Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Discussions on the Hokkien (Minnan) language.
Abun
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:15 pm

Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby Abun » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:44 pm

Hello everyone,

I’ve been looking a bit into Medhursts old dictionary, only to realize that although my Taiwanese tends to Chiang-chiu like pronunciation, I have only a very limited knowledge about the sounds in actual Chiang-chiu.
The 15 initials posed no problem, this much I know at least and after all, Medhurst’s transcription doesn’t differ much from later POJ in that point :D However when trying to get through Medhurst’s s system for the finals, I encountered some problems. As most of you probably know, Medhurst’s dictionary is based on the Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and so is his system for the finals, i.e. he named the finals after their respective characters in the Si̍p-ngó͘ Im. He also didn’t seem to have cared about creating a phonetically consistent system but simply tried to find a distinct transcription for each of the finals. While it was rather easy to figure out the POJ for most of these, there were a few which left me kind of baffled, even after reading his explanation and seeing examples, so I wanted to ask your opinions:

Final no. 22 兼 “-ëem/-ëep” clearly stands for POJ “iam,” however both the transcription and Medhurst’s description of the sound indicate that the final sounded rather like [iem] (I’m guessing similar to the way POJ “ian/iat” sound, but with a bilabial in the end. I have never heard of this phenomenon, neither in discussions about the peculiarities of Chiang-chiu variants nor in any account of other variants, ancient or modern. Can anyone confirm that this final is indeed pronounced with an [e] or [ɛ] sound in Chiang-chiu? Or did the sound change over time maybe and is now “iam”?

Final no. 5 嘉 “ay” definitely stands for the open [ɛ] knew existed in Chiang-chiu (rhyming with 假、嫁、下). However, Medhurst lists another final, 伽 (no. 39) which he transcribes in the same way and describes as very similar to 嘉 but slightly distinct (it is of course distinct from POJ “e” (稽 “ey”) as well). 嘉 he describes as the vowel in “care, bear, wear ect.” Since Medhurst was an Englishman, this translates to [ɛ] in my opinion. 伽 he describes as the vowel in “fate, gray, may.” From the perspective of contemporary English, I would transcribe this as [ei, ɛi] or possibly [ɑi], which sounds very different from [ɛ] to me, so I’m wondering whether Medhurst’s mid-19th-century English had a different sound value for these words. The Si̍p-ngó͘ Im lists as rhymes for 伽 only three characters: 莢, 瘸 and a third character which I can’t decipher. 伽 I can only find as “ka,” 莢 I find as “ngeh” (“ngoeh” in Choân-chiu) and 瘸 as “khôe” (“khê” in Choân-chiu). Douglas lists “ngɛh, a pod of grass” (being 莢), but nothing with “ɛ” which would fit 伽 or 瘸. So from todays perspective this final seems to have split and merged with at least two other finals, Chiang-chiu “-ɛ”/Choân-chiu “-oe” and Chiang-chiu “-oe”/Choân-chiu “-e.” Can anybody confirm that?

The situation with the o’s also leaves me a little confused. I seem to remember to once have heard from somebody that traditional Chiang-chiu doesn’t have the open “o͘” (the one with the dot), but I wasn’t sure about that, so I approached the matter with no real expectation as to the existence of this vowel. Indeed, the Si̍p-ngó͘ Im (and therefore Medhurst) distinguish two kinds of o’s: 沽 “oe” (no. 11) and 高 “o” (no. 15). The former rhymes with syllables like 古、湖 and so on, which I would all pronounce with the open “o͘,” while the latter corresponds to the closed one. Medhurst describes the vowel of 沽 as rhyming with English “toe” but “with a full mouth.” The vowel in “toe” (again from contemporary English perspective) is a diphthong to me, something like [oʊ], but a different way of pronouncing the same phoneme doesn’t seem all that odd to me. However, the list includes nasal variations for both of the two o’s: 姑 “ⁿoe” (no. 41) and 扛 “ⁿo” (no. 49). My vocabulary still only contains a very limited number of syllables with a nasalized o, most of which have a nasalized initial (such as the literary readings of 五 and 腦; the only one without a nasal initial that I can think of is the sentence final --honnh), but I had always lived under the impression the nasalized o’s in Minnan usually become open by default, so there would only be open nasal o’s anyway. Does that mean that this is a more recent development and the nasalized open and closed o were still distinct at least in early to mid-19th-century Chiang-chiu? What makes the matter even more confusing to me, is the fact that neither 姑 nor 扛 don’t seem to have any kind of nasalized o in other dictionaries I looked them up in (and actually such a vowel would surprise me especially in the case of 姑 which doesn’t have either a nasalized vowel or a nasal initial or final in any variant of Hokkien I know of, nor in Mandarin).

I actually don’t have any concrete questions about these finals (apart from whether or not “iam” is indeed pronounced as [iem] in Chiang-chiu), they have just surprised me, especially 伽 and the two forms of nasalized o left me wondering whether Chiang-chiu and Choan-chiu were really as phonetically close as I thought (which wasn’t actually that close to begin with, but I had always thought it possible to break the differences down to a few basic rules). So, if any of you has more insight to provide, I’m happy to learn :)

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby amhoanna » Fri May 09, 2014 1:21 am

I can only come at this synchronically. There are dialects either in the south of Ciangciu or in 海陸豐 where even today "our" "open e" corresponds to /ei/, and our "open o" corresponds to /ou/.

Abun
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby Abun » Fri May 09, 2014 12:35 pm

amhoanna wrote:I can only come at this synchronically.

Yes, that's one of my problems, too. I believe I know a bit about contemporary Hokkien phonology but that of course doesn't mean the situation was the same when the Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Medhurst's dictionary were composed. In fact, some of the finals listed there strongly suggest that there were probably two phonemical distinctions which I didn't know existed: the two kinds of nasalized "o" (扛 vs. 姑; /õ/ vs. /õʊ̃/?) and the two kinds of "open e" (嘉 and 伽). Judging by Medhurst's explanations and the fact that he didn't incorporate the distinction in his transcription, I suspect the latter distinction was on the verge of disappearing during the early 1800s, at least in the Batavia region.
The problem is complicated by the fact that Medhurst's comparisons to English pose a second stage for diachronical language change and I can't fully rely on my knowledge of contemporary English to interpret them.

amhoanna wrote:There are dialects either in the south of Ciangciu or in 海陸豐 where even today "our" "open e" corresponds to /ei/, and our "open o" corresponds to /ou/.

Interesting. With this information it's even more obvious that 沽 (/oʊ/?) is in fact the same phoneme as the "open o," just pronounced in a different way. /ei/ may be the final represented in the Si̍p-ngó͘ Im as 伽, seeing as Medhurst describes it with the English words “fate, gray, may.” Do you know whether "our" "open e" is fully replaced with [ei] in those regions or just in some words (in other words, is it "just" another realization of [ɛ] or are they in phonemical opposition)?

P.S.: Just stumbled upon the appendix in Douglas' dictionary where he elaborates on both the orthographical differences with Medhurst and the the phonological differences between the various dialects in the Hok-kiàn region. Douglas confirms that Mh. <ay> corresponds to Dg. <ɛ>. However he doesn't bring up either the second <ay> (伽) or the distinction between <ⁿoe> and <ⁿo> (he identifies the latter one as <ɵ˙ⁿ> in his own orthography but doesn't mention the former). This is peculiar because according to my impression, Douglas seems to have had a very good ear for small differences in pronunciation (although he apparently wasn't as good at identifying certain pronunciations as merely different representations of the same phoneme). Is it maybe also possible that Medhurst, taking the Si̍p-ngó͘ Im as a basis, was a victim of placebo effect and identified distinctions which weren't really there in the contemporary dialect of Batavia? On the other hand, Douglas also doesn't mention the fact that his <ɵ˙> (modern POJ <o͘>) is pronounced as [ou] in certain areas, so maybe his ear wasn't that good after all? Or did he simply never have the opportunity to talk to someone from those areas?

