Tag: Pīnyīn

Categories
Culture Experiences History Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

jídù

jídù ({being jealous [of]}; envying 嫉妒) 👈🏼 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.]

I have long especially liked 1 Corinthians 13. It contains counsel on what really does and doesn’t matter in life, an extensive description and definition of the most important kind of love, and a sublime discussion about the need to become complete, mature, as a person. As these apply to life in general, so too do they apply to our lives as Mandarin field language learners.

As Mandarin field language learners, it can benefit us greatly to consider what we can learn from 1 Corinthians 13, and along the way, we can also consider some of the Mandarin expressions used in that chapter in the current version of the Mandarin New World Translation Bible (nwtsty).

Two Ways About It

This week’s MEotW, “jídù ({being jealous [of]}; envying 嫉妒)”, is used in verse 4 (WOL) of 1 Corinthians 13:

Screenshot of “_jídù_” in 1 Co. 13:4 (nwtsty, CHS+_Pīnyīn_ WOL)

(Dark mode for the Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (WOL) website, as shown in the above image, can be enabled in the Safari web browser by using the Noir Safari extension. Other web browsers may also have extensions with similar functionality.)

For comparison, here are the current English and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus renderings of 1 Corinthians 13:4:

English:

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up,

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

📖 📄 📘 Ài (love 爱 愛), yǒu (has 有) nàixīn (nài·xīn {being (of/with) enduring} · heart → [patience] 耐心), yòu (also 又) réncí (rén·cí {is kind} 仁慈). Ài (love 爱 愛), bù (not 不) jídù ({is jealous} 嫉妒), bù (not 不) chuīxū (chuī·xū {does puff → [does brag]} · {does sigh → [does praise]} → [does brag] 吹嘘 吹噓), bú (not 不) zìdà (zì·dà {(does consider) self} · {to be big → [to be great]} 自大),

Both of the morphemes in “jídù ({being jealous [of]}; envying 嫉妒)” mean “be jealous of” or “envy”. Interestingly, these morphemes can be reversed to produce “dùjí ({being jealous [of]}; envying 妒嫉)”, which means the same thing as “jídù ({being jealous [of]}; envying 嫉妒)”. In this respect, these expressions are like “fǎlǜ (law 法律)” and “lǜfǎ (law 律法)”. The MEotW post on “fǎlǜ (law 法律)” had this to say about this situation:

But, Why?

If “lǜfǎ (law 律法)” and “fǎlǜ (law 法律)” both mean basically the same thing, why did the world’s Mandarin-speaking population bother to switch the order of “lǜ (law; statute; rule; regulation 律)” and “fǎ (law | method; way; mode | standard; model | {magic arts} | {follow; model after} 法)” in popular usage? Who knows? Appendix A2 of the Mandarin NWT Bible, probably wisely, does not get into the why of it, just mentioning that “fǎlǜ (law 法律)” is now the more common usage. Even if it turns out that there was a reason, it may not be what most would consider a good reason. Sometimes people are just weird, and, speaking as a Chinese person myself, that includes Chinese people—just look at some of the arbitrary ways in which Chinese characters have been designed, that have turned trying to figure out the pronunciations and meanings of unfamiliar Chinese characters into a guessing game.

Speaking of what’s commonplace or popular and why, I am reminded of this quote from William Goldman, who wrote the screenplay for The Princess Bride as well as the screenplays for several other successful, well-known movies:

Nobody knows anything…Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess

Regarding which Mandarin expression for “be jealous of” is better to use in the Mandarin field, in the Chinese Mandarin (Simplified) version of the Watchtower Online Library (WOL), searching yielded only 6 occurrences of “妒嫉” (“dùjí ({being jealous [of]}; envying 妒嫉)”), occurring between 1960 and 1974 and fitting on a single page, while there were multiple pages of results for “嫉妒” (“jídù ({being jealous [of]}; envying 嫉妒)”), including many occurrences in the current Mandarin New World Translation Study Bible (nwtsty). So, clearly, the organization now uses “jídù ({being jealous [of]}; envying 嫉妒)” regularly, and no longer uses “dùjí ({being jealous [of]}; envying 妒嫉)”.

No Way to Live, or Love

While there may be two ways of saying “being jealous” in Mandarin, being jealous is no way to live, or love. Regarding jealousy, the recent MEotW post on “shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step [→ [level; rank; grade; class]]} [→ [master/expert level (coll)]] 十级 十級)” said:

Speaking of being an expert, is that a bad thing? Some of those around us, perhaps out of insecurity or jealousy, may seek to “keep us in our place” if we get “uppity”, exhibit “pretensions of grandeur”, and actually try to be good at something, perhaps better at it than they are. (Matthew 13:54–58)…

However, God’s Word…encourages us to actually give Jehovah the best “sacrifice of praise” that we can. (Malachi 1:6–8; Hebrews 11:4; 13:15) So, ignore any insecure or jealous naysayers around you, and as Jesus said, “let your light shine” in the Mandarin field, even at shíjí (shí·jí ten · {(stair)step → [level]} → [expert level (coll)] 十级 十級) if you can, not to glorify yourself, but to glorify our heavenly Father Jehovah.—Matthew 5:16.

