Jump to content

Talk:Southern Min

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 60.229.21.67 (talk) at 04:33, 7 May 2008 (→Map?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconLanguages Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChina Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't like Min Nan or Min-nan. I think under (mainland Chinese) pinyin spacing conventions Minnan is the most appropriate, although I could put up with Min-nan as that suits the Taiwanese. But I have never seen Min Nan used, and I think it's ugly. Andrew Yong 22:48, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Chinese language. -- ran 23:18, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't Min Nan foremost the name of a region, synonomous with "Southern Min"? A-giau 13:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Min Nan (or Minnan or Min-nan) is the accepted translation for 閩南話. Similarly we use Wu for 吳語, Xiang for 湘語, etc. -- ran 13:27, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
The question is whether it is also the accepted name of a cultural/linguistic region in Fujian, i.e. Xiamen, Quanzhou, Zhangzhou, to name a few of the cities. See minnan:Bân-lâm for native usage (referring to the region, not language). A-giau 20:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, that I don't know — isn't it just short for "South Fujian"? If it also refers to a cultural concept, then feel free to move Min Nan to Minnan (linguistics). -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 20:30, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Intelligibility

Is Min Nan intelligible w/ Cantonese? It should be indicated, for comparison, whether it is or is not. Thanks! ~ 70.57.137.163 07:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, they generally aren't mutually intelligible. --Beirne 10:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with that, there is some level of mutual intelligibility. There are some words that sound the similar because they are all have been sinicised throughout history. But they are generally very different.--Visik 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article mutual intelligibility, if you have not already done so. The situation that you have described is true for many languages that are not mutually intelligible (ex. Spanish and French), which renders your argument not particularly useful from a linguistics point of view. In short, it is too vague a statement to say that language A has some level of mutual intelligibility with language B. Here is a scenario that may help in determining mutual intelligibility between Cantonese and Min Nan (presumably, referring to Amoy Min Nan):
  1. A Cantonese speaker with no knowledge of Min Nan.
  2. A Min Nan speaker with no knowledge of Cantonese.
  3. The Cantonese speaker is speaking to the Min Nan speaker in Cantonese
  4. The Min Nan speaker is speaking to the Cantonese speaker in Min Nan
If under the above conditions:
  1. The Cantonese speaker does not need to simplify or alter his speech or writing (i.e. the writing reflects spoken Cantonese, not Mandarin), and still be fully understood by the Min Nan speaker (even for advanced levels of discourse).
  2. The Min Nan speaker does not need to simplify or alter his speech or writing (i.e. the writing reflects spoken Min Nan, not Mandarin), and still be fully understood by the Cantonese speaker (even for advanced levels of discourse).
If the above two were true, then Cantonese and Min Nan could be said to be mutually intelligible. Otherwise, the languages are part of a dialect continuum, hence the numerous cognate words. British English and American English are mutually intelligible. Taiwanese and Amoy are mutually intelligible. However, by the above criteria, Cantonese and Min Nan are not mutually intelligible. -- A-cai 05:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15:33 -- 28 October 2005(AEST) Intelligibility is a question both of degree and of the amount of contextual information available. Under conditions where contextual information is available and relatively unambiguous (e.g. in a simple act of buying and selling a souvenir item), it is possible for speakers of the two dialects to understand each other. This applies to other pairs of dialects and potentially languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.111.158.198 (talk • contribs) 06:38, October 28, 2005 (UTC) 

  The above comment is nonsense and should be deleted, for in the simple act of 
  buying and selling a souvenir item, even speakers of English and and speakers of
  Mandarin are possible to understand each other.
  Minnan is mutually unintelligible with Cantonese and Mandarin, period. --
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.215.56 (talk • contribs)

The intelligibility among different divisions of Min Nan (e.g. Amoy, Teochiu, Zhanjiang, Haifeng/Lufeng) should better be elaborated in the article. :-) — Instantnood 20:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an intelligibility section. -- A-cai 12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tones

Tones of ChaoZhou differs very much from other Min Nan. see: Teochew_dialect —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.40.139.167 (talk • contribs) 08:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cellophane noodles question

Hello, there's some controversy about the origin of the name saifun to refer to cellophane noodles. It was earlier thought that this was a Japanese name (i.e. harusame saifun) but it now seems it might be related to the Mandarin "fen si." Is it possible that "saifun" is a Min Nan pronunciation? It doesn't seem to be Cantonese. Thank you, Badagnani 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hokkien

