Categories
Culture Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

quèzáo

quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) ← 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])? [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 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. 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.

Is That a Fact?

Many people today dogmatically declare, “Evolution is not just a theory, it’s a fact, a fact, I say, a fact!”

This week’s MEotW, “quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿)”, can be useful when discussing this subject. It can be seen in use in the last paragraph of section 1 of the Origin of Life brochure, which section is entitled, in English, “How Did Life Begin?”:

English:

Given the facts, are you willing to make such a leap? Before answering that question, take a closer look at the way a cell is made. Doing so will help you discern whether the theories some scientists propound about where life came from are sound or are as fanciful as the tales some parents tell about where babies come from.

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

📖 📄 📘 Kànguo (Kàn·guo {looking at} · {having passed} → [having looked at] 看过 看過) yǐshàng (yǐ·shàng at · above’s 以上) shìshí (shì·shí matters · {being solid} → [facts] 事实 事實) zhīhòu (zhī·hòu it · {after (that)} 之后 之後), (you 你) xiāngxìn (xiāng·xìn it · {do believe (that)} → [do believe (that)] 相信) shēngmìng (life 生命) shì (was 是) pèngqiǎo (pèng·qiǎo {having bumped into} · {being coincidental} → [by chance] 碰巧) chǎnshēng (chǎn·shēng {given birth to → [produced]} · {given birth to → [caused to exist]} → [brought into being] 产生 產生) de ({’s (thing)} 的) ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions])? Huídá (Huí·dá {circling back} · {to answer} 回答) zhèige (zhèi·ge this · [mw] 这个 這個) wèntí (wèn·tí asking · subject → [question] 问题 問題) zhīqián (zhī·qián it · {before (that)} 之前), qǐng (please) zǐxì (zǐ·xì {the young of domestic animals → [with attention to detail]} · {finely → [carefully]} 仔/子细 仔/子細) kànkan (kàn·kan {look at} · {look at} 看看) xìbāo (xì·bāo tiny · womb → [cell] 细胞 細胞) de (’s 的) gòuzào (gòu·zào {constructing → [structure]} · making → [structure] 构造 構造). Zhèyàng (Zhè·yàng this · {form of → [way of]} 这样 這樣) zuò (doing 做) néng (can 能) bāngzhù (help 帮助 幫助) (you 你) kànchū (kàn·chū see · out 看出), yìxiē (yì·xiē one · {indefinite number of} → [some] 一些) kēxué‐jiā ((kē·xué {branches of study} · learning → [science] 科学 科學)‐(jiā -ists 家) [scientists]) jiù (regarding 就) shēngmìng (life’s 生命) qǐyuán (qǐ·yuán {rising → [starting]} · source → [origin] 起源/原) tíchū (tí·chū {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise] → [refer to]} · out 提出) de (’s 的) lǐlùn (lǐ·lùn reasonings · {discussings → [theories]} → [theories] 理论 理論) jiūjìng (jiū·jìng {studied carefully → [actually]} · {in the end} 究竟) shì (are 是) zhèngjù ({(by) evidence} 证据 證/証據) quèzáo (què·záo firmly · chiselled → [(shown) to be irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) de ({’s (theories)} 的), háishi (hái·shi {still more → [or]} · are 还是 還是) xiàng (as 像/象) yǒuxiē (yǒu·xiē {(there) are having → [(there) are]} · some 有些) fùmǔ (fù·mǔ fathers · mothers 父母) jiěshì (jiě·shì {untying → [solving]} · explaining 解释 解釋) bǎobao (bǎo·bao treasures · treasures → [precious/darling babies] 宝宝 寶寶) cóng (from) nǎli (nǎ·li which · inside → [where] 哪里 哪裡/裏) lái (come) shí ({(particular) times}) suǒ ({those which (they)} 所) shuō (say說/説) de ({’s (things)} 的) nàyàng (nà·yàng that · {form → [way]} 那样 那樣) méiyǒu (méi·yǒu not · having 没有 沒有) gēnjù (gēn·jù root · evidence → [basis] 根据 根據).

