioned tones, let alone sandhi.
4) He has gone for an *ENGLISH* (!) spelling: loo I khee khnua hee boh? (do you want to go and watch a film?).
5) He hasn't explained how important the distinction -h vs. -k vs. -<nothing> is in Hokkien, and appears to spell -h occasionally with -h, occasionally with -k; -<nothing> occasionally with -<nothing> and occasionally with -h (as in my example above).
6) There are quite a lot of mistakes in transcribing ch vs. chh (i.e. a lot of chh's are written ch).
Points 5 and 6 are both just sloppy, whatever spelling system one uses. Getting points 1-4 fixed would have made it much less accessible to the general public, which is what the book is intended for. Still, I think using a transcription system with "continental" (e.g. Italian/German) vowel values would have already been a major improvement, as English vowel indications are so vague. Ultimately he implicitly uses "continental" values for other diphthongs anyway: "tau" (bean), ""kio" (to call).
[End EXCERPT]
Looking back, I think my two greatest objections are point #2 (my pet hate in this informal orthography!), and point #4 ("loo" instead of "lu" and "khee" instead of "khi"
). I mean, a lay audience in Malaysia *knows* the value of Malay vowels, which is very similar to continental/Italian/German, even Japanese values, so why not use them? This would even make the book accessible to Japanese, Spanish, Italian, German, etc tourists to Penang...Hi Mark,Mark wrote: ...
I do agree that Tan Choon Hoe's book has some linguistic flaws. In my opinion, the three obvious ones are:
1. His assertion that Penang Hokkien has no written form. This point, of course, is open to argument, given the significant stock of non-Chinese loan words. However, the bulk of the words are still of Hanzi origin, and these are what I am referring to.
2. As you correctly point out, his phonetics are somewhat inconsistent (I think he was trying to make it simpler for the foreign reader by using words in English that approximate in sound to the Hokkien words).
3. Too much use of English loan words, where the Hokkien equivalent not only exists, but is in general use.
...
Yes, your point #2 is similar to my point #4, and we agree on the explanation: he wanted a lay English-speaking audience to be able to read this.
Cheers,
Sim.