Category: Language Learning

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

zìkuā

zìkuā (zì·kuā {[(about)] self} · {exaggerate; overstate; boast; brag | praise; compliment} 自夸 自誇) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Notes: Tap/click on a Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to reveal its “flashcard”; tap/click on a “flashcard” or its Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to hide the “flashcard”. 📖 📄 📘 icons mean 📖 Reveal All, 📄 Reveal Advanced, and 📘 Reveal None re all the “flashcards” in the heading, paragraph, etc. that they are placed at the beginning of.]

I have long especially liked 1 Corinthians 13. It contains counsel on what really does and doesn’t matter in life, an extensive description and definition of the most important kind of love, and a sublime discussion about the need to become complete, mature, as a person. As these apply to life in general, so too do they apply to our lives as Mandarin field language learners.

As Mandarin field language learners, it can benefit us greatly to consider what we can learn from 1 Corinthians 13, and along the way, we can also consider some of the Mandarin expressions used in that chapter in the current version of the Mandarin New World Translation Bible (nwtsty).

“…So That I May Boast”

This week’s MEotW, “zìkuā (zì·kuā {[(about)] self} · {exaggerate; overstate; boast; brag | praise; compliment} 自夸 自誇)”, is used in verse 3 (WOL, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus) of 1 Corinthians 13:

Screenshot of “_zìkuā_” in 1 Co. 13:3 (nwtsty, CHS+_Pīnyīn_ WOL)

(Dark mode for the Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (WOL) website, as shown in the above image, can be enabled in the Safari web browser by using the Noir Safari extension.)

In “zìkuā (zì·kuā {[(about)] self} · {exaggerate; overstate; boast; brag | praise; compliment} 自夸 自誇)”, “zì (self | from; since 自)” can mean “(about) self”. (In other expressions, such as “zìjǐ (self[’s] 自己)” or “zìyóu (zì·yóu self-·determining → [free | freedom] 自由)”, it just means “self”.) As for “kuā ({exaggerate; overstate; boast; brag | praise; compliment} 夸 誇/夸)”, it means “exaggerate; overstate; boast; brag” or “praise; compliment”. So, “zìkuā (zì·kuā {[(about)] self} · {exaggerate; overstate; boast; brag | praise; compliment} 自夸 自誇)” can effectively mean “boast/brag/etc. about oneself”.

Below are English and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus renditions showing how “zìkuā (zì·kuā {[(about)] self} · {exaggerate; overstate; boast; brag | praise; compliment} 自夸 自誇)” is used in 1 Corinthians 13:3 in the current version of the Mandarin NWT Bible to correspond to “boast”, which is used in that verse in the current version of the English NWT Bible:

English:

And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all.

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Wǒ (I 我) jiùsuàn (jiù·suàn {even if} · {figuring → [considering]} 就算) biànmài (biàn·mài changing · sell → [sell off] 变卖 變賣) yíqiè (yí·qiè {one (whole)} · {corresponding (set of)} → [all] 一切) cáiwù (cái·wù wealth · things → [belongings] 财物 財物), ràng ({to allow} 让 讓) rén (people 人) yǒu ({to have} 有) shíwù (shí·wù eating · matter → [food] 食物) chī ({to eat} 吃 吃/喫), hái (also 还 還) shěshēn (shě·shēn {give up} · {(my) body} 舍身 捨身) juānqū (juān·qū {relinquish → [contribute]} · {(my) human body} 捐躯 捐軀), yǐcǐ (yǐ·cǐ using · this 以此) zìkuā (zì·kuā {(about) self} · {to boast} 自夸 自誇), què (but 却 卻) méiyǒu (méi·yǒu not · {do have} 没有 沒有) ài (love 爱 愛), zhè (this 这 這) duì (towards → [to] 对 對) wǒ (me 我) yě (even 也) háowú (háo·wú {(even) a fine hair (of)} · {does not have} → [does not have even a little] 毫无 毫無) yìchu (yì·chu beneficial · place → [benefit] 益处 益處).

