Talk:Teochew (dialect)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Hong Kong Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project!

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

edit purge

Clean up all MTR station pages. They are literally all over the place. Two model pages are Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. They each describe a feature special to the station, Station layout, exit, and connections, as well as neighbouring stations and the station "box".
- We will also need plenty of updated pictures (e.g. removing all KCR-related images except those on the KCR article). Check that all pages have basically the same language structure as Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. Links to location maps are good too. (Should also perform these checks on Chinese Wikipedia.)

Clean-up pages that link with TVB, especially its series pages.

WikiProject China (Rated B-Class)

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Variable Grammars, and GagiNang

Ty: My friend Laohia introduced me to Wikipedia, and I noticed the entry on Chaozhou dialect. I am the Education + Administrative Coordinator and Co-founder of a Diojiu internet portal called GagiNang. Firstly, I'd like to thank your efforts for giving Diojiu a life on Wiki. Here are some thoughts:

-Diojiu is a language in it's own right. The reasoning behind this is that it is a culturally distinct entity for it's speakers, aside from any political motivations someone of my position may have. If you ask any Diojiu people what language they speak they will surely identify it as Diojiu versus Hokkien or even Minnan. Sure, it is a dialect of Minnan, as is Hokkien. The whole dialect versus language debate is definitely interesting... I welcome your thoughts on this.

-Peng-im: this is our official romanization system based on Guangdong's official system. We promote using it above other spellings which are based on Mandarin, Cantonese, or other languages. It is wise to include these non-Diojiu versions, because its what is well known to the public. Teochiu, Teochew, Chiuchow are all common, however we promote DIOJIU that is the standard peng-im spelling.

gaginang.org

I find Peng-im to be confusing and imprecise. IPA transcriptions are more descriptive and aren't that much more complicated. 128.12.20.195 23:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the change again to Teochiu from Chaozhou. After reading more online references to the Chinese southern dialects, I decided to go with the more popular romanization for the sake of familiarity. I believe that this change brings the article in line with the articles about Cantonese, Hakka, and Hokkien. I decided to use Teochiu over other variations of spellings because this was the prefered spelling in the "The Encyclopedia of the Chinese Overseas, edited by Lynn Pan, 1998, published by Harvard University Press.

laohia

[edit] Romanization

Hmm... I think the Hokkien pronouncation should be used, since in the Taiwanese (linguistics) they use the Peh Oe ji, which is meant for Min-nan, not tentatively only for Hokkian. Furthermore, I recommend to use the Peh Oe Ji for Teochew as well since they are also Min-nan.

Mr Tan 12.47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I noticed one of your changes and I'd like to note that Pengim isn't a Cantonese system. Guangdong created 3 different Romanization systems, I believe, for Cantonese, Hakka, Teochew. Pengim is Teochew, Pengyam is Cantonese. Since Teochew is generally regarded as seperate from Hokkien, I think Teochew Romanization is preferable to Hokkien. --Yuje 17:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yuje is correct, The Peng'im system is specific for Teochiu. It is NOT a system for Cantonese. Guangdong has separate romanization systems (for linguistic study and dictionaries) for Cantonese, Hakka, and Teochiu. It is aside from the slightly modified form used by GagiNang, as far as I am aware of, the only complete and actively used romanization of Teochiu used today. I have put a reference above as to the dictionary that I use. Shantou University also uses this system in their other publications.

Laohia

Guangdong government produces romanisation systems for four languages, namely (Standard) Cantonese, Teochew, Hakka (Moiyen dialect) and Hainanese. It was done at a time before Hainan became a province. — Insta ntnood 17:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename proposal

I suggest renaming this page to Teochew (linguistics) to end all discussions over its linguistic status, and to bring it in line with other articles related to the Chinese language?--Huaiwei 14:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Teochew is generally considered as a variant, though distinct, of the Min Nan group. The dispute is at the level of Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, Min Nan, etc., but not the level of Teochew, Taiwanese or Taishan. — Insta ntnood 17:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am not too sure what is the relevance of your point to my proposal.--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 05:06 (UTC)

What he means is that since Teochew is one level down from Mandarin, Min Nan etc., it should be treated like Beijing dialect, Shanghai dialect, Tianjin dialect, Taishan dialect, etc. -- ran (talk) June 29, 2005 05:43 (UTC)

But the discussion above shows that Teochew being seen as a sub-class of Min Nan is disputable. Personally, if I were to give my opinion from a Southeast Asian context, then yes, the distinction is much more greatly felt here then perhaps in China itself. Meanwhile, why is it Taiwanese (linguistics) and not Taiwanese dialect then?--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 06:26 (UTC)

Taiwan is a rather special case... you certainly can't put it at Taiwan dialect without starting a massive edit war.