Someone just added "(Hokkien)" after the name of the language in the box up top. But if Chaozhou is a dialect of Min Nan and there are many variants and dialects, is it proper to put "Hokkien" (one particular form) as the alternate name of the language? I don't think that's correct. Badagnani 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "Hokkien" is the more proper name for this language, or dialect if that is what you prefer. "Hokkien" is a Min nan word that has been in use for hundreds of years by native speakers in Southern Fujian, the motherland of Min nan, and by vast number of emigrants therefrom. "Min nan" is a relatively new Mandarin word coined by the ruling class Mandarin officials around fifty years ago. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.215.56 (talk • contribs)

Hokkien is a term used by Malaysians, Singaporeans and Indonesians to describe Minnan. It is not used elsewhere. People in Taiwan use "Taiwanese" to describe their own variation of Min-nan. The proper name should always be Min-nan hua. Hokkien is the min-nan word for Fujian. This connotation is incorrect if it is only used to describe Min-nan because there is also Minbei (Hokchiu).--Visik 05:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Min-nan hua" is the official "mandarin" name; so it is no really correct neither. IMO, the tongue itself doesn't have a local formal name, as they simply call it by their location! eg. taiwan call it "taiwan tongue", whereas fujian and overseas call it "fujian tongue"... XP Akinkhoo 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, anyone know why they call the common chinese, "Tang's Man Tongue" why not Han? or were we still independence back then? O_o Akinkhoo 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Min Nan → Minnan and:

Correct pinyin spelling rules (cf. Jiangnan, Shanbei, Nanzhong, and half the provinces in China). Use of pinyin per WP:MOS-ZH —  AjaxSmack  08:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Justification and motivation are correct pinyin usage. The basics of pinyin rules on word formation can be found at Pinyin#Capitalization_.26_formation and more details are in the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary by John DeFrancis and similar books. In Chinese, 拼音化问题 by 周有光 covers this. As seen in the examples above, all other geographical terms follow the one word format (e.g., Beijing, not Bei Jing, Jiangnan, not Jiang Nan). The Chinese government's official English website uses Minbei and Minnan (here). I am interested in justication and motivation for opposition to the move. —  AjaxSmack  07:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

    1. If Min Nan were truly based on Pinyin spelling, I might agree with the above logic (that it should be Minnan instead of Min Nan). However, we cannot be definitive on that point. Min Nan might also be based on Wade-Giles or Yale, in which case Pinyin spelling rules would not necessarily apply.
    2. If we really want to change it, which means changing a lot of entries on Wiktionary, why not change it to Southern Min (Min Nan), Eastern Min (Min Dong) etc? It seems to me, that this would be more helpful to an English speaking audience.

A-cai 08:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Isn't the argument that the spelling "Minnan" (not "Min Nan") is the one based on pinyin? I'm confused. Badagnani 09:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oh, when you say "If Min Nan were truly based on Pinyin spelling," you mean "If the POJ romanization used to render Min Nan text," not the word Min Nan. Good point. So, in the POJ romanization, how is the word Min Nan spelled? Badagnani 09:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...Why not change it to Southern Min", etc. That is certainly a possibility. However, "Southern Min" in English carries the implicit meaning of "Southern form of the Min language," something not (necessarily) meant by 閩南語 (Mǐnnányǔ) which is more correctly "the speech of Southern Fujian" (Min being an abbreviation for Fujian rather than a language name).
Mǐnnányǔ is Bân-lâm-gú, Bân-lâm-gí, Bân-lâm-ōe, Hō-ló-ōe or Hok-kiàn-ōe in Minnan but none of these is widely used in English and use of them carries some political baggage.
If the Min language articles were based on Wade-Giles, the current titles would be Min-nan, Min-tung, Min-pei, and Min-chung which is not the case. —  AjaxSmack  10:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't quite understand how "southern form of the Min language" is inappropriate. The nan of Minnan certainly refers to the geographical relationship/location with reference to other Min languages, and the Minnan languages are indeed spoken in the south (compared with Mindong or Minbei or Minzhong).
Also, Minnan languages are not only spoken in Min (Fujian), but also in Taiwan, Guangdong and Hainan. It does not make much sense to think of Minnan as referring only to the languages of southern Fujian. Min is indeed the abbreviation for the Fujian province; however, if Min in Minnan did mean "the speech of Southern Fujian" (i.e. merely geographical reference instead of linguistic, or a combination of both), the Chaoshan languages would be more correctly called Northeastern Yue languages and Hakka Northern Yue languages, and we would have as many Chinese dialect groups as there are Chinese provinces. Shingrila 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that Min can also be used to refer to Fujian (Hokkien) province. However, it seems that the convention is to not translate the province word when it comes to dialects (see: Xiang). It may also be useful to think of Min as the Min River which divides Fujian province at Fuzhou. In this sense, Minnanyu would be translated as the speech to the south of the Min River (primarily centered around Quanzhou, Xiamen and Zhangzhou). According to this interpretation, it may be easier to understand how Fuzhou speech came to be called Min Dong (the speech at the east end of the Min River). However, I still think Southern Min is best.

A-cai 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We are talking about the name of the language(s) in English; the ISO standard uses (e.g) "Min Nan". There is an important reason here: Min Nan will be pronounced by a native speaker of English who is unfamiliar with it as ~ "min nan". Minnan will be pronounced ~ "minun" ... the English names used in IS 639 are very well thought out. And I do think it should be called Min Nan and not Southern Min for essentially the same reason that the English name of the capitol of China(PRC) is not "Northern Jing". Robert Ullmann 11:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Voyager Amoy clip

Dear A-cai,

You provided the POJ for the Voyager Amoy clip as: "Ū-êng, to̍h lâi gún chia chē ô·!" However, on [[1]], Heruler gives "Ū êng, tióh lâi gún chia chē!" Did you mean to use "tioh" instead of "toh"? Tøsia! Oniows 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding sooner, I don't check this page as often as I should. There are some minor spelling and pronunciation differences in the Amoy dialect. This is an example of such a difference. The two words to̍h and tio̍h actually are the same word, but based on different accents. To the best of my knowledge tio̍h is based on the Quanzhou accent, whereas to̍h is based on the Zhangzhou accent. In Xiamen, both pronunciations seem to be interchangeable. To me, the voice on the recording is too slurred at that point to say definitively, but it sounds like to̍h rather than tio̍h to me. The person at the above website does not appear to be overly concerned with absolute faithfulness to the pronunciation on the original recording. For example, he spells chia̍h-pá bē (Xiamen accent) as chiáh pá bōe (Zhangzhou accent). It means the same thing, but it is not what the voice on the recording says. The recording clearly says bē, which makes sense, because both gún (we) and bē (question particle) are based on the Xiamen accent. If it were bōe, the person would have more likely pronounced we as góan. However, since Min Nan is not my native language, I would love to hear the opinion of a native speaker (especially someone from the Xiamen area). I hope this response was not too long winded. -- A-cai 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need new pages?

I think we should consider reorganizing the pages related to Min Nan. In my opinion, the Min Nan article should describe the Min Nan family of languages:

  1. Amoy (linguistics)
  2. Southern Zhejiang
    • I'm not as familiar with these.
  3. Chaoshan
  4. Hainan

The numbered items each represent mutually unintelligible branches in the Min Nan family tree. The bullets underneath each number represent the various mutually intelligible accents that belong to that branch (not comprehensive). Part of the problem is that Min Nan is colloquially associated with Xiamen speech or Taiwanese (which are mutually intelligible). This is similar to how Chinese is colloquially associated with Standard Mandarin, despite the fact that it really represents a family (ex. Sinitic) of mutually unintelligible families (ex. Min) of mutually unintelligible families (ex. Min Nan) of languages/dialects! I think the articles we have now should stay, but should be more narrowly focused on their topic. For example the Taiwanese article should not spend time on basics common to all Amoy speech forms, such as orthography, tones and grammar (except to the extent that these things vary from Quanzhou, Xiamen, and Zhangzhou speech). To use English as an analogy:

  1. German language
    • whatever
  2. English language

Including the grammar explanations in the Taiwanese article, but not in the Xiamen (linguistics) article (which does not exist), or in the Amoy (linguistics) article, would be akin to including a grammar section in the American English, but not in the British English article (which would not exist in our scenario), or in the English article (which would redirect to Germanic in our scenario). One problem is that we do not have a standard term that everyone can agree upon for the language which is spoken in Quanzhou, Xiamen, Zhangzhou and Taiwan. Min Nan is popularly used, but is also a family of mutually unintelligible languages/dialects. In summary, I think we need separate articles, but I'm not sure what to call them. The following are mutually intelligible: Quanzhou, Xiamen, Zhangzhou, Taiwanese. Each should be treated in a separate article. My vote would be to put most of the basic information about the language (Quanzhou, Xiamen, Zhangzhou, Taiwanese --- not Teochew (dialect), Qiongwen etc.) in a single article (not Min Nan). You could call it Amoy (linguistics). Quanzhou (linguistics), Xiamen (linguistics), Zhangzhou (linguistics), and Taiwanese (linguistics) would only contain information that is unique to those areas. At some point, I would like to work on the above, but am curious if there are any opinions about my proposal. -- A-cai 13:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literary vs. Colloquilal (vernacular) readings

The Amoy (linguistics) article touches on this issue but does not give reasons for literary vs colloquial readings. From [2], "During the South Song dynasty, the officials from the north brought the official language. Anyone studying to take the exam must know the official pronunciation of the Hanzi. Hoklo acquired its literary sublanguage during this time. Unlike earlier, the northern influence was restricted to the literary usage: reading an official document, people's names, reading digits (while counting in colloquial way)." It also says colloquial Amoy is sourced from ancient Han language and coastal aborignal language. I don't have any published sources to back this up, but I think it would be nice to point this out.Oniows 14:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I agree that the literary/colloquial section of the Amoy article needs fleshing out. First, we need some historical background which explains the phenomenon. Second, we need more examples of how this phenomenon plays out in everyday usage. For the second one, I'm still trying to think about the best approach to this. I'm trying (without much luck so far) to identify discernable rules for when to use which one. So far, I have come up with (loosely):
  • single syllable words -> colloquial (ex. 名 miâ name, 學/学 o̍h to learn, 大 tōa big)
  • multi-syllable words -> mostly literary (ex. 名詞/名词 bêng-sû noun, 大學/大学 tāi-ha̍k university)
The problem is that there seem to be a lot of exceptions to the above generality. For example, 大學/大学 goes by the colloquial reading in some places (tōa-o̍h), or even a mixture of the two (tōa-ha̍k). It would be good if we could find some academic research about this. My gut feeling is that it's not so much about precise rules as it is about how the word came into the language and the relative lack of standards organizations compared to languages like English. Of course, English has a lot of standards organizations, and it still has its inconsistencies :) -- A-cai 09:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual intelligibility (again)

