goverment is for sure 朝廷in every part of china in any diclect..Maybe they just don't have time to find a new word because Dr.Sun Yet San was having a big trouble at that time
Prof.Lim and Prof.Mei have explained 無don't have the sound of bo but it is 毛from 漢書。
Preserving Hokkien in written form
Hi, Hong,
Thanks. 朝廷... I totally forgot about that term, and I hear it so often in Chinese television serials!
I have read in several Minnan books (one of them being my reference, 夏門方言志) that the wendu for 無 is "bu2". Your information that "bo2" is 毛 is consistent with my book (it says 毛: "無"的本字).
However, it does not stop there: 夏門方言志 continues to state that "bo2" is the 俗字 (su2 zi4, or "non-classical/vulgar/common expression") for 無. That is why I asked whether "bo2" might possibly be the baidu for 無. Seems logical, and certainly closer in terms of meaning than "hair". But anyway, I am not a native Hokkien, and certainly not an expert. Over to you...
Thanks. 朝廷... I totally forgot about that term, and I hear it so often in Chinese television serials!
I have read in several Minnan books (one of them being my reference, 夏門方言志) that the wendu for 無 is "bu2". Your information that "bo2" is 毛 is consistent with my book (it says 毛: "無"的本字).
However, it does not stop there: 夏門方言志 continues to state that "bo2" is the 俗字 (su2 zi4, or "non-classical/vulgar/common expression") for 無. That is why I asked whether "bo2" might possibly be the baidu for 無. Seems logical, and certainly closer in terms of meaning than "hair". But anyway, I am not a native Hokkien, and certainly not an expert. Over to you...
Hi, Sim,
Interesting review on Tan Choon Hoe's book. While I would probably be a bit more forgiving on its flaws
, your points are all valid. I guess I would soften things by stating in all fairness that the book is definitely not targetted for the discerning linguist. The preface hints that it is meant as a "low-budget phrasebook" to serve the passing Penang visitor who wants a couple of useful phrases under his belt.
Having said that, your blog has raised an important point about using proper phonetic spelling conventions (sorry, I am not familiar with the technical term!). My problem is that my two key references, i.e. "夏門方言志" and "Amoy Hokkien" (Vols. 1 & 2) by Nicholas Bodman both use different conventions for denoting vowels and tones. For instance, 夏門方言志 uses that "letter 'n' with a long tail" to denote the -ng ending (which Bodman does not use). On the other hand, Bodman uses -ie- instead of just -i- for words like 成 (spelled "sieng") and 正 (spelled "cieng") , and substitutes vowel endings with the silent consonent ending -q, e.g. louq 落 (to go down/fall/drop).
With no proper standard to rely on, you will notice that I end up making do with adapting the Wades-Giles system in Mandarin to suit Minnan. The system definitely works better than the standard pinyin, as it allows for all the consonants b-, p- and p'- (aspirated) to be differentiated.
As an additional note, I tend to use the apostrophe ' rather than 'h' to denote aspirated consonents (i.e. p'ak, instead of phak), mirroring Wades-Giles.
Of course, I do realise this is hardly a correct and suitable phonetic convention for the rigourous demands of this forum, and rest assured I will work on adopting a more generally-accepted standard (I also have to sort out my tone numbering convention, too!). In the meantime, I hope all readers will kindly bear with me on this. In the meantime, if anyone can point me towards a standard I can follow, I would be most grateful.
I am guessing at the moment that everyone is using the Missionary standard.
Interesting review on Tan Choon Hoe's book. While I would probably be a bit more forgiving on its flaws
, your points are all valid. I guess I would soften things by stating in all fairness that the book is definitely not targetted for the discerning linguist. The preface hints that it is meant as a "low-budget phrasebook" to serve the passing Penang visitor who wants a couple of useful phrases under his belt.Having said that, your blog has raised an important point about using proper phonetic spelling conventions (sorry, I am not familiar with the technical term!). My problem is that my two key references, i.e. "夏門方言志" and "Amoy Hokkien" (Vols. 1 & 2) by Nicholas Bodman both use different conventions for denoting vowels and tones. For instance, 夏門方言志 uses that "letter 'n' with a long tail" to denote the -ng ending (which Bodman does not use). On the other hand, Bodman uses -ie- instead of just -i- for words like 成 (spelled "sieng") and 正 (spelled "cieng") , and substitutes vowel endings with the silent consonent ending -q, e.g. louq 落 (to go down/fall/drop).
With no proper standard to rely on, you will notice that I end up making do with adapting the Wades-Giles system in Mandarin to suit Minnan. The system definitely works better than the standard pinyin, as it allows for all the consonants b-, p- and p'- (aspirated) to be differentiated.
