Wiktionary talk:About Chinese/Cantonese/Taishanese

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Deng Jun's Taishanese romanisation system[edit]

Hi, I have a copy of a Taishanese dictionary (台山方音字典) edited by Deng Jun (邓钧). →ISBN, photos here) Their romanisation system is rather interesting, with

  • unreleased final consonants being romanised as d, g, b instead of t, k, p; and
  • an /i/ after initial /s/ being transcribed as xi (e.g. 十 xib`, 晨 xin*) instead of si, which I can only assume represents a shift of /s/ to [ɕ] before /i/.

Is it okay with you if I add this romanisation system into a column in the transcription tables? Since this is the only published Taishanese dictionary available (to the best of my knowledge), I think it's worth covering here. Chagneling (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It sounds fairly typical of Mainland romanizations (they try to imitate pinyin; personally I think w:Guangdong_Romanization#Cantonese is an abomination!)
Normally I would say "go ahead" but currently this page is generated by code (for various reasons); describe the necessary changes and I'll add them for you (and maybe then decouple this page from the code as has been requested recently elsewhere...). —suzukaze (tc) 07:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It looks like it's too much to describe in one post, so I'm recreating the tables in Google Docs and I'll post the link once I'm done. Might take a while. Chagneling (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
While working on it, I've noticed that the examples for i and ei (皮 and 耳 respectively) don't work—my dictionary states that they are pei* and ngei- (ngi- is listed as an alternate pronunciation).
Stephen Li states that they are pi22 and ŋi55, and Gene Chin's dictionary agrees that they have the same rhyme as well (pĩ and ngī).
That said, I'm not sure what to put as examples instead. The Duanfen dialect I speak doesn't distinguish the ei and i sounds.
And I don't know if a distinction between ei and i needs to be made at all. I'm not sure if the Taicheng dialect has the ei and i sounds in complementary distribution or not—my dictionary sticks to one or the other depending on preceding consonant (e.g. gei, hei, ji, ngei, yi) save for the three exceptions 幾 gi- (however, 幾何學、幾乎、茶几 all are gei-), 嘻 hi-, and 耳 ngei-/ngi-. Chagneling (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I've completed the tables here. I'm not sure if you got a Wiktionary notification for my earlier reply — hopefully this one comes through. Chagneling (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The /ɵt̚/, /ut̚/ distinction is in this database of dialectal pronunciations (現代>粵語>四邑片>台山(台城)). Strangely, it seems like /l/ is the only possible initial for /øt/, but /lut/ can be found in the database as well.
Actually, most of this page is based on it since it was the only resource I had access to that clearly marked itself as describing the Taicheng dialect and seemed reliable (admittedly it is not an ideal source, even though the url might include .edu; see also Template_talk:zh-pron#Parameter_for_Taishanese_needed). If you know it is wrong, please feel free to point it out so that our coverage of Taishanese can be better. It's also where /i/ vs. /ei/ came from, as well as the idea of combining /ein/ and /ian/. (IIRC we've also had anonymous users change -ei to -i a few times...) —suzukaze (tc) 22:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c, Chagneling The -ei/-i distinction is discussed here by Stephen Li. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, I don't understand why Stephen Li distinguishes between /ein/ and /ian/. His syllable chart doesn't even include /ian/. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
IRT -ei/-i distinction: Thanks for the link! I didn't realise it was documented and I'm a bit guilty for not doing my research before mentioning it here. What Stephen Li states matches up precisely with my dictionary's romanisations, which is quite convenient.
IRT ein and ian: So they might either be a dialectal thing, or romanisation inconsistencies on his part then.
@Suzukaze-c Ah, I see. It's getting quite late here (and I'm too tired to attempt to translate the interface), so I'll check out the site you linked sometime tomorrow. Chagneling (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c I've finally gotten around to checking out the Hanyu Gujinyin Ziliaoku site you linked (sorry for taking so long!) and I'm honestly amazed at how much information the site offers. Definitely something for the bookmarks list. :P
Regarding /l/ being the only initial possible for /øt̚/ (or is it /ɵt̚/ as per your IPA?): there's ultimately only two characters transcribed by the site as /løt̚/ (栗 and 律, since the other two are just character variants), and one as /lut̚/ (劣, since the other character is a variant). I think it's possible that with 劣 there could actually just be a typo of /løt/. If this is true (and with the tiny sample size I can't be sure), /ɵt̚/ would just be how /ut̚/ is pronounced before /l/ (emphasising that this is just speculation on my part).
Also, some suggestions I forgot to mention:
  • The "i" in Deng Jun can now be definitively put down as being the same as Wiktionary "i", and the "ei" as Wiktionary "ei".
  • I rechecked the entry for 吾 in my dictionary (which I was confused about since it was listed under both "m" and "ng" in the lookup tables). It turns out that in the dictionary entry it's stated to be "ng (m)", which is how all characters with syllabic nasals are romanised (e.g. 五、午) except for 唔 "m". So their putting 吾 in two sections in the lookup tables was likely a mistake on their part, which makes "m" in Wiktionary's romanisation almost exclusively romanised as "ng (m)" in Deng Jun.
    • Perhaps not coincidentally, this matches up with how m and ng are distinguished in Guangzhou Cantonese, and how these two syllabic nasals are merged in Hong Kong. Looks like Deng Jun is noting how this merger is happening (or has already happened? I'm not sure) in Taishanese as well.
  • I think "high falling" should be renamed to "mid falling" - my dictionary describes the tone as "中降调(32)", and Gene Chin's hoisanva site describes it as a "middle falling tone". Chagneling (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Chagneling I found a paper that discusses Taicheng phonology (and Siyi generally). It does distinguish /øt̚/ and /ut̚/, just like Xiaoxuetang does. Also, it does mention palatization, which you did mention above (good job!). This paper is more recent and might be more accurate than Wang Li's paper, but I'm not sure. @Suzukaze-c, Wyang, what do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The paper also says that [m̩] and [ŋ̍] are basically in free variation, so it has probably been merged in Taicheng. And I do agree on changing high falling to mid falling (which I've done). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion: March–June 2017[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

This is currently invoking a user sandbox module. It should be changed to a regular module. —CodeCat 21:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c, Wyang Should this be put in MOD:yue-pron? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Support +1. Wyang (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Are we sure the other sources record the Taicheng dialect?—suzukaze (tc) 08:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed its only categories are tracking/cleanup categories. It should probably be put in a "real" category. —CodeCat 14:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The module invocation is gone. Now it still needs attention to its categories. —suzukaze (tc) 05:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)