Does every character in a Chinese dialect (specifically Cantonese) have a single etymologically correct pronunciation (especially with regards to tone)?
I know that there are lots of tone change guidelines, but when I learn a character I like to know the 'base' pronunciation version. Phrasebooks and dictionaries usually just provide the several versions. At the moment, I try to determine the base form by comparing the character on http://zhongwen.com and http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Canton/ - I take the Mandarin tone provided at http://zhongwen.com and try to match it up (according to the Mandarin/Cantonese translation tables provided by James Campbell) with one of the (sometimes several) Jyutping version(s) at the other site. Usually, I narrow it down to one tone version. But sometimes I can't be sure (either because zhongwen provides several versions, or several Jyutping tones match up). Is there are better way?
I'm compiling my own online resource that grows with my vocabulary. In defining the data schema I'd really like to know whether it is accurate/appropriate to assign one main pronunciation for each dialect for each character - particularly for tones. (The alternative of just listing the tone variations in no particular order seems wishy-washy - I'd rather list the tone changes in the compounds where the character is used).
Regards,
rathpy
etymologically correct pronunciation
-
ppk
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
difficult to know all to decide on one. usually linguists tend to choose certain towns or cities as a standard for different purposes, so it depends on ur field of study too. even for teochew dialects which is found only in teochew, sort of a 'county' in canton(i dunno how they group nowadays), there are 8 or 9 different districts, and only the 'city accent' is considered standard. for general learning purpose they choose the one with the most people speaking or most popular city of that dialect but with special note on some of the special usage in other places. since one of the main reasons to learn a language is to communicate, no point choosing one which is remote or with the least people speaking them. like cantonese u will probably get canton or hong kong pronouciation, mandarin u get to learn beijing pronouciation, hakkas u get to learn mei'xian pronouciation etc. others are emphasized only when doing certain specific research.
-
rathpy
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
ppk,
I am focusing on my own community’s pronunciation, and I am recording its peculiarities. Of course, all the resources show Hong Kong / Guangdong pronunciations. I have to check every word in the books against how my community says it. I do also want to be able to communicate with speakers of Singapore, H.K., China, etc., so I’m learning both versions along the way.
As far recording/ knowing the “etymologically correct” pronunciation is concerned, I still would like to do that if possible. I appreciate that language just evolves, differently in different places, and that it’s all valid. But in some cases, aren’t some pronunciations more “original (or whatever)”?
For instance, I could record every syllable with an “N” initial to also have an “L” initial variant (according to younger pronunciation). But I don’t want to do this, because it’s sufficient for me to be aware of the change made by some speakers and try and cope with it. Likewise, many syllables with an “NG” initial have it dropped off, and some speakers even erroneously add an “NG” initial on. I don’t want to get into a mess of recording both versions for every syllable concerned – I would just rather record the “correct” one.
Do you see what I mean?
Regards,
rathpy
I am focusing on my own community’s pronunciation, and I am recording its peculiarities. Of course, all the resources show Hong Kong / Guangdong pronunciations. I have to check every word in the books against how my community says it. I do also want to be able to communicate with speakers of Singapore, H.K., China, etc., so I’m learning both versions along the way.
As far recording/ knowing the “etymologically correct” pronunciation is concerned, I still would like to do that if possible. I appreciate that language just evolves, differently in different places, and that it’s all valid. But in some cases, aren’t some pronunciations more “original (or whatever)”?
For instance, I could record every syllable with an “N” initial to also have an “L” initial variant (according to younger pronunciation). But I don’t want to do this, because it’s sufficient for me to be aware of the change made by some speakers and try and cope with it. Likewise, many syllables with an “NG” initial have it dropped off, and some speakers even erroneously add an “NG” initial on. I don’t want to get into a mess of recording both versions for every syllable concerned – I would just rather record the “correct” one.
Do you see what I mean?
Regards,
rathpy
-
ppk
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
cantonese are not really specific about the slight differences(unlike shanghainese who cant bear outsiders speaking inaccurate shanghai dialects), and i think people in sg, hk and china can understand each other pretty well pronounciation wise, unless they are talking about specific terms that other places dont use, like propaganda terms in mainland china that are unfamiliar with singaporeans. thats my own opinion.