“Your Boasting Is Not Good”

Jehovah designed us, including specific parts of our bodies, such that the primary way we use language to communicate is with speech. (1 Corinthians 14:8–11) In contrast, writing is a human-invented technology, useful in some ways, but secondary at best compared to the gift of speech that Jehovah gave us.

So, if you are boasting, whether out loud or to yourself in your heart, about your knowledge of Chinese characters, which are particularly deeply problematic products of a worldly human culture, while neglecting to praise and appreciate Jehovah’s gift of speech, is it not so that, as 1 Corinthians 5:6 says, “your boasting is not good”? This is especially so because, as 1 John 2:15–17 tells us, we should “not love either the world or the things in the world”.

That scripture also warns us about “the desire of the eyes”. Chinese characters certainly have visually intricate designs that dazzle the eyes of many. The thing is, though, that language is not primarily about what’s visible to the eye. Rather, speech, the actual primary aspect of human language, is something that’s invisible to the eye. If we were to prioritize or even glamourize fancy visible writing over invisible speech that is actually what really matters language-wise, that could be considered linguistic idolatry—literal idolatry similarly involves worshipping visible idols of false gods rather than properly only worshipping the invisible true God.

Sure, in some situations characters are still the only form in which certain spiritually relevant information is written, so in such situations we must use characters to access and use that information in Jehovah’s service. However, that doesn’t mean that we need to love the characters for their own sake, or boast about our knowledge of them. Indeed, it is entirely appropriate to be dismayed by how the unnecessarily extraordinarily complex Chinese characters can make accessing and using important spiritual information much harder than necessary! While it’s still true that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is not yet everywhere that characters are in the Mandarin field, we should ask ourselves why Jehovah’s organization—which we understand to be directed by Jehovah and Jesus—has over time been making Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) available in more and more places that used to be characters-only.

Similarly, for a long time, the only Bibles available in England were ones written in Latin. While it was not totally impossible for people who lived in England at that time to learn Latin so as to be able to read and understand the Bible for themselves, it was very difficult for most, and practically impossible for many. (Many today similarly find Chinese characters very difficult, or even practically impossible, to deal with, and so they never join a Chinese field, or they may feel forced to leave after a time even if they do join a Chinese field.) In that not-so-merry old England, a privileged few may have boasted about their knowledge of Latin, but Jehovah’s organization has expressed clearly how it views that dark time.

“Glory from One Another”

Something to consider about boasting about characters is: Whom is one doing such boasting trying to impress? Is it Jehovah God? Is Jehovah really impressed by deep worldly knowledge of the culture of the proudly named “Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)” (“Central Kingdom”) that he will soon destroy and replace with his own Kingdom? (Daniel 2:44) Really, one who boasts about his knowledge of characters is generally boasting before other humans, is that not so? That being the case, such a one should take care to avoid becoming like the ones to whom Jesus directed the words at John 5:41–44:

I do not accept glory from men, but I well know that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in the name of my Father, but you do not receive me. If someone else came in his own name, you would receive that one. How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?

Jesus’ words above join the words at 1 Corinthians 13:3 to tell us that if certain ones do things so that they may boast, so that they may receive “glory from men”, “glory from one another”, such ones “do not have the love of God” in them, and so, they “do not benefit at all”.

“Boast in Jehovah”

Especially as ones who are dedicated to Jehovah God, we should focus on what brings glory to him, and on what brings us “the glory that is from the only God”. We should not seek the fading glories of some worldly human culture, even if that culture is as old and storied—from a human viewpoint, at least—as Chinese culture is. (To Jehovah, for whom ‘a thousand years is as one day’, Chinese civilization has only been around for a few days.—2 Peter 3:8.)

As 1 Corinthians 1:26–31 says, we should boast in Jehovah, not in needlessly and self-indulgently complex knowledge relating to a mere worldly human culture:

For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God. But it is due to him that you are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom, so that it may be just as it is written: “The one who boasts, let him boast in Jehovah.”

