This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Southern Min article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 13 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jadejjjade.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Isn't Min Nan foremost the name of a region, synonomous with "Southern Min"? A-giau 13:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that instead of using "Minnan" or "Min Nan", we call it "Banlamgu/Banlamgi" to reflect how native speakers of this language would pronounce it in this language. Many languages in the world are named in English in this way. "Minnan" or "Min nan" is the pronunciation of Mandarin, not that of the language itself. Daamoy ( talk) 03:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. :-) — Insta ntnood 20:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
A-cai 08:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A-cai 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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:
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)
———————————————————————————
Xng ( talk) 10:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Your suggestion is logical and has been incorporated in the revised family tree section. Minnan should be seen as mutually unintelligible but related languages which branched off a common root.
This will solve all the previous disputes about Hainanese and include the forgotten Puxian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xng ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why isn't Teochew in the Template:Chinese language? Badagnani 09:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
Such as Template:Ethnic groups in Vietnam, which shows the ethnic groups by language family. Badagnani 10:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Need Hokkien name at Pork ball. Badagnani ( talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
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
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)
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.
Why was this moved from Min Nan to "Southern Min Language" and where is the discussion and consensus that led to this move? Is "Southern Min Language" more commonly used in English to refer to this language than "Min Nan"? Badagnani ( talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A response would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani ( talk) 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Need Min Nan name for Cellophane noodles. Badagnani ( talk) 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Please leave comments at [9].
122.109.171.138 ( talk) 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check the POJ in the lead of Wu Chuanyu? Badagnani ( talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, so you're sure the name should be changed to Ngô in the lead of the article? Also, what are the tiny dots you're inserting after both romanizations? Badagnani ( talk) 05:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, have you heard of this famous swimmer? If so, how would you read his name in Hokkien/Taiwanese, if you saw the hanzi? Badagnani ( talk) 05:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic--your Hokkien skill enriches English Wikipedia :). Badagnani ( talk) 05:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Need POJ reading at Sean Lien. Badagnani ( talk) 06:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article talk of "Southern Min languages" rather a "Southern Min language" as in reality Southern Min can be divided into at least three largely mutually unintelligible languages - 1. Teochew 2. Hainanese 3. Hokkien. I suggest the name Hokkien for the group of mutually intelligible dialects of Amoy, Taiwan, Choan-chiu, and Chang-chiu as this is the only name frequently used in English. It is also a name used by many native speakers (esp. in S.E. Asia) and the language is frequently known by a derived term (Hok-lo/Ho-lo) in Taiwan. There may be some variations in the name for the language amongst native speakers, but "Hokkien" is very much the established term in the English speaking world - "Mandarin" and "Cantonese" are similar examples of established English terms for Chinese languages. It would probably make sense to create an article for "Hokkien" from which there would be links to Amoy and Taiwanese (and articles for any of its other dialects that may be created). Vox latina ( talk) 08:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I note also that in places where speakers of Southern Min from different dialect groups live (e.g. Singapore, Malaysia) "Hokkien" only includes speakers of the dialects of Amoy, Chang-chiu, and Choan-chiu. (Taiwanese is a mix of these dialects) Speakers of Teochew and Hainanese are considered as a seperate groups.
Vox latina ( talk) 10:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
—————————————————————————————————
Yes, you're right. Just like Western Germanic is group of languages rather than a single language. See the revised family tree section. Xng ( talk) 10:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Need Min Nan name at Dried shrimp. Badagnani ( talk) 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Need Min Nan name in the box at Kowtow. Badagnani ( talk) 18:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Need POJ reading at Sean Lien. Badagnani ( talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Also need POJ for 鸭母哒仔 and 鴨母笛 at Guan (instrument). Thank you, Badagnani ( talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello there... I favour putting the transliterations box on top (small, collapsable)... is there any policy that stipulates it should go bellow the non collapsable linguistics box? Gumuhua ( talk) 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Need Min Nan hanzi at Kaffir lime. Badagnani ( talk) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Need POJ for 樹子仔 and 樹子 at Cordia. Badagnani ( talk) 10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Timely attention to requests for POJ on this page would be greatlly appreciated. Badagnani ( talk) 10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a request to split Minnan into eight different divisions and assign new ISO 693-3 codes to them.
