I came across a recent thread in this forum where the pronunciation symbols of the Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech (當代泉州音字彙, http://solution.cs.ucla.edu/~jinbo/dzl/) were discussed. There appeared to be misunderstandings that this dictionary merges the POJ “b-” and “m-”, and “g-” and “ng-”.
This is actually not the case at all. In both pairs, the two initials are distinguished in that the latter only appears with nasal vowels (transcribed with an underscore). For example, 味 and 麵 are distinguished; so are 義 and 硬.
More specifically, "m" corresponds to POJ "b", and "m" followed by a nasal vowel corresponds to POJ "m"; likewise, "ng" corresponds to POJ "g", and "ng" followed by a nasal vowel corresponds to POJ "ng". Also, as someone already pointed out, the "h" at the end of vowels is not used, as it's redundant given the tone.
In adopting this system the general objective was simplicity as well as consistency with the existing, wide-spread pinyin system.
In future please feel free to post comments/questions at 當代泉州音字彙留言簿 (http://groups.google.com.hk/group/dzlforum).
Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech
Re: Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech
It's good that that has been sorted out, as some people assumed that the sounds had actually merged in Choan-chiu speech. I do have to take issue with this though:
I have noted in a few books that people seem to feel a bit guilty in their use of POJ, as if it is something old-fashioned that has been superseded by the Xiamen University system, just like the Wade-Giles system of transcribing Mandarin has been largely superseded by Hanyu PInyin.
I think we really need to question the assumption that a new romanisation for Hokkien from an institution in the PRC automatically has precedence over anything else used outside its borders.
The language laws of the PRC prevent much effort from being put into the promotion of Hokkien, basically making these pinyin-based systems irrelevant. They cannot be referred to as somehow standard unless they have been enshrined in law and education (like Hanyu Pinyin has been for Mandarin).
TLPA - very close to what Sim uses is what most children get taught to read at schools in Taiwan as far as I know. So it is probably the most widespread existing system for Hokkien at the moment.
As for the PRC, only three PRC Hokkien books I have seen use a pinyin-based system for their entries and two of those were by the same author. Four of the newest dictionaries use systems based on the International Phonetic Alphabet, only one uses the Xiamen University style. So it seems that even PRC scholars are dissatisfied with Pinyin-based systems. Who wouldn't be? They don't fit Hokkien because Hokkien has voiced consonants that Mandarin lacks, so you have all sorts of trouble with writing the sounds represented by "b" and "j" in POJ and end up with things like bbni for 麵!
Existing and widespread for what? For Mandarin perhaps, but for Hokkien, POJ and POJ-based systems (like TLPA) still rule the roost as the most widely-used systems. I don't want to pick on the spelling in the UCLA dictionary, it seems perfectly consistent. However I do have a bee in my bonnet about unquestioned deference to PRC academic authorities for how Hokkien should be written.In adopting this system the general objective was simplicity as well as consistency with the existing, wide-spread pinyin system.
I have noted in a few books that people seem to feel a bit guilty in their use of POJ, as if it is something old-fashioned that has been superseded by the Xiamen University system, just like the Wade-Giles system of transcribing Mandarin has been largely superseded by Hanyu PInyin.
I think we really need to question the assumption that a new romanisation for Hokkien from an institution in the PRC automatically has precedence over anything else used outside its borders.
The language laws of the PRC prevent much effort from being put into the promotion of Hokkien, basically making these pinyin-based systems irrelevant. They cannot be referred to as somehow standard unless they have been enshrined in law and education (like Hanyu Pinyin has been for Mandarin).
TLPA - very close to what Sim uses is what most children get taught to read at schools in Taiwan as far as I know. So it is probably the most widespread existing system for Hokkien at the moment.
As for the PRC, only three PRC Hokkien books I have seen use a pinyin-based system for their entries and two of those were by the same author. Four of the newest dictionaries use systems based on the International Phonetic Alphabet, only one uses the Xiamen University style. So it seems that even PRC scholars are dissatisfied with Pinyin-based systems. Who wouldn't be? They don't fit Hokkien because Hokkien has voiced consonants that Mandarin lacks, so you have all sorts of trouble with writing the sounds represented by "b" and "j" in POJ and end up with things like bbni for 麵!
Re: Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech
Please keep in mind that DZL (當代泉州音字彙) uses this system simply as its way of showing pronunciations, and recognizes that other dictionaries have their own choices, as you've observed. Take a sample of the English dictionaries published in the US, for example, and you'll see that rarely do two publishers use the same set of pronunciation symbols.
It's good to recognize that the adoption of each system represents careful thought on the part of the people involved in making the decision.
It's good to recognize that the adoption of each system represents careful thought on the part of the people involved in making the decision.
Re: Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech
Hi dzl-person,
Thanks for clearing up this misunderstanding. I remarked at the time that my granddad was from Hui-uaN, and that appears to be part of Cuanciu, and I didn't remember him merging m- and b-.
As has been said here on the Forum, any specific orthography is fine, as long as it's consistent. Nevertheless, I think the one where bbn- is needed to write something as simple as a phonetic [m] is extremely confusing to a naive user. The only reason I see for developing such a system is that it's derived from phonological theory, but IMHO (and I *truly* mean humble here), I feel that this is too abstract to be of any use to the general public.
Thanks for clearing up this misunderstanding. I remarked at the time that my granddad was from Hui-uaN, and that appears to be part of Cuanciu, and I didn't remember him merging m- and b-.
As has been said here on the Forum, any specific orthography is fine, as long as it's consistent. Nevertheless, I think the one where bbn- is needed to write something as simple as a phonetic [m] is extremely confusing to a naive user. The only reason I see for developing such a system is that it's derived from phonological theory, but IMHO (and I *truly* mean humble here), I feel that this is too abstract to be of any use to the general public.
