Thomas,
> . . .
> How about instead of pursuing the grail of etymology, why not go with
> the majority pronunciation? ...
Yes, but I think I’d personally have to pursue to 'majority' pronunciations...
My immediate goal is to be able to speak Cantonese to my wife, daughter and in-laws. They speak differently to the text books. (Their pronunciation of vowels 'e', 'oe' and 'yu' is different, otherwise fairly close). I am definitely learning/recording my local community’s way, at least.
However, almost all the learning materials available to me are, of course, in the more standard Cantonese. So I also need to understand standard Cantonese if I am to make use of books, learning tapes, news broadcasts from Hong Kong, etc. This is fine because my second goal is to be able to communicate with the peoples of Hong Kong, Singapore and Guangdong.
(I think it likely that I will develop non-standard Cantonese speech patterns from my family, therefore I would be very slow at attempting to speak the Hong Kong way. But I’m hopeful that with the combination of being aware of the pronunciation differences, as well as getting some listening experience, it will at least allow me to understand it being spoken.)
> ...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.
I take your point that sometimes you can use your noggin to work it out. However, this morning I tried to look up黑, and got:
:hak1 - Chinese-English Dictionary, 2000 Chinese University Press
:haak1, hak1 – CCDict
:hak1(7) – A Concise Cantonese English Dictionary, 1999 Guangzhou
:haak1 – Phrases in Cantonese, 1996 Betty Hung
:haak1, hak1 - http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Canton/ 1941?
Both vowels types sound pretty similar so it probably doesn’t matter that much. But it takes time to look them all up, and at the end you sometimes aren’t much better off. (Sigh). I can’t help wonder if it is really 'aa' but people just think it’s 'a' when spoken quickly.
> 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.
This is probably a stupid question, but there wouldn’t be any "Cantonese" dictionaries with info like that would there? I’d have to use a rhymebook?
> 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.
Right-O.
I couldn’t find for sale at http://www.chineseupress.com/english/e_front_page.html or anywhere else, but I could email a query to them. Actually, I don’t suppose the book would offer anything over the web site?
While looking for this book I came across the background info at
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/QEF5073/pro ... ect6r.html, and I now realise that there are two sites:
- the original .../Canton/ version that reflects the book,
- and the enlarged .../Canton2/ version.
I suppose that the entries in version 1 of the site would be more original because the data comes from 1942. So regarding the pronunciation for 黑 mentioned above, I see that the first site has only "hak1". I could take it as gospel?
> 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.
Yeah, I guess I was asking for trouble with that method.
> 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').
Noted, thanks for these guidelines.
I envisage recording the base pronunciation(s) for each character. Then for each compound or single-syllable word/expression I’ll record any tone changes.
I appreciate your insights and your time.
Regards,
rathpy
etymologically correct pronunciation
-
JCampbell
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
I think what you're encountering here are different orthographies for the same IPA symbol. Everybody has their preferred spellings. Like the Germans spell 'sch', English 'sh', Italians 'sc', Hungarians 's', and Poles 'sz' all for the same sound.:hak1 - Chinese-English Dictionary, 2000 Chinese University Press
:haak1, hak1 – CCDict
:hak1(7) – A Concise Cantonese English Dictionary, 1999 Guangzhou
:haak1 – Phrases in Cantonese, 1996 Betty Hung
:haak1, hak1 - http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Canton/ 1941?
In Cantonese there are two 'a's: this 'a', and an upside down 'a' (these are IPA symbols). The first 'a' is more like the short 'a' of English. The second is more like an 'uh' sound (approximately).
Learn to read what the orthographies are referring to in each dictionary, and familiarize yourself with a system or dictionary you know how to read from. There should only be one reading for this character, and no, the sounds are not interchangeable, you won't be understood if you say it wrong.
The seventh tone is usually referred to as the first tone in many references and textbooks. Also check my site's 'tutorial' and 'FAQ' about numbering Cantonese tones.