You can voice your opinion here. -- Jose77 ( talk) 08:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The following statement in the article need some carification. Written: Southern Min dialects lack a standardized written language. Southern Min speakers are taught how to read Standard Mandarin in school. As a result, there has not been an urgent need to develop a writing system.
All Chinese languages share the same writing system, the different is that they pronounce it differently. The fact one can speak the sound and not about to write it does not mean that it has not got a word for it. As mention in the statement, non Madarin speakers learn to read and write Mandarin, yet speak they own languages at home. I was brought up to speak Teochew at home and learn to read and write in Cantonese at school, when I come across many words, I am unable to pronounce it in Teochew and Mandarin. Similarly, when my mother talk to me in Teochew, sometimes I will have difficulty working out what the writing is.
So, the final statement should be, in my opinion: As a result, there is an urgent need to teach children to read and write in their own languages. Tt48 ( talk) 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know if I was going to cite this webpage, how should I do so? Thanks. Kuromiwu ( talk) 09:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)kuromiwu
Arilang talk 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
At the moment there is a reference to a study that claims that the /n/ final was lost in Min Nan. Of course there are lots of straight counterexamples (e.g. 新聞); so there must be some form of clarification, for example the context of the study (is it only one of the substrata where the loss has taken place, thus excluding loanwords from the 唐 stratum or perhaps 宋). Michael Ly ( talk) 19:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Number 5 7 21:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
– These mean the same thing as the Chinese names, but are more accessible to an English-speaking readership, consistent with titles like Southwestern Mandarin, and are preferred by most experts writing in English. (If using a search engine, beware that "Minnan" is also common as a name for southern Fujian as a cultural and economic area.) Kanguole 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The English forms are used by such experts as:
{{
cite book}}
: |editor2-first=
has generic name (
help)On the other hand Ethnologue (and thus ISO 639-3) and Glottolog use the Standard Chinese forms (which are quite different from the names used by speakers of these languages). Kanguole 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Family tree section created due to disputes about position of Hainanese, Puxian, Teochew, Datian etc.
All these branches can be considered different languages in their own right if we look at Germanic languages grouping. Western Germanic isn't a single language but a group of related but largely mutually unintelligible languages. There are many cognates shared between these languages even though they sound very different.
Read some older disputes here.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Do_we_need_new_pages.3F
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Naming_of_Southern_Min_and_its_divisions
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Teochew
Xng ( talk) 11:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
——
Stop thinking of Southern Min as a single language. There's where all the disputes come about.
1. There are many, many Chinese articles which talked about origin of Puxian as Minnan, search for it. Also go to Puxian Min page.Another reliable source is real-life communication between hing hua people and hokkien people which noted the similarities.
There are also evidences that Chaoshan people came from Putian, so if Chaosan is another Minnan language, why shouldn't its ancestors? It's like saying English is part of Germanic languages but proto-Germanic is not Germanic.
Read origin Teochiu and Puxian in this link
http://8944.net/read/5344079.html
the source is from this book http://8944.net/img/7/0179aa96d4e4c4bae1.jpg
2. Hailufeng seems like a offshoot of Zhangzhou with high intelligibility with Quanzhang. It should be considered part of Hokkien and not Chaoshan, read below. what do others think?
http://bbs.southcn.com/thread-539232-1-1.html
Xng ( talk) 10:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you read all the disputes in the past decade? The classification by these linguists assumed that Minnan is a single language which is totally wrong.It's called Minnan language and not Minnan languages. That's why there are disputes of qiong-lei, puxian which were ejected out due to mutual unintelligibility with the minnan language.they weren't ejected out because they didn't have common cognates.
teochiu is as unintelligible as german with english, so we would have somebody eject teochiu out from minnan too? puxîan has influence from mindong and it was ejected out but not zhenan min which also has influence from mindong? how logical is that?
similarly,shaojiang is just a part of minbei language family with influence from gan. it's not a different language grouping, it's a different language than minbei, i agree.
So English should be ejected out of Germanic languages since it has influence from Latin branch? It's neither germanic nor latin in your argument?
Follow what the western linguists do and read the arguments below.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Do_we_need_new_pages.3F
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Naming_of_Southern_Min_and_its_divisions
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Teochew
Xng ( talk) 13:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Kanguole,
If you think that your sources PAN and Atlas are the most 'reliable' , please quote what criteria they used to group the languages ?
Linguists used the following criteria - percentage of lexical similarities - percentage of phonological similarities - % of cognates - ancestral root language
comparison is done with the quan-zhang branch. please do so for puxian, zhenan, chaoshan, qiong-lei, datian etc
If you can't, then your sources are also not reliable as what i read in other sources.
The above criteria determines whether one 'language' is a dialect or a different language. Dialects are like American English and UK English. Different languages are like German and English. To say Chaoshan is a different dialect of minnan is laughable.
I know there are inconsistencies in the sections but that is acceptable whenever there are disputes. You don't agree with what others cited and I don't agree with your citations too.
If you can provide a table of criteria from your sources, then your sources would be more reliable. If not, read more about how western linguists build their tree.
Xng ( talk) 14:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
kanguole,
You're an extremely stubborn man who don't bother to read what other linguists and other classification said. You don't even know the difference between languages and dialects. I asked you to provide evidence of lexical,phonological differences and none is provided from your so-called 'experts'.Linguists don't based on 'shared innovations' but on the criteria that i gave earlier. Minnan was assumed to be a single language by older linguists, don't go out and cloud the issue by telling lies. Go and read up on chinese version of grouping and how they group European languages which is more logical.Go and listen to the opinions of other readers here again!
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Do_we_need_new_pages.3F
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Naming_of_Southern_Min_and_its_divisions
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Teochew
I won't bother to argue with you anymore. I will add the citations when I've more time, what makes you think your citations is better than mine? I don't think you know how to read Chinese characters or an expert in Hokkien etc
Xng ( talk) 10:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
New History section added as many other non-Chinese linguistic pages have a history section.
Bkjalng ( talk) 05:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
As the article notes, the standard classifications do not include Puxian within Southern Min. The article claims that Western linguists hold a different view, but this does not seem to be the case. Kanguole 13:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Months of hard work has been destroyed and vandalised by Kwamikagami (A Japanese) who doesn't know anything about linguistics nor any Southern Min languages proficiently. He couldn't be bothered to read all the sources I quoted.
This Southern Min language page has been reduced to one single branch which is Hokkien or Quanzhang branch. There's no difference between this page and the Hokkien wikipedia page. /info/en/?search=Hokkien
We might as well delete this page as it doesn't provide additional information from that page and give wrong relationship between the different branches
These two users (Kanguole and Kwamikagami) don't know the difference between language family, language and dialect. And they don't bother to find out how the western linguists group languages such as North, West Germanic languages etc.
Chaoshan isn't a dialect of Southern Min as many users here have stated. It's a different mutually unintelligible language altogether from Quanzhang which traditionally equates to Minnan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xng ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
xng, I think you did a wonderful job with all the write-up and citation. I was shocked to find it's vandalised by a few narrow-minded, low intelligence people who couldn't understand what you wrote. I also agree and respect A-cai, Jose77, baike and others analysis which was closer to your interpretation.
(Redacted) Anyway, you could create another page called 'Southern Min languages' instead if you want. If they want to have a narrow view and delude themselves that it's a single language, let them be. I am sure more intelligent people won't read this page anymore. Adios!
Bkjalng ( talk) 05:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. QEDK ( T ☕ C) 18:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Southern Min be
renamed and moved to
Minnan.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
Southern Min → Minnan – WP:COMMONNAME "Southern Min" may be common in academic literature but it's really not WP:RECOGNIZABLE to most lay people. Google web search results show 7,400,000 for "Min Nan", 776,000 hits for "Minnan", and just 10,300 for "Southern Min". In Google Books it is 13,800 for "Min Nan", 22,400 for "Minnan", and 7,750 for "Southern Min". WP:CONSISTENCY doesn't need to be achieved with the other Min Chinese branches since they are relatively more obscure in English discourse anyways, and in those cases may actually be more commonly referred to by an English directional name.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 08:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Prisencolin ( talk) 08:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |editor2-first=
has generic name (
help)Southern Min speakers refer to themselves as bân-lâm-lâng, which is usually written with sinographs meaning "Southern Min person" 閩南人, but should actually be written with sinographs meaning "Southern barbarian fellow" 蠻南儂. (Hong 1988: 343) The graph pronounced lâm in Taiwanese is the notorious mán ("barbarians [of the south]") as pronounced in MSM. Here is how Xu Shen explains the graph used to write lâm / mán: "Southern barbarians [who are a] snake race. [The character is formed] from [the] insect / serpent [radical and takes its pronunciation from] luàn 南蠻蛇種从虫looks the the 巒 character, minus the 'shan' at the bottom聲." 8 (Xu 100: 282b) The Mán inhabitants of Mǐn are thus doubly southern, doubly barbarian, and doubly serpentine. Since these explanations have been enshrined in the most authoritative, foundational dictionary of the sinographs, a dictionary which is still invoked with reverence today, there is no denying them."
Hoklo is not an ethnicity, so the fact that some non-Hoklo speak Southern Min and that some Hoklo don't speak it is complete nonsense. Moreover, the grammar needs to be revised. Some claims probably don't refer to Southern Min, but Min in general. Even people in Northern Fujian don't speak Southern Min. Why should people from Zhejiang suddenly speak it? -- 88.67.116.234 ( talk) 11:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The subgrouping in this article has been recently re-organized in a novel way around a notion of "Minnan Proper", which does not seem to appear in the literature. The Chinese form given (闽南话) is just Southern Min again. The subgrouping should be returned to that of the Language Atlas of China, which is commonly used as a framework. Kanguole 10:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Hokkien#Quanzhang confusion, about resolving a conflict between these two articles and being certain where Quanzhang (a redlink as of this writing) should take the reader. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hoklo Boat. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Southern Min article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 13 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jadejjjade.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Isn't Min Nan foremost the name of a region, synonomous with "Southern Min"? A-giau 13:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that instead of using "Minnan" or "Min Nan", we call it "Banlamgu/Banlamgi" to reflect how native speakers of this language would pronounce it in this language. Many languages in the world are named in English in this way. "Minnan" or "Min nan" is the pronunciation of Mandarin, not that of the language itself. Daamoy ( talk) 03:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. :-) — Insta ntnood 20:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
A-cai 08:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A-cai 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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:
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)
———————————————————————————
Xng ( talk) 10:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Your suggestion is logical and has been incorporated in the revised family tree section. Minnan should be seen as mutually unintelligible but related languages which branched off a common root.
This will solve all the previous disputes about Hainanese and include the forgotten Puxian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xng ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why isn't Teochew in the Template:Chinese language? Badagnani 09:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
Such as Template:Ethnic groups in Vietnam, which shows the ethnic groups by language family. Badagnani 10:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Need Hokkien name at Pork ball. Badagnani ( talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
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
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)
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.
Why was this moved from Min Nan to "Southern Min Language" and where is the discussion and consensus that led to this move? Is "Southern Min Language" more commonly used in English to refer to this language than "Min Nan"? Badagnani ( talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A response would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani ( talk) 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Need Min Nan name for Cellophane noodles. Badagnani ( talk) 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Please leave comments at [9].
122.109.171.138 ( talk) 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check the POJ in the lead of Wu Chuanyu? Badagnani ( talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, so you're sure the name should be changed to Ngô in the lead of the article? Also, what are the tiny dots you're inserting after both romanizations? Badagnani ( talk) 05:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, have you heard of this famous swimmer? If so, how would you read his name in Hokkien/Taiwanese, if you saw the hanzi? Badagnani ( talk) 05:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic--your Hokkien skill enriches English Wikipedia :). Badagnani ( talk) 05:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Need POJ reading at Sean Lien. Badagnani ( talk) 06:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article talk of "Southern Min languages" rather a "Southern Min language" as in reality Southern Min can be divided into at least three largely mutually unintelligible languages - 1. Teochew 2. Hainanese 3. Hokkien. I suggest the name Hokkien for the group of mutually intelligible dialects of Amoy, Taiwan, Choan-chiu, and Chang-chiu as this is the only name frequently used in English. It is also a name used by many native speakers (esp. in S.E. Asia) and the language is frequently known by a derived term (Hok-lo/Ho-lo) in Taiwan. There may be some variations in the name for the language amongst native speakers, but "Hokkien" is very much the established term in the English speaking world - "Mandarin" and "Cantonese" are similar examples of established English terms for Chinese languages. It would probably make sense to create an article for "Hokkien" from which there would be links to Amoy and Taiwanese (and articles for any of its other dialects that may be created). Vox latina ( talk) 08:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I note also that in places where speakers of Southern Min from different dialect groups live (e.g. Singapore, Malaysia) "Hokkien" only includes speakers of the dialects of Amoy, Chang-chiu, and Choan-chiu. (Taiwanese is a mix of these dialects) Speakers of Teochew and Hainanese are considered as a seperate groups.
Vox latina ( talk) 10:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
—————————————————————————————————
Yes, you're right. Just like Western Germanic is group of languages rather than a single language. See the revised family tree section. Xng ( talk) 10:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Need Min Nan name at Dried shrimp. Badagnani ( talk) 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Need Min Nan name in the box at Kowtow. Badagnani ( talk) 18:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Need POJ reading at Sean Lien. Badagnani ( talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Also need POJ for 鸭母哒仔 and 鴨母笛 at Guan (instrument). Thank you, Badagnani ( talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello there... I favour putting the transliterations box on top (small, collapsable)... is there any policy that stipulates it should go bellow the non collapsable linguistics box? Gumuhua ( talk) 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Need Min Nan hanzi at Kaffir lime. Badagnani ( talk) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Need POJ for 樹子仔 and 樹子 at Cordia. Badagnani ( talk) 10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Timely attention to requests for POJ on this page would be greatlly appreciated. Badagnani ( talk) 10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a request to split Minnan into eight different divisions and assign new ISO 693-3 codes to them.
You can voice your opinion here. -- Jose77 ( talk) 08:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The following statement in the article need some carification. Written: Southern Min dialects lack a standardized written language. Southern Min speakers are taught how to read Standard Mandarin in school. As a result, there has not been an urgent need to develop a writing system.
All Chinese languages share the same writing system, the different is that they pronounce it differently. The fact one can speak the sound and not about to write it does not mean that it has not got a word for it. As mention in the statement, non Madarin speakers learn to read and write Mandarin, yet speak they own languages at home. I was brought up to speak Teochew at home and learn to read and write in Cantonese at school, when I come across many words, I am unable to pronounce it in Teochew and Mandarin. Similarly, when my mother talk to me in Teochew, sometimes I will have difficulty working out what the writing is.
So, the final statement should be, in my opinion: As a result, there is an urgent need to teach children to read and write in their own languages. Tt48 ( talk) 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know if I was going to cite this webpage, how should I do so? Thanks. Kuromiwu ( talk) 09:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)kuromiwu
Arilang talk 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
At the moment there is a reference to a study that claims that the /n/ final was lost in Min Nan. Of course there are lots of straight counterexamples (e.g. 新聞); so there must be some form of clarification, for example the context of the study (is it only one of the substrata where the loss has taken place, thus excluding loanwords from the 唐 stratum or perhaps 宋). Michael Ly ( talk) 19:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Number 5 7 21:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
– These mean the same thing as the Chinese names, but are more accessible to an English-speaking readership, consistent with titles like Southwestern Mandarin, and are preferred by most experts writing in English. (If using a search engine, beware that "Minnan" is also common as a name for southern Fujian as a cultural and economic area.) Kanguole 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The English forms are used by such experts as:
{{
cite book}}
: |editor2-first=
has generic name (
help)On the other hand Ethnologue (and thus ISO 639-3) and Glottolog use the Standard Chinese forms (which are quite different from the names used by speakers of these languages). Kanguole 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Family tree section created due to disputes about position of Hainanese, Puxian, Teochew, Datian etc.
