Talk:Romanized Popular Alphabet
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed formats for alphabet edit
Moving the discussion from the Hmong language page to here: I have a couple of thoughts on possible formats for the alphabet. Here's an example of how vowels might be formated -
| Simple | Nasalized | Dipthongs |
|---|---|---|
| a – /a/ | aa* – /ã/ | ai – /ai/ |
| e – /e/ | ee – /ẽ/ | au – /au/ |
| i – /i/ | aw – /aɨ/ | |
| o – /ɔ/ | oo – /ɔ̃/ | ia** – /iə/ |
| u – /u/ | ua – /uə/ | |
| w - /ɨ/ |
This is nice because there is some relationship between columns 1 and 2. Of course, it doesn't work across all three columns, but this might a good way to break up all 50+ consonants. Instead of the vowel headings, the consonants could be listed under: Simple (e.g. c)- Complex (e.g. pl) - Nasalized (nc) - Pre-aspiration (hm) - Post-aspiration (ch). Of course, it isn't that clear cut, but in many instances, the romanization makes use of a singe letter that can then be transformed (p, pl, np, ph [of course not all of these exist.) I'm just trying to figure out how to make it easy to understand at first glance. Looks like there are similar formatting problems on the other romanization pages. Nposs 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- So the above chart could actually be a nice complement to the consonant table proposed by Ƶ§œš¹ on the Talk:Hmong_language page. I really like the second revision of the table. Here's my variation on it. Besides breaking it somehow so that the cells only stay to one line, I've added the spellings of the non-simple sounds.
| Stops | Nasals | Plosives | L |
Affricates | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NY | N | M | P | T | D | R | C | K | Q | TX | TS | ||
| Unmodified | /ɲ/ | /n/ | /m/ | /p/ | /t/ | /d/ | /ʈ/ | /c/ | /k/ | /q/ | /l/ | /ts/ | /ʈʂ/ |
| Preceding <N> | np – /mb/ | nt - /nd/ | nr - /ɳɖ/ | nc - /ɲɟ/ | nk - /ŋg/ | nq - /ɴɢ/ | ntx - /ndz/ | nts - /ɳɖʐ/ | |||||
| Preceding/Following <H>1 | hny - /ɳ̥/ | hn - /n̥/ | hm - /m̥/ | ph - /pʰ/ | th - /tʰ/ |
dh - /dʱ/ | rh - /ʈʰ/ |
ch - /cʰ/ | kh - /kʰ/ | qh - /qʰ/ | hl - /ɬ/ | txh - /tsʰ/ | nts - /ʈʂʰ/ |
| <N> and <H> | nph - /mbʱ/ | nth - /ndʱ/ | nrh - /ɳɖʱ/ | nch - /ɲɟʱ/ | nkh - /ŋgʱ/ | nqh - /ɴɢʱ/ | ntxh - /ndzʱ/ | ntsh - /ɳɖʐʱ/ | |||||
- <M> <N> and <NY> denote voiceless nasals when preceded by <H> and <L> denotes a voiceless lateral fricative when following an <H>. Otherwise, <H> is either a consonant in itself or marks the aspiration of the preceding consonant.
Besides fixing the formating, we need to figure out how to fit in: pl, f, h, v, x, xy, z (and their nasalized and aspirated versions.) Probably these (except for pl, npl, and nplh) could go on a separate table. Nposs 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The best thing I can think of right now is to simply add a pl and ml column. We can remedy the largeness of the table by making the font smaller. Fricatives can be a separate table since they don't follow the battern of the stop consonants.
