Hong-hiam 風險

[SimL]

A. I see, so 'cu1' has more specialized meaning in Penang. In my variant, 'cu1' has broader meaning. For "pearl", we say 'cin1-cu1' (should it be 真珠 as 珍珠 will render 'tin1-cu1'?). Light bulb in my variant is called 'tian7-cu1' 電珠.

B. In my variant usually people just say 柚 'iu7', and its tone is quite different from 油 'iu5' (oil), hence so far we haven't gotten confused yet

C. "Children" is 'gin5-a8' (or 'gi5-na8' 兒仔? -> 兒 'gi5') -> how do you say that in Penang Hokkien? These words remind me of 'gin5-a8-lang5 u7-hi7 bo5-chui3' (兒仔人有耳無嘴?).

Hi niuc,

A => I think I'd better check with my parents about my use of "cu1". Perhaps it's only me.

B => I'm not sure if I should go into all this detail... I think it will turn out that this is just a mistake on my part. (Oh, well, I might as well...). As you know I can't tell the difference between iu3 and iu7. I never heard "iu" for "pomelo" in any other context than with "-a", so I didn't know its standing-tone. I heard a low-levelish tone for it (i.e. for the running-tone), so I assumed it was "iu7", which I then assumed came from "iu5" in standing-tone. Hence my joke about "eating oil". If (even in Penang Hokkien) the running-tone comes from standing-tone "iu7" (and hence 'doesn't change tone' when it goes to running-tone "iu3"), then there would be no confusion with "eating oil". [See, I'm not really sure it was worth trying to explain... ].

C => We most definitely also say "gin-na" for "children" - it's the most common term. And, as with you, I have always wondered whether it's "gin-a" or "gi-na" or "gin-na". As you can see from Andrew's hearing "i-wa" and my hearing "chhhai-tia-ma" and "che-ga", the final sound of the second-last syllable very easily becomes the initial found of the last syllable, when the last syllable is the diminutive "-a", hence obscuring the fact that it is this syllable.

Oh yes, I remembered another case of obligatory "-a" in Penang Hokkien: "am-a-kun" for "neck". For me, "am-kun" sounds very Amoy...

[SimL]

PS: Andrew's hearing "i-wa" for "pomelo" more or less "proves" that in Penang Hokkien the "-a" is obligatory. Otherwise he would have heard it in other contexts without the "-a", and hence have worked out the correct split of the sounds.

[SimL]

These words remind me of 'gin5-a8-lang5 u7-hi7 bo5-chui3' (兒仔人有耳無嘴?).

Nice! I didn't know this expression. Ah-bin loves to collect this sort of stuff, so he'll be glad that you posted it too. I find it interesting that English has the equivalent "Children should be seen and not heard".

In the Penang Hokkien vs Medan Hokkien thread (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6933), there seemed to be a consensus that "chhui3" should be written 喙 rather than 嘴.

Oh, one more thing: because of the tone-contours of my form of Penang Hokkien, the last 4 syllables of 'gin5-a8-lang5 u7-hi7 bo5-chui3' are pronounced identically, all low-level: "u3-hi3 bo3-chhui3" (if writing sandhi tones).

Same as your impression, 蠔仔 "o5-a8" (oyster) tends to mean "small oyster" for me. Similarly, 'iu-a' tends to impress me that the pomelo is small.

The funny thing about diminutives losing force is that for us in Penang, the "-a" doesn't make the pomelo any smaller (of course, because it's obligatory). "ai-yo! an-nE tua-liap e iu-a, chi(t)-lang chiah ka si-gO jit pun chiah be liau!" (= "Gosh! What a big pomelo, a single person wouldn't be able to finish it in 4-5 days"). I guess it's the same for Taiwanese, who don't think that that "o-a" are any smaller than "o".

[niuc]

Hi Sim

B => I'm not sure if I should go into all this detail... I think it will turn out that this is just a mistake on my part. (Oh, well, I might as well...). As you know I can't tell the difference between iu3 and iu7. I never heard "iu" for "pomelo" in any other context than with "-a", so I didn't know its standing-tone. I heard a low-levelish tone for it (i.e. for the running-tone), so I assumed it was "iu7", which I then assumed came from "iu5" in standing-tone. Hence my joke about "eating oil". If (even in Penang Hokkien) the running-tone comes from standing-tone "iu7" (and hence 'doesn't change tone' when it goes to running-tone "iu3"), then there would be no confusion with "eating oil". [See, I'm not really sure it was worth trying to explain... ].

Sure it is (worth...), thanks. Although 'iu3' and 'iu7' sound differently in my variant, 'iu7' and 'iu5' both have same sandhi/running tone 'iu3', so 'iu7-a8' and 'iu5-a8' sound identical ('iu3_a8') in my variant.

C => We most definitely also say "gin-na" for "children" - it's the most common term. And, as with you, I have always wondered whether it's "gin-a" or "gi-na" or "gin-na". As you can see from Andrew's hearing "i-wa" and my hearing "chhhai-tia-ma" and "che-ga", the final sound of the second-last syllable very easily becomes the initial found of the last syllable, when the last syllable is the diminutive "-a", hence obscuring the fact that it is this syllable.

Yup. Btw thanks to Andrew for pointing out that 'gin2-a8' is 囝仔 or 囡仔. I usually said 'gin3-a8' (sandhi), so I assumed it was 'gin5', actually it is 'gin2'. In core Cuanciu variant it is 'kan-a'.

Oh yes, I remembered another case of obligatory "-a" in Penang Hokkien: "am-a-kun" for "neck". For me, "am-kun" sounds very Amoy...

Mine is the same as Amoy here

In the Penang Hokkien vs Medan Hokkien thread (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6933), there seemed to be a consensus that "chhui3" should be written 喙 rather than 嘴.

Thank you, I had been too used to 嘴

Oh, one more thing: because of the tone-contours of my form of Penang Hokkien, the last 4 syllables of 'gin5-a8-lang5 u7-hi7 bo5-chui3' are pronounced identically, all low-level: "u3-hi3 bo3-chhui3" (if writing sandhi tones).

Mine would be 'u3_hi7 bo3_chui3' (I use "_" to indicate running/sandhi tone, "-" to indicate standing tone).

[SimL]

Sure it is (worth...), thanks. Although 'iu3' and 'iu7' sound differently in my variant, 'iu7' and 'iu5' both have same sandhi/running tone 'iu3', so 'iu7-a8' and 'iu5-a8' sound identical ('iu3_a8') in my variant.

Hi niuc,

Ok, they become the same in the sandhi-form, but I still envy you that they are distinguished in citation-form: it's such a pain for me, that I can never tell if a syllable is tone-3 or tone-7 unless I know it as the non-final part of a compound.

[niuc]

Hi Sim

Ok, they become the same in the sandhi-form, but I still envy you that they are distinguished in citation-form: it's such a pain for me, that I can never tell if a syllable is tone-3 or tone-7 unless I know it as the non-final part of a compound.

Actually my variant has similar case for tone-2 and tone-4, they are indistinguishable unless as the non-final part of a compound. E.g. 'ci2' 止 and 'ci4' (摺?) sound identical, but easily differentiated in sandhi/running tones e.g. 止疼 'ci2-thia*3' (to stop pain; pain-killer), 摺衫 'ci4-sa*1' (to fold clothes).