All these branches can be considered different languages in their own right if we look at Germanic languages grouping. Western Germanic isn't a single language but a group of related but largely mutually unintelligible languages. There are many cognates shared between these languages even though they sound very different.
Read some older disputes here.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Do_we_need_new_pages.3F
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Naming_of_Southern_Min_and_its_divisions
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Teochew
Xng ( talk) 11:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
——
Stop thinking of Southern Min as a single language. There's where all the disputes come about.
1. There are many, many Chinese articles which talked about origin of Puxian as Minnan, search for it. Also go to Puxian Min page.Another reliable source is real-life communication between hing hua people and hokkien people which noted the similarities.
There are also evidences that Chaoshan people came from Putian, so if Chaosan is another Minnan language, why shouldn't its ancestors? It's like saying English is part of Germanic languages but proto-Germanic is not Germanic.
Read origin Teochiu and Puxian in this link
http://8944.net/read/5344079.html
the source is from this book http://8944.net/img/7/0179aa96d4e4c4bae1.jpg
2. Hailufeng seems like a offshoot of Zhangzhou with high intelligibility with Quanzhang. It should be considered part of Hokkien and not Chaoshan, read below. what do others think?
http://bbs.southcn.com/thread-539232-1-1.html
Xng ( talk) 10:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you read all the disputes in the past decade? The classification by these linguists assumed that Minnan is a single language which is totally wrong.It's called Minnan language and not Minnan languages. That's why there are disputes of qiong-lei, puxian which were ejected out due to mutual unintelligibility with the minnan language.they weren't ejected out because they didn't have common cognates.
teochiu is as unintelligible as german with english, so we would have somebody eject teochiu out from minnan too? puxîan has influence from mindong and it was ejected out but not zhenan min which also has influence from mindong? how logical is that?
similarly,shaojiang is just a part of minbei language family with influence from gan. it's not a different language grouping, it's a different language than minbei, i agree.
So English should be ejected out of Germanic languages since it has influence from Latin branch? It's neither germanic nor latin in your argument?
Follow what the western linguists do and read the arguments below.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Do_we_need_new_pages.3F
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Naming_of_Southern_Min_and_its_divisions
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Teochew
Xng ( talk) 13:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Kanguole,
If you think that your sources PAN and Atlas are the most 'reliable' , please quote what criteria they used to group the languages ?
Linguists used the following criteria - percentage of lexical similarities - percentage of phonological similarities - % of cognates - ancestral root language
comparison is done with the quan-zhang branch. please do so for puxian, zhenan, chaoshan, qiong-lei, datian etc
If you can't, then your sources are also not reliable as what i read in other sources.
The above criteria determines whether one 'language' is a dialect or a different language. Dialects are like American English and UK English. Different languages are like German and English. To say Chaoshan is a different dialect of minnan is laughable.
I know there are inconsistencies in the sections but that is acceptable whenever there are disputes. You don't agree with what others cited and I don't agree with your citations too.
If you can provide a table of criteria from your sources, then your sources would be more reliable. If not, read more about how western linguists build their tree.
Xng ( talk) 14:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
kanguole,
You're an extremely stubborn man who don't bother to read what other linguists and other classification said. You don't even know the difference between languages and dialects. I asked you to provide evidence of lexical,phonological differences and none is provided from your so-called 'experts'.Linguists don't based on 'shared innovations' but on the criteria that i gave earlier. Minnan was assumed to be a single language by older linguists, don't go out and cloud the issue by telling lies. Go and read up on chinese version of grouping and how they group European languages which is more logical.Go and listen to the opinions of other readers here again!
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Do_we_need_new_pages.3F
/info/en/?search=Talk:Southern_Min#Naming_of_Southern_Min_and_its_divisions
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Teochew
I won't bother to argue with you anymore. I will add the citations when I've more time, what makes you think your citations is better than mine? I don't think you know how to read Chinese characters or an expert in Hokkien etc
Xng ( talk) 10:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
New History section added as many other non-Chinese linguistic pages have a history section.