| F | V | X | S | Z | Y | XY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f/ | /v/ | /s/ | /ʂ/ | /ʐ/ | /ʝ/ | /ç/ |
There are few enough vowels that we can probably do a table like this
| Vowels | monophthongs | Nasalized | Diphthongs | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | E | A | O | U | W | EE | AA | OO | AI | AW | AU | IA | UA | |
| Mid tone | /i/ | /e/ | /a/ | /ɔ/ | /u/ | /ɨ/ | /ẽ/ | /ã/ | /ɔ̃/ | /ai/ | /aɨ/ | /au/ | /iə/ | /uə/ |
| High tone <b> | /í/ | /é/ | /á/ | /ɔ́/ | /ú/ | /ɨ́/ | /ẽ́/ | /ã́/ | /ɔ̃́/ | /áí/ | /áɨ́/ | /áú/ | /íə́/ | /úə́/ |
| Low tone <s> | /ì/ | /è/ | /à/ | /ɔ̀/ | /ù/ | /ɨ̀/ | /ẽ̀/ | /ã̀/ | /ɔ̃̀/ | /àì/ | /àɨ̀/ | /àù/ | /ìə̀/ | /ùə̀/ |
| High falling tone <j> | /î/ | /ê/ | /â/ | /ɔ̂/ | /û/ | /ɨ̂/ | /ẽ̂/ | /ã̂/ | /ɔ̃̂/ | /âî/ | /âɨ̂/ | /âû/ | /îə̂/ | /ûə̂/ |
| Mid-rising tone <v> | /ǐ/ | /ě/ | /ǎ/ | /ɔ̌/ | /ǔ/ | /ɨ̌/ | /ẽ̌/ | /ã̌/ | /ɔ̃̌/ | /ǎǐ/ | /ǎɨ̌/ | /ǎǔ/ | /ǐə̌/ | /ǔə̌/ |
| Low-falling (creaky) tone <m> | /ḭ/ | /ḛ/ | /a̰/ | /ɔ̰/ | /ṵ/ | /ɨ̰/ | /ḛ̃/ | /ã̰/ | /ɔ̰̃/ | /a̰ḭ/ | /a̰ɨ̰/ | /a̰ṵ/ | /ḭə̰/ | /ṵə̰/ |
| Mid-low (breathy) tone <g> | /i̤/ | /e̤/ | /a̤/ | /ɔ̤/ | /ṳ/ | /ɨ̤/ | /ẽ̤/ | /ã̤/ | /ɔ̤̃/ | /a̤i̤/ | /a̤ɨ̤/ | /a̤ṳ/ | /i̤ə̤/ | /ṳə̤/ |
Whee! Tables are fun! There are probably a few cells that would be greyed out but I'm not sure which ones. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Another fun table - mod of fricative table above:
| Fricatives | Labial | Coronal | Dorsal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| f | v | x | s | z | y | xy | |
| /f/ | /v/ | /s/ | /ʂ/ | /ʐ/ | /ʝ/ | /ç/ | |
Vowel mod: for some reason I like lowercase better (maybe because you would never see EE, etc.) Including the tone for each vowel seems excessive since it is a pretty intuitive system. Maybe the tones could be kept separate?
| Vowels | Monophthongs | Nasalized | Diphthongs | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| i | e | a | o | u | w | ee | aa* | oo | ai | aw | au | ia** | ua | |
| /i/ | /e/ | /a/ | /ɔ/ | /u/ | /ɨ/ | /ẽ/ | /ã/ | /ɔ̃/ | /ai/ | /aɨ/ | /au/ | /iə/ | /uə/ | |
Also, is there do you have it set up to follow the IPA chart? It might be more intuitive to list the letters alphabetically within their positions. At the same time, that might be more confusing for other people. Nposs 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the consonant template to include ML PL and DL. Rather than post it here, I've made a user page where it can be viewed (don't want to clutter up this page): User:Nposs/RPA Nposs 06:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right. One line for the vowels. Where did you get the IPA for dl, ndl, dlh, and ndlh? It doesn't fit with the rest of Hmong phonology and I'd put them as /dˡ/, /ndˡ/, /dɬ/ and /ndɬ/. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm using Smalley (Mother of Writing) and a pamphlet called "Hmong Supplemental Language and Cultures of Asia 407" by Lopao Vang (he teaches Hmong langauge at UW-Madison). Mortenson doesn't seem to mention it in his "Introduction to Mong Leng Phonology," but Tom Hang (I think his name is) at mong.org lists it with this qualification: "Mong Leng speakers use "DLH" for "DH" and "M" for "HM. Hmong Der speakers use "D" for "DL." This seems more in line with modern usage in writing Green Mong from what I have seen. Smalley and Vang imply that the dL is just a Green Mong pronunciation of d - and that is why some people prefer to write it that way. Hang seems to imply that Green Mong uses both d and dl - but that White Hmong uses only d. Lyman's dictionary of Mong Njua doesn't seem to make note of the dL, but he uses some very idiosyncratic spellings and I have a hard time following it. (If you want a copy, I have it as a pdf.) Nposs 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- But where did you get the IPA for it? What you put looks so totally incompatable with the rest of Hmong phonology that it has to be wrong. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I might be misinterpreting Smalley et al.'s transcription. This is from p. 51 of "Mother of Writing": (Mong Leng) d - [tL], dh - [tLh], ndl - [ndl], and ndlh - [ntLh]. Vang (which was written with David Strecker, I think) has: (Mong Leng) dl - [tl] <note: the [l] has the voiceless diacritic>, dlh <same as dl, but ending with the superscript h>, ndl - [ndl] <where the n and d have the dental diacritic>, and ndlh [ntlh] <where n and t have the dental diacritic and the l has the voiceless diacritic>. Vang follows Ratliff in his IPA for White Hmong d and dh - [dː] and [dːh]. Smalley puts a glottal stop before the [d] in his White Hmong phonology. Perhaps these are details best left off this diagram? (I'm not a linguist, so I'm only reproducing what others have written.) Nposs 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- But where did you get the IPA for it? What you put looks so totally incompatable with the rest of Hmong phonology that it has to be wrong. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- How do Smalley et al transcribe pl, npl, plh, and nplh? As far as I've seen, Hmong is analysed as having a pure Consonant+Vowel syllable structure and /tʟ/ or /tl/ are consonant clusters while /tˡ/ is just a complex sound (/t/ with lateral release).
- By the way, other than this minor detail about phonetic transcription, everything else I think we're in agreement on so you can go ahead and move the tables into the article. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you are really interested, I could scan a couple of pages from Ratliff, Smalley, and Vang. In the meantime, Smalley et al. transcribe npl, plh, and nlph as [mbl], [phL], and [mphL] (pl is entirely omitted.) This seems kind of fishy to me. I think they were trying to capture more nuance of pronunciation, but the end result just seems inconsistent. I'll trust your judgment on the IPA transcription. (There's also the inventory in Heimbach's dictionary of White Hmong - he transcribes the d as [d] <preceded by a glottal stop> and dh as [th] preceded by a glottal stop.) Nposs 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like you might be using Golston & Yang "White Hmong Loanword ..." I think that works well as a reference. Ratliff has more detail, but I don't know that it will really be worth it in this instance. It is interesting that Golston & Yang note that in Mong Leng, d is pronounced /tˡ/. So we should probably keep the DL column and make a note at the bottom explaining the usage. Nposs 06:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you are really interested, I could scan a couple of pages from Ratliff, Smalley, and Vang. In the meantime, Smalley et al. transcribe npl, plh, and nlph as [mbl], [phL], and [mphL] (pl is entirely omitted.) This seems kind of fishy to me. I think they were trying to capture more nuance of pronunciation, but the end result just seems inconsistent. I'll trust your judgment on the IPA transcription. (There's also the inventory in Heimbach's dictionary of White Hmong - he transcribes the d as [d] <preceded by a glottal stop> and dh as [th] preceded by a glottal stop.) Nposs 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, now I think I'm getting Smalley et al's transcription. Capital L is IPA's <ɬ>. I had a suspicion that my IPA might have been off after my last comment. If they say that <dl> is /tˡ/ then it's just a little weirdness to have a prenasalized voiceless stop (prenasalizing so consistantly voices plosives that Tom Mortensen assumes them to be underlyingly voiceless). It's also a little weird that such sounds are spelled with <d>, a voiced consonant. So, until we get something that is a bit clearer, I've changed the table so that the behavior of the <dl> column mimics that of the <pl> column. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- It looks great to me. I've added the asteriks indicating which are unique to each dialect. I think I messed up the pre-aspirated series (I changed the hny IPA). I don't recognize the diacritic for that series and I couldn't find it to add to the IPA. Once that is fixed, I think it will be ready to post. Nposs 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, now I think I'm getting Smalley et al's transcription. Capital L is IPA's <ɬ>. I had a suspicion that my IPA might have been off after my last comment. If they say that <dl> is /tˡ/ then it's just a little weirdness to have a prenasalized voiceless stop (prenasalizing so consistantly voices plosives that Tom Mortensen assumes them to be underlyingly voiceless). It's also a little weird that such sounds are spelled with <d>, a voiced consonant. So, until we get something that is a bit clearer, I've changed the table so that the behavior of the <dl> column mimics that of the <pl> column. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, definitely ready. Hey I just thought of something, how about instead of asterisks we color the cells with the dialect that the given sound is unique to. Hmong Der can be white, Mong Leng can be a blue-green. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- The color idea is great. I never liked the asterisks. Not sure how well a white background would work. Nposs 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
| Monophthongs | Nasalized | Diphthongs | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| i | e | a | o | u | w | ee | aa | oo | ai | aw | au | ia | ua |
| /i/ | /e/ | /a/ | /ɔ/ | /u/ | /ɨ/ | /ẽ/ | /ã/ | /ɔ̃/ | /ai/ | /aɨ/ | /au/ | /iə/ | /uə/ |
This is how well. I guess it's not too well, but it's a start. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Vowel spelled <o> edit
