Categories
Culture Experiences Language Learning Technology Theocratic

mángwén

mángwén (máng·wén blind · writing → [braille] 盲文) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Recently, jw.org featured the video “ ‘Without It, I Would Feel Lost’ ”, which, as its description says, is about “the experience of a blind man who has benefited from having the Bible in braille”. Where the English description of this video uses the word “braille”, the Mandarin description uses this week’s MEotW, “mángwén (máng·wén blind · writing → [braille] 盲文)”. And yes, as the existence of this Mandarin expression suggests, Chinese Braille (Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [Chinese] 中国 中國) Mángwén (Máng·wén Blind · Writing → [Braille] 盲文)) does indeed exist.

Braille in the Land of Characters

But, one may ask, how does braille, with just a limited number of raised dots, work for Mandarin Chinese when thousands and thousands of Chinese characters are usually used to write this language? The post “How Chinese Braille works”, on the blog The Language Closet, discusses this question:

There is one system that intrigues me. one that, [sic] seems a little too big for what braille is able to handle.

You see…, one braille cell contains 6 dots. Including the space, which consists of zero raised dots, there are only 64 possible combinations that can be formed per braille cell. But yet, it is this same system that could represent the entirety of the Mandarin Chinese language to provide accessibility to the blind users. How does it do that? After all, Chinese as we know it is written with thousands upon thousands of characters, each with their own meaning.

To get around this problem of representing thousands of characters in braille, we would have to ditch the concept of the character, and to focus on the structure of the Chinese syllable. Chinese is fairly restricted in its syllable structure, with syllables having a (CG)V(X)T structure, where C is the initial consonant, G is the glide, V is the vowel, X is the coda, and T is one of the four tones, or a neutral tone for weak syllables. So in the hanyu pinyin, the syllable zhuāng can be split into zh + u + a + ng + tone 1. After factoring in tone, there are around 1300 possible syllables, although Mandarin Chinese uses way less than that.

In Mandarin Chinese, there are only 21 possible consonant initials, which are, in hanyu pinyin,

b, p, m, f, d, t, n, l, g, j, k, q, h, x, zh, ch, sh, r, z, c, and s.

Furthermore, with a limited number of final combinations, that is, combining glides, vowels, and codas, every single combination of Chinese initials and finals could be represented in braille.

So, Chinese Braille does NOT work by trying to shoehorn a Chinese characters writing system into braille—even the Simplified one just wouldn’t fit. Instead, the approach taken was to “ditch the concept of the character, and to focus on the structure of the Chinese syllable”, a basic unit of Mandarin speech. Instead of being based on a Chinese characters writing system, with its thousands and thousands of inconsistent, haphazardly designed symbols, Chinese Braille is based on Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), which consistently and elegantly represents any and all Modern Standard Mandarin speech with a reasonable number of symbols.

As the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Is a Good, Workable Writing System on Its Own” says:

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.

From this fact, we can logically draw the following conclusion, as stated in the above-mentioned article:

Braille is obviously a writing system, so Pīnyīn must also be a writing system (see p. 9), not just a pronunciation aid.

But, What About Homophones?!

One of the primary objections raised to the idea of using Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a writing system, and not just as a pronunciation aid, is that there are supposedly so many homophones (different words that sound the same) in Mandarin that characters are required to disambiguate them, otherwise there would be mass confusion. However, users of Chinese Braille, which is based on Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), seem to be doing just fine, along with the billion or so people who regularly speak Mandarin without constantly showing each other the Chinese characters that are supposedly required to distinguish homophones from one another.

For more information about Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and homophones, see the subheading “But There Are So Many Words That Sound the Same!” in the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A”. For those saying “tl;dr”, here is a bit of material from the conclusion of that section of the article:

The ultimate clarifier in modern Mandarin, even with all its existing homophones, is context, not characters. Characters themselves can have multiple possible meanings and multiple possible pronunciations, so one often has to, yes, check the context of something written in characters before the meaning and/or pronunciation of certain words in it can be determined with certainty.…

That there are so many different words in modern Mandarin that sound the same is not a good reason not to use Pīnyīn, any more than it is a good reason not to speak Mandarin. Ironically, it is actually a good long-term reason not to use characters!

So, rather than being a real, valid reason not to use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as an actual writing system for Mandarin, the objection that characters are required to cope with Mandarin’s homophones is really just copium (“cope”+“opium”) for those who fear that all the blood, sweat, and tears they have invested into trying to learn and remember characters will be made irrelevant. (Such ones shouldn’t really fear, though—the world is and will continue to be awash in Chinese characters, so knowledge of characters will continue to have some value, probably right up until the end of this system of things.) The truth, for those who are willing to face it, is that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is just as real and workable a writing system for Mandarin as is Chinese Braille, which is based on Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science

shíjí

shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step [→ [level; rank; grade; class]]} [→ [master/expert level (coll)]] 十级 十級) 👈🏼 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.]

Recently, I noticed this week’s MEotW, “shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step [→ [level; rank; grade; class]]} [→ [master/expert level (coll)]] 十级 十級)”, being used colloquially to mean “master/expert level”. For example, I saw a humorous video in which “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文) shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step → [level]} → [expert level (coll)] 十级 十級) was used to mean “Mandarin expert level”.

Morphemic Breakdown

In “shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step [→ [level; rank; grade; class]]} [→ [master/expert level (coll)]] 十级 十級)”, the first morpheme “shí (ten 十) is the well-known one referring to the number “ten”. The other morpheme, “jí ((stair)step [→ [level; rank; grade; class]])”, has an old meaning of “step”, as in “stairstep”, and is now used to effectively mean “level; rank; grade; class”.

Google Translate says that “shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step [→ [level; rank; grade; class]]} [→ [master/expert level (coll)]] 十级 十級) means “Level 10”. However, the only dictionary entries referencing “shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step [→ [level; rank; grade; class]]} [→ [master/expert level (coll)]] 十级 十級) that I could find were those for “shíjí‐fēng ((shí·jí ten · {(stair)step → [level]} 十级 十級)‐(fēng wind) [force 10 wind (Beaufort scale)])”, (“force 10 wind”), which is a reference to the Beaufort wind force scale.

Expert at Speaking? Or Just Writing?

Web searches I have tried have turned up considerable numbers of occurrences of both “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文) shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step → [level]} → [expert level (coll)] 十级 十級) and “Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step → [level]} → [expert level (coll)] 十级 十級)”. As discussed in the MEotW post on “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)”, while this term is often used to mean “Chinese language”, including Chinese speech, it really means “Chinese writing”. (Character chauvinism strikes again!) So, to say someone is very good at speaking Mandarin, it would be better to describe them as “Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step → [level]} → [expert level (coll)] 十级 十級)”. or perhaps “pǔtōnghuà (pǔ·tōng·huà common · {through(out) → [common]} · speech → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in China)] 普通话 普通話) shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step → [level]} → [expert level (coll)] 十级 十級)”:

English:

He is now at expert level in Mandarin!

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 (he 他) xiànzài (xiàn·zài {is appearing → [is presently]} · {is (now) at} → [is now at] 现在 現在) Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step → [level]} → [expert level (coll)] 十级 十級)!

Keep in mind that a colloquial or slang expression like “Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step → [level]} → [expert level (coll)] 十级 十級) may not be familiar to everyone. Also, usages and meanings of such expressions can change and shift over time, and with different situations.

Is Being an Expert Bad?

Speaking of being an expert, is that a bad thing? Some of those around us, perhaps out of insecurity or jealousy, may seek to “keep us in our place” if we get “uppity”, exhibit “pretensions of grandeur”, and actually try to be good at something, perhaps better at it than they are. (Matthew 13:54–58) Also, the scriptures themselves warn us not to be bragging and not to be puffed up with pride.—1 Corinthians 13:4.

However, God’s Word also encourages us to actually give Jehovah the best “sacrifice of praise” that we can. (Malachi 1:6–8; Hebrews 11:4; 13:15) So, ignore any insecure or jealous naysayers around you, and as Jesus said, “let your light shine” in the Mandarin field, even at shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step → [level]} → [expert level (coll)] 十级 十級) if you can, not to glorify yourself, but to glorify our heavenly Father Jehovah.—Matthew 5:16.

Categories
Culture Current Events Experiences Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

cōnghuì

cōnghuì (cōng·huì {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] intelligent; bright} → [[is] intelligent; bright; witty] 聪慧 聰慧) 👈🏼 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])? [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]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 relatively 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.

“There Is No Intelligent Creator”?

This week’s MEotW, which appears in the section of the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure entitled “Nǐ (You 你) Xiāngxìn (Xiāng·xìn It · {Do Believe} → [Do Believe] 相信) Shénme (Shén·me What · [suf] 什么 什/甚麼) Ne ([? ptcl] 呢)?” (“What Do You Believe?”), is “cōnghuì (cōng·huì {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] intelligent; bright} → [[is] intelligent; bright; witty] 聪慧 聰慧)”:

English:

Will you trust the claims of those who say that there is no intelligent Creator and that the Bible is unreliable? Or will you examine what the Bible actually says?

