Tag: Linguistics

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

yǔxì

yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This is a reposting of a post that was originally posted on February 8, 2021. It discusses the important basic issue of how Mandarin should be classified as a language, a subject about which much political and cultural propaganda has unfortunately been spread.]

[A past] MEotW post mentioned that English and Spanish are generally considered by modern linguists to be in the Indo-European language family. This concept of a language family is used in modern linguistic genealogical (or genetic) language classification:

A language family is a group of languages related through descent from a common ancestral language or parental language, called the proto-language of that family. The term “family” reflects the tree model of language origination in historical linguistics, which makes use of a metaphor comparing languages to people in a biological family tree…Linguists therefore describe the daughter languages within a language family as being genetically related.[source]

The Mandarin Translation

As confirmed by American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair in his article “The Classification of Sinitic Languages: What Is ‘Chinese’?” (p. 747), an accepted and acceptable Mandarin translation for “language family” is “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)”, this week’s MEotW.

The “yǔ (language; speech | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say 语 語)” in “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)” means “language”, particularly, the speech of a language, which modern linguists (language scientists) recognize to be the primary aspect of a language.

“Xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)”, as used in “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)”, literally means “tied [(things)]”, and effectively means “system”, “series”, or “family”. Note that in this usage, the character “系” is the same in both simplified and traditional forms. Looking up the character “系” in the dictionary can get tricky, because the simplified character “系” can correspond to the traditional characters “系”, “係”, and also “繫”, all of which have different, though sometimes related, meanings. This is an example of the complexities and vagaries of characters in general, and of how simplified and traditional characters relate to each other, as mentioned in the MEotW post on “jiǎntǐ (jiǎn·tǐ simplified · {body → [style] → [typeface; font]} → [simplified Chinese] 简体 簡體) zì (characters 字)”.

BTW, an interesting other usage of “xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)” is in “Yín Hé ((Yín Silver 银 銀) (Hé River 河) → [Milky Way]) Xì ({Tied (Things)} → [System] → [Galaxy] 系)”, in which “xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)” effectively means “galaxy”.

Pinwheel Galaxy

The Pinwheel Galaxy, another kind of xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)

The Mandarin Connection Is…Complicated

We have discussed that English and Spanish are generally considered by modern linguists to be in different groups in the Indo-European language family. How about Mandarin? What is Mandarin’s place in its language family tree?

Unfortunately, the answer to this seemingly simple question is complicated, by at least two major factors.

One complicating factor is that scientific genetic (or genealogical) language classification itself is not a fully worked out thing. The Encyclopædia Britannica put it this way:

So far, most of the languages of the world have been grouped only tentatively into families, and many of the classificatory schemes that have been proposed will no doubt be radically revised as further progress is made.

Another complicating factor was mentioned in the MEotW post on “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”:

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

Yes, there is an excess of politics and its propaganda when it comes to the language situation in China, perhaps resulting in a relative dearth of actual scientific research into that situation. Additionally, pervasive political and cultural pressures tend to induce unscientific distortions and self-censorship in whatever research does get done. In his article mentioned above (p. 749), Prof. Mair describes the situation this way:

The contentious, non-scientific nature of the debate over the SLG/F [Sinitic (Chinese) Language Group/Family] is manifest in the circumlocutions used to designate its constituent members: “speech forms,” “varieties,” “styles,” “regionalects,” “dialects” (no matter how far up or down the taxonomic scale one may go), and so forth. At the same time, scholars openly admit that the main reasons why they do not use normal linguistic terminology (family, group, branch, language, dialect) in dealing with the SLG/F are due to sociopolitical and cultural factors. The fallacy of such a bizarre approach is evident when one considers that all nations have special sociopolitical and cultural circumstances, yet an impartial analytical outlook does not allow such circumstances to interfere with pure linguistic research.

The Mandarin Connection—A Common View

In view of the complications mentioned above, what can be said at this time about Mandarin’s place in its language family tree?

At this time, it seems to be traditionally accepted that there is a Sino-Tibetan language family, and that Mandarin is a language (some would unscientifically say “dialect”) in the Sinitic branch of this language family.

It should be noted, however, that even the Wikipedia article on the Sino-Tibetan language family says that there is not yet convincing evidence that the Sino- and Tibetan parts of this hypothetical language family are actually connected in the way that would justify considering them to be together in the same language family:

Several low-level subgroups have been securely reconstructed, but reconstruction of a proto-language for the family as a whole is still at an early stage, so the higher-level structure of Sino-Tibetan remains unclear. Although the family is traditionally presented as divided into Sinitic (i.e. Chinese) and Tibeto-Burman branches, a common origin of the non-Sinitic languages has never been demonstrated.

