Category: History

Categories
Culture History

chéngyǔ

chéngyǔ+ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Years ago, “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語)” was an Expression of the Week on the tiandi.info blog. That post from the early days of tiandi.info started by discussing the English word “idiom”, and then presented the Mandarin word “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語)” as “the Chinese word for ‘idiom’ ”.

However, after further research, it appears, as is often the case with English and Mandarin words, that the English word “idiom” and the Mandarin word “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語)”, which are often considered to be equivalent, are only mostly equivalent.

The online dictionary Wiktionary gives us this definition of “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語)”:

a certain kind of Chinese set phrase originating in Classical Chinese, typically four or five characters in length

Also, Wikipedia provides the following summarized information:

Chéngyǔ are considered the collected wisdom of the Chinese culture, and contain the experiences, moral concepts, and admonishments from previous generations of Chinese.

…

They are often referred to as Chinese idioms or four-character idioms; however, they are not the only idioms in Chinese.

…

Chéngyǔ are mostly derived from ancient literature, including the pre-Qin classics, poetry from all periods of Chinese history, and late imperial vernacular novels and short stories. A small number were constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries from Western source materials.

A quick check of Pleco does indeed turn up several other Mandarin words besides “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語)” that also correspond to the English word “idiom”.

So, it appears that while chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) can be called idioms in English, not all Chinese idioms are chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語). It seems that “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語)” specifically refers to Chinese idioms that originated in Classical Chinese, or Literary Chinese. This writing style has largely been replaced by written vernacular Chinese, which has been the standard style of writing for Modern Standard Mandarin for about a century now.

Since they originated in Classical Chinese, which hasn’t been current for about a century, chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) often cannot be fully understood by modern speakers and readers of Mandarin, since knowledge about the source material for chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) has naturally been fading with the passing of time.

Wikipedia offers up this example:

Chéngyǔ are generally meant to convey the message or moral of the myth, story or historical event from which they were derived. Thus, even after translation into modern words and syntax, chéngyǔ in isolation are often unintelligible without additional explanation. …

The phrase “破釜沉舟” (pò fǔ chén zhōu, lit: “break the pots and sink the ships”) is based on a historical account where the general Xiang Yu ordered his troops to destroy all cooking utensils and boats after crossing a river into the enemy’s territory. He won the battle because of this “no-retreat” strategy. Thus, the idiom is used as a verb phrase with the meaning “to make an all-out effort to achieve success by the deliberate removal of recourse or backup.” Similar phrases are known in the West, such as “Point of no return” or “Crossing the Rubicon”.

“Darmok”

Researching this post on chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) made me think of the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation entitled “Darmok”. In this episode, the crew of the Federation starship Enterprise encounters an alien species called the Tamarians. This species speaks using phrases like “Temba, his arms wide”, which even the show’s fictional universal translator cannot fully decipher for the befuddled Federation crew.

While some consider this to be one of the greatest episodes of Star Trek, as someone who has been trained to communicate a life-saving message as clearly and understandably as possible, I have always found the alien way of speaking in this episode to be incredibly stupid, counter-productive, and even dangerous. How obviously foolish it is when speaking to require your audience to have cultural or other knowledge that they probably don’t have, resulting in failure to communicate!

In “Darmok” (spoilers), the Enterprise and the alien ship ended up actually shooting at each other, and the alien captain ended up dying because he and the Enterprise’s Captain Picard had such difficulties coming to understand each other. In such a scenario, there is great risk and danger, and no guarantee that mutual understanding will eventually be achieved, even between ones as intelligent and well-motivated as the crew of the Enterprise and the crew of this alien ship were. How much better it is to speak simply and understandably from the beginning!—1 Co. 14:8–11.

In Today’s Mandarin Field

One highly educated Mandarin-speaking brother I know was admonished by his daughter to tone down his extensive use of chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) in his talks, because while they may be very cool to those who have the background knowledge to get them, many listeners actually cannot understand them. Although generally a genial and pleasant fellow, this scholarly brother’s irritated reply was to the effect of, “This is a Chinese congregation, people should learn the language!”

Understandably, when one knows a lot about something, the tendency and the temptation is to use that knowledge, even when it may not be appropriate for our purpose or our audience. So, it would be good for those of us serving in the Mandarin field to remember that we should be using our language skills to speak understandably about “the magnificent things of God”, not to showcase the cultural traditions and knowledge of mere humans.—Acts 2:8–11.

