Talk:Bàng-uâ-cê

Someone replaced the IPA letter "œ" by a plain "oe"... Well, that's incorrect. GnuDoyng 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have rewritten much of the text to make it more readable and to improve the flow in English. In doing so I have tried to avoid changing any of the substance of the previous version. Taffy U|T|E 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Foochow Romanized
A quick Google search led me to this page on Wikisource, which is from a dictionary that uses BUC. I think it's safe to say Foochow Romanized is what it has been called by users of the romanization. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That dictionary is from 1902. "Amoy Romanized" was the historical equivalent for Pe̍h-ōe-jī, and is similarly archaic and grammatically incorrect. A proper modern translation may be Foochow / Fuzhou romanisation or Foochow / Fuzhou romanised text, but neither of these are popularly used. Recent scholarship often uses the abbreviation you used, i.e. BUC, or leave 平話字 unromanised / untranslated.
 * Example: "The once popular form is the BUC system (Bàng-uâ-cê 平话字) designed by missionaries in the 19th century."
 * Pe̍h-ōe-jī and Pha̍k-fa-sṳ have gradually gained currency in the English language; I see no value in maintaining a century-outdated exonym. Yue 🌙 01:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be archaic, but I don't know why it would be grammatically incorrect. The system was devised and in most common use around the late 19th, early 20th century by these people who edited the dictionary I cite, so I don't understand why their work would not be valid/valuable. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also pinging for their opinions on this. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)