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby amhoanna » Thu May 15, 2014 8:00 pm

Yeah, should be safe to say that the two resources were based on different dialects.

The following is based on data I put together a few months ago. I "processed" data from eight dialects:

潮阳棉城 潮州潮安 澄海澄城 詔安城関 海豐県城 龍海石碼 金門金沙 泉州当代字彙

Take for example the 馬 vowel. Only 龍海 and 詔安 actually have [ɛ]. In 詔安 there's free variation with [ie]. All other dialects have [e], in most cases merged with other rymes as well.

Take also the 街 vowel. In urban 泉州 and 金門 it's [oe], merged into other rymes, whereas in all 潮州 dialects (I use this term in the traditional, i.e. SE Asian sense, to exclude 海豐) it's [oi]. In 龍海 it's merged as part of [e], but in 詔安 海豐 it's [ei].

Now let's take the 好 vowel and the 烏 vowel.

The 好 vowel is [o] in 龍海 金門 泉州 海豐, but [ɔ] in 詔安 and all of 潮州.

烏, meanwhile, is [ou] in 詔安 海豐 and all of 潮州, but [ɔ] in 龍海 and points north and east.

Many interesting conclusions can be drawn. From a pan-dialectal POV, there is no /ɔ/ rime; but most dialects have one as a reflex of another rime. 詔安 "preserves" [o] and [ou] and does not have [ɔ].

詔安 is an interesting case. Just in terms of phonology, 詔安 is more Teochew than 海豐 is, while 海豐 is more Hokkien than 詔安.

The Medhurst dialect has a distinction between [ɛ] and [ei], apparently. Modern-day 詔安 has the same. It seems very possible to me that this 詔安-type of dialect was more prevalent in the past, and that the 龍海-type dialects that we know and love are the result of levelling that took place under intense contact with Amoy, Coanciu, etc.

We've discussed the fact that Penang Hokkien is derived from a Ciangciu dialect that is almost a transition to 同安. This dialect was then subject to heavy Coanciu and Teochew influence in the diaspora.

Abun
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby Abun » Fri May 23, 2014 10:14 pm

Very interesting, I would be very interested in broad-scale studies there. I have read dialect studies over various Chinese languages, but so far I haven't been able to find one covering different dialects of Hokkien. Have you been doing serious research there or did you note those differences in passing?

amhoanna wrote:The Medhurst dialect has a distinction between [ɛ] and [ei], apparently.

I expressed that unclearly I guess. Medhurst doesn't distinguish [ɛ] and [ei], they're both <ay> in his transcription. However in his introduction, when he explains his transcription, he does so on the basis of the 十五音 rhymes. Since the 十五音 distinguishes [ɛ] and [ei], Medhurst also explains how he percieves their respective pronunciations, but also says the difference is only very slight and ultimately doesn't incorporate it in his transcription. As far as I see it, this leaves us with two possible conclusions: Either the distinction was just barely there in contemporary Melaka Hokkien but on the verge of disappearing, or Medhurst was a victim of placebo effect and tried too hard to identify a distinction which wasn't actually there in the dialect he was observing.

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby amhoanna » Sun May 25, 2014 6:15 pm

I carried out an amateur research project in "cross-dialectal comparative Hokkien-Teochew etymo-phonology", for the purpose of creating a cross-dialectal system of kana to be used together with kanji for writing Hoklo.

Conclusion was that the system would be so complex that only linguists and kids would be able to learn it.

不こ我無放棄、最近我れ寫ち款兮閩南字、語理箍仔外兮大众ま卡閒接受〔卡け接受、khah kē ciapsiū〕。後擺当然愛掛調号。

AndrewAndrew
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:26 am

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby AndrewAndrew » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:15 pm

amhoanna wrote:I carried out an amateur research project in "cross-dialectal comparative Hokkien-Teochew etymo-phonology", for the purpose of creating a cross-dialectal system of kana to be used together with kanji for writing Hoklo.

Conclusion was that the system would be so complex that only linguists and kids would be able to learn it.