Also, the MEotW post on “guīju (guī·ju [([is] following)] {compasses; dividers → [rules; regulations]} · {carpenter’s squares → [rules; regulations]} → [[[is] following] rules; customs; established practices/standards | [[is] following] social etiquette; manners | [is] well-behaved; well-disciplined] 规矩 規矩)” contains the following:

“Strife and Jealousy”

In the New World Translation Bible in the Watchtower Online Library, one of the scriptures linked to 1 Corinthians 13:5 with regard to “indecently” is Romans 13:13:

Let us walk decently as in the daytime, not in wild parties and drunkenness, not in immoral intercourse and brazen conduct, not in strife and jealousy.

Note that among the things that God’s Word lists as being indecent, along with things like drunkenness and sexual immorality, are “strife and jealousy”.

If someone makes an issue of a Mandarin field language learner who, say, uses Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) instead of following tradition and exclusively focusing on characters, is that person not being like those who made an issue of Jesus healing on the Sabbath? Instead of being happy and joyful because of the good that Jesus was doing, those opposers of Jesus were jealous of how “the entire crowd began to rejoice at all the glorious things he did”. (Luke 13:17) Opposers of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) use today may similarly be jealous of how those who make good use of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) can accomplish much in Jehovah’s service without having to put the kind of blood, sweat, and tears into learning characters the traditional way that they did. In their tradition-loving eyes, breaking from tradition and using innovative and game-changingly effective new tools like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) may seem “indecent”, but in God’s eyes, it is the jealousy-motivated strife such ones cause over people doing good in his service that is truly indecent.

In God's organization, our unity is based on God's truth, not on human tradition.

[image or embed]

— tiandi, Links News (@tiandilinksnews.bsky.social) February 2, 2025 at 8:27 AM

Those who are motivated by true Christian love, as described in 1 Corinthians 13, would rejoice over how Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) helps Mandarin field language learners to bear witness to the truth more effectively, instead of considering it “cheating”, since love “rejoices with the truth”. (John 18:37; 1 Corinthians 13:6) Also, those who are motivated by true Christian love would not be jealous of how game-changing tools like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) help Mandarin field language learners to more easily get more done, since “love is not jealous”. (1 Corinthians 13:4)…

The Needs of the Many, the Needs of the One

Interestingly, the collectivism of worldly Chinese culture may tend to drive people to be jealous, to hold zero-sum beliefs (that one person’s gain must mean another person’s loss), and to “feel bad about themselves when their friends succeed”. In contrast, real Christian love and true empathy move people to “rejoice with those who rejoice”. (Romans 12:15) The MEotW post on “jítǐ zhǔyì ((jí·tǐ gathered; collected · {body [→ [style; form]]} → [collective] 集体 集體) (zhǔ·yì master · meaning → [-ism] 主义 主義) → [collectivism; community spirit])” touched on this:

Self-Identity and Balanced Self-Love

Self-identity is one thing that can particularly be a struggle for those raised in collectivistic societies, since the self is relatatively often neglected in such societies. It’s perhaps not surprising then, that, as mentioned above, in the relatively collectivistic Chinese societies, with their relative paucity, or scarcity, of more healthy ways to build and maintain self-identity, so many have such an unhealthy, obsessive attachment to Chinese characters, as something to desperately hang their neglected self-identities on.

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 Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

cōnghuì

cōnghuì (cōng·huì {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] intelligent; bright} → [[is] intelligent; bright; witty] 聪慧 聰慧) 👈🏼 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 relatively 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.

“There Is No Intelligent Creator”?

This week’s MEotW, which appears in the section of the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure entitled “Nǐ (You 你) Xiāngxìn (Xiāng·xìn It · {Do Believe} → [Do Believe] 相信) Shénme (Shén·me What · [suf] 什么 什/甚麼) Ne ([? ptcl] 呢)?” (“What Do You Believe?”), is “cōnghuì (cōng·huì {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] intelligent; bright} → [[is] intelligent; bright; witty] 聪慧 聰慧)”:

English:

Will you trust the claims of those who say that there is no intelligent Creator and that the Bible is unreliable? Or will you examine what the Bible actually says?

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

📖 📄 📘 Yǒuxiē (Yǒu·xiē {(there) are having → [(there) are]} · some 有些) rén (people 人) shuō (saying 说 說/説) méiyǒu (méi·yǒu (there) not · {is having → [is]} → [(there) does not exist] 没有 沒有) cōnghuì (cōng·huì {quick at hearing → [intelligent]} · intelligent → [intelligent] 聪慧 聰慧) de (’s 的) Zàowù‐Zhǔ ((Zào·wù Created · Things 造物)‐(Zhǔ Master 主) → [Creator]), Shèngjīng (Shèng·jīng (the) Holy · Scriptures → [the Bible] 圣经 聖經) yě (also 也) bù (not 不) kěkào (kě·kào {is able} · {to be leaned on → [to be relied on]} → [is reliable] 可靠), nǐ (you 你) xiāngxìn (xiāng·xìn them · {do believe} → [do believe] 相信) tāmen de ((tā·men him/her · [pl] → [them] 他们 他們) (de ’s 的) → [their]) huà (words 话 話) ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)? Háishi (Hái·shi {still more → [or]} · {is (it) that} 还是 還是) huì ((you) will 会 會) qīnzì (qīn·zì {in person} · self 亲自 親自) kànkan (kàn·kan {look at} · {look at} 看看) Shèngjīng (Shèng·jīng (the) Holy · Scriptures → [the Bible] 圣经 聖經) dàodǐ (dào·dǐ to · bottom → [in the final analysis] 到底) zěnme (zěn·me what · [suf] 怎么 怎麼/麽) shuō (says 说 說/説) ne ([? ptcl] 呢)?

As can be seen from the above quotes, the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure uses “cōnghuì (cōng·huì {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] intelligent; bright} → [[is] intelligent; bright; witty] 聪慧 聰慧)” to effectively mean “intelligent”. Related expressions include “cōngming (cōng·ming {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] bright → [[is] understanding]} 聪明 聰明)”, which has the same first morpheme as “cōnghuì (cōng·huì {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] intelligent; bright} → [[is] intelligent; bright; witty] 聪慧 聰慧)”, and “zhìhuì (zhì·huì wisdom · intelligence → [wisdom] 智慧)”, which has the same second morpheme.

Note that the first morpheme in “cōnghuì (cōng·huì {[is] quick at hearing → [[is] intelligent; bright; clever; sharp-witted]} · {[is] intelligent; bright} → [[is] intelligent; bright; witty] 聪慧 聰慧)” literally means “quick at hearing”. This may remind us of the scripture at James 1:19:

Know this, my beloved brothers: Everyone must be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger,

Brains and Brawn

These days, people in the world are making a big deal about what artificial intelligence can do, but in many ways, current artificial intelligence is not even as intelligent and sensible as an average human child, so of course it cannot compare with the original Divine Intelligence, the Almighty God Jehovah. Is madly pursuing artificial intelligence—that in many ways is not really that intelligent, that does not love humans back, and that could prove to be beyond humans’ ability to control—really an intelligent thing to be doing? Are the feverish efforts to develop ever more powerful artificial intelligence really about intelligence, or the blind pursuit of power?

Many in this world, including dictators (and wannabe dictators) and their supporters, certain varieties of technology enthusiasts, people intent on climbing the corporate ladder, etc., have shown that they simple-mindedly and hard-heartedly worship power above all else, and that they dismiss the value of intelligence (and also dismiss such vital things as love and justice as being inconsequential).

Regarding how many view knowledge and intelligence, famous science fiction writer and professor Isaac Asimov said this about a common attitude he observed in the USA:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Actually, though, in many situations, sufficient intelligence can make all the difference. What difference can intelligence make? I remember that when I watched the movie Jurassic Park (which is about dinosaurs that humans recreate, and that then prove to be beyond the humans’ ability to control), the time I found the predatory velociraptors most scary was not when they were using their teeth, claws, or speed, or otherwise showing how powerful they were. Rather, it was when one of them showed considerable intelligence and figured out how to turn a door handle to open the door that children it was chasing were hiding behind.

Yes, sufficient intelligence, or wisdom, can be the difference between whether something gets done—even something as simple as opening a door—and if it never gets done. This is so even if much power is involved, and it is so no matter how long random chance is allowed to “work” on it. Jehovah God’s creative wisdom and intelligence, in addition to his almighty power, are certainly evident all around us in the natural world, in things that could never have come into existence without them. As Psalm 104:24 and Jeremiah 10:12 say:

How many your works are, O Jehovah!
You have made all of them in wisdom.
The earth is full of what you have made.

He is the Maker of the earth by his power,
The One who established the productive land by his wisdom
And who stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

Working Hard and Working Smart

Speaking of intelligence, sometimes Mandarin learners who work smart by using Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) whenever they can are accused by Chinese character chauvinists (masochists?) of being unwilling to work hard. However, does working smart necessarily mean not working hard? The best results actually come from doing both—working hard and working smart—not just doing one or the other.

And really, are we not showing an anti-intelligence and anti-wisdom attitude if we oppose doing God’s work the easy way in order to support doing things the hard way, just for the sake of preserving human tradition? Do we want to be part of the “cult of ignorance”?

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.