<?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/57849" />

	<title>Chinese languages</title>
	<subtitle>Chinese languages</subtitle>
	<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/index.php" />
	<updated>2012-04-15T08:13:50+00:00</updated>

	<author><name><![CDATA[Chinese languages]]></name></author>
	<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/app.php/feed/topic/57849</id>

		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[amhoanna]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-15T08:13:50+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-15T08:13:50+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84587#p84587</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84587#p84587"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84587#p84587"><![CDATA[
Right, come to think of it, maybe the "a" in 辺 ·a isn't actually 仔 ... ?<br><br>In TW, 仔 is consistently T2. The syllable before 仔 acts normally in many cases, except T7 and T8 go to ST instead of RT, and T5 as well for many (most?) speakers. <br><br>The post-name "a" in aPíⁿ ·a... I don't know, but maybe that "a" ain't 仔 either. <br><br>Best would be to refer to a dialect where 仔 (囝) remains in a káⁿ / kiáⁿ form. <br><br>anBêng... Sounds familiar. Poss. some people say it like that on TW too? I can't say, I've got my hands full just trying to understand what's being said! Where are the TW native speakers?? On another forum, obv.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=7909">amhoanna</a> — Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:13 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[niuc]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-13T10:23:56+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-13T10:23:56+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84572#p84572</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84572#p84572"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84572#p84572"><![CDATA[
<blockquote class="uncited"><div> But "仔" in "辺 ·仔" (piⁿ ·á) takes a high-level 軽聲. These exceptions wouldn't be that hard to master if the masters would come out and just lay out the rules... <img class="smilies" src="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif" width="15" height="15" alt="8)" title="Cool"> I've never seen a text that went over this at all.</div></blockquote>Ah, thanks for reminding me of 仔! In my variant 邊·仔is pronounced as piⁿ·a, both in T1. I think the "general rule", mostly for personal names and also for some other words, in my variant is:<br>T1+仔 -&gt; 仔 in T1 also;<br>T2+仔 -&gt; 仔 in T3;<br>T3+仔 -&gt; 仔 in T3 also;<br>T4+仔 -&gt; 仔 in T3;<br>T5+仔 -&gt; 仔 in T1;<br>T7+仔 -&gt; 仔 in T7 also;<br>T8+仔 -&gt; 仔 in T3.<br><br>Or should the 仔 be 啊 instead? So may be in my variant the "format" of how we call someone is 阿[名]仔 e.g. 阿天仔, 阿佑仔, 阿明仔, 阿石仔...? <br><br>Btw, for 阿明仔 (a-bîng·a), the more natural way to pronounce it is an-bîng·a (R1S5S1=S7S5S1; R=RT, S=ST) or án-bîng·a (R2S5S1).<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=527">niuc</a> — Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:23 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[amhoanna]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-12T17:01:33+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-12T17:01:33+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84566#p84566</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84566#p84566"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84566#p84566"><![CDATA[
<blockquote class="uncited"><div>So 好無 and 是無 are better representations than 好否and 是否?</div></blockquote>好否 is not really Hoklo. <br><br>否 as bô is not supported by the etymology and the science of sound change... Some people like to use it for 無 b/c 否 is used this way in Literary Chinese, and these folks like to think of, and present, Hoklo as some kind of ancient Chinese court language trapped in modern times.  <img class="smilies" src="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif" width="15" height="15" alt=":oops:" title="Embarassed">  Whereas 無, the likely etymological kanji, looks so ... uncouth (to them) in that position. This said, arbitrary kanji assignments are "endemic" in kanji-based systems, even "Literary Chinese" itself... <br><blockquote class="uncited"><div>I saw amhoanna using 毋 for m7. I've seen it before on one of my books. Is that hanji attested for m7? Or is m7 one of those non-Sinitic elements in Hokkien? If I'm not mistaken, Cantonese also had...</div></blockquote>Canto 唔. I'm not sure of the pedigree of this 毋 kanji. I believe the syllabic m words in Hoklo, Hakka, Canto, etc. have the same root, but I can't say for sure if that would be Sino or non-. It would be cool if someone better versed than myself could shed some light.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=7909">amhoanna</a> — Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:01 pm</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[FutureSpy]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-11T21:00:35+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-11T21:00:35+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84555#p84555</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84555#p84555"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84555#p84555"><![CDATA[
