Category: Current Events

Categories
Current Events Theocratic

shìwēi kàngyì

shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威) kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議) ← 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.]

At the time of this writing, perhaps because of the pro-Palestinian protests taking place on campuses across the US, jw.org was featuring the Awake! article “Is Protest the Answer?”. Where the English version of this article uses the word “protest”, the Mandarin version (for which official Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is available) uses this week’s MEotW, “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威) kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議)”. For example, the article’s title is rendered in English and Mandarin as follows:

English:

Is Protest the Answer?

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Shìwēi (Shì·wēi Demonstrating · Strength → [Holding Demonstrations] 示威) Kàngyì (Kàng·yì Opposing · Commenting → [Protesting] 抗议 抗議) Néng (Can 能) Jiějué (Jiě·jué {Untie → [Solve]} · Decide → [Solve] 解决 解決) Wèntí (Wèn·tí Asking · Problems → [Problems] 问题 問題) Ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)?

Breakdown

The “shì (show; indicate; notify; instructing; reveal; manifest; demonstrate 示)” in “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [putting on a show of force | demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)” can mean “show” or “demonstrate”, and other expressions in which it appears include “biǎoshì (biǎo·shì indicate; express · show 表示)”, “xiǎnshì (xiǎn·shì {to be evident/obvious} · show 显示 顯示)”, “shìfàn (shì·fàn {showing; demonstrating [of]} · pattern; model; example → [demonstrating; setting an example | demonstration] 示范 示範/范)”, and “Qǐshìlù (Qǐ·shì·lù {Opening → [Enlightening]} · Showing · Record → [Revelation] 启示录 啟示錄)”.

The “wēi (might; power; strength; force 威)” in “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [putting on a show of force | demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)” means “might; power; strength; force”, and it also appears in expressions such as “quánwēi (quán·wēi authority · power 权威 權威)” and “wēixié (wēi·xié {(with) power} · {upper part of the human body → [coerce; force] → [threaten]} → [threaten; menace; imperil; intimidate] 威胁 威脅)”.

So, “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [putting on a show of force | demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)” can mean “demonstration of strength”, as when people hold a demonstration to show how strongly supported their cause is. In different contexts, it can alternately mean “putting on a show of force”.

In “kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議)”, “kàng (resist; fight; oppose; defy 抗)” means “resist; fight; oppose; defy”, and other expressions that use it include “dǐkàng (dǐ·kàng resist; withstand · {resist; fight; combat; defy} 抵抗)”, “duìkàng (duì·kàng facing · resisting 对抗 對抗)”, “fǎnkàng (fǎn·kàng {turn over → [oppose]} · resist 反抗)”, and “kàngjù (kàng·jù resist; fight; defy · resist; repel; {ward off} 抗拒)”. The other morpheme “yì (discussing; conferring; {exchanging views}; {talking over}; commenting; remarking [→ [(exchanged) opinion; view]] 议 議)” can mean “discuss” or “comment on”, and it’s also used in “jiànyì (jiàn·yì {build; construct → [propose; advocate]} · discussing → [propose; suggest; recommend] | {building; constructing of → [proposing; advocating of]} · discussing → [proposal; suggestion; recommendation] 建议 建議)” and in recent MEotW “zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議)”.

So, “kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議)” can mean something like “commenting about opposing”, and indeed, a protest is intended to make a statement about opposition to something.

Verbs? Nouns?

The two expressions “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [putting on a show of force | demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)” and “kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議)” can each be used on its own, but, as mentioned earlier, they are used together in the above-mentioned Awake! article to correspond with the English word “protest”. Interestingly, just as “protest” can be a verb or a noun, both “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [putting on a show of force | demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)” and “kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議)” can also be a verb or a noun.

Additionally, by analyzing it down to the morphemes, we can see that “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)”—which can literally mean “demonstrating strength”—has verb-object construction.

The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, says the following about verb-object construction in Mandarin:

V.O. (Verb-Object Construction, Dòng-Bīn Jiégòu 动宾结构).

Many English verbs get translated into natural Chinese as a verb plus an object noun, e.g. chīfàn for ‘eat’, shuōhuà for ‘speak’, etc. It is important for two reasons to know what is merely a verb in Chinese and what is actually a verb-object construction.

First, verb-object constructions can never take a second object, i.e. chīfàn can never be followed directly by something else to be eaten.

Second, a verb and its object can be separated from one another, thus allowing

(i) aspect particles to be placed directly after the verb, e.g. chīle fàn ‘after finishing eating’;
(ii) modification of the object, e.g. chī Zhōngguófàn ‘eat Chinese food’; and
(iii) quantification of the noun, e.g. chīle sān wǎn fàn ‘ate three bowls of rice’. See also Stative Verb (S.V.).

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

zhēngyì

zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議) ← 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.]

The Shēngmìng Láizì Chuàngzào Ma? ((Shēngmìng Life 生命) (Lái·zì Came · From 来自 來自) (Chuàng·zào Initiating · {Making, Creating} → [Creating] 创造 創造) (Ma [? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)? → [Was Life Created? (lc)]) (Was Life Created? (lc)) brochure and the Shēngmìng de Qǐyuán—Zhíde Sīkǎo de Wǔ Ge Wèntí ((Shēngmìng Life 生命) (de ’s 的) (Qǐ·yuán {Rising → [Starting]} · Source → [Origin] 起源/原)—(Zhí·de Worth · Getting → [Worth] 值得) (Sī·kǎo {Thinking About} · Examining 思考) (de ’s 的) (Wǔ Five 五) (Ge [mw] 个 個/个) (Wèn·tí Asking · Subjects → [Questions] 问题 問題) → [The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (lf)]) (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (lf)) brochure were originally published back in 2010, but recently, the English version of the Was Life Created? brochure was updated to the December 2022 Printing, and the Mandarin version of it was updated to the February 2023 Printing. Also, the Was Life Created? brochure and the Origin of Life brochure are now in the Teaching Toolbox section in the JW Library app. So, it would be good to consider some of the expressions used in the Mandarin versions of these publications that can be so helpful when discussing whether life was created.

Controversy!

This week’s MEotW, which appears in the section of the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure entitled “Jiǎnjiè (Jiǎn·jiè {Simple → [Brief]} · {Being Situated Between → [Introduction]} 简介 簡介)” (“Introduction”), is “zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議)”:

English:

Was life created, or are you purely the product of random, undirected events? Few questions create more controversy.

Mandarin (WOL; Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus)

📖 📄 📘 Shēngmìng (life 生命) láizì (lái·zì came · from 来自 來自) chuàngzào (chuàng·zào initiating · {making, creating} → [creating] 创造 創造) ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)? Háishi (Hái·shi {still more → [or]} · {is (it a)} 还是 還是) chúncuì ({being pure} → [purely] 纯粹 純粹) yóu ({due to} 由/繇) yìxiē (yì·xiē one · {indefinite number of} → [some] 一些) suíjī (suí·jī {coming along with} · chance → [random] 随机 隨機), bú (not 不) shòu ({having received} 受) zhǐhuī (zhǐ·huī {(pointing with) finger → [pointing]} · {spraying → [directing]} → [directing] 指挥 指揮) de (’s 的) shìjiàn (shì·jiàn events · [mw] 事件) yǎnshēng (yǎn·shēng {having been spilled over} · {having been given birth to} → [having been produced] 衍生) chulai (chu·lai out · {to come} 出来 出來) de ({’s (thing)} 的) ne ([? ptcl] 呢)? Zhèixiē (Zhèi·xiē this · {indefinite number of} → [these] 这些 這些) wèntí (wèn·tí asking · subjects → [questions] 问题 問題) bèishòu (bèi·shòu fully · receive 备受 備受) zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing → [controversy] 争议 爭議),

As can be seen from the above quotes, the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure uses “zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議)” to translate the English word “controversy”.

War!

In “zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議)”, “zhēng (contend; fight; vie; strive; dispute [→ [argue; debate; ]] 争 爭)” means “contend”, and “yì (discussing; conferring; {exchanging views}; {talking over} [→ [(exchanged) opinion; view]] 议 議)” means “discuss”. Together, they can be understood to mean something like “contentious discussion”, which leads us to the meaning of “controversy” in cases such as its use in the Was Life Created? brochure that is mentioned above.

