Talk:Hmong language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
I've merged Hmong phonology here. See Talk:Hmong phonology for discussion of that page. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Should information about the Pahawh Hmong writing system go here, or on a page of its own? Evertype 17:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dialects
The Hmong article states that all of the Miao Languages (which include Hmong) are mutually intelligible. This article says that even dialects within Hmong are mutually unintelligble. Which is accurate? One needs to be changed.
I've tried to update this article at least. There is significant disagreement between linguists about how the various Hmong dialect/languages are related. You'll find a brief description of the problem here: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~dmort/hmong_lang_faq.html.--Nposs 06:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requesting more info
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
This article really could use more general information about the speakers, history, etc. of Hmong, though the linguistics seems solid. Twinxor t 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- This article is specifically about the Hmong language(s). If you want more info on the speakers, history, etc., follow the links within the article: Hmong People, Hmong-Mien_Languages. Repeating such information here would dilute the article and make it too long.--WilliamThweatt 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'm at a loss... re Saola
I found an interesting assertion in Saola, added in this edit, stating that the saola is known as <whatever> in Hmong because <some random reason>... The problem is, the <whatever> given does not look Hmong to me at all... I suspect it's perhaps Lao or maybe even "made up". Anyone who knows, or knows anyone who knows, please look into it and fixerup. Thanks, Tomertalk 06:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, if you're referring to the words "saht-supahp", they are Lao/Thai words: "saht" meaning "animal" and "supahp" (also transcribed "suphab") meaning "polite, respectful, gentlemanly, etc". It is quite possible that the Hmong in that area do indeed use that word for the animal. Many Hmong are bilingual in Lao (using it as a lingua franca to trade with low-land Laos) and frequently adopt Lao terms for things that they don't have a word for in their own language. As far as fixin' 'er up, I don't believe it needs much in that regard. I will make note that the term is derived from Lao.--WilliamThweatt 17:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. My guess is that, if it's been borrowed from Lao, that it's called xa-xhubphas in Hmong...but that's sheer conjecture. saht-suphap is "impossible" in Hmong, phonologically. Anyways, thanks for looking into it. Tomertalk 18:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hmong vs dialects
It's very unclear whether this article is actually about Hmong as a group of several different languages (according to SIL) or one or several of the dialect-languages. The Ethnologue code and the external link at the bottom both point to Hmong Daw. Why the choice of Hmong Daw rather than any number of other Hmong variants? It seems rather arbitrary and without any clear motivation.
Peter Isotalo 12:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not unclear at all, Peter. The first paragraph, after giving general mention of the interralationship of the Hmong dialects within the Hmong-Mien family, states that information in the phonology section is that of White Hmong (Hmong Daw). As to the reasons why, I can only guess; but here are two fairly obvious possibilities. 1) White Hmong has been studied more and there are more resources available for White Hmong. 2) The majority of Hmong immigrants to the West were White Hmong from Laos so it is the dialect most often thought of by non-linguists as being representative of the Hmong dialects as a whole.
- When I lived in Fresno, CA, I had access to resources on Green (or Blue) Hmong (Hmong Njua). Unfortunately, I no longer live there. It will take me a while to get the info again. However, the differences in the two dialects are so minimal that a simple section listing the points where the two diverge might suffice, although I would rather see an additional section describing Hmong Njua phonology and noting lexical differences (as I remember, grammar and syntax differences are negligible).
- I am less familiar with the other Hmong dialects (Flowery Hmong, etc. or those spoken inside China). From what I understand, due to isolation and influence from Chinese, these dialects differ more widely in terms of tone realization, syntax, lexicon, and phonology. However they still basically form a dialect continuum from North-to-South with those at the extreme ends being mutually unintelligeable, but those more closer together being able to understand each other perfectly (similar to Dutch/German 100 years ago). If no one else gets to it first, I will add information as I am able, starting with the codes in the info box.--WilliamThweatt 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hmong Njua is actually the Hmong Daw pronounciation for Mong Njua, which is also called Mong Leng. As I noted in my edits to the article, Mong Leng does not use the aspirated /m/, thus "Mong" instead of "Hmong." (You can find a more detailed description of differences between White and Green Hmong in: Smalley et al. Mother of Writing: the Origin and Development of a Hmong Messianic Script. The University of Chicago Press, 1990 [p. 40-52]). In my experience, Green/Blue Mong people have preferred to be called Mong Leng as opposed to Mong Njua. Some even find Mong Njua to be an offensive term. I've tried to raise some of these issues in my edit. The decision to prefer Hmong as opposed to Mong seems to be both arbitrary and a reflection of the fact (mentioned earlier) that more research has been done on White Hmong language and culture. This issues are perhaps better addressed in another article rather than in this one on Hmong language. Here's a link to a recent paper on Mong Leng phonology that others may want to incorporate into the article: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~dmort/mong_leng_phonology.pdf. This page also discusses the Hmong vs. Mong issue: http://www.culturalorientation.net/hmong/hpeop.html.--Nposs 07:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confusion with Mon
I'm doubtful that enough people would confuse Hmong with Mon to put it in a redirect. Aren't redirects more for terms that are more homographic? AEuSoes1 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I think confusion between Mon and Hmong is pretty unlikely. Angr (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hmong vs. Hmoob
Why do English speakers call the language Hmong while its own speakers call it Hmoob? 71.131.194.40 00:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because of the orthography of the language. It's not pronounced "Hmoob". The "b" indicates a high tone. DHN 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moving RPA orthography to new RPA article
The Romanized_Popular_Alphabet isn't the only writing system for Hmong and it seems like the listing of the RPA system would be more appropriate in that article. It could also be expanded there with more detail. Then more information about alternative writing systems could be added here. Thoughts? Nposs 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Although if it's going to be expanded in the new article, something of it can still be in this article. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've begun to migrate the orthography information specific to RPA over to the relevant article. It could be formatted more nicely, if anyone knows how to do that. Also, I will start to thin out the material about RPA in this article and hopefully add more information about other orthographies. I agree that some info about the RPA alphabet should remain on this page since it is the most common writing system. Nposs 16:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I might be able to format it more nicely. What did you have in mind? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think tables (as in the tables on the rest of the page) are easier to read. But that's just my opinion. Nposs 03:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I started making this:
- I think tables (as in the tables on the rest of the page) are easier to read. But that's just my opinion. Nposs 03:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I might be able to format it more nicely. What did you have in mind? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
| Consonants | Bilabial | Bilabial with lateral release |
Labio dental |
Dental | Retroflex | Palatal | Velar | Uvular | Glottal | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plosive | Voiceless | p | ph | pl | plh | t | th | r | rh | c | ch | k | kh | q | qh | * | ||
| Voiced | d | dh | ||||||||||||||||
| Prenasalized | np | nph | npl | nplh | nt | nth | nr | nrh | nc | nch | nk | nkh | nq | nqh | ||||
| Affricate | Voiceless | tx | txh | ts | tsh | |||||||||||||
| Prenasalized | ntx | ntxh | nts | ntsh | ||||||||||||||
| Nasal | m | hm | ml | hml | n | hn | ny | hny | ||||||||||
| Fricative | v | f | x | s | z | y | xy | h | ||||||||||
| Lateral | l | lh | ||||||||||||||||
- But then realized that the characters are very non-intuitive for non-hmong speakers. I'll have to think about a different kind of table. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
| 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> | /mb/ | /nd/ | /ɳɖ/ | /ɲɟ/ | /ŋg/ | /ɴɢ/ | /ndz/ | /ɳɖʐ/ | |||||
| Preceding/Following <H>1 | /ɳ̥/ | /n̥/ | /m̥/ | /pʰ/ | /tʰ/ | /dʱ/ | /ʈʰ/ | /cʰ/ | /kʰ/ | /qʰ/ | /ɬ/ | /tsʰ/ | /ʈʂʰ/ |
| <N> and <H> | /mbʱ/ | /ndʱ/ | /ɳɖʱ/ | /ɲɟʱ/ | /ŋgʱ/ | /ɴɢʱ/ | /ndzʱ/ | /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.