不こ我無放棄、最近我れ寫ち款兮閩南字、語理箍仔外兮大众ま卡閒接受〔卡け接受、khah kē ciapsiū〕。後擺当然愛掛調号。


It has been tried before for Mandarin, after May 4th movement, but Mandarin phonology is much more complex, than Japanese (which has a very simple phonology), and would require memorising around 400 kana, and Hokkien would be even more complex.

Abun
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby Abun » Wed Jun 04, 2014 4:03 pm

AndrewAndrew wrote:
amhoanna wrote:It has been tried before for Mandarin, after May 4th movement, but Mandarin phonology is much more complex, than Japanese (which has a very simple phonology), and would require memorising around 400 kana, and Hokkien would be even more complex.

And that figure, I believe, already excludes the tone, so if we want a distinct kana for every syllable in every tone that this syllable occurs in, I guess we would need a lot more than 1000 (albeit not 4*400=1600 because some syllables only occur in certain tones). I don't know the figures for Hokkien but it seems to me as well that the number of used syllables will be somewhat higher than in Mandarin (though maybe not as much as one might think because I believe Mandarin has 18 phonemic initials if I'm not counting wrong, compared to Hokkien's 14-15), even without the tones.

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby amhoanna » Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:29 am

so if we want a distinct kana for every syllable


Not necessary.

in every tone


Also not necessary, although it would be nice.

Most of the high-frequency kanji-less syllables in Hoklo follow a C-V(-ʔ) (consonant followed by vowel and sometimes a glottal stop) syllable structure.

There are a lot of people who write "about" Hoklo, mostly in Mandarin, also in English, Japanese, Siamese, etc. But very few people really write "in" Hoklo across a wide variety of topics. And writing "in" Hoklo, esp. in non-technical usage, is what it takes to realize the shortcomings of the three or four modes that the "market" favors at this point.

Abun
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby Abun » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:08 pm

amhoanna wrote:Most of the high-frequency kanji-less syllables in Hoklo follow a C-V(-ʔ) (consonant followed by vowel and sometimes a glottal stop) syllable structure.

I had never thought about that but now that I think of it, there really are rather few with a (non-glottal-stop) final. Chit and hit come to my mind of course, but most indeed seem to be either open syllables or glottal-stop-final.

amhoanna wrote:There are a lot of people who write "about" Hoklo, mostly in Mandarin, also in English, Japanese, Siamese, etc. But very few people really write "in" Hoklo across a wide variety of topics. And writing "in" Hoklo, esp. in non-technical usage, is what it takes to realize the shortcomings of the three or four modes that the "market" favors at this point.

Very true, and that is pretty much why I feel it may be counterproductive to invent more and more new systems instead of deciding on one existing system, flawed though it may be. Trying to look for 本字 is a slightly different topic if you ask me; you can do that purely out of etymological interest or even to suggest it for a future spelling reform. I can go and research the origin of the Mandarin word which is nowadays written as 這 as well and maybe the standard will be changed if I find an answer (and it is also practical to use). But for the time being, I think it would be best to just decide on one standard. This way, you can finally go and teach Hokkiens how to write their language without requiring the reader to put so much effort into it that many people are just too lazy to even try. This is also, as I mentioned before, why I use the MoE characters whenever there is one, even though from an etymological point of view I am very unhappy with quite a number of them.

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby amhoanna » Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:26 pm

This way, you can finally go and teach Hokkiens how to write their language without requiring the reader to put so much effort into it that many people are just too lazy to even try.


...

