Talk:Guangdong Romanization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NOTE: I created this article because I saw this system used in a few publications but it was not reflected in Wikipedia. Guangdong Romanization is not an official term for these romanizations though (so you won't really find it in Google). Its four romanization schemes are almost always referred to using their Chinese names (XX話拼音方案), and I chose "Guangdong Romanization" because I did not know what else to call it. In addition, "Guangdong Romanization" was already being used to refer to it in the Teochew (dialect) article so it seemed appropriate. However, if anyone has any better names for it, please feel free suggest them here. --Umofomia 04:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dialects
Hello. I think you have to be careful in using the word dialects. The Chinese names of the systems do not tell whether they are languages or dialects. And it is divided on Wikipedia whether Chinese spoken variants are languages or dialects. — Instantnood 07:58, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Right, I am aware of the controversy, however I had to use some English word in order to translate the word 話. I just chose the word "dialect" because the external links I link to use the term "dialect" as well, even though personally I prefer the term "language." If you can think of a better word, then by all means go ahead and change it. --Umofomia 08:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Actually I just went ahead and removed as many of those cases as possible. "Hainan dialect" has been replaced with "Hainanese." "Teochew dialect" and "Hakka language/dialect" have been replaced with just "Teochew" and "Hakka," respectively, since those terms can be used to refer to the languages/dialects themselves. I think it should be okay now. --Umofomia 08:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Also note that in some of the instances, the use of the word "dialect" is correct, since Teochew is a dialect of Min Nan and the Hainan dialect is a dialect of Qiong Wen, even though the status of whether they're dialects of "Chinese" is debated. --Umofomia 08:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tones 7, 8 and 9
- Unlike the other Cantonese romanization schemes, Guangdong Romanization chooses to represent the entering (入 ru) tones separately as tones 7, 8, and 9 rather than together with tones 1, 3, and 6.
Is this correct? All sources that I have access to (including the external link [1] at the bottom of the article) say the exact opposite, that the three 入声 are represented by the numerals 1, 3 and 6. —Broccoli 07:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it's correct. Notice that the external link lists the 7, 8, and 9 for the entering tones (albeit in parentheses). The other reference listed at the bottom, A Concise Cantonese-English Dictionary (简明粤英词典), lists 7, 8, and 9 only, without even mentioning that 1, 3, or 6 can be substituted. —Umofomia 11:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consonants
I'm a native speaker of Cantonese (I'm from Hong Kong) and I find this section (as well as the relevant section in the Standard Cantonese article) slightly strange:
- Unlike the other Cantonese romanziation schemes, Guangdong romanization indicates a difference between the alveolar consonants z, c, s and the alveolo-palatal consonants j, q, x. Standard Cantonese typically does not differentiate these two types of consonants because they are allophones that occur in complementary distributions. However, speech patterns of most Cantonese speakers do utilize both types of consonants and the romanization scheme attempts to reflect this.
- z, c, and s are used before finals beginning with a, e, o, u, ê, and é.
- j, q, and x are used before finals beginning with i and ü.
I pronounce the pair c/q as c before a, e, é, i (the first four rows of your rime table) and q before the others; same with the j/x pair. I never pronounce "s" as alveolo-palatal (it sounds downright wrong to me). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.78.64.106 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC).