The book with a lot of benzi for thit tho is by 许成章。台语本字 even gives 出惰 。花天酒地 =食lim puah thit.
I think she is right .She gives 任 for na =in which you can hear people using in Johor.I think she could be right as well.
I can't see any problem with 眩
Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese
-
Andrew
In 林寶卿's book, she identifies the character for ch'ê/ch'uê (to search) as "扌+罪" / "扌+睾". In 陳正統's "閩南話漳腔辭典", he just writes it as 找.
While 陳正統's book is quite a good resource for 漳州話, it seems to me that there are quite a number of entries where he does not attempt to properly identify the correct benzi. But to give him credit, he does put in the correct benzi for some others.
The same goes for 周長楫's 閩南方言大辭. Actually, he is even less-disciplined with his benzi - te/tue (to follow) is simply written as 跟. At least 陳正統 writes it as 綴.
But I guess I should not be too critical, since these dictionaries were probably not meant to be proper benzi resources.
While 陳正統's book is quite a good resource for 漳州話, it seems to me that there are quite a number of entries where he does not attempt to properly identify the correct benzi. But to give him credit, he does put in the correct benzi for some others.
The same goes for 周長楫's 閩南方言大辭. Actually, he is even less-disciplined with his benzi - te/tue (to follow) is simply written as 跟. At least 陳正統 writes it as 綴.
But I guess I should not be too critical, since these dictionaries were probably not meant to be proper benzi resources.
In a practical sense, I do agree with you. I guess where I am coming from is purely from a purist's angle. To cite the Cantonese example (since you mentioned it), I see no reason why the Hong Kong Cantonese, when writing colloquially, cannot use the correct character for 'bei' (to give), i.e. 畀 - instead they write 俾. I mean:Andrew wrote:I think the whole issue of benzi will soon become a purely philological issue, with the adoption of the standard characters specified by the ROC Ministry of Education. I don't see many Cantonese agonising over what characters to use in daily life.
1. 畀 is the etymologically-correct character, defined in the 康熙字典 Kangxi Dictionary as 賜也.
2. 畀 is not a totally obscure character, occurring in the Classical Chinese phrase "畀以重任"
3. 俾 takes more strokes to write than 畀, anyway.
My take is that the proper preservation of the correct characters provides the best vehicle for the preservation of a dialect's rich vocabulary (which, after all, is one of the reasons for the very existence of this Minnan Forum!
) - the kind of richness that I personally find is often absent in Modern Mandarin.-
Andrew
Having seen the RoC MoE list, I don't think there's any danger of incorrect characters being used for no reason - there are a few instances where one character is chosen over another for practical reasons, e.g. 我的 instead of 我個, but on the whole I haven't seen any choice I couldn't live with. Hopefully there will be some provision for revisions if the philologists come up with more benzi.Mark Yong wrote: My take is that the proper preservation of the correct characters provides the best vehicle for the preservation of a dialect's rich vocabulary (which, after all, is one of the reasons for the very existence of this Minnan Forum!
Re: Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese
A few more doubtful entries:
1. ch'ŭa 曳 "to bring <something/someone> <somewhere>". 廈門方言誌 has 拽.
2. ch'ŭe 扌+罪 "to search". The book gives 擇 as the alternate character. However, these two characters have two different meanings, with 擇 being the closer one, i.e. 求也.
3. tám 淫 "wet". 廈門方言誌 has 氵+眈 and 澹. The latter two's fanqie appears to be closer than the former, but the definition is off.
4. tā 焦 "dry". 廈門方言誌 has 凋. Neither fanqie is satisfactory, though both have definitions close to "dry".
5. kiŭ 虯/虬 "bent". The book appears to give an alternate character, i.e. 走+勼, both having almost-identical definitions.
6. sni "用鹽腌物" "v. to pickle with salt". The book gives the character as 鹽. The sentence iŏng iám sni hú "use-salt-(to)-pickle-fish" would end up awkwardly as 用鹽鹽魚.
Note: I am aware that the 廈門方言誌 is not a reliable source for benzi for Hokkien words, but am just using it as a basis for comparison.
More to come later...
1. ch'ŭa 曳 "to bring <something/someone> <somewhere>". 廈門方言誌 has 拽.
2. ch'ŭe 扌+罪 "to search". The book gives 擇 as the alternate character. However, these two characters have two different meanings, with 擇 being the closer one, i.e. 求也.
3. tám 淫 "wet". 廈門方言誌 has 氵+眈 and 澹. The latter two's fanqie appears to be closer than the former, but the definition is off.
4. tā 焦 "dry". 廈門方言誌 has 凋. Neither fanqie is satisfactory, though both have definitions close to "dry".
5. kiŭ 虯/虬 "bent". The book appears to give an alternate character, i.e. 走+勼, both having almost-identical definitions.
6. sni "用鹽腌物" "v. to pickle with salt". The book gives the character as 鹽. The sentence iŏng iám sni hú "use-salt-(to)-pickle-fish" would end up awkwardly as 用鹽鹽魚.
Note: I am aware that the 廈門方言誌 is not a reliable source for benzi for Hokkien words, but am just using it as a basis for comparison.
More to come later...