Comparisons

Discussions on the Hokkien (Minnan) language.
SimL
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:33 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Comparisons

Postby SimL » Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:46 pm

amhoanna wrote:
Wá bô siâng kà i án-ne tōa. or
Wá bô i án-ne tōa siâng kà i [...]

Kadri, is that really kà? I thought it would've been kā.

Hi Amhoanna,

It manifests as a tone-1 in Penang Hokkien (at least, it does the way I say it)... [And I think it's now generally accepted that Penang Hokkien tone-3 sandhies to tone-1.]

SimL
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:33 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Comparisons

Postby SimL » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:10 pm

Hi Amhoanna,

amhoanna wrote:
But does it reflect on the strength of the English language that these concepts are so easy to express, if you should ever need to say them?

Once in a while, in real life, I'll hear somebody say:

"Oh, __________ (insert name of more dominant language) is just clearer / more flexible / more powerful than __________ (insert name of less dominant language)."

Well, I say that can be both true and untrue, but mostly or typically untrue.

For most of my 20's, 30's, 40's, and even part of my 50's I subscribed to the linguists' (and anthropologists'!) party line: "Every language (respectively culture) is just as good as every other".

I think this was very needed, given where "the Western World / Science" was coming from.

There was a time in the Western world, for example (as you undoubtedly also know), when Latin and Greek were the two "best languages", then the modern Western European languages were next best, and finally came all the other languages.

In fact, there were stages in the understanding of linguistics where inflection was seen as the highest form of language development. This is because Latin and Greek were highly inflected, European languages a bit to a lot less, and pidgins very little. Using such a scale of assessment, Chinese scores pretty badly!

With positions like this, I think it was essential for both linguistics and anthopology to really wipe the slate clean, and say "Hey, let's start studying each language (respectively culture) with much less historical baggage and cultural assumptions. Let's treat each and every language (respectively culture) as completely equal, when studying them."

Excellent! I supported it fully (and still do, as a basic principle).

But I (personally) feel that I've passed that point. I think I can "claim my unbiased credentials", i.e. my basic commitment to the principle that "all language (respectively cultures) are equal". As such, I feel that I dare to say it explicitly, if I perceive differences, positive or negative, in specific aspects of a language.

I see another area of "science" where this pattern occurred: in psychology, up to the 1950's there was a deep-seated belief that men were superior to women. From the 1950's to the 2000's, I lived and supported the position that men and women were ABSOLUTELY equal. I would get very, very angry, if I read of psychological studies which purported to prove otherwise. I suspected such studies of having a hidden (and evil) agenda, of preserving millenia-old prejudices, i.e. I suspected that proving sex-based differences was only another way of attempting to re-assert the superiority of the male sex.

But now, in the 2000's, I'm much more relaxed about this. This is because I believe (in the area of Science, in general terms) that this principle of essential equality is now accepted. Nowadays, if I read about such studies (i.e. attempts to see if there are sex-based differences), then I say to myself "Sure, why not. Maybe there ARE sex-based differences. If there are, let's learn about it". Of course, I would still be suspicious of conservative back-lash supporters continuing to try to use these sorts of studies to "re-assert the patriarchy" (what sort of language is that?!?! :mrgreen:), but I am no longer in principle against such studies.

This is just a personal statement, of my own approach. I'm not trying to claim that it's "true" or "scientifically justified".

For another concrete example from linguistics:

Germanic languages (and many other Indo-European ones, but I can't speak as confidently about them in detail) provide the useful structure of relative clauses (following the thing being qualified)
- The man who came yesterday

The equivalent structure, provided by Mandarin, makes them attributive clauses (preceding the thing qualified):
- The yesterday came 的 man

The relative clause structure provides much more flexibility and clarity, as can be seen if we start stacking relative clauses:

1-level deep:
The man who ate the food
=> The ate the food 的 man

2-levels deep:
The man who ate the food which was cooked on the stove
=> The ate the cooked on the stove 的 food 的 man

3-levels deep:
The man who ate the food which was cooked on the stove that I bought yesterday
=> The ate the cooked on the I bought yesterday 的 stove 的 food 的 man

One can see that in English one can keep stacking, for much, much longer. But in Mandarin, beyond the last sentence above, no listener would be able to understand what's going on any more (even the last sentence is already getting a bit tough).

Of course, the real answer is this: a) one almost never has to stack to more than 3 levels, b) no one would try and stack to more than 3 levels in Mandarin - there are simply other ways of saying it ("fronting", to use the technical term). But that doesn't detract from the basic point that English provides this structure, it's easy to use in the speaker's mind, and it's easy to understand, when a listener hears it.

So here, I feel quite comfortable about abandoning the "politically correct" line, and just saying "Hey, Germanic languages provide a superior way of handling these particular structures / concepts.

I'm not saying that Germanic languages are inherently better in all respects or even in more respects, I'm just saying in this respect.

And it's not just Germanic languages vs. Sinitic languages. It can be any two languages. Undoubtedly there will be structures and concepts which are much easier to express in Chinese than in Germanic languages. I just don't happen to know them because my Chinese is still so poor. [One that comes to mind is that the existence of singulars and plurals often forces a speaker of Germanic languages to make tedious and long sentences "a person or persons etc".]

So, to sum up, I do feel that quantifiers are more easily expressed in English than in Chinese, and perhaps comparatives as well.

But I guess we really do agree, as you yourself say:

>> It's just that the Anglophone mind is better attuned to hearing such an utterance

What you're used to, and attuned to, you can and do use. If you've never known it, then you never miss it. I don't think there are many Chinese girls lying awake at night, fretting over the fact that it's not that easy to say: "My boyfriend likes tennis more than your boyfriend likes soccer" :mrgreen:.

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Comparisons

Postby amhoanna » Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:30 am

Hi, Sim--

And it's not just Germanic languages vs. Sinitic languages. It can be any two languages. Undoubtedly there will be structures and concepts which are much easier to express in Chinese than in Germanic languages. I just don't happen to know them because my Chinese is still so poor.


The way you put it now, it's two-way. And true, w/o a doubt.

Your Hokkien is in no way poor, although I guess, yeah, some would argue it's not a Sinitic language. :mrgreen:

And let me get it straight. When you say " X siang5 ka3 Y" in PgHK, are the tone contours on siang-ka actually:

siang21 ka33
(low falling and mid level)

And yeah, according to my calculations, that would make it T3. 8)

Ah-bin
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:10 am
Location: Somewhere in the Hokloverse

Re: Comparisons

Postby Ah-bin » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:30 pm

amhoanna wrote:And let me get it straight. When you say " X siang5 ka3 Y" in PgHK, are the tone contours on siang-ka actually:

siang21 ka33
(low falling and mid level)

And yeah, according to my calculations, that would make it T3. 8)


Yes... I forgot to answer this... it depends on whether you count it as sandhied or not! I didn't notice that it became 33... but I get all kinds of things like that wrong!

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Comparisons

Postby amhoanna » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:04 pm

Kadri, at some pt U can write a "Guide to Penang Hokkien Sandhi Rules" (or Malayan Hokkien in general) for people from "the other Straits". At this pt it's a mystery to me.

One thing I seem to notice is that citation tone is used before pronouns at the end of sentences (as in TW/Amoy), but the pronoun itself still takes citation.

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Comparisons

Postby amhoanna » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:06 pm

My "impression" has been that "siangka" is siang21 ka21, but I've never had a clear shot at it. :mrgreen:

SimL
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:33 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Comparisons

Postby SimL » Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:55 pm

Ah-bin wrote:
amhoanna wrote:And let me get it straight. When you say " X siang5 ka3 Y" in PgHK, are the tone contours on siang-ka actually:

siang21 ka33
(low falling and mid level)

And yeah, according to my calculations, that would make it T3. 8)


Yes... I forgot to answer this... it depends on whether you count it as sandhied or not! I didn't notice that it became 33... but I get all kinds of things like that wrong!

Amhoanna and Ah-bin,

I've never been really confident of my own judgement of the 1-5 scale for indicating tone contours. The best I can do is confirm that when I say "siang ka i", the "ka" sounds like the syllable meaning "to cut with scissors", i.e. tone-1. Indeed, it's a level tone, which is on the highish side, but not 55.

Ah-bin
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:10 am
Location: Somewhere in the Hokloverse

Re: Comparisons

Postby Ah-bin » Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:15 pm

Thanks Sim, that's good to know. I think I can call that a TV (transitive verb) now, rather than a verb+preposition, and then it follows the rules of other transtive verbs where it sanhdis before the direct object, but not before a description of the object i.e. siang-ka33-wa but siang-ka21 wa peng-iu e. Or does it?

AndrewAndrew
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:26 am

Re: Comparisons

Postby AndrewAndrew » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:45 pm

Ah-bin wrote:Thanks Sim, that's good to know. I think I can call that a TV (transitive verb) now, rather than a verb+preposition, and then it follows the rules of other transtive verbs where it sanhdis before the direct object, but not before a description of the object i.e. siang-ka33-wa but siang-ka21 wa peng-iu e. Or does it?


I would pronounce both as ka44.

AndrewAndrew
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:26 am

Re: Comparisons

Postby AndrewAndrew » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:49 pm

SimL wrote:What you're used to, and attuned to, you can and do use. If you've never known it, then you never miss it. I don't think there are many Chinese girls lying awake at night, fretting over the fact that it's not that easy to say: "My boyfriend likes tennis more than your boyfriend likes soccer" :mrgreen:.


I suspect they would say it, "Lu e boyfriend gian football ha, wa e boyfriend ka tennis koh ka gian" or something similar.

SimL
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:33 am
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Comparisons

Postby SimL » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:37 am

AndrewAndrew wrote:
Ah-bin wrote:Thanks Sim, that's good to know. I think I can call that a TV (transitive verb) now, rather than a verb+preposition, and then it follows the rules of other transtive verbs where it sanhdis before the direct object, but not before a description of the object i.e. siang-ka33-wa but siang-ka21 wa peng-iu e. Or does it?


I would pronounce both as ka44.

I agree with Andrew on this one too Ah-bin. I say the two "ka" identically (as far as I can tell). But because I'm no good at the 1-5 scale, I find it difficult to know if I say 33 or 44. All I can say is (as I mentioned before) that I would pronounce both identically to "ka1" meaning "cut with scissors".

niuc
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:23 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Comparisons

Postby niuc » Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:19 am

Thank you so much, Abun & Amhoanna for discussing about "pheng". It just dawned to me that my variant uses "pīng" more than "pí". I didn't realize that it's "pīng" but subconsciously thought that it's just an elided form of "pí". Not sure how many things in my variants that i am still unaware of! :oops:

AndrewAndrew
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:26 am

Re: Comparisons

Postby AndrewAndrew » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:01 am

I guess Penang Hokkien doesn't use hiah-nih and ciah-nih in comparisons primarily not because they are similar to an-nee, but because the expressions AFAIK don't exist in Pg Hokkien!

amhoanna
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Comparisons

Postby amhoanna » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:48 am

Yes, true! That's what I meant, that the c-/h- expressions have dropped out of PgHk for this usage, most likely on site, during language contact.

Niuc, thx -- I've never heard pēng, must make a note of it.

mariejozmz
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:15 pm

Re: Comparisons

Postby mariejozmz » Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:42 pm

Hi everyone
Thanks for posting about this song. Quite beautiful song. I found that Teochew and Taiwanese are the closest together. The language of the song seems to be easy to learn and its easier than other languages songs i listen to.
I was going through my Mandarin textbook looking for vocab I should look up and learn in Hokkien, I stumbled upon a grammar question which, although pretty basic, I found I didn't know the solutions for my problems. Though I found German like

Code: Select all

http://eng.goodscheine.net/
pretty easier to learn till now. but want to learn Taiwanese.


Return to “Hokkien (Minnan) language”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests