Categories
Culture History Names Nations

Zhōngguó

Zhōngguó+ (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China | Chinese] 中国 中國) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This is a repost of one of the earliest MEotW posts, from October 19, 2020.]

Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)” is commonly translated into English as “Middle Kingdom”, which may suggest something in the middle, or middling, average, unremarkable. However, considering the history of the usage of the expression “Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)”, and considering how the people of China have historically viewed their nation, it would be more correct to translate “Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)” as “Central Nation”, the nation that’s at the centre, the heart, of the world that matters to them.

According to Wikipedia’s summarizations, the earliest known appearance of the expression “Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)” was on the Hé Zūn[source][source], an ancient Chinese ritual bronze vessel dating from the era of early Western Zhou (1046–771 BCE).[source]

The earliest known appearance of “Zhōngguó (中國)”, inscribed on the Western Zhōu bronze vessel Hé Zūn

Here are some quotes from that Wikipedia article, with links to information about sources:

The phrase “zhong guo” came into common usage in the Warring States period, when it referred to the “Central States”; the states of the Yellow River Valley of the Zhou era, as distinguished from the tribal periphery.[source]

There were different usages of the term “Zhongguo” in every period.

With the overthrow of the Qing in 1911, most Chinese dropped Shina as foreign and demanded that even Japanese replace it with Zhonghua minguo or simply Zhongguo.[source] [The reformer] Liang went on to argue that the concept of tianxia [Wikipedia article] had to be abandoned in favor of guojia, that is, “nation,” for which he accepted the term Zhongguo.[source] After the founding of the Chinese Republic in 1912, Zhongguo was also adopted as the abbreviation of Zhonghua minguo.[source]

The English translation of Zhongyuan as the “Middle Kingdom” entered European languages through the Portuguese in the 16th century and became popular in the mid-19th century. By the mid-20th century, the term was thoroughly entrenched in the English language, reflecting the Western view of China as the inward-looking Middle Kingdom, or more accurately, the Central Kingdom or Central State. Endymion Wilkinson points out that the Chinese were not unique in thinking of their country as central, although China was the only culture to use the concept for its name.[source]

In summary, while the exact meaning and borders of Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國) have varied thoughout China’s history, overall, the people of China have long viewed their nation as central to the world that they knew, or cared most about, to the point that “China was the only culture to use the concept for its name”.

The people of China considering their nation to be the centre of the world has historically been such a thing that there are several concepts related to this. E.g.:

  • Sinocentrism
    • The geographical dimension of traditional Sinocentrism was highlighted by Chinese reactions to the publication of the first world map by the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (1552–1610):

      • …Lately Matteo Ricci utilized some false teachings to fool people, and scholars unanimously believed him…take for example the position of China on the map. He puts it not in the center but slightly to the West and inclined to the north. This is altogether far from the truth, for China should be in the center of the world, which we can prove by the single fact that we can see the North Star resting at the zenith of the heaven at midnight. How can China be treated like a small unimportant country, and placed slightly to the north as in this map?[source]

    • Culturally, one of the most famous attacks on Sinocentrism and its associated beliefs was made by the author Lu Xun in The True Story of Ah Q, in which the protagonist is humiliated and defeated; satirizing the ridiculous way in which he claimed “spiritual victories” in spite of this.[source]

      • [Lǔ Xùn is generally regarded as the greatest Chinese writer of the twentieth century. Interestingly, he was a strong proponent of replacing the Chinese characters writing system with an alphabetic system. (A modern example of such a system for Mandarin is Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).) He felt so strongly about this that he was reported to have said, “Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · characters 汉字 漢字) (not 不) miè ({are extinguished}), Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國) (certainly 必) wáng ({will flee} → [will die] 亡).” (“If Chinese characters are not abolished, China will certainly die.”). The text in Chinese characters of something he wrote on this subject can be found here, and an English translation of it can be found here.
        • Some wonder why China has held on to its archaic characters writing system instead of moving on to using a modern alphabetic writing system like almost every other nation does, even though outstanding native sons like Lǔ Xùn ((Lǔ Stupid; Rash (surname)) (Xùn Fast; Quick; Swift 迅) (pen name of Zhōu Shùrén, the greatest Chinese writer of the 20th cent. and a strong advocate of alphabetic writing)) have advocated strongly for that. Perhaps the proud self-centredness of the only nation to name itself the centre of the world provides a clue….]
  • Tianxia
    • In ancient China, tianxia denoted the lands, space, and area divinely appointed to the Emperor by universal and well-defined principles of order. The center of this land was directly apportioned to the Imperial court, forming the center of a world view that centered on the Imperial court and went concentrically outward to major and minor officials and then the common citizens, tributary states, and finally ending with fringe “barbarians”.

