James,
http://www.geocities.com/penangfile/
is an e-zine which appears about once every 2 months. Each issue has a "language section" by Raymond Kwok, where he shows some Penang Hokkien. There are 24 issues, so there are about 24 articles with Penang Hokkien phrases. Backissues can be accessed from the <Archive>-button at the bottom of the page.
The words are transcribed using the "popular" orthography, which is difficult for people who haven't grown up with it, and in some areas, it is not clear how words should be pronounced. Basically, if you read it as if it were English being spelled (particularly for the vowels) then you'll get some sort of idea.
One other disadvantage of the popular orthography is that nasalization is not consistently marked. Either it is simply left out, or, it is written as an "n" *before* the vowel. For example "sweet", "green" would probably be transcribed "tnee", "chhnee".
Nevertheless, the column is good, because it records Hokkien sayings. If you read the translations, you'll probably be able to work out what the Taiwanese equivalents are.
Sim.
An obcure variety of Hokkien?
-
Sim Lee
Re: An obcure variety of Hokkien?
Hi James (and all others),
Another idea struck me again regarding Penang Hokkien "-ui~" vs. (syllabic) "ng". I wonder whether one can see this even in the "traditional" name for "xia-men"/"Hsia Men", namely "Amoy".
The weird thing is that in Amoy dialect, the city is called "e-mng", not "e-moi" (while the latter is what the English spelling would suggest). That "mng" of Amoy Hokkien corresponds to the Mandarin "men" of "xia-men" / "Hsia Men".
However, the Penang Hokkien pronunciation (if it existed...) would be "mui", which is a lot close to "-moy". Now the English are unlikely to have romanized the name of this south Chinese city from the local *Penang* pronunciation, so that suggests to me that they based it on some variant found in Fujian Province itself.
Just another thought, for what it's worth.
Sim.
Another idea struck me again regarding Penang Hokkien "-ui~" vs. (syllabic) "ng". I wonder whether one can see this even in the "traditional" name for "xia-men"/"Hsia Men", namely "Amoy".
The weird thing is that in Amoy dialect, the city is called "e-mng", not "e-moi" (while the latter is what the English spelling would suggest). That "mng" of Amoy Hokkien corresponds to the Mandarin "men" of "xia-men" / "Hsia Men".
However, the Penang Hokkien pronunciation (if it existed...) would be "mui", which is a lot close to "-moy". Now the English are unlikely to have romanized the name of this south Chinese city from the local *Penang* pronunciation, so that suggests to me that they based it on some variant found in Fujian Province itself.
Just another thought, for what it's worth.
Sim.
-
Ken
Re: An obcure variety of Hokkien?
Hi Sim Lee,
You are probably right about that, using the pronunciation of 'Amoy' to explain the origin of Penang Hokkien. Have you asked the older generations in Penang where this form of Hokkien originated? We are curious.
You are probably right about that, using the pronunciation of 'Amoy' to explain the origin of Penang Hokkien. Have you asked the older generations in Penang where this form of Hokkien originated? We are curious.
-
Ken
Re: An obcure variety of Hokkien?
Hi James,
I agree with your version of 'Ket Hun'. I probably confuse some people with the 'k'. I was just trying to project the actual pronunciation of 'ket', which should be read in a short crispy manner.
I agree with your version of 'Ket Hun'. I probably confuse some people with the 'k'. I was just trying to project the actual pronunciation of 'ket', which should be read in a short crispy manner.
-
James Campbell
Re: An obcure variety of Hokkien?
Amoy -- that's an excellent point. I've always wondered where they got that from!?!?!
But remember that the first Hokkien dictionaries developed by westerners were around the mid 19th century. I'm speculating but perhaps this is a pronunciation found in [much] older generations of speakers. This is a clue however regarding the Amoy, and I hope some of us can figure it out and report the answer finally!
Regarding the Chinese characters: those were asking about can/can't, is/isn't, but basically your samples just verified that what you're speaking is the same dialect more or less as the Taiwanese Hokkien. Just some of those pronunciations...
I'll check out that link, Sim... thank.
But remember that the first Hokkien dictionaries developed by westerners were around the mid 19th century. I'm speculating but perhaps this is a pronunciation found in [much] older generations of speakers. This is a clue however regarding the Amoy, and I hope some of us can figure it out and report the answer finally!
Regarding the Chinese characters: those were asking about can/can't, is/isn't, but basically your samples just verified that what you're speaking is the same dialect more or less as the Taiwanese Hokkien. Just some of those pronunciations...
I'll check out that link, Sim... thank.
-
Sim Lee
Re: An obcure variety of Hokkien?
James,
>> I'm speculating but perhaps this is a pronunciation
>> found in [much] older generations of speakers.
This is a reasonable possibility to consider, and one which had never crossed my mind before.
So, you're saying:
"Perhaps the older Hokkien pronunciation was 'ui`'. This was the form which the missionaries encountered, so they transcribed the city name as "Amoy". The immigrants from there went to Penang, and preserved this form, while in Amoy itself, the pronunciation developed into 'ng'."
