I do remember that back in the 1970’s/80’s, the older generation of Cantonese speakers in Malaysia referred to the English mile as 支碑 zi7-bei7, probably referring to the actual physical milestones on roads. For example, the 9th mile of the Cheras road in Kuala Lumpur was referred to as 九支碑 gau2 zi7-bei7amhoanna wrote:
I saw a N. M'sian use the word "ki-thiu" yesterday, meaning MILE (Mand. 英哩). It can be taken apart like 点鐘:3.5 MILES = saⁿ ki poàⁿ thiu. Wow -- what is going on there?
I would venture to guess that the ki in ki-thiu is 支, but wouldn’t have a clue what the thiu is.
Ah-bin wrote:
Tó-tàⁿ 倒擔 which Douglas defines as a pedlar going bankrupt
SimL wrote:
I think it could be used for "bankrupt", but for me it has slightly different connotations. For me, "to-taN" means "going out of business", and denotes more the cessation of activities in the operating of the shop / company than things connected with the owner, whereas "bankrupt" denotes more the financial state of the owner (or any other individual).
kkslok wrote:
For bankrupt we say phok-kai.
Interesting comments! My personal opinion would be that, if Ah-bin’s intention is to capture and record as closely as possible the vocabulary of Hokkien (as it is spoken among the native speakers in Penang), while at the same time avoiding overly-formal/contrived terminology, then I would suggest that for practical intents and purposes, 倒擔 tó-tàⁿ be used, and not adopt the Cantonese po-kai, which is a corruption both by pronunciation and definition.amhoanna wrote:
仆街 seems to mean different things in Malaya Cantonese vs China Cantonese.
amhoanna’s statement that the term means something entirely different in its native Cantonese is correct. In Cantonese, to 撲街 pok7-gaai1 literally means ‘to hit (oneself to) the ground’ (‘bite the dust’, if you like), i.e. to suffer an unfortunate calamity - which would roughly correspond to Hokkien’s 挵壁 long-piak ‘to knock (oneself) into a wall’. Also, note that 撲 pok7 in Cantonese has an aspirated consontantal initial. Either way, both terms are not congruent, and such an adoption would be a Canton-isation of Hokkien, if one may call it that!