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science

jítǐ zhǔyì

jítǐ zhǔyì ((jí·tǐ gathered; collected · {body [→ [style; form]]} → [collective] 集体 集體) (zhǔ·yì master · meaning → [-ism] 主义 主義) → [collectivism; community spirit]) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Generally speaking, Western societies are considered to be relatively individualistic, while Eastern societies, like Chinese ones, are considered to be relatively collectivistic, emphasizing the collective, or group, over the individual. This week’s MEotW, “jítǐ zhǔyì ((jí·tǐ gathered; collected · {body [→ [style; form]]} → [collective] 集体 集體) (zhǔ·yì master · meaning → [-ism] 主义 主義) → [collectivism; community spirit])”, seems to be the main Mandarin expression referring to such collectivism. (The MEotW post on “kǒngbù huódòng ((kǒng·bù fearing · terror → [terrorist] 恐怖) (huó·dòng living · moving → [activities] 活动 活動) → [terrorism; terrorist activities])” contains a brief discussion about some other Mandarin -isms.)

Differences and Possible Causal Factors

While researching this post, I came across a scientific paper that has some interesting information about individualism and collectivism, including some information about measurable regional variations in collectivism that have been found across the Chinese mainland. Here is a quotation from it, regarding individualism and collectivism in general:

The distinction between individualism and collectivism captures important differences in how the relationship between self and others is constructed, as well as whether the individual or the group is understood as the basic unit of analysis (Cross et al., 2011; Hofstede, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2010; Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis, 1995). People living in individualistic cultural contexts (e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom) tend to pay more attention to the achievement of their own goals and their own uniqueness. They have clear boundaries with others and pursue well-being or life satisfaction by sharing feelings and achieving personal success. In contrast, people living in collectivistic cultural contexts (e.g., China, Japan, and Korea) tend to be more concerned about maintaining harmonious relations with in-group members, and the boundaries between themselves and these others are much less firm. This distinction is reflected in cognition, perception, memory, cultural products, and even brain function (Morling, 2016; Nisbett & Masuda, 2003; Oyserman et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2007). Many explanations for these differences have been proposed, including cultural heritage (Ma et al., 2016), modernity (Inglehart & Baker, 2000), climato-economic theory (Van de Vliert et al., 2013), the subsistence system (Uskul et al., 2008), the historical risk of infectious disease (Fincher et al., 2008), and geographic and relational mobility (Oishi, 2010).

Later in the paper, the authors divide China into four regions, and present a table listing some factors that may have contributed to the varying degrees of collectivism in those regions.

Triple-Line Framework of variations within China.

…

Table 1. Ecological Factor Differences Among the Four Regions.

Region I Region II Region III Region IV
Collectivism Lowest Lower Higher Highest
Climate Harsh Harsh Comfortable Comfortable
Water Less Enough Less Enough
Rainfall <400 mm 400–800 mm 400–800 mm >800 mm
Subsistence
system		 Herder Wheat or herder/wheat-blended Wheat Rice
Voluntary
settlement		 No Yes No No
Population
density		 Low Low High High

Pluses and Minuses

Collectivistic societies can have certain good aspects, as expressed by this example sentence from the entry for “xūntáo (xūn·táo {cure (meat/etc.) with smoke} · {mould (as with clay)} → [influence positively; nurture; edify; train] 熏陶 熏/薰陶)” in Pleco’s built-in dictionary:

Zài jítǐ zhǔyì jīngshén de xūntáo xià, háizimen hùxiāng guānxīn, hùxiāng bāngzhù. [Word division was edited.]

Nurtured in the spirit of collectivism, the children care for each other and help each other.

However, recently, some research has come out that shows that some negative ways of thinking, feeling, and acting are more likely to be displayed by those in collectivistic societies.

To clarify, here is a definition of “zero-sum” :

Of any system where all gains are offset by exactly equal losses.

So, a zero-sum game or system is one in which another must lose for one to win—no win-win situations. That means that if you hold zero-sum beliefs, as, according to the studies referred to in the above post, collectivists are more likely to do, then you will think that any goodness that’s enjoyed by someone else is goodness that’s no longer available to you.

