Categories
Culture Current Events History Language Learning Names Science Technology

Hāmǐjíduōdùn

Hāmǐjíduōdùn (Armageddon 哈米吉多顿 哈米吉多頓) ← 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.]

At the time of this writing, jw.org was featuring an article with the following title:

English:

Will Armageddon Begin in Israel?—What Does the Bible Say?

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Hāmǐjíduōdùn (Armageddon 哈米吉多顿 哈米吉多頓) Dàzhàn (Dà·zhàn {Big → [Great]} · War 大战 大戰) Huì (Will) zài (in 在) Yǐsèliè (Israel 以色列) Bàofā (Bào·fā Explode · {Issue Forth} → [Erupt] 爆发 爆發) ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions])? Shèngjīng (Shèng·jīng (the) Holy · Scriptures → [the Bible] 圣经 聖經) de (’s 的) Guāndiǎn (Guān·diǎn {Looking At → [View]} · Point → [Viewpoint] 观点 觀點) Shì (Is 是) Shénme (Shén·me What · [suf] 什么 什/甚麼)?

This week’s MEotW is “Hāmǐjíduōdùn (Armageddon 哈米吉多顿 哈米吉多頓)”, the Mandarin syllables of which were obviously chosen first because of how much they sound like the English word “Armageddon” (and perhaps the original Hebrew word from which that came), not because of the meanings of the supposedly ideographic Chinese characters used to write them out (“Exhale Rice Lucky Much Pausing”??? 🤷🏻).

This emphasizes to us that when it comes to human language, SPEECH is primary—SOUNDS are the primary medium for transmitting meaning, and a writing system that transmits meaning purely with its visual symbols, without any dependency on speech sounds, is not a thing. However, this erroneous concept is so prevalent that there’s a name for it: The Ideographic Myth.

Several past MEotW posts have mentioned in passing the Ideographic Myth concerning Chinese characters, so it’s about time this blog took a deeper dive into this subject. Below are some selected excerpts from the chapter “The Ideographic Myth”, of the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, by John DeFrancis, along with some commentary.


the concept of written symbols conveying their message directly to our minds, thus bypassing the restrictive intermediary of speech

This is a definition of the concept of “ideographic” writing.

Aren’t Chinese characters a sophisticated system of symbols that similarly convey meaning without regard to sound? Aren’t they an ideographic system of writing?

The answer to these questions is no. Chinese characters are a phonetic, not an ideographic, system of writing…There never has been, and never can be, such a thing as an ideographic system of writing.

Indeed, Chinese characters are always used to represent some language’s speech, are they not? They can be used to represent the speech of multiple languages, but they are not used in any way in which they do not represent the speech of any language, are they? There are no Chinese characters that have no spoken pronunciation in any language, are there? So, while some may find the idea of Chinese characters being an ideographic writing system fascinating, in real-life, actual use, Chinese characters are a phonetic writing system representing a language’s speech sounds (which do the actual representing of meanings)—Chinese characters are not an ideographic writing system directly representing meanings.

Origin of the Myth

The concept of Chinese writings as a means of conveying ideas without regard to speech took hold as part of the chinoiserie fad among Western intellectuals that was stimulated by the generally highly laudatory writings of Catholic missionaries from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries.

It was not acquaintance with Chinese but decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing following Napoleon’s conquests in North Africa that led to the coining of several expressions related to the ideographic idea.

Decipherment of this script had long been impeded by the notion that it was symbolic of ideas, particularly mystical or spiritual ones. It was not just the discovery of the famous Rosetta Stone, with its bilingual text in three scripts (Hieroglyphic Egyptian, Demotic Egyptian, and Greek) that made this possible. As Gordon (1968:24) stresses: “The decipherment of Hieroglyphic Egyptian required the replacement of the deep-seated notion of symbolism by the correct view that the main (though not the only) feature of the script is phonetic.”

Champollion’s success in deciphering the Egyptian script was due to his recognition of its phonetic aspect.