The Mandarin Connection—Prof. Mair’s View

From my research so far, I have come to consider Prof. Mair, mentioned above, to be the most knowledgeable and trustworthy living authority I know of on the language situation in China.1 The following are some points he made in a relatively recent article, mentioned above, on how Sinitic (Chinese) languages like Mandarin should be classified:

If efforts to link Sinitic with other major language groups continue to be as unconvincing as they have been to date, it may well be that Sinitic will end up being classified as a family unto itself. Because it remains to be determined whether Sinitic is a group or a family, I provisionally style it the Sinitic Language Group/Family (SLG/F). (p. 737)

Cantonese and Mandarin are separate languages. Cantonese is not a ‘dialect’ of Mandarin or of Hanyu, and it is grossly erroneous to refer to it as such. Since Cantonese and Mandarin are separate languages (or, perhaps more accurately, separate branches), it is wrong to refer to them as ‘dialects.’ The same holds for Hokkien, Shanghainese, and so forth. (p. 737)

I…remain agnostic [non-committal] about whether the SLG/F is actually a family unto itself or whether it is more or less closely linked to some other group(s)─such as Tibeto-Burman or Austronesian─in a family (p. 745)

The scientific classification of languages should not be held hostage to extra-linguistic political and cultural prejudices. (p. 746)

In the scientific classification of modern Sinitic languages, as much as possible, data should be drawn from the strikingly different spoken varieties, not from standard written forms. Writing is a second-order linguistic phenomenon. Since most speakers of Sinitic throughout prehistory and history have been illiterate, the nonessentiality of writing for the existence of the SLG/F is self-evident. (pp. 746–747)

The classification of the SLG/F, both internally and externally, is still in the beginning stages; much difficult work remains to be done. (p. 750)

‘Chinese’, ‘dialect’, and other terms in broad popular usage should be employed with extreme caution in technical discussions of the countless varieties of speech forms that currently exist and that have existed at various periods and places during the past in the East Asian Heartland (EAH) and Extended East Asian Heartland (EEAH) (p. 750)

There is an urgent need for the classification of the SLG/F, but this cannot be accomplished satisfactorily without precise, linguistically justifiable terminology. (p. 751)

The people of China have a right to conceive and speak of the languages of their country however they wish; linguists of the world have a duty to study the languages of China according to universal principles. If linguists abandon their scientific duty, the current chaos and lack of consensus concerning the nature of Sinitic will continue, much to the detriment of our understanding not only of the languages of China, but to linguistics as a whole. (p. 751)

Be Wary of What You May Hear About Mandarin

So, as we seek to learn Mandarin, let us keep in mind that while others—including well-meaning ones who are sincerely sharing what they themselves learned—may tell us certain things about Mandarin and how it relates to other varieties of speech, some of what they tell us may not be scientifically verified truth. More research needs to be done in some areas. Also, unfortunately, we need to be wary of the abundant political and cultural propaganda that has been spread about Mandarin and about the language situation in China in general.

1. American linguist, sinologist, author of Chinese language textbooks, lexicographer of Chinese dictionaries, and Professor Emeritus of Chinese Studies at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa John DeFrancis was also an exceptionally knowledgeable and trustworthy authority on the language situation in China. Sadly, he passed away in 2009. He did leave behind many excellent writings, though. I highly recommend his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1984). ^

Categories
Culture Experiences Language Learning Technology Theocratic

mángwén

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

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

Braille in the Land of Characters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, What About Homophones?!

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Culture Current Events Experiences History Language Learning Science Technology

zìmǎn

zìmǎn (zì·mǎn self · {full → [satisfied]} → [complacent; self-satisfied; smug] 自满 自滿) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

As a Chinese person who grew up in a Western country, and who came to serve in Chinese language fields, I sometimes pondered a question that I eventually learned is called the Needham Question:

“Needham’s Grand Question”, also known as “The Needham Question”, is this: why had China been overtaken by the West in science and technology, despite their earlier successes? In Needham’s words,

“Why did modern science, the mathematization of hypotheses about Nature, with all its implications for advanced technology, take its meteoric rise only in the West at the time of Galileo?”, and why it “had not developed in Chinese civilization” which, in the previous many centuries “was much more efficient than occidental in applying” natural knowledge to practical needs.[source][source]

Indeed, China long ago gave us the Four Great Inventions (the compass, gunpowder, papermaking, and printing), so why did it stop inventing such great things, and leave it to the West to invent digital computers, go to the moon first, etc.?

The Wikipedia page linked to above, and also this page that I found on the web, mention many possible factors that scholars have proposed relating to the Needham Question. It may be said that since this question focuses on scientific and technological progress in the context of human political and cultural systems, it is not quite the number one question that we Mandarin field language learners need to be concerned with. However, gaining some understanding of factors relating to this question can help us develop a balanced view of how and how much we should allow traditional Chinese political and cultural views to influence how we apply science and technology to our God-honouring and life-saving work in the Mandarin field. At the very least, the very fact that many have pondered the Needham Question over the years demonstrates that no, worldly Chinese culture is not so perfect and accomplished that we should just unquestioningly adopt worldly Chinese ways of doing things in the Mandarin field.

While the web pages linked to above discuss many sociological, cultural, technical, etc. factors that may have played a role in how China developed, or failed to develop, scientifically and technologically compared to the West, going over this information brought to mind some principles mentioned in the Bible.

“By Their Fruits”

Regarding what really matters in our lives and in our work, Jesus said this at Matthew 7:16–18:

By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit.

I remember in years past seeing ads for job openings that required candidates to be “results-oriented”. When I saw such ads, I would wonder, “Why bother saying that? Isn’t every worker of course supposed to be results-oriented?” It turns out that actually, many people are more focused on appearing to be working, on procedures for their own sake, on climbing the corporate ladder, on office politics, etc., than on actually doing the work and getting results.

What Jesus said in the above-quoted scripture emphasizes to us that in our lives and in our work as his disciples, we should be focused on producing “fine fruit”, getting good results for Jehovah, not just on unthinkingly following whatever traditions or procedures we inherited from the worldly human culture we grew up with. Also, we should not be focused on appearing to others who also grew up with such traditions, procedures, and ways of doing things that we are following them, so as to get “glory from men”.—John 5:39–44.

“Pride Is Before a Crash”

As someone who has studied and worked with technology for decades, one thing I have observed regarding the march of changing computing technologies—e.g., impressive IBM mainframes being eclipsed by “toy” personal computers running Microsoft and Apple operating systems, Microsoft’s then-CEO ridiculing the iPhone when it came out, Microsoft prioritizing its Windows legacy and becoming largely irrelevant in the mobile and tablet spaces, etc.—is that the Bible principle at Proverbs 16:18 holds true:

Pride is before a crash,
And a haughty spirit before stumbling.

This basic factor of the progress-limiting effects of being proud and self-satisfied is well expressed in this week’s MEotW, “zìmǎn (zì·mǎn self · {full → [satisfied]} → [complacent; self-satisfied; smug] 自满 自滿)”. As is often discussed on this blog, in the Mandarin field, one area in which progress-limiting pride and self-satisfaction play huge roles is the attitude of many towards the archaic, cumbersome human-invented technology that is the Chinese characters. And yes, a writing system like the Chinese characters is indeed a technology:

[Writing] really is a technology. It’s a thing you do on top of language to do stuff with language, but it’s not the language itself. There are thousands and possibly millions of languages that have never been written down in the history of humanity. We have no idea. We’ve never met a society of humans, or heard of a society of humans, without language. But those are spoken and signed languages, which are just kind of there. Writing, by contrast, was invented somewhere between 3 and 4 times in the history of humanity.

Since writing systems like the Chinese characters are technologies, we should expect writing systems to change and progress like other technologies do, no matter how proud and self-satisfied some people are when it comes to traditional, long-established writing systems like the Chinese characters.

If we generally no longer use punched cards to control computers because we now have keyboards, mice, trackpads, touchscreens, etc., then why use the archaic Chinese characters when the more modern simple and elegant Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) system is available? Is “‘everyone’ still uses Chinese characters” really a good reason? What if “everyone” still used punched cards? What would you do, as someone who knows about way better and easier-to-use alternatives?

Punched card used to load software into an old mainframe computer

Creative Commons Attribution License logo BinaryApe [source]

Chinese characters are the punched cards of writing systems. Punched cards were not totally impossible to use, but there are now much better and easier-to-use ways to control computers.

Of course, in situations in which we need to share information with people who still use computers controlled by punched cards, we would probably need to use punched cards, but how about other situations? Similarly, when producing publications for or writing to people who only read Chinese characters, we need to use Chinese characters, but how about other situations? For example, we Mandarin field language learners usually read and write Mandarin so that we ourselves can be helped to say something good in Mandarin at the right time. Can we make advantageous use of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) in such situations?

Avoid Unbalanced Admiration

Both Western and Eastern human worldly cultures have their strong points and successes, but they also both have their problematic aspects and failures. So, we should not oversimplify things and jump to the conclusion that either culture is all good or all bad. I myself have found it advantageous to have had the opportunity to be exposed to both Western and Eastern ways of doing things, and to be able to select useful aspects of both to apply in my own life and work. Yes, balanced appreciation of the possibly useful differences between East and West can be beneficial. However, especially since we have the privilege of being taught by Jehovah himself, we need to avoid unbalanced admiration of either Eastern or Western worldly human cultures. (Isaiah 54:13; John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 1:18–31) We Mandarin field language learners particularly need to avoid having what sinologist and linguist John DeFrancis called “Exotic East Syndrome”:

The belief that in the Orient things strange and mysterious replace the mundane truths applicable to the West.

