Tag: Language Classification

Categories
Culture Experiences History Language Learning

jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng

jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng+ ((jī chicken 鸡 雞/鷄)‐(tóng {together with} 同 同/仝)‐(yā duck 鸭 鴨)‐(jiǎng speaking 讲 講) → [people not understanding each other because of speaking different languages (from Cantonese)]) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[I’m still unusually busy with preparing musical notation + Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) songbook material for this year’s Mandarin conventions, and now, also with rolling out the next generation Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)+ format. (See this Links News post for more information on that.) So, here’s a repost of a post from a few years back, on a subject of basic importance to Mandarin field language learners.]

[Yes, this expression comes from Cantonese, but the above Mandarin version does appear in Mandarin dictionaries, so it qualifies as a Mandarin expression!]

Recently, while out to dinner with one of the first families to serve in the local Cantonese congregation, along with the circuit overseer serving the local Chinese circuit and his wife, the subject came up of how Mandarin and Cantonese are actually different languages, not just dialects of the same language.

Chickens Talking with Ducks

The wife of the circuit overseer asked what the difference is between a language and a dialect. So, I proceeded to explain something that is emphasized by American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair, that a primary way accepted by most linguists to distinguish a language from a dialect is mutual intelligibility, as is discussed in this excerpt from the MEotW post on “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”:

It has been said that “a language is a dialect with an army and navy”, but in his article Professor Mair gives us a more linguistically correct and useful way to distinguish between a language and a dialect:

Regardless of the imprecision of lay usage, we should strive for a consistent means of distinguishing between language and dialect. Otherwise we might as well use the two terms interchangeably. That way lies chaos and the collapse of rational discourse. Mutual intelligibility [emphasis added] is normally accepted by most linguists as the only plausible criterion for making the distinction between language and dialect in the vast majority of cases. Put differently, no more suitable, workable device for distinguishing these two levels of speech has yet been proposed. If there are to be exceptions to the useful principle of mutual intelligibility, there should be compelling reasons for them. Above all, exceptions should not be made the rule.

What is mutual intelligibility? Simply put, in linguistics, two or more speech varieties are said to be mutually intelligible if they are “able to be understood by one another’s speakers”. For example, if one person only knows English, and another person only knows Spanish, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—English and Spanish are not mutually intelligible, and are suitably recognized as being different languages, not just different dialects of “European”.

Similarly, if one person only knows Mandarin, and another person only knows Cantonese, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible. So, while they may be “fāngyán+ (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · {(patterns of) speech} 方言)”, linguistically, Mandarin and Cantonese should really be considered to be different languages, not just different dialects of “Chinese”.

Indeed, I have heard people use this week’s MEotW, “jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng+ ((jī chicken 鸡 雞/鷄)‐(tóng {together with} 同 同/仝)‐(yā duck 鸭 鴨)‐(jiǎng speaking 讲 講) → [people not understanding each other because of speaking different languages (from Cantonese)])”, to specifically describe Mandarin-speakers and Cantonese-speakers trying to talk to each other, and not understanding each other. 🐓 🦆

After I explained the gist of the above, one of the daughters of the family at the dinner—who had been labouring for decades under the misconception that Mandarin and Cantonese are just dialects and that someone who knows one can easily learn the other—said, “Now I don’t feel like an idiot.”

Uncommon Knowledge?

It could be said that ones such as this family and this circuit overseer and his wife, who have all worked so hard and served for so long in the Chinese language fields, should already have known such a basic thing about the Chinese languages. However, the following things are unfortunately true:

