Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cantonese phrasebook"
Revision as of 19:26, 18 June 2008
The phrase list here is terrible! Cantonese has 6 or 7 tones to go with the sounds. If you don't get the tones, you will not be understood. Why is this section so poor compared to the Chinese phrasebook? There they use standard pinyin and explanations of the tones.
There are standard systems for Cantonese as well. It's harder than Putonghua for sure, but worth doing right.
I belive the tones from 1-6 would be very simple and effective, the Yale ones are screwed and ineficent Enlil Ninlil 23:44, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)
nobody really says 你好to say hello. they usually say 吃了反没. if u say 你好, u will sound like a foreigner.
I think you should use Jyutping to write this article. Also, much of the romanization is incorrect. Several of the phrases have incorrect characters, also.
Romanization discussion moved
Yes, Jyutping is more popular and better to use CantonesePod 12:16, 18 June 2008 (EDT) Google Yale and Jyutping and you'll know Jyuting is more popular. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Yale+Cantonese+Pronunciation http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jyutping+Cantonese+Pronunciation shows big difference.
So we need to change the pronunciation for the phrases here to Jyutping.
The initial j represents /j/ in Jyutping while y is used instead in Yale. The initial z represents /ts/ in Jyutping while j is used instead in Yale. The initial c represents /tsʰ/ in Jyutping while ch is used instead in Yale.
I know that Yale is old and has long history, but the popularity of the New Jyutping is overpassing the Yale system and we believe that Jyutping is good for us promote Cantonese.
"It is multifunctional, systematic, user-friendly, compatible with all possible modern Cantonese sounds, and solely based on alphanumeric characters without any diacritics and strange symbols. Jyutping can also be used as a Chinese computer input method. Its basic principles are simple, easy to learn, and professional. " ( http://lshk.ctl.cityu.edu.hk/cantonese.php ). Let's support the hard work of The Linguistic Society of Hong Kong (LSHK) and be united under Jyutping.
I moved this from the article page here — Ravikiran 08:05, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Choose the best Romanisation system for Cantonese!! Yale Cantonese is current and used in the vast majority of existing texts. (Try finding LSHK material outside of Hong Kong.) The best phonetic system is Yale Cantonese, developed by experts in linguistics, and intended for native English speakers trying to learn Cantonese, not by some scholars in the East who are away from the majority of English speaking people. Just watch out for LSHK supporters such as the one above who probably is a native Cantonese speaker (just like the creators of LSHK) and therefore wouldn't have a clue what it's like trying to learn Cantonese without a native speaking background.
Just as the most predominant form of Mandarin romanisation is called Pinyin, the most modern, most accepted, and more importantly the most correct form of Cantonese romanisation is Yale Cantonese.
Special note to the person who previously edited this document. You must familiarise yourself with Yale Cantonese! Some of your notions such as the use of "J" for a "y" sound, the use of "c" to indicate "ch" sound, and in particular the use of "Z" (something from pinyin) are just horrifically unintuitive and least indicative of the closest english sounds for speaking Cantonese. To make matters worse, you were also incredibly inconsistent with your romanisation, and a number of your tones were just plain wrong. You are going to cause nothing but total confusion to the beginner. Please learn how to speak cantonese properly, and then learn how to romanise properly. Remember: Yale Cantonese.
Apologies if this is not the appropriate place for this notice, but I could see no other way of making this important point.
For the beginner interested in learning Cantonese, I'd strongly advise finding a text that utilises Yale Cantonese. Fortunately the majority do anyway, but there are a number of other (far inferior) systems out there.