Hi, M:

Holo tones/variations are not so complex, rather simple.
Though these are more complicated than ones of Mandarin,
Hakka...

Japanese accent is much more complicated. This may be one 
reason why we don't show accent in spelling.

I heard that Fuzhou (Hokchiu) seems to have the most 
complex tone sandhi system.

TADA 

>Levin:
> 
>Thanks for your discussion. 
> 
>Holo tones/variations are the most outstanding and complex characteristics
>among known languages. It MAY exclude pure phonetic coding for Holo, my
>opinion. Vietnamese, for example, is tonal but not "changing". They don't
>have as much problem in their Romanization.
> 
>Thx
>-----Original Message-----
>From: levin [[mailto:levin@](<https://web.archive.org/web/20060117083526/mailto:levin@>)...]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 10:41 AM
>To: 'Yan, M'; ; 'keith cheng'; 'Hokkchu'
>Subject: RE: [TGB] Konrad's introduction
>
>
>Dear M.,
>Maybe I should not respond any more before I read the articles you
>mentioned. But I cannot stand not saying something right now, after reading
>your response.
>I have tried to put it clear that I dona̍»t see there is any FLOOD of
>homonyms in our language.
>I do admit that some homonyms do cause confusions--but, still, I dona̍»t 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 ï¼lip8ï¼ in Taiwanese, as I can
>remember now. And perhaps there is also no word pronounced as ï¼bun5ï¼ in
>Taiwanese either. I should check dictionaries before I said so. But I dona̍»t
>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 dona̍»t know if Han
>Character standing for ï¼standingï¼ 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 doesna̍»t mean it is also a word in modern Mandarin),
>but as I know it, ï¼lip8ï¼ that is thought as referring to the same
>ï¼conceptï¼ (standing) is not a word in Taiwanese. ï¼Khia7ï¼ is a word in
>Taiwanese, but ï¼lip8ï¼ is not.
>I would like to emphasize again: we write WORDs, not bound morphemes or
>syllables.
> 
>For me, ï¼Lip8-bun5ï¼ is not or doesna̍»t mean ï¼stand-literatureï¼.
>ï¼Lip8-bun5ï¼ is ï¼Lip8-bun5ï¼. Just like ï¼Levinï¼ is ï¼Levinï¼. If you
>like, I can write it as ï¼Lipbunï¼. I dona̍»t analyze my name the way you do.
>(Or, put it another way: if what I just said is correct, then ï¼lip8ï¼ means
>nothing in Taiwanese, ï¼bun5ï¼ 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 嚗Han3-bun5蒚s嚗 and
>Mandarina̍»s 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 ï¼Liau7 Lip8-bun5ï¼ in Taiwan, and worse, whose names are all
>written in the same Han Characters. ï¼Liau Lip-bunï¼ written in Han
>Characters or in the ï¼ideo-phoneticï¼ 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 dona̍»t know
>what do you mean by ï¼Peh-oe-ji doesna̍»t even use tonal lettersï¼. 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 ï¼pun2-tiau7ï¼ (original tone) but not
>the ï¼pian3-tiau7ï¼ (changed tone)? Yes, there are some other romanization
>devices prefer to use ï¼changed tonesï¼ 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 ï¼tone categoriesï¼, not actual ï¼tone valuesï¼, and most
>importantly, there are different rules of tone sandhis in different
>dialects. The most well-know example is as the following:
>In ï¼Hai2-khau2ï¼ dialect, tone 5 (e-piaN, ï¼yang-pingï¼) changes into a
>tone similar to tone 3 (chiuN-khi, ï¼in-quï¼); but in ï¼Lai7-soaNï¼ dialect,
>tone 5 changes into a tone similar to tone 7 (e-khi, ï¼yang-quï¼).
>The actual situation is much more complicated.
>Anyway, I think, this is a good reason for not using ï¼changed toneï¼ when
>writing, if we would like to have a unified writing system among different
>dialects.
> 
>For now.
> 
>Lip-bun
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Li chu-chheh e e-mail khau-cho si: TADA .
* Beh kia phoe ho' tak-ke tioh iong chit-e khau-cho chiah kia-e-kau.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *