Tag: Chinese Culture

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 (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).

“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

zhēngyì

zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議) ← 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] 吗 嗎)? → [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] 个 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 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.

Controversy!

This week’s MEotW, which appears in the section of the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure entitled “Jiǎnjiè (Jiǎn·jiè {Simple → [Brief]} · {Being Situated Between → [Introduction]} 简介 簡介)” (“Introduction”), is “zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議)”:

English:

Was life created, or are you purely the product of random, undirected events? Few questions create more controversy.

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

📖 📄 📘 Shēngmìng (life 生命) láizì (lái·zì came · from 来自 來自) chuàngzào (chuàng·zào initiating · {making, creating} → [creating] 创造 創造) ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)? Háishi (Hái·shi {still more → [or]} · {is (it a)} 还是 還是) chúncuì ({being pure} → [purely] 纯粹 純粹) yóu ({due to} 由/繇) yìxiē (yì·xiē one · {indefinite number of} → [some] 一些) suíjī (suí·jī {coming along with} · chance → [random] 随机 隨機), bú (not 不) shòu ({having received} 受) zhǐhuī (zhǐ·huī {(pointing with) finger → [pointing]} · {spraying → [directing]} → [directing] 指挥 指揮) de (’s 的) shìjiàn (shì·jiàn events · [mw] 事件) yǎnshēng (yǎn·shēng {having been spilled over} · {having been given birth to} → [having been produced] 衍生) chulai (chu·lai out · {to come} 出来 出來) de ({’s (thing)} 的) ne ([? ptcl] 呢)? Zhèixiē (Zhèi·xiē this · {indefinite number of} → [these] 这些 這些) wèntí (wèn·tí asking · subjects → [questions] 问题 問題) bèishòu (bèi·shòu fully · receive 备受 備受) zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing → [controversy] 争议 爭議),

As can be seen from the above quotes, the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure uses “zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議)” to translate the English word “controversy”.

War!

In “zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議)”, “zhēng (contend; fight; vie; strive; dispute [→ [argue; debate; ]] 争 爭)” means “contend”, and “yì (discussing; conferring; {exchanging views}; {talking over} [→ [(exchanged) opinion; view]] 议 議)” means “discuss”. Together, they can be understood to mean something like “contentious discussion”, which leads us to the meaning of “controversy” in cases such as its use in the Was Life Created? brochure that is mentioned above.

Interestingly, the “zhēng (contend; fight; vie; strive; dispute [→ [argue; debate; ]] 争 爭)” that’s in “zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議)” also appears in “zhànzhēng (zhàn·zhēng war · contending → [war; warfare] 战争 戰爭)”, which means “war”. Is it going too far to associate creation vs. evolution discussions with war? Well, for what it’s worth, consider that “Creation–evolution controversy” is listed as a related link on the Wikipedia page for “culture war”.

Culture Wars and Spiritual Warfare

While the expression “culture war” does not seem to appear in the publications of Jehovah’s organization, searching the Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (WOL) for “spiritual & (war | warfare)” (not including the quotation marks) returns lots of results. This blog also has a “Spiritual War” tag for posts that touch on this subject. And of course, in 2 Corinthians 10:3–5, the Bible itself explains to us that God’s true worshippers must fight a spiritual war:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ;

Also, as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus’ true followers, we seek to follow Jesus’ example, as described by Jesus himself at John 18:37:

…For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.…

One way we can distinguish between the culture wars of this world and the spiritual warfare that true Christians engage in is that the world’s culture wars involve contentions over human ideas embodied in this world’s human cultures, while true Christian spiritual warfare involves bearing witness to and fighting for God’s truth, “the knowledge of God”. Also, the world’s culture wars often spill over into the political arena, whereas like Christ himself, true Christian spiritual warriors stay out of politics.—John 18:36.