Looking at the morphemes in “quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿)”, “què (firmly; indeed; truly; really) can mean “firmly” or “indeed”, and indeed, it appears in the expression “díquè (dí·què {in reality}; truly; really · indeed; truly; really; certainly 的确 的確)”, which means “indeed”. As for “záo (chisel (v or n))”, in this context, this expression means “chiselled”. Taken together then, the morphemes in “quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) literally mean something like “firmly chiselled”, and are used to effectively mean “[(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable”.

What Is Actually Rock Solid?

While evolution is believed in by many in the world today, the evidence, such as that discussed in the Origin of Life brochure, shows that it is actually creation that is zhèngjù ({(by) evidence} 证据 證/証據) quèzáo (què·záo firmly · chiselled → [(shown) to be irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) de ({’s (teaching)} 的), rock solid, as if chiselled in stone, firmly.

Similarly, in Mandarin language learning, many, because of the weight of long tradition and much worldly propaganda, believe in prioritizing Chinese characters, but it’s actually the modern linguistic principle that speech is primary, and writing is secondary that is zhèngjù ({(by) evidence} 证据 證/証據) quèzáo (què·záo firmly · chiselled → [(shown) to be irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) de ({’s (teaching)} 的), by evidence from both modern linguistics and God’s Word itself.

For example, on their podcast called Lingthusiasm, linguists Lauren Gawne and Gretchen McCulloch said:

Lauren: I think that is one of the things that makes it really hard for people who grow up in highly literate, highly educated societies to tease writing and reading apart from language. But actually, when you step back, you realise that writing is actually super weird.

Gretchen: It’s so weird! It’s this interesting – it really is a technology. It’s a thing you do on top of language to do stuff with language, but it’s not the language itself. There are thousands and possibly millions of languages that have never been written down in the history of humanity. We have no idea. We’ve never met a society of humans, or heard of a society of humans, without language. But those are spoken and signed languages, which are just kind of there. Writing, by contrast, was invented somewhere between 3 and 4 times in the history of humanity.

Of course, in keeping with the rock solid, evidence-based Bible teaching that God created us, rather than saying that spoken languages “are just kind of there”, we would say that God purposely created us to primarily use language through his gift of speech. It’s not surprising then, that God’s Word the Bible contains the following passage at 1 Corinthians 14:8–11, which emphasizes the primary importance of understandable speech, while not bothering to even mention the mere human invention of writing:

8 For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. 10 It may be that there are many kinds of speech in the world, and yet no kind is without meaning. 11 For if I do not understand the sense of the speech, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a foreigner to me.


For convenience:

The direct link for the current generation Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus 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 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 web resource as time allows.

Categories
Culture Experiences History Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

jiànshi

jiànshi (jiàn·shi [(getting to be)] {seeing → [meeting with; being exposed to]} · knowing [→ [[widening/enriching] knowledge/experience/sensibleness/insight]] 见识 見識) ← 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.

“I Will Make Them Know”

This week’s MEotW, “jiànshi (jiàn·shi [(getting to be)] {seeing → [meeting with; being exposed to]} · knowing [→ [[widening/enriching] knowledge/experience/sensibleness/insight]] 见识 見識)”, appears in the current Mandarin version of the New World Translation Bible in Jeremiah 16:21, which is quoted in Lesson 19 of the Mandarin Learn From the Bible book (WOL), entitled “Tóu (Head → [First]) Sān (Three 三) Chǎng ([mw for recreational, sports, or other activities]場/塲) Zāiyāng (Calamities → [Plagues] 灾殃 災殃) (“The First Three Plagues”):

English:

“So I will make them know,
At this time I will make them know my power and my might,
And they will have to know that my name is Jehovah.”