  • Even publishers who are learning a language to serve in that language’s field generally consider such linguistic (language science) knowledge to be specialized technical knowledge that is beyond what they need to learn, and possibly beyond what they could even comprehend.
  • Western-educated publishers learning a Chinese language may unwittingly go along with the Western worldly tendency to exoticize things related to China. (John DeFrancis, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (p. 37), calls this “Exotic East Syndrome”.) They may be content with—or even enjoy—the alluring veil of mystery and mystique surrounding certain things related to China and Chinese culture. Thus, they don’t seek to learn about and understand deeper truths about such things, that may pierce through this obscuring veil, and burst this bubble.—Compare 2 Corinthians 3:14, including the margin note.
  • The central ruling authorities of China have long actively promoted the scientifically incorrect idea that the different varieties of speech in China are just dialects of the one Chinese language. This idea is political propaganda supporting the idea that it’s good for there to be central ruling authorities in China.
  • Traditional worldly Chinese language instructors and others who are knowledgeable about Chinese languages and Chinese characters are eager to promote and perpetuate the traditional thinking about Chinese languages and characters, that they have invested so much time and effort in, and that they are so proud of.
  • Chinese-educated publishers who are already steeped in the traditional ideas about Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc., and who are thus lauded and deferred to as experts by other publishers, may be eager to simply unquestioningly pass on the cultural knowledge and ideas that they were taught, and that they are lauded and respected for.
  • With so much misinformation “in the air”, including from trusted authority figures, “everyone knows” that there is one Chinese language, with dialects that include Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. Since “everyone knows” this, it’s easy to just go along with it, especially in an Eastern culture like the Chinese culture that emphasizes conforming to the group. As Eastern cultures, Japanese, Korean, etc. cultures are similar in this respect, so publishers from those cultural backgrounds may also generally tend to just go along with what “everyone knows” about there being just one Chinese language that has various dialects.—Ephesians 2:2.
  • The Bible makes it clear that Satan the Devil is “a liar and the father of the lie”. It also describes him as “the great dragon…who is misleading the entire inhabited earth”. So, while we can only speculate about the details of what strings are purposely pulled in the spirit realm by Satan and his demons as opposed to what human folly they simply passively observe, we can be sure that Satan is delighted with all the ways in which people are misled in and about the Chinese culture, in which the dragon is considered a positive, revered symbol.—John 8:44; Revelation 12:9.

So, for reasons such as the above, even the basic linguistic truth that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. actually function as different languages is unfortunately not yet common knowledge among those serving in the Chinese fields. As the saying goes, which some say is a Chinese proverb, “error will travel over half the globe, while truth is pulling on her boots”.

Jesus said, though, that true worshippers worship “with spirit and truth”, and that “the truth will set you free”. With regard to Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc., the truth about them can even set one free from unnecessarily feeling like an “idiot”, as the sister mentioned above so eloquently put it, because of labouring under all the political propaganda, traditions, and other kinds of misinformation and wrong thinking that unfortunately surround Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc.—John 4:23; 8:32.

Huge Worldwide Effects

In addition to being hugely freeing for individual language learners, spreading the truth about the Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc. is also important on a larger scale, since the worldwide Mandarin field, for one, is the largest language field in the world, and probably the largest language field that has ever existed in human history. For comparison, according to Ethnologue, a resource on world languages, the worldwide Mandarin field (those worldwide whose mother tongue is Mandarin) is about twice the size of the second largest worldwide language field, the Spanish field, and it’s about two and a half times the size of the third largest worldwide language field, the English field. Allowing various untruths to continue to divert and bog down the language-learning efforts of those who come to help in the worldwide Mandarin field can have incalculable overall negative effects on the preaching work in this enormous field.

Chart: Languages by First-Language Speakers—2019

So, even as we hang on to Bible truth, let us also hang on to the linguistic truths that we learn, and let us do what we can to share them with our fellow workers in the vast worldwide Chinese fields.

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Languages Science

fāngyán

fāngyán+ (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This reposting of a post that was originally posted on November 16, 2020 seems to be a fitting companion to the recent repostings of the posts on “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)” and “yǔzú (yǔ·zú language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} 语族 語族)”. It discusses the important basic issue of whether Mandarin is just a dialect of “Chinese”, a subject about which much political and cultural propaganda has unfortunately been spread.]