The rebus idea seems obvious to us since we use it in children’s games, but it actually constitutes a stupendous invention, an act of intellectual creation of the highest order—a quantum leap forward beyond the stage of vague and imprecise pictures to a higher stage that leads into the ability to represent all the subtleties and precision expressible in spoken language. Writing is now directly, clearly, firmly related to language: to speech. If there was ever any question whether a symbol had a sound attached to it, this now receives a positive answer. In the earliest form known to us, the character for “wheat” was borrowed to represent the word “come” precisely because both were pronounced in the same way.

What is crucial is to recognize that the diverse forms perform the same function in representing sound. To see that writing has the form of pictures and to conclude that it is pictographic is correct in only one sense—that of the form, but not the function, of the symbols. We can put it this way:

QUESTION: When is a pictograph not a pictograph?

ANSWER: When it represents a sound.

The use of the pictograph for “wheat” to represent the homophonous word ləg (“come”) transformed the function of the symbol from pictographic depiction of an object to syllabic representation of a sound. This change in function has been the essential development marking the emergence of all true systems of writing, including Chinese.

Sinological Contribution to the Myth

The fact that some Chinese pictographs have not undergone a change in form parallel to the change in function has tended to obscure the significance of the change that did take place. As a result, the phonetic aspect of Chinese writing is minimized by many people, even specialists in the field.

The error of exaggerating the pictographic and hence semantic aspect of Chinese characters and minimizing if not totally neglecting the phonetic aspect tends to fix itself very early in the minds of many people, both students of Chinese and the public at large, because their first impression of the characters is likely to be gained by being introduced to the Chinese writing system via some of the simplest and most interesting pictographs…. Unless a determined effort is made to correct this initial impression, it is likely to remain as an article of faith not easily shaken by subsequent exposure to different kinds of graphs.

Myth vs. Reality

A limited number of pictographic or semantic characters…cannot be considered indicative of full systems of nonphonetic writing that can function like ordinary orthographies to express nearly everything we can express in spoken language. The fact is that such a full system of nonphonetic writing has never existed. The system of Chinese characters, the Sumerian, Accadian, and Hittite cuneiform systems, and the Egyptian hieroglyphic system were none of them complete systems of semantic writing.

How limited is the number of pictographic or semantic characters, like “人”, “口”, “山”, etc., as opposed to the number of characters with some phonetic component related to pronunciation? This table from p. 129 of the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy says that only about 3% of all Chinese characters are purely pictographic or semantic:

Table 7 Semantic Versus Phonetic Aspects of Chinese Characters, p. 129, _The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy_

This myth, it is apparent, exists in two aspects. Both must be rejected. The first is that the Chinese characters constitute an existing system of ideographic writing. This has been shown to be factually untrue. The second aspect is the validity of the ideographic concept itself. I believe it to be completely untenable because there is no evidence that people have the capacity to master the enormous number of symbols that would be needed in a written system that attempts to convey thought without regard to sound, which means divorced from spoken language. …But while it is possible for a writing system to have many individual “ideographs” or “ideograms”, it is not possible to have a whole writing system based on the ideographic principle. Alphabetic writing requires mastery of several dozen symbols that are needed for phonemic representation. Syllabic writing requires mastery of what may be several hundred or several thousand symbols that are needed for syllabic representation. Ideographic writing, however, requires mastery of the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of symbols that would be needed for ideographic representation of words or concepts without regard to sound. A bit of common sense should suggest that unless we supplement our brains with computer implants, ordinary mortals are incapable of such memory feats.

Indeed, how many concepts or ideas exist, or could potentially come into existence as they get invented? That’s how many symbols an actual ideographic writing system would need to have. Obviously, even if such a system could be made to exist, it would be unusable by actual imperfect humans. Even Chinese characters, which “only” number somewhere over 100,000, are not numerous enough to be an actual ideographic writing system, and Chinese characters are already inhumanly complex and numerous.