This does indeed explain what we observe. The only argument against this hypothesis would be that both Mandarin and (present) Amoy Hokkien have "full"-nasals, respectively "-n" and "-ng". Historically, it is a known process for final nasals to disappear, leaving a trace in the nasalisation of the vowel. (For example, French). This is what I have always assumed we have in Penang Hokkien (and in Amoy / Taiwanese Hokkien, see below). This is less obvious in the word "Amoy" because the "m" before the vowel may be causing other processes to take place (total denasalisation), but in other Penang Hokkien words in the series, like "sui~1" (sour), "sui~3" (to count), "hui~3" (far) etc, the nasalised vowels are definitely there.
[ In Amoy / Taiwanese Hokkien, we get this leftover nasalisation from former full nasals: Mandarin: "ching" (green), "ching" (to invite), "san" (three), vs. Amoy / Taiwanese Hokkien: "tsi~", "tsia~", "sa~". ]
This is in contrast to the fact that (as far as I know), nasalised vowels to not generally shift to become final (full) nasals.
All of which makes me believe that Penang Hokkien is one stage further than Amoy Hokkien, with a further loss of full nasal -ng to nasalised vowel.
Which returns us to the question: "1) Did this loss take place on Penang Island itself, or had it already taken place on the Chinese mainland. And 2) if the latter, then, are the people who had this loss still speaking this form there, or have the died out or taken on the more standard Amoy form".
[ Oh yes, I already answered part of "1" in a previous posting. The form "Amoy" implies that it already took place there. ]
Hope this throws a bit more light on the situation.
I will keep hoping that someone reading this on this Forum will be able to give a definitive answer, but meanwhile, I'll write to some other academics I've managed to find on the internet.
Sim.
>> I'm speculating but perhaps this is a pronunciation
>> found in [much] older generations of speakers.
This is a reasonable possibility to consider, and one which had never crossed my mind before.
So, you're saying:
"Perhaps the older Hokkien pronunciation was 'ui`'. This was the form which the missionaries encountered, so they transcribed the city name as "Amoy". The immigrants from there went to Penang, and preserved this form, while in Amoy itself, the pronunciation developed into 'ng'."
This does indeed explain what we observe. The only argument against this hypothesis would be that both Mandarin and (present) Amoy Hokkien have "full"-nasals, respectively "-n" and "-ng". Historically, it is a known process for final nasals to disappear, leaving a trace in the nasalisation of the vowel. (For example, French). This is what I have always assumed we have in Penang Hokkien (and in Amoy / Taiwanese Hokkien, see below). This is less obvious in the word "Amoy" because the "m" before the vowel may be causing other processes to take place (total denasalisation), but in other Penang Hokkien words in the series, like "sui~1" (sour), "sui~3" (to count), "hui~3" (far) etc, the nasalised vowels are definitely there.
[ In Amoy / Taiwanese Hokkien, we get this leftover nasalisation from former full nasals: Mandarin: "ching" (green), "ching" (to invite), "san" (three), vs. Amoy / Taiwanese Hokkien: "tsi~", "tsia~", "sa~". ]
This is in contrast to the fact that (as far as I know), nasalised vowels to not generally shift to become final (full) nasals.
All of which makes me believe that Penang Hokkien is one stage further than Amoy Hokkien, with a further loss of full nasal -ng to nasalised vowel.
Which returns us to the question: "1) Did this loss take place on Penang Island itself, or had it already taken place on the Chinese mainland. And 2) if the latter, then, are the people who had this loss still speaking this form there, or have the died out or taken on the more standard Amoy form".
[ Oh yes, I already answered part of "1" in a previous posting. The form "Amoy" implies that it already took place there. ]
Hope this throws a bit more light on the situation.
I will keep hoping that someone reading this on this Forum will be able to give a definitive answer, but meanwhile, I'll write to some other academics I've managed to find on the internet.
Sim.
-
James Campbell
Re: An obcure variety of Hokkien?
Sim,
You said:
"Perhaps the older Hokkien pronunciation was 'ui`'. This was the form which the missionaries encountered, so they transcribed the city name as "Amoy". The immigrants from there went to Penang, and preserved this form, while in Amoy itself, the pronunciation developed into 'ng'."
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'll have to check into it more, because there are some older dictionaries sitting around that I could see if such pronunciations exist. This might also explain why someone earlier said that they've run into people who speak like this [still?] in Taiwan.
You're also right about the point that it seems to be a backwards development because normally the -ng would give way to soemthing nasal.
I'll think about it some more and see if I come across anything...
You said:
"Perhaps the older Hokkien pronunciation was 'ui`'. This was the form which the missionaries encountered, so they transcribed the city name as "Amoy". The immigrants from there went to Penang, and preserved this form, while in Amoy itself, the pronunciation developed into 'ng'."
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'll have to check into it more, because there are some older dictionaries sitting around that I could see if such pronunciations exist. This might also explain why someone earlier said that they've run into people who speak like this [still?] in Taiwan.
You're also right about the point that it seems to be a backwards development because normally the -ng would give way to soemthing nasal.