As noted above, even among the humans in the Chinese world, knowledge of chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) seems to be fading away. As time goes by, and as the experience of modern life inevitably continues to change, knowledge of chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) seems to be gradually becoming something that only belongs to the relative few who have a particular interest in these pithy distillations of traditional experience. This is perhaps similar to how in the English-speaking world, it’s probably true that by now only relatively few particularly interested ones can fully understand references (e.g., “Et tu, Brute?”) based on the plots of Shakespeare’s plays. Now, rather than coming up with new chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語), when Chinese people in general get creative with the language, it’s typically while they are chatting on the Internet.

One useful barometer to check regarding how much we should learn and use chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) in today’s Mandarin field is to consider how much they are used in today’s official publications of Jehovah’s organization. Comparing Mandarin publications from years ago to those of today, it can be seen that the trend is to use ever simpler and clearer language, as is the trend with English publications. Thus, chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) are being used less and less in Mandarin publications as time goes by. Following this example, we thus should also be using fewer and fewer chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) in the Mandarin field as time goes by.

If and when we do use a chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語), we should make sure that we explain it well enough so that even those who had never heard of it or its backstory can understand and benefit from it.

Categories
Culture History

wénhuà

wénhuà+ (wén·huà {(with) writing} · transformed (system) → [culture] | {(with) writing} · transformed → [cultural] 文化) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Ironically, even though many people obsess over preserving “authentic” traditional Chinese culture, the very Chinese word for “culture” actually came from a Japanese word, which was coined to translate the Western concept of culture:

Before the word wénhuà 文化, meaning “culture,” was imported from Japan to China, there was already a concept of wénhuà 文化. It is as old as the word Zhōngguó 中国. Four words are concealed behind 文化, namely 文 wén (civil); 治 zhì (administration); 教 jiào (to educate); and 化 huà (to persuade). 文 wén is an abbreviation of 文治 wén zhì (civil administration); 化 huà is an abbreviation of 教化 jiào huà (to persuade through education). Thus 文化 is a short way of writing “civil administration and persuasion through
education.” This refers to the peaceful, Confucian-based moral education of the people (cf. Gernet, Jacques 1983:85, 295).

The current word “culture,” which is also written 文化, has a different origin. To translate the Western concept of culture, the Japanese coined the word bunka, which is written 文化 (see Liu, Zhengtan et al. 1984, s.v. wenhua). The Chinese imported this character combination from Japan and pronounced it according to the rules of their own language: wénhuà. In this way, the modern term has been superimposed on the Chinese “civil administration and persuasion through education.” The original Chinese meaning is largely unknown nowadays.

—“Two Steps Toward Digraphia in China”, by Xieyan Hincha

So, let us not fall into the common snare of idolizing any worldly human culture, including traditional Chinese culture. As with any human culture that has had contact with other human cultures, there has been mutual borrowing/stealing of ideas, mutual influencing, etc. Also, as with any merely human culture, there is some bad along with the good. There is so much bad in every worldly human culture, in fact, that Jehovah will not deem any worldly human culture to be worthy of preserving forever, no matter how ancient and seemingly exotic it is. Indeed, “the world”—and all the human cultures in it—“is passing away”.—1 John 2:17.

For a certainty, we should never let human cultural traditions take priority over serving Jehovah in the best way we can. As in all other things, we should imitate Jesus in positively hating any human traditions that make it unnecessarily burdensome for people to serve God.—Mark 7:1–13.

Rather than putting any mere human culture on a pedastal and taking pride in learning from it, we should primarily take pride in being “taught by Jehovah” himself about ways of thinking, feeling, expressing, and doing things, which are what make up culture.—Isaiah 54:13; 1 Corinthians 1:31.

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Science

Pīnyīn

Pīnyīn+ (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

“Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)” is the expression commonly used to refer to the phonetic alphabet introduced by China in 1958. This system is also known by longer, more official names:

  • Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)
  • Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Fāng’àn+ (Fāng’·àn {Direction → [Method]} · {Long, Narrow Table or Desk → [Plan]} 方案)

When thinking of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and its predecessor Zhùyīn (Zhù·yīn Annotating · Sounds → [Zhuyin] 注音 註/注音) (last week’s MEotW), some focus on the superficial differences between them. However, it’s perhaps even more important to note what they have in common, as indicated by the fact that the names of both systems end in “yīn+ (sound [→ [musical note/sound; tone; pronunciation | syllable | news; tidings]] 音)”: Both systems focus on representing the sounds of Mandarin, sounds which make up Mandarin speech and thus represent meanings. In fact, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)’s literal meaning tells us that this system helps people to “piece together sounds” to make up Mandarin speech, and thus convey the meanings that Mandarin speech represents.

汉字 / 漢字? Pīnyīn?