Principled Spiritual Warfare

Since the theory of evolution obviously qualifies as a “lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God”, it can rightly be said that witnessing to Mandarin-speaking people—many of whom were taught to be atheists—about creation and evolution is an important part of fighting on the Mandarin front of the spiritual war that true Christians are involved in. Of course, though, it’s not true that “all’s fair in love and war”. Even the world has its law of war, and as true Christians, we fight our spiritual war in harmony with the counsel and principles in God’s Word the Bible, such as this counsel in 1 Peter 3:15:

But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.

How can we be effective spiritual warriors, and also be “doing so with a mild temper and deep respect”? Regarding this possible conundrum, I am reminded of a well-meaning circuit overseer I remember who, while saying that although God’s Word is the sword of the spirit, we should use it kindly, was making stabbing motions with his arm. 🤭

Seriously, though, when it comes to discussing creation and evolution with people, we can learn much by noting the example set by Jehovah’s organization re tone, wording, etc. in the Was Life Created? and Origin of Life brochures, in the “Science and the Bible” articles on jw.org, etc. For us Mandarin field language learners, resources like the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) WOL and the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources can help us to follow the organization’s example re tone, wording, etc. in Mandarin.

Mandarin Writing System Controversy?

To many, the idea that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is a full writing system for Mandarin and thus can and should be advantageously used as a full writing system (and not just as a pronunciation aid) in the Mandarin field may still seem controversial. However, the evidence for this idea is quite solid from a linguistics (language science) point of view. It’s only when looked at from a nostalgic, traditionalist point of view that it may seem controversial, even outrageous—Chinese characters have been the traditionally accepted writing system for the Chinese languages for thousands of years, and teachers continue to teach their students accordingly. Indeed, Chinese characters may literally represent the most deeply and widely embedded cultural tradition still in existence.

Even so, ultimately, tradition is now the only reason for using characters, because technically, objectively, characters are not necessary for writing any language (e.g., alternatives like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), Hangul, and the Vietnamese alphabet already exist), nor, with their extraordinary complexity, inconsistent design, and inhuman numerousness, are they advantageous, except for fitting in with prevailing tradition.

However, as true Christians, should we be bound by such tradition, deeply embedded as it is? In Jesus’ time, there were also many deeply embedded traditions that teachers promoted and people followed, but which made worshipping God unnecessarily difficult and burdensome. Do you remember how Jesus felt about that?

Mark 7:13 records Jesus saying this to the Pharisees and scribes:

Thus you make the word of God invalid by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.”

According to Wordnik, “invalid” could mean “deficient in health; infirm; weak; sick”, or “of no force, weight, or cogency; weak”. The experiences of many in the Mandarin field have shown that giving priority to Chinese characters can indeed lead to Mandarin language skills that are weak and sickly, such that many Mandarin field language learners ended up unable to speak the word of God in Mandarin with cogency, that is, “power of proving or of producing belief; the quality of being highly probable or convincing; force; credibility”.

Regardless of deeply embedded human tradition, do we dedicated servants of Jehovah God not owe it to him to do better than that, if we can?—Malachi 1:6–8.

How Will We Personally Deal with Controversy?

When faced with controversy, many just “go along to get along” (“conform to general expectations so as not to disrupt or endanger one’s sense of security or belonging”). As Jesus said, many just follow the crowd and take the broad road. (Matthew 7:13) However, Jesus did not do that when faced with burdensome, deeply embedded traditions in his day, we Jehovah’s Witnesses do not do that when it comes to widely accepted ideas about evolution, and we do not have to do that when it comes to how we view and use Chinese characters and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). As the MEotW post on “Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文)” pointed out:

Your Own Personal Hangul for Mandarin?

However, while that may be the situation with the proud worldly nation of China, what about each of us Mandarn field language learners, as individuals who are dedicated to Jehovah God and not to any worldly human culture? …we are free to choose for ourselves to use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a full writing system for Mandarin and thus be fully empowered by its simplicity and elegance to serve Jehovah better, as long as we don’t allow ourselves to be shackled by mere human tradition, or by peer pressure.

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.