The term “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)” has been used in the Chinese-speaking world in various ways, but the literal meanings of the words that make it up indicate that it refers to the speech pattern of a place, even a place as small as a village. For reference, the “fāng+ (direction [→ [side; party | place; region | method; way [→ [prescription; recipe]] | power (math.)]] | {[is] square} [→ [[is] upright; honest]] | [mw for square things] 方)” in “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)” is the “fāng (direction [→ [side; party | place; region | method; way [→ [prescription; recipe]] | power (math.)]] | {[is] square} [→ [[is] upright; honest]] | [mw for square things] 方)” in “dìfang (dì·fang {(section of) earth → [place]} · {direction → [place]} → [place] 地方)”, and the “yán+ (speech; word; talk; language | say; talk; speak | character; syllable; word 言)” in “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)” is the “yán (speech; word; talk; language | say; talk; speak | character; syllable; word 言)” in “yǔyán (yǔ·yán language · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言)”.

“Fāngyán (Fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)” has customarily been translated into English as “dialect”, but this practice can be misleading and confusing, because while “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)” and “dialect” can sometimes both be applied to a particular speech pattern, the two terms don’t mean exactly the same thing.

What is a Chinese “Dialect”?

American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair wrote an extensive article on this subject, “What Is a Chinese ‘Dialect/Topolect’? Reflections on Some Key Sino-English Linguistic Terms”, which can be found here (PDF) and here (web page) on his website Sino-Platonic Papers.

It has been said that “a language is a dialect with an army and navy”, but in his article Professor Mair gives us a more linguistically correct and useful way to distinguish between a language and a dialect:

Regardless of the imprecision of lay usage, we should strive for a consistent means of distinguishing between language and dialect. Otherwise we might as well use the two terms interchangeably. That way lies chaos and the collapse of rational discourse. Mutual intelligibility [emphasis added] is normally accepted by most linguists as the only plausible criterion for making the distinction between language and dialect in the vast majority of cases. Put differently, no more suitable, workable device for distinguishing these two levels of speech has yet been proposed. If there are to be exceptions to the useful principle of mutual intelligibility, there should be compelling reasons for them. Above all, exceptions should not be made the rule.

What is mutual intelligibility? Simply put, in linguistics, two or more speech varieties are said to be mutually intelligible if they are “able to be understood by one another’s speakers”. For example, if one person only knows English, and another person only knows Spanish, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—English and Spanish are not mutually intelligible, and are suitably recognized as being different languages, not just different dialects of “European”.

Similarly, if one person only knows Mandarin, and another person only knows Cantonese, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible. So, while they may be “fāngyán+ (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · {(patterns of) speech} 方言)”, linguistically, Mandarin and Cantonese should really be considered to be different languages, not just different dialects of “Chinese”.

If many of the varieties of speech in China are really different languages, as linguists would refer to them, why have so many people come to think that they are just dialects of a single Chinese language? China’s central government is highly motivated to convince people that China is one unified political and cultural entity which should thus be governed by one central government—them—so they have promoted this idea. In other words, it’s basically political propaganda!

Being Clear on What’s What

Why is it especially important for language-learners in a language field like the Mandarin field to recognize, in spite of the commonly accepted political propaganda, that Chinese varieties of speech like Mandarin and Cantonese really function like different languages, and not different dialects of the same language? Well, as someone who along with many others has come to the Mandarin field from the Cantonese field, I have had the dubious pleasure of observing how some have tried to speak Mandarin by just taking the Cantonese they knew and twisting it a little, since they were relying on the conventional wisdom that Mandarin and Cantonese are just different dialects of the same language. As well-meaning as they may have been, the results were often just as bad as when someone sings badly off-key, or as Star Trek fans may say, they often sounded like the language equivalent of a transporter accident 🙀. Even after decades in the Mandarin field, some publishers who had come over from the Cantonese field still say some Mandarin words with Cantonese-y pronunciations.