Zero-sum thinking makes it difficult to have true empathy for others who are suffering, and it makes it difficult to follow the Bible counsel at Romans 12:15:

Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep.

Collectivism and the Obsession with Chinese Characters

It seems, then, that there is a connection between collectivism and China’s obsessive refusal so far to move on from Chinese characters to more reasonable and modern writing systems like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). Consider this excerpt from my article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A”:

In addition to those who feel that phasing out the Hànzì [Chinese characters] would be a regrettable cultural loss, I have also noticed that there are some for whom knowledge of Hànzì is a matter of pride and self-identity. They are proud of knowing the Hànzì as they do, and they view their knowledge of the Hànzì as part of what makes them who they are, as something that distinguishes them from those who don’t know the Hànzì. Such ones may defend the Hànzì to the point of irrationality in the face of a more accessible alternative that would make them and their hard-earned knowledge of Hànzì less “special”, that would threaten to render worthless all of the blood, sweat, and tears they have invested into grappling with these “Chinese puzzles”. It’s as if they are saying, “That’s not fair! If I had to go through all this bitter hard work to learn characters before I could read and write Chinese, then everyone else has to too!”

Self-Identity and Balanced Self-Love

Self-identity is one thing that can particularly be a struggle for those raised in collectivistic societies, since the self is relatatively often neglected in such societies. It’s perhaps not surprising then, that, as mentioned above, in the relatively collectivistic Chinese societies, with their relative paucity, or scarcity, of more healthy ways to build and maintain self-identity, so many have such an unhealthy, obsessive attachment to Chinese characters, as something to desperately hang their neglected self-identities on.

As Jehovah’s organization has commented, for us to follow well the command at Matthew 19:19 to “love your neighbor as yourself”, we must first love ourselves in a healthy way. Also, while Romans 12:3 telling each of us “not to think more of himself than it is necessary to think, but to think so as to have a sound mind” is mainly an admonition against the overly self-important thinking that individualistic societies can tend to promote, it also shows that it is necessary to think a certain amount of ourselves to have a balanced, sound mind.

In turn, it seems that our developing a balanced, healthy view of ourselves can contribute to our avoiding things like zero-sum thinking, and to our developing a balanced, healthy view of Chinese characters. From that balanced, healthy place, we can be free to develop a balanced, healthy view of the possible alternative of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), which could empower us to serve Jehovah and help others in the Mandarin field as well as we ought to be able to.

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

jiǎ xiāoxi

jiǎ (false; fake 假 假/叚)
xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

At the time of this writing, jw.org was featuring the whiteboard animation video “Protect Yourself From Misinformation”. The English and Mandarin versions of this video match the English word “misinformation” with this week’s MEotW, “jiǎ (false; fake 假 假/叚) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)”:

Screenshot from the video “Protect Yourself From Misinformation”, 0:32 mark, showing “Misinformation” in the subtitle

Screenshot from the video “消息满天飞，如何辨真假”, 0:32 mark, showing “假消息 (jiǎ xiāoxi)” in the subtitle

[Note: The MEotW post on “shèjiāo wǎngzhàn ((shè·jiāo {god of the land → [society] → [social]} · {meeting → [associating]} → [social contact/interaction] 社交) (wǎng·zhàn {net → [web]} · {stand → [station]} → [website] 网站 網站) → [social networking website; social network])” contains information about how to add unproofread computer-generated Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to the subtitles of Mandarin videos on jw.org in most browsers.]

“Jiǎ (false; fake 假 假/叚) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)” can also be translated as “false news”, “false information”, or perhaps even “fake news”, as confirmed by the entry for this expression in the excellent Referenced Theo. Expressions (RTE) resource.

Disappearing?

“Jiǎ ({[is] false; fake; phony; artificial} | if; supposing; assume; presume | borrow; {avail oneself of} 假 假/叚)” means “false” or “fake”, and “xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)”, while used to effectively mean “news” or “information”, actually literally means “disappearing news”. Why “disappearing”? Perhaps that is a nod to the fleeting nature of news—relatively quickly, when it’s not new anymore, it’s not news anymore.