James
-
rathpy
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
James wrote:
<<
I think what you're encountering here are different orthographies for the same IPA symbol. Everybody has their preferred spellings. Like the Germans spell 'sch', English 'sh', Italians 'sc', Hungarians 's', and Poles 'sz' all for the same sound.
In Cantonese there are two 'a's: this 'a', and an upside down 'a' (these are IPA symbols). The first 'a' is more like the short 'a' of English. The second is more like an 'uh' sound (approximately).
Learn to read what the orthographies are referring to in each dictionary, and familiarize yourself with a system or dictionary you know how to read from. There should only be one reading for this character, and no, the sounds are not interchangeable, you won't be understood if you say it wrong.
The seventh tone is usually referred to as the first tone in many references and textbooks. Also check my site's 'tutorial' and 'FAQ' about numbering Cantonese tones.
>>
The 'hak's and 'haak's I listed were all consolidated into Jyutping form (from various systems used in the dictionaries). The 'hak1(7)' was written because that dictionary used a 9-tone system. I probably should have stated these things to avoid confusion.
Regards,
rathpy
<<
I think what you're encountering here are different orthographies for the same IPA symbol. Everybody has their preferred spellings. Like the Germans spell 'sch', English 'sh', Italians 'sc', Hungarians 's', and Poles 'sz' all for the same sound.
In Cantonese there are two 'a's: this 'a', and an upside down 'a' (these are IPA symbols). The first 'a' is more like the short 'a' of English. The second is more like an 'uh' sound (approximately).
Learn to read what the orthographies are referring to in each dictionary, and familiarize yourself with a system or dictionary you know how to read from. There should only be one reading for this character, and no, the sounds are not interchangeable, you won't be understood if you say it wrong.
The seventh tone is usually referred to as the first tone in many references and textbooks. Also check my site's 'tutorial' and 'FAQ' about numbering Cantonese tones.
>>
The 'hak's and 'haak's I listed were all consolidated into Jyutping form (from various systems used in the dictionaries). The 'hak1(7)' was written because that dictionary used a 9-tone system. I probably should have stated these things to avoid confusion.
Regards,
rathpy
-
Thomas Chan
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
rathpy wrote:
> The 'hak's and 'haak's I listed were all consolidated into
> Jyutping form (from various systems used in the
> dictionaries). The 'hak1(7)' was written because that
> dictionary used a 9-tone system. I probably should have
> stated these things to avoid confusion.
For 黑 'black', hak1 vs. haak1 is one of those literary (文) vs.
colloquial (白) reading differences. Another one is 生, such as in
醫生 yi1sang1 'physician'; sin1saang1 先生 'Mister'.
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu
> The 'hak's and 'haak's I listed were all consolidated into
> Jyutping form (from various systems used in the
> dictionaries). The 'hak1(7)' was written because that
> dictionary used a 9-tone system. I probably should have
> stated these things to avoid confusion.
For 黑 'black', hak1 vs. haak1 is one of those literary (文) vs.
colloquial (白) reading differences. Another one is 生, such as in
醫生 yi1sang1 'physician'; sin1saang1 先生 'Mister'.
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu
-
Thomas Chan
Re: The Grail
rathpy wrote:
> > 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.
>
> This is probably a stupid question, but there wouldn’t be
> any "Cantonese" dictionaries with info like that would there?
> I’d have to use a rhymebook?
No, you wouldn't have to use a rhymebook, and shouldn't have to.
Most Cantonese dictionaries just show the contemporary tone, with no
regard for whether or not it deviates from the historical tone. But in
reference to S.L. Wong's book below, I'm reminded that there is a book
by He Wenhui 何文匯 (aka Richard Ho) and Zhu Guofan 朱國藩, called
_Yueyin zhengdu zihui_ 粵音正讀字彙 (Hong Kong: Xianggang jiaoyu tushu
香港教育圖書, 1999). (香港教育圖書 = Hong Kong Educational Publishing
Co., http://www.hkep.com/) ISBN 962-948-496-X.
