Talk:Hmong language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Salamong Xiong.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Some remarks on Dananshan

• /ŋ/ can occur initially. Wang et al. (1985) gives the example ngol (RPA os) "goose". This may look like a Chinese loan but the tones don't match.
• The allophones of /i/ are not limited to loanwords. According to Wang et al., drik "to carry on one's back" is pronounced /ʈʅ/.
• Tones 7 and 8 correspond to the Chinese entering tone (入声) in earlier Chinese loanwords. Wang et al. did not call them 入声. However they do correspond to the d/m tone of RPA according to this page. Daltac (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just going off Chinese WP. How's that? — kwami (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the orthographic correspondences from that link, but they're dubious. Several are given Danashan equivalents when Danashan does not have the sound; also, the RPA d-tone is given an equiv, when it's only allophonic. — kwami (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. There are some mistakes in the webpage I mentioned. I think the correct tone correspondence is as follows.

historical tone	tone number	Dananshan orthography	RPA
			Hmoob Dawb	Green Mong
平 or A	1	b	b
	2	x	j
上 or B	3	d	v
	4	l	s	g
去 or C	5	t
	6	s	g
入 or D	7	k	s
	8	f	m

Tones 4 and 7 merged in Hmoob Dawb, while tones 4 and 6 merged in Green Mong. The tone correspondence between historical and Green Mong is given in Mortensen (2004). Correspondences for initials and finals might be even trickier. There are also considerable variation within, say, Green Mong. The phonological system described in Dictionary of Mong Njua (Lyman) is very different from the one described in this article. Daltac (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, is Hmu really the Chinese standard for Miao? I can't find it in my sources. Daltac (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Under Northern Qiandong Hmong/Miao, Ethnologue says, "Not intelligible with other varieties of Hmong. ... Hmu was chosen by the government as the standard variety. It is based on Yanghao, but with some similarities to other varieties." (15th ed.). But the 16 ed. says, "Not intelligible with other Miao varieties. ... The official standard variety of Qiandong Miao is based on Yanghao, but with some similarities to other varieties." (16th ed.)

Our WP-zh article states, "1950年代制定的《苗文方案草案（黔东方言）》规定苗文以“养蒿的语音为标准音”。" — kwami (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The first two articles of 《苗文方案草案（黔东方言）》 are:

1. 适用地区 苗语黔东方言文字（以下简称苗文）主要适用于贵州省黔东南……
2. 标准音 苗文以贵州省凯里县养蒿的语音为标准音。

basically the same thing as what the 16th ed. of Ethnologue says. I'll rewrite the sentence in the WP-zh article. Daltac (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The 16th ed. of Ethn. says that Yanghao is the standard form of Qiandong, not of Miao as a whole. And now that I read the 15th ed. again, I wonder if it doesn't say the same thing: does it consider "Hmu" to be a variety of Qiandong, rather than a synonym? — kwami (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is indeed possible that the 15th ed. considers Hmu as a variety of Qiandong, because the name of the language was "Hmong, Northern Qiandong" at that time. Daltac (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to German WP, Hmo, Xong, and Changqiandian each have their own written standard (in fact, Changqiandian has two, with a Yunnanese standard in the 威宁彝族回族苗族自治县, written in Pollard script). — kwami (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started removing the claims that Hmu is standard Miao. Most of the sources are rather ambiguous as to the scope of what it's standard of, and several others note four written standards, one each in the three ethnically Miao branches of core Hmongic, plus the Pollard standard. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this page, back in the 1950s, the Miao languages were classified as follows

• 东部方言 aka Xong
• 中部方言 aka Hmu
• 西部方言 aka Hmong
• 滇东北方言 aka A-Hmao
• unclassified: Guiyang, Huishui, Mashan, Luobohe

Four orthographies were established, one for each 方言. Later, Wang (1985) demoted Hmong and A-Hmao to 次方言, and grouped them together with the previously unclassified varieties to form the 川滇黔方言. This, however, does not change the scope of the orthographies. Wang (1985) stated correctly that the four orthographies were designed for 湘西方言 (Xong), 黔东方言 (Hmu), 川滇黔方言的川滇黔次方言 (Hmong), and 川滇黔方言的滇东北次方言 (A-Hmao), respectively. Recently another orthography was designed for Mashan Miao. Daltac (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wu and Yang (your Mashan link) give the same account of three new standards, and revamping "Old Miao". Their Mashan standard is however just a proposal, replacing a 1985 proposal that they don't think is adequate.

BTW, they do not include bz pz mz etc. in their alphabet, but say that py by my in the SW & SE varieties of Mashan correspond to bz pz mz in the Central variety, which is the basis of their standard. So why did they drop bz pz mz from the alphabet? Is it just that those sounds are absent from the Dadiba dialect theey chose?

My Chinese is almost non-existent. Can you tell if SW or SE Mashan correspond to Wang's Luodian Moyin, Luodian Pingyan, Wangmo, or Wangmo–Luodian branches of Western Hmongic? — kwami (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a word on by, py, my in the Mashan Miao article. Daltac (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for interrupting, but I just want to say nice job on improving the article and maybe get your opinions on something. Just having read the entire article for the first time in almost a year, I think that a person with no background in linguistics would find the article long and overly technical. While I myself found it to be an interesting read, I'm wondering if it might be too much information in one place to give the average reader what they want. Perhaps we should break it into at least two separate articles. There seems to be significant difference between White and Green Hmong (ie the Hmong of Southeast Asia) and Miao (or the dialects in China). I personally know speakers of White and Green Hmong who say that most of the Hmong dialects in China are incomprehensible. I would venture to guess that reasons the research still calls them a "dialect continuum" instead of a "language family" are political (no Hmong State, Hmong isn't a national language) and not linguistic. As a comparison, on the Thai language page we don't describe the phonology or list the consonant/vowel tables of Lao or Tai Dam or even Lanna or Southern Thai, which are genetically more similar than some of the various Hmong "dialects". Anyway, I'm just thinking aloud, and wondering what the two of you think about the matter.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dananshan is quite close to White & Green Hmong. Other Miao languages are much more distinct. When your friends say they find "Miao" incomprehensible, that doesn't tell us much is we don't know which Miao they're speaking of. Chinese Miao find other varieties of Miao incomprehensible as well. I don't know of any study which separates varieties based on mutual intelligibility. Matisoff & Ethnologue separate White and Green Hmong, but AFAIK they can generally understand each other. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I found this in the request to establish an ISO code for Hmong / Chuanqiandian Miao:[1]

A colleague has talked with speakers of a number of these closely-related lects in the US, in Thailand and in China, and has had many discussions with Chinese linguists and foreign researchers or community development workers who have had extensive contact with speakers of these lects. As a result of these conversations this colleague believes that many of these lects are likely to have high inherent mutual intelligibility within the cluster. Culturally, while each sub-group prides itself on its own distinctives, they also recognize that other sub-groups within this category are culturally similar to themselves and accept the others as members of the same general ethnic group. However, this category of lects is internally varied and geographically scattered and mixed over a broad land area, and comprehensive intelligibility testing would be required to confirm reports of mutual intelligibility throughout the cluster.

"These closely-related lects" is said to correspond to the 第一土語 (1st local dialect) of the Chuanqiandian cluster of Chinese usage. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unclassified Miao in Wang (1985)

All the varieties Wang (1985) listed as unclassified were classified in Li (2000). SE Mashan corresponds to Luodian Muyin. SW Mashan corresponds to Wangmo (Dalang). Daltac (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Great. I created stubs for Wang's unclassified branches. I can now merge those two to Mashan. (Wangmo and not Wangmo–Luodian, correct?) How were the others classified? The stubs link from West Hmongic. — kwami (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I found it online. The wording isn't exactly the same, but it looks as though Dushan and Luodian-pingyan are the E & S branches of Pingtang (the W branch is Wangmo, but I can't tell if it matches one of Wang's Wangmos). It looks like Qianxi-Pingba-Qingzhen-Liuzhi might be W. Guiyang, and Ziyun-Zhunning might be C. Guiyang, since those are the new dialects and the first parts of the names match. Is that correct? — kwami (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost. Wang-Mao (1995) (and presumably Wang 1994) already identified two more varieties of Guiyang: Northwestern Guiyang (=Ziyun-Zhenning; names after the equal sign follow Strecker 1987) and Mid-southern Guiyang (=Qianxi-Pingba-Qingzhen-Liuzhi). Li (2000) confirmed this and gave new estimates of the number of speakers. Li added a new branch, Pingtang, under Western Hmongic, composed of four varieties: Northern Pingtang (=Pingtang), Southern Pingtang (=Luodian Pingyan), Western Pingtang (=Wangmo-Luodian), and Eastern Pingtang (=Dushan). Li also added one variety of Hmu: Western Hmu.

It is quite easy to match Li (2000) to Wang (1985) as they both specified the towns/townships. It is Strecker who created such confusing terms as Wangmo and Wangmo-Luodian. Daltac (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. How many speakers of W. Hmu?

Here it would seem the two new branches of Guiyang are reversed.

What are the 3 branches of the Chuanqiandian subdialect? The first is Dananshan, which I assume corresponds to Hmong in Wang 1983; the second I don't recognize, but assume is 小花苗; but the third we don't cover. Is there any particular name it should go by? — kwami (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Li (2000), Western Hmu has more than 10000 speakers. They were identified, in 1992, as part of the Yao ethnic group. You are absolutely right about Guiyang. Wang-Mao (1995) divides Chuanqiandian subdialect into 第一土语 (first patois, 1.4 million speakers), 第二土语 (second patois, 84000), 第三土语 (third patois, 3000). Daltac (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Hmu info. Will add.

Chuanqiandian: Yes, but what is the 第三土语? Shall we call it "Zhijin Miao"? — kwami (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about that. It is spoken in the Xixiu District (administrative center of Anshun). Daltac (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Zhijin County? I thought that's what was listed. — kwami (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Wang-Mao (1995) says 川黔滇方言川黔滇次方言第三土语 is spoken in 贵州省安顺市城郊和安顺县旧州一带 (now part of Xixiu District). The classification of the 1950s made a distinction between 西部方言第一次方言第一土语 (spoken in 叙永、古蔺、金沙、赤水、大方、毕节、镇雄、文山、屏边、个旧) and 西部方言第一次方言第二土语 (spoken in 织金(Zhijin)、水城、隆林、睦边、广南). However, in Wang (1985), the two are lumped together under the name 川黔滇方言川黔滇次方言第一土语cqd. Daltac (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going off of Lee (2000), here,[2] who lists 川黔滇方言川黔滇次方言第三土语 as 贵州织金猪场. — kwami (talk)

I see. Li (2000) indeed gives 贵州织金猪场 as a representative of his 第三土语. I hardly find this useful though, as he does not elaborate on his 第三土语. Daltac (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll call it Anshun Miao (please object if you find anything wrong with that name; my reason for choosing it over Xixiu is purely OR, as I fear many of these names are inaccessible to many English speakers as is, and "Xixiu" is just about the least accessible pinyin spelling there is), and I will mention the locals listed in both sources. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Any name other than 第三土语 is OR, but I find Anshun Miao especially ambiguous. Anshun is now a prefecture-level city, and counties such as Ziyun and Zhenning are inside its borders. The overwhelming majority of Miao residents of Anshun don't speak Wang's 第三土语.

Again I don't see how Wang's 第三土语 is related to Zhijin. Wang explicitly included Zhijin in his 第一土语 cqd. Li's book is not about 川黔滇次方言 at all, and he claims that for the varieties not described in his book, his list is based on the classification of the 1950s (thus distinct from Wang's). The only thing Li tells us about the 第三土语 on his list is that 贵州织金猪场 is a representative. (By the way, there is currently no 猪场 town or township in 织金. It could be a typo.) What is your reason for identifying Wang's 第三土语 with the 第三土语 on Li's list? Daltac (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The other two matched. I thought there could have been a change in scope as new data came in. If Li is using a 50's classification, then he's too dated to be of use. I'll remove him from the stub. — kwami (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

blu

Thanks WilliamThweatt for helping update the page. Since 2008, "blu" has been deprecated by Ethnologue, which split that old code into 4 languages (1 of which, Small Flowery Miao, doesn't even show up in this sidebar of related languages... something to review?) The 4 are:

• Hmong Njua [hnj] (the new identifier for Hmong Njua)
• Chuanqiandian Cluster Miao [cqd]
• Horned Miao [hrm]
• Small Flowery Miao [sfm]

I'd be interested to see an explanation with cites for why this subset of all Hmong language codes is listed in this sidebar. – SJ + 14:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Medical terms

I found some documents that discuss medical terms in Hmong:

• "Glossary of Medical Terminology English-Hmong." (Archive) California Department of Health Services (CDHS) Refugee Health Section. 2004.
• "Hmong-English Mental Health Terminology Glossary." (Archive) Wisconsin Hmong Mental Health Professional Group. Made with support of the: Wisconsin Refugee Mental Health Program, Office of Immigrant Integration Services, Department of Workforce Development. First Edition, 2003.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Education terms

Here is a glossary of education terms

• Vang, Lue (translator). "ENGLISH-HMONG BILINGUAL GLOSSARY OF SCHOOL TERMINOLOGY - COV LUS MIS KUJ TXHAIS UA LUS HMOOB." (Archive) Southeast Asia Community Resource Center, Folsom Cordova Unified School District. 1988.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hmong language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sealang.net/archives/mks/pdf/27%3A317-328.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101031002604/http://wold.livingsources.org/vocabulary/25 to http://wold.livingsources.org/vocabulary/25
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214070244/http://www.moob.org/ to http://www.moob.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merging Continuants with Approximants

I merged continuants with approximants for two reasons. The primary reason is in the Global Lexicostatistical Database, where they note that "moon" (hli) is pronounced as [ɬi˧] in Green Hmong/Moob Njua, but as [l̥i˧] in White Hmong/Hmoob Dawb. This suggests that the differentiation between fricative and approximant is marginal, at least in those two varieties is marginal. Less pressing is that /l/ contrasts primarily with /ɬ/. This set-up essentially puts the two next to each other, showing the voiceless/voiced contrast, rather than focusing on the fricative/approximant contrast.

The Dananshan case is a little bit less clear, especially since I'm not sure if that appears in the Global Lexicostatistical Database. For the time being, I merged the two, especially since /w/ is foreign-only, which would be the only reason to have the second row, while the other two dialects lack it. Blanket P.I. (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradicting statements in first paragraph?

1st paragraph: "Over half of all Hmong speakers speak the various dialects in China, where the Dananshan (大南山) dialect forms the basis of the standard language.[5]" Now, what [5] says: "Not of Chinese Miao as a whole for which the standard language is based on Hmu". So, in China, Standard Hmong is based on Dananshan, but Standard Miao is based on Hmu... Aren't Hmong and Miao just synonyms? Either Dananshan or Hmu should be considered as the Standard. --Teresa e Junior (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The terminology can be confusing. See Miao people, Hmong people, Hmongic languages and West Hmongic to help unravel the classifications. In short, "Miao" and "Hmong" are not synonyms. "Miao" is the Chinese umbrella term which collectively refers to a grouping of many different ethnic/linguistic groups, of which Hmong is but one. Hmu is another. To make matters more confusing, the Hmong language itself is actually a group of closely related varieties that are often not mutually intelligible. This group (Hmong language) is, in turn, included in a larger group of more-distantly-but-still-closely-related languages called West Hmongic, which is itself a division of a much larger grouping of related languages called simply Hmongic. So, both Hmong and Hmu are classified as "core" Hmongic languages, but within the Hmongic subfamily, Hmong is in the Western branch while Hmu constitutes a separate or Central branch (depending on the classification being used), making them "sister" languages rather than dialects of the same language.

The footnote, which does not cite any source for its claim, means that Hmu is used in China as the basis for a standard of communication for all of the Miao peoples (not only the Hmong), while the Hmong people consider the Dananshan dialect of Hmong to be the standard for Hmong.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 19:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Great explanation, thanks! I'm not sure the article makes this clear, though. For example: "The three dialects described here are known as Hmong Daw (...), Mong Njua (...), and Dananshan (Standard Chinese Miao). Also, Hmong / Miao in the sidebar makes it seem like they are simply the same. I think the article could benefit from your explanation! --Teresa e Junior (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Characters appearing as boxes

in the orthography section there are numerous examples that only show blank boxes where some characters should be. 202.58.131.46 (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)