Talk:inso

𪜶嫂

@Mlgc1998 Hey, just wondering where you got 𪜶嫂. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser I think this was part of that time I was looking through the Chan-Yap (1980) paper (page 142) and the first character that that paper showed for inso and ingkong didn't seem to connect and it didn't explain why their choice was like that, so the most basic logical idea on it was that common pronoun and then later months, I talked about it with different people online and they also thought it would have been that, but then later I mentioned it to those guys in the groupchat and then months later, that boomer guy in the chat, I think it was von, who said he was convinced it was 姻 so he edited that in himself and later told us that and what he did. That anonymous ip must've been him. Mlgc1998 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: Thanks for your reply. To give you my thoughts, I actually think 𪜶嫂 is incorrect, as well as "in" being a pronoun. I think it's either 咉 (ńg) or 姆 (ḿ), so 咉嫂 (ńg-só) or 姆嫂 (ḿ-só), because Zhangzhou Hokkien likes to tack on these to family terms like prefixes. But that's just my guess. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser yeah I noticed ur edit in ingkong. where did you find out about these 咉 or 姆? Some months ago, at least for ingkong, I remember one of the guys at the groupchat (i think it was sigmund) chatted to his relatives back in Quanzhou (or he also mentioned before about having relatives from Zhangzhou) that they still supposedly use 𪜶公 as a common expression like it were still normal and common for them there to refer to their grandfather. I remember he was forwarding me voice messages from his relatives before on that and they did say like: "in kong" and then I thought, I guess this is kinda like the scenario with Intsik. Mlgc1998 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: Personally though, I think "Intsik" isn't from "𪜶叔" (his uncle), simply because it's ridiculous that Southeast Asians would borrow a phrase with two components and not a lexicalized word (like why not "my uncle" or "your uncle"?). So for me, my theory is that it comes from the Zhangzhou Hokkien 咉叔 (ńg-chek) which is a real word being used in Zhangzhou. To answer your question on where I found out about those, I like to read on other Hokkien dialects. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser ok. The frequent explanation people always told me how Intsik came to be is the usual supposed scenario how someone asks them who's that and they say in Hokkien like, it's their/his/her <insert relative> or <intention> sort of thing. I guess they generally do something like that too with terms like Sangley or wherever local placenames people imagined to replay how the Spaniards here came to encounter what local word to call a foreign place or people. Does 咉嫂 also exist and what does 咉 mean for them and why do they add it? The current page doesn't say much. Could've it been like their version of how we add 阿 or 唵 as respectful or endearing honorifics to elders, but today, the current Quanzhou-descended ph hokkien speakers no longer recognize the era of the old Zhangzhou-descended speakers. For these sort of things, I hoped something or at least some hints from those zhangzhou-hokkien-based books they left like the Dictionario Hispanico Sinicum or Arte de la Chio chiu could tell that. I couldn't explicitly find "Sangley" there before, but there was another book, the Bocabulario de la lengua sangleya (1617), that literally has the word on the title but I still don't have a copy of that. I wonder if any of these books has the answer to these colonial-era hokkien loanwords. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser I tried to look into the Dictionario Hispanico Sinicum and for ingkong and impo, it seems there are entries for it but for that page, they ...didn't seem to put the characters. At page 23 of the pdf here, there's entries for "Abuelo cóng:ìncóng" and "Abuela pō:m̄ pō:ìn pō". Then, for inso, looks like page 170 of the pdf seems to be giving some of the same characters from the Chan-Yap (1980) paper and some of the ones you mentioned. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)