Length-based Cantonese Romanisation

[Hofmann]

...Therefore, I don't think they would even notice how nucleus length is represented.

[imron]

I doubt they'd even know what nucleus length meant.  As someone who's not a linguist, it's not a term I recall hearing before reading this thread.

[ParkeNYU]

Well, I also avoid placing the letter 'i' in the nuclear position because the glyph itself is roughly half the width of the other vowel letters (not to mention the annoying dot that complicates the diacritics). The users of this system are free to ignore vowel length, but it's something that might help them to improve their recitation once they learn about it. After all, this system only exists because it helps me to grasp Cantonese phonology and proper pronunciation, and I'm hardly one in a million.

[Angelina]

@imron, I was talking about being allowed to be taught a very simply orthography: /a/ is a, /i/ is i, [i:] is ii. It should be taught like this: "this is the letter a, and you read it like this: (teacher pronounces /a/)". Teachers should learn the IPA, not every single student. 

 

 

Parke: did you create Penkyamp?

 

If so    here is what Dominic said about it 

 

http://www.blyt.net/blog/2009/09/on-penkyamp-and-other-atrociti.html 

 

 

Pênkyämp is, hands down, the most confusing Cantonese romanization ever devised. I suppose the distinguishing feature is that it encodes the length distinction, e.g. between [sɐm⁵⁵] 'heart' and [saːm⁵⁵] 'three'. But it does this adding a consonant symbol at the end of the short-vowel syllable. So, 'three' is spelled "sam", which is fine, but 'heart' is spelled "samp", which just looks ridiculous. Similarly, 'square' [fɔːŋ⁵⁵] is "fong", whereas 'wind' [fʊŋ⁵⁵] is "fonk"; and 'eat' [sɪk²²] is "sek", while 'rock' [sɛk²²] is "seg".

[Angelina]

http://www.blyt.net/blog/2009/09/on-penkyamp-and-other-atrociti.html

[ParkeNYU]

Angelina, after reading Dominic's blog, I am more confident than ever that my system is a great improvement over Penkyamp, and suffers none of the shortcomings that he mentioned. He even approves of representing vowel length in orthography (conceding that it exists just as much as vowel quality does), as long as it's done appropriately (by extending vowels, not codas, which is exactly what I've done).

As far as vowel quality is concerned, the only letters that have multiple sounds are the short vowels 'e' and 'o' (since I consider the long-vowel digraphs to be single units, as 'ng' and 'th' are in English). One can even discern which long vowels are related to which short vowels, since each digraph contains the letter of its corresponding short vowel. Yes, technically the letter 'y' has three sounds: [ɥ] (only before 'uu') or [j] as an initial, and [y] as a coda; these sounds are never juxtaposed, though.

In the end, I think that Dominic might even like my system if he encountered it, even if it's not his favourite or preferred one.

[Angelina]

http://bbs.cantonese.asia/viewthread.php?tid=9970 Yes, it is even discussed on mainland bulletin boards and promoted in blogs.

 

This part sounded familiar. 

[Hofmann]

If it helps you, fine. Why is nucleus length so important that you make a romanization system that accounts for it?

[Angelina]

I suppose what is actually important for Parke is his/her hatred of pīnyīn. It's strange.

 

The real question is: why do you hate pīnyīn so much that you keep making new writing systems? 

[ParkeNYU]

@Hofmann

I'm a visually orientated person when it comes to language, so being able to see the length in the spelling helps me to naturally articulate the corresponding phonetic length without having to consciously think about it.

@Angelina

If you're talking about Hanyu Pinyin, I do not hate it. It's actually the only Mandarin Romanisation that I support. I've created only three new systems: one for Late Middle Chinese and two for Cantonese (only one of which is a Romanisation).

[Angelina]

http://www.chinese-forums.com/index.php?/topic/47345-zhuyin-only-mandarin-textbook/#comment-358282

 

I honestly think this is weird.

 

Anyway, suum cuique pulchrum est. It's your life. 

[ParkeNYU]

I state clearly in that topic:

It's great that there are resources for learning Chinese with Pinyin, I just prefer Zhuyin.

I'm not really sure how anything I said could be interpreted as hate. I prefer Zhuyin over Pinyin and encourage others to use Zhuyin as well, but if they prefer pinyin then I respect their decision.

[Angelina]

There is a difference between:

 

a) preferring 注音 and using it instead of 拼音;

 

b) removing 拼音 content from teaching materials (25 pages of content to be precise) and sharing it online so that others can use it (i.e.  proselytizing). 

 

 

If you want to go on proselytizing, it is your decision. What seems strange is your wish to create your own system and proselytize without having a clear idea of what it is that you want to spread. 

 

You can do what you want and I will respect you, it's your life.  

 

I don't agree with your choice of ee for [i:], therefore I won't support this system. If you change it, I might reconsider it. 

[ParkeNYU]

I removed both Hanyu Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin from the introductory chapter of one Mandarin textbook because there are no Zhuyin-only textbooks available for English-speaking students (the pages are cluttered otherwise). It's no secret that I'm trying to promote the use of Zhuyin, and I don't find anything wrong with that. Doesn't the LSHK promote Jyutping even though it's not officially endorsed by the Hong Kong Institute of Education (or any government agency for that matter)? I'm promoting a system that has been official in the ROC for over a century, just as Hanyu Pinyin is exclusively supported in the PRC. Proselytising implies that I'm trying to coax members into giving up their preferred methods in exchange for the ones I prefer; I'm simply offering them to whomever is interested.

It's fine if you don't agree with the choice of 'ee' over 'ii', and I've taken your points into consideration. As I've said, the glyph 'i' is only half as wide as the other glyphs, so 'ii' appears to be the same length as 'e'. It also has a dot above it, which complicates the use of diacritics (like if I wanted to apply a dot above or almost anything below). 'ii' is more intuitive for IPA users and speakers of many languages (e.g. Japanese), but 'ee' is simply more intuitive for English speakers specifically, at which this system is aimed. Finally, the long vowel 'ee' is related to the short vowel 'e', but 'ii' doesn't contain the letter 'e' and there is no short vowel corresponding to a single 'i'.

I've always encouraged others to create their own systems, and you are no exception. If this system doesn't work for you, then you can modify it, create a totally new one, or choose a different existing one.

[Angelina]

It's no secret that I'm trying to promote the use of Zhuyin, and I don't find anything wrong with that.

 

Sure. It's fine. 

 

You offered your Cantonese Romanization. I am saying, no thank you. You can't really force me to accept a romanization system. 

 

I like your name by the way. How is it pronounced? /park/? Reminds me of Chaucer. 

 

Here is some Yale for you. 

E.pdf

[Hofmann]

Are the English-oriented spellings also for you, or would you find something that resembles IPA more natural?

[ParkeNYU]

You offered your Cantonese Romanization. I am saying, no thank you. You can't really force me to accept a romanization system.

 

Nor do I intend to attempt to force anyone to do anything. I hope that your Macedonian-based system turns out well and that you encourage other Macedonian-speaking students to use it.

 

I like your name by the way. How is it pronounced? /park/? Reminds me of Chaucer.

 

Thanks, it's the British spelling of 'Park'; I'm walking proof of illogical English orthography. Even with the 'e', some people think that my paternal grandfather is Korean.

 

Are the English-oriented spellings also for you, or would you find something that resembles IPA more natural?

 

English-orientated spellings are more natural for me as a consequence of my upbringing in the American education system; we have to take three years of a subject called 'Phonix' [sic] just to help us make sense of our absurd orthography (the misspelling is humorously ironic in retrospect). That being said, as I am a linguistic hobbyist, I am rather accustomed to reading IPA (not quite instinctual, but fluid).

 

Even so, ever since I learned Japanese as a young adolescent, I realised that I work very well with phonetic symbols. Although it took a minor hurdle to learn the Kana syllabaries, it prepared me to learn fluent Zhuyin in a day. This is why I prefer to transcribe the sounds of Cantonese using Zhuyin rather than Latin letters (including my own Romanisation).

[ParkeNYU]

Here's a simplified English-based guide:

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15757362/PCR2.pdf

 

I'm aware that the example words contain approximated sounds and are thus not 100% phonetically accurate, but I feel that they are close enough for the purpose of a brief introduction. A more detailed and accurate guide can also be made, but it would require the use of phonetic symbols, several more example words, and explanations in prose.

[Shelley]

I wonder if ParkeNYU is spending too much time creating new romanizations and not enough time studying.

 

Too much preparing to study and not enough actual study.

 

It all feels like reinventing the wheel and his time could be better spent.

[ParkeNYU]

I'm grateful to have time for both. Naturally, it's only worth sharing what I can offer, not what I consume.