Re: "iu" and "ui" alternative spellings [was: Chin. Mode: No "-io", but "-io-"]
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@...>
> ...I'm glad that the massive amounts of three-dots below have<<<<<I agree! And I saw you also emended _jing1_, which I had
> been drastically reduced by your corrections.
> ...<<<<<Why, of course! Basically, by the same rationale we don't really
> > I think there would be no harm (not even the slightest
> > theoretical possibility of it :)) in doing completely without the
> > short carriers/under-dots in "initial consonant + yanta/uure"
> > combinations. Seen in this new light, they certainly shouldn't be
> > obligatory.
> That's very interesting! Do you think that in the same way, the dots
> under final nÃºmen or nwalme could be dropped as well? This would put
> an end to the annoying dual use of the dot indicating both
> non-syllabicity of the finals -n -ng and syllabicity of [j w jw] in
> the finals -i -u -Ã¼. If the dot below -n were dropped, a word such
> as "ta1men" could theoretically be misread as "*ta1mene". ...
need the under-dots in "initial consonant + yanta/uure" combinations,
we don't need them under nuumen and nwalme, either. In actual usage,
no confusion could arise (forms like _ta1mene_ do not occur, as you
also indicate with an asterisk).>>>>>
> ... I'm just noticing that ungwe anyway occurs only as a final, so<<<<<Yes, this would work fine! And makes this mode even
> the dot below ungwe is completely redundant -- which suddenly opens
> the possibility to introduce a pet idea of mine: using the bar
>above, which usually expresses a prenasalization, to express a kinda
> "postnasalization", that is, a final -n. I had this idea already in
> mind, but I never caught to it because I always thought that with
>two different kind of finals, -n and -ng, there was no use for it.
>Now that the final -ng has a specialized sign of its own, the final -
>n might as well have one. I think I got the idea of using the bar
>above in such a way from a phonemic French mode, perhaps the one of
more "compact", as seen in the considerably shorter new transcription
of your sample text.
On the other hand, if one finds that some individual spellings would
get too "crowded" this way (e.g. _quan2_--doesn't bother me much,
though), one can always reverse to using nuumen (without the under-
dot!). Of course, no matter which "convention" one would go for, it
should be done consistently within a given text.>>>>>
> And while introducing more and more tehtar: Why not expressing final<<<<<Hm. Here I'd have to disagree: while they are spelt the same in
> -r with the silme-hook? From what I understand, that final r may
> phonetically be a kind of s(h)ibilant sound, so I think the silme-
>hook is not too far off...
Pinyin, initial and final _r_ are really two distinct sounds.
Initial _r_ would actually be a bit closer to your description as
a "kind of sibilant", I think, since it's a retroflex fricative (the
voiced counterpart of Mandarin _sh_), and thus somewhat similar to
the sibilants _s_ and _z_ (alveolar unvoiced/voiced fricatives).
I believe the IPA transcribes initial Mandarin _r_ as a lower-case
right-tail "z", i.e. a small "z" with a right hook.
Final _r_, or rather the combination _er_ (which, as you remember, is
the _only_ combination in which final _r_ occurs, leaving aside
the "added-on" r-sound, which isn't really "standard" and can thus be
ignored in transcription, as I've pointed out before [message 5171])
is somewhat similar to the sound in English "teachER" or "MirrOR",
only that it's pronounced more forcefully, no matter if it's in the
second, third or fourth tone (no first/fifth-tone _er_ occur).
IPA usually transcribes Mandarin _er_ as a schwa plus a run-of-the-
mill "r" [standard sign for the alveolar trill]. I have often
suspected, though, that this final _r_ is closer to the English
frictionless continuant, which is, I believe, "properly" represented
by a _turned_ lower-case "r"--but most English dictionaries don't
bother with this and transcribe it with the normal "r", anyway.
I believe I'm probably to blame for your assumption that Mandarin _-
r_ is similar to a sibilant, because in message 5171 I spoke of
an "'added-on' retroflex 'r'", and this description was sloppy--ahem,
wrong. Sorry about that! It's really more like an English "r",
although pronounced in a more guttural fashion.
The sound itself is the same in _er_ and in combinations of all other
syllables with final _-r_ ("added-on" r-final), but again, only in
_er_ do we need to represent it in tengwar writing, which is the same
convention as in Pinyin.
(BTW, _if_ you want to express in Pinyin that someone speaks with
lots of r-finals, you can simply add on an "r" to the syllable, e.g.
_xing_ would become _xingr_, etc. As I also pointed out in the
earlier post, in regular Chinese writing, this can be expressed by
the character for "son, child" [_er2_], which serves as a purely
phonetic sign here and is then obviously not pronounced as a distinct
sound in the second tone, but rather "melts" with the preceding
syllable in sound and tone. I think the Wikipedia table gives a list
with these r-final pronunciations which looks pretty accurate.
I do, however, not agree with the remark on that same site, under the
table listing the initials, that fricative "r" [small "z" with right
hook] and approximant "r" [turned "r"] are "interchangeable".
