Easy Chinese: Cantonese: Numbers, counting

Practice la~ Description’s not necessary coz everything is written in the vid already^^ Song used: SHE – Chinese Language 中國話^-^ Feel free to ask anything you didn’t understand or wanna be better!:D & Do leave your footprints behind^^
Video Rating: 4 / 5

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Incoming search terms:

  • cantonese numbers 1-10 pronunciation
Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Chinese Mandarin
25 comments on “Easy Chinese: Cantonese: Numbers, counting
  1. BruceRepresents says:

    That’s funny. From 9, 10 ,11 to 99, they count and pronounce exactly like Laotian.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. BruceRepresents says:

    That’s funny. From 9, 10 ,11 and so one they count and pronounce exactly like Laotian.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. SparkleAnnie85 says:

    Thanks this helped! :)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. davidhalifax says:

    counting numbers in cantonese is like most other languages … we all have to learn the basics from 1-10 … so cantonese is not really easier …. but cool video.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. TheOutLook989 says:

    Is there diffent ways to speak numbers in chinese, Cause i’ve been looking everywhere and there are a lot of diffrent numbers

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  6. MrBigtube17 says:

    SAP YAT. SAP NHI……
    NHI SAP. NHI SAP YAT
    TAM SAP N SO ON

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  7. podo63 says:

    so cool – good teacher, but please don’t have the music on in the background, it’s distracting :)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. summerof1992 says:

    how do I say two hundred in fifty four

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  9. TaiGekTou says:

    @FarewelI On the contrary I’m glad this actually went somewhere. Fine then, you want to stop now, we’ll stop.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  10. FarewelI says:

    @TaiGekTou I didn’t say I didn’t repeat it. And that wasn’t even the point, gosh don’t you get it. This argument is going nowhere.
    Look, I haven’t said you were wrong anymore and you’ve only building your own claim by bringing one after another. I’ve been okay with that, but seriously – that was unnecesary and this is just going nowhere. Just stop it here mkay?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  11. TaiGekTou says:

    @FarewelI Aren’t you the one repeating that over and over again? About correcting my first statement?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  12. FarewelI says:

    @TaiGekTou Dude, chill out. Having said that once is more than enough. You don’t have to copy and paste it over and over again. Like I said before – you’re done building up your arguement, no one here said you were wrong after the first statenent. Geez, you’ve got some kind of tick having a need to comment on every comment I make, which aren’t even opposing yours. Have a break..

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  13. TaiGekTou says:

    @FarewelI Yeah you’re just standing there all right, like a little spoiled brat; here I am giving you the straight facts and linguistic evidence to prove to you, and you’re all “neneer neneer neneer I don’t care and I can’t hear youuu, I’m right and you’re wrooong”. And do you always have to read things twice before you fully understand what is being said? I told you you corrected nothing I said before, it was no mistake, and I supported it with a proper arguement, unlike you.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  14. FarewelI says:

    @TaiGekTou Prove you wrong? I did it the first time and since when did I say you were talking nonsense at your following claims? Gosh – it’s amusing to see how you argue with yourself all the time by building up your own statement with arguments and me just standing by here. Fed up with a spectator who doesn’t even bother to intrude you and your other I arguing? Spare yourself the time to comment again, please.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  15. TaiGekTou says:

    @FarewelI So I provoked you with an “I win” statement, big deal. You didn’t correct anything I said, non of the modern Chinese languages today sounds exactly like classical Chinese, the least likely contender being Mandarin. I only mentioned a MANDARIN-LIKE language existing before. You also got 3 chances to prove me wrong, and you didn’t, or couldn’t. So start reading now comrade, lest you make the same mistake in another video. Hope I don’t see you spouting nonsense like this again. Goodbye.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  16. FarewelI says:

    @TaiGekTou It’s so funny how a hermit like you wants to ‘win’ this argument persé. Coming with standpoints, that are only related to your second claim, which I corrected you. Face it, you lost and don’t even try to come up with the same statement of me making fun of you over and over. It cannot be the other way, then don’t try to be smart over anything. As if you’re the only one who knows something.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  17. TaiGekTou says:

    @FarewelI Through the Qing’s policy of 以漢治漢, they fused their own language into the Chinese counterpart, making changes as they see fit. This is also why there are so many Tang Dynasty poems that make no rhyme in Mandarin, but still do so in Cantonese and various other Chinese languages. In fact, Cantonese was traditionally known as 唐話, and Mandarin? A Portuguese inspired word for first used to address a Qing official. Now, make a proper rebuttal or say nothing at all.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  18. TaiGekTou says:

    @FarewelI You’re a hopeless case. 2 chances for you to prove me wrong and you did nothing but hurl insults and make baseless claims. Want more proof? Matteo Ricci, was the only Italian court official serving for the Emperor of the Ming Dynasty. He wrote a dictionary of romanized Chinese pronunciation, which includes pronunciation similar to Cantonese and Shanghainese, plus all the stop consonants of Cantonese that has all but disappeared in Mandarin. Take some history lessons (cont)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  19. FarewelI says:

    @TaiGekTou You win? Don’t let me laugh. Who said this was even a competition and besides this isn’t even the right place to argue. It’s a video about educating other people of the Mandarin Chinese language.
    That Mandarin is a Manchurian-ized language is your seen from your own perspective – and first of all you said something else, which confused others in context understanding so blame yourself foe that. You’re the one who’s making fun of yourself, pathetic.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  20. TaiGekTou says:

    @FarewelI Mistake? There was no mistake. I still stand by my claim, Mandarin *is* a Manchurian-ized Chinese language of the Qing Dynasty. I get the feeling you aren’t even understanding my comments at all. At any rate, I have provided my evidence, and you only came back with an insult. So I win.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  21. FarewelI says:

    @TaiGekTou I already got my point. I corrected you and you admitted abd confirmed your mistake, that’s all.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  22. TaiGekTou says:

    @FarewelI You better come back with a proper argument to my statement or I’ll just assume you’re throwing around insults as a last resort.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  23. FarewelI says:

    @TaiGekTou Oh and now you’re talking about modern Mandarin Chinese. Ever heard of using clear arguments when trying to make your point? Dumb

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  24. TaiGekTou says:

    @FarewelI Yes I dare, and I’m going to say it again, DO YOU RESEARCH now. Cantonese is a dialect of Mandarin. That’s what you said, review that shit and tell me you aren’t spreading false information? Do you really want a freaking history lesson here on youtube comments? Yes I admit, a Mandarin-like minority language existed even during the Tang Dynasty, as evidenced by a Tang poet’s (胡曾) mockery of THAT language (嘲妻族語音不正). Modern Mandarin *officially* begin during the Manchurian occupation.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  25. FarewelI says:

    @TaiGekTou You better reverse what you said. You spreading false information By saying other people do and then doing it yourself in your ‘correcting’ comment. How pathetic – do reseach yourself before trying to look smart with your lack of intelligence.
    You sure don’t have much knowledge about history, do you?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)