Tag: China

Categories
Culture Language Learning Technology Theocratic

háowú

háowú (háo·wú {(even) a fine hair (of)} · {is not having} → [is not having even a little] 毫无 毫無) ← 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).

“I Do Not Benefit at All”

This week’s MEotW, “háowú (háo·wú {(even) a fine hair (of)} · {is not having} → [is not having even a little] 毫无 毫無)”, is used in verse 3 (WOL, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus) of 1 Corinthians 13:

Screenshot of “_háowú_” 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. Other web browsers may also have extensions with similar functionality.)

In “háowú (háo·wú {(even) a fine hair (of)} · {is not having} → [is not having even a little] 毫无 毫無)”, “háo ({[(even) a] fine hair [(of)]} | milli- 毫)” literally refers to a “fine hair”. As for “wú ({not having}; without; none; no | nothing 无 無/无)”, it means “not having; without; none; no”. So, “háowú (háo·wú {(even) a fine hair (of)} · {is not having} → [is not having even a little] 毫无 毫無)” literally means “a fine hair is not having”, and effectively means “is not having even a little”. This is an interesting metaphor for emphasizing to us the ultimate futility of doing things out of pride and not out of love, things like focusing Mandarin field language-learning efforts on Chinese cultural traditions like characters rather than on how best to communicate the good news. As a metaphor, it reminds me of the English expression of not having even a shadow of a doubt about something.

Below are English and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus renditions showing how “háowú (háo·wú {(even) a fine hair (of)} · {is not having} → [is not having even a little] 毫无 毫無)” is used in 1 Corinthians 13:3 in the current version of the Mandarin NWT Bible to correspond to “at all”, 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 (WOL, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus):

📖 📄 📘 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).

Having a Word, or Not

While the WOL puts a space between “háo ({[(even) a] fine hair [(of)]} | milli- 毫)” and “wú ({not having}; without; none; no | nothing 无 無/无)”, the dictionaries I have checked all treat this expression as one word, with no space between the two morphemes. So, that is how Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material renders “háowú (háo·wú {(even) a fine hair (of)} · {is not having} → [is not having even a little] 毫无 毫無)”.

There seems to be a tendency in typical modern Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to render many two-morpheme expressions this way, combined into single words. With Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material, I have so far decided to go along with this common practice, since the resulting expressions are still relatively easy to read. However, I am not so accepting of extending this common practice to combining three, four, or even more morphemes into single words, with no spaces or even hyphens in them. Doing so produces long, undifferentiated strings of characters that are hard to parse, and thus hard to read and reason on. So, I have decided to generally break up such long expressions into one- or two-morpheme words separated by hyphens or spaces, depending on the situation.

For example, compare “bìbùkěshǎo (bì·bù·kě·shǎo certainly · not · {can; is able; could | may} · {be missing} 必不可少)” with “bì (certainly 必)‐bùkě (bù·kě not · {can; is able; could | may} → [cannot; is not able; could not | may not] 不可)‐shǎo ({[be] few; little} | {[be] less} | lack; {be deficient} | lose; {be missing} 少)”. While some of the few Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) traditionalists in existence may object to it, I think the latter rendering is much easier to read and reason on, so that is how Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material now renders this expression—one of the few good things about how commonly used Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is not is that there is not really much established Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) tradition or common practice to be “trampled” on, allowing for more leeway for exploring beneficial innovations, compared to the situations with relatively ossified and hidebound writing systems like Chinese characters, or even the modern English writing system.

As for the PRC government’s official national standard for Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) orthography, with the designation GB/T 16159-2012, as discussed in the MEotW post on “diǎnliàng (diǎn·liàng {dot → [light (v); ignite]} · {to be bright} [→ [illuminate; shine light on]] 点亮 點亮)”, this is at most a set of recommendations that is not legally binding or anything like that, even in China itself.

Categories
Culture Experiences History Technology

shūfǎ

shūfǎ (shū·fǎ writing · methods; ways → [calligraphy; penmanship] 书法 書法) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Many know “shū (write | writing [→ [book | letter | document | style of calligraphy; script]] 书 書)” as the Mandarin word for “book”, but it actually has an old meaning of “write”. From “write” is derived “writing”, and from that, it’s easy to see how “shū (write | writing [→ [book | letter | document | style of calligraphy; script]] 书 書)” has come to have its modern meanings of “book”, “letter”, and “document”. For example, “shūxiě (shū·xiě write | writing 书写 書寫)” means “write” or “writing”, “Yǐsàiyàshū (Yǐsàiyà·shū Isaiah · {Writing → [Book]} 以赛亚书 以賽亞書)” is the Book of Isaiah, and a “qíngshū (qíng·shū {feelings; affection; emotion → [love]} · {writing → [letter]} 情书 情書)” is a love letter. Yet another effective meaning of “shū (write | writing [→ [book | letter | document | style of calligraphy; script]] 书 書)”, that can be derived from its meaning of “writing”, is “style of calligraphy”, or “script”.

The “fǎ (law | method; way; mode | standard; model | {magic arts} | {follow; model after} 法)” in “fāngfǎ (fāng·fǎ direction · method 方法)” can mean “methods; ways”, and when it’s combined with “shū (write | writing [→ [book | letter | document | style of calligraphy; script]] 书 書)”, we get this week’s MEotW, “shūfǎ (shū·fǎ writing · methods; ways → [calligraphy; penmanship] 书法 書法)”. This expression literally means “writing methods/ways”, and it is used to effectively mean “calligraphy”.

