Re: Sound changes

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. So "mui" (whence "Amoy" for "Xiamen") and
"mng" coexist. 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". "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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>  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.

Kou

Reply