闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Discussions on the Hokkien (Minnan) language.
Mark Yong
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:52 pm

Re: 闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Post by Mark Yong »

Ah-bin wrote:
You should say "the OTHER dialects are fighting a losing battle with the onslaught of Mandarin.

Mandarin is a dialect too!
Darn... how could I have made such a politically-incorrect mistake. Yes, Mandarin was spawned from the Northern court dialect. :oops:
xng
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: 闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Post by xng »

niuc wrote:
Having saying that, surely we are not totally without hope. Personally I don’t have any great idea or access to make that dream comes true, so I hope there will be people who take lead and many more, including I, will gladly contribute accordingly. Any good advise how to start? :)
Ironically, the only good and > 90% accurate online dictionary was developed in america ie. ucla.
http://solution.cs.ucla.edu/~jinbo/dzl/

Maybe you can start with that website. Then get somebody in Taiwan to come up with a standard based on that website.(with changes of course).

It would be great if Taiwan can get all the different minnan dialects together and come up with a standard just like what they did to standard mandarin which was based on beijing dialect. The Cantonese has a standard ie. Guangzhou cantonese why not minnan ?

There are actually 7 tones currently, we need the missing 8th tone for the standard to have more variety and less homophones.
SimL
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:33 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: 闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Post by SimL »

Hi xng,

I had a look on the ucla site http://solution.cs.ucla.edu/~jinbo/dzl/.

I tried a few queries and got these results:

dia1
tiat7, ti7

---

hong5, bang5
pi5, pui5

---

gua1
kai1, kui1

---

This says to me that the site uses a “pinyin”-like orthography.

Whenever I see that, I always ask myself how POJ “b-” and “g-” are written.

Further queries yield:

mian6, min6, min2
ming2, mia2, min2, mua2

---

ngun2
ngo3, ngua3

---

So it seems that the site does distinguish POJ “g-” from “k-”. Nevertheless, it doesn’t distinguish POJ “b-” from POJ “m-” (which seems quite a big limitation to me).

---

It can be seen from ti7 above that POJ “-h” is also not distinguished. For example, the dictionary gives a7. Perhaps they are recording a variant of Hokkien where “-h” and no final consonant at all have merged, but I haven’t come across such a variant before.

Given the lack of distinction between POJ “b-” and “m-”, and the lack of distinction between POJ “-ah” and “-a”, I wonder how one writes “bah4” (= “meat”) in their orthography.

I can’t read characters, so maybe this is all explained somewhere, but failing to capture two very basic features of Hokkien doesn’t make me particularly positive about the site.
Mark Yong
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:52 pm

Re: 闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Post by Mark Yong »

niuc wrote:
It is interesting, for better or for worse, that Hokkien people, unlike Cantonese, usually are very pro-Mandarin... And since most Hokkiens nowadays do understand Mandarin, usually they don’t care much about preserving their own language.
My opinion is that the pro-Mandarin stance adopted by many native Hokkien speakers stems from the written word. Allow me to qualify my statement: Compared to Hokkien, the Cantonese dialect is lexicon-wise and grammatically closer to Mandarin. As a result, native Cantonese speakers have less of a problem mapping Chinese characters to their corresponding Cantonese pronunciations. No doubt, Hong Kong media has had a role to play in this, too. Let the lyrics flowing from Cantonese karaoke subtitles demonstrate that even non-Cantonese native speakers have no problems reading (or should I say, singing) songs word-for-word what are essentially Mandarin-grammar lyrics.

By contrast, mapping characters to Hokkien pronunciations becomes more of a psychological barrier today for the Hokkien dialect. The problem, as I see it, is four-fold:
1. Hokkien is relatively more distant from Mandarin's lexicon and grammar than Cantonese.
2. The Minnan dialects in general have the added complication of a much higher proportion of 文讀/白讀 couplets, making mapping even more difficult for those not trained to read in Hokkien. jin/lang being one classic example.
3. Hokkien has a large proportion of words that have no cognate in Chinese characters - ta-po (man), cha-bo (woman) and bue (need) being just three simple examples.
4. Lack of media support (though, this is gradually changing, with the increase in Taiwanese TV serials).

To illustrate (2) and (3): How many colloquial Hokkien speakers off-the-street today would be able to rattle the phrase 男女平等 as lam-lu-p'eng-teng, and not something along the lines of ta-po cha-bo pae...and they'll probably read as tan). And yet it would come so naturally to a Cantonese to say laam-loei-p'ing-dang.

To further illustrate my point on how many native Hokkien speakers today are ignorant of Chinese characters being readable in Hokkien: A friend from Singapore, and a native Hokkien himself, once told me that the only way to write in Hokkien was in some cabalistic script that resembled Japanese! I was not as informed about Chinese dialects then as I am today (and here, I must qualify my statement by stating that I am still nowhere close to being an expert!), or I would have told him that what he probably saw were none other than the bopomofo symbols used by Taiwanese to indicate the pronunciation of Hokkien words that they could not find the Chinese characters for.

