[COMPLETE] English and Cantonese Dictionary, by John Chalmers - availle
-
DavidReader
- Posts: 174
- Joined: July 24th, 2018, 7:49 pm
I think it will be a good idea to post here about the problems and difficulties that I have encountered while I am proceeding on this project.
Needless to say, this will not be a smooth and problem-free project given its niche nature, and little availability of precedent examples and materials. But I hope my work may arouse interests in this area from others who have more expertise.
First of all, please note that the scanned book found in Archive.org contributed by the University of California Libraries has a problem in its front-matter (a page seems to be missing); the other version, which is from the University of Toronto, seems to be more in order.
This dictionary was compiled by a Scottish missionary (John Chalmers), who obviously, was not a native Cantonese speaker. Therefore, it is to be expected that he might not have possessed an intimate understanding of the dialect, and it is in fact shown quite clearly while I am proceeding on the work. I may give some examples in the future. This poses a dilemma for me. Since I want to stick as much as possible to the pronunciation depicted in the dictionary on the one hand, but being a native Cantonese speaker, I note that many of the pronunciations depicted are not entirely correct or a bit awkward in common usage.
Another problem, this time on my part, is that I really do not know exactly how some Chinese script used are to be pronounced. I try to do some research, but not always successful, and I have to resort to pronouncing it according to the annotations provided by Mr. Chalmers, which I am not sure I can be as accurate as what the word should sound.
The age of this work also presents problems as many of the usages seems obscure, and many items that it described may not be familiar now. But on the other hand, this fact presents a fascinating glimpse into the provenance of some words that we are still speaking nowadays.
That's all for today. I hope, as the Chinese idiom says: "throwing out some rocks in order to attract some jade", others who have stumbled upon this post may have valuable ideas to offer me.
Thanks.
Needless to say, this will not be a smooth and problem-free project given its niche nature, and little availability of precedent examples and materials. But I hope my work may arouse interests in this area from others who have more expertise.
First of all, please note that the scanned book found in Archive.org contributed by the University of California Libraries has a problem in its front-matter (a page seems to be missing); the other version, which is from the University of Toronto, seems to be more in order.
This dictionary was compiled by a Scottish missionary (John Chalmers), who obviously, was not a native Cantonese speaker. Therefore, it is to be expected that he might not have possessed an intimate understanding of the dialect, and it is in fact shown quite clearly while I am proceeding on the work. I may give some examples in the future. This poses a dilemma for me. Since I want to stick as much as possible to the pronunciation depicted in the dictionary on the one hand, but being a native Cantonese speaker, I note that many of the pronunciations depicted are not entirely correct or a bit awkward in common usage.
Another problem, this time on my part, is that I really do not know exactly how some Chinese script used are to be pronounced. I try to do some research, but not always successful, and I have to resort to pronouncing it according to the annotations provided by Mr. Chalmers, which I am not sure I can be as accurate as what the word should sound.
The age of this work also presents problems as many of the usages seems obscure, and many items that it described may not be familiar now. But on the other hand, this fact presents a fascinating glimpse into the provenance of some words that we are still speaking nowadays.
That's all for today. I hope, as the Chinese idiom says: "throwing out some rocks in order to attract some jade", others who have stumbled upon this post may have valuable ideas to offer me.
Thanks.
David, please allow me a single second to say "I told you so."
There. Thank you. I'm feeling much better.
Still, I have to say, I'm absolutely amazed at what you're doing here, I honestly did not believe you would stick with it, so: kudos to you!
As for the missing pages in the scan, unfortunately, that's often the case. You can substitute with other scans, we can even link to a complete one for the catalog in the end if you can find one, no big deal. Just make sure that the edition you read from is public domain, i.e., published before 1924.
Despite my time in Hong Kong, I never managed to learn any Cantonese beyond "jo-san" and "basi-jam, m'goy"
so please take the following with a (large) grain of salt:
As for pronunciation the way Chalmers wrote it, well... As you can see from my own tries, just because I don't know how to write it down properly doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to pronounce it correctly (maybe not because I'm tone-deaf, but you get the idea...). The tone system in Cantonese is quite a challenge to write down in foreign syllabary, and who knows if he ever received formal training to do so, if he had somebody to check things... Besides, I understand that these transliterations have changed over time, so what you find odd now may have been correct at his time.
Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine if you pronounce those instances as you would today.
As for the out-of-use characters, I'm afraid I have no idea what to do. I think your approach of research/pronouncing them the way Chalmers did is a good choice to make. You're at HKU, no? Do they have a linguistic department where you could ask for help? Maybe one of the PhD students is willing to go on that ride with you?
I don't know how many instances of these characters you have encountered, but at LV, we're aiming at 99% accuracy. In a book of this length, there are many, many characters you can get wrong before you cross that threshold, so don't worry too much about it.
Again, I am absolutely in awe at what you're doing here, I don't think I would even have remotely enough patience for this! Well done!
There. Thank you. I'm feeling much better.
Still, I have to say, I'm absolutely amazed at what you're doing here, I honestly did not believe you would stick with it, so: kudos to you!
As for the missing pages in the scan, unfortunately, that's often the case. You can substitute with other scans, we can even link to a complete one for the catalog in the end if you can find one, no big deal. Just make sure that the edition you read from is public domain, i.e., published before 1924.
Despite my time in Hong Kong, I never managed to learn any Cantonese beyond "jo-san" and "basi-jam, m'goy"
so please take the following with a (large) grain of salt: As for pronunciation the way Chalmers wrote it, well... As you can see from my own tries, just because I don't know how to write it down properly doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to pronounce it correctly (maybe not because I'm tone-deaf, but you get the idea...). The tone system in Cantonese is quite a challenge to write down in foreign syllabary, and who knows if he ever received formal training to do so, if he had somebody to check things... Besides, I understand that these transliterations have changed over time, so what you find odd now may have been correct at his time.
Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine if you pronounce those instances as you would today.
As for the out-of-use characters, I'm afraid I have no idea what to do. I think your approach of research/pronouncing them the way Chalmers did is a good choice to make. You're at HKU, no? Do they have a linguistic department where you could ask for help? Maybe one of the PhD students is willing to go on that ride with you?
I don't know how many instances of these characters you have encountered, but at LV, we're aiming at 99% accuracy. In a book of this length, there are many, many characters you can get wrong before you cross that threshold, so don't worry too much about it.
Again, I am absolutely in awe at what you're doing here, I don't think I would even have remotely enough patience for this! Well done!
Cheers, Ava.
Resident witch of LibriVox, channelling
Granny Weatherwax: "I ain't Nice."
--
AvailleAudio.com
Resident witch of LibriVox, channelling
Granny Weatherwax: "I ain't Nice."
--
AvailleAudio.com
-
silverquill
- Posts: 29085
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:11 pm
- Location: Southern California
Hi, David.
First, let me apologize for having this on the back burner for so long.
I'll try to work on this more consistently and may catch up with you.
Section 2 is PL OK.
It is interesting to hear of your journey with this text, and I appreciate your issues.
Some of the same problems become apparent in all languages, I think.
We read a lot of older English texts for LibriVox and we frequently find archaic words and expressions never to be heard today. The further back we go, the more difficult the language becomes with erratic spelling and words of obscure meaning. When we push back to what is called Middle English, and Old English, it is almost truly a foreign language. I have not made a study of it at all, however. Then you have the added burden of a text written by a non native-speaker, and an unavoidably imperfect system of using the English alphabet and markings to represent the Chinese character, and, evidently some obscure ones at that. Your approach seems very sound, and I think you are meeting the challenge in a competent manner. This is a work I think you can be justifiably proud of.
First, let me apologize for having this on the back burner for so long.
I'll try to work on this more consistently and may catch up with you.
Section 2 is PL OK.
It is interesting to hear of your journey with this text, and I appreciate your issues.
Some of the same problems become apparent in all languages, I think.
We read a lot of older English texts for LibriVox and we frequently find archaic words and expressions never to be heard today. The further back we go, the more difficult the language becomes with erratic spelling and words of obscure meaning. When we push back to what is called Middle English, and Old English, it is almost truly a foreign language. I have not made a study of it at all, however. Then you have the added burden of a text written by a non native-speaker, and an unavoidably imperfect system of using the English alphabet and markings to represent the Chinese character, and, evidently some obscure ones at that. Your approach seems very sound, and I think you are meeting the challenge in a competent manner. This is a work I think you can be justifiably proud of.
