Re: Chinese (Mandarin) Mode: No "-io", but "-io-"
- Hisilome wrote:
> To sum up, while for "xiong, qiong, jiong" I'd say it is clearly...
> the "o" that should be spelled with a tehta, I'm not quite so sure
> about emphasizing the first element in "iu, ui" anymore. There seems
> to be no neat solution here, therefore I after all tend to feel that
> both spellings,
> (-iu): Tengwa + I-tehta on top of uure
> OR double dot under tengwa and U-tehta on top of it
> (-ui): Tengwa + U-tehta on top of yanta
> OR modified left-curl and I-tehta on top of tengwa
> are plausible, and should thus both be considered correct (they are
> definitely both comprehensible--no matter which solution you prefer,
> there would be no ambiguity).
Well yes, there would be, at least in the case of Pinyin -iu, since if
you analyze Pinyin -iu as if it were -yu (with the second element
being more prominent) and not -iw (with the first element being more
prominent, then it this would clash with my proposed transcription of
Pinyin -ü which is to transcribe it as if it were -yu. I guess I chose
that transcription for Pinyin -ü because the data I found said that
Pinyin -ü corresponds to Pinyin yu if there's no preceding consonant,
see for instance the table at wikipedia:
In the case of Pinyin -ui, however, I can't see any problem with using
either analysis as -uy (as I proposed) or as -wi
And I totally agree that the double dots are preferably placed inside
the lambe bow.
I guess that when I proposed that Chinese mode more than a year ago,
that wikipedia table didn't exist yet or I didn't have a close look at
it, since it proposes a very interesting analysis of all Chinese
vowels being composed as y/w/yw + a/e/(zero) + y/w. Based on that
analysis, I think a more phonemic approach might be feasible in
contrast with my orthographic proposal.
I'm quite surprised you're still using that that proposal because I've
almost forgotten about it. I'm pleased to hear that it appearently
proves to be practicable -- personally, I've never made any practical
use of it, simply because I just don't know Mandarin except for a
little knowledge about its phonology and Pinyin transcription.
For anybody who wonders what we're talking about, here's the link to
that proposal of mine Hisilome has referred to (from 19th November 2004):
j. 'mach' wust
- hisilome skrev:
>"Mandarin" was a typo for "Cantonese" here. Sorry.
>>Duh, with six or seven tonemes Mandarin even stretches Roman to
> [ Well, I'm no experts on linguistics (obviously!), so I may
> misunderstand you here--but if "tonemes" are identical to tones,
> standard Mandarin has four or five, and as far as I know some
> subdialects of Mandarin have as little as three. Why six or seven? ]
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
__ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
\ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
/ / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
/ /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
/_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)