<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en-gb"> <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/app.php/feed/topic/3905" /> <title>Chinese languages</title> <subtitle>Chinese languages</subtitle> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/index.php" /> <updated>2008-09-29T03:14:12+00:00</updated> <author><name><![CDATA[Chinese languages]]></name></author> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/app.php/feed/topic/3905</id> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Mark Yong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-09-29T03:14:12+00:00</updated> <published>2008-09-29T03:14:12+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21633#p21633</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21633#p21633"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21633#p21633"><![CDATA[ A few more doubtful entries:<br><br>1. <em class="text-italics">ch'ŭa</em> <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">曳</span> "to bring <something/someone> <somewhere>". <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">廈門方言誌</span> has <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">拽</span>.<br><br>2. <em class="text-italics">ch'ŭe</em> <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">扌+罪</span> "to search". The book gives <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">擇</span> as the alternate character. However, these two characters have two different meanings, with <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">擇</span> being the closer one, i.e. <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">求也</span>.<br><br>3. <em class="text-italics">tám</em> <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">淫</span> "wet". <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">廈門方言誌</span> has <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">氵+眈</span> and <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">澹</span>. The latter two's <em class="text-italics">fanqie</em> appears to be closer than the former, but the definition is off.<br><br>4. <em class="text-italics">tā</em> <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">焦</span> "dry". <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">廈門方言誌</span> has <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">凋</span>. Neither <em class="text-italics">fanqie</em> is satisfactory, though both have definitions close to "dry".<br><br>5. <em class="text-italics">kiŭ</em> <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">虯/虬</span> "bent". The book appears to give an alternate character, i.e. <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">走+勼</span>, both having almost-identical definitions.<br><br>6. <em class="text-italics">sni</em> <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">"用鹽腌物"</span> "v. to pickle with salt". The book gives the character as <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">鹽</span>. The sentence <em class="text-italics">iŏng iám sni hú</em> "use-salt-(to)-pickle-fish" would end up awkwardly as <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">用鹽鹽魚</span>.<br><br>Note: I am aware that the <span style="font-size:120%;line-height:116%">廈門方言誌</span> is <strong class="text-strong"><em class="text-italics">not</em></strong> a reliable source for <em class="text-italics">benzi</em> for Hokkien words, but am just using it as a basis for comparison.<br><br>More to come later...<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=418">Mark Yong</a> — Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:14 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2008-09-12T23:50:24+00:00</updated> <published>2008-09-12T23:50:24+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21563#p21563</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21563#p21563"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21563#p21563"><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/m0001/300iongji_960523.pdf" class="postlink">http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/m0 ... 960523.pdf</a><br><a href="http://www.edu.tw/files/download/M0001/100iongji_970501.pdf" class="postlink">http://www.edu.tw/files/download/M0001/ ... 970501.pdf</a><p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:50 pm</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Mark Yong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-09-11T05:10:56+00:00</updated> <published>2008-09-11T05:10:56+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21559#p21559</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21559#p21559"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21559#p21559"><![CDATA[ <blockquote class="uncited"><div>Having seen the RoC MoE list, I don't think there's any danger of incorrect characters being used for no reason...</div></blockquote>Where can I download a copy of the RoC MoE list of characters?<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=418">Mark Yong</a> — Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:10 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[ong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-09-03T02:33:52+00:00</updated> <published>2008-09-03T02:33:52+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21530#p21530</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21530#p21530"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21530#p21530"><![CDATA[ 眩 =in love with someone is also 永春 dialect not just amoy as mentioned by 周。<br>Yongchun dialect throw =monnh .So there is a radio DJ said 林丹 monnh his shoes into the crowd.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=667">ong</a> — Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:33 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2008-09-01T21:10:48+00:00</updated> <published>2008-09-01T21:10:48+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21526#p21526</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21526#p21526"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21526#p21526"><![CDATA[ <blockquote class="uncited"><div>My take is that the proper preservation of the correct characters provides the best vehicle for the preservation of a dialect's rich vocabulary (which, after all, is one of the reasons for the very existence of this Minnan Forum! <img class="smilies" src="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif" width="15" height="15" alt=":D" title="Very Happy">) - the kind of richness that I personally find is often absent in Modern Mandarin.