-
Lisa c
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
Your post brought to mind a funny memory. A friend of mine is from Singapore and has never lived anywhere else. I'm in San Francisco. We're talking one day in Cantonese (although his native dialect is Hokkien/Fujian) and I mentioned that I had to get my "si mian" out. Silk comforter. He didn't have the faintest idea what that was. Because it's not necessary to have a "si mian" in Singapore b/c of the tropical weather it 's not a term that he had ever learned.
Another friend of mine from S'pore referred to pineapple as "feng li" instead of "bo lo". It may be proper written Chinese to use 'feng li' but it cracked us up. He didn't know the Cantonese "bo lo" even though he's Cantones b/c so many dialectal groups living together I think they get a little mixed up. Ex. Chow guay diao (Teochew) for stir-fried guo tiao. Many Cantonese don't realize that the characters should be guo tiao and just use characters that approximate the sound.
Another friend of mine from S'pore referred to pineapple as "feng li" instead of "bo lo". It may be proper written Chinese to use 'feng li' but it cracked us up. He didn't know the Cantonese "bo lo" even though he's Cantones b/c so many dialectal groups living together I think they get a little mixed up. Ex. Chow guay diao (Teochew) for stir-fried guo tiao. Many Cantonese don't realize that the characters should be guo tiao and just use characters that approximate the sound.
-
ppk
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
bo luo is only used in mainland china. feng li is probably the proper name.
-
Radagasty
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
> i'm from hong kong. we also use bo lo
In Malaysia, the term is wong lei 黃棃.
In Malaysia, the term is wong lei 黃棃.
-
rathpy
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
Regardless of whether you think its usefull or not...
Can no-one tell me if there is such thing as an etymologically correct pronunciation, and how I might determine it ???
Regards,
rathpy
Can no-one tell me if there is such thing as an etymologically correct pronunciation, and how I might determine it ???
Regards,
rathpy
-
Thomas Chan
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
rathpy wrote:
> Regardless of whether you think its usefull or not...
> Can no-one tell me if there is such thing as an
> etymologically correct pronunciation, and how I might
> determine it ???
Hi,
For tones, determining the "etymologically correct" version would
probably require looking up the historical Middle Chinese tone in one of
the old rhymebooks; some contemporary dictionaries contain this
information.
Between the two sources you are comparing, http://zhongwen.com and
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Canton/, I would trust the latter a lot
more, because the latter is specifically for Cantonese, and compiled more
authoritatively and conservatively--it is S.L. Wong's classic first published
in 1941 (it is still in print from CUHK press, as far as I know); I don't know
what kind of stuff is cobbled in the former.
Comparing Mandarin to Cantonese is problematic, not only because both
contain tones that deviate, but also because you have no way to predict
what tone a character should have (in Cantonese) based on the Mandarin
tone if the word ends (in Cantonese and formerly in Mandarin) in -p, -t,
-k.
You can be suspect of words that have a variant pronunciation in tone 1
or 2 in Cantonese--those are what most tone changes become, e.g.,
tong4 糖 'sugar' changes to tong4-2 糖 'candy'; biu2 表 'chart/table; meter'
changes to biu2-1 表 (usually written 錶) 'watch'. But I don't think I'd say
these particular two cases are optional changes, unlike others.
You can also be suspect of most words with nasal initials m-, n-, ng- having
high register tones (yin) 1, 2, or 3 in Cantonese, and words with zero
initials 0- having low tones (yang) 4, 5, or 6 in Cantonese, because voicing
is associated with lower pitch. (Likewise, you can be suspicious of nasal
inital words with tone 1 in Mandarin.) Some colloquial or mimetic words
are exempt from this rule, though, e.g., mam1 '(baby talk for) food', ma1
媽 'mother', ma1 孖 'twin', maau1 貓 'cat', ngau1 'to scratch', mau1 踎 'to
squat', etc. (For "colloquial", I'd guess I'd say that it's something like a
word that you can't find in a std dictionary.)
