Not noticed, sorry. Do you mean different field of usage?Mark Yong wrote: I agree that we should the avoid non-etymological characters that are created ad-hoc to accommodate dialect-unique words where the actual character (if, at all, there was ever one) has been obscured over time.
However, what I would dispute is the borrowing of Modern Standard Chinese characters to represent Hokkien words, if the actual characters are known to exist, and the meanings are well-established and documented. To cite some examples:
1. 曬 to represent phâk, when the character 曝 exists (and especially given that it is used in the Mandarin compound 曝曬).
2. 眼 for bâk, when the character 目 exists (even though it survives as an independent morpheme in Classical Chinese).
3. 晚 for mǽ, when the character 暝 exists (even though its current usage for 'night' is unique to 閩 Min and 客家 Kejia - the latter being part of the compound 暗暝時頭 am-mi-si-thiu).
(Notice that I have endeavoured to provide three distinct scenarios.)
This I agree hands down.
The reason I prefer 仒 over 之 is because 之 has too many branches of meanings, ie. Going, 的, and pronoun.What I do concede are the cases where the 本字 punji of the words are genuinely questionable (i.e. whether they exist at all, or whether the choice is indeed correct). A classic example of the former would be the possessive ê. My current convention for such words is to use the Classical Chinese equivalent (in this case, 之), and enclose it within square parenthesis 【】, i.e. 【之】。 But that's just me.
I am trying to locate the punji of 仒, (Who’s not? Lol) and I found something that I think perhaps someone can give further validation – 者. 者and 仒 rhymes in every language I know – Cantonese, Mandarin, Hokkien and Japanese (mono vs no); perhaps Hainanese also. Unfortunately, my mum does not know of any fossilised expressions with者 in speech.
愛去者等於此邊；莫去者，會迴了。(Assuming ti = 於 instead of 置/蹛)
I guess its meaning expanded from here. Suggestions?
I understand your concern, since I too am trying to awaken people of the myth.I understand and appreciate the angle you are coming from, in that the use of non-standard and overly-obscured characters will lead to confusion among readers who may not be as in-tune with etymology and rare characters, which is perfectly valid. But at the same time, my concern is that nodding too much in the direction of Modern Standard Chinese (if that was your original intent) as the guide for writing Hokkien words in 漢字 hanji will inevitably lead to a gradual Mandarin-isation of the dialect. As it is now, too many of the younger generation have this misconception that the only way to write in Chinese is via the baihuawen standard, and that Hokkien categorically cannot be written.
I guess we are down to determining the definition of Mandarin. What is Mandarin to you, and what is not? (Let’s not talk about obvious Mandarin words like 胡同 etc. Obviously we are on the same stand there.)
The thing about colloquialism is that, many complicated ideas are expressed with simpler vocabularies, such that the original terms meant for the complicated ideas are forgotten, and borrowed again from foreign languages. And, Hokkien is facing this problem too.
For example, Mandarin has 矛盾 and Hokkien has 舊早/tama講仒共(ka?)當今講仒無像. (Is ‘ma’ a borrow from Japanese 間?) Would borrowing矛盾 be Mandarinising Hokkien, as we all know that 矛盾 is a term very intelligently coined during 百家爭名(先秦). And, like how SimL’s mother could read 科學 as khO hak – mentioned in another thread, would you consider that succumbing to the linguistic oppression from Mandarin?
Regarding 科學/化學 etc, hence in relevance to the original topic >.<, I am against borrowing directly from Mandarin, since I think the terms were poorly coined. 學 itself has already a very dominant ‘to learn’ denotation that I think burdening it with ‘-logy’ is just one more meaning too much. I was hoping, when I first wrote this post, that perhaps Hokkien from other regions had created their own character for ‘-logy’. In fact, should a character be created for specifically this meaning, it itself would be sufficient to mean ‘science’, instead of 科學. Nonetheless, despite my wish, the whole of the Sinitic language circle – Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese all uses 科學 that it would be already too late to change.
I know both of them, and unless mistaken the punji for siao is either 犭肖 or 痟 – suggested by xng in another forum. As I said earlier, the whole part was meant to be read with sarcasm. >.< By the way, how do you type 𠢕? It is not available on my input system…In some of the examples you have listed, the characters are already established, and can be found in the current Unihan standard:
1. gáu - 𠢕 (Andrew posted this before at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6965&p=26459&hilit=+gau+#p26459)
2. gông - 戆
I truncated the part where you ended the sentence with "...or are simply too complicated to write." because, as Andrew mentioned, a Hokkien character does not necessarily have to be 'more complicated to write' (by that, I assume you measure difficulty by stroke count) than a baihuawen character. We either know the character or we don't.
I understand your urge to find the punji of Hokkien and be aware of it when we substitute it in writing for another character. But the problem is, what gives 𠢕 the advantage over 聰明? - Besides syllable count which already is a plus point for Hokkien. 聰 is a smart combination of 囟, 心 and 耳, meaning where the brain (囟), the heart and the ears are in accordance. (Actually it is not supposed to be understood this way etymologically, since it was originally 囱 – chimney.) Brain being 囟 can be illustrated in (惱腦 巛=hair, 恖-ancient form of 思. 思 is actually wrong.) My point is that, it makes no difference from creating your own character out of nothing, and finding plenty of historic proofs to support your proposed character. Why do we need historic proofs to substantiate every character we write? For example, whether or not 睏 has historic proof, it is neither more correct nor more wrong than 睡. 睏 is the word for sleep in Hokkien, and 睡 is the word for sleep in Mandarin. They are both phonosemantics – I remember you mentioning 困 relates to sleep somehow; my argument here is based on the assumption that 睏 is a pure phonosemantic.
However, in目 vs 眼, 目 is more correct than 眼, as 目 is a pictograph of an eye, and 眼 is simply a phonosemantic. Thus, it is very plausible – in this case obvious – that 目 is the original, and 眼 is the latter variant. This can be further described using ChuNom of the Vietnamese – 眼 is like the ChuNom of the original character 目. And, 睏 and 睡 are both ChuNoms of 目. For ChuNoms, you don’t need historical proofs; you just create.
Hope you understand my point…
For 睏, if a new character consisting of 爿(bed) and 目 is created, then, in my terms, 爿目 is more original than 睏.
But, actually, in Japanese, there are many examples of people getting rid of the kanji in exchange for hiragana or katakana. For example, you(樣) is always written in hiragana now. And, among youngsters, kimi(君) is written in katakana. This means that, although hanji and phonetic script elements are allowed to be used together in script, the phonetic script would be preferred over hanji - until when overuse of phonetic script blurs the meaning, for example, in scientific texts. This is the condition in Japanese, though. In Korean it is obviously worse - no more hanja. And, phonosemantics are pretty common in Hanji - consisting of about 70%, if all of them were to be replaced, then there would be no point in learning Hanji.amhoanna wrote:I partly agree with U, in spirit.
By replaced hanji, I meant rad+phon hanji that would be replaced by streamlined phonetic script elements (e.g. hangưl) in the scenario I described.
Note: This is not a desired scenario. I guess everyone agrees...?