ala Posted January 17, 2006 at 04:37 PM Report Posted January 17, 2006 at 04:37 PM Korean Hangul is ideal for writing Shanghainese and other Wu dialects, because it was designed with Middle Chinese phonology in mind and the Wu dialects are very consistent/clean in their derivation from Middle Chinese. Also Hangul has 3-way consonants (also a relic of Middle Chinese phonology), the third set (double letters) was originally used for Chinese voiced consonants, although today the third set in Korean is used for "tense consonants". The one problematic issue is that modern Korean doesn't have initial consonants /v/, /f/, /?/, /gh/, /ng/ anymore (all of which Shanghainese still have), and so these Hangul syllabic block combinations are not supported in computer systems. This however is a computer/technological issue, and not a limit of the Hangul script itself. Consonants ㅂ /p/ ㅍ /ph/ ㅃ /b/ ㅁ /m/ ᇦ /v/, archaic jamo ᇴ /f/, archaic jamo ㄷ /t/ ㅌ /th/ ㄸ /d/ ㄴ /n/ ㄹ /l/ ㄱ /k/ ㅋ /kh/ ㄲ /g/ ㅅ /s/ ㅆ /z/ ㅈ /ts/ ㅊ /tsh/ ㅉ /dz/ ㅎ /h/ ㆆ /?/, archaic jamo ㅇ /gh/ ㆁ /ng/, archaic jamo 今 = ㄱ© + ㅣ(i) + ㄴ(n) = 긴 cin 今朝 = ㄱ© + ㅣ(i) + ㄴ(n); ㅈ(ts) + ㅗ(au) = 긴조 cintsau 经济 = ㄱ© + ㅣ(i) + ㄴ(n); ㅈ(ts) + ㅣ(i) = 긴지 cintsi 高级 = ㄱ© + ㅗ(au); ㄱ© + ㅣ(i) + ㆆ (?) = 고깅 cauciq = caucie 孛相 = ㅃ(B) + ㅡ(e) + ㆆ (?) ; ㅅ(s) +ㅑ(ia) + ㄴ(n) = 쁭샨 beqsian = besian 阿拉 = ㆆ (?) + ㅏ(a) + ㆆ (?); ㄹ(l) + ㅏ(a) + ㆆ (?) = 앙랑 qaqlaq = ala 游戏机 = ㅇ (gh) + ㅕ(ieu); ㅎ(h) +ㅣ(i); ㄱ© + ㅣ(i) = 여히기 ghieuhici = jeuhici Hanzi only: 今朝阿拉游戏机孛相得来开心煞脱了！（Mandarin: 今天我们游戏机玩得好开心！） Mixed script: 今朝앙랑游戏机쁭샨등래开心상틍릉! Hangul only: 긴조 앙랑 여히기 쁭샨등래 케신상틍릉! Romanization: Cintsau ala jeuhici besiantelei cheisinsathele! Quote
Yuchi Posted January 17, 2006 at 10:39 PM Report Posted January 17, 2006 at 10:39 PM Very interesting, I hadn't thought of that... What about Hiragana or Katakana? Quote
atitarev Posted January 17, 2006 at 10:43 PM Report Posted January 17, 2006 at 10:43 PM Very interesting, I hadn't thought of that...What about Hiragana or Katakana? What about Latin? ... Ouch! It hurts! Quote
Ncao Posted January 17, 2006 at 11:04 PM Report Posted January 17, 2006 at 11:04 PM What about Latin? Isn't latinazation and romanization the same thing? Quote
atitarev Posted January 17, 2006 at 11:14 PM Report Posted January 17, 2006 at 11:14 PM Yes, latinisation = romanisation. Hangul, Hiragana/Katakana or Latin are all foreign for Chinese but Latin is the most flexible (you can make up more sounds and create new combination, even use diacritics if something is missing or to put in tone marks). There was a discussion about using Vietnamese script for Cantonese on Adam Sheik's forum (Cantonese discussions). 1 Quote
amego Posted January 18, 2006 at 02:29 AM Report Posted January 18, 2006 at 02:29 AM that was awesome!!! so does that mean koreans can speak shanghainese easily and vice versa? Quote
bhchao Posted January 18, 2006 at 02:59 AM Report Posted January 18, 2006 at 02:59 AM interesting post ala, I never knew about that. Quote
ala Posted January 18, 2006 at 03:30 AM Author Report Posted January 18, 2006 at 03:30 AM Yes, latinisation = romanisation. Hangul, Hiragana/Katakana or Latin are all foreign for Chinese but Latin is the most flexible (you can make up more sounds and create new combination, even use diacritics if something is missing or to put in tone marks). But Latinization/Romanization is most aesthetically unpleasant to go along with Chinese characters (as in mixed script a la Japanese and Korean). The feeling is that native Chinese text should be either all in Latin letters or none (except for a few words such as high technology terms: internet, product brands: Compaq, abbreviations: CIA, AIDS etc). This is because Latin script is not confined syllabically, yet Chinese characters, Hangul and Kana are all syllabic. A mixed script is important because there are still a lot of homophonous words in the Chinese language that need to be differentiated, and also proper nouns such personal names and obscure Chengyu/idioms essentially have to use Chinese characters. The use of Hangul for Chinese languages can potentially unite East Asia under one phonetic script roughly based on Middle Chinese phonology; whereas romanization is way too varied and chaotic. For example, the character 朝 in Shanghainese is pronounced [tsO] romanized as "tsau" and in Korean