Categories
Culture Language Learning Science Technology

tíbǐ‐wàng‐zì

tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW, “tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字)”, is generally translated as “character amnesia”. Its literal meaning well describes what it’s like to experience it—you pick up your pen, pencil, brush, etc. to write a certain Chinese character and you…just…can’t…remember how to write it. This can happen with complex, rarely used characters, but it can also happen with fairly commonly used characters, and even with characters you’re sure you once knew well.

It occurs to me that while “tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字)” literally refers to forgetting a character while trying to write it by hand, and while “character amnesia” is similarly defined as forgetting how to write certain characters, people also often forget characters—and thus fail to recognize them—when they are just reading. There doesn’t seem to be a corresponding common Mandarin expression for this, though, probably because it is generally harder to write than it is to read, and so forgetting a character while engaged in the harder task of writing is generally a more significant emotional event compared to forgetting a character when reading.

It Happens to Chinese People Too

It’s also worth noting that “tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字)” is an expression that Chinese people do apply to themselves—it doesn’t just describe a problem that only other people experience while learning a language typically written with Chinese characters. Chinese people are also only human, so it is ultimately practically impossible for them too to learn and continue to remember how to write (or even “just” read) all the over 100,000 existing Chinese characters as well as the theoretically unlimited number of Chinese characters that could be invented in the future, even if they have spent, and are continuing to spend, their entire lives trying to do so.

While the government of China considers someone who can recognize “just” 2,000 characters to be literate, the truth is that even those who are considered literate by this standard can surprisingly often be unable to read or write relatively common characters that they once knew, never mind obscure characters that they never learned.

One example of even relatively highly literate native Mandarin speakers having trouble remembering how to write a not terribly uncommon character is related in David Moser’s well-known essay “Why Chinese Is So…Hard”, which has a section devoted to character amnesia:

this phonetic aspect of the language doesn’t really become very useful until you’ve learned a few hundred characters, and even when you’ve learned two thousand, the feeble phoneticity of Chinese will never provide you with the constant memory prod that the phonetic quality of English does.

Which means that often you just completely forget how to write a character. Period. If there is no obvious semantic clue in the radical, and no helpful phonetic component somewhere in the character, you’re just sunk. And you’re sunk whether your native language is Chinese or not; contrary to popular myth, Chinese people are not born with the ability to memorize arbitrary squiggles. In fact, one of the most gratifying experiences a foreign student of Chinese can have is to see a native speaker come up a complete blank when called upon to write the characters for some relatively common word. You feel an enormous sense of vindication and relief to see a native speaker experience the exact same difficulty you experience every day.

This is such a gratifying experience, in fact, that I have actually kept a list of characters that I have observed Chinese people forget how to write. (A sick, obsessive activity, I know.) I have seen highly literate Chinese people forget how to write certain characters in common words like “tin can”, “knee”, “screwdriver”, “snap” (as in “to snap one’s fingers”), “elbow”, “ginger”, “cushion”, “firecracker”, and so on. And when I say “forget”, I mean that they often cannot even put the first stroke down on the paper. Can you imagine a well-educated native English speaker totally forgetting how to write a word like “knee” or “tin can”? Or even a rarely-seen word like “scabbard” or “ragamuffin”? I was once at a luncheon with three Ph.D. students in the Chinese Department at Peking University, all native Chinese (one from Hong Kong). I happened to have a cold that day, and was trying to write a brief note to a friend canceling an appointment that day. I found that I couldn’t remember how to write the character 嚔, as in da penti 打喷嚔 “to sneeze”. I asked my three friends how to write the character, and to my surprise, all three of them simply shrugged in sheepish embarrassment. Not one of them could correctly produce the character. Now, Peking University is usually considered the “Harvard of China”. Can you imagine three Ph.D. students in English at Harvard forgetting how to write the English word “sneeze”?? Yet this state of affairs is by no means uncommon in China.

Truly, the phenomenon of tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字) is nothing to sneeze at! (Sorry, I couldn’t help it 😜.)

Carrying on, this YouTube video from Asian Boss shows how some people on the streets of Shanghai fared when asked to write some Chinese characters. (One of the interviewees uses “tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字)” at around 7:10.)

Relatively highly literate native Mandarin speakers can also have problems recognizing or remembering characters when “just” reading, as discussed in the tiandi.info blog post “An Avoidable Minefield of Human Tradition and Cultural Pride”:

A few nights ago, my Mandarin congregation had a Memorial meeting that went well overall. However, there was a momentary hiccup that I think we Chinese field publishers can learn from.

The speaker who gave the talk is a fluent, eloquent native Mandarin speaker originally from mainland China, and he is one of the best Mandarin speakers in a city of several Mandarin congregations. In fact, he was one of the instructors in the very first official Mandarin class ever held in this country. However, while reading a scripture from his paper Bible as he was giving the Memorial talk, he, of all people, just…got…stuck…on…a…Chinese…character…. He struggled with it for what felt like quite a while, and eventually, a young brother who was serving as an attendant at the side of the stage approached and gave him a hint, and he was able to carry on.

For Real, It’s Not You

Yes, from considering both the basic design of the Chinese characters writing system as well as real-life experiences like the ones related above, it is evident that the objective truth is that the Chinese characters writing system is by its very nature fundamentally unfit for human use. So, the blame for the all-too-real phenomenon of even relatively highly literate people surprisingly often forgetting characters while reading or writing should be squarely placed on the Chinese characters writing system, not on the imperfect humans whom it should serve, but for whom it so often causes huge problems instead.

It is thus unfortunate, not admirable, that many still cling to the problematic Chinese characters writing system because of tradition, pride, cultural inertia, apathy, inability to walk away from sunk costs, etc. Such ones simply accept tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字) as “normal” rather than recognize it as the institutionalized inhuman madness that it is, while dismissing as madness and heresy any suggestion of using a human-appropriate alphabetic writing system like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to read and write Mandarin.

New Technology Is Not the Problem

Of course, these days, many people hardly ever write characters by hand anymore. Indeed, many would say that’s the problem! Instead of staying in practice with their handwriting, now, to write something in Mandarin using characters, people generally type Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) with a keyboard and then select the characters they want from the ones their computer or mobile device presents to them in response to their typing. (In such settings, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is like the assistant who does the real work while the big boss, the characters writing system, gets all the credit and recognition, even if many individual characters don’t get recognized when they need to be!)

However, is it really fair to blame the fine new technology for people getting out of practice with the old ways? Consider that if we were to continue with this line of thinking, we could then say that pen/pencil/brush/etc. and paper should in turn be villified for making people forget how to engrave stone tablets! Really, though, people in general got so used to enjoying the advantages of writing on paper compared to having to carve into stone tablets that they didn’t consider it much of a loss that eventually few were able to do the latter. Similarly, few people now lament that with the ubiquity of cars, not many people are now able to ride horses—most people are too busy enjoying their cars to worry about that.

Indeed, rather than blaming keyboards and computing devices for the phenomenon of tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字), some feel that keyboards and computing devices have helped to alleviate the problem. This is because even if they tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (characters 字) when they are trying to type Chinese characters, they feel they can hope in and rely on the visual designs of the characters they want to help them “know them when they see them” when they pop up in response to the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) that they type, making handwriting of characters unnecessary in most situations.

The Actual Problem, the Actual Solution

The thing is, the actual fundamental problem that leads to tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字) is that while “know it when you see it” may be how the visually oriented characters must work (when they work), that’s not the primary way that human language works. With human language overall, speech is actually primary, not writing, so it’s really more important in the grand scheme of things for us—including and especially in our preaching and teaching work—to be able to “know it when we hear it”.

