Tag: Digraphia

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science Theocratic

yīnyì

yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translating → [transcribing | transcription] 音译 音譯) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Appendix A2 of the English New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition), entitled “Features of This Revision”, discusses vocabulary changes that have been made in the current revision, words that have been translated differently than before. As noted in various entries in the excellent resource Referenced Theo. Expressions (RTE), Appendix A2 of the current Mandarin version of the New World Translation Bible (nwtsty) correspondingly discusses words that have been translated differently in the current revision of the Mandarin NWT Bible, compared to how they had been translated before.

Since we base what we say in Jehovah’s service on his Word the Bible, the vocabulary used in it—and the way those vocabulary words are translated—should be reflected in how we speak in our ministry, at our meetings, etc. So, it is beneficial for us Mandarin field language learners to be familiar with the latest thinking from the organization on how Bible terms should be translated into Mandarin.

Units of Measurement

Appendix A2 of the current Mandarin version of the New World Translation Bible (nwtsty) points out that in previous editions of the Mandarin New World Translation, basically metric system units of measurement were used, although sometimes units from the original language were used. However, the whole number metric measurements that were considered best to use in the main text generally ended up being inexact conversions from the original measurements. Also, some metric units of measurement are named differently in different places. For example, some places use “mǐ (metre 米)” to mean “metre”, while other places use “gōngchǐ (gōng·chǐ {collective → [metric]} · {Chinese foot (⅓ of a metre)} → [metre] 公尺)”. So, the current version of the Mandarin NWT in most scriptures uses the original language units of measurement through what in Mandarin is called “yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translating → [transcribing | transcription] 音译 音譯)”, and in footnotes it provides the metric equivalents and perhaps other information.

What does “yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translating → [transcribing | transcription] 音译 音譯)” involve? Some Chinese-English dictionaries say that this word is used to mean either “transliterate”/“transliteration” or “transcribe”/“transcription”. What’s the difference? Is there a difference?

[Note on terminology: “Writing system” and “script” are synonymous, while an “orthography” is a “set of conventions [connected to a writing system/script] for writing a language, including norms of spelling, capitalization, emphasis, hyphenation, punctuation, and word breaks”.]

Transliteration?

The Wikipedia page on transliteration provides the following summaries to help define transliteration:

Transliteration is a type of conversion of a text from one script to another that involves swapping letters (thus trans- + liter-) in predictable ways

Transliteration is not primarily concerned with representing the sounds of the original but rather with representing the characters, ideally accurately and unambiguously.

Systematic transliteration is a mapping from one system of writing into another, typically grapheme to grapheme [e.g., letter to letter]. Most transliteration systems are one-to-one, so a reader who knows the system can reconstruct the original spelling.

Echoing the above quote, the academic paper “Two Steps Toward Digraphia in China” (Sino-Platonic Paper Number 134), by Xieyan Hincha, provides this rigorous definition of transliteration:

By transliteration is meant the letter-by-letter conversion of a text written in an alphabet into another alphabetical script, if necessary using diacritical marks, in such a way that the text can be correctly converted back into the original text by means of a transliteration table.

Transcription?

Now, compare the above to summaries provided by the Wikipedia page on transcription that help to define transcription:

Transcription in the linguistic sense is the systematic representation of spoken language in written form.

There are two main types of linguistic transcription. Phonetic transcription focuses on phonetic and phonological properties of spoken language. Systems for phonetic transcription thus furnish rules for mapping individual sounds or phones to written symbols. Systems for orthographic transcription, by contrast, consist of rules for mapping spoken words onto written forms as prescribed by the orthography of a given language. Phonetic transcription operates with specially defined character sets, usually the International Phonetic Alphabet. [emphasis added]

The above-mentioned academic paper “Two Steps Toward Digraphia in China” also provides a rigorous definition for transcription, which seems to specifically refer to phonetic transcription, as referred to in the Wikipedia quote above:

It is time to ask what exactly is a transcription system. It is a graphic system whose elements unambiguously represent the sounds of a spoken language. The transcription can be narrow or broad: in both cases one graphic symbol represents in principle precisely one single sound.

“There is Too Much…Let Me Sum Up”


To sum up, basically transliteration refers to mapping from one writing system to another writing system, while transcription refers to mapping from a language’s sounds to a graphic system like the IPA (phonetic transcription), or to a writing system with an orthography (orthographic transcription).

Thus, I would say that it’s not really appropriate to use “yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translating → [transcribing | transcription] 音译 音譯)”—which literally means “sound translating”—to mean “transliterate” or “transliteration”. From the literal meanings of its morphemes, “yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translating → [transcribing | transcription] 音译 音譯)” is a much better fit for meaning “transcribe” or “transcription”, which refer to mapping the sounds of a language to a graphic system or a writing system.

Going back to Appendix A2 of the current Mandarin version of the NWT Bible, when it says that this version in most scriptures yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translates → [transcribes] 音译 音譯) (transcribes) the original language’s units of measurement, that means that it uses Chinese characters/Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to represent (as well as they can) how these units of measurement sounded in the original language. For example, the original language unit of measurement translated into English as “seah measure” is translated into Mandarin as “xìyà ({seah (measure)} 细亚 細亞)”.—2 Kings 7:1 (English/Mandarin).

Transliteration, Transcription, and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)

Besides offering definitions of transliteration and transcription, the academic paper “Two Steps Toward Digraphia in China” mentioned above also discusses whether these terms apply to Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). Here are a couple of quotes:

In the case of Chinese characters, ISO has established that a transliteration between Chinese characters and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is impossible: the supposedly more than 40,000 (“ideo-phonographic”) characters cannot be represented by the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet. There is no doubt about that. This clearly shows that Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Fāng’àn (Fāng’·àn {Direction → [Method]} · {Long, Narrow Table or Desk → [Plan]} 方案) is not a transliteration system, because it does not fulfill all the criteria of a transliteration system.

If Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Fāng’àn (Fāng’·àn {Direction → [Method]} · {Long, Narrow Table or Desk → [Plan]} 方案) were a transcription system, this table would contain three state-prescribed violations of the transcription principle, namely: y+i, y+in, and y+ing. In all three of these cases, two letters represent one sound. The same is true when writing y+u and w+u. This rule does not concern phonetic transcription; rather, it is an orthographic rule: in these cases <y> and <w> are artificial and arbitrary initial symbols. But phonetically these are not consonants. Consequently, in this respect Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Fāng’àn (Fāng’·àn {Direction → [Method]} · {Long, Narrow Table or Desk → [Plan]} 方案) is not a transcription system.

The above quote explains that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) does not qualify as a phonetic transcription system. However, it shows that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) has orthographic rules connected to it, meaning it could be used for orthographic transcription…

No, Could It Be?

So, this academic paper concludes that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is not a system for transliterating Chinese characters, nor is it a system for phonetically transcribing Mandarin speech. What is it, then? The paper comes to this conclusion:

As is well known, the Chinese leadership refuses to recognize Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a script and to permit digraphia [the state of having two standard scripts, Chinese characters and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)]. But scientific facts demonstrate that Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Fāng’àn (Fāng’·àn {Direction → [Method]} · {Long, Narrow Table or Desk → [Plan]} 方案), including its orthography, is a writing system for Chinese. [emphasis added]

Categories
Culture History

kǎlā’OK

kǎlā’OK (karaoke 卡拉OK) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

The selection of this week’s MEotW, “kǎlā’OK (karaoke 卡拉OK)”, was inspired by a Twitter thread of epic linguistic and etymological nerdery that I recently came across, which begins with this tweet:

Here are some of the tweets in this thread, which summarize how “kǎlā’OK (karaoke 卡拉OK)” became a word in Mandarin:

Borrowed Culture

In addition to “kǎlā’OK (karaoke 卡拉OK)”, another Mandarin word which borrowed from Japanese culture, which borrowed from Western culture, is “wénhuà (wén·huà {(with) writing} · transformed (system) → [culture] | {(with) writing} · transformed → [cultural] 文化)”, the Mandarin word for culture itself. As the MEotW post about that word says:

To translate the Western concept of culture, the Japanese coined the word bunka, which is written 文化 (see Liu, Zhengtan et al. 1984, s.v. wenhua). The Chinese imported this character combination from Japan and pronounced it according to the rules of their own language: wénhuà.
—“Two Steps Toward Digraphia in China”, by Xieyan Hincha

So, people going on about “pure” Chinese culture are ignorant or in denial about the reality of how other cultures have influenced Chinese culture, and about what a great, enriching thing that can be. Anyone who has been in a group or congregation with people predominantly from a single cultural background, and who has also had the pleasure of being in a group or congregation with people from a variety of cultural backgrounds, has had the opportunity to see how the atmosphere of the latter situation can be a breath of fresh air compared to the relatively narrow—and potentially narrow-minded—cultural worldview that is sometimes allowed to be present in the former situation. Some parts of the world too are starting to realize the advantages of considering various cultural inputs, compared to trying to be productive or creative in a monocultural bubble.

Indeed, the proud “not invented here” logic of Chinese cultural purists who would, for example, reject Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) because it uses letters from the Latin alphabet would also require us to reject things like European-style punctuation, Arabic numerals, and kǎlā’OK (karaoke 卡拉OK) because of their foreign-to-China origins. But, Chinese culture without kǎlā’OK (karaoke 卡拉OK)? How dreary! Next, they’ll be wanting us to do long division using Chinese characters—十一, 九十九, 一千八百三十六, …—instead of Arabic numbers, and they’ll be wanting us to read and decipher Chinese writings the old-fashioned way, without the “crutch” of those decadent European punctuation marks! 😱

(Of course, with kǎlā’OK (karaoke 卡拉OK), as with anything that may involve worldly culture and music—which can possibly include some bad things along with the good things—Christians must be selective, exercising good spiritual judgement and following their Bible-trained consciences.)

As members of the international brotherhood of Jehovah’s people, and as ones “taught by Jehovah” himself, we need not be content with, let alone proud of, a particular way of doing things prescribed by human, worldly Chinese cultural tradition.—1 Peter 5:9; Isaiah 54:13; 1 Corinthians 1:31; 1 John 2:17; Mark 7:1–13.

Categories
Culture History Theocratic

Jìniàn Jùhuì

Jìniàn Jùhuì ((Jì·niàn Remembering · {Thinking Of} → [Commemorating] 记/纪念 記/紀念) (Jùhuì Meeting 聚会 聚會) → [[the] Memorial]) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

The page on jw.org entitled “Memorial of Jesus’ Death” invites people to this year’s Memorial, which as of this writing is fast approaching.

Appearing in the title of the Mandarin version of that page is this week’s MEotW, “Jìniàn Jùhuì ((Jì·niàn Remembering · {Thinking Of} → [Commemorating] 记/纪念 記/紀念) (Jùhuì Meeting 聚会 聚會) → [[the] Memorial])”, which corresponds to “Memorial”, or “the Memorial”.

Note that in this post, “Jìniàn Jùhuì ((Jì·niàn Remembering · {Thinking Of} → [Commemorating] 记/纪念 記/紀念) (Jùhuì Meeting 聚会 聚會) → [[the] Memorial])” is capitalized, rather than being rendered in all lowercase letters. Why has this been done? The answer involves another question: Is Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) just a pronunciation aid or actually a full writing system?

To Be or Not to Be…a Full Writing System?

汉字 / 漢字? Pīnyīn?

The article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A” explains that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) was originally meant by Máo Zédōng ((Máo Hair (surname) 毛) (Zé·dōng Marsh · East 泽东 澤東) (the founder of the People’s Republic of China)) and some of the other early movers and shakers of the People’s Republic of China to eventually replace Chinese characters. (Yes, seriously—it’s April, but we Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t make April Fools’ jokes!) Even though in this case cultural pride, tradition, and inertia have been allowed in the Mandarin-speaking part of the world to leave no room for innovation and progress, the fact remains that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) was intended by design to work as a full writing system. That it actually does so is shown in the scholarly paper “Two Steps Toward Digraphia in China”, and in the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Is a Good, Workable Writing System on Its Own”.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Since Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is a full writing system like English is, there is good reason to consider it appropriate to capitalize Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) words similarly to how English words are capitalized. Of course, there are different style guides with different rules regarding how and what to capitalize in English, especially when it comes to titles, but at the very least, any particular piece of writing should generally stick to whatever capitalization style has been chosen for it. (Hopefully it’s a good one.)

Unfortunately, in the part of the world that uses written Mandarin, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is generally relegated to being just a pronunciation aid—it is not given the respect and dignity of being recognized as a full writing system, even though, as discussed above, it linguistically qualifies as one. Thus, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is generally not capitalized in the world, if it is used at all. In contrast, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material gives Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) the respect it has earned—it uses Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as its default main writing system and carefully follows the capitalization example of the official English version of the Mandarin material it is based on. E.g., since “God’s Kingdom” is rendered in the official English material with capital letters at the beginnings of its words, the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material follows suit with “Shàngdì (Shàng·dì Above’s · {Emperor → [God]} → [God] 上帝) de (’s 的) Wángguó (Wáng·guó King’s · Nation → [Kingdom] 王国 王國)”.

So, since “the Memorial” is capitalized in the organization’s official English material, such as the English version of the article “Memorial of Jesus’ Death” on jw.org, “Jìniàn Jùhuì ((Jì·niàn Remembering · {Thinking Of} → [Commemorating] 记/纪念 記/紀念) (Jùhuì Meeting 聚会 聚會) → [[the] Memorial])” is capitalized in this post and in other material containing Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material.

The Precedent of Punctuation

Is it “beneath” the Chinese world to follow the example of English when it comes to the capitalization of the alphabet it uses? Well, the Chinese world has followed Western writing style examples before, with punctuation. As the MEotW post on “diǎnliàng (diǎn·liàng {dot → [light (v); ignite]} · {to be bright} [→ [illuminate; shine light on]] 点亮 點亮)” pointed out:

Chinese writing in the past didn’t have punctuation, and now it has punctuation largely modeled after European punctuation. (For reference: Chinese punctuation – Wikipedia, Q&A: When were punctuation marks first used? – HistoryExtra, history – When was punctuation introduced into Chinese? – Chinese Language Stack Exchange)