Categories
Culture Language Learning Technology

yǔyán

yǔyán (yǔ·yán language; tongue · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

The Mandarin field is an example of a language field. What though, is a language? For a long time, the production output of the earthly part of Jehovah’s organization was exclusively or mainly paper publications. So, when it would count the languages it was supporting in its production, it was really counting the writing systems that it printed on paper. Meanwhile, in worldly Chinese culture, there is an obsession with the Chinese characters writing system, which has become a proud and deeply embedded cultural tradition. Such factors may influence people serving in the Mandarin field to focus on the Chinese characters writing system when they think of the Mandarin language.

However, linguists, people who study language scientifically, hold that when it comes to languages, speech is primary, and writing is secondary. This excerpt from the MEotW post on “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” summarizes the scientific evidence in this regard:

First Things First in Language Learning

The way God made us, zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初), language-wise, there was speech. Only later did imperfect humans eventually come up with some writing systems to visually represent and record some forms of speech. Indeed, there have been, and there still are, many speech-only languages, with no corresponding writing system. Ethnologue, a resource on world languages, says:

Ethnologue (24th edition) has data to indicate that of the currently listed 7,139 living languages, 4,065 have a developed writing system. We don’t always know, however, if the existing writing systems are widely used. That is, while an alphabet may exist there may not be very many people who are literate and actually using the alphabet. The remaining 3,074 are likely unwritten.

Technological First Priority

Writing systems are technologies. About writing, linguist Gretchen McCulloch says:

It really is a technology. It’s a thing you do on top of language to do stuff with language, but it’s not the language itself. There are thousands and possibly millions of languages that have never been written down in the history of humanity. We have no idea. We’ve never met a society of humans, or heard of a society of humans, without language. But those are spoken and signed languages, which are just kind of there. Writing, by contrast, was invented somewhere between 3 and 4 times in the history of humanity.

What Do the Words Actually Mean?

It’s also worth considering the actual root meanings contained in the words used in English and Mandarin to mean “language”. Regarding the etymology of the English word “language”, the Online Etymology Dictionary says:

late 13c., langage “words, what is said, conversation, talk,” from Old French langage “speech, words, oratory; a tribe, people, nation” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *linguaticum, from Latin lingua “tongue,” also “speech, language,” from PIE [Proto-Indo-European] root *dnghu- “tongue.”

Clearly, the focus of the root meanings above is on speech and the tongue, which is used for speech—writing is not even mentioned.

Consider also this week’s MEotW, the Mandarin word generally used to mean “language”, “yǔyán (yǔ·yán language; tongue · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言)”. As can be seen from this expression’s Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus information, the morphemes used in this Mandarin expression also focus on speech and the tongue, which is used for speech—writing is not even mentioned.

So, when we think of a language, a yǔyán (yǔ·yán language; tongue · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言), even a Chinese one, we should really be thinking about a way of speaking, a variety of speech, not any writing system, even one as traditionally revered and glamourized as Chinese characters are. Thus, the Mandarin language field is not the field in which we preach to and teach people who read and write with Chinese characters. After all, if people speak Mandarin but cannot read or write the Chinese characters, they still count as being among those we are trying to help in the Mandarin field. That’s because the Mandarin language field is actually the field in which we preach to and teach people whose mother tongue—their first language or way of speaking—is Mandarin.

Categories
Culture Experiences History Language Learning Languages

jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng

jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng ((jī chicken雞/鷄)‐(tóng {together with}同/仝)‐(yā duck)‐(jiǎng speaking) [people not understanding each other because of speaking different languages (from Cantonese)]) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Yes, this expression comes from Cantonese, but the above Mandarin version does appear in Mandarin dictionaries, so it qualifies as a Mandarin expression!]

Recently, while out to dinner with one of the first families to serve in the local Cantonese congregation, along with the circuit overseer serving the local Chinese circuit and his wife, the subject came up of how Mandarin and Cantonese are actually different languages, not just dialects of the same language.

Chickens Talking with Ducks

The wife of the circuit overseer asked what the difference is between a language and a dialect. So, I proceeded to explain something that is emphasized by American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair, that a primary way accepted by most linguists to distinguish a language from a dialect is mutual intelligibility, as is discussed in this excerpt from the MEotW post on “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”:

It has been said that “a language is a dialect with an army and navy”, but in his article Professor Mair gives us a more linguistically correct and useful way to distinguish between a language and a dialect:

Regardless of the imprecision of lay usage, we should strive for a consistent means of distinguishing between language and dialect. Otherwise we might as well use the two terms interchangeably. That way lies chaos and the collapse of rational discourse. Mutual intelligibility [emphasis added] is normally accepted by most linguists as the only plausible criterion for making the distinction between language and dialect in the vast majority of cases. Put differently, no more suitable, workable device for distinguishing these two levels of speech has yet been proposed. If there are to be exceptions to the useful principle of mutual intelligibility, there should be compelling reasons for them. Above all, exceptions should not be made the rule.