As the saying goes, the easiest way to avoid a problem is to simply ignore it. And so, the native Hokkien speaker today conveniently dismisses Hokkien as an 'unreadable' dialect that is so alien to Mandarin, the form of Chinese that he has been taught to read and write in. And who in his/her right mind would root for an 'unreadable' dialect over a 'readable' one? From there, it spirals into a vicious cycle, where Mandarin is seen more-and-more as the language of the educated, and Hokkien descends to the levels of being equated to some sort of ghetto-originated creole. Fast-forward a couple of generations, and who, then, would know or even believe that once upon a time, Hokkien was used to recite Tang poems?

In a previous thread (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4021), I tried to address this issue of how best to educate people in the Hokkien dialect. But here, I will openly admit that I had a hidden agenda in also trying to steer the thread in the specific direction of how best to educate people to read in the Hokkien dialect using Chinese characters.

As languages evolve, they affect one another, and invariably absorb the best of each other's features. Cantonese in Hong Kong has evolved today, in no small part because by the adoption of the Mandarin model as the written standard, it facilitated the absorption and adoption of Modern Mandarin vocabulary that emerged from technological and commercial jargon of the last century, thus allowing it to evolve alongside Mandarin as a result (to a certain extent, this evolution also took place with the Shanghai dialect). Hokkien, however, suffered this disadvantage of not being able to get on-board the mainstream of evolution in the Chinese language as a whole. I have little doubt that had Taiwan not suppressed Hokkien in the years between 1949 to the 1990's, the evolution of Hokkien would not have been as stunted as it is today.
Last edited by Mark Yong on Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
niuc
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:23 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: 闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Post by niuc »

xng wrote:Maybe you can start with that website. Then get somebody in Taiwan to come up with a standard based on that website.(with changes of course).

It would be great if Taiwan can get all the different minnan dialects together and come up with a standard just like what they did to standard mandarin which was based on beijing dialect. The Cantonese has a standard ie. Guangzhou cantonese why not minnan ?

Hi Xng, I wished they should have listened to me too. If only I were that powerful! :lol:

Guangzhou was and still is the capital of Guangdong, that's why. Minnan region was divided into Cuanciu 泉州 and Ciangciu 漳州 (not to mention Tiociu 潮州 region in Guangdong), that's why there were two main variants among Hokkien Minnan. Later E-mng 廈門 became an important city also, so it is the third main variant, somewhere between the two and practically the most well known variant of Minnan. However, lacking the political chances, 廈門話 stops short of becoming the real standard for Minnan.
There are actually 7 tones currently, we need the missing 8th tone for the standard to have more variety and less homophones.
Tadpole mentioned that there are 8 tones in Cuanciu variant.
niuc
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:23 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: 闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Post by niuc »

SimL wrote: I can’t read characters, so maybe this is all explained somewhere, but failing to capture two very basic features of Hokkien doesn’t make me particularly positive about the site.
Hi Sim, I agree with you. That site is very good for hanji 漢字 but unfortunately both 義 and 硬 are rendered as 'ngi'. In reality they are two different sounds, 義 gi7 and 硬 ngi7. I can understand if the tones there are different due to different variant i.e. Cuanciu, but gi & ngi are still different sounds and shouldn't be spelled identically.
niuc
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:23 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: 闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Post by niuc »

Hi Mark

I agree with you. I just read somewhere yesterday that actually Hokkien has not only 2 tiers (colloquial & literary) but 3 tiers corressponding to 3 big waves of migrations of Han Chinese into the Minnan region. I forget which eras, but I remember the sample of 席 having 3 readings:
1. chio8 (tshioh8) = mat
2. sia8 (siah8) = banquet -> 筵席 ian5-sia8
3. sit8 -> 主席 chairman

成 : 1. cia*5 (tsia*5)
2. sia*5 -> 九成 kau2-sia*5 = 90% (usually of gold)
3. sing5
4. chia*5 (tshia*5) -> 成嫁妝 chia*5-ke3-cng1

So indeed it is troublesome to read hanji in Hokkien. My mom who speaks Hokkien for a life time but only attended primary school in Mandarin finds it very hard to sing Hokkien church hymns written in hanji, and she cannot read Peh-Oe-Ji (or any romanization), so she prefers Mandarin service instead of Hokkien service. While my friends who attended school in Indonesian finds it easy to sing Hokkien hymns in POJ because they don't understand hanji. Isn't it ironic?
tadpole
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:39 am

Re: 闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Post by tadpole »

