<p>The two most common systems are Yale and Jyutping, the latter was invented as late as 1993. I think both are included alongside pinyin in Unicode's table of Chinese characters.</p>

<p>Most native speakers don't use and are not even aware of these systems, especially in mainland China where Cantonese speakers never study their native language at school - it's hardly considered a "real language".
I have heard though that natives tend to use Jyutping, while Yale is used in nearly all English teaching material for Cantonese and is thus more popular among foreigners.</p>

<p>Then there is a third, obscure system with no tone information that nobody uses, except the HK government did when choosing all official, romanized place names, personal names, and so on. Oops. So neither system is good for reading romanized signs, maps et c!</p>

<p>I'd recommend learning and using Jyutping over Yale, for the following reaons:</p>

<ul>
<li>It's recommended by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, who invented it. (Not a huge reason, but noteworthy.)</li>
<li>It is based on pinyin and uses the same letters for the same sounds. I think this is good for a Cantonese romanization system: many, many, <em>many</em> more people know pinyin, thus Cantonese becomes more accessible by being compatible with it and avoiding confusion.</li>
<li>Jyutping distinguishes more sounds and is more accurate.</li>
<li>Jyutping gets tones right, being straight-forward and consistent. It doesn't  mix tone information and "spelling", like Yale (which sometimes uses double a:s or h:s to mark tones). It doesn't ignore tones entirely like the "government system". And there are only 6 tones, unlike the 9-tone model responsible for the linguistic urban myth of "look Cantonese has 9 tones, it's sooo hard to learn".</li>
</ul>

<p>Yes, it's takes a bit of work to get used to those 6 tones, but tones aren't optional. It's much more frustrating when you eventually speak the language somewhat well, you're trying to read signs with unfamiliar Chinese characters and the romanized text totally lacks tone data! What are you supposed to do, read all permutations and ask a native which one makes sense? </p>

<ul>
<li>If you learn Jyutping you can use it to input characters especially in Linux-systems, but also in Windows and perhaps Mac OS X, I think, by using commercial software.  </li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-03T16:31:25.617Z
Definitely familiar with the romanization used on signs in HK as I lived there for two years.  In my mind, there's no way you could ever learn to speak Cantonese using that method.  I actually already know Yale, so Jyutping would be learning a new method for me, and honestly looking at it I feel like Yale is actually more intuitive and that the double 'a' or the 'h' for tones makes it quite easy to read quickly.  The point that it is based on Pinyin is well taken, though, and I may take the time to learn Jyutping at some point if only for that reason.
Zann Anderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-31T17:50:08.880Z
Reason #2 is not completely true!  "j" in Jyutping is "y" in Pinyin and Yale. But "c" and "z" in Jyutping are the same in Pinyin but in Yale they are "j" and "ch".
Apprentice Queue
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-31T17:56:04.703Z
Reason #4 is not correct. The Jyutping numeric tone markings are exactly the same as Yale's. Yale also has non-numeric tone markings which are similar to Pinyin and very intuitive: ā,á,a,àh,áh,ah which represent high, high rising, neutral, low falling, low rising, and low.
Apprentice Queue
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T19:52:49.523Z
@ApprenticeQueue Thank you for your comments, those are valid and good points. Perhaps it is just more common that people or books *claim* to use Yale, but then omit tone info (except 'h') because they don't know better. Jyutping tends to be correct when it's used (?). But if used as you suggest, I agree that Yale would work just as well.
Toerndev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-22T14:50:27.783Z
I recommend Jyutping over Yale and over Yale with tone numbers, because "oe" and "eo" are two different sounds and Yale represents them both as "eu", and if we consider tone marks I'd stick with numbers since once you learn tone-to-number matching you get rid of extra h's which I just dislike. It _is_ true that having j to mean y isn't very nice, but it is just something to get used to. In fact, the main reason I switched to Jyutping is that www.mdbg.net uses Jyutping, so when I had to transliterate from Cantonese I had to use Jyutping. Now since CantoDict also does I have one more reason.
MickG
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-22T14:53:33.937Z
It is also true that, to foreigners (especially English-speaking), Yale is _much_ more intuitive: z and c are far less intuitive than Yale j and ch, and using j for y is decidedly counter-intuitive. So if you don't use MDBG or CantoDict, or if you are willing to go through the conversion, I recommend you stick to Yale, though the "eo" vs. "oe" thing just can't be solved inside Yale. Well, actually I think there is a rule that can be used to tell them apart from the following coda consonants, but it is an extra rule, so if one is really interested in keeping that distinction, well, Jyutping :).
MickG
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-22T14:54:25.780Z
Of course, you can teach a Computer to do the conversion, but that is off-topic here :).
MickG
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-25T13:15:02.033Z
"The Jyutping numeric tone markings are exactly the same as Yale's." Err no. Jyutping uses numbers...
dda
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-25T13:15:53.433Z
Jyutping for Mac: http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~domingo2/Chinese.html
dda
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-03T08:08:16.437Z
2014-09-23T16:24:45.587Z
2014-09-23T16:24:45.587Z
Toerndev
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese#Romanization" rel="nofollow">This</a> will give you a good background into each of the systems:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Cantonese romanization systems are based on the accent of Canton and
  Hong Kong, and have helped define the concept of Standard Cantonese.
  The major systems are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett%E2%80%93Chao" rel="nofollow">Barnett–Chao</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer%E2%80%93Wempe" rel="nofollow">Meyer–Wempe</a>, the Chinese
  government's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangdong_Romanization" rel="nofollow">Guangdong Romanization</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Romanization#Cantonese" rel="nofollow">Yale</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyutping" rel="nofollow">Jyutping</a>. While they do
  not differ greatly, Yale is the one most commonly seen in the west
  today.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think it's all personal preference. As you mention the Yale system makes most sense to you, then I would stick with that.</p>

<p>Each system is about providing you a tool, but they all have the same aim. To enable you to understand Cantonese. To this end, there is no benefit in learning two of them thoroughly.</p>

<p>Another point is that romanization systems are limited in the benefit they provide for learning a language. They are covering a very minute amount of knowledge. So most students (in China) learn pinyin as a first step and then discard it. It is studied in the first month to become familiar with the sounds and letters and then it is only used for reading for a year or two after that. So don't rely on this as the cornerstone of your learning or as a regular tool for reading, use it as the most basic of tools, it is essentially just a 2 or 3 letter representation along with a tone to teach you pronounciation.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-19T01:55:53.963Z
2011-12-19T01:55:53.963Z
going
<p>The Cantonese romanization scheme that I know is Yale Romanization, which to me makes the most sense and is the easiest to read of any that I've seen.  It seems to give a very good idea of how to pronounce things and is easier to read than, say, trying to remember which number goes with which tone.  I'm aware, however, that there are others out there.  Is Yale the most common and if not, what is?  What schemes do you all use?  Should I take the time to learn another?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-18T06:53:56.173Z
...and what is the best system to type Cantonese?
tbaums
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-19T01:46:52.760Z
@tbaums - Your comment is a separate question and is also off topic for this site as asking for the best of something is subjective.
going
<cantonese><romanization><yale-romanization>
Cantonese Romanization schemes
# Cantonese Romanization schemes

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-12-16)

The Cantonese romanization scheme that I know is Yale Romanization, which to me makes the most sense and is the easiest to read of any that I've seen. It seems to give a very good idea of how to pronounce things and is easier to read than, say, trying to remember which number goes with which tone. I'm aware, however, that there are others out there. Is Yale the most common and if not, what is? What schemes do you all use? Should I take the time to learn another?

**Tags:** cantonese, romanization, yale-romanization

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: ...and what is the best system to type Cantonese?  
> **username_2**: @username_1 - Your comment is a separate question and is also off topic for this site as asking for the best of something is subjective.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2011-12-19. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

[This](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese#Romanization) will give you a good background into each of the systems:

> Cantonese romanization systems are based on the accent of Canton and
> Hong Kong, and have helped define the concept of Standard Cantonese.
> The major systems are [Barnett–Chao](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett%E2%80%93Chao), [Meyer–Wempe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer%E2%80%93Wempe), the Chinese
> government's [Guangdong Romanization](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangdong_Romanization), [Yale](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Romanization#Cantonese) and [Jyutping](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyutping). While they do
> not differ greatly, Yale is the one most commonly seen in the west
> today.

I think it's all personal preference. As you mention the Yale system makes most sense to you, then I would stick with that.

Each system is about providing you a tool, but they all have the same aim. To enable you to understand Cantonese. To this end, there is no benefit in learning two of them thoroughly.

Another point is that romanization systems are limited in the benefit they provide for learning a language. They are covering a very minute amount of knowledge. So most students (in China) learn pinyin as a first step and then discard it. It is studied in the first month to become familiar with the sounds and letters and then it is only used for reading for a year or two after that. So don't rely on this as the cornerstone of your learning or as a regular tool for reading, use it as the most basic of tools, it is essentially just a 2 or 3 letter representation along with a tone to teach you pronounciation.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2012-02-03. Score: 4

The two most common systems are Yale and Jyutping, the latter was invented as late as 1993. I think both are included alongside pinyin in Unicode's table of Chinese characters.

Most native speakers don't use and are not even aware of these systems, especially in mainland China where Cantonese speakers never study their native language at school - it's hardly considered a "real language".
I have heard though that natives tend to use Jyutping, while Yale is used in nearly all English teaching material for Cantonese and is thus more popular among foreigners.

Then there is a third, obscure system with no tone information that nobody uses, except the HK government did when choosing all official, romanized place names, personal names, and so on. Oops. So neither system is good for reading romanized signs, maps et c!

I'd recommend learning and using Jyutping over Yale, for the following reaons:

* It's recommended by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, who invented it. (Not a huge reason, but noteworthy.)
* It is based on pinyin and uses the same letters for the same sounds. I think this is good for a Cantonese romanization system: many, many, *many* more people know pinyin, thus Cantonese becomes more accessible by being compatible with it and avoiding confusion.
* Jyutping distinguishes more sounds and is more accurate.
* Jyutping gets tones right, being straight-forward and consistent. It doesn't mix tone information and "spelling", like Yale (which sometimes uses double a:s or h:s to mark tones). It doesn't ignore tones entirely like the "government system". And there are only 6 tones, unlike the 9-tone model responsible for the linguistic urban myth of "look Cantonese has 9 tones, it's sooo hard to learn".

Yes, it's takes a bit of work to get used to those 6 tones, but tones aren't optional. It's much more frustrating when you eventually speak the language somewhat well, you're trying to read signs with unfamiliar Chinese characters and the romanized text totally lacks tone data! What are you supposed to do, read all permutations and ask a native which one makes sense?

* If you learn Jyutping you can use it to input characters especially in Linux-systems, but also in Windows and perhaps Mac OS X, I think, by using commercial software.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Definitely familiar with the romanization used on signs in HK as I lived there for two years.  In my mind, there's no way you could ever learn to speak Cantonese using that method.  I actually already know Yale, so Jyutping would be learning a new method for me, and honestly looking at it I feel like Yale is actually more intuitive and that the double 'a' or the 'h' for tones makes it quite easy to read quickly.  The point that it is based on Pinyin is well taken, though, and I may take the time to learn Jyutping at some point if only for that reason.  
> **username_4**: Reason #2 is not completely true!  "j" in Jyutping is "y" in Pinyin and Yale. But "c" and "z" in Jyutping are the same in Pinyin but in Yale they are "j" and "ch".  
> **username_4**: Reason #4 is not correct. The Jyutping numeric tone markings are exactly the same as Yale's. Yale also has non-numeric tone markings which are similar to Pinyin and very intuitive: ā,á,a,àh,áh,ah which represent high, high rising, neutral, low falling, low rising, and low.  
> **username_3**: @username_4 Thank you for your comments, those are valid and good points. Perhaps it is just more common that people or books *claim* to use Yale, but then omit tone info (except 'h') because they don't know better. Jyutping tends to be correct when it's used (?). But if used as you suggest, I agree that Yale would work just as well.  
> **username_5**: I recommend Jyutping over Yale and over Yale with tone numbers, because "oe" and "eo" are two different sounds and Yale represents them both as "eu", and if we consider tone marks I'd stick with numbers since once you learn tone-to-number matching you get rid of extra h's which I just dislike. It _is_ true that having j to mean y isn't very nice, but it is just something to get used to. In fact, the main reason I switched to Jyutping is that www.mdbg.net uses Jyutping, so when I had to transliterate from Cantonese I had to use Jyutping. Now since CantoDict also does I have one more reason.  
> **username_5**: It is also true that, to foreigners (especially English-speaking), Yale is _much_ more intuitive: z and c are far less intuitive than Yale j and ch, and using j for y is decidedly counter-intuitive. So if you don't use MDBG or CantoDict, or if you are willing to go through the conversion, I recommend you stick to Yale, though the "eo" vs. "oe" thing just can't be solved inside Yale. Well, actually I think there is a rule that can be used to tell them apart from the following coda consonants, but it is an extra rule, so if one is really interested in keeping that distinction, well, Jyutping :).  
> **username_5**: Of course, you can teach a Computer to do the conversion, but that is off-topic here :).  
> **username_6**: "The Jyutping numeric tone markings are exactly the same as Yale's." Err no. Jyutping uses numbers...  
> **username_6**: Jyutping for Mac: http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~domingo2/Chinese.html  

---