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

📖 📄 📘Suǒyǐ (Suǒ·yǐ {that which} · {is the reason} → [so] 所以) (I 我) yào (will 要) ràng (make) tāmen (tā·men him/her · [pl] [them] 他们 他們) zhīdào (zhī·dào know · {(the) way (of it)} → [know] 知道),
Zhè (this) (one 一) (time 次), (I 我) yào (will 要) ràng (make) tāmen (tā·men him/her · [pl] [them] 他们 他們)
Jiànshi (Jiàn·shi {see → [be exposed to]} · know 见识 見識) wǒ de ((wǒ me 我) (de ’s 的) [my]) (big → [great] 大)néng (ability 能) (big → [great] 大) (power 力),
Tāmen (Tā·men he/she · [pl] [they] 他们 他們) jiù (then 就) zhīdào (zhī·dào {will know} · {(the) way (of)} → [will know] 知道)
Wǒ de ((Wǒ me 我) (de ’s 的) [my]) míngzi (míng·zi name · word → [name] 名字) shì (is 是) Yēhéhuá (Jehovah 耶和华 耶和華).”

The “jiàn (see [→ [meet with; be exposed to]] | seeing → [view (opinion)]) in “jiànshi (jiàn·shi [(getting to be)] {seeing → [meeting with; being exposed to]} · knowing [→ [[widening/enriching] knowledge/experience/sensibleness/insight]] 见识 見識) is a well-know expression that basically means “see”. It some contexts, it can effectively mean “be exposed to”. The other morpheme in “jiànshi (jiàn·shi [(getting to be)] {seeing → [meeting with; being exposed to]} · knowing [→ [[widening/enriching] knowledge/experience/sensibleness/insight]] 见识 見識) also appears in the well-known expression “rènshi (rèn·shi [(get)] {to recognize} · {to know} 认识 認識)”, and it means “know”. In the context of Jeremiah 16:21, it seems that “jiànshi (jiàn·shi [(getting to be)] {seeing → [meeting with; being exposed to]} · knowing [→ [[widening/enriching] knowledge/experience/sensibleness/insight]] 见识 見識) effectively means “be exposed to, know”.

Imaginary vs. Real Power

The verse just before Jeremiah 16:21 tells us that the false gods that humans make for themselves were at issue:

Can a man make gods for himself
When they are not really gods?

In Moses time, the gods of the Egyptians were powerful in the imaginations of the Egyptian people, but through the plagues that he brought upon the Egyptians, Jehovah showed that actually, he was powerful in reality.

As Mandarin field language learners, we are exposed to the worldly admonition to devote ourselves to Chinese characters, those intricate visible avatars of Chinese language and culture. However, modern linguistics (language science), along with God’s Word the Bible, expose Chinese characters as false linguistic “gods”, mere secondary players at best, compared to speech, which is the true primary aspect of any human language.—1 Corinthians 14:8–11.

Jehovah’s Powerful Gift of Speech

Let us in a positive way get to know Jehovah’s power, including the power he put into his creations, such as the gift of speech. In contrast, writing is merely a human invention that’s based on Jehovah’s gift of speech:

Lauren: I think that is one of the things that makes it really hard for people who grow up in highly literate, highly educated societies to tease writing and reading apart from language. But actually, when you step back, you realise that writing is actually super weird.

Gretchen: It’s so weird! It’s this interesting – it really is a technology. It’s a thing you do on top of language to do stuff with language, but it’s not the language itself. There are thousands and possibly millions of languages that have never been written down in the history of humanity. We have no idea. We’ve never met a society of humans, or heard of a society of humans, without language. But those are spoken and signed languages, which are just kind of there. Writing, by contrast, was invented somewhere between 3 and 4 times in the history of humanity.

Human inventors sometimes have the humility to admit that they were standing on the shoulders of giants. Well, Jehovah, who created human speech, is indeed a giant, upon whose shoulders the puny human inventors of writing were standing!

As an example of the power of Jehovah’s gift of speech, consider what Matthew 7:28 says about how powerfully Jesus spoke to those he taught in his ministry:

When Jesus finished these sayings, the effect was that the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching,

Yes, while the human-invented Chinese characters have captured the imaginations of many people, and while these people imagine characters to be powerful, what most powerfully praises Jehovah and moves people’s hearts in reality is Jehovah’s gift of speech, when wielded skilfully as Jesus wielded it.

Purposefully Focusing on Speech

How can we similarly speak powerfully in Mandarin to those we meet in the Mandarin field? We can be helped to directly and purposefully reach this goal, to personally jiànshi (jiàn·shi {see → [be exposed to]} · know 见识 見識) or know the power of Jehovah’s gift of speech, if we focus on developing the invisible but powerful skill of speaking well in Mandarin, rather than allowing ourselves to fall for the alluring but silencing diversion of the visible Chinese characters.

(Of course, the current reality is that some spiritual information is still only available in characters, although Jehovah’s organization has been making more and more material available with Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). From my experience, I recommend in general that Mandarin field language learners use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) when they can, and that they just use characters when they have to.)

While as a writing system, characters do ultimately represent Mandarin speech, they do so in such an unnecessarily complex and hard-to-deal-with way that the characters end up actually stifling and stultifying Mandarin speech. In contrast, unlike the Chinese characters that demand attention for themselves so that people can admire—and be able to cope with—their complexity and fancy visual designs, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) simply and directly helps us to actually focus on the Mandarin manifestation of Jehovah’s powerful gift of speech, and it helps us without distraction to develop our ability to use it well.

So, don’t just privately study Chinese characters. Listen closely to the Mandarin speech of those who speak it well. Try to get a sense of the sound and “feel” of good spoken Mandarin. Practise speaking Mandarin out loud when you can. (It may feel strange and uncomfortable at first, but if you stick with it, you’ll get used to it.) Don’t ignore or neglect Mandarin tones, which are as essential to Mandarin as vowels sounds are to English. Ask for and accept advice from those who speak Mandarin well about how to improve your spoken Mandarin. Don’t let yourself be intimidated by character snobs and traditionalists into not using Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). Instead, make good use of this modern alphabetic full writing system that lets you focus on Mandarin speech itself. As you take purposeful and practical steps such as these, you will be helped to in the Mandarin field imitate Jesus’ way of using Jehovah’s powerful gift of speech.


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 History Language Learning Names Science Technology

Yànwén

Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW is “Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文)”, which seems to be the most commonly used Mandarin expression referring to the modern Korean writing system. In English, we refer to this writing system as “Hangul” or “Hankul”, depending on which romanization system we prefer.

The Korean text “Joseongeul” and “Hangeul,” written in Hangul, the native Korean script.

The Korean text “Joseongeul” and “Hangeul,” written in Hangul, the native Korean script. [source]
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License logo metalslick

“…By Any Other Name”

One of the first things I noticed while researching this topic is that Korean, English, and Mandarin each have multiple names for the modern Korean writing system. Here is Wikipedia’s summary of its names in Korean and in English:

Official names

The Korean alphabet was originally named Hunminjeong’eum (훈민정음) by King Sejong the Great in 1443.[source] Hunminjeong’eum (훈민정음) is also the document that explained logic and science behind the script in 1446.

The name hangeul (한글) was coined by Korean linguist Ju Si-gyeong in 1912. The name combines the ancient Korean word han (한), meaning great, and geul (글), meaning script. The word han is used to refer to Korea in general, so the name also means Korean script.[source] It has been romanized in multiple ways:

  • Hangeul or han-geul in the Revised Romanization of Korean, which the South Korean government uses in English publications and encourages for all purposes.
  • Han’gŭl in the McCune–Reischauer system, is often capitalized and rendered without the diacritics when used as an English word, Hangul, as it appears in many English dictionaries.
  • hān kul in the Yale romanization, a system recommended for technical linguistic studies.

