5 ms·

Or: https://montagne-hautlanguedoc.com/recettes-de-cuisine-traditionnelle-de-france/recettes-de-gibiers/faisandage/ https://montagne-hautlanguedoc.com/recettes-

by mc32 4y ago

Or: https://montagne-hautlanguedoc.com/recettes-de-cuisine-traditionnelle-de-france/recettes-de-gibiers/faisandage/ https://montagne-hautlanguedoc.com/recettes-de-cuisine-tradi... Faisandage. Also, this is BS: "Peking duck, which also owes its name to a romanized name for Beijing" No, it is no more Romanized than "Beijing"... One is Wade-Giles, the other Pinyin Romanization.

vehemenz 4y ago
Use vs. reference. 'Peking' is a romanized name for Beijing. So is 'Beijing.' Had the author said "a romanized name for 'Beijing,'" then you would have a had a point. Sure, you could use '北京,' but that is unnecessarily confusing.
- mc32 4y ago
  That's my point, they're both "romanizations" One is one type, the other another. There have been other romanizations as well and in addition there are things like bopomo. And, yes, it would make sense to me to say Peking is a romanized transliteration of the Chinese character for the locale [in the mandarin dialect.]
  - vehemenz 4y ago
    The author raises the point about 'Peking' because many people don't know that it's a romanization of Beijing. You are suggesting that the author is incorrect to omit the commonly known romanization? Develop the argument.
    - zerocrates 4y ago
      They just want it to say "an alternative romanization of Beijing" or something like that instead. As written it sort of implies that "Peking" is the result of romanization while "Beijing" is not.
      - jacobr1 4y ago
        While I don't think this was intended - there is a movement to use place-names as preferred by their inhabitants, rather than their "colonial" names. Regardless of the historical context or the merits of linguistic descriptivism. So for example you have Mumbai or Turkiye. So the _implication_ for someone that didn't have the context regarding romanization, is that Peking is the "colonial" name, now requiring updating to less-racist standards.
        mc32 4y ago
        Eh, I rather go by whatever a language one is speaking calls something: For example, are you going to write in to Chinese radio and news outlets and insist they use English names for cities in Anglo north America and Spanish for cities in Latin America? They use phonetically semi-close analogues for major geographical place names[1]. What about Latin American speakers and their translations of US and Canadian cities into Spanish, is that now frowned? And who cares about what a despot says a country should be called (be they Turkey or Burma)? Do I have to say Koln instead of Cologne, Roma/Rome, Espagna/Spain, Torino/Turin? Or Myanmar instead of Burma? But, whait.. what do I do when the locals have a dialectal non-official variant? [1] Alabama (阿拉巴马 – Ā lā bā mǎ) Alaska (阿拉斯加 – Ā lā sī jiā) Arizona (亚利桑那 – Yǎ lì sāng nà) [asia, profit, mulberry, that] Arkansas (阿肯色 – Ā kěn sè) California (加利福尼亚 – Jiā lì fú ní yǎ) Colorado (科罗拉多 – Kē luō lā duō) Connecticut (康涅狄格 – Kāng niè dí gé) [health, nirvana, digger] Delaware (特拉华 – Tè lā huá)
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        ponow 4y ago
        Hilarious. I think the criterion is that you have to change your pronunciation if someone claims you have power: a kind of punching up / revenge.
        jacobr1 4y ago
        There are plenty of people that will gleefully try to correct you if you write Burma rather than Myanmar these days. I don't think it is a _good_ trend. But it really is a trend.
ajross 4y ago
FWIW: my understanding is that there's a dialect issue at work too. The folks providing the pronunciation to a transliterator that became "Peking" said the name of the city somewhat differently than the people living in Beijing today do.
- mc32 4y ago
  Yeah, Peking is much closer to the Cantonese pronunciation of the city, however, I think the guys who came up with the romanization did live in the north capital city. On the other hand Wade-Giles is more prevalent in Singapore, HK and Taiwan, for example --though in some instances they are starting to follow the pinyin transliteration.
  - glxxyz 4y ago
    Wade-Giles is more prevalent in places that kept Traditional characters, because the mainland switched to Simplified and pinyin in the 1950s.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    etymonline says "Peking" comes from Hong Kong without much argument devoted to the question. Wiktionary claims, much more convincingly, that it comes from the Mandarin pronunciation of 450 years ago, before palatalization took place. > Abraham Ortelius used C. Paquin for his 1572 Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, the first modern atlas; Italian Jesuit Martino Martini used Peking in his 1654 Latin De Bello Tartarico Historia and 1655 Novus Atlas Sinensis, which were quickly translated into English ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Peking#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Peking#Etymology )
- glxxyz 4y ago
  Not really, under the old Wade-Giles romanization system the city was transliterated as 'Peking'. Under the newer (~65 year old) pinyin system it's transliterated as 'Beijing'. The pronunciation in Mandarin never changed, just the way that sounds which don't have any exact equivalent in our alphabet are represented. Chang used to be a very common Chinese surname, but Zhang is now. It's the same name.
smegsicle 4y ago
beijing is a city in china the term 'peking duck', much like the more common spelling 'beijing', are based on romanizations of the name of the city of beijing, china, which is a city, and not a romanized name for itself bringing up the fact that 'beijing' is a different kind of romanization is only useful if the audience needs to be educated on different kinds of romanizations, which is the point of contention between the author of the duck article, Preston Landers, and 'mc32', which is four ascii characters, and not a person
onethought 4y ago
Peking is the Cantonese word for Beijing
- gwd 4y ago
  NB this works both ways on a lot of things. For instance, the Chinese word for "guitar" is 吉他; pronounced "jí tā" in Mandarin, but "gat1 taa1" in Cantonese. Similary for "Canada" (加拿大): jiā ná dà in Mandarin, and gaa1 naa4 daai6 in Cantonese. It's a weird side-effect of two facts: 1) the British interacted a lot more directly with Canton than the rest of China 2) Mandarin and Cantonese are "officially" different dialects of the same language, so once you define the characters in one, you've mostly defined them in the other. (Some exceptions seem to include "bus" and "taxi", which in HK are obviously based on the English words, but Mandarin has their own, self-describing names for.)
  - odiroot 4y ago
    And then you also have Hokkien, Hakka, Teochew. Spending some time in Malaysia and Singapore, you can hear all of these (plus Malay) mixed into a single English-language sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the colonial language migrated back with the Brits.
- jhanschoo 4y ago
  No, Bak-ging is the Cantonese word for Beijing under Yale, Jyutping, Pinyin. Please verify before passing something easily verifiable as fact.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - onethought 4y ago
    I clarified exactly what I meant: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33870873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33870873 and further here: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33875370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33875370
jhanschoo 4y ago
Such terrible misinformation from speculation in the other replies. Peking is not that much closer to the Cantonese pronunciation (see the voice sample in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC). Nor is it Wade–Giles, which would romanize it as Pei-ching. Just look up the word's well-sourced etymology in Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Peking#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Peking#Etymology): the name comes from Mandarin after Mandarin dropped final -k, -p, -t (which are preserved in Cantonese) but before Mandarin palatalized ki > ji. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_postal_romanization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_postal_romanization. The initial consonant being p- is also expected, since it is closer to the unaspirated p in most European languages than to b-; the Pinyin p- then corresponds to aspirated p.
- onethought 4y ago
  It’s not misinformation. You are basically saying it’s from mandarin back when mandarin was a lot more like Cantonese. It is very easy to hear the similarities between bak ging and Peking… clearly they are related, exactly the same mouth tongue and aspiration. But sure, it’s from mandarin back when mandarin pronounced it just like the Cantonese do :) not from Cantonese at all.
  - jhanschoo 4y ago
    It's also very easy to hear the similarities between Peking and Mandarin... clearly they are related in every aspect except for k > j Whereas for Cantonese, there's difference in vowel quality and the final -k of 北. It wouldn't be misinformation if Mandarin indeed used to be pronounced similar to Cantonese... but that's just not true since earlier Mandarin never had -a- for the vowel of 北; it was an innovation in several southern Chinese languages. At best we can say that they used to be pronounced like their Middle Chinese ancestors.