I'll think about it some more and see if I come across anything...
-
Andrew Lee
Re: An obcure variety of Hokkien?
Hi all, sorry for interrupting your forum!
I'm a Taiwanese who has lived in various countries and the subject of ligual connections has always fascinated me.
Regarding the Penang pronunciations (ui as opposed to ng) of various words, while I was visiting Kinmen this past summer I found out that they too speak in that fashion. As you all know Kinmen is a part of Taiwan but is incredibly close to mainland China.
Andy
I'm a Taiwanese who has lived in various countries and the subject of ligual connections has always fascinated me.
Regarding the Penang pronunciations (ui as opposed to ng) of various words, while I was visiting Kinmen this past summer I found out that they too speak in that fashion. As you all know Kinmen is a part of Taiwan but is incredibly close to mainland China.
Andy
-
James Campbell
Re: An obcure variety of Hokkien?
Sim wrote:
About the palatalization. Here are some other examples: ripe = "sj@k1", colour = "sj@k3", to choose = kj@N4" vs. Penang Hokkien "sek1", "sek3", "keN4".
Sim,
I wouldn't refer to that as palatalization, although it is true that in many romanizations the word marry is spelled 'kiat-hun'. This is most likely an insertion of a /j/ before /e/ (spelled -i-). True, the /j/ is a palatal and has an affect on a preceding /s/ and makes it into the IPA symbol 'c' with a curl. However, the palatalization does not occur in words beginning with /k/. If it did then the word you use in example above (kj@N) would be /tc,ieN/ (again 'c' with a curl) and therefore pronounced almost just like Mandarin. Mandarin has a lot of palatalization, Minnan does not. The Pinyin initials 'j', 'q', and 'x' are just palatalized realizations of two sets of consonants: /kj/, /k'j/, /hj/ and /tsj/, /ts'j/, /sj/ (in pinyin those are: 'gi', 'ki', 'hi' and 'zi-', 'ci-' and 'si-').
For example, we could write in Pinyin the word 見 as 'kian', and knowing that the 'k' should be palatalized instead pronounce it as 'jian'. Or write 想 as 'siang', but pronounce it has 'xiang'. Why do you think they changed Peking to Beijing and Chungk'ing to Chongqing? Same reason.
Pinyin just makes that adjustment in pronunciation by joining the two sets (6) consonants and creating a new one: the palatalized ones j, q, x. So it also makes it easier to pronounce them correctly.
About the palatalization. Here are some other examples: ripe = "sj@k1", colour = "sj@k3", to choose = kj@N4" vs. Penang Hokkien "sek1", "sek3", "keN4".
Sim,
I wouldn't refer to that as palatalization, although it is true that in many romanizations the word marry is spelled 'kiat-hun'. This is most likely an insertion of a /j/ before /e/ (spelled -i-). True, the /j/ is a palatal and has an affect on a preceding /s/ and makes it into the IPA symbol 'c' with a curl. However, the palatalization does not occur in words beginning with /k/. If it did then the word you use in example above (kj@N) would be /tc,ieN/ (again 'c' with a curl) and therefore pronounced almost just like Mandarin. Mandarin has a lot of palatalization, Minnan does not. The Pinyin initials 'j', 'q', and 'x' are just palatalized realizations of two sets of consonants: /kj/, /k'j/, /hj/ and /tsj/, /ts'j/, /sj/ (in pinyin those are: 'gi', 'ki', 'hi' and 'zi-', 'ci-' and 'si-').
For example, we could write in Pinyin the word 見 as 'kian', and knowing that the 'k' should be palatalized instead pronounce it as 'jian'. Or write 想 as 'siang', but pronounce it has 'xiang'. Why do you think they changed Peking to Beijing and Chungk'ing to Chongqing? Same reason.
Pinyin just makes that adjustment in pronunciation by joining the two sets (6) consonants and creating a new one: the palatalized ones j, q, x. So it also makes it easier to pronounce them correctly.
-
Sim Lee
Re: An obcure variety of Hokkien?
James,
Thank you for that correction.
You are quite right. The _vowel_ has changed (well, is different from my variant) in as much as what is a monophthong in my variant is a diphthong "i@" or "j@" in other variants.
But this change in the vowel doesn't change the preceding consonant at all (which is what my use of the term "palatalization" would imply). "s-" stays "s-" and does not become "sh-", and "S-" (informal: 'sh') and "k-" stays "k-" and does not become "tS" (informal: 'ch') or pinyin 'ci-'.
Sorry for the incorrect terminology.
Sim.
Thank you for that correction.
You are quite right. The _vowel_ has changed (well, is different from my variant) in as much as what is a monophthong in my variant is a diphthong "i@" or "j@" in other variants.
But this change in the vowel doesn't change the preceding consonant at all (which is what my use of the term "palatalization" would imply). "s-" stays "s-" and does not become "sh-", and "S-" (informal: 'sh') and "k-" stays "k-" and does not become "tS" (informal: 'ch') or pinyin 'ci-'.
Sorry for the incorrect terminology.
Sim.