Benzi/Original character

[Ah-bin]

p/s Kah/kap is right there in my unsolved mysteries bin, not for lack of a púnjī, but b/c a lot of the old-timers in TW write it with a -p, and I don't think anybody says it like that. And usually they do tend to spell things the way people say it.

I knew it! Right there in the first sentence of the Hokkien Bible doesn't it say:

"Goân-khí-thâu Siōng-tē chhiòng-chō thiⁿ kap toē"" ? (In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth)

I was never speculating about whether there is a final glottal stop or bilabial stop in "ka" for and, but rather speculation about whether there was one at some time. Commonly used function words are always shifting their phonological form, especially those in languages that use a script that doesn't accurately represent sound. I'm sure English "and" is hardly ever pronounced with its final d by native speakers, only the continued existence of the d in the orthography reminds us that it is there.

It's funny how Hokkien studies is still plagued by the myth that Hokkien is somehow "pure" Han speech, or "pure" Chou speech, or "pure" T'ang speech. I think the insistance by many scholars that there are pún-jī for absolutely everything is often just a knee-jerk reaction against the equally untrue assertions that Mandarin is somehow "better" or "older" or "correct" that float around.

[AndrewAndrew]

OK, I missed out that the Taiwan Minnanyu Changyongci Cidian uses 共 for ka7 as well as 佮 for kah4 with the meaning of 'and' (the second pronunciation does not occur in Douglas). In addition 佮 also has the pronunciation kap4 in certain phrases, e.g. 相佮 sann1-kap4. It's clearly a 俗字, but is probably just a development of 合, which has the same pronunciations.

[Ah-bin]

Looks like the Hokkien spoken in the sixteenth century made distinctions in pronunciation that are no longer common in any variety of Hokkien.

Part two of "The Manila Incunabula and early Hokkien studies" by van der Loon notes on p.140 that "kang" and "kap" as two separate words. Kang written 共 meaning "to join, with" and kap written 合 meaning "with, for, whom". I haven't gone through the texts to check on all the uses yet though.

http://www.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/~asiamajor ... 967-95.pdf

Also of interest is that "e" seems to have been pronounced "ge" at this time.

The Manila books are the earliest records of the pronunciation of Hokkien in phonetic script.
Part one is here btw:
http://www.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/~asiamajor ... 1966-1.pdf

I'm sure I'd posted these before once, but I'd forgotten about them completely.

[xng]

xng,

wo separate morphemes that have fused and treated as a single "word" today), then fine, 之 is a candidate on the basis on your citations quoted - this is not an "I support 即, you support 之" contest, and my aim is to get to as correct a character as is etymologically- and historically-possible.

My apologies but I still don't quite understand the complexities of your explanation.

If you're arguing about whether it is a single or a combination of character, then certainly 即 is not the original single character.

The meaning of 即 is 'immediate/now' and not 'this one'. And neither is it a borrowed character so 之一 is still the most logical explanation.

[xng]

Hokkien was the language based on the time of the zhou dynasty which is written in classical chinese.

From what I can see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_history), in very rough terms, in the time of the Zhou Dynasty, Fujian was quite devoid of people speaking a Han-based variety of language. Even in the Han Dynasty, the maps still show that Fujian wasn't really very much sinicized - only from the Tang Dynasty onwards. So it's difficult to see what you meant by your statement. Perhaps the maps are wrong, or perhaps you meant something different...

My apologies again as I didn't make things clear as this has a long history and explanation.

You're right that Fujian wasn't part of China during the zhou dynasty. The detailed history is explained here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian#History

So after reading that section, you will realise that the current Hokkien people are not the natives of Fujian province but are actually immigrants from Northern china.

So the ancestors of Hokkien people spoke a type of language that is akin to the language spoken in Northern china before they migrated to Fujian province.

It is just like saying that Chinese are not the native of Penang and the hokkien language bought over were the language spoken during the Qing dynasty in Fujian province.

The reason why I quoted the Zhou dynasty was because classical chinese was based on Zhou dynasty and at that time the spoken form and the written form was very similar (just like today's mandarin). By the the Han and Jin dynasty, the language spoken should evolve to be different from the written form but most of the elements were kept such as 鼎, 箸, 汝, 伊 etc.

So if we look at the classical chinese text from the Zhou, Han and Jin dynasty , we can find out those original characters.

By the Tang dynasty, the language in the north have changed significantly and evolved into middle chinese which don't use those characters I quoted.

I hope I am a bit clearer now.

[xng]

Since aokh is in Xiamen, he is the best person to tell us whether Ka spoken in China is with a glottal or non glottal stop.

I never heard Ka (and) with a glottal stop anywhere, and like what Andrew said, I never read it
I am happy to use 共 as "and" but 及 was brought up as a sharing, like what Andrew tried to show. 共 is very possible, this is what I think:

共 is きょう

All of the nasal "ng" is pronounced with an う in Japanese, many many more. I am not expert, but what do you think ?

Japanese can't speak 'ng' nasal sound and a lot of ending consonants such as k,t,p, that's why all of there sound are truncated.

As for with or without glottal stop, I am now confused. A glotal and non glotal is quite difficult to distinguish sometimes.

But my bet is that 共 is the better character than 佮 because of all the reasons I listed before. Regarding the quotation that I borrowed earlier from wiki, I think it is a borrowed character based on the sound. As to why it has a glottal stop, I really don't know.

Have you seen 我佮你 in classical chinese ? No ! But 我共你, then YES !

And 及 is definitely the wrong character, its sound is 'Kip' and not 'Kah' (with glottal) or 'Kann' (without glottal) even if the meaning is correct.

[xng]

Finally, I think I solved a problem that was confusing me for a long time,

The original character for house is 茨 (Chu) which means a straw hut which ancient people lived in before bricks were known.

The meaning and sound finally matches.

厝 doesn't have the meaning of 'house or hut', furthermore, the sound is 'chou'. This commonly written character 厝 is borrowed for its similar sound.

[Mark Yong]

xng wrote:
If you're arguing about whether it is a single or a combination of character, then certainly 即 is not the original single character.

xng,

I am not justifying that cit is historically a single morpheme by saying it is 即 specifically, nor am I asserting that it is the original character. Whatever the original character(s) is/are, what I am asking is simply, is it historically cit or ci-it? Can you see that they are two separate questions altogether?

I am starting to sound like a broken record, so I think I shall not repeat this question anymore, and perhaps defer it to someone else.

xng wrote:
The meaning of 即 is 'immediate/now' and not 'this one'.

I beg to differ on that justification. Citing three examples:

Shanghainese: How does cio-kue 交關 carry the same meaning as the Modern Standard Chinese 非常? As a matter of fact, it is also used in Cantonese.

Mandarin: How does "east-west" 東西 equate to 'things'? And here, we open up a whole new can of worms with all the Northern-isms we take for granted - 這, 那, 幹嘛, but I think we shall leave those aside as extreme examples.

Cantonese/Hokkien: How does 'broth' 羹 become 'spoon'? Check 康熙, 辭海 and any of the standard dictionaries - I don't think you will find 'spoon' as a definition of 羹 - yet, there it exists, as 匙羹 ch'i-gang in Cantonese and 頭羹 t'au-kiong in Hokkien.

True, they are not direct definitions. But there is such a thing as extended meanings for Chinese words. Extended meanings for Chinese characters date back pretty far - a brief read through Weiger's book should reveal quite a few examples.

Again, I stress that I am not pushing for 即 (I have my own reservations). The only reason I mentioned it is because it appears to be the current accepted 本字 in most of the literature.

xng wrote:
Have you seen 我佮你 in classical chinese ? No ! But 我共你, then YES !

Didn't Andrew provide a Classical Chinese citation of 予及汝 yesterday?

Of course you will not expect to find 佮 in most of the 'standard' Classical Chinese texts, any more than you will not find a myriad of other 方言俗字. If it was that simple, we would not be debating till today about 佮, 共 and 及. We need to make a distinction between words in Minnan that do have a genetic link to Classical Chinese words, and those which do not.

