Talk:羊羹

やうかん

やうかん is a pre-war spelling vs. pre-war pronunciation? Hongthay (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Justinrleung In the case this missed your radar...what do you think about just staying true to the source? (Thus やうかん is an indicator of its pre-war origin) Hongthay (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Pre-war spelling. I don't think it's really worth including, especially since the pronunciation clearly comes from "よう". —suzukaze (t・c) 00:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hongthay, are you talking about the etymology of Min Nan? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Yes, per http://taigi.fhl.net/dict/gm.php?fn=A/A0143.png Hongthay (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really know since I'm not very familiar with Japanese orthographic conventions. @suzukaze-c, I defer to you. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I already wrote my opinion above. The historical spelling reflects historical pronunciation; the reform brought spelling more in-line with contemporary spelling. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

See [1] and refer to section below. Almost all Japanese "o" and "ō" (MoE used "oo") correspond to Taiwanese "oo" (POJ o͘ (o-dot or long o)), with only a few exceptions (羊羹). Suggests if "yōkan" was indeed the origin, it would have been borrowed as ioo35 kang51 (long o), but the MoE says io35 kang51 (not long o). And TDJ says io-kàng (again not long o). I'm no expert at Japanese phonology but could the pre-war Japanese pronunciation be the source? If so, we may want to use やうかん to reflect this pre-war borrowing. Hongthay (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Min Nan spelling

FYI @Yoxem @Luuva We have "io-kàng" from 台語辭典, "io35 kang51" from MoE. Iő-káng is seen over at https://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C5%91-k%C3%A1ng Its history page shows it was originally titled "Iô͘-káng" (note the open o-dot). Hmmm, should 台語辭典 have used the o-dot? Hongthay (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

See this conversion table from kana to romanization. They didn't make a mistake (no o-dot, which is ou in their notation). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, since the 9th tone is not supported yet, I think we will have to hold iő-káng off until {{zh-pron}} supports this notation. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

ps.- The double acute for the 9th tone is for high rising ((possible) value is : 35 ˧˥) tone, and it's from Taiwanese Romanization System instead of Peh-oe-ji that lacks the tone marking. However, because the only way to mark a rising-tone of non-final syllables of a multisyllabic words for all the accents of Min Nan is double acute according to the tone sandhi rule, I think that the zh-pron template should be modified.--Yoxem (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the 9th tone for this word is just an imitation of the Japanese pronunciation of yōkan; it's not necessarily to be pronounced as 9th tone in Taiwanese. Luuva (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)