Tag: Ideographic Myth

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

jiǎ xiāoxi

jiǎ (false; fake 假 假/叚)
xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

At the time of this writing, jw.org was featuring the whiteboard animation video “Protect Yourself From Misinformation”. The English and Mandarin versions of this video match the English word “misinformation” with this week’s MEotW, “jiǎ (false; fake 假 假/叚) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)”:

Screenshot from the video “Protect Yourself From Misinformation”, 0:32 mark, showing “Misinformation” in the subtitle

Screenshot from the video “消息满天飞，如何辨真假”, 0:32 mark, showing “假消息 (jiǎ xiāoxi)” in the subtitle

[Note: The MEotW post on “shèjiāo wǎngzhàn ((shè·jiāo {god of the land → [society] → [social]} · {meeting → [associating]} → [social contact/interaction] 社交) (wǎng·zhàn {net → [web]} · {stand → [station]} → [website] 网站 網站) → [social networking website; social network])” contains information about how to add unproofread computer-generated Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to the subtitles of Mandarin videos on jw.org in most browsers.]

“Jiǎ (false; fake 假 假/叚) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)” can also be translated as “false news”, “false information”, or perhaps even “fake news”, as confirmed by the entry for this expression in the excellent Referenced Theo. Expressions (RTE) resource.

Disappearing?

“Jiǎ ({[is] false; fake; phony; artificial} | if; supposing; assume; presume | borrow; {avail oneself of} 假 假/叚)” means “false” or “fake”, and “xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)”, while used to effectively mean “news” or “information”, actually literally means “disappearing news”. Why “disappearing”? Perhaps that is a nod to the fleeting nature of news—relatively quickly, when it’s not new anymore, it’s not news anymore.

The Wiktionary entry for “xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)” seems to bear this out, as it says:

消息 (xiāoxi) refers to news as in new information; to express the meaning of news as in reports of current events, use 新聞／新闻 (xīnwén).

“Xiāoxi (Xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)” also appears in the expression “hǎo (good 好) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news] 消息)”, meaning “good news”, which we use often in the Mandarin field. In fact, “Hǎo (Good 好) Xiāoxi (Xiāo·xi Disappearing · News → [News] 消息)”! is the title of the concluding song for this year’s Mandarin conventions! (English, Mandarin, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus) Also, we will say “Wángguó (Wáng·guó King’s · Nation → [Kingdom] 王国 王國) de (’s 的) hǎo (good 好) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news] 消息)” when we want to refer to “the good news of the Kingdom”. Of course, while the message of this good news will “disappear” as news when it is not news anymore, the Kingdom itself “will stand forever”!—Daniel 2:44.

Myths and Misinformation About Chinese Characters, Etc.

As Mandarin field language learners, we need to be aware that many myths and much misinformation have been spread about the Chinese languages, especially when it comes to Chinese characters. Indeed, there is so much misinformation about Chinese characters that Victor Mair wrote the following in the foreword of the book Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning, by J. Marshall Unger:

There is probably no subject on earth concerning which more misinformation is purveyed and more misunderstandings circulated than Chinese characters (漢字, Chinese hanzi, Japanese kanji, Korean hanja), or sinograms.

Also, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, John DeFrancis lists the following myths regarding Chinese characters, that many believe:

  • The Ideographic Myth
    • The MEotW post on “Hāmǐjíduōdùn (Armageddon 哈米吉多顿 哈米吉多頓)” contains a discussion of this myth, with some selected excerpts on this subject from DeFrancis’ book.
  • The Universality Myth
  • The Emulatability Myth
  • The Monosyllabic Myth
  • The Indispensability Myth
  • The Successfulness Myth

Regarding these myths, in p. 2–3 of his aforementioned book, J. Marshall Unger provides this summary:

Passing for the moment over the history of how the hunt for the perfect language unfolded, let us jump ahead to the result: the intellectual baggage about Chinese characters that we have inherited from the Renaissance and Enlightenment. John DeFrancis, in his classic book The Chinese Language (1984), sums up that weighty legacy under six headings, and a better summary would be hard to find. The source of all the confusion is what DeFrancis calls the Ideographic Myth, the notion that Chinese characters represent meaning directly, without reference to language (that is, speech) in any way. Its logical extension is the Universality Myth, according to which Chinese script allows for communication between mutually uninteligible dialects and languages. This leads in turn to the Emulatability Myth, which holds that Chinese script can serve as a model for a general system of signs that transcends natural language. These first three myths have little to do with the actual structure or history of the Chinese language or its writing system, in contrast with the remaining three: the Monosyllabic Myth, Indispensability Myth, and Successfulness Myth. Each of these—the names are more or less self-explanatory—makes a strong claim about language and the writing system, claims that have had significant social and political consequences.

