[QUOTE=China Guy]
IMHO Zhuyinfuhao blows monkey chow. YMMV. And it sucks in the computer age. And even Taiwan is now using their own version of pinyin instead in schools.
[/QUOTE]
As I’ve mentioned, there is a movement to standardize romanization here in Taiwan, but only for foreigners who can’t read Chinese. I’ve still yet to meet any Taiwanese people who are familiar with pinyin or tongyong (other than my prof. at NTU). I have never seen a kid use a romanization, either (and I have some very young students. In all my experience, zhuyin is still very much the norm for Taiwanese people.
I like zhuyin. It was a bitch to learn, but I find that I understand the pronunciations much better. I understand the different sounds better. I know that sounds imbecilic, but it is a little clearer. For example, 出 is written “chu” in pinyin, while 區 is (90% of the time) written “qu” (rarely is the two-dot thingy written above it like this: ü). It was surprised to see when I started learning zhuyin that they were signified by two different symbols – ㄨ and ㄩ, respectively.
That’s just one example. Pinyin also has superfluous y’s and w’s floating around.
All that said, I’m not saying that pinyin is not a much easier very effective way to learn Chinese. I just think it’s a good idea to learn both.
[QUOTE=Koxinga]
Funny, as a foreigner living in Taiwan, I’ve always used Zhuyin Fuhao, many of my friends are schoolteachers here and use it all the time to teach elementary school kids Chinese (never even heard of a “pinyin” beng taught), and everyone in my office uses it as the preferred input system when typing Chinese on their computers. I use it to type myself, though painstakingly–but some ladies in the office can type Chinese faster than I can type English.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=gitfiddle]
I know that sounds imbecilic, but it is a little clearer. For example, 出 is written “chu” in pinyin, while 區 is (90% of the time) written “qu” (rarely is the two-dot thingy written above it like this: ü).
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I believe that it would be incorrect to use an umlaut for “u” when it occurs after “j” “q” or “x”. The typical, non-umlaut “u” never occurs after those initials, and so the designers of pinyin declared that an umlaut would be superfluous–at least, I remember learning as such. Of course, unless you knew Chinese already, that wouldn’t be immediately obvious.
I agree that zhuyin and pinyin are both very handy, but for different purposes.
[QUOTE=Nava]
But that also happens to someone who’s learned any Western European language when learning another one.
Europa is pronounced europa in Spanish but oigopa in German, using Spanish transliterations. Same spelling and both languages are internally consistant.
[/QUOTE]
I like zhuyin. It was a bitch to learn, but I find that I understand the pronunciations much better. I understand the different sounds better. I know that sounds imbecilic, but it is a little clearer. For example, 出 is written “chu” in pinyin, while 區 is (90% of the time) written “qu” (rarely is the two-dot thingy written above it like this: ü). It was surprised to see when I started learning zhuyin that they were signified by two different symbols – ㄨ and ㄩ, respectively.
[/QUOTE]
Something slipped past me.
If it’s written with different symbols in pinyin, why were you suprised it’s written using different symbols in zhuyin?
If it’s written with different symbols in pinyin, why were you suprised it’s written using different symbols in zhuyin?
-FrL-
[/QUOTE]
He’s talking about the pinyin letter “u”, which in certain circumstances could represent one of two different sounds. In zhuyin the symbols are consistently different.
Because the difficulty is the same in learning a second “European” phonetic system as in learning the phonetic system of one transliterated from another alphabet. Millions of people have more-or-less managed the first without their brains exploding (I say more-or-less because for example I mangle the English J and Anglos mangle mine… the end results are still understandable though).
Frylock, I was talking about all of Alex_Dubinsky’s posts up to the my post, not just the OP. It wasn’t clear if he understood the idea of phonemes at that point. It’s still not clear that he understands the idea of phonemes. It’s also not clear to me that you understand what I was talking about in my post.
[QUOTE=Koxinga]
He’s talking about the pinyin letter “u”, which in certain circumstances could represent one of two different sounds. In zhuyin the symbols are consistently different.
[/QUOTE]
In pinyin, it is clearly written as two different sounds. “u” and “ü” (now written on most computer programs or cell phones as a “v”. It’s not a missing sound, but clearly differentiated. An example would be the color green lü (lv) versus road lu.
Regardless of what system, they are all meant as intermediate steps for students to get to the right pronunciation, as dictionary tools, and as a computer input method. Even at a basic level, the default for Chinese speakers is to use common words (characters) as the benchmark such as lüse de lü. Chinese speakers don’t spell it out in zhuyin or pinyin.
One of you bopomofo guys can probably tell me. I suspect that zhuyinfuhao has it’s roots in the Japanese kana system. The Japanese kana uses either symbols and or romanization. When I studied Japanese, there was never any debate over whether the kana or romanization were better tools for learning Japanese.
[QUOTE=China Guy]
In pinyin, it is clearly written as two different sounds. “u” and “ü” (now written on most computer programs or cell phones as a “v”. It’s not a missing sound, but clearly differentiated. An example would be the color green lü (lv) versus road lu.
[/QUOTE]
Getting a bit more arcane here, but what about “green”, lü vs. “to go”, qu, or “month”, yue? In this case, what Zhuyin consistently represents as “ㄩ” is indicated in pinyin by either “ü”, “u” or “yu” depending on context.
Cite from Wikipedia that matches printed pinyin tables I’ve seen in my textbooks. Note the “colour legend” that explains these exceptions.
[QUOTE=China Guy]
One of you bopomofo guys can probably tell me. I suspect that zhuyinfuhao has it’s roots in the Japanese kana system. The Japanese kana uses either symbols and or romanization. When I studied Japanese, there was never any debate over whether the kana or romanization were better tools for learning Japanese.
[/QUOTE]
It appears they come from ancient Chinese characters. For instance, ㄖ (ri) apparently comes from the ancient form of 日.
[QUOTE=Koxinga]
Getting a bit more arcane here, but what about “green”, lü vs. “to go”, qu, or “month”, yue? In this case, what Zhuyin consistently represents as “ㄩ” is indicated in pinyin by either “ü”, “u” or “yu” depending on context.
[/QUOTE]
A linguist would have to address this, but I believe it’s based on the initial sound. Lü/green has a different mouth shape/tounge placement initially than yue/month. Therefore, that’s why only lü and nü have the umlats.
Gitfiddle, I’m sure zhuyin is derived from Chinese characters. My question is this a copy of the Japanese kana or Korean hangul concepts? Was there ever a debate or plan to use zhuyin as an actual substitute for characters akin to the kana system. Eg, for common words, for foreign words, etc.?
[QUOTE=China Guy]
Gitfiddle, I’m sure zhuyin is derived from Chinese characters. My question is this a copy of the Japanese kana or Korean hangul concepts? Was there ever a debate or plan to use zhuyin as an actual substitute for characters akin to the kana system. Eg, for common words, for foreign words, etc.?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I misunderstood.
When you ask if zhuyin is a copy of kana or hangul, do you mean the actual bopomofo order or the concept itself of having a system of phonetic representation.
I just recently finished Empires of the Word (which is an amazing book and is relevant to a lot of comments in this thread). Ostler says that the actual order of the bopomofo alphabet is based on Sanskrit.
The *concept * of having some sort of syllabic system in lieu of some Chinese characters. For example (and grossly simplify), the Japanese katakana system is for foreign words in the Japanese language. Instead of writing out characters for “President Bush” this specific term would be in zhuyin.
Just curious if Ostler says bopomofo is based on Sanskrit or actually Tibetan (which is based on Sanskrit).
Looking at the passage again, I’m wondering if I drew the wrong conclusion.
Here’s the quote from Ostler (Empires of the Word, “Charming Like a Creeper” p. 209-210):
He then goes on to talk about Japanese, mentioning the order of sounds in the Sanskrit and Japanese alphabets:
What I drew from this was the origin of the bpmf order, which he doesn’t explicitly say. Yet, it makes sense. But, bpmf goes from front to back, not back to front. The first four sounds come from the lips, the next four coming from the tongue touching the roof of the mouth (and moving backwards), and so on…
So, I don’t know if Sanskrit did effect bpmf, but it seems like it to me.