SimL wrote:Hi xng,
I had a look on the ucla site http://solution.cs.ucla.edu/~jinbo/dzl/.
I tried a few queries and got these results:
dia1
tiat7, ti7
hong5, bang5
pi5, pui5
gua1
kai1, kui1
This says to me that the site uses a “pinyin”-like orthography.
Whenever I see that, I always ask myself how POJ “b-” and “g-” are written.
It's Quanzhou dialect. Each and everyone of the modern Minnan subdialects preserve certain features of Middle Minnan, while losing others. Quanzhou dialect is very good at preserving the ancient 8-tone distinction. But it's bad at initial consonants, because it merges some consonant categories. Quanzhou dialect does not have the voiced velar stop /g/. All voiced velar stops /g/ are mapped into voiced velar-nasal /ŋ/. You'll also find that voiced bilabial /b/ does not exist in Quanzhou (all mapped into /m/), nor voiced nasal /n/ (all mapped into /l/).

The tone numbers 7 and 8 in this dictionary represent final glottal stops [?], just like other Minnan dialects. It's just that the dictionary compiler does not want to use the concept of glottal stop, so he did not bother to write out a final -h for these tone categories.

As for which romanized system is better for write out the pronunciations, I have no preference. I have to juggle between 4 or 5 systems, it's a pain, but I respect each system. The on-line dictionaries I consult come from a variety of sources: Teochew dictionary at mogher.com, Taiwan's dictionary from its Ministry of Education, or another one from the Peh-Oe-Ji group, Quanzhou dictionary from UCLA, etc. On the Gaginang.com Teochew group, sometimes you find some other systems. http://www.edutech.org.tw uses a tonal spelling (diacritic-less) system. All of the use different romanization schemes, and on top of that I have my own system. As long as the pronunciation can be written out, any system is good. :)

As for Chinese character or romanized writing, I am not against neither. Because I know the stereotony feature of Minnan, I feel kind of uneasy using the Character writing: you lose the tonal-phrase structure. Of course some punctuations devices could be added into character writing to solve this problem, but in reality nobody does it (too much work in typing Chinese, punctuations slow down even more.) Another thing is that Minnan has many series of contractions: two syllables contracted into one syllable. If you use character writing, you need to invent many more characters to take care of the contractions. None of these problems are game-stopper. Using characters is to show friendliness towards other Chinese dialects, but it's a compromise: Middle Chinese was a monotonic language, Middle Minnan was a stereotonic language.

I don't believe in using Hokkien to do literary work. Hokkien in no way is close to ancient Chinese. For that purpose, Middle Chinese reconstruction is much more appropriate. You can take a look at BioPolyhedron's work on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/biopolyhedron

The only real place that written Hokkien is used today is in song subtitles. And that's the dilemma, and people soon enough will find out that Chinese characters by themselves are just not enough to write out Hokkien. No matter how strong they are about using Chinese characters, when it comes to song subtitles, all of them will admit that romanized writing is also necessary. Both are necessary: characters and romanization. Only if you provide romanized version, can speakers of other languages join you in your singing.

There are tons of people working on Chinese-character writing for Hokkien. On the other hand, there is one single person in the world working on romanized writing for Hokkien. And that's me. :) I don't get confused between phonemes and scripts. Using phonemic system to write Hokkien just does not work. As I said, I have no preference for phonemes: all of them have the same purpose, all are equally usable. But a script system is very different from a phoneme system. A script system is readable. Anyway, it's a not big thing, all is just a game. Don't ever expect there is any money in Hokkien. Hokkien can only be taken as a hobby. Ha. :)
xng
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: 闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Post by xng »

SimL wrote:Hi xng,

Given the lack of distinction between POJ “b-” and “m-”, and the lack of distinction between POJ “-ah” and “-a”, I wonder how one writes “bah4” (= “meat”) in their orthography.
Unfortunately, it does use a mandarin/cantonese pinyin system to avoid the apostrophe character in other systems ie. k', p', t' etc.

1. G is approximated by Ng. Minnan has G, K, K' whereas mandarin/cantonese only has K, K'.

2. B and M is merged into M. Because B here is used for the mandarin/cantonese B. Minnan has B, P, P' whereas mandarin/cantonese only has P, P'.

3. ah and a can be distinguished by the tone. Tone 7 and tone 8 are "Entering" tone. Therefore a7 and a8 mean 'Ah'. a1 to a6 mean 'A'.

Other than number 1 and 2, the website is quite good. That's why I said, it needs improvement. However, our resident quanzhou expert has given an explanation which I don't quite fully understand.
Last edited by xng on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
xng
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: 闽南语学习网 & 闽南语教程

Post by xng »

Mark Yong wrote: being just three simple examples.
These might be chinese characters.

eg.Boh is 姥 (wife). However, I don't know what's the character for 'cha'.
Last edited by xng on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Locked