As an additional note, I tend to use the apostrophe ' rather than 'h' to denote aspirated consonents (i.e. p'ak, instead of phak), mirroring Wades-Giles.
Of course, I do realise this is hardly a correct and suitable phonetic convention for the rigourous demands of this forum, and rest assured I will work on adopting a more generally-accepted standard (I also have to sort out my tone numbering convention, too!). In the meantime, I hope all readers will kindly bear with me on this. In the meantime, if anyone can point me towards a standard I can follow, I would be most grateful.
I am guessing at the moment that everyone is using the Missionary standard.
-
Andrew
Generally yes, although some variations are necessary for special characters:
Epsilon is generally represented by capital E
O' is generally represented by capital O or oo
Superscript n is represented by " or ~ or nn
Most people use c / ch instead of ch / chh
One person omits -h when the tone is shown 4 or 8.
Epsilon is generally represented by capital E
O' is generally represented by capital O or oo
Superscript n is represented by " or ~ or nn
Most people use c / ch instead of ch / chh
One person omits -h when the tone is shown 4 or 8.
-
Sim
Hi Mark,
Yes POJ (peh-oe-ji) / Church or Missionary Romanization is the basis for what most people here use, with the modifications which Andrew mentioned.
Some others you will see are:
1) "*" instead of "~" for nasalization.
I sometimes use this because "~" is used in dictionary entries to indicate "repeat the main word", as in "cheng1" = clear, so "~ beng" = clear and clear. [Well, pissy example, but you know what I mean...].
In order to avoid confusion with this use of "~" I sometimes use "*" for nasalization.
2) e vs. E
This is one of my personal favourites. The o vs. O for closed-o vs. open-o (ko1 'elder brother' vs. kO1 'father's sister) finds a parallel for Penang Hokkien in e vs. E for closed-e vs. open-e (be2 'to buy' vs. bE2 'horse'). [Oops, just saw that Andrew explained that already, under "epsilon".]
Sim.
PS. Don't be discouraged by Hong's sometimes gruff tone. He's a regular and very knowledgable, but (for my taste) sometimes a bit too harsh on other contributors.
Yes POJ (peh-oe-ji) / Church or Missionary Romanization is the basis for what most people here use, with the modifications which Andrew mentioned.
Some others you will see are:
1) "*" instead of "~" for nasalization.
I sometimes use this because "~" is used in dictionary entries to indicate "repeat the main word", as in "cheng1" = clear, so "~ beng" = clear and clear. [Well, pissy example, but you know what I mean...].
In order to avoid confusion with this use of "~" I sometimes use "*" for nasalization.
2) e vs. E
This is one of my personal favourites. The o vs. O for closed-o vs. open-o (ko1 'elder brother' vs. kO1 'father's sister) finds a parallel for Penang Hokkien in e vs. E for closed-e vs. open-e (be2 'to buy' vs. bE2 'horse'). [Oops, just saw that Andrew explained that already, under "epsilon".]
Sim.
PS. Don't be discouraged by Hong's sometimes gruff tone. He's a regular and very knowledgable, but (for my taste) sometimes a bit too harsh on other contributors.
-
hong
Great! Yet another piece of evidence that Minnan has preserved Old Chinese in its speech patterns:
何- You hardly hear this in Mandarin/Yue speech anymore, only in written form
是 - In Old Chinese, it meant "this", not "yes". There were several ways to write "yes", the most generic one being "然" (which actually was more like "it is like this").
何- You hardly hear this in Mandarin/Yue speech anymore, only in written form
是 - In Old Chinese, it meant "this", not "yes". There were several ways to write "yes", the most generic one being "然" (which actually was more like "it is like this").
Another fumble I picked up in Tan Choon Hoe's book:
Page 42: "underwear = tay khor (can also mean shorts)"
The word "te" (to correct the Romanisation) is different for underwear and shorts. For underwear, the "te" means "below/beneath", i.e. 底. For shorts, the "te" means "short", i.e. 短.
The reason for the confusion stems from the similarity in pronouncing 底 and 短 in Penang Hokkien (Chiang Chew derived). In Amoy and Chuan Chew, I believe the distinction between the two words is made clear - "tue" (could someone please correct my spelling?) for 底, and "ter" for 短.
Page 42: "underwear = tay khor (can also mean shorts)"
The word "te" (to correct the Romanisation) is different for underwear and shorts. For underwear, the "te" means "below/beneath", i.e. 底. For shorts, the "te" means "short", i.e. 短.
The reason for the confusion stems from the similarity in pronouncing 底 and 短 in Penang Hokkien (Chiang Chew derived). In Amoy and Chuan Chew, I believe the distinction between the two words is made clear - "tue" (could someone please correct my spelling?) for 底, and "ter" for 短.
-
hong