I can't stand wrong Cantonese romanization... the are very common.. even "Chan", "chop suey", "kung hai fat choi", "kung fu", "Lam", etc...
Heck, Hong Kong is wrong! It should be Heung Gong.
Or ARE THEY WRONG? If they're right, they certainly don't follow the English pronounciations (nor French nor German nor Dutch nor Spanish....). Does anyone have any explanations for this?
Chan should really be Tsun
chop suey " " jaap sui
kung hei fat choi " " goeng hei faat tsoi
kung fu " " goeng fu (or foo)
the surname Lam " " Lum
Comments from anyone?
Tony
Cantonese Romanization
-
Q-taai long!
Re: Cantonese Romanization
Is there any point to all your bitching? The wade-giles system that is in use in HK is way outdated now.
More accurate systems of romanisation have since been developed, namely the Yale system of romanisation. This would have it so that 'Hong' [wade-giles] becomes 'hêúng' (i'm substiting the bar with a circumflex...). And anyway, a universal romanised form could not be possible as people [British, Americans, Germans, French etc.] do not pronounce the alphabet in the same way, and have difference vowel lengths etc..
Blah blah blah, and please don't bitch at me, i'm only 14, what do i know?
More accurate systems of romanisation have since been developed, namely the Yale system of romanisation. This would have it so that 'Hong' [wade-giles] becomes 'hêúng' (i'm substiting the bar with a circumflex...). And anyway, a universal romanised form could not be possible as people [British, Americans, Germans, French etc.] do not pronounce the alphabet in the same way, and have difference vowel lengths etc..
Blah blah blah, and please don't bitch at me, i'm only 14, what do i know?
-
Q-taai long
Re: Cantonese Romanization
Whoops, a couple of corrections to my previous entry if i may.
Second paragraph, second line, should be 'subtitute'. Last line second paragraph should read: '... the roman alphabet in the same way, and have different vowel lengths etc etc...'
Sorry, and thanks.
Second paragraph, second line, should be 'subtitute'. Last line second paragraph should read: '... the roman alphabet in the same way, and have different vowel lengths etc etc...'
Sorry, and thanks.
-
Simon
Re: Cantonese Romanization
I've wondered about that myself.
Words like chop suey i can think of as distortions when the word was borrowed into English. And I think the Wade-Giles system used k for /g/ and k' for /k/, p for /b/ and p' for /p/, among others; that may be responsible for the k in kung fu, instead of g. But I don't get examples like the sh's in Sheung Shui (place in Hong Kong), since there is no sh sound in Hong Kong Cantonese, only s. Why the sh?
Words like chop suey i can think of as distortions when the word was borrowed into English. And I think the Wade-Giles system used k for /g/ and k' for /k/, p for /b/ and p' for /p/, among others; that may be responsible for the k in kung fu, instead of g. But I don't get examples like the sh's in Sheung Shui (place in Hong Kong), since there is no sh sound in Hong Kong Cantonese, only s. Why the sh?