As for Teochew, there actually isn't that much dispute that it belongs to Min Nan. The problem is whether it belongs to Hokkien. Although we often say (sloppily perhaps) that Hokkien is Min Nan, the way people use it ("He speak Hokkien one lah, not Teochew") implies that Hokkien is just the Amoy dialect. As such, Teochew and Hokkien are both subcategories of Min Nan. Since the Amoy dialect is a dialect, so is Teochew. -- ran (talk) June 29, 2005 06:36 (UTC)

I see your pt regarding the Taiwan issue...but I dont quite get it about the "implication" of Hokkien being Min Nan, and therefore Teochew is Min Nanese as well? --Huaiwei 29 June 2005 06:42 (UTC)

Well... the thing is, Teochew ⊂ Min Nan. This is academic consensus. But if we say that Min Nan = Hokkien, then Teochew ⊂ Hokkien, which sounds wrong. So we have to establish that, in S.E.Asian usage at least, Hokkien = Amoy dialect ⊂ Min Nan. So Hokkien ⊂ Min Nan, Teochew ⊂ Min Nan, and Hokkien ∩ Teochew = Ø. And since Amoy dialect = Hokkien is a dialect, so is Teochew. -- ran (talk) June 29, 2005 06:56 (UTC)

If it was academic concensus, then this debate wont even have erupted. As we all know, linguists cant always agree if an entity is considered a language or a dialect, and we should probably reflect that than to hide behind "academic concensus" alone, if there was any. The term "Hokkien" is popularised in the Southeast Asian context because of migration, and actually may have its roots as a form of provincial/linguistic identity then language alone. So...the large number of migrants from Southern Fujian in Singapore, when compared with their Teochew, Cantonese, Hakka, etc compatriots, simply refer to themselves as "Fujian Ren"..."Hokkien Lang", as opposed to "Min Nan Ren", which would have been more technically accurate. Hokkien is indeed Min Nan in almost all senses of the word, and I would personally consider "Taiwanese dialect" as the exact same language as Min Nan too. Regionalal variations with regards to vocabulary are to be expected, but I dont think this constitutes to a new "language" or "dialect".

In comparison, Teochew, although sharing much similarities with Min Nan, maintains distinct differences even in pronunciations of the most fundamental words. They pronounce "Ren" as "Nang", as opposed to the Hokkien "Lang", for example. Sentence structure also has notable differences as someone pointed out earlier. Do we see this in the versions of Min Nan spoken in Southeast Asia (except Penang) and in Taiwan? Meanwhile, isnt "Amoy Dialect" just yet another name for Min Nan, and not a seperate sub-class of Min Nan? I am afraid we seem to be creating our very own language tree?--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 07:31 (UTC)

Oh... no no no, Amoy Dialect is just the dialect of Amoy, which is just one dialect of Min Nan. And I'm not "hiding behind academic consensus", because this is academic consensus. Nor are we "creating our own family tree"...

See List of Chinese dialects. Here's an excerpt:

Min Nan
- Chaozhou dialect (Teochew)
- Quanzhou dialect
- Penang Hokkien
- Shantou dialect (Swatow)
- Taiwanese
- Xiamen dialect (Hokkien)
- Zhangzhou dialect
Min Dong
- Fuqing dialect
- Fuzhou dialect (Hokchiu)
Min Zhong
- Sanming dialect
Min Bei
- Jian'ou dialect
Pu Xian
- Putian dialect
- Xianyou dialect
Qiong Wen
- Hainan dialect (Hainanese)
- Zhanjiang dialect
Shao Jiang

There are many ways of subdividing Min. Some subdivide it into two (northern, southern), some subdivide it into five (northern, southern, eastern, central, Pu Xian), and some subdivide it into seven (5 + Shao Jiang, Qiong Wen). But regardless of how you do it, Teochew and Hokkien both end up in Min Nan.

-- ran (talk) June 29, 2005 15:11 (UTC)

But if we already know that Hokkien IS Min Nan (and the above even calls Amoy dialect Hokkien anyway), then wont it make a mockery of that list?--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 08:45 (UTC)

No no, The term "Hokkien" is what we define it to be. In everyday usage, it refers to the Amoy dialect (or the Quanzhou-Zhangzhou area dialect).

You're basically taking two definitions and confusing them with each other. For example, "Beijing" can refer to either the urban area of Beijing, or the municipality of Beijing. So taken in one sense, Beijing and Shunyi are separate, while in another sense, Shunyi is a part of Beijing. So you can't say, "If Shunyi is outside Beijing, how can you say Shunyi is inside Beijing?" It is even worse to say, "Whether Shunyi is inside Beijing is controversial." There is no controversy: Shunyi is outside URBAN Beijing, but inside Beijing MUNICIPALITY; it depends on definitions. Nor can you say that URBAN Beijing and Beijing MUNICIPALITY are the same simply because the same term is used for both.

Similarly, Teochew is outside Hokkien in the colloquial sense (just the Amoy dialect), but inside Hokkien in another, less common sense (the entire Min Nan group). There is no controversy whether Teochew is inside "Hokkien". And you certainly can't equate the Amoy dialect with the entire Min Nan group either, simply because the same imprecise term of "Hokkien" is used for both, though more commonly the former.

Do you see how this analogy works? -- ran (talk) July 7, 2005 03:37 (UTC)

In comparison, Teochew, although sharing much similarities with Min Nan, maintains distinct differences even in pronunciations of the most fundamental words. ------ argh..!! this is exactly what I mean by conflating different definitions of the same term! You cannot say that Teochew "shares similarities" with Min Nan any more than you can say that Shunyi is "close" to Beijing Municipality! You can say Shunyi is close to Beijing, but only in the sense of URBAN Beijing! In the same way you can say that Teochew is similar to Hokkien, but ONLY in the sense of the Amoy dialect, and not of Min Nan, which INCLUDES Amoy and Chaozhou in the same way the MUNICIPALITY of Beijing includes Urban Beijing as well as Shunyi! -- ran (talk) July 7, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Inconsistency noted: "the Teochew people settled in significant numbers in Thailand, Cambodia and Singapore where they form the largest Chinese dialect group" vs. "Teochew people are 2nd largest group in Singapore, after the Hokkiens" under History and Geography section. - shaychana@gmail.com Nov 24 2005

[edit] How close is Teochew to Hokkien

Is Teochew dialect intelligible with Hokkien dialect? Let's say in a simple act of selling, buying and bargaining something between a Teochew speaker and a Hokkien speaker. Thanks.

