Taigi linguistic musings

Last week the Taigi version of Disney Frozen’s Let it go was constantly playing in my head. So I typed the lyrics as correctly as I could in that thread. One thing I don’t like doing is assigning random Hanji to Taiwanese words just because they sound alike or people have been using it for a while. If the true origin of the word is unclear, I rather leave them in their Tailo spelling, that’s exactly what makes things like Hangul, Kana and Tailo so useful. Of course in the end I compromised a little, for example I left in all the 這 for tse and tsia.

One such word I left in Tailo was “kui” from “kui座山頭”. “Kui” means whole or entire. In the song it describes the entire mountain top is covered with snow. It can often be heard when people talk about the whole body, “kui-sin-khu” kui身軀.

The Ministry of Education wants people to use the word 規 for this usage. While 規 means circle, round and could be implied as whole, there is no such usage in historical texts. So I went looking for the correct Hanji for “kui” and I think I might have found it.

“Kui” = 渾

As in “渾身是膽” when classical texts likes to describe someone has a lot of courage, that his guts fills his entire body (sounds pretty unhealthy when I put it like that…). This is exactly the same usage as “kui” in Taigi. If someone read 渾身是膽 as “kui-sin-sī-tánn” in Taigi, it would make perfect sense.

渾 in Mandarin is pronounced as hún, and in Taigi literary reading is pronounced as hûn (basically the same pronunciation in both Taigi and Mandarin), but in several dictionaries, especially those describing Old Chinese such as Shuowen Jiezi (說文解字), say 渾 is pronounced the same as 軍 (从水軍聲).

軍 is pronounced as “Kun”. Many words that phonetically loaned the sound of 軍 experienced a consonant shift of /k/->/kh/->/h/. This is pretty common in many languages, words like 厚 kāu became hòu in Mandarin. 行 in Taigi Colloquial Reading (Old Chinese) is kiânn, but in Literary Reading (Classical Chinese) becomes hîng. This explains why literary reading and Mandarin reading of 渾 starts with the “h” sound. If “kui” is the Taigi colloquial reading of 渾, then the consonant remained unchanged from Old Chinese.

That leaves us with the vowel part of 渾, and examples of this /un/->/ui/ phenomenon is extremely close to home. 揮, 輝 are both pronounced as hui in Taigi, and /xu̯eɪ̯/ in Mandarin, both at one time also was read the same way as 軍. I can’t be sure about the chronology of the shift, but there are 3 likely scenarios. 1. /ui/ -> /un/ 2. /un/ -> /ui/ or

  1. /uĩ/ → /ui/
    :arrow_lower_right: /un/

My personal guess is 3 is very likely. 軍 probably was read closer to /kuĩ/ and as phonology evolved, some vowels became /ui/ dropping the nasalization, and some enhanced it and became /un/

Either way, now someone just have to convince the MOE to change their word suggestion for “kui” from 規 to 渾…

As always, your scholarship is commendable. Major thumbs up.

well… I should have taken linguistics back in college… it’s too late now, and the Karlgren system makes my head hurt…

Alternatively,

[col]This is the beginning of the あ column.

あ 阿 a
あっ 鴨 ah
あー 餡 ã

あむ 庵 am
あん 安 an
あーん 紅 ang

あぷ 圧 ap
あつ 遏 at
あく 握 ak

This is the end of this column.|This is the beginning of the え column.

え 下 e
えっ 厄 eh
[color=#777777][strike]えー[/strike][/color]

[color=#777777][strike]えむ[/strike][/color]
えん 縁 en
[color=#777777][strike]えーん[/strike][/color]

[color=#777777][strike]えぷ[/strike][/color]
[color=#777777][strike]えっ[/strike][/color]
[color=#777777][strike]えく[/strike][/color]

This is the end of this column.[/col]

As seen above, the funny heavy nasal ã in Taigi is just an attempt for a slightly longer regular a. (Do you feel the vibration in your nose?) To compare, one could ask the French people to show him/her how to do a nasal vowel.

[col]This is the beginning of the o column.

お 烏 o
[color=#777777][strike]おっ[/strike] [strike]oh[/strike][/color]
[color=#777777][strike]おー[/strike] [strike]õ[/strike][/color]

おむ 蓊 om
おん 王 on
[color=#777777][strike]おーん[/strike] [strike]ong[/strike][/color]

[color=#777777][strike]おぷ[/strike] [strike]op[/strike][/color]
[color=#777777][strike]おつ[/strike] [strike]ot[/strike][/color]
[color=#777777][strike]おく[/strike] [strike]ok[/strike][/color]

This is the end of this column.|This is the beginning of the ö column.

を 蠔 ö
をっ 学 öh
[color=#777777][strike]をー[/strike] [/color]

[color=#777777][strike]をむ[/strike] [strike]öm[/strike][/color]
[color=#777777][strike]をん[/strike] [strike]ön[/strike][/color]
[color=#777777][strike]をーん[/strike] [strike]öng[/strike][/color]

[color=#777777][strike]をぷ[/strike] [strike]öp[/strike][/color]
[color=#777777][strike]をっ[/strike] [strike]öt[/strike][/color]
[color=#777777][strike]をく[/strike] [strike]ök[/strike][/color]

This is the end of this column.[/col]

It’s okay to guess. This is call reverse engineering.
If you guessed it right, you will prove that some ordinary, mediocre man in medieval time took the initiative to borrow the sound of a commonly known symbol 軍, to achieve writing down the physical sound (which had a certain meaning in his village) he made with his organ.

He went, “Hmmm. I guess the sound of 軍 is close enough. Meh! I’m gonna use this one… and i’m going to mmm… pick three drops of water. That’s it! Yes, the water. 渾. Wow, it looks great! Let’s do it. Use this one

And other people in his village said, "Yah sure why not. Looks good enough. I’m illiterate anyway. "

This would have been the process. It was no big deal to him at that time and nobody was saying “no you can’t do that.

It’s weird that you keep referencing Japanese, a language that obviously borrowed from the Chinese language, and claims the phenomenon in ( both old and new) Chinese grammar and phonology is either affected by or is a result of something that can be observed in Japanese.

The reality is more like Japanese used a slightly longer a to approximate the nasalization in old Chinese. Not that old Chinese had to use nasalization to approximate a longer syllable. You do realize nasalization is a harder sound to make?

It’s weird that you keep…[/quote]

I’m just using Kana as a notation. There is no casual relations implied in the above table.

Welcome to the hijacked thread. I thought since there had not been activities for a while, I invited myself in.

You are not alone! See #3

studwww.nou.edu.tw/~tainan/writer/d02207.htm

It’s okay to guess. This is call reverse engineering.
If you guessed it right, you will prove that some ordinary, mediocre man in medieval time took the initiative to borrow the sound of a commonly known symbol 軍, to achieve writing down the physical sound (which had a certain meaning in his village) he made with his organ.

He went, “Hmmm. I guess the sound of 軍 is close enough. Meh! I’m gonna use this one… and I’m going to mmm… pick three drops of water. That’s it! Yes, the water. 渾. Wow, it looks great! Let’s do it. Use this one

And other people in his village said, "Yah sure why not. Looks good enough. I’m illiterate anyway. "

This would have been the process. It was no big deal to him at that time and nobody was saying “no you can’t do that.”[/quote]

What you think you are mocking actually describes the process of of derivative cognates, loan characters and phono-semantic compounds pretty well. And yes, that’s how most Hanji are created.

Yup. That’s why it is just a derivative of the regular a.

Prolong the vowel may result in nasalizing it. (May or may not, but it tends to.) Shorten it definitely results in no nasalization.

It’s natural.

[quote=“hansioux”]

What you think you are mocking actually describes the process of of derivative cognates, loan characters and phono-semantic compounds pretty well. And yes, that’s how most Hanji are created.[/quote]
yes you’re right.
A little bit mocking, yes. So I question the value of fierce debates of the “correct 字” that often happen between respectable Taigi scholars.

Debate is fine. But if it is inconclusive, then maybe there need not be a definitive answer?

You know what I mean.

So in that particular example you gave in OP, I’d say ㄍㄨㄣ works fine. But let’s say I don’t like 注音, I could also use Kana. ぐん。

yup. That’s why it is just a derivative of the regular a.

Prolong the vowel may result in nasalizing it. (may or may not, but it tends to.)
Shorten it definitely results in no nasalization.

It’s natural.[/quote]

The Germans have many “prolonged vowels” such as uhr, fahren, stuhl, höher, never have I once heard them pronounced with nasalization. The German language would be an anomaly if such phenomenon is indeed so common and natural. I think using prolonged vowels to approximate nasalization is a Japanese characteristics and has little to do with Holo phonology except to reflect how some characters might had been read in Old Chinese.

[quote=“sofun”]

So in that particular example you gave in OP, I’d say ㄍㄨㄣ works fine. But let’s say I don’t like 注音, I could also use Kana. ぐん。[/quote]

If you are just going to pick another language to annotate Holo, Kana would be a bad choice except for having more historical documents. Take kun for example, ぐ’s IPA is starts with g, it’s the wrong sound to annotate kun to begin with.

I think you’d be better off with modified Hangul if you are avoiding romanization for some weird reason. At least Hangul gets Entering tones right.

In this case, it would be 군

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]You are not alone! See #3

studwww.nou.edu.tw/~Tainan/writer/d02207.htm[/quote]

bad link

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“sofun”]

So in that particular example you gave in OP, I’d say ㄍㄨㄣ works fine. But let’s say I don’t like 注音, I could also use Kana. ぐん。[/quote]

If you are just going to pick another language to annotate Holo, Kana would be a bad choice except for having more historical documents. I think you’d be better off with modified Hangul if you are avoiding romanization for some weird reason. At least Hangul gets Entering tones right.[/quote]

I’m not a big fan of Hangul because it doesn’t look right to me. I’m not feeling it. The visual form of Hangul is arbitrary and too geometric.

I’m just using kana where it can be of any use. I think it looks great with 字 together.

Not a big fan of mixing roman with none-roman. (This you’d probably need to study the history of graphic design to understand.)
All roman writing is fine.

The way I do it is cool. Plus, you can write vertically and apply furigana to aid reading. Just like 注音.

[quote=“sofun”][quote=“Tempo Gain”]You are not alone! See #3

studwww.nou.edu.tw/~Tainan/writer/d02207.htm[/quote]

bad link[/quote]

If you do a google search on ~tainan/writer/d02207.htm you will be able to find the link, for some reason clicking on google’s link is fine, but posting the URL over here results in a 404.

[quote=“sofun”][quote=“hansioux”][quote=“sofun”]

So in that particular example you gave in OP, I’d say ㄍㄨㄣ works fine. But let’s say I don’t like 注音, I could also use Kana. ぐん。[/quote]

If you are just going to pick another language to annotate Holo, Kana would be a bad choice except for having more historical documents. I think you’d be better off with modified Hangul if you are avoiding romanization for some weird reason. At least Hangul gets Entering tones right.[/quote]I’m not a big fan of Hangul because it doesn’t look right to me. I’m not feeling it. The visual form of Hangul is arbitrary and too geometric.

I’m just using kana where it can be of any use. I think it looks great with 字 together.[/quote]

Hangul is hands down the best system to annotate Hanji, especially in the form it was invented before it was simplified to suit modern Korean. Your opinion of Hangul is one based on prejudice and lack of understanding. I have no love for the Korean government, the Samsung cooperation, or the way Korea cheats in sports, but it isn’t difficult to recognize a superior script design when I see one.

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“sofun”][quote=“Tempo Gain”]You are not alone! See #3

studwww.nou.edu.tw/~Tainan/writer/d02207.htm[/quote]

bad link[/quote]

If you do a google search on ~Tainan/writer/d02207.htm you will be able to find the link, for some reason clicking on google’s link is fine, but posting the URL over here results in a 404.[/quote]

Yup that’s fine. The way I’m doing in the column is saying that, “If I’m not sure, I have the phonetic symbol at my disposal.”