42 replies to this topic

[qrasy]

In Korean I believe (stress I believe) the negative particle is usually put in the front of the verb as well (like Chinese).  I believe the negative particle at the end of the sentence in Chinese only applies to questions.

For example, "did not go to China." --> Chungkuk-ey an kassta. 
Where "an" is the negative particle, ta is the dummy verb (kind of like "da" in Japanese, but not copula), kass is "went" (ss is the past tense), -ey is the direction postposition particle (equivalent to Japanese -he/e).

Ask Gubook.

Perhaps you can type it in Hangul? I'm confused with the Korean romanization.
Yeah.. Negative in Vietnamese, Indonesian, Chinese etc. all only apply for questions. Do you know of any language outside East Asia that also uses this kind of question?
I thought that Korean were very similar to Japanese.
I have a Korean friend here. I think I will ask him for this.

what reason leads you to believe that it doesn't seem to be 只 ? how do you pronounce 只 in hakka? it sounds similar to the cantonese pronunciation of 只 which is "zek"

You're right. Maybe I doubt too much about myself.
Or there are any difference of reading between 'only' and 'the classifier'? In Mandarin it reads the same but I doubt if it's the same in cantonese.
只, is a simplified form of both 隻 and 祇, i suppose?
隻 is the classifier, but I don't think 祇 is read also with rusheng (I expect shang-sheng).

Edited by qrasy, 28 July 2005 - 08:19 AM.

[tongyan]

You're right. Maybe I doubt too much about myself.
Or there are any difference of reading between 'only' and 'the classifier'? In Mandarin it reads the same but I doubt if it's the same in cantonese.
只, is a simplified form of both 隻 and 祇, i suppose?
隻 is the classifier, but I don't think 祇 is read also with rusheng (I expect shang-sheng).

actually, from what i know, the reading is different even in mandarin. 只 can be pronounced zhi1 (classifier) corresponding to the 隻 reading and zhi3 (only) corresponding to the 祇 reading.

in cantonese, the difference is even more pronounced (no pun intended) 隻 is pronounced zek3, which would categorize it as a zhong-ru or low-ru sheng. 祇 on the other hand is pronounced zi2 which is, as you suspect, a yin-shang-sheng

Edited by tongyan, 28 July 2005 - 07:19 PM.

[nishishei]

Hehe both 隻 and 祇 in Wu are pronounced the same (like Hanyu Pinyin "ze"), with the same tone (Yinru). But, the above poster is right, 祇 traditionally should be Yinshang tone.

[qrasy]

Hehe both 隻 and 祇 in Wu are pronounced the same (like Hanyu Pinyin "ze"), with the same tone (Yinru).  But, the above poster is right, 祇 traditionally should be Yinshang tone.

I recall that 'only' in Vietnamese is chỉ, or chỉ có (only+exist=祇有), so I think that this comes from Chinese word, with Yin-Shang category.

[tongyan]

I recall that 'only' in Vietnamese is chỉ, or chỉ có (only+exist=祇有), so I think that this comes from Chinese word, with Yin-Shang category.

nice to know. can u list the tones that exist in modern vietnamese in terms of yin/yang shang, ru, qu, etc.

[tongyan]

Yeah.

This = 搿只/迪只 getze, dietze
That = 伊只/哎只 itze, eitze

This (person) = 搿个(搿儿)/迪个 ger, diere
That (person) = 伊个/哎个 ire, eire

And 车 by itself is always 车子, never 车  (shanghainese is more polysyllabic because it has less tones, and less unique syllables).

hmm, how about in terms of possessives? in mandarin, one would use 的 as in 我的車﹐他的車. does wu use 只 to indicate a possessive?
cantonese uses the classifier as a possessive.
我部車 我條褲 我件衫

[qrasy]

nice to know. can u list the tones that exist in modern vietnamese in terms of yin/yang shang, ru, qu, etc.

There are 2 matchings of Chinese with Vietnamese, one is old and the other one is newer. Like Tibetan, in old matching Shang and Ru are considered the same.

Old one (I observe lots of cross-matching between Ping and Qu, seems addition of fricative to activate verb)
Ping tones: ngang( ) huyền(`)
Shang tones: sắc (´) nạng(.)
Qu tones: hỏi( ̉ ) ngã(~)

New one
Ping tones: ngang( ) huyền(`)
Shang tones: hỏi( ̉ ) ngã(~)
Qu tones: sắc (´) nạng(.)

'Ru category' can only have 2 tones: Shang tones: sắc (´) nạng(.)

hmm, how about in terms of possessives? in mandarin, one would use 的 as in 我的車﹐他的車.  does wu use 只 to indicate a possessive?
cantonese uses the classifier as a possessive.
我部車 我條褲 我件衫

I don't know about Wu but in Xiang there is words many using '子'. I expect Xiang to have 子 as possessive.
It seems quite strange for Mandarin without 'this' and 'that'
我這部車 我這條褲 我這件衫 will all be correct.

Edited by qrasy, 01 August 2005 - 01:24 AM.

[tongyan]

There are 2 matchings of Chinese with Vietnamese, one is old and the other one is newer. Like Tibetan, in old matching Shang and Ru are considered the same.

Old one (I observe lots of cross-matching between Ping and Qu, seems addition of fricative to activate verb)
Ping tones: ngang( ) huyền(`)
Shang tones: sắc (´) nạng(.)
Qu tones: hỏi( ̉ ) ngã(~)

New one
Ping tones: ngang( ) huyền(`)
Shang tones: hỏi( ̉ ) ngã(~)
Qu tones: sắc (´) nạng(.)

'Ru category' can only  have 2 tones: Shang tones: sắc (´) nạng(.)

Thanks for the info. Do those tones you gave in Vietnamese have a Chinese character equivalent or are they native vietnamese terms?

I don't know about Wu but in Xiang there is words many using '子'. I expect Xiang to have 子 as possessive.
It seems quite strange for Mandarin without 'this' and 'that'
我這部車 我這條褲 我這件衫 will all be correct.

hmm... i agree that it wouldn't work without the 'this' and 'that' but i would contend that adding the 'this'/'that' slightly changes the meaning of the sentence. what i'm trying to say is that they are not exactly equivalent phrases.

我的車 is not the same as 我這輛車 in mandarin
the classifier cannot replace the possessive, even if 這 or 那 is placed before it.

but in cantonese the standard chinese 我的車 is equivalent to the vernacular 我部車
thereby making the classifier a possessive.

[qrasy]

I think the tone nạng should be nặng

Thanks for the info. Do those tones you gave in Vietnamese have a Chinese character equivalent or are they native vietnamese terms?

I think they are native Vietnamese terms.
I'm not really sure probably some are Chinese loans.
(huyền and sắc seem to be, there are more than 1 characters for them)

hmm...  i agree that it wouldn't work without the 'this' and 'that' but i would contend that adding the 'this'/'that' slightly changes the meaning of the sentence. what i'm trying to say is that they are not exactly equivalent phrases.

我的車 is not the same as 我這輛車 in mandarin
the classifier cannot replace the possessive, even if 這 or 那 is placed before it.

but in cantonese the standard chinese 我的車 is equivalent to the vernacular 我部車
thereby making the classifier a possessive.

Sticking classifier to the noun is also observed in Vietnamese.
• Cái này là cái gì?
Clas-this-is-clas-what
Where cái is classifier (thing). seems a use of 個.
Mandarin seems to stick 'this' with 'thing', but not with 'what', while Indonesian usually not.
•Lots of animal can be used with 'Con' (classifier) stick in head.

[tongyan]

I think the tone nạng should be nặng
I think they are native Vietnamese terms.
I'm not really sure probably some are Chinese loans.
(huyền and sắc seem to be, there are more than 1 characters for them)
Sticking classifier to the noun is also observed in Vietnamese.
• Cái này là cái gì?
Clas-this-is-clas-what
Where cái is classifier (thing). seems a use of 個.
Mandarin seems to stick 'this' with 'thing', but not with 'what', while Indonesian usually not.
•Lots of animal can be used with 'Con' (classifier) stick in head.

maybe this classifier convention was borrowed from vietnamese into cantonese? could be the other way around too but that really depends if other southern dialects also stick the classifier to the noun

[lanjingling]

Hm.. A lot of 量词 is found in Southeast Asian languages.
I want to know how classifier was used in Classical Chinese?

In thai, there are different classifiers wether you're talking about a commoner, or a monk, or a noble man, or the King or the Queen...

There are classifiers in english (& in french, as far as i know), but they are actually quantifiers, & are used only for objects with no specific shape, whose nature is not altered when they are divided, who can't be broken; like, if you divide a litter of water into 5 glasses, it will still be water, but if you divide a table in 5 parts...
Then we have, for example:
A bottle, a glass, a pint, a gallon of beer
A loaf, a piece, a slice of meat
A pot, a stick of glue
A herd of cattle

So it's a bit different than in east Asian languages.

[qrasy]

There are classifiers in english (& in french, as far as i know), but they are actually quantifiers, & are used only for objects with no specific shape, whose nature is not altered when they are divided, who can't be broken; like, if you divide a litter of water into 5 glasses, it will still be water, but if you divide a table in 5 parts...

Those measure words should not be called classifier. The name "classifier" itself already hints that each of these words will work with some things from the same class...
And all language should have measure otherwise how can you distinguish 5 liters of water and 5ml of water? Or 5 [other unit]?
A herd of cattle above is a little bit different. And grammatically, I think "a cattle" will work as well. But "3" + "book" or "1" + "book" will not work in Modern Chinese.

So it's a bit different than in east Asian languages.

I don't think Korean and Japanese need it grammatically.
I would rather call them "Southeast Asian languages".

Edited by qrasy, 28 October 2006 - 06:18 AM.

[bloodmerchant]

hmm, how about in terms of possessives? in mandarin, one would use 的 as in 我的車﹐他的車. does wu use 只 to indicate a possessive?
cantonese uses the classifier as a possessive.
我部車 我條褲 我件衫

Wu uses classifiers as possessives in the presence of personal nouns. It also uses classifiers as definite/indefinite articles.

In the case of Huzhou dialect 湖州話 (which I am not quite familiar with):

我支筆

渠部車

你只書包

本書交關好看。 (Mandarin: 書很好看。)

部車架型得哩！ (車棒極了！)

渠捺啲銅鈿偷去。 (他偷走了錢。)

我條衣裳凈脫特。 (我的衣服洗掉了。)

喫杯茶。 (喝杯茶)

換只頻道。 (換個頻道)

Shanghai dialect is also quite similar to Huzhou dialect (Northern Wu dialects, but different branch, Shanghai is a Suzhou branch dialect and Huzhou is a Tiaoxi branch dialect) and exhibits those same grammatical features, to my knowledge.

Edited by bloodmerchant, 28 November 2009 - 02:05 AM.