Dear M., Maybe I should not respond any more before I read the articles you mentioned. ButI cannot stand not saying something right now, after reading your response. I have tried to put it clear that I donât see there is any FLOOD of homonyms in our language. I do admit that some homonyms do cause confusions--but, still, I donât see any FLOOD. I admit that we should do some calculation here. And maybe there are already such calculations in the articles--I will check them when I get the articles. But I would like to point out that, taking my name as an example, there is no word--no free morpheme--pronounced as âlip8â in Taiwanese, as I can remember now. And perhaps there is also no word pronounced as âbun5â in Taiwanese either. I should check dictionaries before I said so. But I donât have one on hand at this moment. If you can give me examples proving that there are such words,you are most welcome. So, let me put the same argument in another way: I donât know if Han Character standing for âstandingâ is a word or not in Mandarin (I believe it WAS a word in some old Han language, as may be evidenced by archaic literature; but this doesnât mean it is also a word in modern Mandarin), but as I know it, âlip8â that is thought as referring to the same âconceptâ (standing) is not aword in Taiwanese. âKhia7â is a word in Taiwanese, but âlip8â is not. I would like to emphasize again: we write WORDs, not bound morphemes or syllables. For me, âLip8-bun5â is not or doesnât mean âstand-literatureâ. âLip8-bun5â is âLip8-bun5â. Just like âLevinâ is âLevinâ. If you like, I can write it as âLipbunâ. I donât analyze my name the way you do. (Or, put it another way: if what I just said is correct, then âlip8â meansnothing in Taiwanese, âbun5â means nothing in Taiwanese too.) And, by the way, I would like to urge Taiwanese parents to think in Taiwanese, not in Han Characters, when they are giving there children names. I would like to urge all of us to look more clearly and smartly at âHan3-bun5âsâ and Mandarinâs influence or their spell over us and over our sense of our own language. I agree at the need to differentiate. But, as I know it, there are many guys called âLiau7 Lip8-bun5â in Taiwan, and worse, whose names are all written in the same Han Characters. âLiau Lip-bunâ written in Han Characters or in the âideo-phoneticâ signs you mentioned will help nothing. If police need to do any guesswork in this case, then they should do it and try to find out who is the Liau Lip-bun under suspicion. This is the same for so many John, Peter, and Paul in the US. Yes, Taiwanese is a tone language among many others and, I believe, everyone agrees that tone sandhi is a remarkable feature in Taiwanese. I donât know what do you mean by âPeh-oe-ji doesnât even use tonal lettersâ. I believe you know Peh-oe-ji uses diacritics to mark different tones. Maybe your point is that Peh-oe-ji marks the so-called âpun2-tiau7â (original tone) but not the âpian3-tiau7â (changed tone)? Yes, there are some other romanization devices prefer to use âchanged tonesâ when writing. But I agree at the way Peh-oe-ji does.The reason: There are actually different dialects of Taiwanese (or Ho-lo-oe), and the seven (or eight) tones we usually mention are only âtone categoriesâ, not actual âtone valuesâ, and most importantly, there are different rules of tone sandhis in different dialects. The most well-know example is as the following: In âHai2-khau2â dialect, tone 5 (e-piaN,âyang-pingâ) changes into a tone similar to tone 3 (chiuN-khi, âin-quâ); but in âLai7-soaNâ dialect, tone5 changes into a tone similar to tone 7 (e-khi, âyang-quâ). The actual situation is much more complicated. Anyway, I think, this is a good reason for not using âchanged toneâ when writing, if we would like to have a unified writing system among different dialects. For now. Lip-bun -----Original Message-----
From: Yan, M [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 7:51 PM
To: ''; ; 'keith cheng'; 'Hokkchu'
Subject: RE: [TGB] Konrad's introduction Levin: Most of these issues have been discussed in the articles. There are complicated implications around these issues, including at least linguistic, cultural, legal, political and practical, etc. Let me offer the following very short abstracts of these very long issues. Homonyms - Every language has them. I am not talking about homonyms per se. I am talking about the "FLOOD" of them in our language. The "flood" makes our phonetic coding difficult to read. We have to read the text to guess the meaning of each coding unit. You don't need to do so in English, because every word I write here has one (or few) meaning in the dictionary. Homonyms sometimes create problem in Holo speaking, too. Yet the listeners can ask for clarification.In writing there may not be such luxury, since it should transcend historical, spacetial and cultural boundaries. We should include language in cultural and other consumptions, not just every day use and speaking. The need to differentiate - A serious written language should convey the meaning of the writers to the readers without much guesswork from the readers. A nation's constitution should have clear meaning. Its meaning matters. Nevertheless, your name is Lip-bun.I guess it is "stand-literature". Maybe, I guess it right. Maybe, I guess it wrong. It doesn't matter here. What if the police needs to put a "Lip-bun" in jail? Can we allow this kind guesswork bythe police? Our language has roughly half multiple syllable words, such as engtao^ for handsome, that don't need root to differetiate most of the time. But we also have the other half that are single syllables that need to differentiate most of the time, maybe by radicals. On speaking and written - Speaking to persons is different from writing to the readers, quite different in Holo indeed. Besides environment of speaking, Holo language is highly tonal with changing-tone as part of speech grammar. There is no perfect way to reconcile between speech and writing on this account in Holo, so far as I know. Tones and changing tones are most outstanding characteristics of Holo language. (Peh-oe-ji doesn't even use tonal letters, which ignores this outstanding characteristics.) Classification - Most of our words can be readily classified. Such as, "hai^, ocean" should be classified as in the "water" root. There are some difficult words, of course, which could be a big problem to some. Those words can be assigned into categories by convention. It is like books in the library, some of which are assigned this way. These are few and probably can be considered as necessary evil for our language. Language is a living thing. It can change and evolve into correct spelling, if a classification is not acceptable to most users. Please read the articles. The subject is much more involved than we can discuss here and in English. Thx. -----Original Message-----
From: levin [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 1:32 PM
To: 'Yan, M'; ; 'keith cheng'; 'Hokkchu'
Subject: RE: [TGB] Konrad's introduction

M., Thank you for the information. Iâll try to contact Prof. TiuN or his secretary. If I have a problem to get these articles, Iâll let you know. But, I would like to let you know now that I respect Mr Tan Kheng-chiuâs intent, but I donât agree at his idea at all. If we agree that many Han morphemes or words read in âbun-gian-imâ are actually not Taiwanese words, and if we agree to write words (not syllables or morphemes), I donât see why we need to worry about homonyms. So I donât see thereason to add the âideo-âparts to our writing system. When I read Tanâs books, my other question is how we can classify our words or concepts. To reach an agreement at the classification will be another big problem. I guess every language has homonyms and I donât see why this is a special problem for Taiwanese. Every language plays on puns based on homonyms. Taiwanese too. If we can speaking to each other in Taiwanese perfectly, then we can just spell their sounds and write them down perfectly. If there is any confusion in our communication because of homonyms, we will find a way to make it clear--in speaking and in writing. Every language does so. If homonym is a problem for writing Taiwanese, then it will be a problem for speaking Taiwanese too. But it does not. Best, Lip-bun -----Original Message-----
From: Yan, M [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 12:06 AM
To: ''; ; 'keith cheng'; 'Hokkchu'
Subject: RE: [TGB] Konrad's introduction Levin: Thank you for your discussion on "maple". The articles are published in the "Taiwanese Literature Review" by chin-li' tai--hak (Aletheia Univ). The editor is Prof. tiuN liong^thek. He teaches in Japan and comes to tai^lam^ for every quarterly issue of the Review. He may be in tai^oan^ now forthe next issue. You can find him in the "Taiwanese Literature and History Building" of that university, or talk to his secretary who is really helpful. P.S. The subject is discussed in continual articles in Review issues over the years. You have to check those issues. I don't mind to send you a collection of the articles, if you promise to read them and give me your "review". (I though you were also called Babuza. Sorry about the confusion.) Thx.

-----Original Message-----
From: levin [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:26 AM
To: 'Yan, M'; ; 'keith cheng'; 'Hokkchu'
Subject: RE: [TGB] Konrad's introduction Dear M, OK, please let me know how I can get these articles. It seems funny for you to send me these from the US, since they are published in Tai-lam. Please just let me know whom I may contact in Aletheia Univ. I know very little about plants. But as to the maple, it seems people call it âpeh8-ka-hiuNâ or âpng-a2â--there may be other local names for it, I guess. (It is very possible that I am wrong about the Taiwanese name(s) for maple. As said, I know very little about plants.) I have never heard that it is called âhong7â. And the only âhong7â as a word I know in Taiwanese, is a verb meaning âto stir up or encourageâ. In a dictionary like Campbellâs, of course, we may find âhong1â for âmapleâ, but it is how we use âbun-gian-imâ system to read a Han character, and not every Han character that can be read so is a Taiwanese word. âHan3-bun5â may be a language, but it is not Taiwanese. And, no, I am not at Seng-kong Tai-hak. Lip-bun (Babuza hiaN, Si-chong hiaN, please see the following mails that I forgot to cc you.)
---