To digress, the extended argument from Edwin Pulleyblank is that even the negative 不 historically did not have a b- initial, but rather f-.
How historical are you getting here Mark? I can't remember what Pulleyblank calls the Chinese spoken before Middle Chinese (is it Archaic Chinese?, I thought only Karlgren used that term). As far as I know, all the [f] initials in other Sinitic languages developed from [p']some time during the T'ang.
I don't think 不 has EVER had a initial in any Sinitic language, it usually has/had a [p]. If it were originally a the tone would be upper entering pút instead of lower entering put that it is in literary Hokkien.
Ah-bin said:
How historical are you getting here Mark? I can't remember what Pulleyblank calls the Chinese spoken before Middle Chinese (is it Archaic Chinese?, I thought only Karlgren used that term).
I am referring to that stage before Middle Chinese - I think Pulleyblank calls it Old Chinese (unfortunately, I do not have my copy of Pulleyblank's book on me at the moment, so what I am posting here is entirely from memory - any errors is regretted).
Ah-bin said:
I don't think 不 has EVER had a initial in any Sinitic language, it usually has/had a [p].
Oops, sorry! I meant p-. Darn, Mandarin pinyin-ism is starting to gain its evil grip on me! I really should be more careful - especially when dealing with discussions on dialect groups that retain three-way dental stops b-, p- and p', e.g. 吳.
Mark Yong wrote:
子曰: 學而時習之、不亦悅乎。 - 論語
Confucius said: Is it not a joy to regularly practise what [we] have learnt? - The Analects
In this case, it is actually asking for a confirmation, equivalent to
敢毋是?
On to another point....
Is my cantonese rusty ? I have never heard of proper cantonese using 嘛係 before. It could be one of those rojak malaysian cantonese that only a few uses.
Proper cantonese use 亦 (yik) or 都 (tou).
Last edited by xng on Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mark Yong wrote:
Oops, sorry! I meant p-. Darn, Mandarin pinyin-ism is starting to gain its evil grip on me! I really should be more careful - especially when dealing with discussions on dialect groups that retain three-way dental stops b-, p- and p', e.g. 吳.
That's the problem with using a communist romanisation that only caters to mandarin.
I think when we discuss about phonetics, we should have a common romanisation that applies to ALL the major chinese languages ie. mandarin, hakka, hokkien, wu and cantonese.
I think when we discuss about phonetics, we should have a common romanisation that applies to ALL the major chinese languages ie. mandarin, hakka, hokkien, wu and cantonese.
I use the Vietnamese alphabet for Vietnamese, Thai, Cantonese and Hoklo when I'm in a mood to romanize. Works like a charm, and those low tones look sexy as hell too.
Going back to what Aokh said... Aokh, what did you do with your blog? I came across it a couple of years ago (http://amhoanna.tawa.asia/2009/10/tolon ... k-goa.html) during a "Hokkien -mee" search. I was struck by how you wrote in pure tnglangji, even the Malay loanwords. Even Penang / Pinang = 庇能!
I know a few people who post on Facebook in genuine Hoklo (not 挖嘸系公安吶 Hoklo), mostly with an academic flair. It would be cool to have some Bengs and Lians posting in Hoklo in my "面本" feed.
xng wrote:
I have never heard of proper cantonese using 嘛係 before. It could be one of those rojak malaysian cantonese that only a few uses. Proper cantonese use 亦 (yik) or 都 (tou).
It's not a Malaysian peculiarity. You hear it very often in Hong Kong movies and serials, too. The context is different from 亦 and 都, both of which just mean 'also/too'. 嘛係 also carries the same meaning, but uses a negative to state the obvious for added impact ("is it not so, too?").
