Tag: Homophones

Categories
Culture Experiences Language Learning Technology Theocratic

mángwén

mángwén (máng·wén blind · writing → [braille] 盲文) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Recently, jw.org featured the video “ ‘Without It, I Would Feel Lost’ ”, which, as its description says, is about “the experience of a blind man who has benefited from having the Bible in braille”. Where the English description of this video uses the word “braille”, the Mandarin description uses this week’s MEotW, “mángwén (máng·wén blind · writing → [braille] 盲文)”. And yes, as the existence of this Mandarin expression suggests, Chinese Braille (Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [Chinese] 中国 中國) Mángwén (Máng·wén Blind · Writing → [Braille] 盲文)) does indeed exist.

Braille in the Land of Characters

But, one may ask, how does braille, with just a limited number of raised dots, work for Mandarin Chinese when thousands and thousands of Chinese characters are usually used to write this language? The post “How Chinese Braille works”, on the blog The Language Closet, discusses this question:

There is one system that intrigues me. one that, [sic] seems a little too big for what braille is able to handle.

You see…, one braille cell contains 6 dots. Including the space, which consists of zero raised dots, there are only 64 possible combinations that can be formed per braille cell. But yet, it is this same system that could represent the entirety of the Mandarin Chinese language to provide accessibility to the blind users. How does it do that? After all, Chinese as we know it is written with thousands upon thousands of characters, each with their own meaning.

To get around this problem of representing thousands of characters in braille, we would have to ditch the concept of the character, and to focus on the structure of the Chinese syllable. Chinese is fairly restricted in its syllable structure, with syllables having a (CG)V(X)T structure, where C is the initial consonant, G is the glide, V is the vowel, X is the coda, and T is one of the four tones, or a neutral tone for weak syllables. So in the hanyu pinyin, the syllable zhuāng can be split into zh + u + a + ng + tone 1. After factoring in tone, there are around 1300 possible syllables, although Mandarin Chinese uses way less than that.

In Mandarin Chinese, there are only 21 possible consonant initials, which are, in hanyu pinyin,

b, p, m, f, d, t, n, l, g, j, k, q, h, x, zh, ch, sh, r, z, c, and s.

Furthermore, with a limited number of final combinations, that is, combining glides, vowels, and codas, every single combination of Chinese initials and finals could be represented in braille.

So, Chinese Braille does NOT work by trying to shoehorn a Chinese characters writing system into braille—even the Simplified one just wouldn’t fit. Instead, the approach taken was to “ditch the concept of the character, and to focus on the structure of the Chinese syllable”, a basic unit of Mandarin speech. Instead of being based on a Chinese characters writing system, with its thousands and thousands of inconsistent, haphazardly designed symbols, Chinese Braille is based on Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), which consistently and elegantly represents any and all Modern Standard Mandarin speech with a reasonable number of symbols.

As the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Is a Good, Workable Writing System on Its Own” says:

But, is Pīnyīn even really a writing system? Interestingly, the Chinese national standard Zhōngguó Mángwén (中国盲文/中國盲文, Chinese Braille) is basically a transliteration or conversion of Pīnyīn into braille letters.

From this fact, we can logically draw the following conclusion, as stated in the above-mentioned article:

Braille is obviously a writing system, so Pīnyīn must also be a writing system (see p. 9), not just a pronunciation aid.

But, What About Homophones?!

One of the primary objections raised to the idea of using Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a writing system, and not just as a pronunciation aid, is that there are supposedly so many homophones (different words that sound the same) in Mandarin that characters are required to disambiguate them, otherwise there would be mass confusion. However, users of Chinese Braille, which is based on Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), seem to be doing just fine, along with the billion or so people who regularly speak Mandarin without constantly showing each other the Chinese characters that are supposedly required to distinguish homophones from one another.

For more information about Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and homophones, see the subheading “But There Are So Many Words That Sound the Same!” in the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A”. For those saying “tl;dr”, here is a bit of material from the conclusion of that section of the article:

The ultimate clarifier in modern Mandarin, even with all its existing homophones, is context, not characters. Characters themselves can have multiple possible meanings and multiple possible pronunciations, so one often has to, yes, check the context of something written in characters before the meaning and/or pronunciation of certain words in it can be determined with certainty.…

…That there are so many different words in modern Mandarin that sound the same is not a good reason not to use Pīnyīn, any more than it is a good reason not to speak Mandarin. Ironically, it is actually a good long-term reason not to use characters!

So, rather than being a real, valid reason not to use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as an actual writing system for Mandarin, the objection that characters are required to cope with Mandarin’s homophones is really just copium (“cope”+“opium”) for those who fear that all the blood, sweat, and tears they have invested into trying to learn and remember characters will be made irrelevant. (Such ones shouldn’t really fear, though—the world is and will continue to be awash in Chinese characters, so knowledge of characters will continue to have some value, probably right up until the end of this system of things.) The truth, for those who are willing to face it, is that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is just as real and workable a writing system for Mandarin as is Chinese Braille, which is based on Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).