Thanks to both of you, amhoanna and Ah-bin. Well, I don't have enough knowledge to follow everything you wrote here, but I'll make sure to come back later  <img class="smilies" src="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif" width="15" height="15" alt=":mrgreen:" title="Mr. Green"> <br><br>So in short, sī--bô is a more embracing representation to whatever happens with tone in bo (considering variations across speakers)? So 好無 and 是無 are better representations than 好否and 是否?<br><br>I saw amhoanna using 毋 for m7. I've seen it before on one of my books. Is that hanji attested for m7? Or is m7 one of those non-Sinitic elements in Hokkien? If I'm not mistaken, Cantonese also had m (can't remember the tone) as a negation and a different hanji for it, but I know Cantonese isn't always written in a etymologically correct way.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=14689">FutureSpy</a> — Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:00 pm</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[amhoanna]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-08T06:18:37+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-08T06:18:37+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84526#p84526</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84526#p84526"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84526#p84526"><![CDATA[
This reminds me that in Mainstream TW Hoklo, a 軽聲 pronoun (poss. all words?) following a high-level word will take a mid-level-type 軽聲 tone instead of the high-level. Don't know why this is. This is an exception to the two types of 軽聲 that I was explaining in my other post. But "仔" in "辺 ·仔" (piⁿ ·á) takes a high-level 軽聲. These exceptions wouldn't be that hard to master if the masters would come out and just lay out the rules... <img class="smilies" src="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif" width="15" height="15" alt="8)" title="Cool">  I've never seen a text that went over this at all.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=7909">amhoanna</a> — Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:18 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[amhoanna]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-08T06:13:50+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-08T06:13:50+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84525#p84525</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84525#p84525"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84525#p84525"><![CDATA[
<blockquote class="uncited"><div>I don't remember ever saying something like "林小姐你是老師是無?" but only "林小姐,汝是老師,是mī?".</div></blockquote>Niuc, U've reminded me... My post the other day was incomplete. Hoklo textbooks love to teach "是 ·無", for some reason, but most spkrs I've met don't seem to use it much. <br><br>In TW, people say "是 ·毋" (sī ·m̄) ... a lot more often than 是 ·無 (I think). Possibly even more commonly used for this purpose are "·hioh" and "·ho·ⁿ". "·Hioh" might be "what became of" "是 ·無". My sense is that it's very informal.<br><br>Then there's the "是毋是" construction, which in TW Hoklo implies that the asker believes the answer is probably a yes, ... just like "是 ·無". <br><br>This is one area where my Hoklo sense is still well off the native speaker level. In particular, I've never felt comfortable saying "是 ·毋" and "·hioh". Maybe I would've, if the textbooks would've taught them. <br><blockquote class="uncited"><div>I used to puzzled over these:<br>予伊/汝/我 -&gt; hō·--i/li·/gua (all i/li·/gua become T7)<br>招伊/汝/我 -&gt; tsio--i/li·/gua (all i/li·/gua become T1)<br>But if preceding by other tones, the pronouns are in usual low neutral tone (軽聲).</div></blockquote><p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=7909">amhoanna</a> — Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:13 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[niuc]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-07T13:37:53+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-07T13:37:53+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84522#p84522</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84522#p84522"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84522#p84522"><![CDATA[
I don't remember ever saying something like "林小姐你是老師是無?" but only "林小姐,汝是老師,是mī?".<br>Sī--mī is the short form of 是毋是. And the answer will either be 是 (sī) or 毋是 (m-sī or often just mī with long m). <br><br>In my usage, 是無 is paired with 是有, e.g. 汝是有來過,是無? But usually I omit 是, so just 汝有來過,無?<br><blockquote class="uncited"><div> Others "adopt" the ending pitch of the preceding element. </div></blockquote>Ah, thank you for confirming this! In my variant, pronouns are kind of belong to this category. I used to puzzled over these:<br>予伊/汝/我 -&gt; hō·--i/li·/gua (all i/li·/gua become T7)<br>招伊/汝/我 -&gt; tsio--i/li·/gua (all i/li·/gua become T1) <br>But if preceding by other tones, the pronouns are in usual low neutral tone (軽聲).<br><blockquote class="uncited"><div>With the low-tone khinsiann elements, there's always a temptation for speakers of dialects with low citation T3 to "interpret" them as being not khinsiann, but rather T3. Even Maryknoll does this with "--kuè" (過), interpreting it as just "kuè". </div></blockquote>My variant also has low citation T3, and indeed 軽聲 is similar although still distinguishable as T3 is longer while 軽聲 is short and "chopped".<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=527">niuc</a> — Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:37 pm</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[amhoanna]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-07T09:04:58+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-07T09:04:58+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84516#p84516</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84516#p84516"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84516#p84516"><![CDATA[