In contrast, when one recognizes, for example, that Cantonese is Cantonese and Mandarin is Mandarin, and that neither one is just a slightly mutated version of the other, then that paves the way for language-learning progress that is free of being distorted by untruthful and misleading beliefs. Yes, by recognizing and accepting a variety of speech for what it really is, we can go on to freely learn to speak it well and properly, so that we can be as effective as possible at helping people whose mother tongue is that variety of speech.

As with everything else in life, in language-learning too, the truth matters. As Jehovah’s people, we especially want to “worship the Father with spirit and truth”, and when we seek to do so as we learn a language to use it in Jehovah’s service, we will find that ‘the truth will set us free’ from the distortions and burdens of untruthful and misleading beliefs.—John 4:23; 8:32.

Some Official Recognition

The organization has recently demonstrated that it recognizes the truth about how different many of the Chinese varieties of speech are from one another. For example, whereas before there was one Chinese edition of each publication (using Mandarin wording), now, some publications are available in different Chinese editions for different Chinese languages (including Cantonese), each with different wording.

List of different Chinese languages in which publications are available on jw.org as of 2025-06-02
jw.org now has publications in different Chinese languages.

To help reduce the confusion around the inappropriate use of the English word “dialect” to translate “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”, Professor Mair proposed that the word “topolect” (topo- (“place”) + -lect (“[language] variety”)) be used instead as an exact, neutral English translation of “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”. While not as well-known as “dialect”, the word “topolect” has gained a certain amount of recognition, and it can now be found in several dictionaries, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Wordnik, and Wiktionary.

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

róngyào

róngyào+ (róng·yào glory; honour · {being bright; dazzling; brilliant; shining → [honour; glory]} → [glory; honour] | glorify · {to be bright; dazzling; brilliant; shining → [to be glorious]} → [glorify] | honourable; glorious · {bright; dazzling; brilliant; shining → [glorious]} → [honourable; glorious] 荣耀 榮耀) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Rather than dismissively thinking to ourselves that the songs produced by the organization are “just songs”, we should remember that the slave class takes seriously its responsibility to provide spiritual food to God’s people, and so it is going to make sure that the lyrics in its songs are spiritually correct, while also being emotionally moving.—Ezekiel 33:32; Matthew 24:45.

“Give Jehovah Glory”

“Róngyào” _Pīnyīn_ Plus info, Song 159 (music+_Pīnyīn_), on iPhone 13 mini (landscape orientation)

This week’s MEotW in the unofficial Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resource “Sing Out Joyfully” Bk. (Pīnyīn+Music, Pīnyīn Plus, Web)

This week’s MEotW, “róngyào (róng·yào glory; honour · {being bright; dazzling; brilliant; shining → [honour; glory]} → [glory; honour] | glorify · {to be bright; dazzling; brilliant; shining → [to be glorious]} → [glorify] | honourable; glorious · {bright; dazzling; brilliant; shining → [glorious]} → [honourable; glorious] 荣耀 榮耀)”, comes from the relatively new song 159, which is entitled “Give Jehovah Glory” in English and “Róngyào (Róng·yào Glory · {Being Shining → [Glory]} → [Glory] 荣耀 榮耀) Guīgěi (Guī·gěi {Give Back} · {to Be Given to} 归给 歸給) Yēhéhuá (Jehovah 耶和华 耶和華)” in Mandarin (WOL, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus).

“Róngyào (Róng·yào glory; honour · {being bright; dazzling; brilliant; shining → [honour; glory]} → [glory; honour] | glorify · {to be bright; dazzling; brilliant; shining → [to be glorious]} → [glorify] | honourable; glorious · {bright; dazzling; brilliant; shining → [glorious]} → [honourable; glorious] 荣耀 榮耀)” is flexible regarding what part of speech it can be—it can mean “glory; honour”, “glorify”, or “honourable; glorious”. In the Mandarin field, what kinds of glory should we be mindful of? Whom should we seek to glorify? What kind of glory is truly glorious?

“Glory from Men” Who Glorify Worldly Human Chinese Culture

Some in the Mandarin field may focus on gaining knowledge of Chinese characters so as to obtain glory from certain humans. Ones who do this are taking a different approach from that of Jesus, who said at John 5:41–44:

I do not accept glory from men, but I well know that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in the name of my Father, but you do not receive me. If someone else came in his own name, you would receive that one. How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?

Why do some humans heap praise and glory on those who have acquired extensive knowledge of Chinese characters? For one thing, Chinese characters are famously extraordinarily hard to learn and remember (unnecessarily so, actually), and so there is the natural glory given to those who have been able to accomplish a hard thing. Also, though, Chinese characters are glamourized by many as distinctive symbols of worldly human Chinese culture, and many are proud of them, and proud of worldly human Chinese culture. This is a big reason why traditional Mandarin language instruction and traditional Mandarin language teachers in general focus on Chinese characters so much and encourage Mandarin learners to prioritize them.

It is only natural for a student of Mandarin to want to receive glory from his teacher and others like him. Unfortunately, though, experience has shown that going along with a traditional Mandarin language teacher’s focus on characters may lead to a Mandarin learner actually being diverted into a deep rabbit hole and hindered from actually learning how speak Mandarin well. While such ones may, after many years of intense effort, come to be able to recognize many Chinese characters, they may not be able to, say, glorify Jehovah while speaking powerfully and persuasively to Mandarin-speaking people, the way Jesus spoke to people. (Mark 1:22) That’s because this traditional focus on characters has all along been mainly meant, not to help Mandarin learners actually learn to speak Mandarin, but to perpetuate and glorify worldly human Chinese culture.

Glory for Worldly Chinese Political Systems

In this world, certain aspects of Chinese culture can unfortunately get politicized. For example, Simplified characters and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) were created in mainland China, so some may promote these systems so as to glorify the political system of mainland China. On the other hand, Traditional characters and Zhùyīn (Zhù·yīn {Annotating of} · Sounds → [Zhuyin] 注音 註/注音) continued to be used in Taiwan after the mainland pivoted away from them, so some may promote these systems so as to glorify the political system of Taiwan. Even the Mandarin expression that people use to refer to the Mandarin language (Guóyǔ (Guó·yǔ National · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in Taiwan)] 国语 國語)/pǔtōnghuà (pǔ·tōng·huà common; universal · {through(out) → [common]} · speech → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in China)] 普通话 普通話)/Huáyǔ (Huá·yǔ {Magnificent; Splendid; Flowery; Florescent → [Chinese]} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in Singapore)] 华语 華語)/etc.) can be made to take on political connotations. Of course, as Jehovah’s politically neutral servants, we must avoid doing things just to glorify one human political system over another.

Another thing that we Mandarin field language learners must beware of is the erroneous idea that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. are just “dialects” of “Chinese”. This misconception has been widely spread as political propaganda, to bolster the idea that China should be united under one political system. So, if we parrot that erroneous view regarding so-called Chinese “dialects” that in reality function like distinct languages, then we are actually parroting political propaganda that is designed to glorify China’s central government regardless of any confusion or other negative effects that may result from such spreading of falsehood.

Glory for Jehovah

Rather than allowing ourselves to be used to glorify humans or things in this worldly human system, we can show that we seek to glorify Jehovah, the God of truth. (John 17:17; 4:23, 24) One way we can do so in the Chinese language fields is by rejecting the many untruths that have been spread about the Chinese languages. Also, we can do so by seeking to choose and use systems and methods based on what really works best to help us to praise and glorify Jehovah, not based on what serves to glorify ourselves or worldly humans, and not based on what serves to perpetuate and glorify worldly human cultures, traditions, and political systems.

As Jesus’ words above showed, Jehovah gives “the glory that is from the only God” to those who seek to give glory to him, rather than to mere humans. So, let us follow song 159’s simple but profound admonition, and give glory to Jehovah!