This article falls within the scope ofWikiProject Writing systems, aWikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating towriting systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop bythe project page and/or leave a query atthe project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChina related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving allHong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited tojoin this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong
NOTE: I created this article because I saw this system used in a few publications but it was not reflected in Wikipedia.Guangdong Romanization is not an official term for these romanizations though (so you won't really find it in Google). Its four romanization schemes are almost always referred to using their Chinese names (ＸＸ話拼音方案), and I chose "Guangdong Romanization" because I did not know what else to call it. In addition, "Guangdong Romanization" was already being used to refer to it in theTeochew (dialect) article so it seemed appropriate. However, if anyone has any better names for it, please feel free suggest them here. --Umofomia 04:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I think you have to be careful in using the word dialects. The Chinese names of the systems do not tell whether they are languages or dialects. And it is divided on Wikipedia whether Chinese spoken variants are languages or dialects. —Instantnood 07:58, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Right, I am aware of the controversy, however I had to use some English word in order to translate the word 話. I just chose the word "dialect" because the external links I link to use the term "dialect" as well, even though personally I prefer the term "language." If you can think of a better word, then by all means go ahead and change it. --Umofomia 08:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually I just went ahead and removed as many of those cases as possible. "Hainan dialect" has been replaced with "Hainanese." "Teochew dialect" and "Hakka language/dialect" have been replaced with just "Teochew" and "Hakka," respectively, since those terms can be used to refer to the languages/dialects themselves. I think it should be okay now. --Umofomia 08:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Umofomia. —Instantnood 11:33, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Also note that in some of the instances, the use of the word "dialect" is correct, since Teochew is a dialect of Min Nan and the Hainan dialect is a dialect of Qiong Wen, even though the status of whether they're dialects of "Chinese" is debated. --Umofomia 08:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Right. Guangzhou dialect is considered a dialect of Cantonese, and so on. —Instantnood 11:33, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Unlike the other Cantonese romanization schemes, Guangdong Romanization chooses to represent the entering (入 ru) tones separately as tones 7, 8, and 9 rather than together with tones 1, 3, and 6.
Is this correct? All sources that I have access to (including the external link[1] at the bottom of the article) say the exact opposite, that the three 入声 are represented by the numerals 1, 3 and 6. —Broccoli07:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's correct. Notice that the external link lists the 7, 8, and 9 for the entering tones (albeit in parentheses). The other reference listed at the bottom,A Concise Cantonese-English Dictionary (简明粤英词典), lists 7, 8, and 9 only, without even mentioning that 1, 3, or 6 can be substituted. —Umofomia11:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you deal with the tone use by most of the Cantonese speakers I have heard when saying 蝴蝶? I hear 蝶 (dip6/6*2) as a second tone sound. There is at least one other /p,t,k/ final I am aware of that is spoken in tone four as well (tennis racquet).208.84.140.10 (talk)21:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a native speaker of Cantonese (I'm from Hong Kong) and I find this section (as well as the relevant section in theStandard Cantonese article) slightly strange:
Unlike the other Cantonese romanziation schemes, Guangdong romanization indicates a difference between the alveolar consonants z, c, s and the alveolo-palatal consonants j, q, x. Standard Cantonese typically does not differentiate these two types of consonants because they are allophones that occur in complementary distributions. However, speech patterns of most Cantonese speakers do utilize both types of consonants and the romanization scheme attempts to reflect this.
z, c, and s are used before finals beginning with a, e, o, u, ê, and é.
j, q, and x are used before finals beginning with i and ü.
I pronounce the pair c/q as c before a, e, é, i (the first four rows of your rime table) and q before the others; same with the j/x pair. I never pronounce "s" as alveolo-palatal (it sounds downright wrong to me).—The precedingunsigned comment was added by129.78.64.106 (talk)20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have just added archive links to 3 external links onGuangdong Romanization. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
I reorganized the Cantonese phonology page to followBauer and Benedict (1997) which is also based off Lee and Zee's phonetic measurements (see[2]) (see also Bauer's updated lecture notes[3] which puts the rime under the /e/ column) which shows /ek/. At first I edited the romanization pages to reflect the same, but reverted the romanization pages because one editor did not like the (less popular, but more phonologically correct) transcription. It appears that some other editors have since updated the romanization pages according to the phonology page. Feel free if you want to change this page to /ek/. All I prefer is that the phonology page be (phonologically) accurate.--Officer781 (talk)17:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Officer781: It's good to be consistent. Sets of symbols used in X phonology articles and on IPA/X pages should, IMO, be generally the same as used elsewhere. There's rarely need for discrepancies.
The monophthong chart inCantonese phonology shows that[o] is considerably centralized,[e] less so. If it's accurate, then it's perfectly correct to transcribe them with either[ɪ,ʊ] (which are used for centralized (raised) close-mid vowels in world's languages) or[e,o]. The choice is arbitrary.Mr KEBAB (talk)02:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: No, the choice is not arbitrary because the two have the same underlying vowel as the combination "ei, ou" which is analysed as/ei,ou/. Analysing them as[ɪ,ʊ] would break that association (we then have to posit allophonic rules that relate the two, while transcribing them identically would not require such rules. If we do posit allophones, then we also have to explain why/ɵ/ doesn't also have two allophones, one in the diphthong and one before stops/nasals - presumably a closer variant).--Officer781 (talk)11:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
