Tag: Linguistics

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning Theocratic

húzi

húzi (hú·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] 胡子 鬍子) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW, “húzi (hú·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] 胡子 鬍子)”, is used, along with the expression “húxū (hú·xū beard; moustache; whiskers · beard; moustache 胡须 鬍鬚)”, to translate “beard” in the Mandarin version of the 2023 Governing Body Update #8 video.

“_Húzi_” used in the Mandarin version of the 2023 Governing Body Update #8 video

Morphemic Breakdown

In “húzi (hú·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] 胡子 鬍子)”, “hú (beard; moustache; whiskers 胡 鬍)” means “beard; moustache; whiskers”. (Note that this is the meaning of the Simplified Chinese character “胡” when it corresponds to the Traditional Chinese character “鬍”. This Simplified character can also correspond to the Traditional characters “胡” and “衚”, which have different meanings.)

As for “zi ([suf for nouns] 子)”, it is used in “húzi (hú·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] 胡子 鬍子)” as a suffix that is attached to nouns. Other examples of this in use are:

  • cèzi (cè·zi brochure; booklet · [suf for nouns] 册子 冊子)
  • dùzi (dù·zi belly; abdomen; stomach; bowels · [suf for nouns] 肚子)
  • rìzi (rì·zi {sun → [day]} · [suf for nouns] 日子)
  • shīzi (shī·zi lion · [suf for nouns] 狮子 獅子)
  • qīzi (qī·zi wife · [suf for nouns] 妻子)
  • érzi (ér·zi son · [suf for nouns] 儿子 兒子)
  • háizi (hái·zi child · [suf for nouns] [→ [son; daughter]] 孩子)
  • sūnzi (sūn·zi grandson · [suf for nouns] [→ [son’s son]] 孙子 孫子)

In specific cases, like in “nánzǐ (nán·zǐ male · person [→ [man]] 男子)” and in “nǚzǐ (nǚ·zǐ female · person [→ [woman]] 女子)”, “子” is written in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) with a third tone, and is used to mean “person”.

Avoiding Unnecessary Divisions

One of the things that the above-mentioned video touches on is that we should not let the matter of beards become a cause for division among God’s people. In the Mandarin field, it may be that some hesitate to use or speak of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), out of concern about causing real or perceived division, since many Mandarin field publishers are still accustomed to the traditional primacy of Chinese characters in worldly Chinese culture. Of course, we should avoid using or speaking about Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) in situations and ways that would truly lead to unnecessary division among Jehovah’s people—every situation is different, and we must try our best to be motivated by Christian love and to use discernment and sound judgment in every situation.

Also, let me emphasize that I, on this blog or anywhere else, do not presume to be giving authoritative spiritual direction to any of God’s people—that is the privilege and responsibility of the slave class. (Matthew 24:45–47) Rather, like any publisher who gives talks, gives comments, or just discusses various subjects both technical and spiritual with fellow believers, I seek to share what I have learned from my studies and my experience, that hopefully can be helpful to fellow workers in Jehovah’s service.

Beards vs. Writing Systems

One thing I notice is that while the Bible and the organization have specifically commented on and provided direction for God’s people living in different time periods concerning beards, it seems that neither the Bible nor the organization has specifically commented on or provided direction about any particular writing system like Chinese characters or Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). (Note, though, that the organization’s actions may have done some speaking of their own—over time, overall, the organization has gradually been making available more and more official material that contains Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).)

As far as I know and can recall, one of the only scriptures in the Bible from which we can gain some insight about writing systems is 1 Corinthians 14:8–11:

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

This scripture speaks about the primary importance of understandable speech when it comes to how Christian ministers should use language, while not bothering to even mention writing systems. This reflects well the reality that linguists are familiar with, that because of the way that Jehovah created us humans to use language, speech is primary, and writing is secondary, if anything. Indeed, many, many languages don’t even have a writing system! And yet, as Revelation 14:6 shows us, this does not stop the preaching of the good news in any of these tongues, that is, spoken languages:

And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people.

(Interestingly, while it mentions “every…tongue”, or spoken language, this scripture doesn’t bother to mention writing systems either.)

So, while the prevailing worldly Chinese culture may tell us that Chinese characters are awesome and that we should all primarily focus on learning them, the Bible and the organization consider beards more worthy of mention than writing systems like Chinese characters. One thing that the above-mentioned video points out as something to avoid is “contradicting the guidance from the organization”, and it’s not difficult to avoid this with regard to, say, Chinese writing systems when there is no guidance from the organization about this subject (unless one has a tendency to, say, carry on as if there has been guidance from the organization to focus on Chinese characters when, actually, as far as I am aware, there has not been any such guidance, and what writing system to use remains a personal decision).

At the same time, though, if we focus on the inhumanly and unnecessarily numerous and complex Chinese characters so much that our abilities to understand spoken Mandarin and to speak Mandarin understandably remain seriously underdeveloped, then we would obviously not be following the counsel at 1 Corinthians 14:8–11 about the need to prioritize and use understandable speech in our ministry.

