Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese

Discussions on the Hokkien (Minnan) language.
Mark Yong
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:52 pm

Book on common vocabulary between Minnan and Old Chinese

Post by Mark Yong » Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:54 am

I am guessing that some of you in the know will, in all probability, have come across this book, or at least heard of it:

林寶卿 "閩南方言與古漢語同源詞典"

Is it a reliable reference for Minnan benzi?
ong
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:04 am

Post by ong » Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:00 am

No,some of the benzi isn't correct .I have mentioned this 3 years ago ,you have to buy all the books .There is a book from China called 闽南方言词释 which is a must not to mention books from taiwan
Mark Yong
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:52 pm

Post by Mark Yong » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:43 am

Hi, Hong,

Thanks for the tips. Questions:

1. Can you provide me the author's name for 閩南方言辭釋? (I ran a search through the Minnan forum, but could not find any previous forum entries on it.) Just to ease my search at the bookstore.

2. Can you give just a couple of example from 林寶卿 "閩南方言與古漢語同源詞典" where the benzi quoted are incorrect? Just for my learning.
ong
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:04 am

Post by ong » Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:57 am

The book is out of print.For you just buy some taiwanese book first.
Just a simple example.toilet is 东厕 not 东司 。see master 黄侃 book
ong
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:04 am

Post by ong » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:29 pm

In her book 佬= 骗 is wrong,the benzi is
http://140.111.1.40/yitic/frc/frc04726.htm
ong
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:04 am

Post by ong » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:34 pm

lak can be just 掉 =泥角切。She doesn't need to go for 落
Mark Yong
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:52 pm

Post by Mark Yong » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:31 am

ong wrote:
lak can be just 掉 =泥角切。She doesn't need to go for 落
This is interesting. I checked Kangxi Dictionary 康熙字典: In the first entry, according to the 韻會 and 正韻, 掉 is 徒弔切 (which works out closer to ‘tiao’), and 正韻 further states that it is 從調去聲. But further down, it also states that according to the 集韻 and 唐韻 it is (as you mentioned) 女角切 or 尼角切 (which works out closer to ‘nak’/ ‘nok’). So, does this mean that in Minnan literary readings 文讀, both pronunciations are possible for the same meaning?
ong
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:04 am

Post by ong » Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:23 am

Both these fanqie actually just lak8.It is the same for 落 too.Some books will just say 落 has lok8 and loh8 reading.
If they don't follow the rule by saying 落 has baidu lak4,we can do it with 掉 as well.The advantage for 掉 is to avoid awkward 落落来 lak loh lai
ong
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:04 am

Post by ong » Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:26 am

Mark Yong
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:52 pm

Post by Mark Yong » Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:46 am

Would like to check a couple of doubtful entries in the book:

1. 佚佗 t'it8-to2 "to play". To the best of my knowledge, t'it8-to2 has no known hanzi, yet she has been able to quote the definition of the character as 樂也! Is this reliable?

2. hin5 "dizzy". Should it be or ? From a phonetic standpoint, makes more sense (from the phonetic), as the phonetic would come out more like hun rather than hin.
ong
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:04 am

Post by ong » Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:18 pm

The book with a lot of benzi for thit tho is by 许成章。台语本字 even gives 出惰 。花天酒地 =食lim puah thit.
I think she is right .She gives 任 for na =in which you can hear people using in Johor.I think she could be right as well.
I can't see any problem with 眩
Andrew

Post by Andrew » Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:01 pm

I think the whole issue of benzi will soon become a purely philological issue, with the adoption of the standard characters specified by the ROC Ministry of Education. I don't see many Cantonese agonising over what characters to use in daily life.
Mark Yong
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:52 pm

Post by Mark Yong » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:35 am

In 林寶卿's book, she identifies the character for ch'ê/ch'uê (to search) as "扌+罪" / "扌+睾". In 陳正統's "閩南話漳腔辭典", he just writes it as .

While 陳正統's book is quite a good resource for 漳州話, it seems to me that there are quite a number of entries where he does not attempt to properly identify the correct benzi. But to give him credit, he does put in the correct benzi for some others.

The same goes for 周長楫's 閩南方言大辭. Actually, he is even less-disciplined with his benzi - te/tue (to follow) is simply written as . At least 陳正統 writes it as .

But I guess I should not be too critical, since these dictionaries were probably not meant to be proper benzi resources.
Mark Yong
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:52 pm

Post by Mark Yong » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:47 am

Andrew wrote:I think the whole issue of benzi will soon become a purely philological issue, with the adoption of the standard characters specified by the ROC Ministry of Education. I don't see many Cantonese agonising over what characters to use in daily life.
In a practical sense, I do agree with you. I guess where I am coming from is purely from a purist's angle. To cite the Cantonese example (since you mentioned it), I see no reason why the Hong Kong Cantonese, when writing colloquially, cannot use the correct character for 'bei' (to give), i.e. - instead they write . I mean:
1. is the etymologically-correct character, defined in the 康熙字典 Kangxi Dictionary as 賜也.
2. is not a totally obscure character, occurring in the Classical Chinese phrase "畀以重任"
3. takes more strokes to write than , anyway.

My take is that the proper preservation of the correct characters provides the best vehicle for the preservation of a dialect's rich vocabulary (which, after all, is one of the reasons for the very existence of this Minnan Forum! :D) - the kind of richness that I personally find is often absent in Modern Mandarin.
Andrew

Post by Andrew » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:10 pm

Mark Yong wrote: My take is that the proper preservation of the correct characters provides the best vehicle for the preservation of a dialect's rich vocabulary (which, after all, is one of the reasons for the very existence of this Minnan Forum! :D) - the kind of richness that I personally find is often absent in Modern Mandarin.
Having seen the RoC MoE list, I don't think there's any danger of incorrect characters being used for no reason - there are a few instances where one character is chosen over another for practical reasons, e.g. 我的 instead of 我個, but on the whole I haven't seen any choice I couldn't live with. Hopefully there will be some provision for revisions if the philologists come up with more benzi.
Locked