At least some of the political consequences referred to above have been deliberate, meaning that at least some of the myths and misinformation spread about Chinese languages and Chinese characters qualify as political propaganda. If we’re not careful, we could end up parroting this political propaganda. (We could also end up parroting worldly human cultural propaganda, which is also a bad thing for people who seek to be no part of the world.) Also, all the difficulties and confusion caused by all the myths and misinformation surrounding Chinese languages and Chinese characters massively hinder the efforts of Mandarin field language learners to stay spiritually strong and to reach the hearts of Mandarin-speakers with Bible truth. This can result in deeply negative spiritual consequences that should be of great concern to us. To complete the sentence quoted from the video mentioned at the beginning of this post:

Misinformation isn’t just inaccurate; it can also be dangerous!

Categories
Culture Current Events History Language Learning Names Science

Bālèsītǎnrén

Bālèsītǎnrén (Bālèsītǎn·rén Palestinian · {people | person[s] | man/men} 巴勒斯坦人) ← 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 the video “Can Love Conquer Hatred?” The introductory text for the Mandarin version of this video uses this week’s MEotW, “Bālèsītǎnrén (Bālèsītǎn·rén Palestinian · {people | person[s] | man/men} 巴勒斯坦人)”, to translate “Palestinians”:

English:

Despite the long history of violent hatred between Jews and Palestinians, some of them have successfully uprooted prejudice from their hearts. Meet two of them.

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Yóutàirén (Yóutài·rén Jewish · people 犹太人 猶太人) hé ({(together) with} → [and] 和 和/龢) Bālèsītǎnrén (Bālèsītǎn·rén Palestinian · people 巴勒斯坦人) yǒuzhe (yǒu·zhe having · {have been being} → [have been having] 有着 有着/著) xuèhǎi (xuè·hǎi blood · sea → [sea of blood] 血海)‐shēnchóu (shēn·chóu deep · hatred 深仇), liǎng (two 两 兩) ge ([mw] 个 個/个) mínzú (mín·zú {(of) people} · {ethnic groups} → [peoples] 民族) chángqī (cháng·qī long · {period of time} → [long-term] 长期 長期) yǒu ({have been having} 有) chōngtū (chōng·tū {dashing → [clashing]} · {chimney → [dashing forward]} → [conflicting] 冲突 衝突). Jíshǐ (Jí·shǐ {even though} · if 即使) rúcǐ (rú·cǐ {(it) is like} · this 如此), tāmen (tā·men him/her · [pl] → [them] 他们 他們) dāngzhōng (dāng·zhōng in · among 当中 當中) háishi (hái·shi (there) still · are 还是 還是) yǒurén (yǒu·rén {having → [being]} · persons 有人) néng (able 能) chénggōng (chéng·gōng accomplishing · achievement → [successfully] 成功) fàngxia (fàng·xia {to put} · down 放下) duì (towards 对 對) bǐcǐ (bǐ·cǐ those · these → [one another] 彼此) de (’s 的) chóuhèn (chóu·hèn enmity · hatred 仇恨), hépíng (hé·píng {being (together) with} · {being flat, level, even} → [peacefully] 和平)‐xiāngchǔ (xiāng·chǔ {with each other} · {to dwell → [to get along]} 相处 相處). Ràng (let 让 讓) wǒmen (wǒ·men us · [pl] 我们 我們) kànkan (kàn·kan {look at} · {look at} 看看) liǎng (two 两 兩) ge ([mw] 个 個/个) lìzi (lì·zi examples · [suf for nouns] 例子).

Related to “Bālèsītǎnrén (Bālèsītǎn·rén Palestinian · {people | person[s] | man/men} 巴勒斯坦人)” being the Mandarin word for “Palestinians” is that “Bālèsītǎn (Palestine 巴勒斯坦)” is the Mandarin word for “Palestine”. Knowing these expressions, along with some of the expressions in the above quote, will help us in the Mandarin field as we hear about, talk about, and pray about the ongoing Gaza-Israel conflict in the time ahead.

Note that it is apparent that “Bālèsītǎn (Palestine 巴勒斯坦)” was chosen to represent “Palestine” in Mandarin because of what it sounds like, not because of the meanings of the supposedly ideographic (representing meaning directly through visible symbols, bypassing speech) Chinese characters used to write it out (“Hope for Bridle This Flat”??? 🤷🏻).

Neutrality

With open warfare now raging in various parts of the world, Jehovah’s people must face the issue of neutrality. With the very survival of individuals as well as of entire nations and peoples seemingly on the line, feelings can run high.

Related to this issue, I found the following articles on jw.org:

The final article linked to above concludes with this paragraph:

The courts of Ukraine have recognized that conscientious objection to military service is a fundamental human right that merits protection even during military mobilization. It is neither a selfish evasion of duty nor a threat to national interests and security. In affirming the rulings of the lower courts, the high court has upheld human rights for all Ukrainians. Ukraine has set an example for countries that punish conscientious objectors who refuse military service for reasons of conscience.

Philistines?

One interesting point I came across while researching this post is that although the modern name “Palestine” ultimately came from the Hebrew word for “Philistia”, it’s not actually correct to associate modern Palestinians with the ancient Philistines. As the February 1, 1995 issue of The Watchtower says:

Alexander the Great conquered the Philistine city of Gaza, but in time, the Philistines apparently ceased to be a separate people. Professor Lawrence E. Stager wrote in Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1991): “The Philistines too were exiled to Babylon. . . . No record exists, however, as to what happened to the exiled Philistines. Those who may have remained in Ashkelon after Nebuchadrezzar’s conquest apparently lost their ethnic identity. They simply disappear from history.”

The modern name Palestine is derived from Latin and Greek words, which leads further back to the Hebrew word for “Philistia.” Some Bible translations in the Arabic language use a word for “Philistines” that is easily confused with the word for modern Palestinians. However, Today’s Arabic Version uses a different Arabic word, thus distinguishing between the ancient Philistines and modern Palestinians.

As some linguists like to say, “etymology isn’t destiny”:

Words change their meaning over time, the meanings of words are something that we’re creating with each other as a community, and the idea that etymology isn’t destiny is a fun and liberating thing to think about! Imagine how boring the world would be if there were never any new words or new meanings of words!

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Science Theocratic

chuán

chuán (boat; ship; vessel 船 船/舩) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week, we are revisiting “chuán (boat; ship; vessel 船 船/舩)”, an expression that was featured in an early Expression of the Week post on the tiandi.info blog. (If you need login information for the parts of tiandi.info that require it, request it by email, and include information on how you learned of tiandi.info and/or what group/cong. you are in.)

As shown in the image below, the first printing of the Insight book (on p. 328 of Volume 1) included a section regarding the Chinese character for “chuán (boat; ship; vessel 船 船/舩)”:

P. 328 of Vol. 1 of the first printing of the _Insight_ book (1988), with a section about “船”

However, this section on this Chinese character no longer appears in current versions of the Insight book. Why might it have been removed?

Murky Speculation

Several years after the above-mentioned tiandi.info post was originally posted, I appended the following update to it:

Note that the section about the Chinese character “船 (chuán)” that was originally in the Insight book, Vol. 1, p. 328 is not present in the more recently published Chinese version of the Insight book.

Perhaps it was eventually decided that the origins of Chinese characters, which have been used for thousands of years, are too murky to do anything more than speculate about. I myself have recently become convinced that Chinese characters in general have been over-glamourized by the world.

It’s also worth going over an interesting, well-researched comment that the tiandi.info post mentioned above received. (Thanks again, Ed!) Here are a couple of excerpts from it:

The Insight article isn’t the only place in the Slave’s writings that the reference to this Chinese character appears. It originally appeared in the article “Chinese Characters—Why Are They Written That Way?” in g84 8/8 p. 23 [Here is a link to that article. Note that in addition to mentioning “chuán (boat; ship; vessel 船 船/舩)”, this old article unfortunately repeats the Ideographic Myth. Also, it conflates language with writing, when actually, linguists understand that language primarily has to do with speech.—ed.], which ended with the caveat, “The similarity between the thoughts behind many of the Chinese characters and the Bible record of man’s early history is nothing less than remarkable. Although the evidence is only circumstantial, it is, nonetheless, fascinating to think that there is a possibility that the Chinese [characters contain Biblical concepts].”

The article was written in response to the book The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language, which had been published only a few years earlier. This book is full of fascinating parallels between Biblical accounts and elements that appear to comprise certain Chinese characters.

There are many resources available these days even to English speakers that contain scholarly research into the meaning and origins of Chinese characters. During the course of learning the language, I have made it a hobby to investigate some of these. I have to say that, based on what I have discovered, I disagree with the coauthors of Discovery of Genesis. In fact, there is a web site that has existed for several years for the purpose of rebutting these claims. While I don’t know the author’s motive for putting up the page, it does seem to have logical arguments.

…

For an alternative to Zhongwen.com, you could try looking up 船 at this site. (Disclosure: this web site is run by me.)

Truly right-hearted people won’t be stumbled if we share accurate knowledge from the Bible with them. But in any case, it’s best not to get too involved with matters of speculation that could be of interest to us but not have a direct bearing on God’s word of truth.

Sound vs. Meaning

The Raccoon Bend website page mentioned in the above quote contains some technical points such as the following:

A typical error made…is to analyze a semantic-phonetic compound as though it were compound-indicative (which they refer to as “ideographic”).

In other words, some mistakenly treat a character component that indicates sound as if it indicates meaning. The information at the Chinese-Characters.org link that the brother quoted above provided indicates that doing that with “船” seems to be what led to the story of “vessel + eight + mouths/persons”, when this character should actually be understood as being made up of the components “vessel + [phonetic (sound) component]”.

Stories vs. the Truth

As humans, we naturally love stories, since our minds use stories to make sense of the world around us. Also, stories add or reveal meaning or significance regarding things that these things would lack if they were not part of a story. However, not all stories are true. And while even fictional stories can help to reveal deeper truths about life, like Jesus’ parables did, false stories can take us farther away from the truth, if we let them. As the apostle Paul warned in 2 Timothy 4:3, 4:

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

While Chinese characters sometimes have appealing stories attached to them, let us make sure that we don’t let mere love of a good story take us away from the truth in any way. While naive tourists may be easily misled by appealing but false stories, as literal or figurative missionaries in the Mandarin field, we have a responsibility to serve God and our Mandarin-speaking neighbours “with spirit and truth”.—John 4:23, 24.