Tag: Pīnyīn Is a Good, Workable Writing System on Its Own

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning

xiǎnyǎn bāo

xiǎnyǎn bāo ((xiǎn·yǎn {appears; shows; displays; manifests; {[is] obvious; evident; clear; apparent; noticeable} (to)} · eye → [conspicuous; showy; eye-catching; glamorous] 显眼 顯/顕眼) (bāo wrapping → [bun (food)] 包) → [attention-seeker; goofball; one who stands out from the crowd to get attention]) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

With 2023 having just recently receded into history, it’s a good time to check out collections of some of the top Mandarin slang expressions used during 2023. A couple of articles that I found that discuss some of these expressions are:

The only expression that appears on both of these lists is “xiǎnyǎn bāo ((xiǎn·yǎn {appears; shows; displays; manifests; {[is] obvious; evident; clear; apparent; noticeable} (to)} · eye → [conspicuous; showy; eye-catching; glamorous] 显眼 顯/顕眼) (bāo wrapping → [bun (food)] 包) → [attention-seeker; goofball; one who stands out from the crowd to get attention])”, this week’s MEotW.

Its Constituent Morphemes

The first morpheme in this expression is “xiǎn (appear; show; display; manifest; {[is] obvious; evident; clear; apparent; noticeable [→ [[is] illustrious; powerful; influential]} 显 顯/顕)”, which here means “appears; shows; displays; manifests; [is] obvious/evident/clear/apparent/noticeable (to)”. Some other expressions that include this morpheme are:

  • míngxiǎn (míng·xiǎn {[is] clear; distinct} · {[is] obvious; evident; clear; apparent; noticeable} → [[is] clear; obvious; evident; distinct; manifest] 明显 明顯)
  • xiǎnrán (xiǎn·rán {[is] evident; obvious; clear}·ly 显然 顯然)
  • xiǎnshì (xiǎn·shì {to be evident/obvious} · show 显示 顯示)

When “xiǎn (appear; show; display; manifest; {[is] obvious; evident; clear; apparent; noticeable [→ [[is] illustrious; powerful; influential]} 显 顯/顕)” is put together with “yǎn (eye 眼)”, which means “eye”, the resulting expression “xiǎnyǎn (xiǎn·yǎn {appears; shows; displays; manifests; {[is] obvious; evident; clear; apparent; noticeable} (to)} · eye → [conspicuous; showy; eye-catching; glamorous] 显眼 顯/顕眼)” effectively means “conspicuous; showy; eye-catching; glamorous”.

The last morpheme of this expression, “bāo (wrapping [→ [including; containing | assuring; guaranteeing | bundle; package; pack; packet; parcel | bag; sack | bun (food)]] 包)”, literally means “to wrap”, but one of its effective meanings is “bun”, that is, a bun that’s food, as opposed to, say, a hair bun. Some other expressions that include this morpheme are:

  • bāokuò (bāo·kuò wrap · {draw together} → [include; consist of; comprise; incorporate] 包括)
  • miànbāo (miàn·bāo {[wheat] flour} · {wrapping [→ [bun]]} → [bread] 面包 麵包)
  • bāozi (bāo·zi {wrapping → [bun]} · [suf for nouns] → [steamed stuffed bun] 包子)

It’s evident that “bāo (wrapping [→ [including; containing | assuring; guaranteeing | bundle; package; pack; packet; parcel | bag; sack | bun (food)]] 包)”, with its meaning of “bun”, is used as a term of endearment in “xiǎnyǎn bāo ((xiǎn·yǎn {appears; shows; displays; manifests; {[is] obvious; evident; clear; apparent; noticeable} (to)} · eye → [conspicuous; showy; eye-catching; glamorous] 显眼 顯/顕眼) (bāo wrapping → [bun (food)] 包) → [attention-seeker; goofball; one who stands out from the crowd to get attention])”.

As a Whole

What are the constituent morphemes of “xiǎnyǎn bāo ((xiǎn·yǎn {appears; shows; displays; manifests; {[is] obvious; evident; clear; apparent; noticeable} (to)} · eye → [conspicuous; showy; eye-catching; glamorous] 显眼 顯/顕眼) (bāo wrapping → [bun (food)] 包) → [attention-seeker; goofball; one who stands out from the crowd to get attention])” being used to mean when they’re put together in this expression? The article in The World of Chinese that’s mentioned above says:

One type of dazi [shallow friend] many prefer these days is the 显眼包 (xiǎnyǎnbāo), or goofball. The term refers to people who stand out from the crowd and constantly seek attention. Although once considered a neutral term, it has gained a positive connotation recently, as many appreciate their vibrant energy in an often ultra-competitive society.

As for the article in Sixth Tone that’s mentioned above, it says this regarding this expression as a whole:

显眼包

Class Clown

Literally meaning “eye-catching,” 显眼包 (xiǎn yǎn bāo) and its variations appear in a number of Chinese dialects. The term became widespread online after Guo Beibei — a phenomenally popular internet celebrity who later lost her account for violating short video platform Kuaishou’s rules on “vulgar” content — began using it to describe herself. Now, it’s become a byword for attention-seekers, goofballs, and anyone who is willing to get weird for a like.