I hope you've ruled out the possibility of characters being used for more
than one word, e.g., ngok6 樂 and lok6 樂. Also, sometimes the tone
changes are not optional, e.g., go3 go3 個個 'every one' vs. go3-2 嗰個 'that (one)'. (Even if there are no apparent changes in meaning,
there are words which have gained or lost the changed tone pronunciation
over time--this can be seen by checking older textbooks/dictionaries--and
this sort of thing frustratingly has to be learned lexically for each word,
like whether the "neutral" tone occurs in Mandarin.)
Stuff like 隸 pronounced l- rather than d- (due to graphic resemblance to
characters like 逮)--there's little you can do about irregularities like that.
Or keui5 � 'he/she/it', which is just keui4 渠 (but absorbing the influence
of the tone 5 of the other pronouns ngo5 我 'I' and nei5 你 'you').
How about instead of pursuing the grail of etymology, why not go with
the majority pronunciation? Check a few textbooks/dictionaries from
different authors, and from the last two to three decades or so. I find that
is helpful in weeding out the very odd pronunciations--one that comes to
mind is {口浪} long2 'to rinse', which if you think about it, is from long6 浪
'wave', but I've seen some sources give the hypercorrection *nong2.
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu
> Regardless of whether you think its usefull or not...
> Can no-one tell me if there is such thing as an
> etymologically correct pronunciation, and how I might
> determine it ???
Hi,
For tones, determining the "etymologically correct" version would
probably require looking up the historical Middle Chinese tone in one of
the old rhymebooks; some contemporary dictionaries contain this
information.
Between the two sources you are comparing, http://zhongwen.com and
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Canton/, I would trust the latter a lot
more, because the latter is specifically for Cantonese, and compiled more
authoritatively and conservatively--it is S.L. Wong's classic first published
in 1941 (it is still in print from CUHK press, as far as I know); I don't know
what kind of stuff is cobbled in the former.
Comparing Mandarin to Cantonese is problematic, not only because both
contain tones that deviate, but also because you have no way to predict
what tone a character should have (in Cantonese) based on the Mandarin
tone if the word ends (in Cantonese and formerly in Mandarin) in -p, -t,
-k.
You can be suspect of words that have a variant pronunciation in tone 1
or 2 in Cantonese--those are what most tone changes become, e.g.,
tong4 糖 'sugar' changes to tong4-2 糖 'candy'; biu2 表 'chart/table; meter'
changes to biu2-1 表 (usually written 錶) 'watch'. But I don't think I'd say
these particular two cases are optional changes, unlike others.
You can also be suspect of most words with nasal initials m-, n-, ng- having
high register tones (yin) 1, 2, or 3 in Cantonese, and words with zero
initials 0- having low tones (yang) 4, 5, or 6 in Cantonese, because voicing
is associated with lower pitch. (Likewise, you can be suspicious of nasal
inital words with tone 1 in Mandarin.) Some colloquial or mimetic words
are exempt from this rule, though, e.g., mam1 '(baby talk for) food', ma1
媽 'mother', ma1 孖 'twin', maau1 貓 'cat', ngau1 'to scratch', mau1 踎 'to
squat', etc. (For "colloquial", I'd guess I'd say that it's something like a
word that you can't find in a std dictionary.)
I hope you've ruled out the possibility of characters being used for more
than one word, e.g., ngok6 樂 and lok6 樂. Also, sometimes the tone
changes are not optional, e.g., go3 go3 個個 'every one' vs. go3-2 嗰個 'that (one)'. (Even if there are no apparent changes in meaning,
there are words which have gained or lost the changed tone pronunciation
over time--this can be seen by checking older textbooks/dictionaries--and
this sort of thing frustratingly has to be learned lexically for each word,
like whether the "neutral" tone occurs in Mandarin.)
Stuff like 隸 pronounced l- rather than d- (due to graphic resemblance to
characters like 逮)--there's little you can do about irregularities like that.
Or keui5 � 'he/she/it', which is just keui4 渠 (but absorbing the influence
of the tone 5 of the other pronouns ngo5 我 'I' and nei5 你 'you').
How about instead of pursuing the grail of etymology, why not go with
the majority pronunciation? Check a few textbooks/dictionaries from
different authors, and from the last two to three decades or so. I find that
is helpful in weeding out the very odd pronunciations--one that comes to
mind is {口浪} long2 'to rinse', which if you think about it, is from long6 浪
'wave', but I've seen some sources give the hypercorrection *nong2.
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu