Tag: Morphology

Categories
Current Events

qiāngjī àn

qiāngjī (qiāng·jī gun · striking → [shooting] 枪击 槍擊) àn ({long, narrow table or desk} → [incident] 案) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcards”

Gun violence is unfortunately still all over the news media. As of this writing, jw.org is featuring the article “School Shootings—What Does the Bible Say?”. The Mandarin version of this article uses the expression “qiāngjī (qiāng·jī gun · striking → [shooting] 枪击 槍擊) àn ({long, narrow table or desk} → [incident] 案)”, this week’s MEotW, to correspond with the English expression “shooting”. (“Xiàoyuán (Xiào·yuán school · {garden → [area for special purposes]} → [school grounds] 校园 校園) qiāngjī (qiāng·jī gun · striking → [shooting] 枪击 槍擊) àn ({long, narrow table or desk} → [incident] 案)” is used to specifically correspond with “school shooting”.)

What’s on the Table?

Interestingly, the literal meaning of “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” is “long, narrow table or desk”. (In fact, the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, says that “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” has a meaning, from archaeology, of “rectangular stand for supporting wine vessels”.) At the same time, “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” is also used to effectively mean “case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal”.

This may be because a table or desk is often used to hold certain things related to a specific set of information or a specific area of concern. For example, “bureau”, which means “desk”, is used in “Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)”, the name of the American federal government agency that is focused on domestic (internal to the USA) intelligence and security, while the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is focused on foreign intelligence.

Perhaps unexpectedly, “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” appears in the word “dá’àn (dá’·àn answering; replying · {long, narrow table or desk → [set of information]} → [answer; reply; solution] 答案)”, which effectively means “answer; reply; solution”. In “dá’àn (dá’·àn answering; replying · {long, narrow table or desk → [set of information]} → [answer; reply; solution] 答案)”, “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” apparently literally refers to a table or desk which holds a set of information that provides an answer or reply.

As shown in the MEotW post on “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)”, “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” also appears in “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)”, an official name for Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).

Easier to Decipher

Sometimes “qiāngjī (qiāng·jī gun · striking → [shooting] 枪击 槍擊) àn ({long, narrow table or desk} → [incident] 案)” is rendered as a single word. However, this blog and other Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources render such expressions as two separate words, to make them easier to decipher and read. The following excerpt from the MEotW post on “Liánhé Guó ((Lián·hé United · {Closed → [Joined]} 联合 聯合) (Guó Nations 国 國) → [United Nations])” explains further:

Avoiding Mental Indigestion

Another thing that may be noted about the rendering “Liánhé Guó ((Lián·hé United · {Closed → [Joined]} 联合 聯合) (Guó Nations 国 國) → [United Nations])” is that it has a space between “Liánhé (Lián·hé United · {Closed → [Joined]} 联合 聯合)” and “Guó (Nations 国 國)”, whereas this expression is often rendered as the single word “Liánhéguó (Lián·hé·guó United · {Closed → [Joined]} · Nations → [United Nations] 联合国 聯合國)”. In this blog and in other resources that contain Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material, such added spaces are included in certain expressions so that they are easier to parse (mentally digest and separate into meaningful parts) and read.

Regarding differing Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) renderings, the MEotW post for “diǎnliàng (diǎn·liàng {dot → [light (v); ignite]} · {to be bright} [→ [illuminate; shine light on]] 点亮 點亮)” said:

Regarding standards and conventions, even officially recommended ones, for things like language and writing, views and practices vary in different places, and at different times.

When it comes to Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), another factor to keep in mind is that due primarily to cultural prejudice, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) has simply not been used much overall, relatively speaking, especially as a full writing system on its own. So, it has not really gone through much of the process of receiving the widely agreed upon tweaks and refinements that a system typically receives as it gets tried out and put to extensive use by many people.

As a relatively “young” alphabetical writing system, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) can often benefit from following the example of a more “experienced” alphabetical writing system like the English writing system. It seems reasonable to conclude that this is the case with “Liánhé Guó ((Lián·hé United · {Closed → [Joined]} 联合 聯合) (Guó Nations 国 國) → [United Nations])” following the word separation example of “United Nations”. In contrast, “Liánhéguó (Lián·hé·guó United · {Closed → [Joined]} · Nations → [United Nations] 联合国 聯合國)” is kind of like “Unitednations”—significantly harder to decipher and read.

The above-mentioned MEotW post concludes:

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} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources will continue to seek to render Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) in ways that maximize how clearly, easily, effectively, and appropriately it communicates with readers.

Indeed, “qiāngjī (qiāng·jī gun · striking → [shooting] 枪击 槍擊) àn ({long, narrow table or desk} → [incident] 案)” is easier to decipher and read as two separate words, similarly to how “shooting incident” is easier to decipher and read than “shootingincident”.

Categories
Culture Current Events History

wēijī

wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

As of this writing, jw.org is featuring the article “Ukraine War Fuels Global Food Crisis”. The Mandarin version of this article uses “quánqiú (quán·qiú entire · globe → [global] 全球) liángshi (liáng·shi {grain → [food]} · {eating (matter) → [food]} → [food] 粮食 糧食) wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)” to correspond with “global food crisis”.

The previous use on jw.org of “nànmín (nàn·mín calamity · {persons of a certain occupation} → [refugees] 难民 難民) cháo (tide → [(social) upsurge] 潮)” to correspond with “refugee crisis” (as discussed in a past MEotW post) makes for an interesting contrast—the use here of “cháo (tide → [(social) upsurge] 潮)”, literally meaning “tide”, is relatively specific, whereas “wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)” is more generally used to correspond with “crisis”.

The “Danger + Opportunity” Trope

“Wēijī (Wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)” has unfortunately been used—or misused—by Westerners so much to refer to positive opportunity in the midst of danger that there is a whole Wikipedia article on that.

Other articles have been written on this subject as well, such as the following:

Are All Opportunities Good?

It seems that the crux of the issue is the morpheme “jī ({machine; mechanism [→ [airplane; aircraft | being organic]]} | {incipient moment; crucial point} | chance; opportunity; occasion 机 機/机)” in “wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)”, and how it does or doesn’t relate to the English word “opportunity”.

The English word “opportunity” is often defined as a situation that is favourable or allowing for progress. Naturally, people love progress and things that are favourable, so many naturally want to believe that “opportunity” being a possible meaning of the “jī ({machine; mechanism [→ [airplane; aircraft | being organic]]} | {incipient moment; crucial point} | chance; opportunity; occasion 机 機/机)” in “wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)” means that they can find some favourable things for themselves in any crisis, because “the Chinese say so”.

It should be noted, though, that technically, an opportunity is not necessarily always a positive thing. One dictionary in fact defines an “opportunity” as “a time or set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something”, and not all possibilities are positive—it depends on who or what a possibility is for.

Possibilities

Speaking of possibilities, both “wēi (danger | dangerous | endanger 危)” and “jī ({machine; mechanism [→ [airplane; aircraft | being organic]]} | {incipient moment; crucial point} | chance; opportunity; occasion 机 機/机)” (but especially “jī ({machine; mechanism [→ [airplane; aircraft | being organic]]} | {incipient moment; crucial point} | chance; opportunity; occasion 机 機/机)”) are polysemous, that is, having many possible related meanings—they are sort of like linguistic Schrödinger’s cats that could be in several possible states until sufficient context collapses the possibilities into one (or perhaps, still, a few).

How do the possibilities collapse when “wēi (danger | dangerous | endanger 危)” and “jī ({machine; mechanism [→ [airplane; aircraft | being organic]]} | {incipient moment; crucial point} | chance; opportunity; occasion 机 機/机)” are put together as “wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)” and then used in typical contexts? Since “wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)” is a Mandarin word, the most important context to consider is that of the Mandarin language itself.

How does “wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)” work as a word in the Mandarin language? For what it’s worth, my sense, influenced by decades of translating Mandarin words into English, is that “wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)”, as used in Mandarin, should be understood to primarily mean an incipient moment, or even opportunity, for danger itself, not for a Western or other opportunist who tries to make the situation about himself/herself. That is to say, with a Mandarin wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機), the focus is primarily on how in the situation referred to, dangerous things could happen. As Prof. Mair says in his essay mentioned above:

If one wishes to wax philosophical about the jī of wēijī, one might elaborate upon it as the dynamic of a situation’s unfolding, when many elements are at play. In this sense, jī is neutral. This jī can either turn out for better or for worse, but — when coupled with wēi — the possibility of a highly undesirable outcome (whether in life, disease, finance, or war) is uppermost in the mind of the person who invokes this potent term.

Even the seemingly unrelated meaning for “jī ({machine; mechanism [→ [airplane; aircraft | being organic]]} | {incipient moment; crucial point} | chance; opportunity; occasion 机 機/机)” of “machine” or “mechanism” may be (somewhat, at least) connected to the concept of “opportunity”, since, as the tech lovers among us know, machines and mechanisms make possible things that were not possible before, opening up opportunities for good or bad things to happen, depending on who or what uses them, and how. Also, in an abstract way, a situation can be likened to a machine or mechanism with which certain inputs can cause certain things to happen. With “wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)”, the input of concern is danger.

Responding Well to Crises

It is true, though, that how we respond to the potential dangers of an actual wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機), an actual crisis, can determine whether we end up better off or worse off. For example, the recent daily text for June 3, 2022 discussed 2 Corinthians 12:10, in which the apostle Paul said he ‘took pleasure’ in various crises as opportunities to exercise reliance on “the power of the Christ” rather than on his own relative insignificant power. (2 Corinthians 12:9) Thus, he would become truly powerful. As shown by a cross reference in the New World Translation Study Bible, related to this is what Paul wrote in Philippians 4:13:

“For all things I have the strength through the one who gives me power.”

So, while the Mandarin expression “quánqiú (quán·qiú entire · globe → [global] 全球) liángshi (liáng·shi {grain → [food]} · {eating (matter) → [food]} → [food] 粮食 糧食) wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機)” directly refers to potential dangers relating to global food availability, a quánqiú (quán·qiú entire · globe → [global] 全球) liángshi (liáng·shi {grain → [food]} · {eating (matter) → [food]} → [food] 粮食 糧食) wēijī (wēi·jī {dangerous | endangering} · {incipient moment; crucial point | occasion} | {(for) danger} · occasion; opportunity → [crisis] 危机 危機) also provides opportunity for us to exercise reliance on Jehovah and his King, Jesus, as the apostle Paul did. Additionally, it may give us opportunities to share the good news of God’s Kingdom with people who are receptive to it, as it becomes more and more evident that only God’s Kingdom can truly bring an end to such crises.

Categories
Current Events

xǐshǒu

xǐshǒu (xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Note: Tap/click on a Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to reveal its “flashcard”, tap/click on a “flashcard” or its Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to hide the “flashcard”.]

As of this writing, nearing the middle of the year 2022, the subject of the COVID-19 pandemic has been, to say the least, on people’s minds now for a while. So, it would be good to be able to refer to things related to it in Mandarin when speaking to people in the Mandarin field, or when speaking to our brothers and sisters in the truth.

electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2—also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19

An electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2—also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19
Creative Commons Attribution License logo NIAID

This week’s MEotW, “xǐshǒu (xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手)”, literally means “wash hands”, something that has taken on even more importance than before after the COVID-19-causing coronavirus got added to the list of disease-causing things that washing our hands can help protect us from.

“Xǐshǒu (Xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手)” can also effectively mean “go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom”. Indeed, “xǐshǒu jiān ((xǐ·shǒu washing · hands 洗手) (jiān {space in between} → [room] 间 間) → [washroom; lavatory; toilet; restroom])” is a commonly used Mandarin expression which literally means “washing hands space in between”, and which effectively means “washroom; lavatory; toilet; restroom”.

Verb-Object Construction

“Xǐshǒu (Xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手)”, with the verb “xǐ (wash; bathe; rinse 洗)” (“wash”) and its object “shǒu (hand | personally | [→ [mw for skill]] 手)” (“hands”), is an example of a Mandarin expression with verb-object construction.

The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, tells us the following about the entries in it that are marked as having verb-object construction:

V.O. (Verb-Object Construction, Dòng-Bīn Jiégòu 动宾结构).

Many English verbs get translated into natural Chinese as a verb plus an object noun, e.g. chīfàn for ‘eat’, shuōhuà for ‘speak’, etc. It is important for two reasons to know what is merely a verb in Chinese and what is actually a verb-object construction.

First, verb-object constructions can never take a second object, i.e. chīfàn can never be followed directly by something else to be eaten.

Second, a verb and its object can be separated from one another, thus allowing

(i) aspect particles to be placed directly after the verb, e.g. chīle fàn ‘after finishing eating’;

(ii) modification of the object, e.g. chī Zhōngguófàn ‘eat Chinese food’; and (iii) quantification of the noun, e.g. chīle sān wǎn fàn ‘ate three bowls of rice’.

One Word? Not Two Words?

While “wash hands” is two words in the English writing system, the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) writing system typically renders “xǐshǒu (xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手)” as one word. The MEotW post on “Jìniàn Jùhuì ((Jì·niàn Remembering · {Thinking Of} → [Commemorating] 记/纪念 記/紀念) (Jùhuì Meeting 聚会 聚會) → [[the] Memorial])” (including a recently added comment there) went into some reasons why it can be good for the relatively “young” Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) writing system to at times emulate the relatively “experienced” English writing system, but in cases like the relatively digestible two-syllable “xǐshǒu (xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手)”, there is little practical reason relating to readability to impose English word separation conventions.

On the other hand, while “xǐshǒu jiān ((xǐ·shǒu washing · hands 洗手) (jiān {space in between} → [room] 间 間) → [washroom; lavatory; toilet; restroom])” is generally rendered in the world as one three-syllable word, this blog and other Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources will generally render such expressions as two separate words, to make them easier to read. This is similar to how in English, “changeroom” is a single two-syllable word, but “changing room” is separated into two words, rather than being rendered as the single three-syllable word “changingroom”.

“Melting” Away the Pounds Viruses

While researching the subject of washing hands in this age of COVID-19, I found the following interesting information:

…soap — all sorts of it: liquid, solid, honeysuckle-scented, the versions inexplicably only marketed to men or women — is…even more routinely effective than hand sanitizer. …

That’s because when you wash your hands with soap and water, you’re not just wiping viruses off your hands and sending them down the drain. You’re actually annihilating the viruses, rendering them harmless. Soap “is almost like a demolition team breaking down a building and taking all the bricks away,” says Palli Thordarson, a chemistry professor at the University of New South Wales…

…coronaviruses are…bits of genetic information — encoded by RNA — surrounded by a coat of fat and protein. Thordarson likes to call viruses “nano-sized grease balls.” And grease balls, no matter the size, are the exact type of thing soap loves to annihilate.

…

The soap takes care of the virus much like it takes care of the oil in the water. “It’s almost like a crowbar; it starts to pull all the things apart,” Thordarson says.

One side of the soap molecule (the one that’s attracted to fat and repelled by water) buries its way into the virus’s fat and protein shell. Fortunately, the chemical bonds holding the virus together aren’t very strong, so this intrusion is enough to break the virus’s coat. “You pull the virus apart, you make it soluble in water, and it disintegrates,” he says.

Then the harmless shards of virus get flushed down the drain. And even if it the soap doesn’t destroy every virus, you’ll still rid them from your hands with soap and water, as well as any grease or dirt they may be clinging to.

So, while technically soap and water disintegrates and dissolves coronaviruses, if a coronavirus subjected to soap and water could talk, it might say, “I’m melting!”