Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.taiwan
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!mcv
From: mcv@inter.NL.net (Miguel Carrasquer)
Subject: Re: apolitical romanization
Message-ID: <Cyow0L.Mp@inter.NL.net>
Organization: NLnet
References: <38qa1o$3gl@news.CCIT.Arizona.EDU> <396rrf$adj@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <397hgf$14e@news.CCIT.Arizona.EDU> <399gu0$flq@serv.hinet.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 11:31:32 GMT
Lines: 33

In article <399gu0$flq@serv.hinet.net>, young <young@hntp2.hinet.net> wrote:
>Hung J Lu (hlu@GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
>
>On the second point above: About 30% to 40% of the Holo
>vocabulary cannot be written in Han Characters. There are
>people trying to find the one or the other rare character
>as the "original" for the one word or the other. They
>never succeeded in proving it. Even if their hypothese was
>true, the set of words they found the "original characters"
>for is still too tiny small to be practically useful. 
>Furthermore, these 30% to 40% of Holo vocabulary are the
>most frequently used part in the daily life. There are
>evidences that Holo originally was not a Han language and
>Holo got sinitized about about 1500 to 1000 years ago.
>How does one proceed "associating" Holo with Mandarin ?

Hm, if 30%-40% percent of the vocabulary, and an even higher
percentage of the core vocabulary is non-Han, then that
would usually justify including the language in another
group, genetically.  Is this true, or is it just that these
vocabulary items are not shared with Mandarin?  And if it is
true, how is that core vocabulary to be classified?  Austronesian?  

>The Hakka and the Cantonese might have used it [Hoklo] to 
>transliterate it and also to show the strangerness of Holo 
>to them. But, Holo is Holo is Holo.

Now that's holistic! :-)

-- 
Miguel Carrasquer         ____________________  ~~~
Amsterdam                [                  ||]~  
mcv@inter.NL.net         ce .sig n'est pas une .cig 
