Re: Cantoromanization

D Tse

>Oh ye gods... I'm a native speaker of Cantonese and I think that his
>"Anglophone descriptions" of the sounds (as similar things have been
>described before on this list :) are pretty bad.
[snip]

>Still, as a layman transcription, the transcriptions don't look too awful,
And laymen are who it's for. Not everyone can be IPA fiends like us ;)

>unlike the Teach Yourself (Baker & Ho) romanisation, which is functional but
>like looking at a piece of burnt toast:
Agreed.

And the tones thusly:  55, 33, 22, 11, 35, 13

>And I compress tone 1 and tone 7, but we've
>  > had that discussion before.
>
>Tone 7?
People have counted the tone in Cantonese as numbering anywhere from
6 to 10 (guess it depends on how you feel about "clipped tones").
Matthews and Yip eschew the clipped but still count 7, maintaining
that the high tone has a high falling (53?, 54?) and a high level
(your 55). Frankly, I never heard the difference, and since some
texts hold that many, especially younger, speakers have merged the
two, I do, too. My Cantonese dictionary for native speakers also
features only 6.

So I'd agree with your tone analysis above, except that you've
arranged them in an order I'm not accustomed to, and what you list as
22 sounds more like 21 to me.

Kou