Under "Pronunciation of initials" it says: "'r' = similar to the
English 'r' in 'rank', but with the lips spread and with the tongue
curled upward". Well, yes--the "spread lips" and "curled tongue" make
initial _r-_ a retroflex, and this is exactly what clearly
_discerns_ it from the alveolar English "r" and Mandarin _-r_! How _r-
_ and _-r_ could be "interchangeable" is thus quite beyond me (also
from personal speaking and listening experience), and interestingly,
in the charts showing the pronunciation of finals/r-final
combinations, _-r_ is consistently and correctly spelt only with a
turned "r" symbol, with no claim made that this could somehow also be
The Chinese dictionaries I consulted also make a clear distinction
between _r-_ and _-r_ in their sections on spelling and
pronunciation, and it is no coincidence that in the Zhuyin [Bopomofo]
transcription system, two very different signs are used for initial
_r-_ and final _-r_ [_er_].)
So, since initial and final _r_ are different sounds, it actually
makes good sense to represent them by separate signs in phonetic
writing. I'd say that for the initial _r_ (the retroflex fricative)
we'd stick with anna, since that befittingly leaves it in the same
teema as the other retroflex sounds (fricatives and affricates)--I
believe this was also your original reason for choosing anna.
As for the alveolar sound in _er_, I'd say that your silme-hook might
still work, in spite of all I've said above, for the simple reason
that Chinese is indeed quite different from the languages of attested
(Tolkien's) Tengwar writings, anyway (as you also wrote)--and we've
already had to introduce new signs/new definitions for signs to
accommodate many affricates and fricatives that don't occur in
English or Elvish.
But I still like to think that one could also use oore for final _r_,
since this tengwa hasn't been assigned any function yet in any of our
Chinese modes. Tolkien himself said that "Grade 6...was most often
used for the weakest or 'semi-vocalic' consonants of each series"
(LoTR Appendices), and since (see above) the final _r_ in Mandarin is
actually quite similar to English "r" (and distinct from the
retroflex sound), I'd say we could use oore here as in English modes.
Also, the first teema, called "dental or t-series" by Tolkien, is
always a mixture of dental (e.g. hard and soft "th") and alveolar
sounds (e.g. "n, t, d"), so we wouldn't be violating Tengwar
principles here, I think, if we added oore for _-r_ to tinco for _t_,
ando for _d_*, thuule (suule) for _s_, nuumen for _n-_, and of course
extended tinco and ando for _c, z_.
*I believe I pointed out in an earlier mail that the distinction
between t/d, p/b, k/g in Mandarin is really one between aspiration
and non-aspiration (not an unvoiced/voiced dichotomy), which is why
older transcription systems preferred to spell t'/t, p'/p, k'/k. This
doesn't affect the "basic" quality of these sounds, though.>>>>>
> > One last comment on a different issue: I saw you<<<<<Me neither! But it's hard to entirely ignore, especially
>employed "English" punctuation marks (in this case, only commas and
>full stops). I'd suggest that we might also consider using the same
>signs as Tolkien did in his Quenya/Sindarin/English Tengwar samples,
>e.g. DTS 5, 19/20, 21, 49 etc), including those for "end of
>paragraph", exclamation marks and question marks.
> That's possible. Punctuation doesn't interest me much,
in "modern" texts... I guess the reason I might opt for the
more "exotic" signs employed in most Elvish (and some English)
tengwar texts by Tolkien is that they give the mode a
more "authentic" Middle-earth feel--but that probably doesn't really
matter too much with a Chinese mode. ;)>>>>>
> so I rather<<<<<Well, if that's how you feel, then you'd love classical Chinese
> choose the easiest way to deal with them, that is, I prefer to keep
> the traditional signs (as in DTS 16, 18 and 23) -- if I don't drop
> punctuation altogether because it is something secondary, just as
> numerals, and the reason why these things are secondary is because
> scripts work fine without them: instead of the numerals, I can write
> the numbers, and I maintain that well written language stays
> understandable with an absolute minimum of punctuation, just like
> antique poetry which often didn't even employ line endings; if a
>text requires lots of punctuation, then it's bad language... ;)
texts (and not just poems), since they either use very little
punctuation, or--none at all! I have to say, though, when studying
classical texts, I was glad that modern editions usually add at least
minimal punctuation to indicate where sentences start and end. Maybe
classical Chinese was just "bad language". ;) Seriously, it's
actually often quite difficult to add punctuation marks (not just
full stops, but also commas, semicolons...) to a classical Chinese
text, since frequently the decision where exactly to put them implies
a specific interpretation of the text. And quite often, different
interpretations are possible, which has led to some disputes among
And while in poetry ambiguity may be nice (and part of the artistic
effect), in, say, a philosophical essay it's often plain annoying. I
don't think classical Chinese with its extreme brevity of expression
was really meant for meticulous analytical arguments, anyway!
OK, cruising into the OT zone at the speed of light...
Think the phonetic mode is pretty refined now!
Maybe we can retain (dot-less) nuumen for _-n_ as alternative
spelling to the post-nasalization over-bar (which I like! it's
snappy), and introduce oore as an alternative to the silme-hook for _-
r_ (which doesn't occur that often anyway). We definitely shouldn't
spell _-r_ with anna anymore.>>>>>
- 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)