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

📖 📄 📘 Yǒuxiē (Yǒu·xiē {(there) are having → [(there) are]} · some 有些) rén (people 人) shuō (saying說/説) méiyǒu (méi·yǒu (there) not · {is having → [is]} → [(there) does not exist] 没有 沒有) cōnghuì (cōng·huì {quick at hearing → [intelligent]} · intelligent → [intelligent] 聪慧 聰慧) de (’s 的) Zàowù‐Zhǔ ((Zào·wù Created · Things 造物)‐(Zhǔ Master 主) [Creator]), Shèngjīng (Shèng·jīng (the) Holy · Scriptures → [the Bible] 圣经 聖經) (also 也) (not 不) kěkào (kě·kào {is able} · {to be leaned on → [to be relied on]} → [is reliable] 可靠), (you 你) xiāngxìn (xiāng·xìn them · {do believe} → [do believe] 相信) tāmen de ((tā·men him/her · [pl] → [them] 他们 他們) (de ’s 的) [their]) huà (words) ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions])? Háishi (Hái·shi {still more → [or]} · {is (it) that} 还是 還是) huì ((you) will) qīnzì (qīn·zì {in person} · self 亲自 親自) kànkan (kàn·kan {look at} · {look at} 看看) Shèngjīng (Shèng·jīng (the) Holy · Scriptures → [the Bible] 圣经 聖經) dàodǐ (dào·dǐ to · bottom → [in the final analysis] 到底) zěnme (zěn·me what · [suf] 怎么 怎麼/麽) shuō (says說/説) ne ([? ptcl] 呢)?

As can be seen from the above quotes, the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure uses “cōnghuì (cōng·huì {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] intelligent; bright} → [[is] intelligent; bright; witty] 聪慧 聰慧) to effectively mean “intelligent”. Related expressions include “cōngming (cōng·ming {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] bright → [[is] understanding]} 聪明 聰明)”, which has the same first morpheme as “cōnghuì (cōng·huì {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] intelligent; bright} → [[is] intelligent; bright; witty] 聪慧 聰慧)”, and “zhìhuì (zhì·huì wisdom · intelligence → [wisdom] 智慧)”, which has the same second morpheme.

Note that the first morpheme in “cōnghuì (cōng·huì {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] intelligent; bright} → [[is] intelligent; bright; witty] 聪慧 聰慧) literally means “quick at hearing”. This may remind us of the scripture at James 1:19:

Know this, my beloved brothers: Everyone must be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger,

Brains and Brawn

These days, people in the world are making a big deal about what artificial intelligence can do, but in many ways, current artificial intelligence is not even as intelligent and sensible as an average human child, so of course it cannot compare with the original Divine Intelligence, the Almighty God Jehovah. Is madly pursuing artificial intelligence—that in many ways is not really that intelligent, that does not love humans back, and that could prove to be beyond humans’ ability to control—really an intelligent thing to be doing? Are the feverish efforts to develop ever more powerful artificial intelligence really about intelligence, or the blind pursuit of power?

Many in this world, including dictators (and wannabe dictators) and their supporters, certain varieties of technology enthusiasts, people intent on climbing the corporate ladder, etc., have shown that they simple-mindedly and hard-heartedly worship power above all else, and that they dismiss the value of intelligence (and also dismiss such vital things as love and justice as being inconsequential).

Regarding how many view knowledge and intelligence, famous science fiction writer and professor Isaac Asimov said this about a common attitude he observed in the USA:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Actually, though, in many situations, sufficient intelligence can make all the difference. What difference can intelligence make? I remember that when I watched the movie Jurassic Park (which is about dinosaurs that humans recreate, and that then prove to be beyond the humans’ ability to control), the time I found the predatory velociraptors most scary was not when they were using their teeth, claws, or speed, or otherwise showing how powerful they were. Rather, it was when one of them showed considerable intelligence and figured out how to turn a door handle to open the door that children it was chasing were hiding behind.

Yes, sufficient intelligence, or wisdom, can be the difference between whether something gets done—even something as simple as opening a door—and if it never gets done. This is so even if much power is involved, and it is so no matter how long random chance is allowed to “work” on it. Jehovah God’s creative wisdom and intelligence, in addition to his almighty power, are certainly evident all around us in the natural world, in things that could never have come into existence without them. As Psalm 104:24 and Jeremiah 10:12 say:

How many your works are, O Jehovah!
You have made all of them in wisdom.
The earth is full of what you have made.

He is the Maker of the earth by his power,
The One who established the productive land by his wisdom
And who stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

Working Hard and Working Smart

Speaking of intelligence, sometimes Mandarin learners who work smart by using Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) whenever they can are accused by Chinese character chauvinists (masochists?) of being unwilling to work hard. However, does working smart necessarily mean not working hard? The best results actually come from doing both—working hard and working smart—not just doing one or the other.

And really, are we not showing an anti-intelligence and anti-wisdom attitude if we oppose doing God’s work the easy way in order to support doing things the hard way, just for the sake of preserving human tradition? Do we want to be part of the “cult of ignorance”?


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.