</div></blockquote>Having seen the RoC MoE list, I don't think there's any danger of incorrect characters being used for no reason - there are a few instances where one character is chosen over another for practical reasons, e.g. 我的 instead of 我個, but on the whole I haven't seen any choice I couldn't live with. Hopefully there will be some provision for revisions if the philologists come up with more benzi.<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:10 pm</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Mark Yong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-09-01T02:47:54+00:00</updated> <published>2008-09-01T02:47:54+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21517#p21517</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21517#p21517"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21517#p21517"><![CDATA[ <blockquote class="uncited"><div>I think the whole issue of benzi will soon become a purely philological issue, with the adoption of the standard characters specified by the ROC Ministry of Education. I don't see many Cantonese agonising over what characters to use in daily life.</div></blockquote>In a practical sense, I do agree with you. I guess where I am coming from is purely from a <em class="text-italics">purist</em>'s angle. To cite the Cantonese example (since you mentioned it), I see no reason why the Hong Kong Cantonese, when writing colloquially, cannot use the correct character for <em class="text-italics">'bei'</em> (to give), i.e. <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">畀</span> - instead they write <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">俾</span>. I mean:<br>1. <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">畀</span> is the etymologically-correct character, defined in the <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">康熙字典</span> Kangxi Dictionary as <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">賜也</span>.<br>2. <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">畀</span> is not a totally obscure character, occurring in the Classical Chinese phrase <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">"畀以重任"</span><br>3. <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">俾</span> takes more strokes to write than <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">畀</span>, anyway.<br><br>My take is that the proper preservation of the correct characters provides the best vehicle for the preservation of a dialect's rich vocabulary (which, after all, is one of the reasons for the very existence of this Minnan Forum! <img class="smilies" src="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif" width="15" height="15" alt=":D" title="Very Happy">) - the kind of richness that I personally find is often absent in Modern Mandarin.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=418">Mark Yong</a> — Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:47 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Mark Yong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-09-01T02:35:30+00:00</updated> <published>2008-09-01T02:35:30+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21516#p21516</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21516#p21516"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21516#p21516"><![CDATA[ In <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">林寶卿</span>'s book, she identifies the character for ch'ê/ch'uê (to search) as <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">"扌+罪" / "扌+睾"</span>. In<span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%"> 陳正統</span>'s <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">"閩南話漳腔辭典"</span>, he just writes it as <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">找</span>.<br><br>While <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">陳正統</span>'s book is quite a good resource for <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">漳州話</span>, it seems to me that there are quite a number of entries where he does not attempt to properly identify the correct <em class="text-italics">benzi</em>. But to give him credit, he does put in the correct <em class="text-italics">benzi</em> for some others.<br><br>The same goes for <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">周長楫</span>'s <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">閩南方言大辭</span>. Actually, he is even less-disciplined with his <em class="text-italics">benzi</em> - <em class="text-italics">te/tue</em> (to follow) is simply written as <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">跟</span>. At least <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">陳正統</span> writes it as <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">綴</span>.<br><br>But I guess I should not be too critical, since these dictionaries were probably not meant to be proper <em class="text-italics">benzi</em> resources.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=418">Mark Yong</a> — Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:35 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></name></author> <updated>2008-08-28T19:01:08+00:00</updated> <published>2008-08-28T19:01:08+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21508#p21508</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21508#p21508"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21508#p21508"><![CDATA[ I think the whole issue of benzi will soon become a purely philological issue, with the adoption of the standard characters specified by the ROC Ministry of Education. I don't see many Cantonese agonising over what characters to use in daily life.<p>Statistics: Posted by Guest — Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:01 pm</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[ong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-08-28T13:18:21+00:00</updated> <published>2008-08-28T13:18:21+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21507#p21507</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21507#p21507"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21507#p21507"><![CDATA[ The book with a lot of benzi for thit tho is by 许成章。