Maybe something like this? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the discussion over Talk:Romanized_Popular_Alphabet#Proposed_formats_for_alphabet since (at least in my mind) that is where this table should go (rather than on this more general language page. I like the above suggestions (and they look nice), but I guess I was think more along the lines of organizing it alphabetically. At any rate, I've posted an example at the linked page. Thanks. Nposs 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted edits by Special:Contributions/71.193.66.239
Usually I would just discuss reverts in the edit summaries, but this user made a number of problematic edits (too much to describe in the summary)
- Added unverified Hmong clan names to an already problematic (not supported with references) list
- Added unverified descriptions of Hmong tones - English is not a tonal language; it is impossible to compare the sounds of English words to Hmong tones
- Add nonsense POV (without references) about Hmong ancestry
Nposs 04:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] IPA table
I've seen that someone had replaced the IPA-symbol of the palatal fricative (ç) with the symbol normally used to indicate the retroflex sibilant. Since I haven't even heard of this language until now I don't know if he (she) had a good reason to do so (based on the characteristics of that particular sound) but this way the same symbol is used for two different phonemes without any modifying diactrics (whatsoever) which in my opinion is not a very good idea. Would anyone object if I reverted back to the previous symbol? --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 17:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you are right that it should beç. That's how Ratliff lists in "Meaningful Tone." Smalley (in "Mother of Writing") lists it as "cy", but the c has a small horizontal bar through it. Can't find that symbol anywhere else. Nposs 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, change it back. It is inaccurate to have the same symbol for two "different" phonemes. I believe (ç), while probably not exactly precise for this sound in Hmong is the closest IPA symbol to represent it, especially if it's going to be listed in that particular location on the table.--WilliamThweatt 19:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was a bit of a typo. My bad. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hmong Daw/Hmong Der and Mong Leng/Hmong Njua
Just realized that these different terms are used in different articles (Hmong people, Hmong-Mien languages). It seems the SIL preference is to call these languages Hmong Daw and Hmong Njua. Of course, 'Hm' is not present in the "Hmong Njua" dialect and many members of the group find this name to be offensive. "Der" comes closer to the pronunciation of RPA Hmoob Dawb and seems to be more widely used (via a Google search.) It would be great to find some consensus on this. Do we go with SIL even though the names are inaccurate and potentially offensive? Nposs 06:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- According to Romanized Popular Alphabet, dawb represents /daɨ/ with high tone, and neither "Daw" nor "Der" seems to me a particularly intuitive way to represent that diphthong. At any rate, we should be using whatever's most commonly used in English. If English-language resources (especially scholarly rather than popular ones) use "Hmong Der" and "Mong Leng", then we should go with that, while still mentioning the SIL versions as alternative names. —Angr 06:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ethnologue actually uses "Mong Leng" several times on the entry for Hmong Daw, while on the Hmong Njua entry, the Leng only appears as "Hmong Leng." Nposs 07:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's very confusing. Their Hmong Daw entry suggests that "Mong Leng" is a dialect of Hmong Daw (that for sociolinguistic reasons requires a separate literature), rather than another name for Hmong Njua, while their Hmong Njua entry suggests that "Hmong Leng" is another name for Hmong Njua in Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. The word "Der" doesn't appear on either page. —Angr 07:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ethnologue actually uses "Mong Leng" several times on the entry for Hmong Daw, while on the Hmong Njua entry, the Leng only appears as "Hmong Leng." Nposs 07:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inclusion of Green Mong phonology
The differences are not extensive, so based on the templates recently developed for the Romanized Popular Alphabet, I've worked up new versions of the vowel and consonant templates currently on the page. Take a look and make any changes necessary (I'm not a linguist, so I could have gotten something wrong.) Thanks. Nposs 04:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