This seems to be getting unnecessarily heated. The question is, does mutual intelligibility mean actually sitting down and trying to speak together, or sitting down and comparing words and phrases (You say "ni hao"? I say "Nei ho"! That's similar)? And how fast would each participant in the conversation be speaking. I have witnessed Mandarin speakers trying to understand rapid-fire restaurant Cantonese, for example, and not understanding anything at all. So it would depend on the circumstances, and the above variables. Let's have discussion rather than heated revert wars. Badagnani 05:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but let's also stop with the anecdotes and quote credible sources. No one on wiki should be citing their own supposed expertise in a language as the sole support for their position. If the person who deleted my cite would have replaced it with a credible cite, I would not have objected. If I did object to the new cite, it would be my task to find a better cite which supports my position.
Now, to specifically answer your question; Please read the mutual intelligibility article. Also, the cite that I listed is quite detailed with respect to what is meant by mutual intelligibility. Simply put, if a language is 50% mutually intelligible with another language, the speakers of those two languages are unlikely to be able to communicate with each other in any meaningful way. So, the two arguments are not contradictory. Perhaps, a person reading the 50% stat might mistakenly assume that the two speakers can understand each other half of the time, but that is not what the cited article is suggesting. Again, read the cited web article in full, and see if you still disagree. -- A-cai 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask whether the hypothetical individuals conversing would be speaking at their normal speed, or would they be slowing down, repeating words, rephrasing unclear phrases, etc.? These are important questions that you should address, because this lack of background is at the very root of why the cited figure is being disputed. Badagnani 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate, I'm not disputing Edmundkh's claim that a Mandarin speaker and a Min Nan speaker cannot communicate in any meaningful way. I'm saying that the only way to move past this is to cite a credible source. Removing a source, and replacing it with personal opinion is counter-productive. I will grant that the stats are potentially misleading. But that means we should replace it with a better cite (or a better explanation of the stats). I like the cited article because it gives hard numbers, and tells you specifically what it is measuring. However, this might be confusing to some. Read the following, and see if you like it any better:
http://www.glossika.com/en/dict/faq.php#18
What do you think? -- A-cai 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Let's put this into perspective: German and English are 60% mutually intelligble, according to the article. Therefore, 50% mutual intelligibility between Min Nan and Mandarin means that these two languages have less in common with each other than English and German. -- A-cai 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not saying Mandarin and Min Nan are mutually intelligible but that they have about 40 percent of words that are cognate (i.e. identical or nearly identical)? That's a big difference, because I think when the general reader reads "42 percent mutually intelligible" (or whatever the figure was), they'd think that if a Mandarin speaker and a Min Nan speaker sat down to converse, they could get 42 percent of the meaning, when speaking at their normal speed. Badagnani 20:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English is a Germanic language, but when watching German films I can catch only a few words like "Mutter," "Vater," "Hund," "Sprach," "Achtung," etc. Not much more. Yes, this is anecdotal but still a part of understanding what is meant by "mutually intelligible." Badagnani 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now we're seeing eye to eye. That was what I was trying to say before. 50% mutual intelligibility does not mean that speakers of two languages can understand each other half the time. Perhaps, the article is not clear in qualifying the statement. The problem is that we really need Edmundkh to weigh in on this since he was the one who originally objected to the wording. I have already posted a message to his talk page, inviting him to participate in this discussion. -- A-cai 20:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the figure references the percent of cognate/nearly identical words, then a quick sentence or footnote pointing this out would solve the whole problem. I'm glad the discussion page has fulfilled its purpose: discussion leading to understanding and clarity. I've just been doing some reading in the field of intercultural communication and find that there's a lot of great work being done in this area. Badagnani 20:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're waiting for Edmundkh's input, here is another way to approach it. The 50.4% mutual intelligibility stat is based on two separate stats. The first is a phonological comparison between Mandarin and Amoy Min Nan (62% similar[3]). The second is a lexical comparison between Mandarin and Amoy Min Nan (15.1% similar[4]). -- A-cai 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this take differences in tones into account? I think that even nearly identical phonetic phrases or sentences between northern and southern dialects can be misunderstood (or not understood at all) due to differences in tone, intonation, inflection, accent, etc. Badagnani 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article:
Measures the distance of mutual phonological intelligibility between these Minnan dialects: Xiamen, Chaozhou. This measurement takes into account differences in initials, finals, and tones.[5]
So yes, tones appear to be factored into the comparison. -- A-cai 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm here! Sorry for being late because I'm quite busy in the Malay Wikipedia and my personal life. It's a good practise to cite a source, but I suspect that the author of that website mistaken "lexical similarity" as "mutual intelligibility". A-cai said that English and German are 60% mutually intelligible. But again, I think you must have mistaken "lexical similarity" and "mutual intelligibility". You can read in the article of LS that: 

English was evaluated to have a lexical similarity of 60% with German

while in the article of MI, it is stated: 

In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a property exhibited by a set of languages when
speakers of any one of them can readily understand all the others without intentional study or
extraordinary effort.

These sentences may be edited by someone else anytime, as I've just copied from the articles in Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia articles are not suitable to be cited, but I think these are good enough to be shown here.

Even though English and German share about 60% of the same or similar vocalbularies, yet I as an English speaker cannot understand German, and I'll have to learn it. Mandarin and Min Nan may even share a high percentage of words, but the pronunciation differences are so many, that I can only catch a few words when my mother talks in Min Nan to my aunt and my father's friend of Min Nan ancestry. And besides that, my mother told me that learning Min Nan is easy for a Teochew speaker like her, but harder for the reverse. So I totally agree with the mutual intelligibility between Teochew and Hokkien. I always cannot distinguish between them when listening to any of them.

So, what do you people think then?--Edmundkh 17:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, no matter what happened, please keep in mind that not all online stuff are true. Some may be giving wrong information, you know. Don't believe everything on the net. Those who know nothing may be cheated after reading the articles in Uncyclopedia. --Edmundkh 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Do you disagree with the information from www.glosika.com? If so, I'm a little confused. The website actually supports your contention that Mandarin speakers cannot understand Min Nan speakers. I agree that not all online stuff is true, which is why www.glosika.com seems like a good cite (I admit that I have not personally checked the references cited at www.glosika.com, but they do appear to be rather extensive). Moreover, the information cited at www.glosika.com coincides with my personal experience with both Min Nan and Mandarin.
As for your question about Teochew and Amoy Hokkien, I speak Amoy, but find Teochew almost incomprehensible. They do share more in common from a lexical stand point, than Mandarin and Amoy, but the pronunciation is considerably different between Teochew and Amoy. Take a look at Sino-Tibetan Swadesh lists, this will give you a good starting point to compare the two languages. -- A-cai 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am only disagreeing that Mandarin is mutually intelligible with Min Nan. First of all, you have to understand clearly what is mutual intelligibility. It is said to mean the speaker of one language doesn't really have to study the other one in order to understand it. I really wonder why does that site said that Mandarin ang Min Nan have 46.1& of MI. As I said, probably it was supposed to mean lexical similarity. Besides that, why did you said that English and German are 60% MI?

And for Teochew vs Amoy, sorry I've never have anyone around me speaking Amoy. I only have my father speaking Pou Sen (Hin Hua) but a seriously polluted one, polluted by Mandarin, Cantonese and Malay. He used to speak to my grandma who is his mother. And I have also my mom who speaks Teochew to her own family members (eg her mother, sisters, brothers...). My mom also speaks the Min Nan which my father call that "standard Hokkien" to an aunt of mine who is a Hokkien, and also a friend of my father who is also a Hokkien. If I've not mistaken, he is of Anxi ancestry I think... I cannot understand anyone stated in this paragraph. But for my dad, he said that with his knowledge of HinHua, he can also understand "standard Hokkien", Teochew and Fuzhou. --Edmundkh 09:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your father's use of the term "standard Hokkien" most likely refers to Amoy Hokkien, which is what I am calling Amoy. It is considered by many to be the de facto standard for Min Nan. -- A-cai 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree if you said that you cannot understand Teochew, as I found that for "huang" in Mandarin (yellow), it's "ng" in Hokkien while it's "Ooi" in Amoy and Changchiew. --Edmundkh 09:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all of these (except for Mandarin) varieties of Min Nan? Badagnani 09:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what is the Changchiew language? We don't have an article for that. Badagnani 09:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I mean Changchew. It's another dialect of Min Nan, apart from Amoy. Fuzhou is under Min Dong. Pou Sen is directly under Min. --Edmundkh 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just made several more redirects for the various spellings of Zhangzhou. Badagnani 09:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the 50%, 60% mutual intelligibility etc., the website (www.glosika.com) explains in detail exactly what they mean by "overall mutuall intelligibility" (phonetic and lexical similarities combined). For purposes of clarity, perhaps we should avoid the term "mutual intelligibility" whenever possible. Your comments have proven that the term tends to confuse more often than enlighten. How about if we include a sentence as follows:
  • According to www.glossika.com, Mandarin and and Amoy Min Nan are 62% phonetically similar[6] and 15.1% lexically similar[7]. In comparison, German and English are 60% lexically similar[8]
What do you think of the above wording? -- A-cai 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's much clearer. But what is the English-German phonetically similar percentage? Badagnani 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
www.ethnologue.com did not provide that stat. Maybe we can find it somewhere else on the internet. -- A-cai 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Use that statement! --Edmundkh 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated the above wording into a new and (I think) improved paragraph which follows the spirit of this discussion. Please take a look on the main page, and let me know what you think. -- A-cai 13:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I like it! --Edmundkh 08:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teochew

Why isn't Teochew in the Template:Chinese language? Badagnani 09:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see; in the logic of the template it's just considered one of the several languages under the Min Nan heading. I think those could be included somehow, as subheadings, the way we have for some other templates. Badagnani 10:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as Template:Ethnic groups in Vietnam, which shows the ethnic groups by language family. Badagnani 10:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Hokkien at Pork ball

Need Hokkien name at Pork ball. Badagnani (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Numbers and Tones in Hainanese (Qiongwen)

Hi can someone tell me what 0-10,11,12,20,100,110,1000,10 thousand and the article for two+Noun (eg. 'liang ge' in Mandarin) in the Hainanese dialect is? I am trying to learn Hainanese and I need to pronounce the numbers correctly. Or alternatively someone could just kindly tell me on this discussion page and reply to me with the proper pronunciation of the numbers above. Also, I am confused about the number of tones in Hainanese. I person from a chinese languages forum sent me information stating that Hainanese has 8 tones. But a video teaching Hainanese on Youtube explains there are six tones. Are these just different varieties of Hainanese or what? Can someone tell me the tones of Hainanese, thanks. Vlag (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Vlag[reply]

Need Min Nan

Need Min Nan spelling (in Chinese characters) and pronunciation of Cellophane noodles in the language box at Cellophane noodles. If there is more than one name, add all of them. Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map?

Is it possible to get a map of the area(s) that Minnan is spoken? Could this be a standard feature in language articles? It would be a great help to those of us who are geographically challenged. Thank you 60.229.21.67 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Jim Jacobs.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Min&oldid=210736652"