Around my area (Marysville, CA) White Hmong pronounce the vowel <o> unrounded, that is, as [ʌ] not as [ɔ]. I went to Sacramento and the Hmong I talked to said it [ʌ] as well. Where do Hmong say [ɔ]? Asia? The Eastern US? Or is it just individual variation and I haven't met a speaker who used the rounded vowel? Bryce 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The pronunciation is based on Golston and Yang (2000). I imagine they got data from Minnesota and/or as parts of the San Joaquin Valley where sizeable populations of Hmong speakers live. It's possible that you've met some speakers who pronounce it unrounded but be wary of using only your ears to determine vowel qualities (although roundedness isn't as subjective as height and backness). The best way is to record these speakers and do spectrograph analysis. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, three of the major figures in Hmong linguistics (Heimbach, Ratliff, and Smalley) all give [ɔ] in their various books. When I studied Hmong language at SEASSI, we also used [ɔ]. Nposs 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Anne Fadiman's linguistic appendix, and information from it edit
Discussing this edit:
- Firstly, this is not a linguistics manual. This is an encyclopedia article. Every aspect needs to be covered. People's opinions and views about aspects, whether they are linguistics researchers or other people, should be covered.
- Do linguistic manuals directly contradict what Fadiman says? If not, then her material needs to be restored.
- The material from Fadiman's book comes from an appendix about Hmong orthography and spelling, so it is a linguistic reference, even if it wasn't written by a linguist or intended for an advanced linguist audience. Fadiman herself had to have consulted with one; she just made her statements towards a general audience rather than an advanced linguist audience.
- Fadiman herself is well known in Hmong studies, as her book documented the Lia Lee case
I must also add that the "tones" section was totally unsourced before I edited the page.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, let's break down the claims that are attributed to Fadiman:
- The alphabet represents all of the Hmong sounds in the Latin alphabet with no diacritical marks
- Words in the Hmong language, with the exception of compound words, are monosyllabic.
- RPA can be exasperating if you expect it to be phonetic but is remarkably ingenious and not nearly as difficult as it looks.
- using final consonant markers was the "most unusual" aspect of RPA. In addition she described the lack of diacritics as "a godsend for typists."
- "x" sounds like the letter "s," and "w" is pronounced "something like" the French "u."
- RPA uses the final consonant to represent the tone; most Hmong words end in vowels. The final consonant is never pronounced, as it is always a tonal marker.
- In the United States Hmong do not use RPA for spelling of proper nouns, because they want their names to be easily pronounced by people unfamiliar with RPA.
- 1, while accurate can perhaps be merged with the sentence, "The alphabet was developed to write both..." something like "The alphabet was developed to write both the Hmong Der (White Hmong, RPA: Hmoob Dawb) and Mong Leng (Green/Blue Mong, RPA: Moob Leeg dialects without diacritical marks." This is assuming that Fadiman makes a statement about the two dialects.
- 2 isn't really relevant to the alphabet and would go better at Hmong language (where I see you've also included information from Fadiman).
- 3 and 4 are opinions of the author and not really encyclopedic.
- 5 are vague (and inaccurate) repetitions of the information already present in the article.
- 6, again, is underinformative if not redundant.
- 7, while interesting, doesn't need its own section. This is the only item that I see Fadiman being a relevant source on.
- If she does indeed reference other, more reputable sources, then I think we should reference those materials. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 13:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
〈b〉 sound edit
I came here from Hmong language, which gives the pronunciation of "Hmong" as "Hmoob" and of "Mong" as "Moob" (both in RSA, which is strange on its own because it feels like IPA should be used instead), to find that this article does not mention 〈b〉 as a grapheme used in RSA at all. So what gives? One of these two articles is either wrong, not up to date, or missing important information. For the time being, I'm assuming any time a 〈b〉 is used, it's the same as when a 〈p〉 iss uset in the zame gondegzd, pud with the 〈p〉 zount foizet. (in the same context, but with the 〈p〉 sound voiced). Hppavilion1 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- *UPDATE*: Apparently, 〈b〉 is a tone. ...Sure? I guess that works. Disregard. Hppavilion1 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)