  • Tributary system of China
    • a network of loose international relations focused on China which facilitated trade and foreign relations by acknowledging China’s predominant role in East Asia. It involved multiple relationships of trade, military force, diplomacy and ritual. The other nations had to send a tributary envoy to China on schedule, who would kowtow to the Chinese emperor as a form of tribute, and acknowledge his superiority and precedence.

  • Hua–Yi distinction
    • an ancient Chinese concept that differentiated a culturally defined “China” (called Huá, Huaxia 華夏; Huáxià, or Xià 夏) from cultural or ethnic outsiders (Yí, conventionally “barbarians”). …The Hua–Yi distinction asserted Chinese superiority

  • Four Barbarians
    • Tiānxià 天下 “[everywhere] under heaven; the world” encompassed Huáxià 華夏 “China” (also known as Huá, Xià, etc.) in the center surrounded by non-Chinese “barbarian” peoples.

    • Liu Junping and Huang Deyuan (2006:532) describe the universal monarch with combined political, religious, and cultural authorities: “According to the Chinese in the old times, heaven and earth were matched with yin and yang, with the heaven (yang) superior and the earth (yin) inferior; and the Chinese as an entity was matched with the inferior ethnic groups surrounding it in its four directions so that the kings could be valued and the barbarians could be rejected.”

Meanwhile, in the face of this long history of worldly Chinese national and cultural self-centredness and self-importance, the Almighty Creator of the entire universe looks upon all the nations of mankind on this little dustball of a planet and considers them as being “like a drop from a bucket, and as the film of dust on the scales”!—Isa. 40:15.

Categories
Culture Experiences History Language Learning Science Theocratic

jǐngrán‐yǒuxù

jǐngrán+ (jǐng·rán neat; orderly · right; correct [→ [tidy; methodical; shipshape]] 井然)yǒuxù+ (yǒu·xù having · order; sequence [→ [methodical; systematic; in good order; regular]] 有序) 👈🏼 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 + Symbols re all the “flashcards” in the heading, paragraph, etc. that they are placed at the beginning of.]

We in the Mandarin field should keep in mind that many Mandarin-speaking people were taught to believe in evolution, and thus tend to not believe in God. 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 they are still considered current publications, and 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. So, it would be good for us to consider some of the expressions used in the Mandarin versions of the Was Life Created? and Origin of Life brochures, which can be so helpful when discussing the fundamentally important question of whether life was created.

In Good Order

This week’s MEotW, “jǐngrán (jǐng·rán neat; orderly · right; correct [→ [tidy; methodical; shipshape]] 井然)yǒuxù (yǒu·xù having · order; sequence [→ [methodical; systematic; in good order; regular]] 有序)”, occurs in paragraph 12 of the QUESTION 2 section of the Origin of Life brochure, which section is entitled, in English, “Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?”:

English:

Imagine that you have been allowed past the “security guard” and are now inside the cell. The interior of a prokaryotic cell is filled with a watery fluid that is rich in nutrients, salts, and other substances. The cell uses these raw ingredients to manufacture the products it needs. But the process is not haphazard. Like an efficiently run factory, the cell organizes thousands of chemical reactions so that they take place in a specific order and according to a set timetable.