For 黑, it is filed under the "hak1" section, and says (132):
黑【胡北切】《廣》黑部。〔～暗〕﹔〔漆～〕。
I don't see any reference here to a "haak1" reading, although I know
it exists. The "胡北切", sourced from the _Guangyun_ 廣韻 rhymebook,
is basically saying the initial of 胡 plus the final of 北--well, 胡
is [w-] in Cantonese, but what was meant was a [h-]; 北 is [-ak]; hence,
"hak1".
The book is pretty much just short entries like that. Occasionally,
there are extra tags, like 正, 語, 本, 今, which distinguish the
proper (正) pronunciation (i.e., what you are seeking) from the colloquial
(語), but in cases where the etymological pronunication has fallen into
disuse, then it marks the original (本) and the current (今) reading.
> 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.
>
> I couldn’t find for sale at
> http://www.chineseupress.com/english/e_front_page.html or
> anywhere else, but I could email a query to them. Actually, I
> don’t suppose the book would offer anything over the web site?
I've misremembered the publisher. It should be Huang Xiling 黃錫凌's
_Yueyin yunhui_ 粵音韻彙 [A Chinese Syllabary Pronounced According to the
Dialect of Canton] (Hong Kong: Zhonghua 中華, 1941). ISBN 962-231-201-2.
I don't know why I thought it was CUHK Press--perhaps I confused it with
Lin Yutang's dictionary (which CUHK did publish). My copy is a 1996 printing.
But no, it would not offer much over the online version, except for some
characters that couldn't be represented in Big5. Structurally, the book
is pretty old-fashioned--it has a radical/strokes lookup, but after finding
the character, you are directed to a particular column and row on a
different page to find the pronunciation (instead of listing it right here
in front of you. I suppose that allows one to also browse by looking at
lists of characters with the same reading, but it's still rather clumsy.
> While looking for this book I came across the background info
> at
> http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/QEF5073/pro ... ect6r.html,
> and I now realise that there are two sites:
> - the original .../Canton/ version that reflects the book,
> - and the enlarged .../Canton2/ version.
> I suppose that the entries in version 1 of the site would be
> more original because the data comes from 1942. So regarding
> the pronunciation for 黑 mentioned above, I see that the
> first site has only "hak1". I could take it as gospel?
You can, but the problem of "etymological" or "historical" backings
for readings is that they tend to favor the literary (文) vs. the
colloquial (白) layer. One can derive "haak1" just as well.
Two other lit/colloq pairs are -ang/-aang and -ing/-eng, e.g., ming/meng 名,
sing/seng 聲 for the latter.
> I envisage recording the base pronunciation(s) for each
> character. Then for each compound or single-syllable
> word/expression I’ll record any tone changes.
That sounds reasonable. Most of the recording you'll be doing are for
the changed tones to #1 or #2. And worth it too, since one thing can happen
is that if one (including native speakers) only hears a word in its changed
tone version (as part of a compound), then the base tone is never learned
(and the changed tone is not always an appropriate reading in other
contexts or compounds). e.g., for 魚 'fish' in isolation, I'd say yu2,
but it is really yu4-2, as discernable in gam1yu4gong1 'goldfish bowl'.
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu
> > 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.
>
> This is probably a stupid question, but there wouldn’t be
> any "Cantonese" dictionaries with info like that would there?
> I’d have to use a rhymebook?
No, you wouldn't have to use a rhymebook, and shouldn't have to.
Most Cantonese dictionaries just show the contemporary tone, with no
regard for whether or not it deviates from the historical tone. But in
reference to S.L. Wong's book below, I'm reminded that there is a book
by He Wenhui 何文匯 (aka Richard Ho) and Zhu Guofan 朱國藩, called
_Yueyin zhengdu zihui_ 粵音正讀字彙 (Hong Kong: Xianggang jiaoyu tushu
香港教育圖書, 1999). (香港教育圖書 = Hong Kong Educational Publishing
Co., http://www.hkep.com/) ISBN 962-948-496-X.
