Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese

Mark Yong · Post by **Mark Yong** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:54 am

I am guessing that some of you in the know will, in all probability, have come across this book, or at least heard of it:

林寶卿 "閩南方言與古漢語同源詞典"

Is it a reliable reference for Minnan benzi?

ong · Post by **ong** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:00 am

No,some of the benzi isn't correct .I have mentioned this 3 years ago ,you have to buy all the books .There is a book from China called 闽南方言词释 which is a must not to mention books from taiwan

Mark Yong · Post by **Mark Yong** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:43 am

Hi, Hong,

Thanks for the tips. Questions:

1. Can you provide me the author's name for 閩南方言辭釋? (I ran a search through the Minnan forum, but could not find any previous forum entries on it.) Just to ease my search at the bookstore.

2. Can you give just a couple of example from 林寶卿 "閩南方言與古漢語同源詞典" where the benzi quoted are incorrect? Just for my learning.

ong · Post by **ong** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:57 am

The book is out of print.For you just buy some taiwanese book first.
Just a simple example.toilet is 东厕 not 东司。see master 黄侃 book

ong · Post by **ong** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:29 pm

In her book 佬= 骗 is wrong,the benzi is
http://140.111.1.40/yitic/frc/frc04726.htm

ong · Post by **ong** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:34 pm

lak can be just 掉 =泥角切。She doesn't need to go for 落

Mark Yong · Post by **Mark Yong** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:31 am

ong wrote:
lak can be just 掉 =泥角切。She doesn't need to go for 落

This is interesting. I checked Kangxi Dictionary 康熙字典: In the first entry, according to the 韻會 and 正韻, 掉 is 徒弔切 (which works out closer to ‘tiao’), and 正韻 further states that it is 從調去聲. But further down, it also states that according to the 集韻 and 唐韻 it is (as you mentioned) 女角切 or 尼角切 (which works out closer to ‘nak’/ ‘nok’). So, does this mean that in Minnan literary readings 文讀, both pronunciations are possible for the same meaning?

ong · Post by **ong** » Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:23 am

Both these fanqie actually just lak8.It is the same for 落 too.Some books will just say 落 has lok8 and loh8 reading.
If they don't follow the rule by saying 落 has baidu lak4,we can do it with 掉 as well.The advantage for 掉 is to avoid awkward 落落来 lak loh lai

ong · Post by **ong** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:26 am

www.savefile.com/files/1710565
www.savefile.com/files/1710594

Mark Yong · Post by **Mark Yong** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:46 am

Would like to check a couple of doubtful entries in the book:

1. 佚佗 t'it8-to2 "to play". To the best of my knowledge, t'it8-to2 has no known hanzi, yet she has been able to quote the definition of the character 佚 as 樂也! Is this reliable?

2. 眩 hin5 "dizzy". Should it be 眩 or 暈? From a phonetic standpoint, 眩 makes more sense (from the 玄 phonetic), as the phonetic 軍 would come out more like hun rather than hin.