by mc32 4y ago

vehemenz 4y ago

Use vs. reference. 'Peking' is a romanized name for Beijing. So is 'Beijing.' Had the author said "a romanized name for 'Beijing,'" then you would have a had a point. Sure, you could use '北京,' but that is unnecessarily confusing.

mc32 4y ago
That's my point, they're both "romanizations" One is one type, the other another. There have been other romanizations as well and in addition there are things like bopomo. And, yes, it would make sense to me to say Peking is a romanized transliteration of the Chinese character for the locale [in the mandarin dialect.]
- vehemenz 4y ago
  The author raises the point about 'Peking' because many people don't know that it's a romanization of Beijing. You are suggesting that the author is incorrect to omit the commonly known romanization? Develop the argument.
  - zerocrates 4y ago
    They just want it to say "an alternative romanization of Beijing" or something like that instead. As written it sort of implies that "Peking" is the result of romanization while "Beijing" is not.
    - jacobr1 4y ago
      While I don't think this was intended - there is a movement to use place-names as preferred by their inhabitants, rather than their "colonial" names. Regardless of the historical context or the merits of linguistic descriptivism. So for example you have Mumbai or Turkiye. So the _implication_ for someone that didn't have the context regarding romanization, is that Peking is the "colonial" name, now requiring updating to less-racist standards.
      - mc32 4y ago
        Eh, I rather go by whatever a language one is speaking calls something: For example, are you going to write in to Chinese radio and news outlets and insist they use English names for cities in Anglo north America and Spanish for cities in Latin America? They use phonetically semi-close analogues for major geographical place names[1]. What about Latin American speakers and their translations of US and Canadian cities into Spanish, is that now frowned? And who cares about what a despot says a country should be called (be they Turkey or Burma)? Do I have to say Koln instead of Cologne, Roma/Rome, Espagna/Spain, Torino/Turin? Or Myanmar instead of Burma? But, whait.. what do I do when the locals have a dialectal non-official variant? [1] Alabama (阿拉巴马 – Ā lā bā mǎ) Alaska (阿拉斯加 – Ā lā sī jiā) Arizona (亚利桑那 – Yǎ lì sāng nà) [asia, profit, mulberry, that] Arkansas (阿肯色 – Ā kěn sè) California (加利福尼亚 – Jiā lì fú ní yǎ) Colorado (科罗拉多 – Kē luō lā duō) Connecticut (康涅狄格 – Kāng niè dí gé) [health, nirvana, digger] Delaware (特拉华 – Tè lā huá)
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        ponow 4y ago
        Hilarious. I think the criterion is that you have to change your pronunciation if someone claims you have power: a kind of punching up / revenge.
        jacobr1 4y ago
        There are plenty of people that will gleefully try to correct you if you write Burma rather than Myanmar these days. I don't think it is a _good_ trend. But it really is a trend.

ajross 4y ago

FWIW: my understanding is that there's a dialect issue at work too. The folks providing the pronunciation to a transliterator that became "Peking" said the name of the city somewhat differently than the people living in Beijing today do.