is [tSo] romanized as "jo" or "cho", but both pronunciations can be written as 조 in Hangul, because their derivation from Middle Chinese is the same, so the letter ㅈ is "ts" in Shanghainese and ㅈ is "j" or "ch" in Korean, so the transcription is still phonemic for both languages and the end result is the same. For example the characters 今朝 (Shanghainese for "today") in Korean would be written 금조 in Hangul, but in Shanghainese would be written similarly as 긴조 in Hangul although the actual pronunciations in Korean and Shanghainese are very different. This is a very powerful versatility. Whereas, with romanization, there is romanizations based on English, French, etc etc. Each Asian language has 2 or 3 different romanizations alone. None of the romanizations are based on the ancestor Middle Chinese phonology of the bulk of Chinese character pronunciation used today in China, Japan and Korea. The issue of tones can be solved in Hangul by using final consonants. For example, the Qusheng tone 去声 was historically an -s final; so naturally -s (ㅅ) can be used. This leaves only 上声 Shangsheng. 平声 Pingsheng does not need to be marked, and 入声 Rusheng is the -p, -t, -k endings in Cantonese, which in Shanghainese is just a single glottal stop. 阴阳 yin/yang split in Shanghainese is expressed by voicing/no voicing, so does not need special tone marks. Basically this completely solves the problem of marking the 8 orthodox tones of Wu dialects and Middle Chinese. It's a heck lot simpler and more efficient than Mandarin's 4 tonal marks for 4+1 tones. Examples of marking Qusheng in Wu dialects: 二 --> 닛 nis (gnis) 认 --> 닍 nins (gnins) This is similar to French orthography, where "pas" and "sais" (je ne sais pas) have silent -s, just [pA] and [sE]. Historic spelling. Solves the tone problem in a very simple and historically accurate manner. Even today, the Tibetan pronunciation for number "two" is /gnis/, confirming that historically Qusheng in archaic Chinese ended with -s final. This was before Chinese became tonal. Quote
amego Posted January 18, 2006 at 07:50 AM Report Posted January 18, 2006 at 07:50 AM ala are you a linguist? im pretty amazed =p Quote
kkoma Posted January 18, 2006 at 12:16 PM Report Posted January 18, 2006 at 12:16 PM That is some amazing stuff there, I am also very impressed. Quote
Yuchi Posted January 18, 2006 at 08:59 PM Report Posted January 18, 2006 at 08:59 PM What about Latin?... Ouch! It hurts! Wouldn't be as original Quote
ParkeNYU Posted June 13, 2014 at 05:21 AM Report Posted June 13, 2014 at 05:21 AM I had once considered using Hangul to write in Cantonese, but after reading this thread, I am convinced that it is much better suited to the Wu topolect. Bravo! Quote
Hofmann Posted July 1, 2014 at 07:34 AM Report Posted July 1, 2014 at 07:34 AM I tried it with Mandarin, and had to make up a lot of new letters. Quote
Lu Posted July 1, 2014 at 09:27 AM Report Posted July 1, 2014 at 09:27 AM I once thought about writing Mandarin Hangul-style but using bopomofo. But I doubt that solves any problem in need of solving. Ala's system for Shanghainese looks a lot more useful and practical. Quote
Hofmann Posted July 1, 2014 at 11:40 AM Report Posted July 1, 2014 at 11:40 AM I found my notes. I don't know how useful this is. I didn't mean it to be useful or make sense; it's just...something. So I didn't like how /f/, /l/, /ŋ/, /x/, and the retroflex letters were written in Hangul, so I changed them. They either took too long to write or looked too similar to other things. Finals took a bit of rearrangement to make it work, as you can see from my erasing marks. At first when I started testing it out I had to look at that table a lot. ...Now that I think about it, /ɻ/ could have been 厶. Edit: Oh look, I wrote dōng wrong...and fōng (in parentheses)...and zhōng...and yǒu...and possibly some other things. Quote
New Members 유자준7989 Posted November 30, 2014 at 06:34 PM New Members Report Posted November 30, 2014 at 06:34 PM what about writing hakka (kejia) with hangul? Quote
ParkeNYU Posted December 6, 2014 at 09:13 PM Report Posted December 6, 2014 at 09:13 PM This Wikipedia page shows the original Hangeul equivalents of the 36 (Late) Middle Chinese initials: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_hangul Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.