I will attempt to answer that question by working on a comparison chart. I know Quanzhou and Zhangzhou speech, but not Teochew. Therefore, I will have to rely on the article for comparison purposes. If someone is familiar with Teochew and IPA, please proof read the Teochew for me. Also, the talk Teochew page on Min Nan wikipedia does a fairly good job of answering the question of whether the two are mutually intelligle (not really). A-cai 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaozhou Chinese	Chaozhou IPA	Xiamen Chinese	Quanzhou IPA	Zhangzhou IPA	English
我	ua˥˨	我	gua˥˧	gua˥˧	I / me
汝	lɤ˥˨	你	li˥˧	lu˥˧	you (singular)
伊	i˧˧	伊	i˥˥	i˥˥	he/she/it/him/her
俺	naŋ˥˨	咱	lan˥˧	lan˥˧	we / us (including you)
阮	ŋ˥˨	阮	gun˥˧	guan˥˧	we / us (excluding you)
恁	niŋ˥˨	恁	lɪn˥˧	lɪn˥˧	you (plural)
伊人	i˧˧naŋ˥˥	亻因	in˥˥	in˥˥	they/them
我個/我个	ua˧˥kai˩˩	我的	gua˥˥e˧˥	gua˥˥e˧˥	my / mine
汝個/汝个	lɤ˧˥kai˩˩	你的	li˥˥e˧˥	lu˥˥e˧˥	your / yours
伊個/伊个	i˧˧kai˩˩	伊的	i˧˧e˧˥	i˧˧e˧˥	his / his; her / hers; its / its
俺個/俺个	naŋ˧˥kai˩˩	咱	lan˥˧	lan˥˧	our / ours (including you)
阮個/阮个	ŋ˧˥kai˩˩	阮	gun˥˧	guan˥˧	our / ours (excluding you)
恁個/恁个	niŋ˧˥kai˩˩	恁	lɪn˥˧	lɪn˥˧	your / yours
伊人個/伊人个	i˧˧naŋ˩˩kai˩˩	亻因	in˥˥	in˥˥	their / theirs
只個/只个	tsi˧˥kai˩˩	這個/这个	tɕɪt˥˥e˧˥	tɕɪt˥˥e˧˥	this
只撮	tsi˧˥tsʰoʔ˥˥	者個/者个	tɕia˥˥e˧˥	tɕia˥˥e˧˥	these
只塊/只块	tsi˧˥ko˩˨	者	tɕia˥˧	tɕia˥˧	here
只內	tsi˧˥lai˧˥	-	-	-	inside
只口	tsi˧˥kʰao˩˩	-	-	-	outside
只陣/只阵	tsi˧˥tsuŋ˥˥	這陣/这阵	tɕɪt˥˥tsun˧˧	tɕɪt˥˥tsun˧˧	now
當/当	tɤŋ˩˨	旦	tã˥˥	tã˥˥	now
這生/这生	tse˧˥sẽ˧˧	者呢	tɕia˥˥niʔ˩˩	tɕia˥˥niʔ˩˩	like this
醬/酱	tsĩẽ˩˨	這/这	tse˥˥	tse˥˥	this
者個/者个	tsia˧˥kai˩˩	這款/这款	tɕɪt˥˥kʰuan˥˧	tɕɪt˥˥kʰuan˥˧	this kind
北	pɑːk	北	pak˩˩	pak˩˩	north
馬/马	bœː	馬/马	be˥˧	be˥˧	horse
青	tsʰœːn	青	tɕʰĩ˥˥	tsʰẽ˥˥	green
嘴	tsʰuːi	嘴	tsʰui˨˩	tsʰui˨˩	mouth
槍/枪	tsʰœːŋ	銃/铳	tɕʰiŋ˨˩	tɕʰiŋ˨˩	gun
潮	tiːo	潮	tio˧˥	tio˧˥	tide
橋/桥	kiːo	橋/桥	kio˧˥	kio˧˥	bridge
鵝/鹅	gɔː	鵝/鹅	go˧˥	gə˧˥	goose
雲/云	hʊŋ	雲/云	hun˧˥	hun˧˥	cloud
走	kʰe	去	kʰi˨˩	kʰu˨˩	to go
六	lɑːk	六	lak˥˥	lak˥˥	six
明	mœːŋ	明	biŋ˧˥	biŋ˧˥	bright
人	nɑːŋ	人	laŋ˧˥	laŋ˧˥	person
五	ŋou	五	ŋo˥˧	ŋo˥˧	five
平	pʰɐŋ	平	piŋ˧˥	piŋ˧˥	peace
熱/热	riɐk or ruaʔ	熱/热	liɛt˥˥ or luaʔ˥˥	ʑiɛt˥˥ or ʣuaʔ˥˥	hot
生	sœːn	生	ɕĩ˥˥	sẽ˥˥	to be born
天	tʰiːn	天	tʰĩ˥˥	tʰĩ˥˥	heaven
州	tɕiːu	州	tɕiu˥˥	tɕiu˥˥	state

I am not too sure of the accuracy of all the vowels, but isn't [œ] a rounded front vowel, which is not found in Teochew? Also, Teochew does not have word-final /n/. Word-final /n/ can be changed to /m/ or /ŋ/, or the preceding vowels are nasalised. Phytomagus 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Glossika, Chaozhou has an overal 50.4% of mutual intelligibility with the Xiamen dialect, 46.1% with Mandarin and 43.5% with Cantonese.

Nevertheless, Chaozhou is mutually intelligible with some other Min-nan languages, notably the dialects of Zhangzhou 漳州 and Quanzhou 泉州 probably because of their proximity.

