Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech

[dzl]

Two separate issues here. First, there's no inherent reason to insist that 味 and 麵 (or 厘 and 年, or 義 and 硬) have different initials. You can either think of them as having the same final and different initials, or the same initial and different finals. DZL takes the latter view (as did 彙音妙悟 and many other sources, incidentally), and the result is a simpler system (fewer initials) and better consistency (writing the same final for characters in the same "rhyme group," e.g., 麵 and 天).

Try the following pronunciation exercise: Start with the initial of 味 and follow with the nasal i. You'll get exactly the sound of 麵.

Second, even if you prefer to think of the two initials as different (despite the above exercise), there's no need to insist they be transcribed with different symbols. Take the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, for example. The two vowels in "above" are definitely distinct, but are represented by the same symbol (the inverted "e" in paper editions and "&" in the online edition). This is fine because the first vowel (the schwa) only appears in unstressed syllables while the second only in stressed syllables.

We have exactly the same kind of situation: The initial of 麵 only appears with underscored finals, while the initial of 味 only appears with finals without an underscore. Hence we may as well use the same symbol for both!

The final question perhaps is why use "m," as opposed to "b." The reason is simply that "b" is used for the initial of 邊. When pronounced as in English (and perhaps many other European languages as well), neither "m" or "b" accurately represents the initial of 味. In that respect, again there's no inherent reason to consider one more "correct" than the other.

The overall effect of the DZL system is simplicity (fewer and shorter initials: only one initial has two letters, rest all single letters), without any loss of information.

[xng]

The final question perhaps is why use "m," as opposed to "b." The reason is simply that "b" is used for the initial of 邊. When pronounced as in English (and perhaps many other European languages as well), neither "m" or "b" accurately represents the initial of 味. In that respect, again there's no inherent reason to consider one more "correct" than the other.

The overall effect of the DZL system is simplicity (fewer and shorter initials: only one initial has two letters, rest all single letters), without any loss of information.

How can you say it is simple when we linguist don't even know what you're talking about after you write long essays on it ? Let alone ordinary newcomers ?

B represent 味 as in English B more closely than M.

B in mandarin PinYin is not the same sound as P in English. The sound P (non plosive) don't exist in English.

So why reduce the number of consonants when the original language has it ?

The chinese should invent a system that is representative of all the main chinese language consonants ie. B, P, P', D, T, T', G, K, K' etc. instead of reducing the number of consonants.

Just because English don't have the variety, doesn't mean we should follow them.

If I were to apply reverse psychology, should the English get rid (simplify) of the 'Th' or 'V' or 'Z' consonant just because NONE of the chinese languages have it ?

[Ah-bin]

The chinese should invent a system that is representative of all the main chinese language consonants ie. B, P, P', D, T, T', G, K, K' etc. instead of reducing the number of consonants.

I fully agree! Actually the missionary systems did this already in the nineteenth century for Hakka, Cantonese, Hainanese, Wenzhou, Shanghai etc.

As for the Chinese in China inventing anything to replace Pinyin, they won't get a chance. Invention of this sort of thing in the PRC is the privilege of a small group of academics in pay of the ruling regime, and that regime considers Pinyin as one of their great contributions to the glory of China. In addition, they don't want any widely-publicised way of writing anything that isn't their standard Putonghua to be invented.

[niuc]

Two separate issues here. First, there's no inherent reason to insist that 味 and 麵 (or 厘 and 年, or 義 and 硬) have different initials. You can either think of them as having the same final and different initials, or the same initial and different finals.

May be historically each pair in your examples above had same initial, but the fact remains that now in Hokkien they do not, due to nasalization or denasalization: e.g. 明 “ming” -> ‘mia*’(nasal -ing to nasalized ia*) & ‘bing’ (denasalization of ‘m’ to ‘b’, in Teochew it is still ‘ming’).

DZL takes the latter view (as did 彙音妙悟 and many other sources, incidentally), and the result is a simpler system (fewer initials) and better consistency (writing the same final for characters in the same "rhyme group," e.g., 麵 and 天).

Again, this may be useful for historical research or poem composing, but it is not consistent with daily speech.

Try the following pronunciation exercise: Start with the initial of 味 and follow with the nasal i. You'll get exactly the sound of 麵.

I am not a linguist, yet I have to disagree here. You can try it yourself, slowly pronounce 味 ‘bi’ and then replace ‘i’ with nasalized ‘i*’, the result is ‘bi*’, not ‘mi*’. Yes, it is true that ‘bi*’ is more difficult to pronounce than ‘mi*’, but they are still different and far from exactly the same. Precisely because ‘mi*’ is easier to pronounce than ‘bi*’, this nasalization process naturally also change ‘b-’ to ‘m-‘. This doesn’t mean that ‘b-‘ and ‘m-‘ is the same initial. Similarly, it is easier to pronounce 新聞 as ‘simbun’ than ‘sinbun’, but it doesn’t mean that ‘-im’ and ‘-in’ are the same final.