North Koreans call the alphabet Chosŏn’gŭl (조선글), after Chosŏn, the North Korean name for Korea.[source] A variant of the McCune–Reischauer system is used there for romanization.

Other names

Until the mid-20th century, the Korean elite preferred to write using Chinese characters called Hanja. They referred to Hanja as jinseo (진서/真書) meaning true letters. Some accounts say the elite referred to the Korean alphabet derisively as ‘amkeul (암클) meaning women’s script, and ‘ahaetgeul (아햇글) meaning children’s script, though there is no written evidence of this.[source]

Supporters of the Korean alphabet referred to it as jeong’eum (정음/正音) meaning correct pronunciation, gungmun (국문/國文) meaning national script, and eonmun (언문/諺文) meaning vernacular script.[source]

In addition to all the above, some dictionaries, including the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, use the English name “onmun” to refer to the modern Korean writing system. This is apparently derived from the Korean name “eonmun (언문/諺文)”, mentioned in the last paragraph of the above quote. Speaking of “eonmun (언문/諺文)”, the Chinese characters used to write it are the same as the Traditional characters used to write this week’s MEotW “Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文)”, indicating that this is where this Mandarin expression came from.

Speaking of “Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文)”, as mentioned at the beginning of this post, this seems to be the expression most commonly used in Mandarin to mean “Hangul”—it is, for example, the main expression used to refer to Hangul in the Mandarin version of an Awake! article about Hangul. Also used in that Mandarin version of that Awake! article—once—to refer to Hangul is the expression “Hánwén (Hán·wén Korean · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 韩文 韓文)”. Another Mandarin expression referring to the modern Korean writing system is “Cháoxiǎn Zìmǔ ((Cháo·xiǎn {Royal/Imperial Court [→ [Dynasty]]} · Rare → [North Korea | Chosŏn (Tw pron.: Cháoxiān)] 朝鲜 朝鮮) (Zì·mǔ Word · Mothers → [Letters (of an Alphabet) [→ [Alphabet]]] 字母) [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system) (name used in North Korea)])”, which corresponds to the Korean expression “Chosŏn’gŭl (조선글)”, mentioned above. (“Cháoxiǎn (Cháo·xiǎn {Royal/Imperial Court [→ [Dynasty]]} · Rare → [North Korea | Chosŏn; [Great] Joseon [State] (Tw pron.: Cháoxiān)] 朝鲜 朝鮮) corresponds to Chosŏn”, the Korean name for North Korea—these two expressions are in fact written with the same Chinese characters.)

An Exceptionally Phonetic Writing System

In the linguistics podcast Lingthusiasm, in the episode entitled “Writing is a Technology”, linguist Gretchen McCulloch said the following about Hangul:

“But Korean’s really cool.” The thing that’s cool about it from a completely biased linguist perspective is that the writing system of Korean, Hangul, the script, is not just based on individual sounds or phonemes, it’s actually at a more precise level based on the shape of the mouth and how you configure the mouth in order to make those particular sounds. There’s a lot of, okay, here are these closely related sounds – let’s say you make them all with the lips – and you just add an additional stroke to make it this other related sound that you make with the lips. Between P and B and M, which are all made with the lips, those symbols have a similar shape. It’s not an accident. It’s very systematic between that and the same thing with T and D and N. Those have a similar shape because they have this relationship. It’s very technically beautiful from an analysis of language perspective.

[Note that the above quote alludes to the featural aspect of Hangul. The term “featural” refers to distinctive features, which are components of speech such as nasality, aspiration, voicing, place of articulation, etc. which are subphonemic, that is, below the level of phonemes. In his book Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems, pp. 196–198, John DeFrancis concludes that while Hangul has a featural aspect, and while it is an ingenious system of phonemic representation, it is not a featural writing system.]

