Everyone! Everything!

[hong]

Taiwanese dict also put 攏總 in their mandarin dict without saying it is a minnan word.

[Mark Yong]

Taiwanese dict also put 攏總 in their mandarin dict without saying it is a minnan word.

My copy of Mathews' Chinese-English Dictionary writes 攏總都來了 "they have all come". This dictionary was compiled in Shanghai in 1931. So, given that this is an independent source from the manland, it looks like the information is consistent with your Taiwanese Mandarin dictionary. The word 攏 by itself apparently means "to collect/gather".

[Sim]

To me 'every' is ambiguous and can mean the same as 'each'. You can say 'Everyone has a pencil and a piece of paper' and it means the same as 'Each person has a pencil and a piece of paper'.

Well, here's one approach: "each" and "every" can be seen as "quantifiers" on a scale of "zero" to "all".

1. No one in this group has a pencil
2. Someone in this group has a pencil
3. A few people in this group have a pencil
4. Some people in this group have a pencil
5. Many in this group have a pencil
6a. Each person in this group has a pencil
6b. Everyone in this group has a pencil
6c. All the people in this group have a pencil

The "factual" content of all three variants of #6 is that there is no one without a pencil, but they each have a slightly different emphasis: "each" stresses the members of the group as individuals, "everyone" stresses that the group is uniform in a particular regard ("having a pencil"), but still has some overtones of the members' individuality, and "all" stresses the uniformity, with less emphasis on the individuals.

Perhaps it becomes clearer in:
a. Each person in the group must make a decision
b. Everyone in the group must make a decision
c. All the people in the group must make a decision

In "a", the attention is focussed on the individuals which have to make a decision. In "b", the attention is more that on the fact that an individual being in that group means that he/she has to make a decision (but there is still some feeling of their individuality). In "c", the attention is less on the individuals and more on the whole group.

Have a look and see if this feeling comes across in:
a. Each book on this table is worth $200
b. Every book on this table is worth $200
c. All the books on this table are worth $200

This is just my private musing, and NOT meant as an iron-cast description of the different between "each" and "every". And even then, I think these are more "very subtle tendencies in emphasis", rather than clear-cut distinctions.

Anyway, my apologies, as this is not directly related to Hokkien. The main relevance is that I think this difference between "each" and "every" is something very specific to English. English-speaking learners of German as surprised that German only has "jeder/jede/jedes" (for the 3 genders) for both "each" and "every". If the sense of "every" is very strong (i.e. what I call the "whole-group-sense", sense "c", then the word "alle" (all) is used.

Similarly, for German native speakers, the subtle difference between "each" and "every" is a source of difficulty. I think this maps to the Malay situation, where "jede(r/-/s)" maps to "tiap-tiap", and "alle" maps to "semua".

Perhaps the native-German speakers (and we have 3!!!) of this Forum may like to comment .

Sim.
P.S. My thanks to one of the occasional (read-only) readers, Detlev, for his "framework" of quantifiers, going from "zero" to "all". Quantifiers approached in this way was discussed some time back in 2003: viewtopic.php?t=1497

[hong]

I type out an article by Prof.fLi about 逐個 which has different meaning in putonghua and minnan.
逐個 in putonghua means each one but in minnan means everyone like 大家﹐大家農﹐大家眾農﹐逐個農。
如果要說逐個檢查﹐閩南話要說--隨蜀個檢查
Is is interesting to know that Prof.Li mention
這個/那個 is not the same in chuanchiu and xia/chiang
chuan is cik ge ,hik ge
xia/chiang cit le/hit le.

[Andrew]

My maternal grandfather, who was from KL (family from Engchun), used to say hih-ge cih-ge even after living in Penang for many years.

Incidentally, is not the Penang pronunciation also cih and hih rather than cit and hit?

[hong]

I think North Malaysian say t ending rather than k or h above.

[niuc]

過過=全部 is also useful. My grandmother always use this word when it is time for dinner.

Hong, is 過過 the correct hanji for ke3-ke3 in this context? It's also ke3 (ke3-ke3 for emphasis) in my dialect and interchangeable with long2-cong2 攏總. 過 is ker3 (not ke3) in my dialect. I like to write ke3 as 皆 but some say that it's not the correct hanji.

[hong]

But 皆is just kai1.I think this is extended use of old chinese grammar 量詞 for 過. Another is 看過過=看不起﹐看穿 which can't be explained by mandarin.
LimKianHui said he never heard of 大過 but I found it in Fuzhou.So people in your hometown could be influenced by fuzhou.

[hong]

I think we can say 個個 in mandarin is like 過過。Both is liangci as well.I want to correct my mistake about Mark's question.即個 。即 is combination of 只一。hit le/hik ge is combiantion of 許一.
Chuanchiu t become k is just because of ge at the back.

[hong]

some joint words
這些 cuai e 只夥個 for chuanchiu。xia/chiang is cia e
那些 huai e 許夥個 for chuanchiu.xia/chiang is hia e
這種 ciong ge 只種個 for chuanchiu.xia/chiang is 只號 cit lo,cio
那種 hiong ge 許種個 for chuanchiu.xia/chiang is hit lo,hio 許號。
這時 即久 cit ku .chiang cit cam si 只一站時 .xia 即陣 cit cun si﹐cun