Second, even if you prefer to think of the two initials as different (despite the above exercise), there's no need to insist they be transcribed with different symbols. Take the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, for example. The two vowels in "above" are definitely distinct, but are represented by the same symbol (the inverted "e" in paper editions and "&" in the online edition). This is fine because the first vowel (the schwa) only appears in unstressed syllables while the second only in stressed syllables.

That is the limitation of Latin script, that’s why many languages using it have additional markers or even additional letters such as in German. We use Latin alphabet (Romanization) because it is most widely used internationally, not that it is perfect. While it is more accurate to use IPA or similar systems, they are not practical in daily usage.

We have exactly the same kind of situation: The initial of 麵 only appears with underscored finals, while the initial of 味 only appears with finals without an underscore. Hence we may as well use the same symbol for both!
The final question perhaps is why use "m," as opposed to "b." The reason is simply that "b" is used for the initial of 邊. When pronounced as in English (and perhaps many other European languages as well), neither "m" or "b" accurately represents the initial of 味. In that respect, again there's no inherent reason to consider one more "correct" than the other.

As Xng has pointed out, in fact ‘b’ in English is exactly like the initial of 味 ‘bi’ (sounds exactly like “bee” in English, regardless the tone). Majority of other commonly known languages such as Italian, French, Spanish, German, Indonesian & Malay, Tagalog, and Japanese are written or romanized using ‘b’ for the same initial of 味 in Hokkien, unlike Mandarin Pinyin system. In fact although Pinyin is well suited for Mandarin, using ‘b’ for 邊 or ‘d’ for 東 has resulted in PRC people tend to pronounce “dance” as “tance” (unaspirated ‘t’). Hong Kong people have this tendency also, since ‘b’ is missing from Cantonese as well.

The overall effect of the DZL system is simplicity (fewer and shorter initials: only one initial has two letters, rest all single letters), without any loss of information.

While no information is lost, the system is confusing, resulting in inaccurate pronunciation for those learning Hokkien, since the underline is easily missed. If there are better Romanization schemes for Hokkien, why choose a worse one just to be in line with PRC Pinyin?

[xng]

If there are better Romanization schemes for Hokkien, why choose a worse one just to be in line with PRC Pinyin?

Agree !

The PRC Pinyin is one of the most horrific pinyin I have ever come across. The same consonant can have different alphabet depending on the vowel. It confused the hell out of me for many, many years.

[hohomi]

The PRC Pinyin is one of the most horrific pinyin I have ever come across. The same consonant can have different alphabet depending on the vowel. It confused the hell out of me for many, many years.

Are you talking about hanyu pinyin? I don't think there are two alphabets representing the same consonant in pinyin. I think you are talking about j q x being the same as z c s. They are NOT! If you try to pronounce ji like z + i, it will end up like tsi/志/ in Hokkien.

[Ah-bin]

I agree with xng. In my own opinion PRC Pinyin stinks. It's only popular because the CCP forced it on everyone, not because of any intrinsic value or logic of its own.

Actually, I think what he meant was the opposite "The same vowel can have different letters depending on the consonant."

The vowel in ji and zhi (one letter, two sounds), the (IPA) [iou] which is written "iu" or "you" in different places or written as "wu", "u" or "w" or even [y] written as "u" "ü" or "yu" (one sound, three ways of writing it)

If you count y and w as vowels, then he is right with his original point the w sound is written two ways in "huang" and "wang".

I suppose if you have Hokkien accented Mandarin, the difference between where to write initial x- and where to write s- would be confusing too.

[hohomi]

A. Four examples where pinyin doesn't represent the actual sound:
iu => iou
ui => uei
un => uen
ong => ung
B. It is unnecessary to change the leading "u" and "i" into "w" and "y" when there isn't a consonant.
C. I don't like ü being replace by "u".

It was because CCP was trying to design an orthography using Latin letters to replace Chinese characters. They were trying to make it shorter (A), more elegant(B), as convenient as possible(C).

[Ah-bin]

C. I don't like ü being replace by "u".

Worse things happen in the PRC...ordinary people have no access to direct Pinyin input and so when they type in Pinyin to enter ü they just let it come out as v. They also leave the tone marks off too.

It was because CCP was trying to design an orthography using Latin letters to replace Chinese characters. They were trying to make it shorter (A), more elegant(B), as convenient as possible(C).

My own judgements on this are:

Shorter: Success

More elegant: Failure

I don't know whether "elegance" was on any CCP member's mind when Pinyin was designed. They were more interested in designing the glorious socialist future than creating anything that looked nice. In fact, I can't recall anything elegant created under their regime.

Convenient: Failure, because of the tone marks that required special keys on typewriters (at the time of its invention) so they ended up writing it without tone marks.

[aokh1979]

嫷 or 媠 does not sound sui to me, although it has the same radical as 隨.

Would sui actually be something else like 穟 or 穗 or 瑞......