On the road again, so delays are possible
~ Larry
~ Larry
-
DavidReader
- Posts: 174
- Joined: July 24th, 2018, 7:49 pm
Hi Ava,
Thanks for your reply. How do you know so precisely where I am coming from? Anyway, to take up the thread of the narrative in my last post:
A general problem for Mr. Chalmers, whose Cantonese was not his native tongue is that, he often applied his known rules of the dialect’s ‘grammar’ to all apparently similar situations, thus creating many instances of awkward usages. Such as the rather indiscriminate usages of the Cantonese possessive ke’ and the generic word to indicate a verb of action ‘ching (similar to ‘make’).
I would like to site two examples to illustrate:
For the first problem: In the entry: ‘Busy-body’, the Cantonese definition is stated as ‘好事之人’, the third logogram is another Cantonese possessive read chi, which in general is regarded as less colloquial than ke’, and Mr. Chalmers annotated the word as ho’-sze’-ke’-yan. But in this case, it is actually more common for us to say: ho’-sze’-chi-yan.
For the second problem: In the entry: ‘Aggravate’, the definition was stated as: 整更關系, which literally means: ‘make more of the relationship’. I think I get what Mr. Chalmers intended to mean, but the Cantonese expression is absolutely awkward, to say the least. I would suggest to render it as ‘加重’, which literally means: ‘add heavier’, which is closer to the second alternative definition given by Mr. Chalmers (here again, he used the omnipotent ‘ching).
It is sometimes the case that he would take the meaning of a word too literally, and then applied it in an inappropriate context.
Of course, there is the usual difficulty of handling the written version of Chinese in general, but Cantonese in particular. The logograms of Chinese are notoriously difficult for any learners, even including native Chinese who are supposed to learn them from their childhood. This problem for Cantonese is to be amplified still more by the fact that it is for quite a long time a predominantly spoken language. Cantonese people in their written communication will resort to writing in Baihua (written vernacular Chinese), which is a style of writing popularized by the scholars in the May Fourth Movement in 1919; and obviously those scholars did not speak Cantonese. Don't get me wrong, there are indeed proper logograms for Cantonese, but nowadays they become so obscured and esoteric that not one out of a thousand native Cantonese, I dare say, would know how to write what they are saying everyday.
Mr. Chalmers’ dictionary is actually doing an admirable job in getting those logograms rendered rather accurately, and at times, surprisingly well, though errors can still be found.
An example: In the entry for 'Adze', the Cantonese logogram of '鐇' is absolutely correct, but the pronunciation he gave was 'poon', which is not; and should be pronounced as 'faan'. The reason for his error is that: a similar looking logogram '潘' is pronounced as 'poon', while '鐇' should be pronounced similar to another logogram: '番', that is 'faan'
I hope I may have time to compile a list of such errors in an addendum in the future.
That's it for today.
Thanks
Thanks for your reply. How do you know so precisely where I am coming from? Anyway, to take up the thread of the narrative in my last post:
A general problem for Mr. Chalmers, whose Cantonese was not his native tongue is that, he often applied his known rules of the dialect’s ‘grammar’ to all apparently similar situations, thus creating many instances of awkward usages. Such as the rather indiscriminate usages of the Cantonese possessive ke’ and the generic word to indicate a verb of action ‘ching (similar to ‘make’).
I would like to site two examples to illustrate:
For the first problem: In the entry: ‘Busy-body’, the Cantonese definition is stated as ‘好事之人’, the third logogram is another Cantonese possessive read chi, which in general is regarded as less colloquial than ke’, and Mr. Chalmers annotated the word as ho’-sze’-ke’-yan. But in this case, it is actually more common for us to say: ho’-sze’-chi-yan.
For the second problem: In the entry: ‘Aggravate’, the definition was stated as: 整更關系, which literally means: ‘make more of the relationship’. I think I get what Mr. Chalmers intended to mean, but the Cantonese expression is absolutely awkward, to say the least. I would suggest to render it as ‘加重’, which literally means: ‘add heavier’, which is closer to the second alternative definition given by Mr. Chalmers (here again, he used the omnipotent ‘ching).
It is sometimes the case that he would take the meaning of a word too literally, and then applied it in an inappropriate context.
