Talk:Taiwanese Hokkien

>What is wrong with using unicode to represent folk characters, with, >er, folk characters?

Folk characters are well known to be clumsy, defying the "orthodox" method of Hanzi formation---the combination of ideographic particle with syllabic particle, or the combination of ideographic particles. Vietnamese Chu Nom, and Japanese "furikana" in a way inherit the spirit of this orthodox ideographic method. Cantonese folk characters have degenerated into a purely syllabic nature and, what's worse, a set of uncategorized, unstandardized syllables. Moreover, Cantonese folk characters are cut off from other dialect zones, confined to the Yue dialect area and are cut off from traditional Chinese literature. A standardized written Cantonese has to contain MOSTLY Hanzis that are common to the two main Chinese literary forms: Archaic Wenyan and Modern Baihua. A mixed Latin-Hanzi script, though idiosyncratic and unprecedented, will be much easier for non-Cantonese to pick up due to the systemic nature of the Latin alphabet.

>I appreciate that hanzi-unfriendly environments need solutions such >as romanisation but this issue will surely become less of a problem as >the world's computers slowly adopt unicode?

I guess alphabetic scripts will continue to have an "edge" over Hanzi scripts, and standard Hanzi scripts will continue to have an edge over unstandardized, locally-confined, complex syllabic scripts. Simply put, I want a standard written Cantonese language that can look almost identical to a decent Modern Standard Chinese in an academic journal, but can be transmitted in Latinized form among mobile phones.

>Who is "we"?

Narrowly, reformers of the literary Cantonese language who want to see it becoming one of the two main standards in the Chinese Linguistic Family, and a major world language capable of absorbing new ideas and developing independent of the "Northern Variety". Broadly, everyone who sees the need to reform and knows what has to be done about it.

>Well, you can always mix latin text with Hanzi for loanwords. >What inadequecies do you mean?

Hint: Japanese has abolished its post-Meiji system of literally translating foreign loanwords to Hanzi compound words and adopted a "Katakana" based transliteration method after WWII. Korean and Vietnamese also adopted more accurate transliteration systems to Hangul and Quoc Ngu. In terms of absorbing international academic and technological terms, Chinese(Taiwan and Hong Kong varieties included) lags considerably behind its "Hanzi Zone" neighbors. This places a severe limit especially on the fledgling modern intellectual arena of contemporary China and Taiwan. China is undergoing a major period of transformation. I am talking about something happening deep inside the Chinese mind. Will China give birth to the kind of militant ethocentrism we see in pre-WWII Japan or contemporary Islamic and Hindu worlds? Language isn't the only factor. But it's too important to overlook.

Curious, since there is a recent New York Times article that argues the opposite, that Japanese katakana actually serves to isolate Japan from foreign influences by clearly separating what is Japanese from what is foreign, while the Chinese habit of turning everything into characters has the effect of sinify foreign ideas and concepts and shows China is being more outward looking than Japan.

Roadrunner 09:37, 11 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

> I don't even like seeing "D" being used instead of dik1.

It should be "dek1" actually, according to the phonetic system of Cantonese. When you say "dek1" you are actually pronouncing a "short-closed" e instead of a "short-open" i. There are no "short-opens" in Cantonese as in English.

The reason why Anglophones "get" Sydney Lau and Yale is because these two system assumes "short-closed" o,e to be "short-open" u,i, which happen to be the property of Germanic languages like English and German.

However, a Spaniard, or especially a Greek, won't be so lucky with Lau and Yale. You'd hear them pronouncing "fok1" and "dek1" as if they were "fuuuuuuuuuuuuk1" and "diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiik1"

Of course, they have audio files to assist them but, to match an unsystematic transliteration with correct audio files would be like bringing home someone else's baby from the maternity ward--- at first they are babies all the same. The realization comes much later. I believe the Quoc Ngu-using Vietnamese have learned this mistake.

removed the reference to Taiwan Mandarin. I've never heard Taiwanese being used to refer to Taiwan Mandarin either in Chinese or English.

