jìjiào (jì·jiào count; calculate · {dispute [about]} [→ [haggle over; fuss about; bother about; bicker]] 计较 計較) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”
[Notes: Tap/click on a Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to reveal its “flashcard”; tap/click on a “flashcard” or its Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to hide the “flashcard”. 📖 📄 📘 icons mean 📖 Reveal All, 📄 Reveal Advanced, and 📘 Reveal None re all the “flashcards” in the heading, paragraph, etc. that they are placed at the beginning of.]
I have long especially liked 1 Corinthians 13. It contains counsel on what really does and doesn’t matter in life, an extensive description and definition of the most important kind of love, and a sublime discussion about the need to become complete, mature, as a person. As these apply to life in general, so too do they apply to our lives as Mandarin field language learners.
As Mandarin field language learners, it can benefit us greatly to consider what we can learn from 1 Corinthians 13, and along the way, we can also consider some of the Mandarin expressions used in that chapter in the current version of the Mandarin New World Translation Bible (nwtsty).
‘Keeping Account of the Injury’
This week’s MEotW, “jìjiào (jì·jiào count; calculate · dispute 计较 計較)”, is used in verse 5 (WOL) of 1 Corinthians 13:
(Dark mode for the Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (WOL) website, as shown in the above image, can be enabled in the Safari web browser by using the Noir Safari extension. Other web browsers may also have extensions with similar functionality.)
For comparison, here are the current English and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus renderings of 1 Corinthians 13:5:
does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury.
Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus:
📖 📄 📘 bú (not 不) zuò ({does do} 做) bù (not 不) guīju (guī·ju (following) {dividers → [rules]} · {carpenter’s squares → [regulations]} → [following established standards] 规矩 規矩) de (’ 的) shì (things 事), bù (not 不) qiú ({does seek} 求) zìjǐ (self 自己) de (’s 的) lìyì (lì·yì {sharpening → [advantage]} · benefit → [benefit] 利益), bù (not 不) qīngyì (qīng·yì lightly · easily 轻易 輕易) dòngnù (dòng·nù {does have moved} · anger → [does get angry] 动怒 動怒), bú (not 不) jìjiào (jì·jiào {does count} · {does dispute about} 计较 計較) biéren (bié·ren other · people 别人 別人) zàochéng (zào·chéng {have created} · {to come to be} 造成) de (’s 的) shānghài (injuring → [injury] 伤害 傷害),
The “jì (counting; computing; calculating; numbering [→ [plot; plan (n or v)]] 计 計)” in “jìjiào (jì·jiào count; calculate · dispute 计较 計較)” can mean “count; calculate”, and it also appears in “jìsuàn (jì·suàn counting; computing; calculating · computing; calculating; figuring 计算 計算)”. As for the “jiào (compare; contrast | dispute | {being compared} → [comparatively; relatively; fairly; quite; rather | clear[ly]; obvious[ly]] 较 較)” in “jìjiào (jì·jiào count; calculate · dispute 计较 計較)”, while it means “compare; contrast” in “bǐjiào (compare; contrast | {being compared} → [comparatively; relatively; fairly; quite; rather] | comparing → [comparison] 比较 比較)”, in “jìjiào (jì·jiào count; calculate · dispute 计较 計較)” it has its older meaning of “dispute”.
Interestingly, besides its morphemes’ literal meanings of “count; calculate · dispute”, jìjiào (jì·jiào count; calculate · {dispute [about]} [→ [haggle over; fuss about; bother about; bicker]] 计较 計較) can also mean “haggle over; fuss about; bother about” in some settings. In 1 Corinthians 13:5 in the current English and Mandarin versions of the New World Translation Bible, it corresponds with the English expression “keep account of”.
Nitpicking…
Every human-designed system has its shortcomings and negative aspects, including Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). However, is it advantageous or helpful to harp on or “fuss about” its potentially negative aspects without considering the whole picture?
For example, some make a fuss about the many homophones (different words that sound the same) in Mandarin, saying that they make Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) unsuitable to be a full writing system for Mandarin. In the overall picture of reality, though, since Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is just a relatively simple representation of Mandarin speech, homophones are no more a problem when people use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) than they are when people speak Mandarin. People have learned to deal with the challenge of homophones when speaking Mandarin by using sufficient clarifying context, and so people can similarly understand Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), homophones and all.
(People who say they have trouble understanding Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) because of homophones may actually be showing that the texts they are reading were written without sufficient context, and were relying on characters as a crutch rather than accurately representing Mandarin speech like they should be. Or, they may be showing that they themselves don’t actually understand spoken Mandarin very well, rather than that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) has some inherent shortcoming, when it just simply and directly represents spoken Mandarin.)
Conversely, in the overall picture, characters have the parallel problem of homographs, characters that could represent multiple different words. So, making an anti-Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) fuss over Mandarin homophones amounts to jìjiào (jì·jiào counting · {disputing about} (things) → [fussing about (things)] 计较 計較), nitpicking over a problem that’s being adequately handled, while offering a solution in the characters that has its own corresponding problem.
Another objection to Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) that I have heard is that it makes some English-speaking Mandarin learners think of English sounds, so the Mandarin they speak doesn’t sound like native Mandarin. For this reason, some say, it would be better to use Chinese characters or Zhùyīn (Zhù·yīn {Annotating of} · Sounds → [Zhuyin] 注音 註/注音), which would not similarly remind people of English. Is this a real thing? Or, is it just an excuse used by some who are infected by Exotic East Syndrome to focus on “exotic” Eastern systems rather than the “mundane” Latin alphabet used by English and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)?
I do not doubt that some some, even many, English-speaking Mandarin learners think of English sounds when they see Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), but this is actually not a shortcoming of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) itself, but rather, a rookie mistake on the part of these English-speaking Mandarin learners, who have not yet trained themselves to recognize Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a system that actually represents Mandarin sounds, not English sounds. It may also indicate that these Mandarin learners still need to become more familiar with and used to the sounds of Mandarin in the first place. The article Pīnyīn Is a Good, Workable Writing System on Its Own has an entire section on this, part of which says:
As English-speaking Mandarin-learners get more familiar with the sounds of correct Mandarin speech, they can come to get used to correctly mentally connecting Pīnyīn to correct Mandarin sounds, rather than to English sounds. Then, they can regularly and reliably use Pīnyīn to help them speak Mandarin-sounding Mandarin, just like people regularly and reliably use written French to help them speak French-sounding French.
…While Ignoring White Elephants
Rather than just nitpicking and harping on the real or perceived shortcomings of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) in order to support the traditionally imposed Chinese characters, let us not overlook the white elephant in the room regarding the inhumanly and inhumanely complex characters—learning and remembering them is extremely difficult and costly in terms of time and effort, especially compared to comparatively simple and elegant Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). Let us not “strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel” like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day did. (Matthew 23:24) Yes, let us not incorrectly look down on Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as merely being training wheels when it is really regular wheels, and let us also not just swallow the reality that Chinese characters are actually more like square wheels than regular wheels!
The problem is not that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is like training wheels, because Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is actually like regular wheels. The real problem is that characters are like square wheels!