"will Taiwan accept hanyu pinyin?" link
Dan Jacobson
pinyin?" debate, see.
http://oriented.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=29&t=000390
--
http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780
gs
"Dan Jacobson" <jid...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:m2pu00w...@jidanni.org...
Is it just for political reasons that they don't use pinyin?
They can't actually think that Wade-Giles is better, surely?
CC Tang
Yes, I think that's pretty much it. The assertion is that Taiwan
needs to asset its own national identity, and using hanyu pinyin would
be too much of a danger.
I thought this post quoted from the thread above was interesting:
"The "differentness" Taiwan would achieve by adopting tongyong pinyin
would be no more beneficial than, for example, deciding that
stoplights on the island will not be red, yellow, and green like the
system used in China (and almost everywhere else), but blue, orange,
and pink. No matter how many blue-orange-pink supporters cry "See how
wonderfully unique we are!" the rest of the world will still look on
this as a ridiculous change from the standard.
Using tongyong pinyin would be no more useful an expression of
national identity than requiring people to wear their underwear on the
outside of their clothing. Difference for its own sake would make
Taiwan look petty and ridiculous. Taiwan does not benefit from looking
petty or ridiculous."
I think one other defense is that tongyong pinyin (developed by a
Taiwanese academic) is supposed to cover spoken Taiwanese more
easily... but my feeling is that the majority of academics don't buy
that theory at all, and perceive it as an excuse.
gs
"CC Tang" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:65030f86.02051...@posting.google.com...
> "gs" <gsgsNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<abog6a$jriva$1...@ID-137344.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Dan Jacobson" <jid...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:m2pu00w...@jidanni.org...
> > > If any of you are still interested in the "will Taiwan accept hanyu
> > > pinyin?" debate, see.
> > > http://oriented.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=29&t=000390
> > > --
> > > http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780
> >
> > Is it just for political reasons that they don't use pinyin?
> > They can't actually think that Wade-Giles is better, surely?
>
> Yes, I think that's pretty much it. The assertion is that Taiwan
> needs to asset its own national identity, and using hanyu pinyin would
> be too much of a danger.
>
Its pretty ridiculous really. What sort of danger do they think pinyin will
bring?
Comprehension of street signs?
ability of foreigners to pronounce chinese without guessing the sound from
the appaling WG system?
Sebastian Hew
>
> Its pretty ridiculous really. What sort of danger do they think pinyin
will
> bring?
> Comprehension of street signs?
> ability of foreigners to pronounce chinese without guessing the sound from
> the appaling WG system?
Pinyin is no better in this respect... to the untrained eye, it is by no
means clear what sounds pinyin <j, q, x> <zh, ch, sh> and <z, c, s>
represent.
Sebastian.
gs
"Sebastian Hew" <rada...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ce03924$0$4696$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Pinyin needs to be learnt. However it is far more useful than Wade Giles.
This is recognised amongst most linguistics and chinese studies academics.
Jim Walsh
wrote:
Nope the people who oppose pinyin generally support a locally devised
system, viewed as more appropriate for Taiwanese.
Love, Jim
-----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Sam Wang
There are of course political reasons behind it.
But Hanyu Pinyin has never been an optimal system.
It was designed to replace Chinese characters and
was meant to be used as a writing system, not just
for transliteration. That is to say, Hanyu Pinyin
did not have in mind how to help nonnative speakers
pronounce the words. The symbols are rather arbitrary,
and are a poor means to indicate the pronunciations.
now the original goal of using the system as writing
is given up, but the system stays. The system is now
used to annotate the sounds in the teaching of Chinese
in their school system, and it is still not for the
purpose of helping nonnative speakers pronounce
Chinese.
Taiwan does not have such background. Taiwan has never
intended to replace Chinese characters with letters.
And Taiwan uses Chuyin Fuhao in teaching Chinese
at schools. What Taiwan needs is a system of symbols
that can help nonnative speakers pronounce Chinese.
Why does Taiwan have to choose a system which was not
designed for that purpose, and hence not optimal?
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
Sam Wang
What's so appaling about WG system?
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
Sam Wang
That is simply because of the political influence
of China, not because the system is any better.
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
Lee Sau Dan
gs> Pinyin needs to be learnt.
And so is the BPMF alphabet. The merit of BPMF is that it doesn't
make the clueless foreigner the wrong impression that he "can"
pronounce those sounds without learning.
gs> However it is far more useful than Wade Giles.
Why?
gs> This is recognised amongst most linguistics and
gs> chinese studies academics.
Linguists specialing in this area should be familiar with WG (or
shouldn't find it difficult to learn WG).
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Lee Sau Dan
gs> Is it just for political reasons that they don't use pinyin?
What's wrong with the BPMF alphabet (a.k.a. Zhuyin)? If it's not
broken, why fix it?
gs> They can't actually think that Wade-Giles is better, surely?
I think BPMF is even better.
Jim Walsh
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> "gs" == gs <gsgsNOS...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> gs> Is it just for political reasons that they don't use pinyin?
>
>What's wrong with the BPMF alphabet (a.k.a. Zhuyin)? If it's not
>broken, why fix it?
>
>
> gs> They can't actually think that Wade-Giles is better, surely?
>
>I think BPMF is even better.
It is certainly more precise than either, but it is not a
"romanization" system. It doesn't use the Roman alphabet.
Jim Walsh
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>The merit of BPMF is that it doesn't make the clueless foreigner
>the wrong impression that he "can" pronounce those sounds without learning.
And the demerit is that the clueless foreigner cannot remember or even
write down the street name so he can find it again.
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>gs wrote:
>> .... However [pinyin] is far more useful than Wade Giles.
>> This is recognised amongst most linguistics and chinese studies academics.
>
>That is simply because of the political influence of China,
>not because the system is any better.
Whatever. Try using Word Perfect (a better word processor) or a
Betamax VCR in a world that has settled on MS Word and VHS.
gs
"Lee Sau Dan" <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
news:m3d6vze...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de...
> >>>>> "gs" == gs <gsgsNOS...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> gs> Is it just for political reasons that they don't use pinyin?
>
> What's wrong with the BPMF alphabet (a.k.a. Zhuyin)? If it's not
> broken, why fix it?
>
>
> gs> They can't actually think that Wade-Giles is better, surely?
>
> I think BPMF is even better.
>
>
gs
"Sebastian Hew" <rada...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ce03924$0$4696$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I think the difference between ZH CH and SH are rather obvious as they are
almost similar to enlish.
Its the difference between ZHAO and JIAO that is difficult. between CHI and
CHE. between SHI and SHE.
and perhaps between XI and SHI although this can be taught easily.
On the whole the pronounciation is easier with pinyin. Take for example.
Peich'ing (WG) = Beijing (PY), Ch'ungKuo (WH) = Zhongguo (PY).
Then you have the apostrophe in Wade Giles. It is far easier to distinguish
Jing from Qing than Ch'ing from Ching.
gs
Peking is the Post Office system that existed alongside Wade Giles when the
foreigners controlled the treaty ports.
The capital of China in Wade Giles is spelt Pei Ch'ing
>
>
gs
Lee Sau Dan
gs> I think the difference between ZH CH and SH are rather obvious
gs> as they are almost similar to enlish.
When has English got the retroflex sounds in Mandarin? And in which
English word can you find "zh"?
gs> On the whole the pronounciation is easier with pinyin. Take
gs> for example. Peich'ing (WG) = Beijing (PY), Ch'ungKuo (WH) =
gs> Zhongguo (PY).
Why should it be easier to pronounce, just because a different
spelling system is used? The pronuncation for the same character is
the same, whether you're using PY or WG.
gs
> >>>>> "gs" == gs <gsgsNOS...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> gs> I think the difference between ZH CH and SH are rather obvious
> gs> as they are almost similar to enlish.
>
> When has English got the retroflex sounds in Mandarin? And in which
> English word can you find "zh"?
>
>
> gs> On the whole the pronounciation is easier with pinyin. Take
> gs> for example. Peich'ing (WG) = Beijing (PY), Ch'ungKuo (WH) =
> gs> Zhongguo (PY).
>
> Why should it be easier to pronounce, just because a different
> spelling system is used? The pronuncation for the same character is
> the same, whether you're using PY or WG.
>
Why replace a b sound with a p?
why use the letter k to represent the sound of the letter g?
why use the letter j to represent the sound of the letter r?
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>I think the difference between ZH CH and SH are rather obvious as they are
>almost similar to English.
Their is a Chinese character which is drawn by making a vertical line
thru a rectangle. It is often used to mean "middle".
I have seen it romanized as zhong, chung, and, less frequently, as
jung. I never hear a "z" sound, or a "zh", sound when Chinese say this
character. Once in a while, I hear a "ch" sound.
Usually I hear a "j".
In other words, not in my opinion.
Lee Sau Dan
Jim> I have seen it romanized as zhong, chung, and, less
Jim> frequently, as jung.
These are Romanizations based on Hanyu Pinyin, WG and for the last
one, probably _a_ Cantonese Romanization.
Jim> I never hear a "z" sound, or a "zh",
Jim> sound when Chinese say this character. Once in a while, I
Jim> hear a "ch" sound.
Did you ask those Chinese whether they're speaking Mandarin or
Cantonese or Hokkien or Hakka? It can vary a lot!
Jim> Usually I hear a "j".
"J" is closes to the Cantonese pronunciation. The "ch" sound may be a
Mandarin pronunciation. This seems to be consistent with the
distribution of speakers of these two Chinese languages in Chinatowns
overseas.
Lee Sau Dan
>> Why should it be easier to pronounce, just because a different
>> spelling system is used? The pronuncation for the same
>> character is the same, whether you're using PY or WG.
>>
gs> But its clearly more recognisable.
Ease of recognition and ease of pronunciation are two different things.
gs> Why replace a b sound with a p?
You have 本末倒置!
There is no [b] in Mandarin. The Latin letter "b" is used in Italian,
French (these are Latin-descendant languages) for a **voiced**
bilabial stop. Thus, IPA [b] takes this sound. Mandarin <b> (as in
<bing1> = "ice") is **unvoiced** bilabial stop, which is the same as
"p" in Italian, Spanish and French. Thus, IPA uses [p] for this
sound. For the unvoiced aspirated bilabial stop in Mandarin, i.e. the
<p> as in <ping2> = "bottle"), IPA uses [p'] or a superscripted "h"
following "p".
Now, where does the Latin alphabet originate from? Why does IPA use
[b] and [p] that way? And WHO is really replacing that "p" (in WG)
with "b" (in HYPY)?
gs> why use the letter k to represent the sound of the
gs> letter g?
Ditto.
gs> why use the letter j to represent the sound of the
gs> letter r?
Again, in Latin and German and IPA, "j" represents the sound like the
<y> in <yi1> for "clothes". Who is replacing the "r" with the "j",
then?
Mikael Thompson
gs wrote:
> The capital of China in Wade Giles is spelt Pei Ch'ing
Peiching or Pei Ching, rather. And for a while it was Peip'ing. MAT
the guy with the eye
news:m3k7q6o...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de...
> gs> why use the letter j to represent the sound of the
> gs> letter r?
>
> Again, in Latin and German and IPA, "j" represents the sound like the
> <y> in <yi1> for "clothes".
Are you talking about Mandarin? You're confusing me, because there I was
taught not to pronounce the "y" in "yi" and "yu", so they are [i] and [y].
gs
"the guy with the eye" <theguywi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:abrstf$pv6$1...@news.online.de...
You do pronounce it. It is almost unnoticable in "yi" but in "yu" it is
noticeable.
Sam Wang
gs wrote:
>
> "Chung-hua jen min kung ho kuo" does not sound like 中华人民共和国
"Zhong Hua Ren Min Gong He Guo" does?
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
Sam Wang
Jim Walsh wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2002 16:31:15 +0800, Sam Wang <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw>
> wrote:
>
> >gs wrote:
>
> >> .... However [pinyin] is far more useful than Wade Giles.
> >> This is recognised amongst most linguistics and chinese studies academics.
> >
> >That is simply because of the political influence of China,
> >not because the system is any better.
>
> Whatever. Try using Word Perfect (a better word processor) or a
> Betamax VCR in a world that has settled on MS Word and VHS.
>
But you can appreciate someone who chooses not to use
MS Word or VHS, can't you?
> Love, Jim
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
> http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
--
_________________________________________________________
國立清華大學外國語文學系 王旭
H. Samuel Wang ____ ____/
Dept of Foreign Languages /
National Tsing Hua University ___ ____/
Hsin-chu Taiwan 300 /
email: ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw ___________/
Jim Walsh
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Walsh <jimw...@ebtnet.net> writes:
>
> Jim> I have seen it romanized as zhong, chung, and, less
> Jim> frequently, as jung.
>
>These are Romanizations based on Hanyu Pinyin, WG and for the last
>one, probably _a_ Cantonese Romanization.
>
>
> Jim> I never hear a "z" sound, or a "zh",
> Jim> sound when Chinese say this character. Once in a while, I
> Jim> hear a "ch" sound.
>
>Did you ask those Chinese whether they're speaking Mandarin or
>Cantonese or Hokkien or Hakka? It can vary a lot!
They were speaking Mandarin.
> Jim> Usually I hear a "j".
>
>"J" is closes to the Cantonese pronunciation. The "ch" sound may be a
>Mandarin pronunciation. This seems to be consistent with the
>distribution of speakers of these two Chinese languages in Chinatowns overseas.
Irrelevant.
Love, Jim
-----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>
>
>Jim Walsh wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2002 16:31:15 +0800, Sam Wang <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >gs wrote:
>>
>> >> .... However [pinyin] is far more useful than Wade Giles.
>> >> This is recognised amongst most linguistics and chinese studies academics.
>> >
>> >That is simply because of the political influence of China,
>> >not because the system is any better.
>>
>> Whatever. Try using Word Perfect (a better word processor) or a
>> Betamax VCR in a world that has settled on MS Word and VHS.
>
>But you can appreciate someone who chooses not to use
>MS Word or VHS, can't you?
I use Word Perfect. Does that answer your question?
Love, Jim
-----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Dan Jacobson
Yes, my campaign is about street signs, in that BPMF is not a competitor.
> What's so appaling about WG system?
That we are told to unasperate letters that we have otherwise
aspirated all our lives.
> That is to say, Hanyu Pinyin did not have in mind how to help
> nonnative speakers pronounce the words.
Which I see as one of its strengths, Chinese based on Chinese, not
some mediocre compromise. Makes sense too, as other populations
are fewer than yours.
> The symbols are rather arbitrary
anything better in mind? oh, and no fair just whittling off a few
initials (sheng1mu3). I want to see your complete proposal,
smartypants. I recommend doing this exercise for anybody planning to
criticize hanyu pinyin. They soon find that is easier said than
done. And what's the point? For me hanyu pinyin's value as a stable
world standard is more important than if it is well designed or not.
> Whatever. Try using a Betamax VCR in a world that has settled on
> VHS.
Our local kook's name is Yu Boquan and he has cooked up his own scheme
and wrapped it in the flag. the whole sordid story is on my website.
--
http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>> True, BPMF is better. But we are talking about romanisation.
>
>Yes, my campaign is about street signs, in that BPMF is not a competitor.
>
>> What's so appaling about WG system?
>
>That we are told to unasperate letters that we have otherwise
>aspirated all our lives.
>
>> That is to say, Hanyu Pinyin did not have in mind how to help
>> nonnative speakers pronounce the words.
>
>Which I see as one of its strengths, Chinese based on Chinese, not
>some mediocre compromise. Makes sense too, as other populations
>are fewer than yours.
My impression is the pinyin is based on the Yale system, developed in
America by American scholars of Chinese. I rather doubt that it was
actually invented by Chinese.
BTW, since the target population of Pinyin is non-Chinese, it would be
logical for non-Chinese to develop it.
Sam Wang
Jim Walsh wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 10:35:42 +0800, Sam Wang <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jim Walsh wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2002 16:31:15 +0800, Sam Wang <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >gs wrote:
> >>
> >> >> .... However [pinyin] is far more useful than Wade Giles.
> >> >> This is recognised amongst most linguistics and chinese studies academics.
> >> >
> >> >That is simply because of the political influence of China,
> >> >not because the system is any better.
> >>
> >> Whatever. Try using Word Perfect (a better word processor) or a
> >> Betamax VCR in a world that has settled on MS Word and VHS.
> >
> >But you can appreciate someone who chooses not to use
> >MS Word or VHS, can't you?
>
> I use Word Perfect. Does that answer your question?
>
Then perhaps you can understand why there is controversy
in Taiwan over whether to use Hanyu Pinyin
> Love, Jim
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
> http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
SZ
"Sam Wang" <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw> wrote in message
news:3CE1C55B...@mx.nthu.edu.tw...
Paig Saghamullit
> Jim Walsh wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2002 16:31:15 +0800, Sam Wang <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >gs wrote:
>
> > >> .... However [pinyin] is far more useful than Wade Giles.
> > >> This is recognised amongst most linguistics and chinese studies academics.
> > >
> > >That is simply because of the political influence of China,
> > >not because the system is any better.
> >
> > Whatever. Try using Word Perfect (a better word processor) or a
> > Betamax VCR in a world that has settled on MS Word and VHS.
> >
>
>
>
>
> But you can appreciate someone who chooses not to use
> MS Word or VHS, can't you?
Anyway Taiwan is part of China and must accept that reunifications
will soon come. If they not accept Hanyu Pinyin it just show that they
try to split the country.
Also Pinyin is much better than bad Wade-Giles, which does not
separate p and p' other than in ideal case, and even then not often.
/Paig Saghamullit
Don Trickle
"Paig Saghamullit" <paigsag...@hotmail.com>
???????:a5bb360d.02051...@posting.google.com...
> Anyway Taiwan is part of China and must accept that reunifications
> will soon come. If they not accept Hanyu Pinyin it just show that they
> try to split the country.
Please don't stop there. Tell us your view on traditional/simplified split
as well.
gs
Far more so, yes.
Neither system is perfect because it is impossible to represent chinese
characters with roman letters, but the pinyin system makes more sense than
Wade Giles.
Sam Wang
Dan Jacobson wrote:
>
> > True, BPMF is better. But we are talking about romanisation.
>
> Yes, my campaign is about street signs, in that BPMF is not a competitor.
>
> > What's so appaling about WG system?
>
> That we are told to unasperate letters that we have otherwise
> aspirated all our lives.
>
How about French and Spanish speakers?
> > That is to say, Hanyu Pinyin did not have in mind how to help
> > nonnative speakers pronounce the words.
>
> Which I see as one of its strengths, Chinese based on Chinese, not
> some mediocre compromise. Makes sense too, as other populations
> are fewer than yours.
As I said, the system as it is intended to be used in
Taiwan is for foreigners. So designing the system
purely from the Chinese perspective does not make sense.
>
> > The symbols are rather arbitrary
>
> anything better in mind? oh, and no fair just whittling off a few
> initials (sheng1mu3). I want to see your complete proposal,
> smartypants. I recommend doing this exercise for anybody planning to
> criticize hanyu pinyin. They soon find that is easier said than
> done. And what's the point? For me hanyu pinyin's value as a stable
> world standard is more important than if it is well designed or not.
Actually it is not hard. I have done one in less than a week,
and could have done it overnight. It was on request of the
Ministry of Education when the topic was heatly debated. I am
sorry that I cannot find the original file, and the system was
not promoted, and hence is not known to the public. What I want
to say is that designing a system is not difficult. It is not even
difficult to come up with a system that can rival Hanyu Pinyin.
What is difficult is how to promote it so that it can be widely
accepted. Hanyu Pinyin has been successful in this regard, with
the help of the political power of China. I can accept this fact,
and live with it. But I cannot accept the system as an optimal
system for helping nonnative speakers pronounce Chinese, for
it is not, and has not been designed that way.
>
> > Whatever. Try using a Betamax VCR in a world that has settled on
> > VHS.
>
> Our local kook's name is Yu Boquan and he has cooked up his own scheme
> and wrapped it in the flag. the whole sordid story is on my website.
I am not arguing for Tongyong, and your argument against
Tongyong is not relevant.
> --
> http://jidanni.org/ Taiwan(04)25854780
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
gs
>
> My impression is the pinyin is based on the Yale system, developed in
> America by American scholars of Chinese. I rather doubt that it was
> actually invented by Chinese.
>
No, Pinyin was invented by Chinese
pinyin: ca yale: tsa
pniyin: cai yale: tsai
pinyin: chuan yale: chwan
quite different.
Sam Wang
Jim Walsh wrote:
>
> On 15 May 2002 12:03:25 +0800, Dan Jacobson <jid...@deadspam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> True, BPMF is better. But we are talking about romanisation.
> >
> >Yes, my campaign is about street signs, in that BPMF is not a competitor.
> >
> >> What's so appaling about WG system?
> >
> >That we are told to unasperate letters that we have otherwise
> >aspirated all our lives.
> >
> >> That is to say, Hanyu Pinyin did not have in mind how to help
> >> nonnative speakers pronounce the words.
> >
> >Which I see as one of its strengths, Chinese based on Chinese, not
> >some mediocre compromise. Makes sense too, as other populations
> >are fewer than yours.
>
> My impression is the pinyin is based on the Yale system, developed in
> America by American scholars of Chinese. I rather doubt that it was
> actually invented by Chinese.
>
Actually, Pinyin was based on Guoyu Luomatzyh (I am not sure
if I spell it right). The system was designed by Chao Yuen-ren
and others which incorporated tones with letters. But Pinyin
came out very different from Guoyu Luomatzyh. Plus the purpose
to make it a writing system, Pinyin is actually a totally
separate system.
> BTW, since the target population of Pinyin is non-Chinese, it would be
> logical for non-Chinese to develop it.
As I said, the origial purpose of Pinyin was not for
non-Chinese.
> Love, Jim
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
> http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
--
gs
> system for helping nonnative speakers pronounce Chinese, for
> it is not, and has not been designed that way.
>
It was designed for teaching young chinese children chinese.
If a foreigner is prepared to learn then they would be in the same boat as a
chinese child. Therefore there is no reason why it cannot help nonnative
speakers.
Chinese is not english, it cannot be accurately romanised because the sounds
are not the same as a Western language.
Therefore we have to provide a pronounciation key which will in all cases
need to be learnt. Pinyin is one of these keys, in my opinion better than
WG, however it is still only a key. There can never be a romanisation system
that is instantly accessible to foreigners because the roman alphabet doesnt
have the same sounds as Chinese.
Learning it isn't that difficult. In a 4 year Chinese degree, everyone
understood pinyin within a couple of weeks.
Tourists in China or Taiwan for a few days will be stuck, but there's
nothing we can do about that.
That is a problem the world over. I found it easier to pronounce street
names first time I was in China than when I was in Holland.
Jim Walsh
Saghamullit) wrote:
>Sam Wang <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw> wrote in message news:<3CE1C97E...@mx.nthu.edu.tw>...
>> Jim Walsh wrote:
>> > Whatever. Try using Word Perfect (a better word processor) or a
>> > Betamax VCR in a world that has settled on MS Word and VHS.
>> But you can appreciate someone who chooses not to use
>> MS Word or VHS, can't you?
>
>Anyway Taiwan is part of China and must accept that reunifications
>will soon come. If they not accept Hanyu Pinyin it just shows
> that they try to split the country.
China has been divided for more than 50 years, and, as far as I can
tell, the division of China into two countries has done a lot of good,
and no harm.
Taiwan is NOT now a part of the PRC and I don't expect it to become a
part of the PRC in my lifetime.
>Also Pinyin is much better than bad Wade-Giles,...
I have no comment on that except to say that they are both wrong about
"middle" which is more like "jung" according to my ears.
Love, Jim
-----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>But I cannot accept the system as an optimal
>> system for helping nonnative speakers pronounce Chinese, for
>> it is not, and has not been designed that way.
>>
>
>
>It was designed for teaching young chinese children chinese.
>If a foreigner is prepared to learn then they would be in the same boat as a
>chinese child. Therefore there is no reason why it cannot help nonnative
>speakers.
In Taiwan they put the name of streets on street signs in the Roman
alphabet. That action is NOT intended to be part of a course of
learning Chinese.
>Chinese is not english, it cannot be accurately romanised because the sounds
>are not the same as a Western language.
Agree.
>Therefore we have to provide a pronounciation key which will in all cases
>need to be learnt. Pinyin is one of these keys, in my opinion better than
>WG, however it is still only a key. There can never be a romanisation system
>that is instantly accessible to foreigners because the roman alphabet doesnt
>have the same sounds as Chinese.
Agree. BTW, I think a particular Chinese sound, represented by "ch" or
"zh", is closer to "j".
>Learning it isn't that difficult. In a 4 year Chinese degree, everyone
>understood pinyin within a couple of weeks.
That is irrelevant for choosing a street name Romanization system.
>Tourists in China or Taiwan for a few days will be stuck, but there's
>nothing we can do about that.
>That is a problem the world over. I found it easier to pronounce street
>names first time I was in China than when I was in Holland.
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>Jim Walsh wrote:
>> My impression is the pinyin is based on the Yale system, developed in
>> America by American scholars of Chinese. I rather doubt that it was
>> actually invented by Chinese.
>Actually, Pinyin was based on Guoyu Luomatzyh (I am not sure
>if I spell it right). The system was designed by Chao Yuen-ren
>and others which incorporated tones with letters. But Pinyin
>came out very different from Guoyu Luomatzyh. Plus the purpose
>to make it a writing system, Pinyin is actually a totally separate system.
Thanks for the correction.
>> BTW, since the target population of Pinyin is non-Chinese, it would be
>> logical for non-Chinese to develop it.
>As I said, the origial purpose of Pinyin was not for non-Chinese.
BTW, I just barely passed Chinese Geography at the University of
Washington, mostly because of issues about the correct romanization.
Jim Walsh
gs
>
> Agree. BTW, I think a particular Chinese sound, represented by "ch" or
> "zh", is closer to "j".
I know what you mean "ch" in WG "Zh" in pinyin sounds like "J".
The reason they use "zh" instead of "j" is that the "j" letter is actually
"ji" used together with the "ao" sound, to distinguish between the "zh" used
with "ao".
So you have "zhao" and "jiao", 2 different pronounciations, difficult to
represent in roman letter so they use ZH-AO and JI-AO.
ZH should be taken as having the same sound as J. It is because of the
letters that follow that they use different intial letters.
Hope that made some sense, lol.
>
> >Learning it isn't that difficult. In a 4 year Chinese degree, everyone
> >understood pinyin within a couple of weeks.
>
> That is irrelevant for choosing a street name Romanization system.
>
No it is not. The romanized street names may be useless to short stay
tourists but to tourists there for more than a couple of weeks and to long
term expats the Pinyin can be learnt quickly, after a couple of weeks
pronounciation of street signs will not be a problem.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Sam Wang" <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw> wrote in message
> news:3CE1C55B...@mx.nthu.edu.tw...
> >
> >
> > gs wrote:
> > >
> >
> > "Zhong Hua Ren Min Gong He Guo" does?
> Far more so, yes.
> Neither system is perfect because it is impossible to represent chinese
> characters with roman letters, but the pinyin system makes more sense than
> Wade Giles.
You keep saying it's "impossible" -- but right there are two examples of
doing so.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
gs
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3CE247...@att.net...
There are more than 2. and they do their best, but they don't represent the
chinese sounds without learning the systems.
it is impossible to put a chinese word into roman letters that everyone will
immediately be able to pronounce.
Peter T. Daniels
Wait a minute ... now you're suggesting that there are writing systems
that can be read without first being learned??
gs
No, if a westerner came to taiwan, chances are he would have already learnt
the roman writing system.
we are talking about pronounciation. He would need to learn the
pronounciation.
The words would not be immediately accessible simply because they were
written in the same alphabet as his language.
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>
>>
>> Agree. BTW, I think a particular Chinese sound, represented by "ch" or
>> "zh", is closer to "j".
>
>I know what you mean "ch" in WG "Zh" in pinyin sounds like "J".
>The reason they use "zh" instead of "j" is that the "j" letter is actually
>"ji" used together with the "ao" sound, to distinguish between the "zh" used
>with "ao".
>So you have "zhao" and "jiao", 2 different pronounciations, difficult to
>represent in roman letter so they use ZH-AO and JI-AO.
>ZH should be taken as having the same sound as J. It is because of the
>letters that follow that they use different intial letters.
>Hope that made some sense, lol.
Some, yes. Thanks.
BTW, the biggest problem in Taiwan's street signs is not pinyin vs.
Wade Giles. It is that each different administration has put up signs
with its own romanization system, and left the old one up.
Streets in Taiwan typically have street signs with 2 or 3 different
romanizations; sometimes side by side.
I drive down the road following the signs to Ching Mei. Suddenly I am
told that if I want Jingmei, I should exit left.
Only long-termers like me are likely to know that Ching Mei and
Jingmei are the same place.
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>It is impossible to put a chinese word into roman letters that everyone will
>immediately be able to pronounce.
Exactly right. And easily overlooked.
And, similarly, the sounds of English words cannot be represented by
the Chinese pronunciation symbols (neither bopomofo nor pinyin).
The easiest way to explain this is to say that there is NO Chinese
pronunciation symbol that represents the sound of "th" in the English
word "thing". Why not? Because that sound doesn't exist in Chinese.
Similarly there are sounds in Chinese which are representing in the
roman alphabet. Why not? Chinese doesn't use the roman alphabet.
These statements are "obvious" to anyone with some experience, but not
obvious at all to those who don't.
Jim Walsh
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>gs wrote:
>> it is impossible to put a chinese word into roman letters that everyone will
>> immediately be able to pronounce.
>
>Wait a minute ... now you're suggesting that there are writing systems
>that can be read without first being learned??
Nope. He is telling you that a person who has learned how to read
English STILL doesn't know how to read pinyin (or Wade Giles).
Tak To
gs> [...]
gs> On the whole the pronounciation is easier with pinyin. Take for
gs> example. Peich'ing (WG) = Beijing (PY), Ch'ungKuo (WH) =
gs> Zhongguo (PY).
Pei Ching and Chung Kuo, respectively.
Tak
---
-----------------------------------------------------------+----------
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.edu.-
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the .- to get my real email addr
Jim Walsh
Beijing (pronounced as normal English letters) comes the closest to
what the Chinese actually say, but the initial consonant sound
sometimes is more like a P.
Ch'ungKuo (WH) = Zhongguo (PY) = Chung Kuo (??)
I don't like any of the them. The first consonant sound is more like
"J" than "ch" or "zh" (pronounced as normal English letters). I prefer
"ung" to "ong".
I was surprised to learn that the K in Kuo means the hard G sound (as
in "go"). The "uo" seems right. You sort of say "U" followed by "O"
(the name of the letters. And lo, all three use it).
[The ?? means I don't know how to label the system]
BTW, IMHO, any system supposed to represent the sounds of Chinese
words which ignores the tones is crap.
Tak To
LSD> Again, in Latin and German and IPA, "j" represents the sound like the
LSD> <y> in <yi1> for "clothes".
the guy with the eye wrote:
tg> Are you talking about Mandarin? You're confusing me, because there I was
tg> taught not to pronounce the "y" in "yi" and "yu", so they are [i] and [y].
Strange!
First of all, I think you meant "[i] and [u]".
Second, the advice is wrong. They should be pronounced as [ji] and [ju]
respectively.
Tak
gs
"Jim Walsh" <jimw...@ebtnet.net> wrote in message
news:ans4eucsemobd3438...@4ax.com...
> Peich'ing (WG) = Beijing (PY) = Pei Ching (??)
>
> Beijing (pronounced as normal English letters) comes the closest to
> what the Chinese actually say, but the initial consonant sound
> sometimes is more like a P.
>
> Ch'ungKuo (WH) = Zhongguo (PY) = Chung Kuo (??)
>
> I don't like any of the them. The first consonant sound is more like
> "J" than "ch" or "zh" (pronounced as normal English letters). I prefer
> "ung" to "ong".
>
Must be the Taiwanese accent. "ong" sounds more like it in beijing accent.
As I said ZH is the same sound as J. Its what comes after that makes them
different.
In pinyin you couldn't use j for Zhong because it would be jiong which is a
different sound.
> I was surprised to learn that the K in Kuo means the hard G sound (as
> in "go"). The "uo" seems right. You sort of say "U" followed by "O"
> (the name of the letters. And lo, all three use it).
>
> [The ?? means I don't know how to label the system]
>
> BTW, IMHO, any system supposed to represent the sounds of Chinese
> words which ignores the tones is crap.
Pinyin doesn't ignore the tones. True pinyin has tone marks above the
vowels, sometimes instead it will have a number 1-4 after each syllable.
>
> Love, Jim
>
gs
"Tak To" <ta...@alum.mit.edu.-> wrote in message
news:3CE276FE...@alum.mit.edu.-...
> "Lee Sau Dan" <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>
> LSD> Again, in Latin and German and IPA, "j" represents the sound like
the
> LSD> <y> in <yi1> for "clothes".
>
> the guy with the eye wrote:
> tg> Are you talking about Mandarin? You're confusing me, because there I
was
> tg> taught not to pronounce the "y" in "yi" and "yu", so they are [i] and
[y].
>
> Strange!
>
> First of all, I think you meant "[i] and [u]".
>
> Second, the advice is wrong. They should be pronounced as [ji] and [ju]
> respectively.
>
No, in the word clothes which he suggested "yi" = "yi"
"ji" as in chicken is a completely different sound.
"yu" as in fish
"ju" as in bureau
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 12:12:22 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >gs wrote:
>
> >> it is impossible to put a chinese word into roman letters that everyone will
> >> immediately be able to pronounce.
> >
> >Wait a minute ... now you're suggesting that there are writing systems
> >that can be read without first being learned??
>
> Nope. He is telling you that a person who has learned how to read
> English STILL doesn't know how to read pinyin (or Wade Giles).
Why English, particularly?
Anyone who reads only English won't be able to get the vowels of _any_
other roman-written language right.
(Just look how Mr. Chips pronounced Latin.)
gs
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3CE2A8...@att.net...
Indeed. But this is perpetuated with Chinese, as it is not a roman written
language. A romanization of Chinese is merely a key which must be learnt.
European languages share far more sounds with English than Chinese does.
the guy with the eye
news:3CE276FE...@alum.mit.edu.-...
> "Lee Sau Dan" <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>
> LSD> Again, in Latin and German and IPA, "j" represents the sound like
the
> LSD> <y> in <yi1> for "clothes".
>
> the guy with the eye wrote:
> tg> Are you talking about Mandarin? You're confusing me, because there I
was
> tg> taught not to pronounce the "y" in "yi" and "yu", so they are [i] and
[y].
>
> Strange!
>
> First of all, I think you meant "[i] and [u]".
No, I really meant [y] (, which is otherwise spelt u umlaut in Pinyin). "yu"
is [(j)y] isn't it? For example in "Hanyu" you wouldn't say [xanju], but
rather [xan(j)y], would you?
gs
>
> No, I really meant [y] (, which is otherwise spelt u umlaut in Pinyin).
"yu"
> is [(j)y] isn't it?
>For example in "Hanyu" you wouldn't say [xanju], but
> rather [xan(j)y], would you?
>
Don't follow you at all here. Are you sure you know pinyin?
"xan(j)y"???
Mikael Thompson
gs wrote:
He's not refering to Pinyin but to the IPA alphabet, which is used by
linguists to transcribe the sounds of the world's languages. In IPA, <y> is
used to indicate the vowel written <ü> in pinyin, while <x> is the sound of
Pinyin <h> (at the beginning of a syllable, that is when not indicating
retroflex) and [j] is Pinyin <y>. MAT
> "xan(j)y"???
Mikael Thompson
Tak To wrote:
> "Lee Sau Dan" <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>
> LSD> Again, in Latin and German and IPA, "j" represents the sound like the
> LSD> <y> in <yi1> for "clothes".
>
> the guy with the eye wrote:
> tg> Are you talking about Mandarin? You're confusing me, because there I was
> tg> taught not to pronounce the "y" in "yi" and "yu", so they are [i] and [y].
>
> ...They should be pronounced as [ji] and [ju] respectively.
Rather, as [ji] and [jy]. MAT
Mikael Thompson
Jim Walsh wrote:
> Peich'ing (WG) = Beijing (PY) = Pei Ching (??)
>
> Beijing (pronounced as normal English letters) comes the closest to
> what the Chinese actually say, but the initial consonant sound
> sometimes is more like a P.
No, ch' in Wade-Giles represents the aspirated ch-sound. Peich'ing would mean,
oh, many things, but none of them would be the name of the capital of the PRC.
> Ch'ungKuo (WH) = Zhongguo (PY) = Chung Kuo (??)
Again, your Wade-Giles is wrong; it's the form on the right (or perhaps without
the spacing). MAT
gs
"Mikael Thompson" <mith...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:3CE2C27F...@indiana.edu...
ah, ok. Thanks.
Mikael Thompson
Jim Walsh wrote:
> Beijing (pronounced as normal English letters) comes the closest to
> what the Chinese actually say...
...if they're Mandarin speakers. Cantonese speakers say Bokking, etc.
> but the initial consonant sound sometimes is more like a P.
Yes. Mandarin and English differ in the amount of time that passes between
releasing the consonant in the mouth and the beginning of vibration in the vocal
folds. In English, the sounds b, d, and g have shorter lags in voicing than do
the Mandarin consonants (but much longer lags than in French and Japanese
typically), which means that English p, t, and k under certain circumstances
would be classified as Mandarin b, d, and g (essentially if the English
consonants aren't immediately at the beginning of a word). MAT
the guy with the eye
news:abud5k$ksqkb$1...@ID-137344.news.dfncis.de...
Well, I thought I at least knew the basics. Anyway, I don't think you paid
attention to the fact that Tak To and I both used square brackets when
referring to the pronunciation, which clearly indicated that IPA was being
used and not Hanyu Pinyin. So, I guess we can at least agree that "han" is
(or should be pronounced) [xan], right?
I think I'm going to throw my textbook away which gave me the advice to
pronounce "yi" as [i] and "yu" as [y], although my former Chinese teacher
never corrected me when I said [i] and [y]. And when I just checked google,
I found some pages where they also advised to pronounce the syllable "yi" as
the "ee" in "bee". However, not one of these sides said that "yu" is
pronounced [y].
gs
> I found some pages where they also advised to pronounce the syllable "yi"
as
> the "ee" in "bee".
Its not quite a silent y. the y is there but very faint.
Mikael Thompson
Jim Walsh wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 12:51:32 +0100, "gs" <gsgsNOS...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It is impossible to put a chinese word into roman letters that everyone will
> >immediately be able to pronounce.
>
> Exactly right. And easily overlooked.
Who's "everyone"? You mean non-Mandarin speakers? If so, then they can't
pronounce them without training, so why bother
> And, similarly, the sounds of English words cannot be represented by
> the Chinese pronunciation symbols (neither bopomofo nor pinyin).
>
> The easiest way to explain this is to say that there is NO Chinese
> pronunciation symbol that represents the sound of "th" in the English
> word "thing". Why not? Because that sound doesn't exist in Chinese.
And for most English speakers, French b isn't a sound they actually say at the
beginning of a word (in French, the vocal folds start vibrating typically a
couple dozen milliseconds *before* the mouth opens, whereas in English b the
vocal folds usually start vibrating a couple dozen milliseconds *after* the
mouth opens), and conversely English b at the beginning of a word is pretty
close to a French p, yet no one has any objections to using the same letter for
such different sounds (which differ in the same way English and Mandarin b
differ). Why should the choice of English, French, or Pinyin letters be bound
by how *other* languages pronounce things? What is important is to use distinct
letters for sounds which in a given language are distinctive; using the same
letter for similar sounds in different languages is less important.
> Similarly there are sounds in Chinese which are representing in the
> roman alphabet. Why not? Chinese doesn't use the roman alphabet.
Which roman alphabet? The English roman alphabet, the French roman alphabet,
the German roman alphabet, the Czech roman alphabet, the Turkish roman alphabet,
or what? In all of those language there are sounds the others don't have, yet
each language's roman alphabet represents them more or less simply. (And all of
them differ from the original Latin roman alphabet, hence combinations of
letters like English th, German ch, French eu, and so on.) If the alphabets can
represent the distinctive sounds of each language, what does it matter if they
look strange to foreigners? Should German speakers change the sequence <sch> to
<sh> so that English speakers can guess better at the pronunciation of German
words, or English speakers change <ch> to <tch> and <sh> to <ch> so that French
speakers can guess better at the pronunciations of English words?
That's a different matter from whether a given alphabet could be improved. In
my opinion PRC Pinyin is a very fine alphabet better suits Mandarin than
Wade-Giles since it represents the distinctive sounds of the language with, in
most cases, a single letter, but you might think differently. However, I think
insisting that one choose one alphabetic system, Wade-Giles, over another, PRC
Pinyin, because it's closer to how *English* speakers would pronounce the sounds
is a misguided criterion.
Mikael Thompson
Tak To
You are right. Thanks.
Tak
Sam Wang
Paig Saghamullit wrote:
>
> Sam Wang <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw> wrote in message news:<3CE1C97E...@mx.nthu.edu.tw>...
> > Jim Walsh wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 14 May 2002 16:31:15 +0800, Sam Wang <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >gs wrote:
> >
> > > >> .... However [pinyin] is far more useful than Wade Giles.
> > > >> This is recognised amongst most linguistics and chinese studies academics.
> > > >
> > > >That is simply because of the political influence of China,
> > > >not because the system is any better.
> > >
> > > Whatever. Try using Word Perfect (a better word processor) or a
> > > Betamax VCR in a world that has settled on MS Word and VHS.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But you can appreciate someone who chooses not to use
> > MS Word or VHS, can't you?
>
> Anyway Taiwan is part of China and must accept that reunifications
> will soon come. If they not accept Hanyu Pinyin it just show that they
> try to split the country.
>
Sorry, Taiwan is NOT part of China.
We are already separated.
> Also Pinyin is much better than bad Wade-Giles, which does not
> separate p and p' other than in ideal case, and even then not often.
>
> /Paig Saghamullit
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
Sam Wang
SZ wrote:
>
> Yes, it does.
>
How? Simply by your imagination?
> "Sam Wang" <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw> wrote in message
> news:3CE1C55B...@mx.nthu.edu.tw...
> >
> >
> > gs wrote:
> > >
> > > "Chung-hua jen min kung ho kuo" does not sound like 笢貌鏍僕睿弊
> >
> >
> > "Zhong Hua Ren Min Gong He Guo" does?
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________________________________________________________
> > onghiok
--
_________________________________________________________
國立清華大學外國語文學系 王旭
H. Samuel Wang ____ ____/
Dept of Foreign Languages /
National Tsing Hua University ___ ____/
Hsin-chu Taiwan 300 /
email: ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw ___________/
Sam Wang
gs wrote:
>
> "Sam Wang" <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw> wrote in message
> news:3CE1C55B...@mx.nthu.edu.tw...
> >
> >
> > gs wrote:
> > >
> > > "Chung-hua jen min kung ho kuo" does not sound like 中华人民共和国
> >
> >
> > "Zhong Hua Ren Min Gong He Guo" does?
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________________________________________________________
> > onghiok
>
> Far more so, yes.
> Neither system is perfect because it is impossible to represent chinese
> characters with roman letters, but the pinyin system makes more sense than
> Wade Giles.
How?
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
Sam Wang
gs wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:3CE247...@att.net...
> > gs wrote:
> > >
> > > "Sam Wang" <ong...@mx.nthu.edu.tw> wrote in message
> > > news:3CE1C55B...@mx.nthu.edu.tw...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > gs wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chung-hua jen min kung ho kuo" does not sound like 中华人民12和1�> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Zhong Hua Ren Min Gong He Guo" does?
> >
> > > Far more so, yes.
> > > Neither system is perfect because it is impossible to represent chinese
> > > characters with roman letters, but the pinyin system makes more sense
> than
> > > Wade Giles.
> >
> > You keep saying it's "impossible" -- but right there are two examples of
> > doing so.
> > --
>
> There are more than 2. and they do their best, but they don't represent the
> chinese sounds without learning the systems.
> it is impossible to put a chinese word into roman letters that everyone will
> immediately be able to pronounce.
The purpose of romanization, at least for us in Taiwan,
is to help foreigners to read Chinese without having
to learn the system. The pronunciation may not be
perfect, but it will give people an idea what is
meant to be expressed.
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
Sam Wang
gs wrote:
>
> "Jim Walsh" <jimw...@ebtnet.net> wrote in message
> news:ans4eucsemobd3438...@4ax.com...
> > Peich'ing (WG) = Beijing (PY) = Pei Ching (??)
> >
> > Beijing (pronounced as normal English letters) comes the closest to
> > what the Chinese actually say, but the initial consonant sound
> > sometimes is more like a P.
> >
> > Ch'ungKuo (WH) = Zhongguo (PY) = Chung Kuo (??)
> >
> > I don't like any of the them. The first consonant sound is more like
> > "J" than "ch" or "zh" (pronounced as normal English letters). I prefer
> > "ung" to "ong".
> >
>
> Must be the Taiwanese accent. "ong" sounds more like it in beijing accent.
No. Taiwanese Mandarin is more like 'ong' than 'ung'.
The practice of 'ung' by WG was actually to represent
the Beijing accent.
> As I said ZH is the same sound as J. Its what comes after that makes them
> different.
> In pinyin you couldn't use j for Zhong because it would be jiong which is a
> different sound.
>
> > I was surprised to learn that the K in Kuo means the hard G sound (as
> > in "go"). The "uo" seems right. You sort of say "U" followed by "O"
> > (the name of the letters. And lo, all three use it).
> >
> > [The ?? means I don't know how to label the system]
> >
> > BTW, IMHO, any system supposed to represent the sounds of Chinese
> > words which ignores the tones is crap.
>
> Pinyin doesn't ignore the tones. True pinyin has tone marks above the
> vowels, sometimes instead it will have a number 1-4 after each syllable.
>
> >
> > Love, Jim
> >
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
Sam Wang
gs wrote:
>
> But I cannot accept the system as an optimal
> > system for helping nonnative speakers pronounce Chinese, for
> > it is not, and has not been designed that way.
> >
>
> It was designed for teaching young chinese children chinese.
> If a foreigner is prepared to learn then they would be in the same boat as a
> chinese child. Therefore there is no reason why it cannot help nonnative
> speakers.
>
> Chinese is not english, it cannot be accurately romanised because the sounds
> are not the same as a Western language.
> Therefore we have to provide a pronounciation key which will in all cases
> need to be learnt. Pinyin is one of these keys, in my opinion better than
> WG, however it is still only a key. There can never be a romanisation system
> that is instantly accessible to foreigners because the roman alphabet doesnt
> have the same sounds as Chinese.
>
> Learning it isn't that difficult. In a 4 year Chinese degree, everyone
> understood pinyin within a couple of weeks.
> Tourists in China or Taiwan for a few days will be stuck, but there's
> nothing we can do about that.
> That is a problem the world over. I found it easier to pronounce street
> names first time I was in China than when I was in Holland.
After a couple of weeks' learning, 'xi' still comes out
like 'she'. So what's the purpose of introducing an
unfamilar symbol? Why not use 'shi' or even 'si' instead?
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
SZ
> SZ wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it does.
> >
> How? Simply by your imagination?
First of all, there is nothing perfect, we are talking about which one is
better, and in my opinion, Hanyu Pinyin is better. Even in English, you
can't pronounce all words without a little training. For instance, depending
on different position in a word, letters "g", "c", and most vowels, all
pronounced differently.
Let's look at the old example:
"Chung-hua jen min kung ho kuo"
chung: an English speaking person will probably pronounce it like chun(k),
without the sound "k"
jen: he will probably pronouce it like Jen(-ny) without ny. how can "j" be
pronounced similar to "r" while we have "r" that's already similar in both
English in Chinese?
ho: it will sound either like ho(se), or ho(t). Neither is like the original
Chinese pronunciation.
Kuo: of course the problem is "k".
"Zhong Hua Ren Min Gong He Guo" does?
It is not perfect, but obviously better. I know people have problem with
"zh" (will be pronounced as "z" omitting "h"), "ong" (will be pronouced as
(s)ong), and "e" after a consonant (will be pronounced as he(llo), or
"hee").
It's easier to train them in Hanyi Pinyin than Zhuyin.
Sam Wang
How is it better? By your standard, Zhong is pronounced
as [zong] by English-speaking people. Any better?
and xiao is simply not pronounceable.
By Zhuyin, you learn another systme. That's a different
question. We are talking about the superiority of Hanyu Pinyin
over WG. I still cannot see how training in Hanyu Pinyin is
easier than in WG.
--
_________________________________________________________
onghiok
matin
Not sure if the Mandarin [i] always comes with [j]. But natives
pronouce the syllable <yi> by starting with a glottal stop [?].
Actually, almost all syllables that are thought to not have an initial
<sheng1 mu3> have the glottal stop in the beginning.
Peter T. Daniels
> The purpose of romanization, at least for us in Taiwan,
> is to help foreigners to read Chinese without having
> to learn the system. The pronunciation may not be
> perfect, but it will give people an idea what is
> meant to be expressed.
No, it's to help foreigners to read Chinese without having to learn the
characters. We certainly do have to learn the system by which letters
match up with sounds.
Jim Walsh
this thread.
Love, Jim
-----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Sebastian Hew
> Sorry, Taiwan is NOT part of China.
> We are already separated.
I think you'll find that people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits would
disagree with you. After all, Taiwan is the Republic of China, and both the
ROC and the PRC claim to be the legitimate government of China.
Sebastian.
Lee Sau Dan
gs> Indeed. But this is perpetuated with Chinese, as it is not a
gs> roman written language. A romanization of Chinese is merely a
gs> key which must be learnt. European languages share far more
gs> sounds with English than Chinese does.
Sorry, I don't think so. While English has lots of diphthongs, many
European languages has just a few (e.g. German) or even none
(e.g. French). While English hardly has _real_ long vowels (most of
them have been replaced by diphthongs for centuries), other Germanic
languages still preserves the purity of long vowels.
English sounds like the 2 "th"'s in "the" and "thick" are so difficult
for the Frenchmen to master. Even the "h" is something strange for a
Spaniard and Italian and Frenchman.
And then English lacks the sound of a German "ch" as in "acht"/the
Spanish "j", the French "j", the Italian/French "gn", the Spanish
"rr", the Spanish "r", the French/German "r", ...
Of particular note is that the Romance languages pronounce "b" as a
voiced sound and "p" as an unaspirated sound. English and German
nowadays tend to pronounce "b" unvoiced and "p" aspirated.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Lee Sau Dan
>> True, BPMF is better. But we are talking about romanisation.
Dan> Yes, my campaign is about street signs, in that BPMF is not a
Dan> competitor.
Why MUST street signs come with Romanization? That's a Chinese place.
Why don't you put Cyrillic letters there? And why not Arabic letters
or Sanskrit (Devanagari) letters?
It's a Chinese street sign. So, please put Chinese thing there.
If you want to make it easy for foreigners, why not number the
streets? Streets in most Chinese cities, even the 1000-year-old ones,
have a very regular grid layout. A coordinate-like street-name system
would be much easier for anyone than some "strange sounds" transcribed
in the Roman alphabet. And added advantage is that anyone can easily
guestimate the distance between any two given addresses.
Lee Sau Dan
Sam> The purpose of romanization, at least for us in Taiwan, is to
Sam> help foreigners to read Chinese without having to learn the
Sam> system. The pronunciation may not be perfect, but it will
Sam> give people an idea what is meant to be expressed.
As I said in another post, it would be much easier and practical to
number the streets. The foreigners who don't learn Chinese won't know
and appreciate the meanings of the street names any. So, why not just
use 0--9 so that they can handle more easily? Use CC code! (The code
used for Chinese telegraphy.) Simple and easy. Or number the streets
systematically, with the city centre having coordinates (0,0).
Lee Sau Dan
Jim> BTW, I just barely passed Chinese Geography at the University
Jim> of Washington, mostly because of issues about the correct
Jim> romanization.
Perhaps, using character would be better.
Lee Sau Dan
>> But I cannot accept the system as an optimal
>> system for helping nonnative speakers pronounce Chinese, for it
>> is not, and has not been designed that way.
gs> It was designed for teaching young chinese children chinese.
How many times has the following to be repeated before you understand
it?
Hanyu Pinyin was designed by the CCP with the primary aim of replacing
Chinese characters. (I'm glad that this has been a total failure, and
people found HYPY more useful for another purpose, maybe a purpose not
intended for by the designers.)
gs> If a foreigner is prepared to learn then they would be in the
gs> same boat as a chinese child.
A foreigner shouldn't find IPA-like phonemic transcriptions used by
linguists anything more difficult than HYPY.
Why don't English lexicographers invent a "Pinyin" system for English,
and simply turn to IPA to give the pronunciations in the English
dictionaries?
gs> Chinese is not english, it cannot be accurately romanised
When has _modern_ English been accurately romanized? Well... perhaps,
I have to wonder whether your English is intelligible!
The way we spell English may be an accurate transcription of the
pronunciations of _Middle_ English, but definitely not modern English.
gs> because the sounds are not the same as a Western language.
English and French have the sounds of "Western languages", but they
aren't written very phonetically. I don't find Chinese characters
worse in this case. Most Chinese characters also have phonetic hints,
which is not that worse than the _hints_ of the spellings of English
and French. Don't forget that Chinese characters have signific parts,
too, which is so helpful in knowing what that character means and
hence the sound.
gs> Therefore we have to provide a pronounciation key which will
gs> in all cases need to be learnt.
That's true. So, why not use BPMF? It's at least less confusing:
p'/p or p/b or ph/p? BPMF does it neatly, and reminds the learner,
e.g. that <bo> is not French's "b".
gs> Pinyin is one of these keys,
gs> in my opinion better than WG, however it is still only a
gs> key. There can never be a romanisation system that is
gs> instantly accessible to foreigners because the roman alphabet
gs> doesnt have the same sounds as Chinese.
Right. That's why I think a different alphabet (BPMF) can be better.
gs> Learning it isn't that difficult. In a 4 year Chinese degree,
gs> everyone understood pinyin within a couple of weeks. Tourists
gs> in China or Taiwan for a few days will be stuck, but there's
gs> nothing we can do about that.
Right. Tourists from Europe and America may also suffer from jet
lags. So, should we consider switching to use Greenwich time so as to
make them comfortable?
gs> That is a problem the world
gs> over. I found it easier to pronounce street names first time I
gs> was in China than when I was in Holland.
Well... I find this hard to understand, as what you said here is
ambiguous. How did you pronounce street names? By reading the
characters? Or by Pinyin/WG/whatever phonetic/phonemic transcription?
And why is it difficult to pronounce street names in Holland? Isn't
Dutch spelt as it is pronounced (up to some regional variations)?
Lee Sau Dan
Mikael> gs wrote:
>> The capital of China in Wade Giles is spelt Pei Ch'ing
Mikael> Peiching or Pei Ching, rather. And for a while it was
Mikael> Peip'ing.
An interesting question suddenly pops up in my mind: Why haven't the
Nationalists renamed Taip'ei to Taiching?
Lee Sau Dan
Paig> Anyway Taiwan is part of China and must accept that
Paig> reunifications will soon come. If they not accept Hanyu
Paig> Pinyin it just show that they try to split the country.
Substitute "Taiwan" above with "Mongolia", "Vietnam", "Korea" or even
"Singapore" and try to read it aloud. You'll find how absurd your
statement is.
Oh! Sorry, Singapore was for a short time a part of Malaysia.
How about other places? Alaska used to belong to Russia. (Upper)
California used to be a part of Mexico (and so is New Mexico). Venice
was also once under the Mongolian Empire.
Lee Sau Dan
>> Therefore we have to provide a pronounciation key which will in
>> all cases need to be learnt. Pinyin is one of these keys, in my
>> opinion better than WG, however it is still only a key. There
>> can never be a romanisation system that is instantly accessible
>> to foreigners because the roman alphabet doesnt have the same
>> sounds as Chinese.
Jim> Agree. BTW, I think a particular Chinese sound, represented
Jim> by "ch" or "zh", is closer to "j".
Which "j"? The German "j" ([j])? The Spanish "j" ([x])? Or the
French "j" ([Z])?
Lee Sau Dan
the> No, I really meant [y] (, which is otherwise spelt u umlaut
the> in Pinyin). "yu" is [(j)y] isn't it? For example in "Hanyu"
the> you wouldn't say [xanju], but rather [xan(j)y], would you?
[xan51 jy214]. And I find [xan514 y214] very strange.
Lee Sau Dan
>> Second, the advice is wrong. They should be pronounced as [ji]
>> and [ju] respectively.
>>
gs> No, in the word clothes which he suggested "yi" = "yi" "ji" as
gs> in chicken is a completely different sound. "yu" as in fish
gs> "ju" as in bureau
Learn some IPA (and ASCII IPA) first! In sci.lang, we use IPA when we
write in []. In IPA, "j" is the sound of "y" in English word "yes".
So, [ji55] is Mandarin "clothes".
[jy35] is Mandarin "fish".
No, it's not as in *English* "bureau", which is [bju...]. That
_vowel_ sounds more like *French* "bureau" [byRo].
Lee Sau Dan
matin> Not sure if the Mandarin [i] always comes with [j]. But
matin> natives pronouce the syllable <yi> by starting with a
matin> glottal stop [?].
How do they pronounce "Monday"?
1) [SiN55 tS'i55 i55] ==> [SiN55 tS'i:555]
or
2) [SiN55 tS'i55 ?i55]
or even (wrongly?)
3) [SiN55 tS'i55 ji55]
From native and fluent Mandarin speakers, I hear 1 more often than 2.
I seldom hear 3 from them, but I tend to use 3 (a very strong [j]),
owing to influence form Cantonese.
matin> Actually, almost all syllables that are
matin> thought to not have an initial <sheng1 mu3> have the
matin> glottal stop in the beginning.
I don't think so. What you say is true for Cantonese, but not
Mandarin. In Mandarin, they only insert that glottal stop AFTER a
pause (such as a sentence break, a topic-comment break).
Lee Sau Dan
Mikael> Jim Walsh wrote:
>> Beijing (pronounced as normal English letters) comes the
>> closest to what the Chinese actually say...
Mikael> ...if they're Mandarin speakers. Cantonese speakers say
Mikael> Bokking, etc.
"Bugging" is much closer. I speak Cantonese natively.
Lee Sau Dan
>> Pinyin <h> (at the beginning of a syllable, that is when not
>> indicating retroflex) and [j] is Pinyin <y>. MAT
>>
>> > "xan(j)y"???
>>
gs> ah, ok. Thanks.
So, you now know why neither Pinyin nor WG are "obvious" ways of
spelling Mandarin? What used to be "obvious" or "natural" to you is
not what's obvious or natural to others. Besides English, what other
languages employing the Latin alphabet in the standard writing system
do you know?
Lee Sau Dan
gs> Must be the Taiwanese accent. "ong" sounds more like it in
gs> beijing accent. As I said ZH is the same sound as J.
Which "J"? German "J"? French "J"? Or Spanish "J"?
gs> Its what comes after that makes them different. In pinyin you
gs> couldn't use j for Zhong because it would be jiong which is a
gs> different sound.
It's not impossible. "jong" is otherwise invalid in Pinyin. So...
Pinyin is wasting letters (which are so precious in such a small
alphabet: Latin/Roman) by having separate j/q/x vs. zh/ch/sh. The
only real advantage of using j/q/x that way is to avoid having to add
the two dots above "u" in the case of "ju-", etc. j/q/x could be
either merged into zh/ch/sh (by mandating the two dots above the "u"
for disambiguating), or merged into g/k/h as gi/ki/hi. This could
vacate 3 precious letters for other purposes (such as zh/ch/sh) or as
tone-marking letters.
gs> Pinyin doesn't ignore the tones. True pinyin has tone marks
gs> above the vowels, sometimes instead it will have a number 1-4
gs> after each syllable.
But many people, even the mainlanders, don't keep the tone marks
intact. I like the Zhuang and Hmong Romanizations: they write letters
at the end of the syllable to indicate the tone.
Lee Sau Dan
Jim> Beijing (pronounced as normal English letters) comes the
Jim> closest to what the Chinese actually say, but the initial
Jim> consonant sound sometimes is more like a P.
How about "Shenzhen"? I think it's a difficult task for an English
speaker. "zh"? Haha...
I like "Shanghai". You may pronounce it in the English way or in the
French way. ;)
Jim> Ch'ungKuo (WH) = Zhongguo (PY) = Chung Kuo (??)
Jim> I don't like any of the them. The first consonant sound is
Jim> more like "J" than "ch" or "zh" (pronounced as normal English
Jim> letters). I prefer "ung" to "ong".
Why are you so English-biased?
Jim> BTW, IMHO, any system supposed to represent the sounds of
Jim> Chinese words which ignores the tones is crap.
I can't agree more!