Mandarin (WOL, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)+ 🔗):

📖 📄 Jiǎshè (Jiǎ·shè {being artificial} · {set up} → [suppose] 假设 假設) (you 你) dédào (dé·dào {have gotten} · {arriving at} 得到)ménwèi (mén·wèi door/entrance · {guarding (person’s)} 门卫 門衛)yǔnxǔ (permitting 允许 允許), kěyǐ (kě·yǐ {are able} · [suf] 可以) jìnrù ({to enter} 进入 進入) xìbāo (xì·bāo tiny · womb → [cell] 细胞 細胞)gōngchǎng (gōng·chǎng work · factory → [factory] 工厂 工廠)le ([(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了). (you 你) huì (will) fāxiàn (fā·xiàn {send out → [develop]} · {appearing of} → [find] 发现/见 發現/見) yuánhé+ (yuán·hé primitive · {pit (of a fruit) → [nucleus]} → [prokaryotic] 原核) xìbāo (xì·bāo tiny · womb → [cell] 细胞 細胞) nèi (inside) mǎn ({filled with}滿) shì (is 是) xiàng (like 像/象) shuǐ (water 水) yíyàng (yí·yàng {(of) one} · form → [the same] 一样 一樣) de (’s 的) yètǐ+ (yè·tǐ fluid · {bodies → [substances]} → [fluids] 液体 液體), zhèixiē (zhèi·xiē this · {indefinite number of} → [these] 这些 這些) yètǐ (yè·tǐ fluid · {bodies → [substances]} → [fluids] 液体 液體) hányǒu (hán·yǒu {hold in the mouth → [contain]} · have 含有) fēngfù (fēng·fù rich · abundant 丰富 豐富) de (’s 的) yǎngfèn+ (yǎng·fèn supporting · components → [nutrients] 养分 養分), yán (salts), ({(together) with} → [and]和/龢) qítā (qí·tā them · otherwise’s → [other] 其他) wùzhì (wù·zhì matter · substances → [substances] 物质 物質). Xìbāo (Xì·bāo tiny · womb → [cell] 细胞 細胞) yòng (uses 用) zhèixiē (zhèi·xiē this · {indefinite number of} → [these] 这些 這些)yuán+ (original → [raw] 原) cáiliào (cái·liào {timber → [material]} · materials → [materials] 材料)zhìzào (zhì·zào {to manufacture} · {to make} → [to manufacture] 制造 製造) suǒxū (suǒ·xū {those which} · {are needed} 所需) de (’s 的) dōngxi (dōng·xi easts · wests → [things] 东西 東西), dàn (but 但) guòchéng (guò·chéng {to be passed through} · {journey → [procedure]} → [process] 过程 過程) bìng (definitely並/竝/并) (not 不) shì (is 是) záluàn+ (zá·luàn mixed · random → [disorderly] 杂乱 雜亂) (without無/无)zhāng (sections → [structure] 章) de ({’s (process)} 的). Xìbāo (Xì·bāo tiny · womb → [cell] 细胞 細胞) hǎoxiàng (hǎo·xiàng {well → [very much]} · {is like} 好像/象) yùnzuò (yùn·zuò transports · does → [operates] 运作 運作) shùnchàng+ (shùn·chàng {being following → [being suiting]} · {being smooth} → [smoothly] 顺畅 順暢) de (’s 的) gōngchǎng (gōng·chǎng work · factory → [factory] 工厂 工廠) nàyàng (nà·yàng that · {form → [way]} 那样 那樣), zài (in 在) xìbāo (xì·bāo tiny · womb → [cell] 细胞 細胞) li (inside裡/裏) jìnxíng (jìn·xíng {are advanced} · {are walked → [are carried out]} 进行 進行) de (’s 的) wúshù (wú·shù without · number 无数 無數) huàxué+ (huà·xué {transforming → [chemistry]} · studying → [chemical] 化学 化學) fǎnyìng (fǎn·yìng {in the reverse direction} · respondings → [reactions] 反应 反應) quándōu (quán·dōu completely · all 全都) ànshí (àn·shí {according to} · {(particular) times} → [on schedule] 按时 按時) jìnxíng (jìn·xíng {are advanced} · {are walked → [are carried out]} 进行 進行), érqiě (ér·qiě and · moreover 而且) jǐngrán+ (jǐng·rán {are orderly} · {are correct} 井然)yǒuxù+ (yǒu·xù {are having} · sequence 有序).