Another North European trying to convince us to forget about aesthetics. 8)

Abun
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby Abun » Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:51 pm

amhoanna wrote:Another North European trying to convince us to forget about aesthetics. 8)


Excuse me? When did I tell anybody to forget about aesthetics; if I may remind you of earlier discussions for example on the Hangeul vs Kana topic, I clearly expressed personal preferences/aversions towards certain writing systems for purely aesthetic reasons. However, while I would know what to go for if it were up to me to decide on a writing system for Hokkien, I am fully aware that it is not up to me but to the Hokkien community (of which I may be one member among many, and, due me being not being a native speaker, not even a flull-fledged one). I merely expressed my opinion that it may be more beneficial for the promotion of Hokkien literature to at least provisionally decide on a script and revise it during spelling reforms if necessary. I do have my own opinions about which scripts may be more ideal, sometimes for aesthetical reasons and sometimes for linguistic or pragmatic ones, and I will bring them forth if people want to listen to them, but I feel that having a unified script at all is more important than the question of whether that unified script is my script or not. If people decided to use the kana system you used in this thread, I would be ok with that and follow it. If people decided to write a POJ-Hanji mix, I would follow it. Even if people decided to go for Timothy Tye's script, I would follow it. I myself would choose neither of these, and even among these three, I of course have very clear preferences, but if people decided on one of them, I would still feel it's an improvement because there would be a unified script at all, and I believe Hokkien needs exactly that.

You most definitely know the problem better than I do, seeing as your research went deeper and all I can speak about are a few people in Taiwan, but I have met quite a few people who believe that Hokkien cannot be written. Or if they acknowledge that it can, they just find it too troublesome to read or even write in Hokkien, unless I force them to by writing them messages in Hokkien. And to be honest, who can blame them if nearly every piece of the sparse literature published in Hokkien uses its own unique system that you have ardously to dig through. This lack of interest (which I percieve to be influenced largely (though of course not solely) by it simply being hard to read compared to the standardized official languages) in turn prompts publishers not to publish a lot of Hokkien literature, which accelerates the trend that Hokkien is increasingly seen as inferior to the standard languages. Therefore, I think that a unified script would be an important step in countering this trend.

This statement of mine is not meant as an outsider telling people what they should do. First of all, my opinion was meant as exactly that, an opinion, not as a demand that something be done. It is of course open for discussion. Second, I don't percieve myself as a complete outsider because in my world view, language learners are part of the circle of users of that language, although of course affected in a different way and quality than native speakers. Also, this view of mine is not only influenced by my own "outsider" experiences as a learner of Hokkien, but also by my "insider" experience with my own should-be native language Low German, which (again, in my eyes) suffers from the very same problem. Everybody writes in his very own personal way, which I percieve as contributing to the language hardly being used anymore, let alone foreigners bothering to learn it. Yes, the two cases are different in a lot aspects (a Hanji-script not being considered at all for Low German for example), but there are many similarities, too.

Oh and btw: Yes, I am from Northern Europe, and yes, I therefore have much to learn about certain aspects of Asian culture. However I also think that accusing other people of being cultural imperialists (and whether it was meant jokingly or not, that's in essence how I percieved your remark about me being North-European) is not particularly helpful for a discussion.

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby amhoanna » Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:22 pm

Hehe, soolí-soolí--lah. Stupid thing to say.

I had been about to put down "Northern European / Modern Chinese", but didn't b/c U are not the latter, in a conventional sense. I agree that language learners and non-native speakers are part of the speech community. I didn't and wouldn't imply that you're an outsider.

The conscious de-emphasis on aesthetics -- in favor of "cutting costs" but also "wanting things to look expensive" -- in Modern Chinese (唐人) culture in general is something I find frustrating almost on a personal level. It does not seem to bring any rewards, any gain. It simply leads members of the population to seek solace, consciously or unconsciously, in the refinements of European, Japanese, Thai, etc. culture, but most notably the former. The de-emphasis on aesthetics in N Euro (inc. Anglo) is less marked and at least comes with an emphasis on utility and a pragmatic efficiency which shows up consistently in statistical studies.

I agree that a uniform writing system would be ideal. I am "agnostic" as to the MOE standard.

What really stops people from reading and writing in Hoklo? This can be answered on several levels. I doubt inconsistency of orthography is a key factor on any level. It is never cited as a reason by non-learners. The only people who ever talk about it are people who want other people to use MOE characters or MOE romaji. Learners sometimes ask if there's a standard, and frankly the answer is "No, but the closest thing we have to a standard is the MOE set". And at this point I might offer a link.