Of course, there is the usual difficulty of handling the written version of Chinese in general, but Cantonese in particular. The logograms of Chinese are notoriously difficult for any learners, even including native Chinese who are supposed to learn them from their childhood. This problem for Cantonese is to be amplified still more by the fact that it is for quite a long time a predominantly spoken language. Cantonese people in their written communication will resort to writing in Baihua (written vernacular Chinese), which is a style of writing popularized by the scholars in the May Fourth Movement in 1919; and obviously those scholars did not speak Cantonese. Don't get me wrong, there are indeed proper logograms for Cantonese, but nowadays they become so obscured and esoteric that not one out of a thousand native Cantonese, I dare say, would know how to write what they are saying everyday.
Mr. Chalmers’ dictionary is actually doing an admirable job in getting those logograms rendered rather accurately, and at times, surprisingly well, though errors can still be found.
An example: In the entry for 'Adze', the Cantonese logogram of '鐇' is absolutely correct, but the pronunciation he gave was 'poon', which is not; and should be pronounced as 'faan'. The reason for his error is that: a similar looking logogram '潘' is pronounced as 'poon', while '鐇' should be pronounced similar to another logogram: '番', that is 'faan'
I hope I may have time to compile a list of such errors in an addendum in the future.
That's it for today.
Thanks
-
silverquill
- Posts: 29085
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:11 pm
- Location: Southern California
Section 3 is PL OK.
On the road again, so delays are possible
~ Larry
~ Larry
-
silverquill
- Posts: 29085
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:11 pm
- Location: Southern California
Time to update the MW and give a report.
I've listened up through Section 8 and have marked the PL OK.
I am noticing on some of these the opening silence is a bit too long. Keep it just one second or less.
It will be easier for me just to trim these and upload rather than posting notes, having you resubmit and then checking again, if that is okay with you. Not a big deal.
I'll keep pushing ahead with these.
I've listened up through Section 8 and have marked the PL OK.
I am noticing on some of these the opening silence is a bit too long. Keep it just one second or less.
It will be easier for me just to trim these and upload rather than posting notes, having you resubmit and then checking again, if that is okay with you. Not a big deal.
I'll keep pushing ahead with these.
On the road again, so delays are possible
~ Larry
~ Larry
-
DavidReader
- Posts: 174
- Joined: July 24th, 2018, 7:49 pm
Hi Larry,
Thanks, that would be very helpful, please feel free to make any editions that you may find appropriate. Is there any other comment concerning the way of my presentation? Please don't hesitate to criticize, I am not easily offended.
Do you find Cantonese sounds weird or funny? Have you discerned any pattern so far in the language? I hope you can make some sense out of it and derive some fun in doing so, so that it may not become a tedious chore for you to PL something that is incomprehensible. Anyhow, don't feel pressured to match the pace of my uploads, because I may have quite a bit of follow-up work to do after I have completed my recordings, so I am not in a hurry to have it completed and published as soon as possible.
Best Regards
Thanks, that would be very helpful, please feel free to make any editions that you may find appropriate. Is there any other comment concerning the way of my presentation? Please don't hesitate to criticize, I am not easily offended.
Do you find Cantonese sounds weird or funny? Have you discerned any pattern so far in the language? I hope you can make some sense out of it and derive some fun in doing so, so that it may not become a tedious chore for you to PL something that is incomprehensible. Anyhow, don't feel pressured to match the pace of my uploads, because I may have quite a bit of follow-up work to do after I have completed my recordings, so I am not in a hurry to have it completed and published as soon as possible.
Best Regards
What is that "follow-up work" you're talking about? I'm slightly getting worried here. 
Just to make it clear: we do not allow any amendments to the texts, we read them as-is. The changes you make wrt pronunciation etc. are perfectly fine, but an extra file or something at the end with a list of errors is not something we allow in general.
Just to make it clear: we do not allow any amendments to the texts, we read them as-is. The changes you make wrt pronunciation etc. are perfectly fine, but an extra file or something at the end with a list of errors is not something we allow in general.
Cheers, Ava.
Resident witch of LibriVox, channelling
Granny Weatherwax: "I ain't Nice."
--
AvailleAudio.com
Resident witch of LibriVox, channelling
Granny Weatherwax: "I ain't Nice."
--
AvailleAudio.com
-
DavidReader
- Posts: 174
- Joined: July 24th, 2018, 7:49 pm
Hi Ava,
As I am moving forward in the recordings, I notice that some of ways that I have rendered in certain words of previous completed sections should be adjusted. Therefore, if the PL is somewhat lagging behind, I will have more time to do so. On the other hand, there are aspects of deficiencies in the project that I really want to address at the conclusion of it. Mainly on the issue precisely of the dilemma of whether to mindlessly reading the text as-is (something that can be done more efficiently nowadays by text-reading software). If it is the policy of LV not to allow addendum file of reader's note to be published with the recording, then at least I would like to make a note in a post of this Forum.
As I am moving forward in the recordings, I notice that some of ways that I have rendered in certain words of previous completed sections should be adjusted. Therefore, if the PL is somewhat lagging behind, I will have more time to do so. On the other hand, there are aspects of deficiencies in the project that I really want to address at the conclusion of it. Mainly on the issue precisely of the dilemma of whether to mindlessly reading the text as-is (something that can be done more efficiently nowadays by text-reading software). If it is the policy of LV not to allow addendum file of reader's note to be published with the recording, then at least I would like to make a note in a post of this Forum.
Depending on the length of the note you can add something to the summary that goes into the catalog. This way (hopefully) more people will notice it than if you'd post it here in the forums.
It would be nice if you could leave the already PL OKed sections alone - it's not fair to the DPL to ask him to duplicate work (no matter which project, btw.) Other than that, I think it's okay to make changes to files that Larry hasn't listened to yet.
you can add something to the summary that goes into the catalog. This way (hopefully) more people will notice it than if you'd post it here in the forums. It would be nice if you could leave the already PL OKed sections alone - it's not fair to the DPL to ask him to duplicate work (no matter which project, btw.) Other than that, I think it's okay to make changes to files that Larry hasn't listened to yet.
Cheers, Ava.
Resident witch of LibriVox, channelling
Granny Weatherwax: "I ain't Nice."
--
AvailleAudio.com
Resident witch of LibriVox, channelling
Granny Weatherwax: "I ain't Nice."
--
AvailleAudio.com
-
silverquill
- Posts: 29085
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:11 pm
- Location: Southern California
Just let me know if you want me to delay any of my PL.
I do find your reading to be quite good. The pace and timing make it easy to listen to with an overall pleasing result. I think it is as much as can be done with this material.
I do find your reading to be quite good. The pace and timing make it easy to listen to with an overall pleasing result. I think it is as much as can be done with this material.
On the road again, so delays are possible
~ Larry
~ Larry
-
DavidReader
- Posts: 174
- Joined: July 24th, 2018, 7:49 pm
Thanks for both of your quick responses. Ava, thanks for your advises. Of course, it goes without saying that I will not ask Larry to re-PL those sections that had already been PL-OKed. I have now finished checking up to section 17, and hope that I can continue checking at the rate of one per day. Larry, I know that you are being forgiving, but with your seal of approval, I am a bit more confident in continuing with my work.
Regards
Regards
-
DavidReader
- Posts: 174
- Joined: July 24th, 2018, 7:49 pm
Hi Larry,
Section 000, which consists of the front matter of the dictionary has been uploaded. This section contains some background information of the work and the rules of pronouncing the Cantonese, which may facilitate your PLing my work. However, I must admit that I am not totally certain if I fully comprehend what Dr. Chalmers meant in some instances, such as things discussed @15:00, 16:00 and 25:10.
Anyway, I hope it helps,
Cheers
Section 000, which consists of the front matter of the dictionary has been uploaded. This section contains some background information of the work and the rules of pronouncing the Cantonese, which may facilitate your PLing my work. However, I must admit that I am not totally certain if I fully comprehend what Dr. Chalmers meant in some instances, such as things discussed @15:00, 16:00 and 25:10.
Anyway, I hope it helps,
Cheers
-
silverquill
- Posts: 29085
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:11 pm
- Location: Southern California
Oh, good!DavidReader wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2019, 9:47 pm Hi Larry,
Section 000, which consists of the front matter of the dictionary has been uploaded. This section contains some background information of the work and the rules of pronouncing the Cantonese, which may facilitate your PLing my work. However, I must admit that I am not totally certain if I fully comprehend what Dr. Chalmers meant in some instances, such as things discussed @15:00, 16:00 and 25:10.
Anyway, I hope it helps,
Cheers
I'll get to this as soon as I can.
Seems this was the week for all of my soloist I PL for to get inspired to record a bunch!
On the road again, so delays are possible
~ Larry
~ Larry