台语本字 even gives 出惰 。花天酒地 =食lim puah thit.<br>I think she is right .She gives 任 for na =in which you can hear people using in Johor.I think she could be right as well.<br>I can't see any problem with 眩<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=667">ong</a> — Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:18 pm</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Mark Yong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-08-25T02:46:16+00:00</updated> <published>2008-08-25T02:46:16+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21501#p21501</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21501#p21501"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21501#p21501"><![CDATA[ Would like to check a couple of doubtful entries in the book:<br><br>1. <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">佚佗</span> <em class="text-italics">t'it8-to2</em> "to play". To the best of my knowledge, <em class="text-italics">t'it8-to2</em> has no known <em class="text-italics">hanzi</em>, yet she has been able to quote the definition of the character <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">佚</span> as <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">樂也</span>! Is this reliable?<br><br>2. <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">眩</span> <em class="text-italics">hin5</em> "dizzy". Should it be <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">眩</span> or <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">暈</span>? From a phonetic standpoint, <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">眩</span> makes more sense (from the <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">玄</span> phonetic), as the phonetic <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:116%">軍</span> would come out more like <em class="text-italics">hun</em> rather than <em class="text-italics">hin</em>.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=418">Mark Yong</a> — Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:46 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[ong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-08-06T01:26:05+00:00</updated> <published>2008-08-06T01:26:05+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21398#p21398</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21398#p21398"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21398#p21398"><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.savefile.com/files/1710565" class="postlink">www.savefile.com/files/1710565</a><br><a href="http://www.savefile.com/files/1710594" class="postlink">www.savefile.com/files/1710594</a><p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=667">ong</a> — Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:26 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[ong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-08-02T11:23:18+00:00</updated> <published>2008-08-02T11:23:18+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21388#p21388</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21388#p21388"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21388#p21388"><![CDATA[ Both these fanqie actually just lak8.It is the same for 落 too.Some books will just say 落 has lok8 and loh8 reading.<br>If they don't follow the rule by saying 落 has baidu lak4,we can do it with 掉 as well.The advantage for 掉 is to avoid awkward 落落来 lak loh lai<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=667">ong</a> — Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:23 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[Mark Yong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-08-01T01:31:48+00:00</updated> <published>2008-08-01T01:31:48+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21387#p21387</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21387#p21387"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21387#p21387"><![CDATA[ <blockquote class="uncited"><div><strong class="text-strong">ong wrote:</strong><br>lak can be just 掉 =泥角切。She doesn't need to go for 落</div></blockquote>This is interesting. I checked Kangxi Dictionary 康熙字典: In the first entry, according to the 韻會 and 正韻, 掉 is 徒弔切 (which works out closer to <em class="text-italics">‘tiao’</em>), and 正韻 further states that it is 從調去聲. But further down, it also states that according to the 集韻 and 唐韻 it is (as you mentioned) 女角切 or 尼角切 (which works out closer to <em class="text-italics">‘nak’</em>/ <em class="text-italics">‘nok’</em>). So, does this mean that in Minnan literary readings 文讀, both pronunciations are possible for the same meaning?<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=418">Mark Yong</a> — Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:31 am</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[ong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-07-31T15:34:11+00:00</updated> <published>2008-07-31T15:34:11+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21386#p21386</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21386#p21386"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21386#p21386"><![CDATA[ lak can be just 掉 =泥角切。She doesn't need to go for 落<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=667">ong</a> — Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:34 pm</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> <entry> <author><name><![CDATA[ong]]></name></author> <updated>2008-07-28T15:29:54+00:00</updated> <published>2008-07-28T15:29:54+00:00</published> <id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21372#p21372</id> <link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21372#p21372"/> <title type="html"><![CDATA[Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese]]></title> <content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21372#p21372"><![CDATA[ In her book 佬= 骗 is wrong,the benzi is <br><a href="http://140.111.1.40/yitic/frc/frc04726.htm" class="postlink">http://140.111.1.40/yitic/frc/frc04726.htm</a><p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=667">ong</a> — Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:29 pm</p><hr /> ]]></content> </entry> </feed>