Traditions and Divisions

It is evident, then, that if any publisher were to make a fuss in support of the Chinese characters writing system or opposing or ridiculing the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) writing system, that publisher would be doing so because of some mixture of personal opinion/ignorance, human tradition, and cultural pride, not because of any scriptural basis or direction from the organization. And, as we should know, the Bible and the organization DO have a lot to say about the importance of NOT doing things because of things like personal opinion/ignorance, human tradition, and cultural pride. Such things can certainly cause unnecessary division among God’s people, since our unity as God’s people comes, not from together following human traditions and ways of doing things, but from together following direction from the Bible and from God’s organization. Let us, then, follow the actual direction from the Bible and from God’s organization so that we can build each other up spiritually, and so that we can really do the best we can to help praise and glorify Jehovah—not any human culture—and accomplish well the great work that he has given us to do in these last days.

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Names Science Technology

Yànwén

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

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

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

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

“…By Any Other Name”

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

Official names

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

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

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

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

Other names

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

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

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

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

An Exceptionally Phonetic Writing System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hangul of Mandarin?

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

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

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

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

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

Your Own Personal Hangul for Mandarin?

However, while that may be the situation with the proud worldly nation of China, what about each of us Mandarn field language learners, as individuals who are dedicated to Jehovah God and not to any worldly human culture? Especially if we don’t live in China, under the authority of the current government of China, we are free to choose for ourselves to use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a full writing system for Mandarin and thus be fully empowered by its simplicity and elegance to serve Jehovah better, as long as we don’t allow ourselves to be shackled by mere human tradition, or by peer pressure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn

yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn ((yì one 一)‐(xiāng side’s 厢 廂)‐(qíng·yuàn feelings’; sentiments’; emotions’; sensibilities’ · {being willing/ready; wanting → [hope; wish; desire]} 情愿 情願) → [one-sided wish; one’s own wishful thinking]) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Notes: Tap/click on a Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to reveal its “flashcard”; tap/click on a “flashcard” or its Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to hide the “flashcard”. 📖 📄 📘 icons mean 📖 Reveal All, 📄 Reveal Advanced, and 📘 Reveal None re all the “flashcards” in the heading, paragraph, etc. that they are placed at the beginning of.]

The Shēngmìng Láizì Chuàngzào Ma? ((Shēngmìng Life 生命) (Lái·zì Came · From 来自 來自) (Chuàng·zào Initiating · {Making, Creating} → [Creating] 创造 創造) (Ma [? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)? → [Was Life Created? (lc)]) (Was Life Created? (lc)) brochure and the Shēngmìng de Qǐyuán—Zhíde Sīkǎo de Wǔ Ge Wèntí ((Shēngmìng Life 生命) (de ’s 的) (Qǐ·yuán {Rising → [Starting]} · Source → [Origin] 起源/原)—(Zhí·de Worth · Getting → [Worth] 值得) (Sī·kǎo {Thinking About} · Examining 思考) (de ’s 的) (Wǔ Five 五) (Ge [mw] 个 個/个) (Wèn·tí Asking · Subjects → [Questions] 问题 問題) → [The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking (lf)]) (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking (lf)) brochure were originally published back in 2010, but recently, the English version of the Was Life Created? brochure was updated to the December 2022 Printing, and the Mandarin version of it was updated to the February 2023 Printing. Also, the Was Life Created? brochure and the Origin of Life brochure are now in the Teaching Toolbox section in the JW Library app. So, it would be good to consider some of the expressions used in the Mandarin versions of these publications that can be so helpful when discussing whether life was created.

Wishful Thinking

This week’s MEotW, “yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn ((yì one 一)‐(xiāng side’s 厢 廂)‐(qíng·yuàn feelings’; sentiments’; emotions’; sensibilities’ · {being willing/ready; wanting → [hope; wish; desire]} 情愿 情願) → [one-sided wish; one’s own wishful thinking])”, appears in paragraph 8 of the section of the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure entitled “Evolution​—Myths and Facts”:

English:

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea.

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

📖 📄 📘 20 shìjì (shì·jì generation · era → [century] 世纪 世紀) 30 niándài (nián·dài years · {replacing’s → [generation’s] → [period’s]} → [decade’s] 年代) mò (end → [last/final stage] 末), kēxuéjiā (kē·xué·jiā {{branches of study} · learning → [science]} · -ists → [scientists] 科学家 科學家) yǒu (had 有) ge ([mw] 个 個/个) yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn ((yì one 一)‐(xiāng side’s 厢 廂)‐(qíng·yuàn sentiments’ · {wanting → [hope]} 情愿 情願) → [one’s own wishful thinking]) de (’s 的) xiǎngfa (xiǎng·fa thinking · way 想法).

The English Was Life Created? brochure just says that some scientists in the late 1930’s were enthusiastic about the new idea that they had, that human-guided mutations could efficiently produce new species of plants. Interestingly, the Mandarin translation of this sentence is, shall we say, a little less neutral, coming right out and saying that this idea was one-sided wishful thinking, with no connection to the truth.

“One”—Multiple Pronunciations and Hyphenations

The first morpheme in “yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn ((yì one 一)‐(xiāng side’s 厢 廂)‐(qíng·yuàn feelings’; sentiments’; emotions’; sensibilities’ · {being willing/ready; wanting → [hope; wish; desire]} 情愿 情願) → [one-sided wish; one’s own wishful thinking])” is good old “yì (one 一)” (“one”), which is one of the first Mandarin words that any student of Mandarin learns. Here, it’s written with the tone mark for fourth tone, which is how “yī (one 一)” is usually pronounced when it occurs right before a syllable that does not have a fourth tone. This is an example of 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.

In line with what’s said above, note also that for easier decipherability, “yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn ((yì one 一)‐(xiāng side’s 厢 廂)‐(qíng·yuàn feelings’; sentiments’; emotions’; sensibilities’ · {being willing/ready; wanting → [hope; wish; desire]} 情愿 情願) → [one-sided wish; one’s own wishful thinking])” is written with hyphens between the words, which is different from how idioms have traditionally been hyphenated in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).

Digging into the Past, Wishes

As for the next morpheme in “yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn ((yì one 一)‐(xiāng side’s 厢 廂)‐(qíng·yuàn feelings’; sentiments’; emotions’; sensibilities’ · {being willing/ready; wanting → [hope; wish; desire]} 情愿 情願) → [one-sided wish; one’s own wishful thinking])”, dictionaries say that while “xiāng (side [→ [wing of a house; side room | railway compartment | theatre box] 厢 廂)” has meanings like “wing of a house” or “railway compartment”, it also has a traditional or dated meaning of “side”. This reminds us that like English, Mandarin has a long enough history that some of its words don’t mean the same as they used to, and sometimes, we need to dig a bit into the past to understand how an expression’s meanings came to “work” together.

The final word in “yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn ((yì one 一)‐(xiāng side’s 厢 廂)‐(qíng·yuàn feelings’; sentiments’; emotions’; sensibilities’ · {being willing/ready; wanting → [hope; wish; desire]} 情愿 情願) → [one-sided wish; one’s own wishful thinking])” is made up of the “qíng (feeling; affection; sentiment; emotion; sensibility [→ [love; passion | favour; kindness | reason; sense]] | situation; circumstances; condition 情)” in “gǎnqíng (gǎn·qíng feeling · sentiment; emotion 感情)” and the “yuàn ({being willing/ready; wanting} [→ [hoping; wishing; desiring | hope; wish; desire]] | {[is] honest; sincere} | {vow (n)} 愿 願)” in “yuànwàng (yuàn·wàng {wanting → [hope; wish; desire]} · {gazing (into the distance [at]) → [hoping; expecting; looking forward to]} [→ [aspiration]] 愿望 願望)”. The resulting word “qíngyuàn (qíng·yuàn feelings’; sentiments’; emotions’; sensibilities’ · {being willing/ready for; wanting [→ [hope; wish; desire]]} [→ [being willing to; preferring]] 情愿 情願)”, in the context of “yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn ((yì one 一)‐(xiāng side’s 厢 廂)‐(qíng·yuàn feelings’; sentiments’; emotions’; sensibilities’ · {being willing/ready; wanting → [hope; wish; desire]} 情愿 情願) → [one-sided wish; one’s own wishful thinking])”, means something like “the hope/wish of one’s sentiments”. Thus, the words in “yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn ((yì one 一)‐(xiāng side’s 厢 廂)‐(qíng·yuàn feelings’; sentiments’; emotions’; sensibilities’ · {being willing/ready; wanting → [hope; wish; desire]} 情愿 情願) → [one-sided wish; one’s own wishful thinking])” together end up meaning something like “one side’s sentiments’ hope/wish”, or, effectively, “one-sided wish; one’s own wishful thinking”.

Who Are Actually the Ones Believing in Fairy Tales?

Those who support evolution sometimes like to portray supporters of creation as naïve believers in unscientific fairy tales. However, because of their personal desires to not be beholden to a Creator, some supporters of evolution may be the ones who tend to just believe what they want to believe in spite of actual scientific evidence to the contrary. The Was Life Created? brochure points out that actual scientific evidence shows that the assertion that mutation can result in new species of plants or animals is just a myth, and so, as the Mandarin version of that brochure says, it turns out that the scientists who embraced this idea—and by extension, those who followed their lead—were indulging in “yì‐xiāng‐qíngyuàn ((yì one 一)‐(xiāng side’s 厢 廂)‐(qíng·yuàn feelings’; sentiments’; emotions’; sensibilities’ · {being willing/ready; wanting → [hope; wish; desire]} 情愿 情願) → [one-sided wish; one’s own wishful thinking])”, one-sided wishful thinking that’s disconnected from reality.

For convenience:

The direct link for the current generation Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resource for the Was Life Created? brochure is:

The short link for Chinese field language-learning links for the Was Life Created? brochure is:

More Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web material based on the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure will be made available in the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web resource as time allows. Work is now underway to produce a Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web resource for the Mandarin Origin of Life brochure as well.