Well, you've probably come across the khinsiann 軽聲 many times by now. This is what's indicated by "--". Whatever comes after it is khinsiann and doesn't show its lexical tone. Some khinsiann elements automatically take a low tone. Interrogative "無 / bô" is one such. Others "adopt" the ending pitch of the preceding element. <br><br>With the low-tone khinsiann elements, there's always a temptation for speakers of dialects with low citation T3 to "interpret" them as being not khinsiann, but rather T3. Even Maryknoll does this with "--kuè" (過), interpreting it as just "kuè". <br><br>Logically, though, it just seems so clear that it's --kuè, and interrogative 無 is --bô. This also seems to hold across dialects. If we want to make up a theory that it's T3 kuè and T3 bò·, we can go test it in dialects that have a high-to-low-falling citation T3, such as inner city Coanciu and Mainstream Philippines Hokkien. <br><br>As for o vs oo, there are lots of individuals that merge o into oo, at least sometimes. There might also be whole towns that do this.<br><br>Not sure if that answered your Q.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=7909">amhoanna</a> — Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:04 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[FutureSpy]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-06T15:09:19+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-06T15:09:19+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84504#p84504</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84504#p84504"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84504#p84504"><![CDATA[
Thanks to both of you. I wonder if someone actually speak like that. Dictionaries seem to give both as synonyms, so both seem good. But all materials I've seen so far use bo5 instead of boo3...<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=14689">FutureSpy</a> — Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:09 pm</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[amhoanna]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-06T05:37:22+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-06T05:37:22+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84499#p84499</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84499#p84499"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84499#p84499"><![CDATA[
Agree with Ah-bin. Also, the kanji line in that text is not "in Hoklo". It's more a syllable-by-syllable translation of the Hoklo into a mix of Mandarin and Literary Chinese. E.g. "他  能曉   講  台灣   話", not Hoklo, but a re-lexing of it.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=7909">amhoanna</a> — Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:37 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[Ah-bin]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-06T03:23:53+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-06T03:23:53+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84493#p84493</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84493#p84493"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84493#p84493"><![CDATA[
<blockquote class="uncited"><div>Sorry for flooding the forum <img class="smilies" src="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif" width="15" height="15" alt=":P" title="Razz"></div></blockquote>Well, I don't think you need to be sorry about that! <br><br>It seems as if they are trying to distinguish the question-ending from the negative adverb. I always thought the question particle was just a toneless 無. I think the 否 makes sense in the context of Classical Chinese, perhaps they are using it to give a nice classical flavour to their prose?<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=1174">Ah-bin</a> — Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:23 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[FutureSpy]]></name></author>
		<updated>2012-04-06T01:16:46+00:00</updated>

		<published>2012-04-06T01:16:46+00:00</published>
		<id>http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84492#p84492</id>
		<link href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84492#p84492"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[si7-boo3 (是否) x si7--bo5 (是無)]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84492#p84492"><![CDATA[
Just came to my attention that some conversations at MTLA (Modern Taiwanese Language Association) have sī-bò͘ (是否) instead of sī--bô (是無). Usage seems pretty much the same tho:<br><br>林小姐你是老師是否?<br>Lîm sió-chiá, lí sī lāu-su sī-bò͘?<br>Ms. Lin, you are a teacher. Aren't you?<br><br>Are there any differences? Are two different hanji (否 and 無) really needed?<br><br>Sorry for flooding the forum <img class="smilies" src="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif" width="15" height="15" alt=":P" title="Razz"><br><br>Source: <a href="http://taigie.taioaan.org/conversation/kaesiau.html" class="postlink">http://taigie.taioaan.org/conversation/kaesiau.html</a><p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="http://chineselanguage.org/forums/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=14689">FutureSpy</a> — Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:16 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
	</feed>