Objections to the Term “Ideographic”

We need to go further and throw out the term itself.

Chinese characters represent words (or better, morphemes), not ideas, and they represent them phonetically, for the most part, as do all real writing systems despite their diverse techniques and differing effectiveness in accomplishing the task.

Both terms [“logographic” and “ideographic”] are inadequate and misleading because they fail to indicate that the process of getting from graph to word/morpheme involves the phonetic aspect of the latter and because this failure leaves the way open to the idea that we get from graph to word/morpheme by means of some nonphonetic, in a word, “ideographic”, approach. Only the adoption of some such term as “morphosyllabic”, which calls attention to the phonetic aspect, can contribute to dispelling the widespread misunderstanding of the nature of Chinese writing.

Chinese characters being a “morphosyllabic” writing system means that “each character is pronounced as a single syllable and represents a single morpheme* (smallest unit of language SOUND with meaning)—a Chinese character does NOT bypass language sounds to directly represent an idea.


So, every time you hear in Mandarin a name like “Hāmǐjíduōdùn (Armageddon 哈米吉多顿 哈米吉多頓) that came from another language, and is made up in Mandarin of syllables that make no sense except that they sound like the name in the original language, remember that the Ideographic Myth is just that—a myth!

As worshippers of the one true God Jehovah, we carefully avoid spiritual idolatry, realizing that no visible idol or image can be allowed to replace the invisible, almighty Spirit Jehovah as the object of our worship. Similarly, us Chinese field language learners must also carefully avoid the linguistic idolatry of considering visible Chinese characters to be direct representations of meaning in Chinese languages, when the truth is that in human languages, including Chinese languages, meaning is primarily transmitted via invisible speech.

 

* John DeFrancis, The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1984), p. 125. ^

Categories
Culture Experiences History Science Theocratic

jiéle hūn

jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) [[got] married]) ← 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.]

A few years back, I wrote up a brief web page listing reasons for producing Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), etc. material for the Imitate (ia) book. Some, especially some who grew up in the West, may have felt that this book is made up of “just stories”, and ones that they were already quite familiar with, at that. However, we must remember that Chinese Bible students may often have a different perspective regarding the Bible accounts that are made to come to life in the Imitate book. As that web page said:

  • Many Chinese people in the world have not been exposed to Bible accounts the way many Westerners have.
  • Also, I have heard that some, perhaps many, Chinese Bible students tend to approach their Bible studies like intellectual exercises for accumulating chōuxiàng (abstract) head knowledge as if for a school exam, rather than as training for their hearts for their own real lives.

Later, the web page touches on how some of the real-world benefits of good storytelling like that found in the Imitate book involve empathy:

    • The actress Natalie Portman once said, “I love acting. I think it’s the most amazing thing to be able to do. Your job is practicing empathy. You walk down the street imagining every person’s life.”
  • The Imitate book helps build Bible students’ empathy towards Bible characters, which in turn helps Bible students realize that others would feel empathy towards them as well if they imitated these Bible characters—not everyone will just think they’re crazy, like many worldly friends or family members might think.

While even fictional stories can have the benefits described in the links and the quote above, true stories from the Bible can have even greater benefits, including spiritual ones.

Besides the Imitate book, another book from Jehovah’s organization that relates Bible accounts is the Learn From the Bible (lfb) book. The letter from the Governing Body in this book says that, similarly to the Imitate book, the Learn From the Bible book also “brings the Bible accounts to life and captures the feelings of those depicted”, while, unlike the Imitate book, it “tells the story of the human family from creation onward”. While the Learn From the Bible book is especially suitable for children, the letter from the Governing Body in this book says that “it can also be used to help adults who desire to learn more about the Bible”. So, it would be good to consider on this blog some of the expressions used in the Mandarin Learn From the Bible book.