Yes, spiritual and scientific truths remain true for China and Chinese people, such as the basic linguistic truth that speech is primary and writing is secondary.

Commendably, many Chinese individuals have shown themselves to be humble lovers of truth. Unfortunately, though, as I have studied the worldly Chinese culture, I have found that it is in many ways a proud, self-satisfied culture, as described by this week’s MEotW. As has been discussed before on this blog, China is the only nation that routinely calls itself the “Central Nation (Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China | Chinese] 中国 中國))”. Also, the whole concept of “losing/saving face” is based on the worldly Chinese concept of miànzi (miàn·zi face · [suf for nouns] [→ [reputation; prestige; esteem; honor]] 面子).

As for the worldly Chinese/Eastern cultural practice that “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down”, this really shows pride and self-satisfaction on a systemic or cultural level—while enforcing humility (humiliation?) among individuals, it shows that there is a proud and self-satisfied assumption that the system or culture overall is so good already that it is above being improved upon by “mere” individuals. Really, though, the only One who has demonstrated that he is truly at that level is Jehovah God himself, and the Bible shows that still, he is willing to invite individuals to provide their ideas and input, and to empower them to follow through on them. (1 Kings 22:19–23) Unlike many proud, self-satisfied humans and their systems and cultures, Jehovah has shown that he does not suffer from “not invented here” syndrome, the zìmǎn (zì·mǎn self · {full → [satisfied]} → [self-satisfied] 自满 自滿) belief that only he could possibly have a good idea or make or do something useful. This is so even though he himself is the Almighty Creator of the whole universe.

“Throw Off Every Weight”

Regarding the Needham Question, another Bible scripture that comes to mind for me is Hebrews 12:1, which says, in part:

Let us also throw off every weight…, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,

As is widely known, Chinese characters are a huge part of worldly Chinese culture, and with their inhuman number and complexity, they are also abnormally difficult for us imperfect humans to learn and remember. So, naturally, some wonder if Chinese characters have had the effect of weighing China down, or holding China back. In fact, as my article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A” says:

Concerning the obstacles presented by Chinese characters, the great Chinese writer Lǔ Xùn, who passed away in 1936, reportedly said, “Hànzì bú miè, Zhōngguó bì wáng.” (“汉字不灭，中国必亡。/ 漢字不滅，中國必亡。” “If Chinese characters are not abolished, China will certainly die.”)

Of course, since the time of Lǔ Xùn ((Lǔ {Stupid; Rash (surname)} 鲁 魯) (Xùn Fast; Quick; Swift 迅) (pen name of Zhōu Shùrén, the greatest Chinese writer of the 20th cent. and a strong advocate of alphabetic writing)), China has not died, but has instead gone on to much worldly success, so at least so far, it seems that Chinese characters are not quite fatal to China. However, even a rudimentary technical analysis, along with real-world phenomema like 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)‐zì (character 字) (character amnesia), makes it obvious that the extraordinary unnecessary complexities and vagaries of Chinese characters impose great costs and difficulties on those using them—who knows, if China had long ago moved on from the characters to use alphabetic writing, maybe it could have gotten to the moon first. True, some athletes purposely train while wearing additional weights, but the way traditional Chinese culture insists on pervasive use of the unnecessarily extraordinarily complex characters, it’s like requiring those athletes to actually run marathons, etc., for real while wearing heavy unnecessary weights.

In the Mandarin field, it seems quite possible that the unnecessary costs and difficulties imposed by characters could actually be fatal in some cases, barring extraordinary intervention from Jehovah God. As the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A” goes on to say:

True, with the simplification of the characters, the assistance of Pīnyīn, and the extra hard work put forth by the Chinese people to “tough out” the extra technical burdens presented by the characters, it now seems unlikely from a worldly viewpoint that the use of characters will cause the nation of China to die (although we know it will die at Armageddon, and its culture’s influence will eventually fade away completely after that). However, how sad it would be if many Chinese people died unnecessarily because the ongoing obstacles presented by Chinese characters hindered our efforts to reach their hearts with the life-saving message from God’s Word.

So, as Hebrews 12:1 says, let us Mandarin field language learners “throw off every weight”, and whenever possible, not allow the unnecessary heavy cultural baggage of the Chinese characters to weigh us down in our vital God-honouring and life-saving work. Even if Jehovah makes special arrangements to make sure that none of his Chinese sheep ultimately get left behind, what will he think of us if we fail to make every reasonable effort to avoid unnecessary difficulties as we do this life-saving work that he has assigned to us?—Ezekiel 3:17–19.