In the above examples, “jǐngrán (jǐng·rán neat; orderly · right; correct [→ [tidy; methodical; shipshape]] 井然)yǒuxù (yǒu·xù having · order; sequence [→ [methodical; systematic; in good order; regular]] 有序) is used to translate the English phrase “in a specific order”. In contrast, past MEotW “záluàn (zá·luàn miscellaneous; mixed · {in disorder}; chaotic; random; arbitrary → [disorderly; mixed; in a jumble/mess; chaotic] 杂乱 雜亂) ({not having}; without; no無/无)zhāng (sections [→ [order | rules; regulation; constitution | composition; structure; system; pattern]] 章)”, which occurs earlier in the example paragraph above, is used to translate the English word “haphazard”.

Yes, in contrast to the haphazard mess that any system generated by random chance would be (if anything even resembling a system gets generated at all), the system inside our cells for manufacturing needed products actually operates with a very high degree of organization, orderliness, and efficiency. This is strong evidence that our cells were actually not produced by the random processes of evolution, but rather, by an organized and orderly intelligent Creator.

Not in Good Order, in Good Order

Of particular interest to Mandarin field language learners, if we look at Chinese characters, which were designed by imperfect humans, it would be fair to describe the way they were designed as being haphazard, even compared to other human-designed systems. For example, the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, on page 111, says:

Comparatively speaking, the Japanese syllabaries are quite simple and efficient. Their forty-seven symbols do a reasonably good job of representing the sound system of Japanese with its mere 113 different syllables. In contrast, the Chinese syllabary, which must cope with a far more complex syllabic system (3,877 syllables in earlier Chinese and 1,277 in current standard Chinese if tones are included, 398 if tones are excluded), is not only appallingly large but also quite unstandardized and hence extremely inefficient—all this of course due to the fact that it has not been manipulated and refined like the Japanese syllabaries but throughout its history right down to today has evolved in a more or less haphazard manner.

One of the ways in which Chinese characters are relatively haphazard is in how they represent their pronunciations. Even though many characters have phonetic (relating to speech sounds) elements that supposedly relate to how they are to be pronounced, ultimately, there is no consistent, overall system such that if a character is like this, then its pronunciation must thus be that—if you bump into a Chinese character that you never learned, or that you learned but forgot (this character amnesia actually happens all the time, even to experienced native Mandarin speakers), then ultimately you can only guess at how to pronounce it!

Speaking of phonetic elements, characters are so old that the phonetic elements of characters that have them may actually be based on old pronunciations that are different from the modern day pronunciations that these phonetic elements appear to modern readers to indicate. So, even the supposedly phonetic elements of characters are not reliable indicators of the modern Mandarin pronunciations of these characters, adding to the overall haphazard nature of characters.

Another haphazard aspect of characters is the many homographs among them, that is, different words that are written with the same characters, but that have different possible pronunciations and meanings, such that one must examine the context to deduce which pronunciation and meaning are actually the intended ones in any given situation.

In marked contrast, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is a simple, elegant, consistent system of representing modern Mandarin speech, such that if Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expressions are written a certain way, then they must be pronounced a certain way—well-designed, neat, and orderly, not having “evolved in a more or less haphazard manner” like Chinese characters!


For convenience:

The direct link for the current-generation Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus / Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)+ resource for the Origin of Life brochure is:

The short link for Chinese field language-learning links for the Origin of Life 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 / Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)+ web material based on the Mandarin Origin of Life brochure will be made available in the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus / Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)+ web resource as time allows.

Categories
Culture Experiences History Language Learning

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”

[I’m still unusually busy with preparing musical notation + Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) songbook material for this year’s Mandarin conventions, and now, also with rolling out the next generation Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)+ format. (See this Links News post for more information on that.) So, here’s a repost of a post from a few years back, on a subject of basic importance to Mandarin field language learners.]

[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.
  • With so much misinformation “in the air”, including from trusted authority figures, “everyone knows” that there is one Chinese language, with dialects that include Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. Since “everyone knows” this, it’s easy to just go along with it, especially in an Eastern culture like the Chinese culture that emphasizes conforming to the group. As Eastern cultures, Japanese, Korean, etc. cultures are similar in this respect, so publishers from those cultural backgrounds may also generally tend to just go along with what “everyone knows” about there being just one Chinese language that has various dialects.—Ephesians 2:2.
  • 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.

Chart: Languages by First-Language Speakers—2019

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.