Interestingly, the “zhēng (contend; fight; vie; strive; dispute [→ [argue; debate; ]] 争 爭)” that’s in “zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議)” also appears in “zhànzhēng (zhàn·zhēng war · contending → [war; warfare] 战争 戰爭)”, which means “war”. Is it going too far to associate creation vs. evolution discussions with war? Well, for what it’s worth, consider that “Creation–evolution controversy” is listed as a related link on the Wikipedia page for “culture war”.

Culture Wars and Spiritual Warfare

While the expression “culture war” does not seem to appear in the publications of Jehovah’s organization, searching the Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (WOL) for “spiritual & (war | warfare)” (not including the quotation marks) returns lots of results. This blog also has a “Spiritual War” tag for posts that touch on this subject. And of course, in 2 Corinthians 10:3–5, the Bible itself explains to us that God’s true worshippers must fight a spiritual war:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ;

Also, as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus’ true followers, we seek to follow Jesus’ example, as described by Jesus himself at John 18:37:

…For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.…

One way we can distinguish between the culture wars of this world and the spiritual warfare that true Christians engage in is that the world’s culture wars involve contentions over human ideas embodied in this world’s human cultures, while true Christian spiritual warfare involves bearing witness to and fighting for God’s truth, “the knowledge of God”. Also, the world’s culture wars often spill over into the political arena, whereas like Christ himself, true Christian spiritual warriors stay out of politics.—John 18:36.

Principled Spiritual Warfare

Since the theory of evolution obviously qualifies as a “lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God”, it can rightly be said that witnessing to Mandarin-speaking people—many of whom were taught to be atheists—about creation and evolution is an important part of fighting on the Mandarin front of the spiritual war that true Christians are involved in. Of course, though, it’s not true that “all’s fair in love and war”. Even the world has its law of war, and as true Christians, we fight our spiritual war in harmony with the counsel and principles in God’s Word the Bible, such as this counsel in 1 Peter 3:15:

But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.

How can we be effective spiritual warriors, and also be “doing so with a mild temper and deep respect”? Regarding this possible conundrum, I am reminded of a well-meaning circuit overseer I remember who, while saying that although God’s Word is the sword of the spirit, we should use it kindly, was making stabbing motions with his arm. 🤭

Seriously, though, when it comes to discussing creation and evolution with people, we can learn much by noting the example set by Jehovah’s organization re tone, wording, etc. in the Was Life Created? and Origin of Life brochures, in the “Science and the Bible” articles on jw.org, etc. For us Mandarin field language learners, resources like the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) WOL and the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources can help us to follow the organization’s example re tone, wording, etc. in Mandarin.

Mandarin Writing System Controversy?

To many, the idea that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is a full writing system for Mandarin and thus can and should be advantageously used as a full writing system (and not just as a pronunciation aid) in the Mandarin field may still seem controversial. However, the evidence for this idea is quite solid from a linguistics (language science) point of view. It’s only when looked at from a nostalgic, traditionalist point of view that it may seem controversial, even outrageous—Chinese characters have been the traditionally accepted writing system for the Chinese languages for thousands of years, and teachers continue to teach their students accordingly. Indeed, Chinese characters may literally represent the most deeply and widely embedded cultural tradition still in existence.

Even so, ultimately, tradition is now the only reason for using characters, because technically, objectively, characters are not necessary for writing any language (e.g., alternatives like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), Hangul, and the Vietnamese alphabet already exist), nor, with their extraordinary complexity, inconsistent design, and inhuman numerousness, are they advantageous, except for fitting in with prevailing tradition.

However, as true Christians, should we be bound by such tradition, deeply embedded as it is? In Jesus’ time, there were also many deeply embedded traditions that teachers promoted and people followed, but which made worshipping God unnecessarily difficult and burdensome. Do you remember how Jesus felt about that?

Mark 7:13 records Jesus saying this to the Pharisees and scribes:

Thus you make the word of God invalid by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.”

According to Wordnik, “invalid” could mean “deficient in health; infirm; weak; sick”, or “of no force, weight, or cogency; weak”. The experiences of many in the Mandarin field have shown that giving priority to Chinese characters can indeed lead to Mandarin language skills that are weak and sickly, such that many Mandarin field language learners ended up unable to speak the word of God in Mandarin with cogency, that is, “power of proving or of producing belief; the quality of being highly probable or convincing; force; credibility”.

Regardless of deeply embedded human tradition, do we dedicated servants of Jehovah God not owe it to him to do better than that, if we can?—Malachi 1:6–8.

