Re: USAGE: Beijing (was: USAGE: RE: [CONLANG] A BrSc a? & Nyuu Romaji)

On 22 Apr 02, at 17:55, Douglas Koller, Latin & Frenc wrote:

> John wrote:
>
> >Actually, I now must sail on the other tack.  [beIdZiN] is a *much*
> >better approximation for the city's name than [pekiN or [phikIN].
> >The k > dZ change happened already in the 16th century.
>
> Not g > dZ?
Remember that Wade-Giles {k} is [k] and {k'} is [k_h] -- As I
understand it, Mandarin Chinese does not differentiate between voiced
and voiceless stops, as in English, but between aspirated and
unaspirated (voiceless) ones. So whether you write the contrast k/k'
(as in WG) or g/k (as in Pinyin) is a matter of convention; hence, both
"k" and "g" would be "right" for that sound, depending on whom you ask.

> could mean there was a Wadesy-Gilesy thing goin' on
Almost certainly. Or the "Post Office" romanisation, which had some
similarities, if I'm not mistaken.

> (and what, then, with "p"? p'>p?).
Nope; p > p. Only that Wade-Giles spells [p] as {p} while Pinyin spells
that sound {b}. (Pinyin {p} is Wade-Giles {p'}, phoneticalls [p_h].)

(There was also an older English name "Peiping" for the city, but that
referred to a different Chinese pronunciation as well; the second
character was not "capital city" but rather "peace".)

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>