Categories
Culture Experiences Language Learning Science Theocratic

hǎohāo[r]

hǎohāo[r] (hǎo·hāo[·r] {[is] well} · {[is] well | with care} [· {child | youth | son → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect]}] [→ [[is] in perfectly good condition; alright | all out; to one’s heart’s content; earnestly]] 好好[儿] 好好[兒]) ← 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.

Same Character, Different Morphemes/Words

This week’s MEotW, “hǎohāo[r] (hǎo·hāo[·r] {[is] well} · {[is] well | with care} [· {child | youth | son → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect]}] [→ [[is] in perfectly good condition; alright | all out; to one’s heart’s content; earnestly]] 好好[儿] 好好[兒])”, appears in the second paragraph of Lesson 20 of the Mandarin Learn From the Bible book, which is entitled “Jiē ({Came into Contact with} → [Took Hold of] (the Baton Next) 接) Xialai (Xia·lai Down · {to Come} 下来 下來) de (’s 的) Liù (Six 六) Chǎng ([mw for recreational, sports, or other activities] 场 場/塲) Zāiyāng (Calamities → [Plagues] 灾殃 災殃)” (“The Next Six Plagues”):

English:

The next day, the animals began to die. But the animals of the Israelites didn’t die.

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

📖 📄 📘 Dì‐èr ((Dì (on the) [pref to form ordinal numbers] 第)‐(èr two 二) → [(on the) second]) tiān (sky → [day] 天), Āijí (Egypt 埃及) jiù (then 就) sǐle (sǐ·le {had die} · {to completion} 死了) hěn (very 很) duō (many 多) shēngkou (shēng·kou {domestic animal} · mouths → [domestic animals] 牲口), dànshì (dàn·shì but · {(it) was (that)} 但是) Yǐsèliè‐rén ((Yǐsèliè Israel 以色列)‐(rén people 人) → [Israelites]) de (’ 的) shēngkou (shēng·kou {domestic animal} · mouths → [domestic animals] 牲口) què (however 却 卻) dōu (all 都) hǎohāor (hǎo·hāo·r {were well} · {were well} · {child → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect]} → [were alright] 好好[儿] 好好[兒]) de ({’s (domestic animals)} 的).

“Hǎohāo[r] (Hǎo·hāo[·r] {[is] well} · {[is] well | with care} [· {child | youth | son → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect]}] [→ [[is] in perfectly good condition; alright | all out; to one’s heart’s content; earnestly]] 好好[儿] 好好[兒])” has what may seem at first like an unexpected pronunciation. Because its two morphemes are each written with the same familiar character “好”, one may at first expect that they would both have the same basic pronunciation of “hǎo ({[is] good/well} [→ [[is] very [much]]] | {[is] (more) good/well} [→ [[is] better]] | well/{to a good finish} | {(it) is good/well} → [OK; alright] 好)”, and that, in accordance with Mandarin’s tone sandhi rules, the first morpheme would be pronounced with a second tone and the second morpheme would be pronounced with a third tone.* However, actually, in “hǎohāo[r] (hǎo·hāo[·r] {[is] well} · {[is] well | with care} [· {child | youth | son → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect]}] [→ [[is] in perfectly good condition; alright | all out; to one’s heart’s content; earnestly]] 好好[儿] 好好[兒])” the second “好” character represents a different morpheme compared to the one represented by the first “好” character—while the first “好” character represents the familiar morpheme that is written in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as “hǎo ({[is] good/well} [→ [[is] very [much]]] | {[is] (more) good/well} [→ [[is] better]] | well/{to a good finish} | {(it) is good/well} → [OK; alright] 好)” and that means “well” in many contexts, the second “好” character represents a morpheme that is written in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as “hāo ({with care} | {[is] well} 好)” and that in some contexts means “well” and in other contexts means “with care”. (E.g., “hǎohāor (hǎo·hāo·r well · with care · {child → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect]} 好好[儿] 好好[兒]) gōngzuò (gōng·zuò work · do → [work] 工作)” means “work well, with care”.)