Re: Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech
I also think that 當代泉州音字彙 will be much more useful by using POJ or POJ-based spelling system. Its spelling indeed is ill-suited for Hokkien, what a pity!
Re: Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech
Thanks for pointing this NOT obvious way of distinguishing m and b, g and ng.dzl wrote:
In adopting this system the general objective was simplicity as well as consistency with the existing, wide-spread pinyin system.
But I think it is really confusing for first time users which most of us are. We shouldn't be following that communist adopted Pinyin which is very confusing and inconsistent to most people. They were thought out by 'early' communist people who obviously were only exposed to English and Mandarin. This PinYin should instead be altered to cater for the various chinese dialects instead.
B should be pronounced as most European B, P and P' should be pronounced as explosive of the other.
Language do change over time, what if a nasal M becomes a B in the future ? How are you going to represent that ?
eg. I thought face is Bin and not Min.
Re: Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech
Just to be absolutely clear, DZL "Min" corresponds exactly to POJ "Bin" ("nasal vowels" are those shown with an underscore in DZL). In short, again, simply substitute a "B" whenever you see the initial "M" unless the final is underscored.
Think of it this way, if it helps you feel less guilty: The difference between 記 (gi) and 見 (gi underscored) is in the vowel, not the initial, so we write the same initial for both. Likewise for 遲 (di) and 纏 (di underscored); 脾 (bi) and 平 (bi underscored); etc. So why should 味 and 麵 be any different? That is, why shouldn't we write their initials using the same symbol?
For exactly the same reason, DZL uses the same initial for 義 and 硬.
If you are for consistency, here's an equivalent way to look at it: The two pronunciations of 天 (tian and ti underscored) share the same initial, as is the case for many other characters with "literary" and "colloquial" pronunciations. So why should the two pronunciations of 麵 (mian and mi underscored) have different initials?
Think of it this way, if it helps you feel less guilty: The difference between 記 (gi) and 見 (gi underscored) is in the vowel, not the initial, so we write the same initial for both. Likewise for 遲 (di) and 纏 (di underscored); 脾 (bi) and 平 (bi underscored); etc. So why should 味 and 麵 be any different? That is, why shouldn't we write their initials using the same symbol?
For exactly the same reason, DZL uses the same initial for 義 and 硬.
If you are for consistency, here's an equivalent way to look at it: The two pronunciations of 天 (tian and ti underscored) share the same initial, as is the case for many other characters with "literary" and "colloquial" pronunciations. So why should the two pronunciations of 麵 (mian and mi underscored) have different initials?
-
Andrew
Re: Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech
I don't normally have a problem with any system, as long as it's consistent, but your last example differs from the previous ones in that the difference is in the initial, not the vowel. G/k, b/p and d/t are plosives, ng/m/n are nasals.dzl wrote: Think of it this way, if it helps you feel less guilty: The difference between 記 (gi) and 見 (gi underscored) is in the vowel, not the initial, so we write the same initial for both. Likewise for 遲 (di) and 纏 (di underscored); 脾 (bi) and 平 (bi underscored); etc. So why should 味 and 麵 be any different? That is, why shouldn't we write their initials using the same symbol?
Re: Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech
You're missing the point here. All the examples you shown has the same consonant except for 味 (Bi) and 麵 (Min) which has different consonant B and M.dzl wrote:
Think of it this way, if it helps you feel less guilty: The difference between 記 (gi) and 見 (gi underscored) is in the vowel, not the initial, so we write the same initial for both. Likewise for 遲 (di) and 纏 (di underscored); 脾 (bi) and 平 (bi underscored); etc. So why should 味 and 麵 be any different? That is, why shouldn't we write their initials using the same symbol?
Finally, 面 (Bin) has a nasal sound but the initial is B and NOT M.
Not all nasal sound has consonant M.
Re: Confusion about Dictionary of Modern Quanzhou Speech
Hi Dzl
Your way of writing 麵 'bian' and 'mi' as 'mian' and 'mi' may consistently reflect the original initial from which both pronunciations has evolved (e.g. something like 'mian' as in Mandarin or 'min' in Cantonese), however it is not consistent in reflecting the different initial sounds we hear i.e. 'b' and 'm' (or 'g' and 'ng').
For 天, we still hear the same initial for both 'thian' and 'thi*'/'thi'.
Personally I believe that the great online Cuanciu dictionary will be much more useful to public if it employs a spelling system that consistently reflects the pronunciation (what we hear when a word is pronunced) rather than any original initial that in fact has split into two different (albeit closely related) initials.
Thank you for sharing with us.dzl wrote:If you are for consistency, here's an equivalent way to look at it: The two pronunciations of 天 (tian and ti underscored) share the same initial, as is the case for many other characters with "literary" and "colloquial" pronunciations. So why should the two pronunciations of 麵 (mian and mi underscored) have different initials?
Your way of writing 麵 'bian' and 'mi' as 'mian' and 'mi' may consistently reflect the original initial from which both pronunciations has evolved (e.g. something like 'mian' as in Mandarin or 'min' in Cantonese), however it is not consistent in reflecting the different initial sounds we hear i.e. 'b' and 'm' (or 'g' and 'ng').
For 天, we still hear the same initial for both 'thian' and 'thi*'/'thi'.
Personally I believe that the great online Cuanciu dictionary will be much more useful to public if it employs a spelling system that consistently reflects the pronunciation (what we hear when a word is pronunced) rather than any original initial that in fact has split into two different (albeit closely related) initials.