I have, but only by people ignorant of the fact that (1) there are actually several different languages spoken in Taiwan, and that (2) Mandarin is a relatively recent import to the island. (Can you say Chiang Kai-Shek? *grin*)

Perhaps we could put in something like "Mandarin is the official language of Taiwan, but is not normally referred to as the "Taiwanese language."? I do think linking to Mandarin is relevant to the article. Pgdudda

This page is too much about sociolinguistics and too little on the lower levels of Taiwanese language (phonetics, syntactics, etc.). I put lots of references in, but anyone want to write up? --Kaihsu 15:39 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Is this phrase, "Taiwanese (dialect of) Mandarin (Chinese)" referring to the accent of Mandarin spoken in Taiwan? If so, then can it be called a "dialect"? --Jiang 03:08 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In addition to pronunciation, the vocabulary differ slightly too. Much like British English-North American English differences in my thinking. If it has an article (and it deserves one), it could be Taiwanese Mandarin Chinese. --Menchi 03:25 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The example in the section of "Vocabulary" is not exactly correct. In fact, "chau" in Cantonese is "to run" rather than "to walk".

"most Taiwanese words have cognates in other Chinese dialects. False friends do exist; for example, cháu means "to run" in Taiwanese, rather than the meaning of its cognate zǒu ("to walk") in Mandarin." --RandGen 11:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And calling "Taiwanese" a language is controversal. Would moving it to Taiwanese Chinese (like all the other Chinese dialects) or Taiwanese dialect (to avoid the word "Chinese") be better? --Jiang 03:08 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is Holo-oe a language, a dialect, a variant? The opinion differs, but just because in Mandarin, it's called "yu", it doesn't necessarily mean that it's considered so in linguistics, since Hui Chinese is called "yu" in Chinese too, but many don't even see it as a dialect. So translating the name literally isn't a good idea here.

The 1st sentence of the article says it's "variantofHokkien" [emphasis added]. Hokkien, in term, is a division of the Min Chinese language/dialect. So it's 3 belows below a "language proper" (or at least, the normal definition of a language). Maybe Taiwanese Chinese works (although it looks extremely, extremely confusing like the "TW Chinese people"), but Taiwanese language definitely invites the stares of many, many linguists and amateurs. --Menchi 03:25 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I vote for keeping it Taiwanese language. It's a literal translation of Tai-yu. I don't think most unificationists (of which I happen to be one) object to "Taiwanese language" (although they would perfer to call it Min-nan), but independencist *would* object to calling it Taiwanese Chinese. --Roadrunner

I would prefer the title goes with the most popular English translation of Taiyu. "Taiwanese language" seems a good choice without worrying about political correctness though it may be linguistically incorrect. Anyhow a google search of checking out which translation is the most popular should do the trick. kt2 04:03 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Deleted statement that Taiwanese is seen as a Chinese dialect because it is written with Han characters. Japanese and Korean can also be written with Chinese characters but aren't considered Chinese dialects.

Roadrunner

I have done overall minor fixing of grammar and punctuation. I did not rewrite any sentences that would have an effect on the language-vs.-dialect debate, but the article appears neutral to me in its current form, although I am not well versed in all the nuances of the debate. --Sewing 16:24, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Taiwanese" is the same as the Min-nan (southern Fujian province) dialect. I know this because I speak it. There's no reason why this article should be separated from Min Nan. Taiwanese is a variant of Fujian (Hokkian) language only in the sense that some pronunciation and word usage is different (just like British English and American English). But fundamentally both are the same language and should be under one single title. AquaExecution

Actually, British English and American English have separate entries in Wikipedia. I don't see why Taiwanese and Min nan should be any different. 218.160.32.132 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

   Please note that they are under British "English" and American "English". Even
   the proudest Americans call their own language "English" rather than "American". 
   
   Accordingly, it would be more appropriate  and technically correct for this
   article to be under "Taiwanese Min nan".
   
   Refering it as Taiwanese is tolerable and should be tolerated by all people of 
   this language as Taiwan's contribution to the language and Taiwan's international
   standing far outweigh her birthplace of Southern Fujian or Min nan. Furthermore,
   the future of this language heavily rests on the shoulders of Taiwan.   
   
   While the name of the language is negotiable,  claiming Taiwanese as another
   different language from/than Min nan is criminal in the court of Linguistics.

Any objections against moving this to Taiwanese (linguistics)? --Jiang 05:03, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nope. --Menchi 05:56, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can someone add one? -- Kaihsu 13:46, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Shouldn't the box be at Min-nan?ran 17:23, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

It can be in both. Feel free to add one there.-- Kaihsu 18:22, 2004 May 15 (UTC)

I would like to see this article translated into other languages. -- Kaihsu 14:27, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

They should be split into their own articles per convention. Anyone up to the task of expanding them? --Jiang 01:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the Holo language in taiwan(taiwanese) is strongly influenced by japanese due to Japan's rule for more than half an century. there are many words borrowed from japanese. It is like modern english after norman's rule which is different from old language(I mean the language anglo-saxons brought from Continent). --User:75.32.36.25

Changed first sentence, since the subethnic identity on Taiwan is not mainly language-based (i.e. someone whose parents are Holo is generally considered Holo even they speak Taiwanese badly, and someone whose parents are Hakka are generally considered Hakka even they speak Taiwanese well)... This is different from the situation is say Quebec.