The Wiktionary entry for “xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)” seems to bear this out, as it says:

消息 (xiāoxi) refers to news as in new information; to express the meaning of news as in reports of current events, use 新聞／新闻 (xīnwén).

“Xiāoxi (Xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)” also appears in the expression “hǎo (good 好) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news] 消息)”, meaning “good news”, which we use often in the Mandarin field. In fact, “Hǎo (Good 好) Xiāoxi (Xiāo·xi Disappearing · News → [News] 消息)”! is the title of the concluding song for this year’s Mandarin conventions! (English, Mandarin, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus) Also, we will say “Wángguó (Wáng·guó King’s · Nation → [Kingdom] 王国 王國) de (’s 的) hǎo (good 好) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news] 消息)” when we want to refer to “the good news of the Kingdom”. Of course, while the message of this good news will “disappear” as news when it is not news anymore, the Kingdom itself “will stand forever”!—Daniel 2:44.

Myths and Misinformation About Chinese Characters, Etc.

As Mandarin field language learners, we need to be aware that many myths and much misinformation have been spread about the Chinese languages, especially when it comes to Chinese characters. Indeed, there is so much misinformation about Chinese characters that Victor Mair wrote the following in the foreword of the book Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning, by J. Marshall Unger:

There is probably no subject on earth concerning which more misinformation is purveyed and more misunderstandings circulated than Chinese characters (漢字, Chinese hanzi, Japanese kanji, Korean hanja), or sinograms.

Also, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, John DeFrancis lists the following myths regarding Chinese characters, that many believe:

  • The Ideographic Myth
    • The MEotW post on “Hāmǐjíduōdùn (Armageddon 哈米吉多顿 哈米吉多頓)” contains a discussion of this myth, with some selected excerpts on this subject from DeFrancis’ book.
  • The Universality Myth
  • The Emulatability Myth
  • The Monosyllabic Myth
  • The Indispensability Myth
  • The Successfulness Myth

Regarding these myths, in p. 2–3 of his aforementioned book, J. Marshall Unger provides this summary:

Passing for the moment over the history of how the hunt for the perfect language unfolded, let us jump ahead to the result: the intellectual baggage about Chinese characters that we have inherited from the Renaissance and Enlightenment. John DeFrancis, in his classic book The Chinese Language (1984), sums up that weighty legacy under six headings, and a better summary would be hard to find. The source of all the confusion is what DeFrancis calls the Ideographic Myth, the notion that Chinese characters represent meaning directly, without reference to language (that is, speech) in any way. Its logical extension is the Universality Myth, according to which Chinese script allows for communication between mutually uninteligible dialects and languages. This leads in turn to the Emulatability Myth, which holds that Chinese script can serve as a model for a general system of signs that transcends natural language. These first three myths have little to do with the actual structure or history of the Chinese language or its writing system, in contrast with the remaining three: the Monosyllabic Myth, Indispensability Myth, and Successfulness Myth. Each of these—the names are more or less self-explanatory—makes a strong claim about language and the writing system, claims that have had significant social and political consequences.

At least some of the political consequences referred to above have been deliberate, meaning that at least some of the myths and misinformation spread about Chinese languages and Chinese characters qualify as political propaganda. If we’re not careful, we could end up parroting this political propaganda. (We could also end up parroting worldly human cultural propaganda, which is also a bad thing for people who seek to be no part of the world.) Also, all the difficulties and confusion caused by all the myths and misinformation surrounding Chinese languages and Chinese characters massively hinder the efforts of Mandarin field language learners to stay spiritually strong and to reach the hearts of Mandarin-speakers with Bible truth. This can result in deeply negative spiritual consequences that should be of great concern to us. To complete the sentence quoted from the video mentioned at the beginning of this post:

Misinformation isn’t just inaccurate; it can also be dangerous!