How Will We Personally Deal with Controversy?

When faced with controversy, many just “go along to get along” (“conform to general expectations so as not to disrupt or endanger one’s sense of security or belonging”). As Jesus said, many just follow the crowd and take the broad road. (Matthew 7:13) However, Jesus did not do that when faced with burdensome, deeply embedded traditions in his day, we Jehovah’s Witnesses do not do that when it comes to widely accepted ideas about evolution, and we do not have to do that when it comes to how we view and use Chinese characters and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). As the MEotW post on “Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文)” pointed out:

Your Own Personal Hangul for Mandarin?

However, while that may be the situation with the proud worldly nation of China, what about each of us Mandarn field language learners, as individuals who are dedicated to Jehovah God and not to any worldly human culture? …we are free to choose for ourselves to use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a full writing system for Mandarin and thus be fully empowered by its simplicity and elegance to serve Jehovah better, as long as we don’t allow ourselves to be shackled by mere human tradition, or by peer pressure.

For convenience:

The direct link for the current generation Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resource for the Was Life Created? brochure is:

The short link for Chinese field language-learning links for the Was Life Created? brochure is:

More Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web material based on the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure will be made available in the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web resource as time allows.

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

yì‐nián‐yí‐dù

yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually]) ← 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.]

This week’s MEotW, “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])”, occurs in the following sentence, which, at the time of this writing, jw.org is featuring to invite people to attend the Memorial:

English:

We invite you to attend our annual event to remember the death of Jesus Christ.

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Wǒmen (Wǒ·men we · [pl] 我们 我們) yāoqǐng (invite 邀请 邀請) nǐ (you 你) cānjiā (cān·jiā {to take part in} · {to add to} → [to attend] 参加 參加) zhèige (zhèi·ge this · [mw] 这个 這個) yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [annual]) de (’s 的) jìniàn (jì·niàn remembering · {thinking of} → [commemorating] 记/纪念 記/紀念) jùhuì (meeting 聚会 聚會), jìniàn (jì·niàn {to remember} · {to think of} → [to commemorate] 记/纪念 記/紀念) Yēsū (Jesus 耶稣 耶穌) Jīdū (Christ 基督) wèi (for 为 為/爲) rénlèi (rén·lèi human·kind 人类 人類) xīshēng (xī·shēng sacrificed · {(as with a) domestic animal} → [sacrificed] 牺牲 犧牲) shēngmìng (life 生命).

“Yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((Yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” on one level of literalness means “one year one occasion/time”, which effectively means “annual”. Its final morpheme “dù (degree; extent; {degree of intensity} | {spending; passing (of time)} [→ [mw for occasions/times]] 度)” in this expression serves as a measure word for occasions or times, which likely derives from its meaning of “spending; passing (of time)”. In other expressions, “dù (degree; extent; {degree of intensity} | {spending; passing (of time)} [→ [mw for occasions/times]] 度)” can also mean “degree; extent; degree of intensity”:

  • 📖 📄 📘 dùguò (dù·guò {spend; pass (time)} · pass; cross → [spend; pass (time/etc.) | pull/get through; survive] 度过 度過)
  • 📖 📄 📘 tàidu (tài·du state · degree → [attitude; manner] 态度 態度)
  • 📖 📄 📘 wēndù (wēn·dù {(of) being warm} · {degree of intensity} → [temperature] 温度 溫度)
  • 📖 📄 📘 zhìdù (zhì·dù system · extent → [system] 制度)

Same Character, Different Tones

Note that in “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])”, the morpheme meaning “one” is first pronounced “yì (one 一)”, with a fourth tone, and then it’s pronounced “yí (one 一)”, with a second tone. This is tone sandhi, and as the MEotW post on “diǎnliàng (diǎn·liàng {dot → [light (v); ignite]} · {to be bright} [→ [illuminate; shine light on]] 点亮 點亮)” said:

On the other hand, the unofficial Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources join the official Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) publications, old and new, in explicitly indicating tone sandhi for “bù (not 不)” and “yī (one 一)” (e.g., “búzài (bú·zài not · again; further; continuing; anymore 不再)” instead of the standard “bùzài (bù·zài not · again; further; continuing; anymore 不再)”) to make things easier for readers, even though this practice is not included in the GB/T 16159-2012 [PRC national] standard’s recommendations.

In the end, what matters most re how anything is written is not just what is officially recommended or what happens to be popular among changing, imperfect humans. Rather, what matters most is what really works best to accomplish the goal of writing: To communicate to readers. This is especially true when God-honouring and life-saving Bible truths need to be communicated. So, this blog and the other Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources will continue to seek to render Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) in ways that maximize how clearly, easily, effectively, and appropriately it communicates with readers.

Same Characters, Different Word Boundaries

Another interesting thing to note is that the last two morphemes in “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” can in some contexts form the expression “yídù (yí·dù [(at)] one · {spending; passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [once; at one time; on one occasion; for a time] 一度)”, which is appropriately written in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) without a space or other word divider between the two morphemes. Why then, does this blog post render “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” with a hyphen (that acts as a word divider) between its last two morphemes?

The reason for the different renderings of the same two morphemes in the two different expressions is, well, because we are indeed dealing with two different expressions. Whereas “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” uses its last two morphemes in a “one-[word divider]-[measure word]” pattern, as does “yí (one 一) ge ([mw] 个 個/个)”, “yídù (yí·dù [(at)] one · {spending; passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [once; at one time; on one occasion; for a time] 一度)”, treated as one word without a space in it, is used to effectively mean “once; at one time; on one occasion; for a time”. The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, provides these examples of this expression in use:

📖 📄 📘 Wǒmen (Wǒ·men we · [pl] 我们 我們) yídù (yí·dù (at) one · {passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [once] 一度) shì (were 是) hǎo (good 好) péngyou (friends 朋友).
We were once good friends.

📖 📄 📘 Tā (she 她) yídù (yí·dù (at) one · {passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [for a time] 一度) duì (towards 对 對) huìhuà (huì·huà painting · paintings 绘画 繪畫) gǎn (felt 感) xìngqù (interest 兴趣 興趣).
She was interested in painting for a time.

Context Is the Key, Not Characters

The above points about how the characters “一” and “度” can have different pronunciations or meanings in different contexts remind us that Chinese characters are NOT the ultimate clarifiers of meaning in Mandarin. This excerpt from the MEotW post on “yǔjìng (yǔ·jìng language · {(set of) boundaries → [(bounded) place; area] → [condition; situation; circumstances]} → [context] 语境 語境)” explains further:

Context and Mandarin Writing Systems

Research into the importance of context turned up a couple of interesting sayings from the business world:

Content is king.
—Bill Gates

Content is king, but context is God.
—Gary Vaynerchuk

Mandarin field language-learners may hear the assertion from Chinese culture traditionalists that it is necessary to use Chinese characters to clarify the ambiguity that results from Mandarin having so many homophones, words that sound the same but that have different meanings. The insinuation, or even the outright accusation, is that the upstart Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) system is thus unusable as a writing system for Mandarin, that the Chinese characters writing system is still the rightful king. Besides, there is so much existing content written in Chinese characters, and content is king!

However, a little consideration of the yǔjìng (yǔ·jìng language · {(set of) boundaries → [(bounded) place] → [situation]} → [context] 语境 語境), the language situation or context, shows up the fallacy of this assertion. The Chinese characters writing system exists along with Mandarin speech, and if Chinese characters are truly required to clearly communicate meaning in Mandarin, then that would mean that Mandarin speech on its own, without the help of visible characters, is unusable as a means of communication. That, however, is obviously not true—people who are proficient in spoken Mandarin communicate clearly with each other all the time, undoubtedly pretty much as clearly as proficient English speakers communicate with each other.

The key reason why proficient Mandarin speakers can communicate clearly with each other despite all of the homophones in Mandarin is not that they are constantly referring to Chinese characters, although people do occasionally do that in the current characters-saturated cultural climate. No, the key reason why Mandarin-speakers routinely communicate clearly with each other is because they use sufficient context to clarify any potentially ambiguous homophones. And, since Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is a simple and direct representation of Mandarin speech, anything that is understandable when spoken in Mandarin is understandable when written in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)—1 Corinthians 14:8–11.

So, while Chinese characters-based content may be so predominant in the Chinese world that it’s king there, context is God, relatively and metaphorically speaking, and Mandarin speech and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) rightly rely on context, not on Chinese characters, just like we rightly rely on God, not on merely human kings.