Talk:Rime table

Grade of Rime
When I began the article and wrote "grade of rime, rimes and tones" these three items are all separate concepts in historical Chinese phononlogy, or Chinese philology. By removing 'grade of rime' and merging it with 'rimes' is over editing of terms which the editor of that phrase does not properly understand. "Grade" of rime is frequently the English translation of the Chinese term 'deng'. Please be careful when editing. I am reinstating the "grade of rime" phrase. Dylanwhs 14:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

wai/nei and kaikou/hekou
The first paragraph of the 'Structure' section states:

"A rime table book consists of a number of tabular charts, each devoted to either the "inner" (nèi 內) or "outer" (wài 外) part of a particular rime group (shè 攝). The inner/outer subdivision is thought to be related to the vocalic heights contrasting close vowels and open vowels respectively. Each shè (攝) is characterized as either "open" (kāi 開) and "closed" (hé 合), which are interpreted to indicate the absence or presence of lip rounding (often transcribed as -w- or -u-)."

I think this has it the wrong way round. As I understand it, the rime group as a whole is either "outer" or "inner". But most rime groups contain more than one table, each of which may be either "kai" or "he". I am no expert in this field,and do not dare revise the article myself. But I am sufficiently sure of my ground to wish for a more knowledgeable editor to look again.

Here is a possible formulation of what I take to be the real state of affairs:

A rime table book is subdivided into a set of rime groups (shè 攝),each of which consists of a number of tabular charts. The rime groups are classified as either "inner" (nèi 內) or "outer" (wài 外). This subdivision is thought to be related to the vocalic heights, contrasting close vowels and open vowels respectively. The individual tables may be either "open" (kāi 開) or "closed" (hé 合). This distinction is interpreted to indicate the absence or presence of lip rounding (often transcribed as -w- or -u-).

¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.232.61.48 (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this was the wrong way round. Now switched.  Kanguole 10:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Jiadeng
...so-called jiǎděng (假等 "pseudo-grade"): for example, a syllable shown to be grade-4 on the table is in fact grade-3, and finds itself at the grade-4 position only because the slot has been occupied by another syllable.

Certain false-grade 4 and false grade 2 syllables are due not to the table being filled at the appropriate third deng position, but because of the nature of the initial and or rime given. This is why the table in the picture has so many additional numbers attached to various characters. For instance 嵩 ought to be a third deng character, and the third deng position is free. The only thing that puts 嵩 in the fourth grade position is due to it's fanqie properties, 息弓切. Although both are third deng chars, 息 tends to be used with non-3rd deng fanqie. This leaves the question why fourth and not second deng positions. 息心 belongs to the 心 initial from the 精 group of initials. It is mostly used for first and fourth deng characters. So, by extension, 嵩 must be a third deng character that has to fit in the fourth deng slot because it's initial dictates its positioning. Dylanwhs (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Initials
BTW, there are some errors in the IPA values in the initials. Moreover, you need to be clearer about what period those initials apply to. Dylanwhs (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Combination of Rime Tables with 36 initials
I feel enormously irritated that these two articles were combined. A rime table is not the same thing as the 36 initials, as is still reflected in the organization of this article. Most irritating the values in Baxter's system have been replaced with pseudo-IPA values of no historical meaning or value as Dylanwhs points out. Tibetologist (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose splitting is an option, but the table was added here in 2008, and the other article created in 2009 and redirected in 2010. It was in a pretty poor state when it was merged (e.g. it was missing the velars and thus had only 32 initials).  It's not clear where the transcriptions in this article came from.  The former article used Wang Li's transcription.  Baxter's transcription might not be appropriate, as it describes the Qieyun initials, while these are for a later period.  His use of "h" for ɦ/ɣ has also been criticized as confusing.  Pulleyblank's Late Middle Chinese might be a possibility (and is used for this purpose by Baxter), though he merges 非 and 敷 as "f" and not everyone agrees with him on various details.  Kanguole 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would still suggest using Baxter. It is simply necessary to mention that pj and phj had by that time become f and fh. Also, what I noticed Kane does in his book on Khitan was to use Baxter but rewrite pj as f and phj as fh, mechanically. Seems like a good option to me. What is useful of Baxter is precisely that one can compare the Qieyun system with the Yunjing system qua systems without having to get bogged down in (probably ultimately unknowable) phonetic details. Tibetologist (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)