Miltownkid, you might find the following of interest: “Why Chinese is so damn hard” (PDF format).
Don’t worry Cranky, I’m not in a hurry. Take your time if you’re busy.
I’m interested in your answers to my questions.
-
Do you think that there are better systems for writing Mandarin as well, or just Taiwanese? That is to say, is your main reason for opposing the use of Chinese characters for Taiwanese, that it is a bad system for writing Chinese languages, or just a bad system for writing Taiwanese?
-
If the first reason, then what is a better system? Pinyin, another form of romanisation, a non-roman phonetic alphabet, or a modified form of characters?
-
If the second reason, then why is Taiwanese so different from Mandarin?
-
Do you then think that Cantonese would be better written in a roman alphabet? Why does their system seem to work very well?
-
Idealistic situations aside, given the entrenchment of characters, even if you believe a phonetic system would be better (in the ideal world), don’t you think a character-based system would be more practical?
I have read a bit about this, and the arguments for romansiation aren’t convincing. Have you got any better ones?
Brian
[quote]Ultimately, the choice of how to write Taiwanese is a decision driven by the intended audience, which it seems to me is twofold:
- a small segment of local academics, for whom a mixed character/bopomofo solution might sit well
- a somewhat larger, but still niche segment of non-academic language enthusasts, mostly foreigners for whom a romanized alphabet would be 1000-fold more convenient
[/quote]
What about the third audience - the people of Taiwan. In Hong Kong, large segments of the population read magazines, and even sometimes novels in Cantonese (using hanzi) regularly. Hopefully as Taiwanese gradually enjoys a revival, there will be more call for it. Even now there are some instances where written Taiwanese is used by the general public in Taiwan, for example in song lyrics for karaoke.
Brian
It’s simple Brian. Reading is a phonetic process. Try to read words–Chinese or otherwise–without sounding them out in your head and you’ll quickly realize this is true. The phonetic clues contained in Chinese characters are far, far inferior to those in any form of phonetic writing. Thus it is an inferior medium for reading. Written Chinese in fact is a phonetic language too–the idea that meaning leaps out of characters into your head is a myth.
It’s a while since I read it, but I believe that in “The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy”, John DeFrancis does in fact come down against writing reform by romanization, despite the many disadvantages of characters (time taken for schoolkids to learn, lack of clear and systematic phonetic and semantic data etc.)
I seem to remember that his main reason was the amount, depth and range of meaning that characters carry that romanized syllables cannot. That is both from a current use point of view (the number of homophones necessitates some way of easily distinguishing them apart from context) and also with regards to cultural and historical significance; characters not only carry a certain depth of meaning but are also a valuable link to the past; to past bodies of knowledge and art.
I haven’t studied enough of anything to form my own opinion on this. It does seem to me, however, that in writing down Taiwanese for use by Taiwanese people, a method using at least some characters would be useful. C.L. questioned how these characters might be derived and stated that current characters are really only for Mandarin. While modern syntax and 2-syllable morphemes are presumably specific to Mandarin, surely the characters themselves have a much longer history? It would be easy enough to find direct equivalents for a lot of Taiwanese syllables which have not only semantic but also phonetic similarities to Mandarin ones and which have some historical commonality. For those which were more difficult, presumably researchers have already looked to the common historical origins of some syllables and found appropriate new or old characters. That’s why I wanted to hear from Jidanni (sorry, I’ve forgotten his real name). He has written that to study Taiwanese, it is very helpful to have a knowledge of historical Chinese pronunciation.
Of course, for carrying purely phonetic information, it seems that romanization may be better than other methods for a number of reasons. For those Taiwanese syllables for which no appropriate current or historical character can be found, a romanization could be used.
I agree with Brian that provided a reader knows what language he or she is reading (presumably this would become clear anyway ofter the first sentence or two), confusion would not arise. Surely C.L. of all people should realise this, as he so clearly explains on his website the difference between English and Pinyin. (A further objection to those people who complain about Pinyin’s ‘strange letters’ such as x and q is that not only is Pinyin not English and thus does not have to conform - indeed should not conform - to English pronunciation rules, but that in fact Portuguese pronunciation of ‘x’ is similar to its pronuncation in Pinyin).
[quote=“joesax”]It’s a while since I read it, but I believe that in “The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy”, John DeFrancis does in fact come down against writing reform by romanization, despite the many disadvantages of characters (time taken for schoolkids to learn, lack of clear and systematic phonetic and semantic data etc.)
I seem to remember that his main reason was the amount, depth and range of meaning that characters carry that romanized syllables cannot. That is both from a current use point of view (the number of homophones necessitates some way of easily distinguishing them apart from context) and also with regards to cultural and historical significance; characters not only carry a certain depth of meaning but are also a valuable link to the past; to past bodies of knowledge and art.[/quote]
It’s been a while for me too, Joe, but I remember it quite differently. His conclusion was that a romanization was fully practical for everyday use and that a great opportunity had been missed around 1950 when the Chinese were giving it serious consideration. He suggested characters to be learned by scholars or those wishing to read hostorical texts etc.
[quote]
C.L. questioned how these characters might be derived and stated that current characters are really only for Mandarin. While modern syntax and 2-syllable morphemes are presumably specific to Mandarin, surely the characters themselves have a much longer history? It would be easy enough to find direct equivalents for a lot of Taiwanese syllables which have not only semantic but also phonetic similarities to Mandarin ones and which have some historical commonality. For those which were more difficult, presumably researchers have already looked to the common historical origins of some syllables and found appropriate new or old characters. That’s why I wanted to hear from Jidanni (sorry, I’ve forgotten his real name). He has written that to study Taiwanese, it is very helpful to have a knowledge of historical Chinese pronunciation.
Of course, for carrying purely phonetic information, it seems that romanization may be better than other methods for a number of reasons. For those Taiwanese syllables for which no appropriate current or historical character can be found, a romanization could be used.[/quote]
I agree with you. If Chinese characters could be adapted for Mandarin baihuawen, they can be adapted for Minnanyu baihuawen. Many characters are obvious to anyone who knows written Chinese, as by far most people in Taiwan do. There’s quite a bit of writing available about research done on this topic. Try Eslite, and the daioan e diam place across from Taida.
[quote]
I agree with Brian that provided a reader knows what language he or she is reading (presumably this would become clear anyway ofter the first sentence or two), confusion would not arise. [/quote]
Oh yeah, anyone coming across taiwanese writing done correctly will soon realize it’s not mandarin. phonetics are still necessary imo, many characters have no standard, 5 dictionaries may give you 5 different ideas. personally i’d prefer an all-phonetic system but it’s unlikely to occur. at least i wish the govt for god sakes would promulgate a standard character set and phonetics!
Here’s a thought.
It seems to me that the inability to choose between a form of romanisation or characters or mix, is a big obstacle to the selection of a standard for writing Taiwanese. This could hold up standardisation for a long time, and in the meantime rival systems get mroe and more entrenched.
What they should do is choose a standard for romanisation AND a standard for characters quick smart. Even with characters a romansiation would be necessary as a learning tool. If they standardise a romanisation and a character set, then people will be familiar with both by the time they decide it’s necessary which one is going to be used as to write Taiwanese.
Brian
[quote=“Sir Donald Bradman”]Here’s a thought.
It seems to me that the inability to choose between a form of romanisation or characters or mix, is a big obstacle to the selection of a standard for writing Taiwanese. This could hold up standardisation for a long time, and in the meantime rival systems get mroe and more entrenched.
What they should do is choose a standard for romanisation AND a standard for characters quick smart. Even with characters a romansiation would be necessary as a learning tool. If they standardise a romanisation and a character set, then people will be familiar with both by the time they decide it’s necessary which one is going to be used as to write Taiwanese.
Brian[/quote]
Amen!
Yes, well said Brian.
It’s been a while for me too, Joe, but I remember it quite differently. His conclusion was that a romanization was fully practical for everyday use and that a great opportunity had been missed around 1950 when the Chinese were giving it serious consideration. He suggested characters to be learned by scholars or those wishing to read hostorical texts etc.
[/quote]
This is my own major point of contention with DeFrancis, whom I otherwise find great to read. Chinese cannot be romanized without the addition of new morphemes, as the risk of ambiguity is too high. I believe that Vietnamese has a much larger vocabulary of syllables than does Chinese, thus making romanization possible.
Dear all,
Thank you for your postings. They were all very interesting.
But getting back to the Taiwanese dictionary, has anyone had a chance to see a copy?
I think I read somewhere that it uses a modified form of
[quote=“Kobo-Daishi”]Dear all,
Thank you for your postings. They were all very interesting.
But getting back to the Taiwanese dictionary, has anyone had a chance to see a copy?
I think I read somewhere that it uses a modified form of
I just created this webpage (link below) to give some examples of the different ways Taiwanese can be written. My knowledge of Taiwanese is quite limited so I apologise if there are any errors.
Writing Taiwanese using Chinese characters (Big5 Chinese)
wix,
I think I saw that contents before, from Wi-vun Taiffalo Chiung dehanization website.
ling.uta.edu/~taiffalo/taibun/tai.htm
ling.uta.edu/~taiffalo/download/index.html
check that out
ax
was invited to Taiwanese-language services today at a
[quote=“Kobo-Daishi”]
Did the compiler of the dictionary modify the shape of the zhuyin symbols themselves? If so then they won