While some supporters of Chinese characters erroneously claim that Mandarin has too many homophones (different words that have the same pronunciation) for Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to be a practical writing system for it, their beloved characters suffer from homographs, different morphemes/words that are written the same way, with the same character. (“Hǎo ({[is] good/well} [→ [[is] very [much]]] | {[is] (more) good/well} [→ [[is] better]] | well/{to a good finish} | {(it) is good/well} → [OK; alright] 好)”, “hāo ({with care} | {[is] well} 好)”, and also “hào (like; {be fond of} [→ [have a tendency to; be likely to]] 好)” make up just one set of examples—there are many more.) And, just as characters are one way to help one distinguish homophones from one another (context is a better way), pronunciation, as represented by Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), can often help one distinguish homographs from one another, as we can see from the examples of “hǎo ({[is] good/well} [→ [[is] very [much]]] | {[is] (more) good/well} [→ [[is] better]] | well/{to a good finish} | {(it) is good/well} → [OK; alright] 好)”, “hāo ({with care} | {[is] well} 好)”, and “hào (like; {be fond of} [→ [have a tendency to; be likely to]] 好)”.

Children of Beijing

Also notable about the pronunciation of “hǎohāo[r] (hǎo·hāo[·r] {[is] well} · {[is] well | with care} [· {child | youth | son → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect]}] [→ [[is] in perfectly good condition; alright | all out; to one’s heart’s content; earnestly]] 好好[儿] 好好[兒])” is that it may be pronounced with “r ({child | youth | son} → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect] 儿 兒)” at the end. While this “r ({child | youth | son} → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect] 儿 兒)” has a literal meaning of “child” or “son”, the well-regarded ABC Chinese-English Dictionary provides this definition for this “r ({child | youth | son} → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect] 儿 兒)”:

((diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect)

Something that deserves special attention about this “r ({child | youth | son} → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect] 儿 兒)” suffix is that its pronunciation involves one of the sounds of Mandarin that is not like any of the sounds of English. The relatively well-known Sinosplice website has a couple of related pages with good information about this Mandarin sound, including directions on how to use one’s tongue, etc. to properly pronounce it:

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.

 

* One expression in which this is the case is “hǎohǎo xiānsheng ((hǎo·hǎo {(it) is good/well → [OK; alright]} · {(it) is good/well → [OK; alright]} 好好) (xiān·sheng earlier · born (one) → [mister; Mr.] 先生) → [sb. who tries to please everybody/not offend anybody; Mr. Agreeable; yes-man])”. ^

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

yì‐nián‐yí‐dù

yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually]) ← 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.]

This week’s MEotW, “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])”, occurs in the following sentence, which, at the time of this writing, jw.org is featuring to invite people to attend the Memorial:

English:

We invite you to attend our annual event to remember the death of Jesus Christ.

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Wǒmen (Wǒ·men we · [pl] 我们 我們) yāoqǐng (invite 邀请 邀請) nǐ (you 你) cānjiā (cān·jiā {to take part in} · {to add to} → [to attend] 参加 參加) zhèige (zhèi·ge this · [mw] 这个 這個) yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [annual]) de (’s 的) jìniàn (jì·niàn remembering · {thinking of} → [commemorating] 记/纪念 記/紀念) jùhuì (meeting 聚会 聚會), jìniàn (jì·niàn {to remember} · {to think of} → [to commemorate] 记/纪念 記/紀念) Yēsū (Jesus 耶稣 耶穌) Jīdū (Christ 基督) wèi (for 为 為/爲) rénlèi (rén·lèi human·kind 人类 人類) xīshēng (xī·shēng sacrificed · {(as with a) domestic animal} → [sacrificed] 牺牲 犧牲) shēngmìng (life 生命).

“Yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((Yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” on one level of literalness means “one year one occasion/time”, which effectively means “annual”. Its final morpheme “dù (degree; extent; {degree of intensity} | {spending; passing (of time)} [→ [mw for occasions/times]] 度)” in this expression serves as a measure word for occasions or times, which likely derives from its meaning of “spending; passing (of time)”. In other expressions, “dù (degree; extent; {degree of intensity} | {spending; passing (of time)} [→ [mw for occasions/times]] 度)” can also mean “degree; extent; degree of intensity”:

  • 📖 📄 📘 dùguò (dù·guò {spend; pass (time)} · pass; cross → [spend; pass (time/etc.) | pull/get through; survive] 度过 度過)
  • 📖 📄 📘 tàidu (tài·du state · degree → [attitude; manner] 态度 態度)
  • 📖 📄 📘 wēndù (wēn·dù {(of) being warm} · {degree of intensity} → [temperature] 温度 溫度)
  • 📖 📄 📘 zhìdù (zhì·dù system · extent → [system] 制度)

Same Character, Different Tones

Note that in “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])”, the morpheme meaning “one” is first pronounced “yì (one 一)”, with a fourth tone, and then it’s pronounced “yí (one 一)”, with a second tone. This is tone sandhi, and as the MEotW post on “diǎnliàng (diǎn·liàng {dot → [light (v); ignite]} · {to be bright} [→ [illuminate; shine light on]] 点亮 點亮)” said:

On the other hand, the unofficial Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources join the official Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) publications, old and new, in explicitly indicating tone sandhi for “bù (not 不)” and “yī (one 一)” (e.g., “búzài (bú·zài not · again; further; continuing; anymore 不再)” instead of the standard “bùzài (bù·zài not · again; further; continuing; anymore 不再)”) to make things easier for readers, even though this practice is not included in the GB/T 16159-2012 [PRC national] standard’s recommendations.

In the end, what matters most re how anything is written is not just what is officially recommended or what happens to be popular among changing, imperfect humans. Rather, what matters most is what really works best to accomplish the goal of writing: To communicate to readers. This is especially true when God-honouring and life-saving Bible truths need to be communicated. So, this blog and the other Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources will continue to seek to render Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) in ways that maximize how clearly, easily, effectively, and appropriately it communicates with readers.

Same Characters, Different Word Boundaries

Another interesting thing to note is that the last two morphemes in “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” can in some contexts form the expression “yídù (yí·dù [(at)] one · {spending; passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [once; at one time; on one occasion; for a time] 一度)”, which is appropriately written in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) without a space or other word divider between the two morphemes. Why then, does this blog post render “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” with a hyphen (that acts as a word divider) between its last two morphemes?

The reason for the different renderings of the same two morphemes in the two different expressions is, well, because we are indeed dealing with two different expressions. Whereas “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” uses its last two morphemes in a “one-[word divider]-[measure word]” pattern, as does “yí (one 一) ge ([mw] 个 個/个)”, “yídù (yí·dù [(at)] one · {spending; passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [once; at one time; on one occasion; for a time] 一度)”, treated as one word without a space in it, is used to effectively mean “once; at one time; on one occasion; for a time”. The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, provides these examples of this expression in use:

📖 📄 📘 Wǒmen (Wǒ·men we · [pl] 我们 我們) yídù (yí·dù (at) one · {passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [once] 一度) shì (were 是) hǎo (good 好) péngyou (friends 朋友).
We were once good friends.

📖 📄 📘 Tā (she 她) yídù (yí·dù (at) one · {passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [for a time] 一度) duì (towards 对 對) huìhuà (huì·huà painting · paintings 绘画 繪畫) gǎn (felt 感) xìngqù (interest 兴趣 興趣).
She was interested in painting for a time.

Context Is the Key, Not Characters

The above points about how the characters “一” and “度” can have different pronunciations or meanings in different contexts remind us that Chinese characters are NOT the ultimate clarifiers of meaning in Mandarin. This excerpt from the MEotW post on “yǔjìng (yǔ·jìng language · {(set of) boundaries → [(bounded) place; area] → [condition; situation; circumstances]} → [context] 语境 語境)” explains further:

Context and Mandarin Writing Systems

Research into the importance of context turned up a couple of interesting sayings from the business world:

Content is king.
—Bill Gates

Content is king, but context is God.
—Gary Vaynerchuk

Mandarin field language-learners may hear the assertion from Chinese culture traditionalists that it is necessary to use Chinese characters to clarify the ambiguity that results from Mandarin having so many homophones, words that sound the same but that have different meanings. The insinuation, or even the outright accusation, is that the upstart Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) system is thus unusable as a writing system for Mandarin, that the Chinese characters writing system is still the rightful king. Besides, there is so much existing content written in Chinese characters, and content is king!

However, a little consideration of the yǔjìng (yǔ·jìng language · {(set of) boundaries → [(bounded) place] → [situation]} → [context] 语境 語境), the language situation or context, shows up the fallacy of this assertion. The Chinese characters writing system exists along with Mandarin speech, and if Chinese characters are truly required to clearly communicate meaning in Mandarin, then that would mean that Mandarin speech on its own, without the help of visible characters, is unusable as a means of communication. That, however, is obviously not true—people who are proficient in spoken Mandarin communicate clearly with each other all the time, undoubtedly pretty much as clearly as proficient English speakers communicate with each other.

The key reason why proficient Mandarin speakers can communicate clearly with each other despite all of the homophones in Mandarin is not that they are constantly referring to Chinese characters, although people do occasionally do that in the current characters-saturated cultural climate. No, the key reason why Mandarin-speakers routinely communicate clearly with each other is because they use sufficient context to clarify any potentially ambiguous homophones. And, since Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is a simple and direct representation of Mandarin speech, anything that is understandable when spoken in Mandarin is understandable when written in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)—1 Corinthians 14:8–11.

So, while Chinese characters-based content may be so predominant in the Chinese world that it’s king there, context is God, relatively and metaphorically speaking, and Mandarin speech and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) rightly rely on context, not on Chinese characters, just like we rightly rely on God, not on merely human kings.