327 replies to this topic

[mrclub]

湊
http://tieba.baidu.com/p/1169324140

[xng]

湊
http://tieba.baidu.com/p/1169324140

Correct !

The correct pronounciation is already shown in this common phrase - 'Tau Lau Liet' 湊鬧熱

[mrclub]

Correct !

The correct pronounciation is already shown in this common phrase - 'Tau Lau Liet' 湊鬧熱

You might consider what the 2nd floor and 5th floor has to say

湊鬧熱 in Teochew is "cou ziat nao"

Edited by mrclub, 08 August 2011 - 09:08 PM.

[mrclub]

This is what the 5th floor writes:

文读是泉tshio3漳tshoo3，理论上对应的白读是tshau3，但我想不起这个字有白读的情况。
tau3是另外一个字。

He/She says that "Tau" is another word. Hmm...

7th floor says 鬥 is the correct character for "tau"
http://tieba.baidu.com/p/1169324140

Well I am not sure if it is appropriate if we compare Hokkien and Teochew pronunciation for the words, but since there should be some similarities in the pronunciation of these 2 dialects...

Edited by mrclub, 08 August 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[xng]

7th floor says 鬥 is the correct character for "tau"
http://tieba.baidu.com/p/1169324140

He is just guessing and borrowing 鬥 for the sound but 鬥 means 'compete/fight' and not 'together' so the meaning is wrong.


湊鬧熱 is pronounced as 'Tau' in hokkien and puxian colloquail language.

Furthermore, this is used in both cantonese and mandarin as 湊熱鬧 Chau Yit Naau (reverse) for the same meaning 'join together for the fun'.

In middle chinese, 'T' consonant for 湊 seem to have changed to 'Ch' as can be seen in Mandarin/Cantonese. And the original consonant 'T' forgotten. Other character such as 茶 'Tay' has not changed to 'Chay'.

Edited by xng, 09 August 2011 - 04:39 AM.

[mrclub]

http://www.zdic.net/...dicACZdicA5.htm

5. 拼湊﹑湊集。如：“把這些小碎布鬥成一個袋子。”《金瓶梅•第一回》：“都鬥分子，來與武松人情。”《喻世明言•卷三•新橋市韓五賣春情》：“我們鬥分銀子，與你作賀。”

[qrasy]

This is what the 5th floor writes:

文读是泉tshio3漳tshoo3，理论上对应的白读是tshau3，但我想不起这个字有白读的情况。
tau3是另外一个字。

He/She says that "Tau" is another word. Hmm...

This is indeed the source of suspicion of that "Tau" was another word with same meaning.
The poster is probably aware that 湊 had "清母" consonant.
To be regular, it should be read as tshau3- that is, the sound of "臭".
I would just say that it's probably still 湊, though the reading is changed, in Minnan, to avoid "臭".

He is just guessing and borrowing 鬥 for the sound but 鬥 means 'compete/fight' and not 'together' so the meaning is wrong.

It's already agreed that 鬥 is incorrect in meaning though it's a homophone.

In middle chinese, 'T' consonant for 湊 seem to have changed to 'Ch' as can be seen in Mandarin/Cantonese. And the original consonant 'T' forgotten. Other character such as 茶 'Tay' has not changed to 'Chay'.

Let me repeat again, Mandarin's C and Ch didn't come from the same consonant in Middle Chinese..
Tang's Chang'an Middle Chinese distinguished s-ś-ṣ like Sanskrit, and in addition it also had ts-tś-ṭṣ distinction (along with aspirated variants and voiced variants).
There was also ṭ (t with dot below) among the consonants, along with aspirated variants and voiced variants; "th with dot below" changes to Mandarin Ch/Cantonese Ch (but to literary Minnan Th).

湊 had 清 tsh consonant where it regularly corresponds to tsh in Minnan (and not 初 ṭṣh consonant; nor is it 昌 tśh consonant nor 徹 ṭh consonant _{where you can have Minnan th - Mandarin ch [not c]}).

It's not *t or *th at all in Old Chinese.
http://www.eastling.org/oc/oldage.aspx - no linguist in there reconstruct it as so.

---

http://starling.rine...proto&ic_any=on
Starostin found these cognates:
Tibetan: cho troop, number, host.
Burmese: ćuʔ to collect, gather, together.
One can't see T-, D- or Th- in other Sino-Tibetans (unlike in the case of 重), so, if any, it should be Minnan that changed.

http://www.zdic.net/...dicACZdicA5.htm

5. 拼湊﹑湊集。如：“把這些小碎布鬥成一個袋子。”《金瓶梅•第一回》：“都鬥分子，來與武松人情。”《喻世明言•卷三•新橋市韓五賣春情》：“我們鬥分銀子，與你作賀。”

The meaning of 湊 is already correct. Sound is incorrect on the initial, but it's just comparable to how Cantonese words like "溝" was changed only in the initial to kau1 to avoid the "bad language" g**1.
Other words with g- are not changed, e.g. 今 is gam1 not kam1.

It's interesting, though, to see that "鬥" does have such a meaning.
金瓶梅 and 喻世明言 are Ming dynasty in period, though 小說s were powerful enough to influence the vocabulary of the far south..
(probably the word "地方" is such: (7).处所，地点。《红楼梦》第六八回：“只求妹妹在二爷跟前替我好言方便方便，留我个站脚的地方儿。” - previously "所在" was what was popularly used - according to Western missionaries' records)

Edited by qrasy, 09 August 2011 - 10:14 AM.

[mrclub]

Thank you xng and qrasy for the information

Is 人 or 侬 the original character ?

Edited by mrclub, 09 August 2011 - 11:38 PM.

[xng]

Thank you xng and qrasy for the information

Is 人 or 侬 the original character ?

人 is the original character as it is a very old character.

The reason why people thought it is 儂 is because the northerners pronounce 人 as Yin/Ngin/Ren so they needed to borrow another character 儂 to approximate the sound spoken by the Min people for 'Lang'.

If you check the meaning of 儂, it actually mean 'I, you' and not 'man'. I think the Chu 楚 people during the warring state era used 'Nung/Lung' to mean I,you. Their descendants ie. Shanghai people still use it.

The literary reading for 人 is Lin which is influenced from Middle Chinese sound.
'Lang' should be the original sound used during the warring state era of Min ancestors before the Qin dynasty.

A lot of people seem to forget that the sound can change (as can be seen from the thousand of dialects in china) but the meaning still remain the same.

It is similar to the cantonese 其, when the sound change to 'Khui', they invented a new character 佢 but the original character is 其 (Khei) as used in classical chinese.

Edited by xng, 10 August 2011 - 09:05 PM.

[xng]

It's interesting, though, to see that "鬥" does have such a meaning.

If you look at the character 鬥, it looks like two kings fighting each other so this is hardly the correct character for 'together'.

If you look at Kangxi dictionary for 湊 《說文》水上人所會也。一曰聚也。

My classical chinese is not perfect but I think it means 'a gathering of people in the water'. Water element here could mean people gather on the 水 boat to 奏 play/hear music.

As I have said, maybe the sound correspondence between minnan and mandarin in this case is exceptional (although not too far off).

Let me also repeat !
湊鬧熱 (which is a common minnan phrase) has already shown us the original sound which is 'Tau'. The sound change in middle chinese to 'Chou' has become the literary sound of Minnan.
湊熱鬧 commonly used in Mandarin and Cantonese showed that 湊 is indeed the correct character.

Another similar and exceptional sound change is 到 (Kau) which is changed to 'Tou' in literary minnan. This also doesn't have a correspondence in the initial consonant with Mandarin/Cantonese as there are no other K -> T initial consonant change in Minnan too.

Colloquail -> Literary
Tau -> Chou
Kau -> Tou

Min languages originated from the Qi language while Mandarin originated from the Qin language so there need not be 100% correspondence in initial consonant change. Even though both Qi and Qin came from the same ancestral language.

Edited by xng, 10 August 2011 - 08:58 PM.

[qrasy]

the northerners pronounce 人 as Yin/Ngin (Tang dynasty)

日 consonant /ɲ/ in Middle Chinese was distinct from both Ng- (疑 consonant) and Y- 以. It's clear from Sino-Japanese (GO: n-g-y/KAN: z-g-y) and Sino-Vietnamese (nh-ng-d).
Neither Cantonese nor Hakka is perservative for 日 consonant.

If you check the meaning of 儂, it actually mean 'I, you' and not 'man'. I think the Chu 楚 people during the warring state era used 'Nung/Lung' to mean I,you. Their descendants ie. Shanghai people still use it.

Kangxi dictionary:
《廣韻》《集韻》奴冬切《正韻》奴宗切，夶音農。俗謂我爲儂。《韓愈詩》鱷魚大于船，牙眼怖殺儂。　又渠儂，他也。《古樂府》有懊儂歌。《六書故》吳人謂人儂，卽人聲之轉。甌人呼若能。　又姓。宋儂智高。　又儂人，今雲南苗類，卽僰人，沙人種。
Another meaning listed is in Kangxi dictionary is "he" (渠儂), and not "you".
"You" in Shanghai appears to be simply a rather modern meaning [楊維楨-元末明初], and there is no mention of 楚 at all.

Something that can express both "I" and "he" would be quite comparable to modern "人家".
http://www.zdic.net/...dicBEZdicAC.htm - meaning #6 in "详细解释" is just "person".
樂府詩集 dates back to Song.

And, there's no evidence of N/L confusion for Warring States.

The literary reading for 人 is Lin which is influenced from Middle Chinese sound.
'Lang' should be the original sound used during the warring state era of Min ancestors before the Qin dynasty.

One can claim that it's "descended from" original sound; though it's not the original sound itself.
Chaozhou's "Nang" is more preservative in terms of initial. Fuzhou's "Nöüng" is also very different in terms of vowel.

Norman's "Commin Min" for "Minnan rhyme ang" (i.e. the original proto-Min rhyme) should be neither *ang nor *öüng (if I'm not wrong it was something like *əng).

A lot of people seem to forget that the sound can change (as can be seen from the thousand of dialects in china) but the meaning still remain the same.

In the above "《六書故》吳人謂人儂，卽人聲之轉。甌人呼若能。", the author claimed that just a 人 with changed sound.

If you look at the character 鬥, it looks like two kings fighting each other so this is hardly the correct character for 'together'.

If you look at Kangxi dictionary for 湊 《說文》水上人所會也。一曰聚也。

Those are already agreed by everyone (i.e. 湊 has correct meaning, 鬥 has wrong meaning), I don't see any point to repeat it.

湊熱鬧 commonly used in Mandarin and Cantonese showed that 湊 is indeed the correct character.

"Correct meaning" can be simply synonyms, not necessarily the same word.
Comparable is how Cantonese's 睇 has the an analogous usage as Mandarin 看 in many cases (睇小, 睇見, 睇法) even though 睇 and 看 are not really related.

But then, by this I am not trying to dismiss the "originality" of 湊 ~ tau; as should be clear from the previous post, it's just that "other types of Chinese" cannot be used as a reason to say that it's regular Min. I have stated my viewpoint.

Another similar and exceptional sound change is 到 (Kau) which is changed to Tou in literary minnan. This also doesn't have a correspondence in the initial consonant with Mandarin/Cantonese.

I think there are no other K -> T initial consonant change in Minnan too.

Therefore if it was the character, it has to be considered irregular. When one see something weird, instead of simply stating as "irregular", one has the rights to propose it to be another character, or just a loan from another language (look at how "pai" matches 遍 in terms of first consonant). Twblg dictionary goes as far as dismissing the "originality" of "到 as kau" by putting a <替>.

Sometimes irregularity is explainable in terms of possible confusion with another word, like the case of Cantonese 溝 (avoiding ***1), 購 (avoiding 救) and Northern Mandarin's 血 (xie3, avoiding 雪 xue3).
Even the change 爾=>你 (avoiding 耳; dating to many centuries ago) is explainable this way.
"Regular colloquial" 湊 in Minnan should sound like 臭, and IMO it's a pretty reasonable motivation to change 湊 to some other reading.
[it should also sound similar enough in some variants of Mandarin so you can see 湊 cou -> "鬥" dou in some Northern speech in Ming dynasty]
I have stated my viewpoint.

Min languages originated from the Qi language while Mandarin originated from the Qin language so there need not be 100% correspondence in sound change.

1. Branching differently does not imply that a strongly regular pattern cannot be found. One just needs to split more sound categories, going back to more towards proto-form.
2. Even splitting only very recently does not mean all words have regular correspondence.
3. Which linguist made the classification "秦語" "齊語"?
A search on where this term is actually used, http://tieba.baidu.com/f?kz=935451984 immediately you see that the classification is problematic, e.g. the author put Hakka as closer to Bai than to Cantonese.
http://www.pkucn.com...01&extra=page=1 - it seems that nobody in Peking University knows who did the classification.

Edited by qrasy, 10 August 2011 - 10:26 PM.

[xng]

湊鬧熱 in Teochew is "cou ziat nao"

Teochiu could have been influenced by cantonese.

For minnan, it is 湊鬧熱 and not 湊熱鬧 (cantonese and mandarin)

[xng]

《六書故》吳人謂人儂，卽人聲之轉。甌人呼若能。　又姓。宋儂智高。　又儂人，今雲南苗類，卽僰人，沙人種。
"You" in Shanghai appears to be simply a rather modern meaning [楊維楨-元末明初], and there is no mention of 楚 at all.

吳人 are the descendants of Chu.

Meaning of 儂
http://humanum.arts....Lexis/lexi-can/

3. Which linguist made the classification "秦語" "齊語"?

I have mentioned this many times already, please see ref in this link
http://www.chinahist...nese-languages/

[qrasy]

吳人 are the descendants of Chu.

1. 吳國, 越國 and 楚國 were all separate for some time during warring states, until 越國 conquered 吳國 and later 楚國 conquered 越國.
楚 only held 吳 lands (which they got from 越國) for a bit more than one century (306BC-222BC) before 秦 conquered them.

2. And even if they were descendants of 楚, that does not mean that all (or even most) the words of 吳人 were preserved (or, looking in the other way around, that all the modern words in 吳人 came from 楚).

Meaning of 儂
http://humanum.arts....Lexis/lexi-can/

This is a modern dictionary listing modern meanings. Neither "I" nor "he" (nor "human" for that matter) is directly mentioned here.

I have mentioned this many times already, please see ref in this link
http://www.chinahist...nese-languages/

Nothing on that page actually answers the question, because the question was about who made that classification.

Edited by qrasy, 11 August 2011 - 09:48 AM.

[mrclub]

I believe I have not ask this yet

Teochew...
Morning - 早起
Noon/Mid-day - ĕ-ngou
Afternoon - ĕ-kua
Night - mê-kua
Midnight - 半暝 (pua-mê)

So anyone has any idea what is the Chinese character for "kua" ?