Finally (and please pardon me for being pedantically petty), you will not find 你 in Classical Chinese, as it is a late extension from the classical pronouns 爾 (and sometimes 而), ref. Pulleyblank. And even then, it was written as 伱 (you will not find it as 你 in 康熙字典).

[xng]

Again, I stress that I am not pushing for 即 (I have my own reservations). The only reason I mentioned it is because it appears to be the current accepted 本字 in most of the literature.

xng wrote:
Have you seen 我佮你 in classical chinese ? No ! But 我共你, then YES !

Didn't Andrew provide a Classical Chinese citation of 予及汝 yesterday?

We need to make a distinction between words in Minnan that do have a genetic link to Classical Chinese words, and those which do not.

I used 你 instead of 汝 because it was easier for me to find and type (me being lazy) but the point I was debating was 共 and not 你. I already pointed out in my earlier post that classical chinese use 汝.

Sorry, but I don't quite understand what's the meaning of 予及 or 蠶叢及魚鳧 ? Please enlighten me. I am not an expert on classical chinese.

I have already mentioned many times in earlier post that 及 can be used as conjunctive 'and', I did quote '以及' but some characters can be used alone to mean 'and' and some must be combined to mean 'and'. In this case, it is a combination of two characters.

It is just like 共 and '共享' have two different meanings.

Finally, I also mentioned 及 sound is 'kip' and not 'ka' (whether glottal or non glottal).

As for 即, I suspect most of the dictionaries who state it as 'original' is forgetting that it could be combination of two characters just like 'gun', 'mai', 'lang' etc. So it could be a borrowed word for its sound. What's the original definition of this character 即 in the earliest chinese dictionary ? Do 即 have the meaning of 'this' in classical chinese texts ?

You're right that some meaning do change but that is only a small proportion or else we are opening up too many cans of worms and there is no way to rationalise. If somebody can tell us how the graphical character 即 was first formed, that will give us some clue as to the original meaning IF it is different from the current meaning.

共 is less debatable as it is commonly found in classical chinese and even cantonese songs. The meaning is correct and the sound is very close or the same.

Finally, I am not saying that everything is traceable to classical chinese and is sinitic. Those original characters for 'An ni' or 'sui' have not been found so they could be non sinitic ie. from the MinYue people.

[aokh1979]

Sorry, but I don't quite understand what's the meaning of 予及 or 蠶叢及魚鳧 ? Please enlighten me. I am not an expert on classical chinese.

予及汝 ＝ I and you - 予、余，我也。
蠶叢及魚鳧 = 蠶叢 and 魚鳧 - names of 2 emperors in ancient 蜀國

Finally, I also mentioned 及 sound is 'kip' and not 'ka' (whether glottal or non glottal).

That "may" be right, if 'kip' is the ONLY and DEFINITE or ABSOLUTE sound of 及 even though it's pronounced 'khap' in Cantonese. Just like 力 being 'lat' and 'lik'. If whatever found in online dictionaries or written books already conclude all the mysteries of Chinese languages, then you're right. I dare not be so certain myself. Let me be the coward, I am just sharing.

'An ni' or 'sui' have not been found so they could be non sinitic ie. from the MinYue people.

An ni has been "proposed" to be 焉爾, 云爾 in classical Chinese - based on books I read
Sui is most likely 穟 or even 秀 - again, based on books I read

And, the tone is not correct, right ? The entire 入聲 even disappears from Mandarin.

Japanese can't speak 'ng' nasal sound and a lot of ending consonants such as k,t,p, that's why all of there sound are truncated.

I dare not say so. I believe there was a reason why they recorded it that way, might not because they "can't".

And 及 is definitely the wrong character, its sound is 'Kip' and not 'Kah' (with glottal) or 'Kann' (without glottal) even if the meaning is correct.

I am sorry, let me take this personal this time. I see that all forumers keep an open mind to share, and continue to question ourselves. Correct me, I believe nobody dares saying "is definitely the wrong character" except you. Thank you for being so sure.