Regarding how precisely Hangul represents the sounds of Korean speech, the above-mentioned Awake! article says:

In Korean schools there are no spelling contests! Why not? Because Hankul represents the sounds of Korean speech so accurately that writing them down correctly as you hear them presents no challenge.

Elsewhere, that Awake! article also explains how Hangul systematically represents the sounds of Korean syllables:

All Korean syllables consist of two or three parts: an initial sound, a middle sound (a vowel or vowels) and, usually, an ending sound. Words are made up of one or more syllables. Each syllable is written inside an imaginary box, as shown below. The initial sound (a consonant or the silent ㅇ) is written at the top or upper left. If the middle vowel is vertically shaped, it is written to the right of the initial sound, while horizontally shaped vowels are written under it. Letters may also be doubled, adding stress, and multiple vowels may be compressed and written alongside each other. If the syllable has a final consonant, it always appears in the bottom position. In this way, thousands of different syllables can be represented with Hankul.

I don’t speak or read Korean, but from what I can gather from information like the above quotes, it seems that Hangul is like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) (“Piecing Together of Sounds”), but for Korean.

The Hangul of Mandarin?

If Hangul is like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) for Korean, then conversely, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is like Hangul for Mandarin, at least when it comes to what is accomplished by its technical design—both systems systematically represent the individual phonemes (distinct speech sounds that can distinguish one word from another) of the language it was designed for.

Another thing that Hangul and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) have in common is that they have both been bitterly opposed and ridiculed by supporters of Chinese characters. Even though it was sponsored by King Sejong of the Korean Yi dynasty, Hangul was opposed by scholars, etc. who were invested in the more complex Chinese characters, the Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) (or the Hanja, as the Koreans call them), and even though Hangul was created way back in the 1440s, the above-mentioned Awake! article says that “more than 400 years elapsed before the Korean government declared that Hankul could be used in official documents.” That was in 1894, and it would not be until 1949 in North Korea and the 1970s in South Korea that Hangul was promoted to become the dominant writing system in these places.

Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) was promoted 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 other early movers and shakers in modern China as a full writing system that was intended to eventually replace the Chinese characters, but when Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) was officially adopted by the PRC in 1958, it was not as a full writing system with equal status to that of the Chinese characters. (A scenario like that, with two writing systems for the same language, is known as digraphia.) (By the way, like Hangul and Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [Chinese] 中国 中國) Mángwén (Máng·wén Blind · Writing → [Braille] 盲文) (中国盲文/中國盲文, Chinese Braille), Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)—designed along similar principles as those other two systems—is indeed a full writing system, not just a pronunciation aid.) As with Hangul, scholars, etc. who were heavily invested in the Chinese characters wouldn’t stand for that. Even as late as 2001, China’s Law on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language of the People’s Republic of China said that in China, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is officially just “the tool of transliteration and phonetic notation”.

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

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

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? Especially if we don’t live in China, under the authority of the current government of China, 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.

Even in China itself, people should take into account that Article 18 of the above-mentioned Law on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language of the People’s Republic of China says, in part:

The “Scheme for the Chinese Phonetic Alphabet” [Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)] is the unified norm of the Roman letters for transliterating the names of Chinese people and places as well as Chinese documents and is used in the realms where it is inconvenient to use the Chinese characters or where the Chinese characters cannot be used.

Technically, it could be said that the extraordinarily complex and inhumanly numerous Chinese characters are by their very nature inconvenient, and that when one does not know or remember some or all of the Chinese characters, “the Chinese characters cannot be used” in those situations…

The above-mentioned Awake! article mentions this historical milestone involving Hangul:

Finally, there was a Bible in Korean that could be read by nearly anyone​—even by women and children who had never had the opportunity to learn Chinese characters.

Many Mandarin field language learners, and literally tens of millions of Chinese people around the world as well, have also not learned Chinese characters. Will there ever be a Bible that uses Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as its main writing system, and not just as a small-print pronunciation aid for the Chinese characters? Perhaps time will tell.