For 黑, it is filed under the "hak1" section, and says (132):
黑【胡北切】《廣》黑部。〔～暗〕﹔〔漆～〕。
I don't see any reference here to a "haak1" reading, although I know
it exists. The "胡北切", sourced from the _Guangyun_ 廣韻 rhymebook,
is basically saying the initial of 胡 plus the final of 北--well, 胡
is [w-] in Cantonese, but what was meant was a [h-]; 北 is [-ak]; hence,
"hak1".
The book is pretty much just short entries like that. Occasionally,
there are extra tags, like 正, 語, 本, 今, which distinguish the
proper (正) pronunciation (i.e., what you are seeking) from the colloquial
(語), but in cases where the etymological pronunication has fallen into
disuse, then it marks the original (本) and the current (今) reading.
> 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.
>
> I couldn’t find for sale at
> http://www.chineseupress.com/english/e_front_page.html or
> anywhere else, but I could email a query to them. Actually, I
> don’t suppose the book would offer anything over the web site?
I've misremembered the publisher. It should be Huang Xiling 黃錫凌's
_Yueyin yunhui_ 粵音韻彙 [A Chinese Syllabary Pronounced According to the
Dialect of Canton] (Hong Kong: Zhonghua 中華, 1941). ISBN 962-231-201-2.
I don't know why I thought it was CUHK Press--perhaps I confused it with
Lin Yutang's dictionary (which CUHK did publish). My copy is a 1996 printing.
But no, it would not offer much over the online version, except for some
characters that couldn't be represented in Big5. Structurally, the book
is pretty old-fashioned--it has a radical/strokes lookup, but after finding
the character, you are directed to a particular column and row on a
different page to find the pronunciation (instead of listing it right here
in front of you. I suppose that allows one to also browse by looking at
lists of characters with the same reading, but it's still rather clumsy.
> While looking for this book I came across the background info
> at
> http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/QEF5073/pro ... ect6r.html,
> and I now realise that there are two sites:
> - the original .../Canton/ version that reflects the book,
> - and the enlarged .../Canton2/ version.
> I suppose that the entries in version 1 of the site would be
> more original because the data comes from 1942. So regarding
> the pronunciation for 黑 mentioned above, I see that the
> first site has only "hak1". I could take it as gospel?
You can, but the problem of "etymological" or "historical" backings
for readings is that they tend to favor the literary (文) vs. the
colloquial (白) layer. One can derive "haak1" just as well.
Two other lit/colloq pairs are -ang/-aang and -ing/-eng, e.g., ming/meng 名,
sing/seng 聲 for the latter.
> I envisage recording the base pronunciation(s) for each
> character. Then for each compound or single-syllable
> word/expression I’ll record any tone changes.
That sounds reasonable. Most of the recording you'll be doing are for
the changed tones to #1 or #2. And worth it too, since one thing can happen
is that if one (including native speakers) only hears a word in its changed
tone version (as part of a compound), then the base tone is never learned
(and the changed tone is not always an appropriate reading in other
contexts or compounds). e.g., for 魚 'fish' in isolation, I'd say yu2,
but it is really yu4-2, as discernable in gam1yu4gong1 'goldfish bowl'.
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu
-
rathpy
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
> ... the problem of "etymological" or "historical" backings
> for readings is that they tend to favor the literary (文) vs. the
> colloquial (白) layer. One can derive "haak1" just as well.
>
> Two other lit/colloq pairs are -ang/-aang and -ing/-eng, e.g., ming/meng 名,
> sing/seng 聲 for the latter.
Okay, Is that what that is--I see/hear these mixed up a lot.
Would you say that the colloquial versions are just natural results of relaxing the mouth when pronouncing the literary vowels casually?
> ... Most of the recording you'll be doing are for
> the changed tones to #1 or #2. And worth it too, since one thing can happen
> is that if one (including native speakers) only hears a word in its changed
> tone version (as part of a compound), then the base tone is never learned
> (and the changed tone is not always an appropriate reading in other
> contexts or compounds). e.g., for 魚 'fish' in isolation, I'd say yu2,
> but it is really yu4-2, as discernable in gam1yu4gong1 'goldfish bowl'.
I’m glad I’m learning a bit about tone changes (especially from Sidney Lau and Matthews/Yip). They’ve helped me work out why there are different printed versions. And I can listen to a learning tape where the speaker slips in a tone change that doesn’t match the book without wondering why it doesn’t match.
Regards,
rathpy
> for readings is that they tend to favor the literary (文) vs. the
> colloquial (白) layer. One can derive "haak1" just as well.
>
> Two other lit/colloq pairs are -ang/-aang and -ing/-eng, e.g., ming/meng 名,
> sing/seng 聲 for the latter.
Okay, Is that what that is--I see/hear these mixed up a lot.
Would you say that the colloquial versions are just natural results of relaxing the mouth when pronouncing the literary vowels casually?
> ... Most of the recording you'll be doing are for
> the changed tones to #1 or #2. And worth it too, since one thing can happen
> is that if one (including native speakers) only hears a word in its changed
> tone version (as part of a compound), then the base tone is never learned
> (and the changed tone is not always an appropriate reading in other
> contexts or compounds). e.g., for 魚 'fish' in isolation, I'd say yu2,
> but it is really yu4-2, as discernable in gam1yu4gong1 'goldfish bowl'.
I’m glad I’m learning a bit about tone changes (especially from Sidney Lau and Matthews/Yip). They’ve helped me work out why there are different printed versions. And I can listen to a learning tape where the speaker slips in a tone change that doesn’t match the book without wondering why it doesn’t match.
Regards,
rathpy
-
Michael Thigpen
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
Rathpy,
One thing you should keep in mind is the "primacy of the oral language", to borrow a phrase. Cantonese did not develop from a variation on the list of characters, the written characters were developed and have evolved to match the changes in the oral language.
Cantonese has a very long history and has changed significantly over the years. There are very complex reasons behind the different tones and how they react in combination with other characters. Some characters represent related, but separate ideas that may once have been separate morphemes differentiated by tone.
Not only do some characters have multiple tones, some have multiple pronunciations. Some are simple cases of assimilation and other phonetic changes (p/b, k/g, t/d, n/m), but others show the fusion of multiple ideas into a single character and fusing of multiple characters with the same meaning.
區 keui (an area) au (as a surname)
單 --daan-- (single) sihn (as a surname)
車 che (vehicle) geui (chess piece)
So in some cases there will be more than one pronunciation (sound and tone) for a character. There really is no way to get around it.
[%sig%]
One thing you should keep in mind is the "primacy of the oral language", to borrow a phrase. Cantonese did not develop from a variation on the list of characters, the written characters were developed and have evolved to match the changes in the oral language.
Cantonese has a very long history and has changed significantly over the years. There are very complex reasons behind the different tones and how they react in combination with other characters. Some characters represent related, but separate ideas that may once have been separate morphemes differentiated by tone.
Not only do some characters have multiple tones, some have multiple pronunciations. Some are simple cases of assimilation and other phonetic changes (p/b, k/g, t/d, n/m), but others show the fusion of multiple ideas into a single character and fusing of multiple characters with the same meaning.
區 keui (an area) au (as a surname)
單 --daan-- (single) sihn (as a surname)
車 che (vehicle) geui (chess piece)
So in some cases there will be more than one pronunciation (sound and tone) for a character. There really is no way to get around it.
[%sig%]
-
rathpy
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
Michael,
I’ve since been learning about homonymic characters in my written Chinese class. It seems that there are quite a few of them in Chinese to make life interesting for the student. (Not too many real ones in English, I think… wind, bow, alternate…?).
eg.:
參 cam1 / caam1 / sam1 / saam1:
-- 參加 caam1 gaa1 - to participate in
-- 入參 jap6 sam1 - ginseng
種 zung2 / zung3:
-- 種類 zung2 leoi6 - kind; variety
-- 種田 zung3 tin4 - till the land; farm
將 zoeng1 / zoeng3:
-- 將來 zoeng1 loi4 - the future; the days to come
-- 大將 zoeng3 daai6 - senior high-ranking officer
重 cung5 / jung6 / cung4:
-- 重量 cung5 loeng6 - weight
-- 重要 jung6 jiu3 - important
-- 重複 cung4 fuk1 - to repeat, duplicate
The different pronunciations in these examples don’t seem to have much to do with the standard types of tone changes in Cantonese (eg. to indicated a compound, distinguish a noun/verb, denote diminution, etc.) . So I guess that characters like these (with loaded meanings according to different pronunciations) are the type that you talk about. I accept what you say that for such characters there is no single pronunciation that is more correct than others. Thank you.
Regards,
rathpy
I’ve since been learning about homonymic characters in my written Chinese class. It seems that there are quite a few of them in Chinese to make life interesting for the student. (Not too many real ones in English, I think… wind, bow, alternate…?).
eg.:
參 cam1 / caam1 / sam1 / saam1:
-- 參加 caam1 gaa1 - to participate in
-- 入參 jap6 sam1 - ginseng
種 zung2 / zung3:
-- 種類 zung2 leoi6 - kind; variety
-- 種田 zung3 tin4 - till the land; farm
將 zoeng1 / zoeng3:
-- 將來 zoeng1 loi4 - the future; the days to come
-- 大將 zoeng3 daai6 - senior high-ranking officer
重 cung5 / jung6 / cung4:
-- 重量 cung5 loeng6 - weight
-- 重要 jung6 jiu3 - important
-- 重複 cung4 fuk1 - to repeat, duplicate
The different pronunciations in these examples don’t seem to have much to do with the standard types of tone changes in Cantonese (eg. to indicated a compound, distinguish a noun/verb, denote diminution, etc.) . So I guess that characters like these (with loaded meanings according to different pronunciations) are the type that you talk about. I accept what you say that for such characters there is no single pronunciation that is more correct than others. Thank you.
Regards,
rathpy
-
rathpy
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
Thomas Chan wrote:
>>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').<<
Sorry, could I trouble you about this... Are you saying that the third person pronoun used to be pronounced keui4, and used character 渠?
Regards,
rathpy
>>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').<<
Sorry, could I trouble you about this... Are you saying that the third person pronoun used to be pronounced keui4, and used character 渠?
Regards,
rathpy
-
Kobo-Daishi
Re: etymologically correct pronunciation
Dear Rathpy,
I think you mean 人參 [Mand: ren2 shen1, Cant: yan4 chaam1] is ginseng and not 入參. In Jyutping it’s “jan4 caam1”.
I think the 人 character is used because the root of the ginseng plant is supposed to resemble the shape of humans.
Recently I was reading one the Harry Potter novels, “Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets” and I remember they had mandrake plants and they were shaped like humans too so I wondered about the etymology of the word.
Well this is what I found at the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) web site for “mandrake”:
1. a. A poisonous and narcotic Mediterranean plant, Mandragora officinarum (family Solanaceae), with a very short stem and solitary purple or whitish flowers.
It was formerly credited with magical and medicinal properties esp. because of the supposedly human shape of its forked fleshy root, being used to promote conception, and was reputed to shriek when pulled from the ground and to cause the death of whoever uprooted it (a dog being therefore traditionally employed for the purpose).
Small world, huh.
Rowling sure knows her stuff.
Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.
I think you mean 人參 [Mand: ren2 shen1, Cant: yan4 chaam1] is ginseng and not 入參. In Jyutping it’s “jan4 caam1”.
I think the 人 character is used because the root of the ginseng plant is supposed to resemble the shape of humans.
Recently I was reading one the Harry Potter novels, “Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets” and I remember they had mandrake plants and they were shaped like humans too so I wondered about the etymology of the word.
Well this is what I found at the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) web site for “mandrake”:
1. a. A poisonous and narcotic Mediterranean plant, Mandragora officinarum (family Solanaceae), with a very short stem and solitary purple or whitish flowers.
It was formerly credited with magical and medicinal properties esp. because of the supposedly human shape of its forked fleshy root, being used to promote conception, and was reputed to shriek when pulled from the ground and to cause the death of whoever uprooted it (a dog being therefore traditionally employed for the purpose).
Small world, huh.
Rowling sure knows her stuff.
Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.