In contrast, many people believe that the Hànzì+ (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字), the Chinese characters, represent meanings more directly through their own visual design, as opposed to primarily being a system that represents Mandarin, Cantonese, etc., speech sounds which represent meaning. This view of Chinese characters, however, is actually a myth, which has been called the ideographic myth—God designed our brains and bodies to primarily represent meaning through speech, some humans in their hubris presumed that it would be better for us humans to represent meaning directly through visual symbols, and of course God was right and these humans were wrong.

There are actually many myths and misconceptions that people believe regarding Chinese characters, and sadly, that is also the case regarding Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).

Common Myths and Misconceptions

  • “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is just a pronunciation aid. It’s not really a writing system like the characters are.”

    • But, is Pīnyīn even really a writing system? Interestingly, the Chinese national standard Zhōngguó Mángwén (中国盲文/中國盲文, Chinese Braille) is basically a transliteration or conversion of Pīnyīn into braille letters. Braille is obviously a writing system, so Pīnyīn must also be a writing system, not just a pronunciation aid.

  • “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is just training wheels. Characters are real wheels.”

    • Since Pīnyīn is not just a pronunciation aid, but a full writing system, it is not “training wheels”—it’s regular wheels. On the other hand, Chinese characters are like non-round wheels—more difficult than necessary.

  • “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) on its own can’t be understood because there are too many homophones (words that sound the same, but have different meanings) in Mandarin.”

    • When people are just speaking Mandarin, with no characters in sight to help them, do they have problems understanding each other because of all the homophones? Can blind Mandarin-speakers, who cannot see characters, still “see” what people mean when those people speak Mandarin? Native Mandarin-speakers have confirmed to me that no, homophones are not a significant problem in spoken Mandarin—people can use the context and understand each other okay. So, people can use the context and understand each other okay when using Pīnyīn too, since Pīnyīn directly represents the sound of spoken Mandarin.

      • The above quote is from the article “Pīnyīn Was Plan A”. Check it out for more on this subject.

  • “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is less accurate than Zhùyīn (Zhù·yīn Annotating · Sounds → [Zhuyin] 注音 註/注音).”

    • Some people say that Zhuyin is more accurate or correct than Pinyin. Actually, both Zhuyin and Pinyin represent the same Mandarin sounds, just with different symbols. In fact, it’s not difficult to find tables that directly map the corresponding Zhuyin and Pinyin expressions to each other—a simple Google search for “pinyin zhuyin table” turns up many, many results. Pinyin and Zhuyin are just like different codes for encoding the same Mandarin message, so basically, neither is more accurate or correct than the other.

      • The above quote is from the tiandi.info post “Pinyin and Zhuyin”. (If you need login information for the parts of tiandi.info that require it, request it by email, and include information on who referred you and/or what group/cong. you are in.)
  • “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) makes your Mandarin sound like English.”
    • This is only true if you are using it wrong. For example, if you read a French word and you make it sound like English when you read it out, the problem is not that the French word is written using the Latin alphabet like English is—the problem is that you are thinking of English sounds when you see the French word, when you should be thinking of French sounds. Similarly, you shouldn’t blame Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) if you are thinking of English sounds when you see it, because it’s up to you to understand that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) represents Mandarin sounds, not English sounds.
    • Don’t worry, it becomes second nature to properly associate Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) with Mandarin sounds after you get familiar with Mandarin sounds and used to the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) system. However, if you, say, prematurely stop using Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and instead turn to characters in an effort to avoid the baggage of English sounds, you may actually never really get the hang of Mandarin sounds. Seriously, I’ve seen people who focus on characters remain in this speech Twilight Zone for years and years! That’s because while characters do represent Mandarin speech sounds, they’re just bad at it—it’s just not what characters focus on. In stark contrast, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is all about the sounds of Mandarin. It literally spells out in a simple way how a Mandarin syllable sounds at the beginning, at the end, and in between. Characters, though, represent the complex sound of a Mandarin syllable as one coarse lump, in a complex and often unrelated way—you either get it or you don’t, and many don’t.
      • Yes, characters are like a conceited jerk who convinces you with grand promises to jump from a high place, doesn’t bother to catch you, and then makes you think it’s your fault that you can’t fly. Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), though, is like a modest and straightforward person who clearly explains each step for you so that you can dependably and confidently get to where you want to go.

For more information regarding Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and how we in the Mandarin field should view it, check out these articles:

“Pīnyīn is a Good, Workable Writing System On Its Own”
This article is a brief overview of why it’s important for those of us in the Mandarin field to recognize that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is a full writing system, not just a pronunciation aid.

“Pīnyīn Was Plan A”
This extensively researched in-depth article discusses how we in the Mandarin field should view Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).

(Short link: tiandi.info/articles)