Roadrunner 02:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article says:

Among the apparently cognate-less words are many basic words with properties that contrast with similar-meaning words of pan-Chinese derivation. Often the former group lacks a standard Han character, and the words are variously considered colloquial, intimate, vulgar, uncultured, or more concrete in meaning than the pan-Chinese synonym. Some examples: lâng (person, concrete) vs. jîn (人, person, abstract); cha-bó· (woman, sometimes considered vulgar) vs. lú-jîn (女人, woman, literary); chi-bai (vagina, pussy) vs. im-tō (陰道, vagina).

Are these examples really cognateless? I don't speak Taiwanese so I don't know for sure, but lâng seems to be the 白讀 vernacular reading of 人, bó· seems to be 母 (I don't know what cha might be), and chi-bai has an obvious (and equally offensive) cognate in Mandarin that means the same thing. Is this really a "cognateless/pan-Chinese" divide comparable to the Germanic/Romance divide of English, or is it really an extension of the 白讀/文讀 divide, similar to the Latin/French divide in French vocabulary? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 03:01, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I know that cha-bó· is not a cognate, but I thought lâng (from 郎) and chi-bai (膣屄) were.

lâng I think is from 儂. ian 21:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

aren't taiwanese also written using zhuyin at times? i remember seeing a lot of taiwanese lyrics written using zhuyin (bopomofo).

Additionally, i would suggest replacement or removal of the example "vagina". it sounds a little unprofessional.--空向 07:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention the 講啥X example... Cgkm

Title as is is suprememely unconform to existing conventions. Besides, Taiwanese language already redirects to it -- Circeus 18:41, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. We do have a compromise convention for Sinitic languages / Chinese dialects. And we've applied it consistently:

• Mandarin (linguistics)
• Cantonese (linguistics)
• Wu (linguistics)
• Min (linguistics)
• Hakka (linguistics)
• Jin (linguistics)
• Hui (linguistics)

We arrived at this current compromise between using "language" and "dialect" after a lot of discussion and debate. Those discussions are scattered all over the place... I think Talk:Cantonese (linguistics) has one big chunk of it.

If you want to propose a change to all of the above, I suggest taking it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese).

Also, WikiProject Languages does mention that Arabic and Chinese require special naming conventions. -- ran (talk) 19:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Move would assert unwanted POV re status as language/dialect. Ran outlined existing conventions very well. ADH (t&m) 21:57, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Retired I was unfortunately unaware of any existing convention. While the article, unlike the other concerned, discusses a fairly united language (rather than a possibly confusing group of languaes/dialects), the naming convention stands fairly well as is. --Circeus 05:35, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Is this article "really" about Taiyu? It includes much, much more, including culture and language use in Taiwan--perhaps it should be split into another article called Language in Taiwan as well as Taiwan(ese) culture. Plus, it needs some copyediting Dpr 09:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think most of the content is relevant. For example, the politics section is about the role of Taiwanese, specifically, and not languages in general. The "art forms" section can go though, since it was just added as an excuse to have the article featured on the main page. Culture of Taiwan could use some expanding. --Jiang 09:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The image of the puppets was an excuse to get on the front page, but not the cultural section itself. The section itself actually describe cultural activities that are unique to and dependent on the tongue. – Kaihsu 15:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Taiwanese" is essentially the same dialect as the Min Nan dialect spoken in southern Fujian province. There are only few minor differences the spoken accents, but it should be considered the same language (just like British English and American English). The reason why there are two different names for the same language is because of the political status between People's Republic of China and Republic of China. However, since this is an article on a language, there is no reason why it should be influenced by politics. I suggest combining both articles and call it Min Nan, because of the origin of this language. AquaExecution

The following audio sample used to be at Mandarin (linguistics): || Kin-á-jit || hit-ê || cha-bóu gín-á || lâi || góan || tau || || khòaⁿ || góa. ||rowspan="2" valign="top"|listen Oniows 11:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I clicked a link to Hokkien_(dialect) and came to this page. Shouldn't the Hokkien dialect have its own page instead of redirecting to here? Taiwanese is a specific dialect of Hokkien, but there are others, including the dialects spoken in Xiamen, Singapore, and Penang. I can imagine there are Hokkien speakers in China and Southeast Asia who have never stepped a foot in Taiwan and would dispute their language being called Taiwanese. I propose having Hokkien_(dialect) redirect to Min Nan or be a seperate article instead of redirecting to Taiwanese.--Yuje 15:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Should it be pointed to MinorMin Nan? — Instantnood 20:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Shoudl be Min Nan. As far as I know, Hokkien doesn't refer to the Min Bei speakers. --Yuje 04:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I know that.. :-P but the word Hokkien is actually the same word as Fujian.. — Instantnood 07:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

As a Hokkien speaker myself, I agree with Yuje. Hokkien is just another reference to Min Nan, despite the fact that the word Hokkien itself means Fujian..in Hokkien/Min Nan! I would therefore agree to that change, all the more because Hokkien in Southeast Asia is largely a cultural extension of Fujian, and not Taiwan. Meanwhile, I would also suggest that Min Nan be renamed as Min Nan (linguistics)?--Huaiwei 14:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Taiwanese is also spoken fluently by people who immigrated to Taiwan prior to the mass influx of Kuomingtang after their humiliating defeat to communist China."

Not only is this sentence partially redundant and ungrammatical, it is not necessarily true. The Holos are said to speak the dialect fluently, but the other groups of native Taiwanese, the Hakkas and aboriginals, do not. This makes this sentence essentially pointless. --Jiang 17:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I took a stab at adding IPA symbols to the Consonants section, using Summary of pronunciation of Church Romanization according to International Phonetic Alphabet (listed in external links) as a guide. But I could not find the symbol it used for l, and it gave a different place of articulation for j. ian 16:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This article was featured on the main page. Where can I find the discussion that identify this article as a featured article? Thanks. — Instantnood 20:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

There is a link in the section Taiwanese_(linguistics)#Regional_variations that appears as Tainan in the context "In Taiwan, however, the Tâi-lâm (Tainan, southern Taiwan) speech is the variant of prestige". Could someone note whether this link should be disambiguated to Tainan CityorTainan County or to another entity; I would suggest the link be pipe-disambiguated rather than replaced. Thanks. Regards, Courtland 00:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I find this statistic very hard to believe, where is this number from? The closes I can find is an article that suggests 70% or more of people in Taiwan can speak Taiwanese [1], but nothing to substantiate the claim that it is the primary spoken language of those people. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

We need IPA annotations for the vowels; also, the references for PSDB and Pumindian are hanging. – Kaihsu 10:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now there is some IPA marking around. I wonder if they are accurate. I will try to check later. – Kaihsu 10:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

InTemplate:POJtable, I relied primarily on three books for IPA:

• 閩南語辭典 (Dictionary of Min Nan) ISBN 9578447523
• 國臺對照活用辭典 (Mandarin Taiwanese Comparative Dictionary of living usage) ISBN 9573240882
• 台語發音拼音基礎 (Primer of Taiwanese Pronunciation and Spelling) ISBN 9578447493

However, these three books make use of some symbols that are not included in standard IPA, or are outdated. In those cases, I have opted for the standard version. I believe that, on the whole (barring typos), the IPA is accurate. The zhuyin is also based on 國臺對照活用辭典 ISBN 9573240882.

Here's some information on Pumindian. Hopefully someone will put it in the appropriate location. 普闽典 is short for 普通话闽南方言词典 (Dictionary of Mandarin and the Min Nan Dialect), originally published by Xiamen University in 1982. As far as I know, it is based on Hanyu Pinyin, and is not generally used any where else.

The Mandarin article about PSDB (普實台文) seems pretty detailed. Maybe some of it could be used as a basis for an English article, but I'm not sure how many people would be interested in such an article.

A-cai 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Deleted the comment exaggerating the minute difference between Minnanese in Taiwan and Minnanese in Southern Fujian to the effect of the revolutionary discrepancy between modern English and old Anglo-saxon tongue due to the influence of the Normans.

Simply lapping up a faint streak of Japanese saliva does not grant the genetic quantum leap manifested in the evolution from the prototype Anglo-saxon speech to modern English.

Any creditable linguists will find that they are of the same Minnan LANGUAGE with minor if not negligible variations.

Stop differentiating Taiwanese from her Southern Fujian siblings and focus on rescuing Min-nan from the systematic savage ravages by Mandarin sponsored by Mandarin governments on both sides of the strait. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.215.56 (talk • contribs)