Rubbish. They weren’t proposing to replace zhuyin fuhao with romanisation. When else would you use romanisation?
As for the ideological aspect, that’s rubbish too. there’s no good reason whatsoever that a pro-independence supporter (such as myself) should support Tongyong over HP. Are pro-independence supporters really that scared of what China may say that they don’t dare to adopt the best system.
Pressure from the Ministry of Education. Something like–would you like to lose your cushy NT$100,000/month sinecure that requires you to do nothing? Then show up and vote against Tongyong. Again, I don’t remember the details clearly–the chinese press said that there were many complaints from “senior” members of the committee that they never had a chance to vote. By “stacked” I meant that all new members of the Committe have been pro-Tongyong types. I didn’t mean that they held a majority yet.
Tongyonng romanizes Mandarin, Taiwanese, and Hakka. It does not cover aboriginal languages.
Taiwanese and Hakka are traditionally taught using romanization. Tongyong would mean that they could learn one romanization system that would cover all three major languages. One of my Taiwanese teachers, for example, works as a teacher trainer in the Taipei public schools. She is teaching teachers how to teach Taiwanese using Tongyong romanized materials.
We’ve been through most of this already. But I’ll summarize a few important points.
[ul][li]The government approved tongyong for use with Mandarin and Hakka, not for Taiwanese. [/li]
[li]One of the reasons for this is that tongyong is generally not seen, even by those who advocate its use for Mandarin, as doing a good job with Taiwanese – quite the contrary. [/li]
[li]Your Taiwanese teacher may or may not be using tongyong. It’s sometimes difficult for people to tell because, incredibly, tongyong’s shameless creator took other systems and relabeled them “tongyong.” [/li]
[li]I know of plenty of other teachers – including those involved in teacher training and the development and approval of teaching materials – who are not using tongyong in the teaching of Taiwanese in public schools. [/li]
[li]Tongyong is, despite considerable hype to the contrary, not one consistent system across Mandarin, Hakka, and Taiwanese. [/li]
[li]You may admit now that tongyong doesn’t cover the languages of Taiwan’s tribes, but lies to the contrary spread by tongyong advocates were very much part of the propaganda campaign before tongyong’s passage. [/li][/ul]
We’ve been through most of this already. But I’ll summarize a few important points.
The government approved tongyong for use with Mandarin and Hakka, not for Taiwanese. [/quote]
Interesting. What’s the regulatory source? I’m not challenging you–just curious.
Actually this wouldn’t surprise me that much. The Taiwanese language movement is very much a house divided. There is a faction that wants to use Church romanization and another that wants to use an extended version of Zhuyin fuhao. And I’m aware that people in the Hakka language education commuity are less than thrilled with Tongyong. For some reason, people tend to cling to the first romanization system they learned,. This goes for foreigners and Taiwanese.
But whether or not the government approves Tongyong for use with all three languages is irrelevant. It could be used for Taiwanese, and it probably will be by some educators.
Why? Specific examples please.
Well she’s a member of the Tongyong yuyan xiehui. They’ve published dictionaries and teaching materials that seem to ork well enough.
I do too. Many are not even using romanization. This is a very vexed problem.
It can’t be consistent. But the languages share many common sounds. Those are fairly consistently rendered across all three.
Yeah I heard this too. When I asked anyone who actually knew Tongyong, they were quick to say that this was a misunderstanding.But I am also less than thrilled about the heavy-handed way Tongyong was rammed through.
Haven’t seen too much evidence of that. It looks to me like most foreigners are just stuck on the first romanization system they learned.
A more informed, scholarly approach would be to admit that decisions about scripts are almost always political decisions that have very little to do with the consistency of the system. As long as the system is serviceable, it will work.
BTW I just spent a few minute learning the Tongyong romanization for Taiwanese. For someone who knows Hanyu pinyin, Tongyong is much easier for Taiwanese than the Church romanization. For example ‘10’ is ‘zap’ in Tongyong rather than ‘chap’.
So, despite the fact that romanisation is for foreigners, these idiots continue on their merry way and say f**k the foreigners - our political games are much more interesting.
Romanization is not just for foreigners. It will be widely used by Taiwanese in government agencies, businesses, computer systems, and in the schools.
Foreigners, at least those with a North American/Europoean background, are a tiny minority that can’t vote. Why should the government cater to us?[/quote]
Interesting. What’s the regulatory source? I’m not challenging you–just curious.[/quote]
The Ministry of Education acted upon the Mandarin Promotion Commission’s conclusions. That tongyong for Taiwanese failed to pass a council on which just 10 votes out of 26 was sufficient for tongyong for Mandarin is revealing, I believe.
Yes, those are but two of many proposals.
I disagree that government approval is irrelevent, especially for what is done – and, perhaps, what is forbidden to be done – in public schools.
Why? Specific examples please.[/quote]
Robert Cheng, who is not only the head of the Mandarin Promotion Commission but also a linguist specializing in Taiwanese who helped develop an early version of tongyong (before non-linguist Yu Bor-chuan screwed it up with jh-), told me, “Tongyong Pinyin is just for Mandarin and Hakka.” While the two languages share much the same phonetic structure, Taiwanese is quite different and would not work well under the same system, he said.
I don’t want to get into specifics of comparative phonography here. A discussion of the respective merits and problems of the romanization systems for Taiwanese would be an interesting topic for a separate thread. The main concern in this thread is the use of romanization systems for Mandarin.
It can’t be consistent. But the languages share many common sounds. Those are fairly consistently rendered across all three. [/quote]
I am pleased to note your statement on consistency. But I must point out that it contradicts your earlier statement that “Tongyong would mean that they could learn one romanization system that would cover all three major languages.”
If there is inconsistency – and there is – tongyong is not “one romanization system” for Taiwanese, Mandarin and Hakka. It is related but separate romanization systems.
There is no one tongyong system for these languages. Claims to the contrary are just another example of the exagerrations, distortions and outright lies by the pro-tongyong crowd.
There is no “official” (as in government-approved) tongyong for Taiwanese. But if you want to see the system as it now stands, try checking Yu Bor-chuan’s site at abc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/
Good luck finding accurate information there presented in a truthful, straightforward, useful way…[/quote]
CranKy LaoWai, I remember some time ago the Taiwan News said it would henceforth use Tongyong Pinyin. I’m not expert in the differences in the two system, but you evidently are. To what extent has the News lived up to its word(s)?
[quote=“HakkaSonic”]CranKy LaoWai, I remember some time ago the Taiwan News said it would henceforth use Tongyong Pinyin. I’m not expert in the differences in the two system, but you evidently are. To what extent has the News lived up to its word(s)?[/quote]And in return the above mentioned site is full of links to the Taiwan News including some articles singing the praises of Tongyong, and others describing Tongyong.
Here’s a small example of how Romanization is not just for foreigners. These regulations stipulate that local histories use romanization to record passages written in local languages. This is NOT done to convenience foreigners.
Feiren, put down your [two words cut here at the request of CranKy LaoWai] and read all fourteen pages of this thread before posting again! Unless you believe it’s good for a party, that was supposed to create a more democratic Taiwan, adopting ineffective policies by strong-arming them through, then you’re out of luck. You are outnumbered. The pinyin SWAT teams are coming. They’re taking no prisoners. It’s you and your [same two words cut here, due to the same request] and some [another word cut here, again at the request of CL] called Hobart against the world.
[quote]Here’s a small example of how Romanization is not just for foreigners. These regulations stipulate that local histories use romanization to record passages written in local languages. This is NOT done to convenience foreigners.
Completely different issue Fei!
That’s using romanisation for ‘local languages’, by which I assume they mean Hokkien (Taiwanese), Hakka and Aboriginal languages.
We’re talking about romanisation for Mandarin. Of course they’ll have to use different systems. Tongyong could very well be the best (or just as good as any other) system for romanising Hokkien.
Not at all, that I’ve noticed. It seems to have stuck with bastardized Wade-Giles, which is a bit odd for a paper that “proudly” adopted tongyong more than two years ago.
Perhaps it’s just that the copy editors there don’t want to have anything to do with tongyong or the paper’s statements about it.
“We decide to use the Tongyong Pinyin starting from today albeit the final directive has not yet come down from the Government,” the Taiwan News stated on August 1, 2001. The editorial makes for amusing reading: etaiwannews.com/Editorial/2001/0 … 636941.htm