Re: Sound changes

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 04:27:40PM -0400, Douglas Koller, Latin & French wrote:
> HS writes:
>
> >For example, final [N=] in
> >the lower tones appear to have shifted into [u~i~]. The prime example is
> >[N=] "yellow" --> [u~j~i~]. Other examples are [mN=] "door" --> [mui],
> >[pN=] "rice" --> [p~u~i~], [sN=] "sour" --> [s~u~i~].
>
> Many characters in Hokkien, in a fashion similar to Japanese
> "kunyomi" and "onyomi", have "wenyanwen" (literary) and "baihua"
> (colloquial) readings.
Ah. That could explain a lot of things. :-)

> So "mui" (whence "Amoy" for "Xiamen") and
> "mng" coexist.
Interesting. My grandmother always said [e7 mN=] for "Xiamen". I've never
realized it was the same as "Amoy" until now!! :-)

> I have no idea what "[u~j~i~] would sound like. I've
> only heard "bng7" for "rice" in my particular neck of the woods: "jia
> bng", "let's eat".
In *my* neck of the woods, you'd only ever hear "jia pu~i~", and "jia bng"
would only be used as a deliberate archaism.


> "SuiN" is kinda interesting. It uses a different,
> made-up character, but I wonder if "suiN a", "mango", comes from
> this, as there is a variety of green pickled mango which is, like,
> mega-sour.
Probably.

> >The [N=] in higher tones seem to be preserved, though: [sN=] (high
> >falling) "to play" or "to waste", is still [sN=] but is now high rising
> >because of the tone shift. Also there is a slight semantic shift: [sN=] is
> >now exclusively "to waste". "To play" is now [tsit1 to:] -- I'm not sure
> >where this one came from. An alternative word for "play" is [i:2], which I
> >suspect comes from [li2]?
>
> Kewl. I'll need to check this out when I get home to the all-powerful
> Wörterbücher. "Chit to" is the word I'm most familiar with.
OK, so "chit to" isn't a local borrowing then. Interestingly, I keep
hearing Taiwanese people, esp. the older generation, use [sN=] for "play"
instead.

> >Then you have [li2] "you" which has become [lu] (which I find quite
> >fascinating; how does a tense front vowel become a back vowel so
> >dramatically?)
>
> I think we're back in "wen" vs. "bai" territory here, but I'm not sure.
I've only ever heard [li2] from Taiwanese speakers, but [lu] is prevalent
in my hometown, to the point even the local Indians and Malays have picked
it up in their slang (such as "lu macam mana?" -- Malay streetspeak for
"how are you?").

> >And [gua], "I", is slowly being replaced by [wua].
>
> Which would be *fine* by me. Taiwanese speakers would regularly tell
> me there was a "g" in there, and I never heard it, and if I put it
> in, I'd get funny faces as a response.
I *have* heard [gua] from one of my cousins, who speaks a slightly more
authentic (as in, closer to mainlandese) Hokkien. He would say [chi ge]
for "one of", whereas I would say [chi ?e] or [chi le].

> >Finally, "ue7" [uE] has become [ua], and "abe7" (not yet) has become
> >"abue7" [abwE:].
> >
> In Taiwan, both are possibilities, and I think involve north/south
> regional differences. This phenomenon occurs throughout the dialect
> as well: he2/hue2 for "fire", he1/hue1 for "flower", etc.
I see. Interestingly, there is a vowel shift from [hue1] to [hua1], but
[hue2] remains the same. [ue7] to [ua7], etc..

> > And [b@:], "not", has become more rounded: [bo:].
>
> Isn't this also across the board? Like, "ho2", "good", is
> transliterated as [h@], but is actually closer to that gamma-like
> looking thingy. "Lo2", "old", "bo1", "parcel", etc., etc.
Hmm. In my dialect, the vowel in "ho2" is *nowhere* near [@]; it is
definitely a well rounded [ho]. Also, "lo2" is very archaic to me; I am
used to "lau7" [lau] for "old". I've never heard "bo1" before. Could it be
"bau1" (pouch or packet)?


T

--
Why can't you just be a nonconformist like everyone else? -- YHL