Eastern and Western Calligraphy

Calligraphy that involves the artistic writing of Chinese characters, as practised in Asian cultures, is well-known and highly esteemed. However, does calligraphy only exist in Asian cultures? Are beauty, artistry, and craftsmanship the exclusive province of Chinese characters? Is Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) only able to be cold, efficient, and artless, since it lacks the arguably self-indulgently complex visual designs of Chinese characters? No, no, and no! The fact is that there is a long history—and yes, tradition—of calligraphy involving the Latin alphabet, the alphabet that was deliberately chosen for Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) by the Chinese team that developed it.

This reminds us that while the Latin alphabet used by Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) may have originated outside of China, its adoption for use in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) for writing Mandarin Chinese makes it part of Chinese culture. As the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Is a Good, Workable Writing System on Its Own” puts it:

While Pīnyīn uses the Latin alphabet, it does so because the Chinese developers of Pīnyīn of their own free will purposely chose to base it on this international alphabet (it’s not just the English alphabet) so that users of Pīnyīn would benefit from its familiarity. This Chinese design decision has caused the international Latin alphabet to be adopted as part of Chinese culture. As Zhōu Ēnlái (the first Premier of the People’s Republic of China) said, ‘When we adopt the Latin alphabet, in which we make necessary adjustments to suit the needs of the Chinese language, it becomes the phonetic alphabet of our language and is no longer the alphabet of ancient Latin, still less the alphabet of any foreign country.’

So, since Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) has both Eastern and Western aspects, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) calligraphy would be both Eastern and Western calligraphy.

Calligraphy and Computer Fonts

In the modern world of computing, handwritten calligraphy has been augmented by computer fonts, which enable the billions of users of desktop and laptop computers and mobile devices to enjoy and benefit from the work of artists and designers who work with text and typography.

Incidentally, some of you may have noticed that there are way fewer fonts available for Chinese characters, compared to the overflowing cornucopia of fonts available for the Latin alphabet. This is undoubtedly yet another negative consequence of the simple fact that there are literally thousands of characters in common use that would have to be supported by any font for Chinese characters that’s intended to be usable in daily life, never mind the tens of thousands of Chinese characters that exist in total.

An interesting thing that some may not know is that calligraphy influenced the development of modern computer font design and technology. Steve Jobs, one of the founders of Apple, maker of the iPhone, the iPad, the Macintosh personal computer, etc., said the following in the Stanford Commencement address that he gave in 2005:

Much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:

Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn’t have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and sans serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can’t capture, and I found it fascinating.

None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But 10 years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it’s likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backward 10 years later.

Time-Lapse Videos of Calligraphed MEotWs

Another way in which modern computing has augmented handwritten calligraphy is by supplying new tools for this ancient craft. A while ago, I acquired the app Procreate for my iPad, and more recently, I also bought an Apple Pencil on sale. As time allows, I hope to be able to put my old hobby of calligraphy to use, and use Procreate to create time-lapse videos, like the one near the beginning of this post, of certain MEotWs being hand-calligraphed. Hopefully these amateur efforts of mine will add a little artistry and craftsmanship for readers of this blog to enjoy.

The Truly Precious Things of All the Nations

The calligraphy produced of Chinese characters is a major aspect of what some fear would be lost if the hypothetical total replacement of characters with something as “mundane” as an alphabet were ever to take place. However, first of all, with how proud and stubborn worldly Chinese people are when it comes to their precious characters, there is little likelihood of that actually happening in the little time that this old system has left. (There’s probably just about as much likelihood that all the Catholics or all the Buddhists will come into the truth before the end comes!) As the MEotW post on “Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文)” (the modern Korean writing system) said:

If Hangul took hundreds of years to become the dominant writing system in Korea, even with the added nationalistic motivation of it having been invented in Korea to be used instead of the characters invented in China, then Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) could take even longer to become the dominant writing system for Mandarin, if it ever does, and if this old system were hypothetically allowed to last that long—the supporters of invented-in-China Chinese characters are even more proudly and stubbornly resistant to the idea of changing away from Chinese characters in China itself.

At this rate, the current government of China, as long as it lasts, will probably never explicitly officially approve of using Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a full writing system for Mandarin in China, even if it’s just as an alternative to the characters instead of as a total replacement for them. Even if it actually wanted to do so, even this government would hesitate to approve of something like this that would probably be opposed by many of the people of China. (As a historic comparison, in 1977, the PRC promulgated a second round of simplified Chinese characters, but this was rescinded in 1986 following widespread opposition.)

The existence of much calligraphy based on the Latin alphabet that is used by Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and many other writing systems reminds us that art and beauty do exist apart from Chinese characters. As for the precious things of China and Chinese culture, while humans may point to Chinese characters and the calligraphy based on them, what is truly precious about China in Jehovah God’s eyes? This quote from the September 2021 issue of The Watchtower reveals the answer as it discusses Haggai 2:7–9:

He tells us that as a result of the shaking, “the precious things [honesthearted people] of all the nations will come” to worship Jehovah.

Yes, to Jehovah God, the truly precious things of China are the honesthearted people in it, not the cultural products of any part of this old world that is passing away.—1 John 2:15–17.

While culture can definitely influence the people that are exposed to it, ultimately, people don’t come from culture. Rather, culture comes from people. So, let us focus on helping to save honesthearted Chinese people, not on trying to save the old world’s Chinese culture. Then, we will be able to enjoy the beautiful cultural products that these people will produce for eternity, as they live forever in paradise in God’s new system. Those cultural products will greatly surpass anything ever produced by this old world’s Chinese culture in its relatively brief (compared to eternity) and troubled existence, as the Chinese people who are able to live in the new system join the rest of God’s universal family in being “taught by Jehovah”. (Isaiah 54:13) As Haggai 2:9 says, “the future glory…will be greater than the former”.

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.