Moses Tied the Knot

This week’s MEotW, “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) [[got] married]), appears at the beginning of Lesson 18 of the Mandarin Learn From the Bible book, which is entitled “Ránshāo (Rán·shāo Ignited · {to Be Burning} 燃烧 燃燒) de (’s 的) Jīngjí Cóng ((Jīng·jí Brambles · Thorns 荆棘 荊棘) (Cóng Clump) [Bush]) (“The Burning Bush”):

English:

Moses lived in Midian for 40 years. He got married and had children.

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Móxī (Moses 摩西) zài (in 在) Mǐdiàn (Midian 米甸) shēnghuóle (shēnghuó·le lived · {to completion} 生活了) 40 nián (years年/秊), (he 他) jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) [got married]), (also 也) yǒule (yǒu·le had · {to completion} 有了) háizi (hái·zi children · [suf for nouns] 孩子).

The Mandarin Learn From the Bible book here uses “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) [[got] married]) to correspond with the English expression “got married”. “Jiéle hūn ((Jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) [[got] married]) is the past participle of “jiéhūn (jié·hūn {tie (a knot of)} · {marrying → [marriage]} → [marry; get married] 结婚 結婚), which corresponds to “get married” in English. Interestingly, while in English “tie the knot” can mean “get married”, “jiéhūn (jié·hūn {tie (a knot of)} · {marrying → [marriage]} → [marry; get married] 结婚 結婚) literally means “tie (a/the) knot of marrying”.

Morphemic Breakdown

The “jié ({tie [(a knot of)]}; knit; weave; [→ [congeal; form; forge; cement | join together; bind; connect; unite | settle; conclude]] | {tying (of a knot)} → [knot | (electrical) junction | node | written guarantee; affidavit; bond]) in “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) [[got] married]) basically means “to tie”, and based on that, it can have a variety of effective meanings in different contexts. For example, a common expression in which it appears is “jiéguǒ (jié·guǒ {tied (into a knot) → [formed]} · fruit → [result | as a result] 结果 結果)”, which literally means “tied (into a knot) (i.e., formed) fruit”, and which effectively means “result”, or “as a result”.

As for the “hūn (wedding; marrying; {getting married} [→ [marriage; wedding]] 婚) in “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) [[got] married]), it’s basically a verb that means “to wed” or “to marry”. It’s often used as a verbal noun, or gerundial noun, as it is in “hūnyīn (hūn·yīn {marrying → [marriage]} · marriage → [marriage; matrimony] 婚姻).

What About the “Le”?

Okay, but what about the “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了) in “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) [[got] married])? The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, says that when “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了) is used this way, it’s an aspect marker. What’s that? The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary explains it like this:

A.M. (Aspect Marker, Tǐbiāojì 体标记).

Aspect means the stage of completion of an action. Chinese usually uses verbal suffixes as a means of indicating this information. Examples of Chinese aspect include the:

(i) durative (action in progress, much like ‘-ing’ in English), e.g., zhe in kànzhe ‘is watching’;

(ii) perfective (completed action), e.g., le in ànle wǔ ge diànyǐng, ‘saw five movies’; and

(iii) experiential (much like the ‘ever’ in the question ‘Have you ever . . . ?’), e.g., guo in jiànguo tā ‘have met him before’.

Note that aspect is not the same thing as tense. Tense refers to when the action takes place relative to when the utterance is actually spoken, and so at most any language can have only three tenses: past, present and future. Aspect, on the other hand, can occur in any tense, so that even completed action can be spoken of in the

(a) past, e.g., Tā zuótiān dàole Běijn̄g ‘He arrived in Beijing yesterday’;

(b) present, e.g., Tā xiànzài dàole Běijīng ‘He has now arrived in Beijing’; or

(c) future, e.g., Tā míngtiān zhèige shíhou yǐjing dàole Běijīng ‘He will already have arrived in Beijing by this time tomorrow’.

(See also M.P. for usage of le as a sentence-final particle.)

(“M.P.” is this dictionary’s abbreviation for “modal particle”, which is what “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了) is when it’s at the end of a phrase or sentence (and thus followed immediately by a punctuation mark). More information on modal particles can be found on this list that’s in alphabetical order.)

When Should There Be a Space Before “Le”?

Different publications follow different rules about when to put a space before “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了) when it appears in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) text. Even the PRC government’s official national standard (actually, it’s a set of recommendations) for Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) orthography, GB/T 16159-2012, is not as clear, precise, and thorough as one might wish in this regard. (GB/T 16159-2012 is discussed in more detail in the MEotW post on “diǎnliàng (diǎn·liàng {dot → [light (v); ignite]} · {to be bright} [→ [illuminate; shine light on]] 点亮 點亮)”.)

When it comes to when to put a space before “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了) in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) text, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material follows the guidelines put forth in this excerpt (available from this page on pinyin.info) from the book Chinese Romanization: Pronunciation and Orthography, by Yin Binyong and Mary Felley:

_Pīnyīn_ orthography rules for “le (了)”, 1st page, from the book _Chinese Romanization: Pronunciation and Orthography_

_Pīnyīn_ orthography rules for “le (了)”, 2nd page, from the book _Chinese Romanization: Pronunciation and Orthography_

_Pīnyīn_ orthography rules for “le (了)”, 3rd page, from the book _Chinese Romanization: Pronunciation and Orthography_

(The highlights were added by me. Note that this book calls “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了), as used in “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) [[got] married])”, a “tense particle”, or a “tense-marking particle”. Also, its term for “modal particle” is “mood particle”.)


For convenience:

The direct link for the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resource for the Learn From the Bible book is:

The short link for Chinese field language-learning links for the Learn From the Bible book 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 Learn From the Bible book will be made available in the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web resource as time allows.

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

mìmì

mìmì (mì·mì {[is] secret} · {[is] dense → [[is] intimate; close] → [[is] secret; confidential]} [(thing)] → [[is] secret; confidential; clandestine | secret [(thing)]] 秘密 秘/祕密) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

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).

Secrets

This week’s MEotW, “mìmì (mì·mì {[is] secret} · {[is] dense → [[is] intimate; close] → [[is] secret; confidential]} [(thing)] → [[is] secret; confidential; clandestine | secret [(thing)]] 秘密 秘/祕密), is used in verse 2 (WOL, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus) of 1 Corinthians 13:

Screenshot of “mìmì” in 1 Co. 13:2 (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.)

While the two morphemes in “mìmì (mì·mì {[is] secret} · {[is] dense → [[is] intimate; close] → [[is] secret; confidential]} [(thing)] → [[is] secret; confidential; clandestine | secret [(thing)]] 秘密 秘/祕密) sound the same, they are different morphemes, with different meanings. The first one, “mì ({secret (n)} [→ [secretary (abbr.)]] | {[is] secret; mysterious; difficult to understand; obscure} [→ [[is] seldom seen; rare]] | {keep sth. secret; hold sth. back} [→ [block; obstruct]]秘/祕), here means “secret” (used as an adjective). Interestingly, this “mì ({secret (n)} [→ [secretary (abbr.)]] | {[is] secret; mysterious; difficult to understand; obscure} [→ [[is] seldom seen; rare]] | {keep sth. secret; hold sth. back} [→ [block; obstruct]]秘/祕) also appears in “mìshū (mì·shū secret · documents (person) → [secretary] 秘书 秘書), which means “secretary”, and it can be used as an abbreviation for “secretary”. (Yes, in both English and Mandarin, the word for “secretary” is based on the word for “secret”. So, be nice to office secretaries, congregation secretaries, etc. everywhere, since they are literally keepers of secrets!)

The second morpheme in “mìmì (mì·mì {[is] secret} · {[is] dense → [[is] intimate; close] → [[is] secret; confidential]} [(thing)] → [[is] secret; confidential; clandestine | secret [(thing)]] 秘密 秘/祕密), “mì ({[is] dense; thick} [[→ [[is] intimate; close] [→ [[is] secret; confidential]]] | [→ [[is] fine; meticulous]]] 密), literally means “dense; thick”, and can effectively mean “intimate; close”. (Compare the English expression “thick as thieves”.) That meaning, in turn, can effectively mean “secret” (used as an adjective), which is how it is used in “mìmì (mì·mì {[is] secret} · {[is] dense → [[is] intimate; close] → [[is] secret; confidential]} [(thing)] → [[is] secret; confidential; clandestine | secret [(thing)]] 秘密 秘/祕密). Another expression in which it’s used that way is “mìmǎ (mì·mǎ {dense → [intimate] → [secret]} · {sth. indicating a number} → [cipher; code | password; PIN] 密码 密碼), which can mean “code”. For example, the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure uses “yíchuán (yí·chuán {leaving behind} · {passing on} → [genetic] 遗传 遺傳) mìmǎ (mì·mǎ {dense → [intimate] → [secret]} · {sth. indicating a number} → [code] 密码 密碼) to translate “genetic code”. (Compare: English WOL, CHS+Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) WOL, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus.)

Exotic East Syndrome

Speaking of secrets, some may be fascinated by the seemingly secret knowledge of the Chinese characters. However, 1 Corinthians 13:2 tells us that even understanding “all the sacred secrets and all knowledge” means nothing if one does not have love, and while Chinese characters may seem alluringly secret and mysterious to those looking on from outside the culture, they certainly are not sacred. Only things from God are sacred, and Chinese characters are the unnecessarily complex, haphazardly designed, highly imperfect products of mere imperfect humans.

And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
1 Corinthians 13:2.

Regarding this tendency of some to exoticize Chinese characters and other aspects of Chinese culture, the MEotW post on “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)]) pointed out:

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.

Secrets and Identities

It is of course possible for one to have a balanced approach to Chinese characters, in which love moves one to seek to acquire whatever knowledge of characters is needed to serve effectively in the Chinese field that one is in. Many take the approach of using a system like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) when they can, and learning to use characters when they have to. However, regarding how personally and emotionally important to them their knowledge of the secrets of Chinese characters has become to some people, the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A” said:

In addition to those who feel that phasing out the Hànzì 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!”

…during the 2014 Stanford Commencement address, Bill Gates said:

If we have optimism, but we don’t have empathy, then it doesn’t matter how much we master the secrets of science, we’re not really solving problems—we’re just working on puzzles.

Mr. Gates’ above observation applies to the subject at hand in that while many enjoy trying to solve the puzzles presented by Chinese characters, and while many also enjoy being known for being good at solving these puzzles, empathy should move us to recognize that there are much bigger issues involved than just our personal enjoyment or glorification.

Yes, when even some worldly people can recognize the above points, we Christians should recognize even more the need to show love and empathy rather than being proud, self-glorifying, self-justifying, and self-serving. Also, we should be actively and determinedly following the course of true Christian love and empathy rather than just going along with others who are proud, self-glorifying, self-justifying, and self-serving. We should especially do so when we have scriptures such as this to guide us:

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.—1 Corinthians 8:1.

Love and AI

As touched on in the MEotW post on “réngōng (rén·gōng human · work → [artificial] 人工) zhìnéng (zhì·néng intelligence · ability → [intelligence] 智能), lately there has been much discussion in the media about the recent developments in AI (artificial intelligence). AI systems can now be given access to lots and lots of human knowledge, but I don’t think anyone can reasonably claim that modern AI systems have been taught to have love the way the Bible says we need to have love. And so, many continue to worry about AIs falling out of alignment with humans and maybe even harming humans, maybe even to the point of extinction. Yes, as God’s Word pointed out long ago in 1 Corinthians 13:2, if one has much knowledge, even of secrets, but does not have love (Greek: a·gaʹpe), it is ultimately of no benefit. Indeed, without love to guide its use, that knowledge could actually be used to bring great harm!