Here comes the cooler head. Here ye the voice of reason.I've been avoiding replying to this thread for a while, because I too once had strong feelings of what "ought to be" and "should be" in my native language, and now I just accept what "is".
I've felt the same urge at times to discover or use a "purer" kind of English, and to learn me some other Germanic languages. I've shied away from this for "social reasons". Anyway, it's been great talking about loreseech on this here mootboard...
Objection. I'm working off the Nippo-Saxon word KANJI. I Hokkienized it to avoid annoying the pants off, well, most of U.And finally, saying "Hanji" annoys the pants off me. It is a Mandarinism pure and simple. All types of Southeast Asian Hokkien have a perfectly good word for it: 唐儂字, so why not use it?
In a Straits of Formosa context, I think hanji were called 孔子字 Khóngcújī before they were called hànjī, and before that they were just "jī".
Actually, in TW I usually see either ㄟ or A, as in "係金Ａ！" (=sī cin--ê!)the Taiwanese standard is now to use 的 for possessive and 個 for classifier
And, up theirs with 的 and 個!
我無話通講아。I hear you, and I fully agree that in the first place, Chinese characters are far from being an ideal writing system. ... Writing Hokkien with only Chinese characters is not, and will never be, a perfect system (Ah-bin has also pointed that out, and I fully agree). It is just an ideal that I personally strive towards (and not everyone has to agree with me.
I know U're just using this as an example to explain something else. But yeah, I don't get how they could do that to themselves. "Ta dik samlơưi"（他的心裡） and so on. Where's the icon for throwing up?If I had to draw a parallel today with the above, my best example would be lyrics and subtitles in Hong Kong Cantonese entertainment. Lyrics are almost always written and sung ad verbatim in Modern Standard Chinese vocabulary and grammar, not colloquial Cantonese (the possible exception being 許冠傑 Samuel Hui's 1970's/80's songs).
Mandarin and Japanese are "homonym city", but is Hoklo really that bad? For people who read the tone marks? ... That said, I know lots of people won't touch tone marks with a ten-foot pole. Educating the educated is a tricky business. And it would take an act of God to get 20 million TWese Hoklo speakers to write Hoklo using romaji.1. Writing in Peh-Oe-Ji would be a nightmare to read, given all the homonyms. I have flipped through a copy of a Peh-Oe-Ji Bible before, and quite frankly, I may as well have been attempting to read Greek.
In the spirit of Ah-bin's post, I'll say that whatever works, works. I'll bet Hong Kong screenplays come with the dialog written out in all its colloquial, 口-ing glory, but Hoklo-TWese telenovela screenplays probably come in Mandarin. The first works, despite all the 假借s and tacky phono-semantics and phono-non-semantics. The second doesn't work. Hanji or POJ, I hope they work it out.
Siāng and 像 do fit by meaning and sound, but register (colloq/lit) is off and all the evidence points elsewhere. It reminds me of most TWese Hoklo activists using 你 to write lí/lú/lứ, and if U disagree, then U're a dumb-ass. (I realize 汝 is a "phono-non-semantic". ) Check it out. In TW I hear bô kâng, bô kāng, and bô siâng. The 台日大 also has bô siāng. It also has bô sâng and bô sāng. Bringing "sio-kâng" and "sio-siâng" into the fold, the "sum of the evidence" seems to back up "siāng" coming from "sio-kāng", "sâng" coming from "saⁿ-kâng", and so on. Sio-siâng, which I use outside of TW, is "etymologically redundant", like a "chai tea latte".無像 is pronounced bô-siāng. I suppose many people thought the pronunciation was bô-siâng but in actual fact, I grew up hearing bô-siāng and only when one tries to emphasise, one will say bô-siâng.
兩个人兮面無像 nōo-lê lâng e bīn bô-siāng / bô-siâng
伊个面像*佮*豆沙餅 i e bīn siāng-ka / siâng-ka tāu-sa-piáⁿ
In one sense, that's got nothing to do with anything. 仒 is non-Sino and non-Tai and non-whatever until proven otherwise, even if it's the same etymon as what they use in Canto and Hakka. Same with "m̄" / NOT. But U're on to something. Just as it's possible for an etymon to be non-Sino and have a hanji (e.g. 囝), it's probably possible for an etymon to be Sino and not have one. Latin had Vulgar Latin. Why wouldn't Classical Chinese have vulgar versions, scattered through space and time and infested with characterless syllables?How could 的,嘅,仒 be coincidently all non-Sino?