While using the unnecessarily complex and inhumanly numerous visually oriented Chinese characters for this is like trying to put a spiky, sharp-edged object in a round hole, the simple and elegant phonetically oriented Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) writing system is a great fit for “know it when you hear it”. If you know how an expression should sound and you know the easy-to-learn-and-remember Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) writing system, you’re all set—no danger of tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字)!

Of course, you may still encounter occasional situations in which Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is not an option, and you can’t avoid reading or writing characters. In such situations, all you can do is just do your best. When you can use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), though, don’t let pride, prejudice, etc. prevent you from making good use of it to completely sidestep the very real problem of tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)wàng (forget 忘) (character 字)!

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning Science

bǎilàn

bǎilàn (bǎi·làn {place; arrange → [assume; put on (air of) | exhibit; display]} · {being rotten; decayed; spoiled | worn out; broken; ragged; crappy | mushy} 摆烂 擺爛) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

In 2022, this week’s MEotW, “bǎilàn (bǎi·làn {place; arrange → [assume; put on (air of) | exhibit; display]} · {being rotten; decayed; spoiled | worn out; broken; ragged; crappy | mushy} 摆烂 擺爛)”, gained popularity among some young people in China as an expression that represents their approach to life in view of the difficult, even seemingly hopeless work culture, societal expectations, etc. that they are faced with. “Bǎilàn (Bǎi·làn {place; arrange → [assume; put on (air of) | exhibit; display]} · {being rotten; decayed; spoiled | worn out; broken; ragged; crappy | mushy} 摆烂 擺爛)” represents a progression beyond “tǎngpíng (tǎng·píng lie; recline · {[to be] flat} 躺平)”, a past MEotW—just compare the cats!

Screenshot of some image results from searching for “摆烂” (“bǎilàn”) on Google

Some image results from searching for “摆烂” (bǎilàn (bǎi·làn {place; arrange → [assume; put on (air of) | exhibit; display]} · {being rotten; decayed; spoiled | worn out; broken; ragged; crappy | mushy} 摆烂 擺爛)) on Google

Reports from Around the Internet

Here are some of the many media reports about this expression:

The rise of ‘bai lan’: why China’s frustrated youth are ready to ‘let it rot’ | China | The Guardian

Here are some quotes from the above article:

In recent days, this phrase – and more previously ‘tang ping’ (lying flat, 躺平), which means rejecting gruelling competition for a low desire life – gained popularity as severe competition and high social expectations prompted many young Chinese to give up on hard work.

But bai lan has a more worrying layer in the way it is being used by young people in China: to actively embrace a deteriorating situation, rather than trying to turn it around.

Prof Mary Gallagher, director of the Centre for Chinese Studies at the University of Michigan, says ‘bai lan’ is not necessarily a sentiment unique to China. “It is a bit like the ‘slacker’ generation in America in the 1990s. And like ‘tang ping’ last year, it is also a rejection against the ultra-competitiveness of today’s Chinese society.”

More than 18% of young Chinese people aged between 16 and 24 were jobless in April – the highest since the official record began. “Hard to find a job after graduation this year? Fine, I’ll just bai lan – stay at home and watch TV all day,” wrote one netizen who struggled to find work, despite China’s top leader urged young people to fight for the future.

Language Log » “Let it rot”

For a really deep dive into “bǎilàn (bǎi·làn {place; arrange → [assume; put on (air of) | exhibit; display]} · {being rotten; decayed; spoiled | worn out; broken; ragged; crappy | mushy} 摆烂 擺爛)”, check out this extended video news report from CNA, an English language news network based in Singapore:

“Letting It Rot” in the Mandarin Field?

Perhaps we can apply “bǎilàn (bǎi·làn {place; arrange → [assume; put on (air of) | exhibit; display]} · {being rotten; decayed; spoiled | worn out; broken; ragged; crappy | mushy} 摆烂 擺爛)” to how some may be resigned to being “crappy”, or at best mediocre, at the language-related aspects of being in the Mandarin field.

Some Mandarin field language learners have noticed that after an initial period of progress, they—and perhaps some/many of their fellow workers—may have plateaued, or leveled out in how good they are with the Mandarin language. Instead of moving on to a reasonable level of fluency or mastery, they may have gotten stuck for a long time at a “crappy” or at best mediocre level.

They may be resigned to this situation, or they may even actively embrace it, perhaps reasoning that the Great Wall of Characters is what it is, or that Mandarin just sounds too different from what they’re used to (e.g., with its tones), or that they personally just don’t have the intelligence or the talent to do any better. They may thus quit trying to do any better, or they may even quit the Mandarin field altogether. Such ones have effectively chosen to “bǎilàn (bǎi·làn {arrange → [exhibit]} · {being crappy} 摆烂 擺爛)” with regard to their Mandarin and their service in the Mandarin field.

The Great Wall of China

Can we do better than to bǎilàn (bǎi·làn {arrange → [exhibit]} · {being crappy} 摆烂 擺爛) when faced with the Great Wall of Characters?

Note, though, that changing to focus on first principles of language rather than sticking to played out traditional learning methods can provide fuel and energy for progress beyond being “crappy” or just mediocre at using the Mandarin language in your service to Jehovah God and your Mandarin-speaking neighbours. For example, while traditional Chinese culture dictates that Mandarin learners must focus on learning the extraordinarily and unnecessarily complex Chinese characters, first principles of language–as illuminated by linguistics, the scientific study of language—hold that SPEECH is actually the primary aspect of any human language, not writing, even if that writing is as traditionally and culturally entrenched as Chinese characters are. Indeed, I can personally testify that I have found that changing focus from the traditionally mandated crazy-complex characters to Mandarin SPEECH, with the help of the simple and elegant Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) writing system, is working to help me make noticeable ongoing progress in how much Mandarin I understand, and in how much I speak and sound like a native speaker of Mandarin.

Of course, such progress is personally satisfying, but as Jehovah’s dedicated servants and fellow workers, we should be even more concerned about how Jehovah views our efforts. Here are a couple of scriptures that may help us to understand Jehovah’s view of unnecessarily “crappy” or mediocre ‘sacrifices of praise’ (Hebrews 13:15) that some may offer in the Mandarin field:

6 “‘A son honors a father, and a servant his master. So if I am a father, where is the honor due me? And if I am a master, where is the fear due me?’ Jehovah of armies says to you priests who are despising my name.

“‘But you say: “How have we despised your name?”’

7 “‘By presenting polluted food on my altar.’

“‘And you say: “How have we polluted you?”’

“‘By saying: “The table of Jehovah is something to be despised.” 8 And when you present a blind animal as a sacrifice, you say: “It is nothing bad.” And when you present a lame animal or a sick one: “It is nothing bad.”’”

“Try presenting them, please, to your governor. Will he be pleased with you or receive you with favor?” says Jehovah of armies.

9 “And now, please, appeal to God, that he may show us favor. With such offerings from your own hand, will he receive any of you with favor?” says Jehovah of armies.

Malachi 1:6–9.

15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth. 17 Because you say, “I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all,” but you do not know that you are miserable and pitiful and poor and blind and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may become dressed and that the shame of your nakedness may not be exposed, and eyesalve to rub in your eyes so that you may see.

Revelation 3:15–18.

We should also remember that moving beyond “crappiness” or mediocrity in our Mandarin can help us to be more able to give spiritual help to the people in the Mandarin field who looking for something beyond the crappiness and mediocrity of this old system of things, something beyond the selfish, materialistic, and ultimately meaningless rat race promoted by Satan’s world. These people need the good news of God’s Kingdom, and they need people like us to share it with them in a language that they will understand and respond to from the heart.—Mark 6:34.

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science Theocratic

yīnyì

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

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

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

Units of Measurement

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

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

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

Transliteration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcription?

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

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

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

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

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

“There is Too Much…Let Me Sum Up”


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, Could It Be?

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

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