Talk:教

I wonder if the Min and Wu readings in Pronunciation 1 should be removed and put into Pronunciation 2 as vernacular readings. Wyang (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang, I don't think so. I think the 平聲 reading has been conflated with the 去聲 reading in many dialects. The Cantonese gaau1 is also wrong; it's almost never used. 粵音正讀字彙 (Richard Ho) says gaau1 is used in this context: 使；令；讓：悔～夫壻覓封侯。 廣州音字彙 (1962) says 使也. These seem to be read as jiào in Mandarin. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I had a think about this. When we split by MC and OC pronunciations, there are two interpretations of how the modern pronunciations correspond to the ancient ones: (1) they are linked by having the same meaning, and (2) they are linked by regular phonological developments. We try to find a compromise between the two, but when they conflict, we mostly use the first interpretation here. For example, when pronunciation of a sense in a variety is supplanted by another pronunciation of the same character (e.g. 創), we record the supplanting pronunciation as the modern pronunciation. But 教 is tricky, since both MC and OC pronunciations mean "to teach". In addition to this sense, both pronunciations have other meanings, like "to let" for Pronunciation 1 (which is missing atm).

Since 教 means "to teach" in Min Nan (kà 白 / kàu 文), if we use the first interpretation above, we can't definitely say kà corresponds to Pronunciation 1, unless we can demonstrate that MC level tone was the vernacular counterpart of the departing tone variant (which is not supported by Kangxi: 古肴切 ... 義同). In other words, both 'kà' and 'kàu' belong to Pronunciation 1, as well as Pronunciation 2. Cantonese for Pronunciation 1 would be gaau3 ('to teach') and gaau1 ('prescribed pronunciation for 'to let'), and Mandarin would have jiao1 (白 for 'to teach'; 'to let') and jiao4 (文 for 'to teach'). Wyang (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)