There is also the problem that, for a non-linguist, an official MOE character set could become kind of holy, kind of res ipsa (the thing explains itself). The layman would be inclined to assume that everything is a punji. This would fix Hoklo script -- at least Hoklo kanji -- in a state of perpetual thrall to another language (in this case, Mandarin). This state of perpetual thrall would in turn feed back into the popular myth that "all Sinitic languages pretty much share a script". We could easily imagine a person in the future explaining this myth with this example: "For example, in Hokkien we say "ê"; in Mandarin we say "de"; but both are written with the same character, 的."

I'm not completely against the MOE set. But one of its key philosophies is Mando-compatibility, to the point of treating Hoklo as a satellite language. And this partly erases the whole point of writing in Hoklo. Meanwhile, Mando-compatibility makes MOE intuitively appealing -- for the wrong reasons -- to many of the Manducated.

The shortest route in the beginning in often not the best route in the long run.

Hoklo has one and only one true canonical "elder" language, or set of languages: Literary Chinese. In a perversion of the 4th of May 白話運動, the MOE treats Written Mandarin as a second canonical language for Hoklo. In fact, character choice (think of the more obscure action verbs) has a strong Mandophile smack.

I take what I can use from the Taipak MOE, and leave the rest.

A plurality of scripts is normal and even healthy in the dawn of a written language. In this spirit, I salute the MOE orthographies (romaji and kanji)...

I consider my current "system" (if it can be called that) of kanji+kana to be just a prototype -- a vehicle for the "idea" that what we really need is a system that combines kanji with phonetic elements in an elegant way.

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby amhoanna » Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:29 pm

what we really need is a system that combines kanji with phonetic elements in an elegant way.

And there can be no substitute, esp. not an all-kanji or no-kanji system whose success could prevent the formation of a kanji+phonetic medium.

To those that say 漢羅 is pretty, I have very little to say. 漢羅 is almost unquestionably "the most rejected" (in the Hoklosphere at large) of all formats in use today.

Ah-bin
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:10 am
Location: Somewhere in the Hokloverse

Re: Medhurst, Si̍p-ngó͘ Im and Chiang-chiu Phonology

Postby Ah-bin » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:31 pm

Amhoanna, I have been thinking similar thoughts about the action verbs. I have been leaving them as squares for the time being rather than using the Mandarin ones like 揣 for chhōe get on my nerves. Then again I don't mind reading all kinds of Hokkien character choices, as long as I can read the text and know which word they are trying to represent.

I am no great fan of much of the MOE stuff either. Actually, I can't work out why people are so desperate to standardise everything and have no deviation. So long as a systematic spelling of sounds is there (not like that Timothy Tye rubbish) so learners can get the pronunciation right, then it doesn't really matter if someone writes kiaN or kiann or kiaⁿ or kia* or kiã as long as they are marking it one way all the time and not missing it off when it belongs somewhere.

Many people seem desperate to cleave to some "standard" in their speaking and writing, and I guess i am unusual in avoiding this if it is different from the way people actually speak. I like the way Ah-Beng and Ah-Hwa speak, and I model myself on them as much as possible. If they can get everything they want to say across in something that others consider "uncultivated" then I don't mind doing it either. It sounds more real to me than a news report or textbook piece from Taiwan or China.

Given the choice, I would prefer the eighteenth and nineteenth century Vietnamese Nôm approach of inventing characters with meaning and sound components combined in a single square. With less than a hundred or so extra characters built on the Nôm principle, and the gaps can be filled. There is a Teochew textbook from the PRC that uses similar characters like [多齊] for "many" (chē) that I really like. Those kind of Nôm would make Hokkien look really nice, I think. I would even try different characters for beh and bah, just to show their non-Sinitic origin and distinguish them from iok io̍k 欲 and jio̍k/he̍k 肉, or some mark at least to show where a character is used in a hùn 訓 capacity. Unfortunately, I am just one person, and have little knowledge of how to create my own characters for a digitised text. I can always dream...


Return to “Hokkien (Minnan) language”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests