Talk:chhia̋ng-póng

RFV discussion: February 2019–April 2020
Any sources for this in Min Nan? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See: http://reader.roodo.com/senghian/archives/3639337.html ("lô-tsip-tik [註：邏輯的]來分析，無 kâng 信仰之間對頭前 tsiah-ê 主題 ê 講法，當然是互相 tshiâng-póng，sûi 人有 sûi 人 ê 解說. "), and http://taioanchouhap.pixnet.net/blog/post/30876878-%E6%84%9B%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E5%9F%BA%E9%87%91%E6%9C%83%281%29%40noya (……1 ê高醫師講kap另外1 ê會議chhiâng-póng bē-tàng來;……) --Yoxem (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these, but they only show that it should be "chhiâng-póng". Are there any sources that would suggest that it's read with a 35 tone for the first syllable? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the Hokkien noon news of Taiwan PTS: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMULZyeDwWA ([around 0'9"]: ..., iah m̄-koh sî-kan sī ū chhia̋ng-póng--tio̍h ...). Due to the lack of a mark for the 9th tone (high-rising tone) in traditional POJ, some writers uses the 5th tone mark as a alternative notation of the counterpart of 9th tone. --Yoxem (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Since the spelling with the 9th tone mark isn't attested anywhere, I don't think this entry with this particular spelling should be included per WT:ATTEST. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)