Levin:

You are absolutely right that we should use the original tonal letters in
spelling our words, which may not describe the "correct" tone in the speech
after "changing". In written language it's the meaning that matters most,
precise pronunciation/tone next. We don't need to use the "correct" speech
tone in the spelling. The tonal variations in our language make it difficult
to precisely code our speech phonetically as a written language, another
difference between speech and writing.

Thx.

-----Original Message-----
From: levin [[mailto:levin@](<https://web.archive.org/web/20060117083501/mailto:levin@>)...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 12:06 PM
To: 'TADA'; 'Yan, M'
Cc: ; 'keith cheng'; 'Hokkchu'
Subject: RE: [TGB] Konrad's introduction


M.,
Yes, tone sandhi rules in different dialects are different. This aspect is
complicated for me too. But every sandhi rule in each dialect is quite
simple, as you may know.
And, one more good news is that, though when changed the same word may sound
different in different dialects, the so-called "pun2-tiau7" (original tone)
of every word always falls in the same "tone category" no matter in what
dialects.

So, when we mark the "original tones" in writing, just as Peh-oe-ji does,
every person, no matter from what dialects, can read it perfectly well.
Therefore, contrary to your opinion, I think pure phonemic code is perfect
for writing Ho-lo-oe.

And, I hope different dialects of Ho-lo-oe may all survive and flourish in
Taiwan, because sometimes the differences among them help us to recognize
"original tones" of some morphymes or syllables, to say the least. For me,
the difference is a blessing, not a curse, for us to write Ho-lo-oe in
phonemic code.

Lip-bun


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Li chu-chheh e e-mail khau-cho si: "Yan, M" .
* Beh kia phoe ho' tak-ke tioh iong chit-e khau-cho chiah kia-e-kau.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *