LL-L "Phonology" 2003.05.06 (03) [E]

Tue May 6 21:20:37 UTC 2003

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 06.MAY.2003 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ruud Harmsen <rh at rudhar.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2003.05.06 (01) [E]

08:15 6-5-2003 -0700, Lowlands-L: "Andy Howey"
<andyandmae_howey at sbcglobal.net>:
>I have a co-worker who is a native of Beijing, and I asked him how
it is
>really pronounced, and he pronounced it "bay-JING", but he said that
>that pronunciation is only since the Communists took power.  Prior to
>that, it was pronounced "pay-KING".  He didn't say why the change in
>pronunciation, though.

1) I doubt very much that he sufficiently separates between
pronunciation and spelling.

2) The letters j and q in Pinyin represent palatal sounds. The step
from a palatalised k to a palatalised t is very small. J and Q, G
and K do not represent voiced/voiceless in Chinese, because that
difference doesn't exist, is immaterial, in Chinese. It represents
lack of aspiration/aspiration ("h-iness"), which in German and
English is also indicated by that difference, while in other
European language (French, Spanish, Dutch), it is not.
--
Ruud Harmsen  http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm  23 april 2003

----------

From: "Douglas G. Wilson" <douglas at nb.net>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2003.05.06 (01) [E]

>In the vast majority of Mandarin dialects, including those of Beijing, the
>shift /g/ ([k]) > /dz/ ([ts]) (and /k/ ([kh]) > /ts/ ([tsh]) before /i/
>took place centuries ago.

About 30 years ago, I read in something 'seemingly authoritative'
(source
now forgotten) that some Mandarin dialects spoken not too far from
Beijing
in the mid-20th century retained the old type of pronunciation still.

The shift from /g/ or so [= unaspirated /k/] to /dZ/ or so before /i/
etc.
(high front vowels) is very analogous to the shift from classical Latin
"ci" /ki/, "gi" /gi/ to Italian (or modern church Latin) "ci" /tSi/,
"gi"
/dZi/, it seems to me.

I reviewed a few conventional books. From my remarks to another list:

<<Consider "jin" = "gold" (similar to /dZIn/). .... Karlgren ("Analytic
Dictionary ...", 1923) gives specifically Mandarin "kin" (Karlgren uses
something similar to Wade-Giles; this might be similar to /gIn/). Or
"jing"
= "capital city" as in "Beijing", with Sino-Japanese "kyoo" as in
"Tokyo",
"king" in Karlgren. Wieger (p. 21) gives a list of initial Mandarin
sounds
arranged by "Fan T'eng-feng" from around 1700, with the character for
"gold" (listed in Wieger as Wade-Giles "chin") as the example or
prototype
for the initial consonant "k" (Wade-Giles)! Karlgren explains ... (p.
10):
"But the Mandarin of Peking has been subject in recent times to another
most radical palatalisation (yodisation). The gutturals _k_, _k'_, _h_
...
as well as the dental affricatives and fricatives ... all have been
palatalized before every modern _i_ and _u"_ [that's u-umlaut] ...
[examples follow] ... Of this modern phenomenon in Mandarin I take no
notice in my transcription ....">>

-- Doug Wilson

----------

From: KEVIN CALDWELL <kcaldwell31 at comcast.net>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2003.05.06 (01) [E]

I wonder if perhaps there is something deeper at work in people
pronouncing Beijing as /bei-ZHING/.  I have also noticed (or maybe it's
just my ears) that more and people are pronouncing English /ch/
as /sh/, so that "chicken" sounds more like "shicken" and "check"
sounds sort of like "sheck."  I think I have noticed something similar
going on with the sound of English "j".  Perhaps there is a shift
occurring in the pronunciation of /j/ and /ch/ - i.e., /dzh/ is
shifting to /zh/ and /ch/ is shifting to /sh/ (Sorry, I can't produce
the proper IPA symbols, and I'm not familiar enough with linguistic
terminology to use it correctly to describe these sounds).  Has anyone
else noticed this?

Kevin Caldwell (kcaldwell31 at comcast.net)

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Phonology

Thanks for the responses, folks, including those above.

Doug, quoting Bernhard Karlgren:

<quote>
"But the Mandarin of Peking has been subject in recent times to another
most radical palatalisation (yodisation). The gutturals _k_, _k'_, _h_
...
as well as the dental affricatives and fricatives ... all have been
palatalized before every modern _i_ and _u"_ [that's u-umlaut] ...
[examples follow] ... Of this modern phenomenon in Mandarin I take no
notice in my transcription ...."
</quote>

>From where he stood as a specialist in historical Chinese phonology
(reconstruction), this was a wise decision.  He delt with the entire
Chinese language group (formerly known as "the Chinese language"), not
only with Mandarin.  Mandarin [ts] and [ts_h] clearly correspond to /g/
([k]) and /k/ (/k_h]) in other (southern, more conservative) Chinese
languages and to [kj] and [kj_h] in a few straggler Mandarin dialects.
Thus, disregarding Mandarin palatalization made sense in a
macro-approach, namely in tracing the entire group back to its origins.
This could be compared to coming up with an Inter-Germanic spelling in
which English (and Scots) <ch> and Frisian <ts(j)> are spelled <k> to
coincide with /k/ (and /x/) in other Germanic languages (e.g., church,
kirk, tsjerke, kerk, kark, Kirche, kirke, kyrka, kirkja).

I checked my data in the meantime.  Apparently, this palatalization
process, which is considered a hallmark feature of Mandarin, occurred in
earnest around 1550, thus during the (Middle Chinese >) Old Mandarin
stage (ca. 1450-1650).  In Karlgren's time in the early 20th century
there were still quite a few Mandarin dialects without palatalization,
but I believe their number has dwindled considerably, due to the power
of Standard Chinese (which is roughly based on Beijing Mandarin) in
education and the media.

Doug again:
<quote>
The shift from /g/ or so [= unaspirated /k/] to /dZ/ or so before /i/
etc.
(high front vowels) is very analogous to the shift from classical Latin
"ci" /ki/, "gi" /gi/ to Italian (or modern church Latin) "ci" /tSi/,
"gi"
/dZi/, it seems to me.
</quote>

Yes, and -- returning to the Lowlands and thereabouts -- there are
similar shifts in Germanic languages, such as English, Scots (to a more
limited extent) and Frisian, also in numerous Scandinavian varieties,
some of which still write <k> or <kj> but have developed the affricates
farther into fricatives.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================