Wiktionary talk:About Chinese/Eastern Min

Min Dong characters vs Min Nan characters
So I see there are cases where the character used in e.g. dictionaries for Min Dong is being considered a variant of a character more commonly associated with "standard" Taiwanese Min Nan, for example 𣍐 > 袂 and 骹 > 跤. Are we moving them all to the "official Min variant" as a whole, or would this best considered on a case-by-case basis? Michael Ly (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should move to the common Min variant where the Taiwanese Min Nan recommended character is not really used in other Min dialects. There are some tricky ones, like 濟 ~ 穧 ~ 儕, that we would have to think about.  What do you think? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best considered on a case-by-case basis, and ideally the most common variant across Min is used. If multiple forms exist, with similar frequencies, then the Taiwanese standard should be used. Wyang (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

About Chinese/Characters? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Fuqing IPA and other Min Dong lects
I see Fuqing and Matsu are included in the Min Dong "dialect variants" but no indication of their IPA in the Template:zh-pron. Would there much possibility of producing a module for this [I can produce the tone sandhi charts, but I'm not quite up to programming them]? Can we learn something from Taishanese on this? Michael Ly (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We would have to see if BUC is the best romanization for these dialects. If so, we could do something like we do with the different dialects of Hokkien, but if not, we can create additional parameters for these dialects. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * BUC can cover Fuqing fairly well. In most cases, the same BUC from Fujian can even be used to infer the Fuqing pronunciation; the main differences are in the tones, the realisation of /s/ as [θ], and some mostly regular rime diffs. There are two ways of covering Fuqing: we can introduce a new parameter, and either (1) make Fuqing undisplayed unless that parameter is present, or (2) display Fuqing by default from Fuzhou and allow overriding by that parameter. IMO (1) is the more prudent method. Fuqing has considerable variation within itself (esp. city vs. country), so we should stick to the new-style pronunciation (新派) of the Rongcheng dialect (融城) if we decide to include it. Wyang (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the 融城 (新派) as the Fuqing standard; if we wanted to add others we can. My comparative phonology is still relatively weak; what rime Fuzhou-Fuqing correspondences are regular? Michael Ly (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The ones I could think of off the top of my head ... Fuzhou corresponds to Fuqing, for example , , and Fuzhou ,  correspond to Fuqing , . Wyang (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! There does need to be a lot more research into Eastern Min in general. One 2016 article mentioned how consonant assimilation regularly produces instead of  in one dialect (海口鎮) (from BUC s-), except for a few fossilised words. Michael Ly (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to 馮愛珍 (1993), there are six key differences in the phonology,
 * Fuzhou corresponds to Fuqing ;
 * Fuzhou and new Fuqing corresponds either to old Fuqing  or ; similarly for the merger of  and ;
 * was described above with ;
 * also above with ;
 * tones [with special mention of the two 平聲 tones being mirror images];
 * the loss of the glottal stop of several lexemes even in isolation, such that 白 is the same as 疤.
 * So actually it doesn't look too hard to map them from BUC (apart from the complexity that is the different tone sandhi). Michael Ly (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, can we revive this conversation? I'm interested in being able to include the Matsu dialect in Wiktionary. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 Revival

 * Sure. However, I'm relatively unfamiliar with the programming language used in these templates. What would we need to implement a change into Template:zh-pron? Is there a sandbox version for templates? Michael Ly (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

http://120.25.72.164/fzhDictionary/index.php?s=/Home/Dictionary/index
What kind of romanization is being used here? In general is the site reliable?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the website uses, which is also used in 福州方言词典 (1994). I'd consider it reliable. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be added to the Wikipedia articles on Fuzhou dialect and given its own place in the dictionary. It's also used in the Fuzhou-English dictionary from 1997 by Li Zhuqing. I'll probably create a Wikipedia page on it when I have time. -- Michael Ly (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Tone correspondence

 * Hi. Which Min Dong tone number for in Module:zh/data/dial-pron/窩: /uo44/ corresponds to About_Chinese/Min_Dong? /uo44/ is visible in 'Dialectal data' at . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It must be 55 per Talk:邦. I missed the response, sorry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

19th-century pronunciation
Can the 19th-century pronunciation be shown in zh-pron? The entry 約 says “iók - literary; ióh - vernacular”, but both iók and ióh are pronounced /yɔʔ²⁴/ today. --沈澄心✉ 15:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're doing 19th-century pronunciation for Min Dong, we might as well also do 19th-century pronunciation for Mandarin and Cantonese and Teochew (Hokkien didn't change much?). Shanghainese will be very interesting. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t think we know the exact tone values for the 19th c. pronunciations, and I don’t know if there’s any way to know the exact IPA just based on the romanizations. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There's probably a published reconstruction somewhere. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The phonology is described in 十九世纪的福州音系. --沈澄心✉ 01:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but it seems like the description of tone sandhi and lenition is kind of shaky. 19th c. Fuzhounese is a complicated case to implement as a first case of 19th c. pronunciations in general. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that although "both iók and ióh are pronounced /yɔʔ²⁴/ today", they retain different tone sandhi behaviours, and it is still necessary to distinguish them. E.g. in Fuzhounese 約珥 = Iók-ngī,, but this would be with -h. -- Michael Ly (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

ts/tsʰ after lenition
Right now the pronunciation of ts/tsʰ after lenition is recorded as ʒ, but the phonetic study 闽东方言的声母类化 shows that this is wrong for every Eastern Min variety. Also, the pronunciation after nasal codas is different from the pronunciation after non-nasal codas. (This is also noted in 福州方言研究, where he chooses to transcribe it as z/nz). 闽东方言的声母类化 reports that most Eastern Min varieties use ɹ/nɹ, with some exceptions (some varieties have extra layers of assimilation, they also claim that ɿ/nɹ appears in Fuzhou and Gutian but this is contested by Zingzeu). Programmeruser (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * According to A phonetic study of Fuzhou Chinese the place of articulation varies widely, so it's probably hard to find a single IPA symbol to represent the sound. Although I think that there should still be a [n] added before the nasalized variant to distinguish it from the non-nasalized variant Programmeruser (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)