mc32 4y ago
Yeah, Peking is much closer to the Cantonese pronunciation of the city, however, I think the guys who came up with the romanization did live in the north capital city. On the other hand Wade-Giles is more prevalent in Singapore, HK and Taiwan, for example --though in some instances they are starting to follow the pinyin transliteration.
- glxxyz 4y ago
  Wade-Giles is more prevalent in places that kept Traditional characters, because the mainland switched to Simplified and pinyin in the 1950s.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  etymonline says "Peking" comes from Hong Kong without much argument devoted to the question. Wiktionary claims, much more convincingly, that it comes from the Mandarin pronunciation of 450 years ago, before palatalization took place. > Abraham Ortelius used C. Paquin for his 1572 Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, the first modern atlas; Italian Jesuit Martino Martini used Peking in his 1654 Latin De Bello Tartarico Historia and 1655 Novus Atlas Sinensis, which were quickly translated into English ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Peking#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Peking#Etymology )
glxxyz 4y ago
Not really, under the old Wade-Giles romanization system the city was transliterated as 'Peking'. Under the newer (~65 year old) pinyin system it's transliterated as 'Beijing'. The pronunciation in Mandarin never changed, just the way that sounds which don't have any exact equivalent in our alphabet are represented. Chang used to be a very common Chinese surname, but Zhang is now. It's the same name.

smegsicle 4y ago

beijing is a city in china the term 'peking duck', much like the more common spelling 'beijing', are based on romanizations of the name of the city of beijing, china, which is a city, and not a romanized name for itself bringing up the fact that 'beijing' is a different kind of romanization is only useful if the audience needs to be educated on different kinds of romanizations, which is the point of contention between the author of the duck article, Preston Landers, and 'mc32', which is four ascii characters, and not a person

onethought 4y ago

Peking is the Cantonese word for Beijing

gwd 4y ago
NB this works both ways on a lot of things. For instance, the Chinese word for "guitar" is 吉他; pronounced "jí tā" in Mandarin, but "gat1 taa1" in Cantonese. Similary for "Canada" (加拿大): jiā ná dà in Mandarin, and gaa1 naa4 daai6 in Cantonese. It's a weird side-effect of two facts: 1) the British interacted a lot more directly with Canton than the rest of China 2) Mandarin and Cantonese are "officially" different dialects of the same language, so once you define the characters in one, you've mostly defined them in the other. (Some exceptions seem to include "bus" and "taxi", which in HK are obviously based on the English words, but Mandarin has their own, self-describing names for.)
- odiroot 4y ago
  And then you also have Hokkien, Hakka, Teochew. Spending some time in Malaysia and Singapore, you can hear all of these (plus Malay) mixed into a single English-language sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the colonial language migrated back with the Brits.
jhanschoo 4y ago
No, Bak-ging is the Cantonese word for Beijing under Yale, Jyutping, Pinyin. Please verify before passing something easily verifiable as fact.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- onethought 4y ago
  I clarified exactly what I meant: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33870873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33870873 and further here: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33875370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33875370

jhanschoo 4y ago

Such terrible misinformation from speculation in the other replies. Peking is not that much closer to the Cantonese pronunciation (see the voice sample in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC). Nor is it Wade–Giles, which would romanize it as Pei-ching. Just look up the word's well-sourced etymology in Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Peking#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Peking#Etymology): the name comes from Mandarin after Mandarin dropped final -k, -p, -t (which are preserved in Cantonese) but before Mandarin palatalized ki > ji. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_postal_romanization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_postal_romanization. The initial consonant being p- is also expected, since it is closer to the unaspirated p in most European languages than to b-; the Pinyin p- then corresponds to aspirated p.

onethought 4y ago
It’s not misinformation. You are basically saying it’s from mandarin back when mandarin was a lot more like Cantonese. It is very easy to hear the similarities between bak ging and Peking… clearly they are related, exactly the same mouth tongue and aspiration. But sure, it’s from mandarin back when mandarin pronounced it just like the Cantonese do :) not from Cantonese at all.
- jhanschoo 4y ago
  It's also very easy to hear the similarities between Peking and Mandarin... clearly they are related in every aspect except for k > j Whereas for Cantonese, there's difference in vowel quality and the final -k of 北. It wouldn't be misinformation if Mandarin indeed used to be pronounced similar to Cantonese... but that's just not true since earlier Mandarin never had -a- for the vowel of 北; it was an innovation in several southern Chinese languages. At best we can say that they used to be pronounced like their Middle Chinese ancestors.