Hi,
FutureSpy,
Now you’ve got me started...
The reason why I (stubbornly) adhere to the “
漢字 for writing Hokkien model” is because, contrary to the late Prof. John DeFrancis’ views, I still see
漢字 as a binding force that links the various Chinese spoken dialects together.
Take, for instance,
phāng or “fragrant”. Mandarin and Cantonese both tend to use
香, in the guise of
xiāng1 and
heung1, respectively. Now, without the aid of
漢字, one would not see that
phāng is actually
芳, which also means “fragrant” in Mandarin and Cantonese (
fāng1 and
fong1, respectively) and just about all the other dialects.
Now, I do agree that for non-Hokkien speakers, saying
儂 means “person” in the spoken dialect, when most others just use
人, would be baffling to the uninitiated. But on the flip-side, what about phrases like
幹嘛,
甚麼 and
這/那? With Mandarin as the
de facto Chinese standard, we take all these “Northern-isms” so much for granted today, not realising that many of these are (or rather, were) just as colloquial in the North as
儂 láng is in Hokkien.
To answer your question: Honestly, my limited knowledge does not allow me to say with any certainty whether
láng is really
儂 or just a colloquial reading for
人 - though, strictly-speaking, I am inclined to believe it is the former.
That said, would I write the spoken phrase
nÒⁿ láng “two persons” as
兩人 or
兩儂? My personal answer would be “It depends”. If I were writing a stage script where I required the speakers to say the words ad verbatim, then I would write
兩儂, so that the words
nÒⁿ láng are articulated by the actors unambiguously (it’s the same when Hong Kong writers write
我們 in most formal contexts, but use
我哋 when the words are clearly meant to be
recited colloquially). But if it was a text meant to be “read by the eyes, not the ears”, then I would write
兩人, and expect the Hokkien-speaking reader to read it as
liÒng-jín in his mind (Point in context: Why
儂 láng for person, but
私人 sù-jín for “private”?). Actually, I might even take it a step further and write it as
二人 and expect the Hokkien-speaking reader to read/recite it as
jǐ-jín in his mind!
That last example of
二人 is me making a statement. When it comes to the optimal (note: not perfect) model for writing, I still adhere to the
文言文 Literary Chinese model. My reason being, ample examples have been put forth (and this thread is no exception) on the difficulties in writing pure spoken Hokkien exclusively using
漢字. My reason for not adopting the Romanisation has been stated above - not only does it cut Hokkien off from its links (however weak today) with the greater body of Chinese dialects, but also within the sub-dialects of Hokkien itself. By writing
nÒⁿ and
nⁿg as different Romanised morphemes, the common connection with
兩 is lost. But to me, adopting Modern Standard Chinese, derived from another spoken colloquial, is just... wrong. The skewed argument will always be
“Well, if you are going to adopt Mandarin as the written standard, why not also drop Hokkien and adopt Mandarin as the spoken standard, rather than have two separate spoken and written standards?” With
文言文 Literary Chinese, the playing field is level.
That said, I do not expect Hokkien speakers to wax lyrical in the streets and speak in prose
a’la 李白 to the barista when ordering a cup of coffee. My personal stand is, when conversing with fellow Hokkien speakers, by all means, be as colloquial as you want - after all, it is the colloquialism that brings uniqueness and colour to the individual dialects. But when reading (and this includes reciting), it payeth to know whence thy words cometh from.
As
Sim once quite rightly put it, and most of the older Forumers here will attest, I am very much a “prescriptive” linguist. I have my own quirky ideas on how the Chinese written language should be, e.g. writing
『地滑愼步』 rather than
『小心地滑』. But that’s just me.
And lest I forget my manners...
“Welcome to the Minnan Forum!”
That, I feel, would be contrary to the spirit of shared Sinitic origins (even if it is not 100%) that I see in the use of 
That’s what we are all here for, to share our thoughts and insights.