What is mutual intelligibility? Simply put, in linguistics, two or more speech varieties are said to be mutually intelligible if they are “able to be understood by one another’s speakers”. For example, if one person only knows English, and another person only knows Spanish, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—English and Spanish are not mutually intelligible, and are suitably recognized as being different languages, not just different dialects of “European”.

Similarly, if one person only knows Mandarin, and another person only knows Cantonese, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible. So, while they may be “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · {(patterns of) speech} 方言)”, linguistically, Mandarin and Cantonese should really be considered to be different languages, not just different dialects of “Chinese”.

Indeed, I have heard people use this week’s MEotW, “jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng ((jī chicken雞/鷄)‐(tóng {together with}同/仝)‐(yā duck)‐(jiǎng speaking) [people not understanding each other because of speaking different languages (from Cantonese)])”, to specifically describe Mandarin-speakers and Cantonese-speakers trying to talk to each other, and not understanding each other. 🐓 🦆

After I explained the gist of the above, one of the daughters of the family at the dinner—who had been labouring for decades under the misconception that Mandarin and Cantonese are just dialects and that someone who knows one can easily learn the other—said, “Now I don’t feel like an idiot.”

Uncommon Knowledge?

It could be said that ones such as this family and this circuit overseer and his wife, who have all worked so hard and served for so long in the Chinese language fields, should already have known such a basic thing about the Chinese languages. However, the following things are unfortunately true:

  • Even publishers who are learning a language to serve in that language’s field generally consider such linguistic (language science) knowledge to be specialized technical knowledge that is beyond what they need to learn, and possibly beyond what they could even comprehend.
  • Western-educated publishers learning a Chinese language may unwittingly go along with the Western worldly tendency to exoticize things related to China. (John DeFrancis, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (p. 37), calls this “Exotic East Syndrome”.) They may be content with—or even enjoy—the alluring veil of mystery and mystique surrounding certain things related to China and Chinese culture. Thus, they don’t seek to learn about and understand deeper truths about such things, that may pierce through this obscuring veil, and burst this bubble.—Compare 2 Corinthians 3:14, including the margin note.
  • The central ruling authorities of China have long actively promoted the scientifically incorrect idea that the different varieties of speech in China are just dialects of the one Chinese language. This idea is political propaganda supporting the idea that it’s good for there to be central ruling authorities in China.
  • Traditional worldly Chinese language instructors and others who are knowledgeable about Chinese languages and Chinese characters are eager to promote and perpetuate the traditional thinking about Chinese languages and characters, that they have invested so much time and effort in, and that they are so proud of.
  • Chinese-educated publishers who are already steeped in the traditional ideas about Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc., and who are thus lauded and deferred to as experts by other publishers, may be eager to simply unquestioningly pass on the cultural knowledge and ideas that they were taught, and that they are lauded and respected for.
  • The Bible makes it clear that Satan the Devil is “a liar and the father of the lie”. It also describes him as “the great dragon…who is misleading the entire inhabited earth”. So, while we can only speculate about the details of what strings are purposely pulled in the spirit realm by Satan and his demons as opposed to what human folly they simply passively observe, we can be sure that Satan is delighted with all the ways in which people are misled in and about the Chinese culture, in which the dragon is considered a positive, revered symbol.—John 8:44; Revelation 12:9.

So, for reasons such as the above, even the basic linguistic truth that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. actually function as different languages is unfortunately not yet common knowledge among those serving in the Chinese fields. As the saying goes, which some say is a Chinese proverb, “error will travel over half the globe, while truth is pulling on her boots”.

Jesus said, though, that true worshippers worship “with spirit and truth”, and that “the truth will set you free”. With regard to Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc., the truth about them can even set one free from unnecessarily feeling like an “idiot”, as the sister mentioned above so eloquently put it, because of labouring under all the political propaganda, traditions, and other kinds of misinformation and wrong thinking that unfortunately surround Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc.—John 4:23; 8:32.

Huge Worldwide Effects

In addition to being hugely freeing for individual language learners, spreading the truth about the Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc. is also important on a larger scale, since the worldwide Mandarin field, for one, is the largest language field in the world, and probably the largest language field that has ever existed in human history. For comparison, according to Ethnologue, a resource on world languages, the worldwide Mandarin field (those worldwide whose mother tongue is Mandarin) is about twice the size of the second largest worldwide language field, the Spanish field, and it’s about two and a half times the size of the third largest worldwide language field, the English field. Allowing various untruths to continue to divert and bog down the language-learning efforts of those who come to help in the worldwide Mandarin field can have incalculable overall negative effects on the preaching work in this enormous field.

So, even as we hang on to Bible truth, let us also hang on to the linguistic truths that we learn, and let us do what we can to share them with our fellow workers in the vast worldwide Chinese fields.

Categories
Culture Language Learning Technology Theocratic

zuìchū

zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Notes: “PyP” is short for “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus”. Tap/click on a Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to reveal its “flashcard”, tap/click on a “flashcard” or its Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · 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.]

Zuìchū (Zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” is the very first expression that occurs in the current Mandarin New World Translation Bible, at Genesis 1:1 (WOL; PyP):

📖 📄 📘 Zuìchū (Zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初), Shàngdì (Shàng·dì Above’s · {Emperor → [God]} → [God] 上帝) chuàngzàole (chuàng·zào·le {initiated · made, created → [created]} · [indicates a change] 创造了 創造了) tiāndì (tiān·dì heavens · earth 天地).