The above statement makes no sense to me. Quanzhou, Xiamen and Zhangzhou speech are probably 95% mutually intelligible. How can Teochew be only 50% mutually intelligible with Xiamen, but mutually intelligible with Quanzhou and Zhangzhou? To better illustrate the linguistic similarities and differences, I have been working on the Sino-Tibetan Swadesh lists at Wiktionary. The list currently includes words from Mandarin, Cantonese, Min Nan (Quanzhou, Xiamen, Zhangzhou and Teochew), Hakka and Burmese. If anybody knows these languages, and is also familiar with romanizations and IPA, please help out. I think such a list is a necessary first step in answering the mutual intelligibility question. -- A-cai 14:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cellophane noodles question

Hello, there's some controversy about the origin of the name saifun to refer to cellophane noodles. It was earlier thought that this was a Japanese name (i.e. harusame saifun) but it now seems it might be related to the Mandarin "fen si." Is it possible that "saifun" is a Min Nan pronunciation? It doesn't seem to be Cantonese. Thank you, Badagnani 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Cantonese name for these noodles is also fan2 si1 粉絲.--Fitzwilliam 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew that, but was asking specifically about the linguistic origin of saifun. Badagnani 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Saifun" is unlikely to be from Minnan pronunciation, since Minnan languages do not have labiodentals (i.e. /f/). Phytomagus 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People

Where are Teochew people found in North America? I want to meet fellow Teochew speakers! --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.234.36 (talk • contribs)

A lot in Los Angeles and some in New York City. There are associations in each place. Badagnani 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consonants

I would to like how different is [dz] and [z] in Chaozhou dialects. I'd like to learn Chaozhou which is my native-town dialect. Does the Raoping dialect regard [dz] as [z]?--Fitzwilliam 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prenasalisation

I have a question about the prenasalisation of /b/ and /g/. While it is true that the voiced plosives are derived from the nasals, but are they really prenasalised? Any sources describing this? Phytomagus 18:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, prenasalisation does not only happen in Teochew, it is present in a lot other southern Min languages as well, such as Xiamenhua, which is discussed in 胡方

's 論廈門話 [^mb ^ŋg ⁿd] 聲母的聲學特性及其他. Although I do not know of a single book or paper which addresses the same issue in Teochew, various books which talk about Teochew all confirm the same piece of information such as 漢語方音字匯, 李新魁's 廣東的方言 and 林倫倫's 廣東閩方言語音研究. Shingrila 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! Actually, this is the first time I see this information on prenasalisation in Chaoshan (and Min Nan in general) with sources. For example, I do not recall seeing Jerry Norman (as a good example of a source written in English) indicating prenasalisation of the voiced stops as a phonetic feature. Also, this is not mentioned as well in the Wikipedia articles of Min Nan (which basically lacks information on phonetics and phonology) and Taiwanese. As a speaker of Teochew myself, I do not detect myself prenasalising my voiced stops, but perhaps the prenasalisation is weak and not very detectable. Phytomagus 18:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the degree of prenasalisation certainly varies across the different dialects or even different speakers of the same dialect; however, it invariably exists in the Chaoshan languages and other related southern Min languages. If you listen closely enough to the speech of children aged 3 or younger, you will occasionally hear instances of [^mb] and [^ŋg] being pronounced as [m] and [ŋ] as children are known to acquire nasals earlier than voiced stops. Shingrila 19:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teochew Test Wikipedia

The Teochew Test edition of Wikipedia has been created.

[edit] Some confusion on the Chinese...

First, is the verb word connecting the patient 伊 to whomever killed her 乜人 actually 分, or is it 畀/俾 like in Cantonese? And such for the 杯 and its 破-ness?

In Mandarin, I'm pretty sure it's not correct to say 杯给打破了. Rather, 杯打破了 or 杯杯破了 are correct.

Is the 只 noun for "here" correct, or is it "既"?

And do Chaozhou people use "呢" and "的" as pronouns like in Canto? "個個杯", "呢個杯", "的杯"?

伊乜人Kill and 伊分人Kill are both correct to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zixingche (talk • contribs) 07:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query about the use of 底個 [ti kai]

I was always of the impression that 底個 is translated as "which", and not as "what". ~ DarkS Umbreon 02:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Second that, 底個 means which. :D , just like cantonese 边个 Zixingche (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The future of Teochew dialect in China

The article should discuss about the future of Teochew dialect in China. Will the Teochew dialect be supplanted by Mandarin in China? Sonic99 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)