Bkjalng ( talk) 05:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
As the article notes, the standard classifications do not include Puxian within Southern Min. The article claims that Western linguists hold a different view, but this does not seem to be the case. Kanguole 13:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Months of hard work has been destroyed and vandalised by Kwamikagami (A Japanese) who doesn't know anything about linguistics nor any Southern Min languages proficiently. He couldn't be bothered to read all the sources I quoted.
This Southern Min language page has been reduced to one single branch which is Hokkien or Quanzhang branch. There's no difference between this page and the Hokkien wikipedia page. /info/en/?search=Hokkien
We might as well delete this page as it doesn't provide additional information from that page and give wrong relationship between the different branches
These two users (Kanguole and Kwamikagami) don't know the difference between language family, language and dialect. And they don't bother to find out how the western linguists group languages such as North, West Germanic languages etc.
Chaoshan isn't a dialect of Southern Min as many users here have stated. It's a different mutually unintelligible language altogether from Quanzhang which traditionally equates to Minnan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xng ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
xng, I think you did a wonderful job with all the write-up and citation. I was shocked to find it's vandalised by a few narrow-minded, low intelligence people who couldn't understand what you wrote. I also agree and respect A-cai, Jose77, baike and others analysis which was closer to your interpretation.
(Redacted) Anyway, you could create another page called 'Southern Min languages' instead if you want. If they want to have a narrow view and delude themselves that it's a single language, let them be. I am sure more intelligent people won't read this page anymore. Adios!
Bkjalng ( talk) 05:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. QEDK ( T ☕ C) 18:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Southern Min be
renamed and moved to
Minnan.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
Southern Min → Minnan – WP:COMMONNAME "Southern Min" may be common in academic literature but it's really not WP:RECOGNIZABLE to most lay people. Google web search results show 7,400,000 for "Min Nan", 776,000 hits for "Minnan", and just 10,300 for "Southern Min". In Google Books it is 13,800 for "Min Nan", 22,400 for "Minnan", and 7,750 for "Southern Min". WP:CONSISTENCY doesn't need to be achieved with the other Min Chinese branches since they are relatively more obscure in English discourse anyways, and in those cases may actually be more commonly referred to by an English directional name.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 08:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Prisencolin ( talk) 08:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |editor2-first=
has generic name (
help)Southern Min speakers refer to themselves as bân-lâm-lâng, which is usually written with sinographs meaning "Southern Min person" 閩南人, but should actually be written with sinographs meaning "Southern barbarian fellow" 蠻南儂. (Hong 1988: 343) The graph pronounced lâm in Taiwanese is the notorious mán ("barbarians [of the south]") as pronounced in MSM. Here is how Xu Shen explains the graph used to write lâm / mán: "Southern barbarians [who are a] snake race. [The character is formed] from [the] insect / serpent [radical and takes its pronunciation from] luàn 南蠻蛇種从虫looks the the 巒 character, minus the 'shan' at the bottom聲." 8 (Xu 100: 282b) The Mán inhabitants of Mǐn are thus doubly southern, doubly barbarian, and doubly serpentine. Since these explanations have been enshrined in the most authoritative, foundational dictionary of the sinographs, a dictionary which is still invoked with reverence today, there is no denying them."
Hoklo is not an ethnicity, so the fact that some non-Hoklo speak Southern Min and that some Hoklo don't speak it is complete nonsense. Moreover, the grammar needs to be revised. Some claims probably don't refer to Southern Min, but Min in general. Even people in Northern Fujian don't speak Southern Min. Why should people from Zhejiang suddenly speak it? -- 88.67.116.234 ( talk) 11:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The subgrouping in this article has been recently re-organized in a novel way around a notion of "Minnan Proper", which does not seem to appear in the literature. The Chinese form given (闽南话) is just Southern Min again. The subgrouping should be returned to that of the Language Atlas of China, which is commonly used as a framework. Kanguole 10:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Hokkien#Quanzhang confusion, about resolving a conflict between these two articles and being certain where Quanzhang (a redlink as of this writing) should take the reader. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hoklo Boat. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)