At Revelation 2:4 (WOL; PyP), the current Mandarin NWT Bible also uses “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” when it talks about not leaving “the love you had at first”:

📖 📄 📘 Búguò (Bú·guò not · {do pass} → [however] 不过 不過), yǒu ({(there) is having} 有) (one 一) diǎn (point (regarding which)) (I 我) yào (must 要) zébèi (zé·bèi reprove · prepare → [reprove] 责备 責備) (you 你), jiùshì (jiù·shì (which) exactly · is 就是) (you 你) ràng ({have allowed}) zìjǐ (selves’ 自己) zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} → [at first] 最初) de (’s 的) nèi (that 那) fèn ({portion of} 份) ài (love) lěngdàn (lěng·dàn {to be(come) cold} · {to be(come) bland → [to be(come) indifferent]} 冷淡) xialai (xia·lai down · {to come} 下来 下來).

“Original Intention”? “Beginner’s Mind”?

While “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” appears multiple times in the current Mandarin NWT Bible, the expression “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [original desire/aspiration/intention | (Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)”, which may seem somewhat related, does not appear in the current Mandarin NWT Bible.

In normal Mandarin usage, “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [original desire/aspiration/intention] 初心)” effectively means “original desire/aspiration/intention”. We should be aware, though, that the expression “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [original desire/aspiration/intention | (Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)” (shoshin in Japanese) is also used in Zen Buddhism to mean “beginner’s mind”, an attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject.

While “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)”, as used in Zen Buddhism, apparently refers to one’s own unprejudiced mental approach to learning about a reality, “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)”, as used in the Bible, refers to the very beginning of a reality itself, prior to any possible subsequent deviation or corruption. It seems that following the Bible’s example of focusing on the truth of the original reality of something naturally produces the beneficial openness and freedom from preconceptions referred to by the Zen Buddhist usage of “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)”, especially when we do so with the courage and humility that the Bible often encourages us to cultivate.—2 Timothy 1:7; Joshua 1:9; Proverbs 18:12; 22:4.

Remembering where Zen Buddhism came from and where the Bible came from can help us to understand the difference between the Zen Buddhist concept of chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心) and the concept of zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初) that is often mentioned in the Bible. Having come from imperfect, limited humans, the Zen Buddhist concept of chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心) is unsurprisingly about how an imperfect, limited human can view something—that’s ultimately all it can really be about anyway. On the other hand, the Bible shares with us God’s views of things, and God was actually there at the zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初) time of literally everything in the universe. Also, he has seen how everything has developed since that zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初) time, and he can also perfectly foresee how everything will turn out in the future.

Holding On to Mandarin Field First Love

How might someone leave ‘the love he had at first’ in the Mandarin field? A publisher may have originally entered the Mandarin field with pure motivations, out of love for God and neighbour. Over time, though, with repeated exposure to proud worldly Chinese traditional culture, might some self-glorifying pride creep in regarding knowledge of that worldly Chinese culture, and regarding having gone far down the rabbit hole of the notoriously complex Chinese characters? If so, then the original love that had motivated that publisher may eventually get corrupted, and perhaps even left behind, leaving pride as his main motivation. May we never let that happen to us!

First Things First in Language Learning

The way God made us, zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初), language-wise, there was speech. Only later did imperfect humans eventually come up with some writing systems to visually represent and record some forms of speech. Indeed, there have been, and there still are, many speech-only languages, with no corresponding writing system. Ethnologue, a resource on world languages, says:

Ethnologue (24th edition) has data to indicate that of the currently listed 7,139 living languages, 4,065 have a developed writing system. We don’t always know, however, if the existing writing systems are widely used. That is, while an alphabet may exist there may not be very many people who are literate and actually using the alphabet. The remaining 3,074 are likely unwritten.

Technological First Priority

Writing systems are technologies. About writing, linguist Gretchen McCulloch says:

It really is a technology. It’s a thing you do on top of language to do stuff with language, but it’s not the language itself. There are thousands and possibly millions of languages that have never been written down in the history of humanity. We have no idea. We’ve never met a society of humans, or heard of a society of humans, without language. But those are spoken and signed languages, which are just kind of there. Writing, by contrast, was invented somewhere between 3 and 4 times in the history of humanity.

As with any technology, under-engineering and over-engineering in writing systems are by definition bad. Chinese characters are obviously over-engineered—full of “ceremony”, way more complicated than necessary to fulfil their original purpose of representing Chinese speech. In fact, in the minds of many, Chinese characters have culturally become a thing on their own, the most important thing about Chinese languages, even. Thus, characters have been allowed to improperly overshadow Mandarin, etc. speech, which is actually of primary importance. As the English saying goes, that’s putting the cart before the horse.

Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is sometimes ridiculed for being just for beginners, but the simplicity and elegance with which it fulfils its zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} → [original] 最初), original purpose of representing Mandarin speech are actually very good things. As Leonardo da Vinci is alleged to have said, simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.