[Regarding the person mentioned in the above quote, I found an article about her on the website of The China Project. The article says that she has many fans who are homosexuals, although it does not mention whether she herself is homosexual. For what it’s worth, I remember that a sister who grew up in San Francisco (which famously has a significant homosexual population) once commented that she has observed that many homosexuals are quite self-centred. Perhaps that contributes to such ones liking standing out and getting attention.]

Good and Bad Ways to Stand Out

The world—which we know is ruled behind the scenes by Satan the Devil—has its celebrity culture, and it has an attention economy. (1 John 5:19) In contrast, in 1 Thessalonians 4:11, the apostle Paul gave Christians this advice:

Make it your aim to live quietly and to mind your own business

So, generally, Christians should not seek to stand out or get attention for themselves. Sometimes, though, true Christians naturally stand out because of being no part of Satan’s world, e.g., when avoiding celebrating holidays with pagan roots, or when refusing to participate in politics or war. More positively, in a world permeated by Satan’s spirit, Christians may also naturally stand out because of reflecting God’s spirit, applying God’s principles, and sticking to God’s standards. As Jesus, said, his true disciples should ‘let their light shine’.—Matthew 5:16.

Standing out because of not following human conventions and traditions is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, it’s sometimes necessary, and exactly the right thing to do, with Jesus himself setting the perfect example by his not following the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees of his day, which went beyond God’s requirements. However, actually going beyond God’s standards and requirements, as Satan, the demons, Adam and Eve, the Pharisees, and others who show a similar spirit have done, is indeed bad. So, it’s vitally important for us to cultivate the wisdom to be able to tell the difference.

Standing Out in the Mandarin Field

Comparing the two articles linked to above, I noticed that the The World of Chinese article renders Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) in a much better way than the Sixth Tone article does—the The World of Chinese article properly treats Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a separate, alternate full writing system with spaces between whole words rather than between every syllable, while the Sixth Tone article just treats Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) like a mere pronunciation aid for the characters. Still, in a Language Log blog post of his own, Prof. Victor H. Mair made the following interesting comment regarding the expressions presented in the Sixth Tone article:

Three of the ten items either feature roman letters or consist entirely of English. Remember what Mark Hansell said years ago about roman letters becoming a part of the Chinese writing system:

Mark Hansell, “The Sino-Alphabet: The Assimilation of Roman Letters into the Chinese Writing System,” Sino-Platonic Papers, 45 (May, 1994), 1-28 (pdf)

Roman letters certainly stand out among Chinese characters.

As for characters themselves, one of the possible meanings of “xiǎnyǎn (xiǎn·yǎn {appears; shows; displays; manifests; {[is] obvious; evident; clear; apparent; noticeable} (to)} · eye → [conspicuous; showy; eye-catching; glamorous] 显眼 顯/顕眼)” is “glamorous”, and Chinese characters are considered glamorous by some. With their eye-catching visual designs, they are by nature—and probably by design—xiǎnyǎn (xiǎn·yǎn {noticeable (to)} · eye → [glamorous] 显眼 顯/顕眼), as are idols and images used in idolatrous worship.

In the Mandarin field, is it going too far to use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) at times instead of always using characters? Is that being too xiǎnyǎn (xiǎn·yǎn {noticeable (to)} · eye → [conspicuous] 显眼 顯/顕眼) in a world where so many people use and promote characters? Should we just go along to get along? Well, as has been discussed on this blog and elsewhere, Chinese characters are from humans, not from God, and thus the traditions surrounding characters are no more binding on God’s true servants today than the traditions of the Pharisees were on Jesus, and I hope none of us would have told Jesus to “go along to get along”! (As I recall, the apostle Peter tried to tell Jesus something similar once, and Jesus, um, didn’t respond positively.) So, it is fine to take advantage of the practical benefits of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) when you can to help you serve God more effectively, and to just use characters when you have to.

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 Current Events History Language Learning Science Technology

xuānchuán

xuānchuán (xuān·chuán declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] 宣传 宣傳) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Several MEotW posts, including last week’s post on “cì’ěr (cì’·ěr {stabs; pricks → [irritates; pierces]} · ear → [grating on the ear; jarring; ear-piercing] 刺耳)”, have mentioned propaganda. So, it seems that it’s about time to consider the Mandarin expression “xuānchuán (xuān·chuán declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] 宣传 宣傳)”, which is often used to translate “propaganda”.

Morphemic Breakdown

The “xuān (declare; proclaim; announce 宣)” in “xuānchuán (xuān·chuán declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] 宣传 宣傳)” means “declare; proclaim; announce”, and it also appears in expressions like “xuānbù (xuān·bù declare; proclaim; announce · declare; spread; announce; publish; proclaim 宣布 宣布/佈)”, “xuānjiǎng (xuān·jiǎng declare; proclaim; announce · {speak of → [explain]} 宣讲 宣講)”, “xuānyáng (xuān·yáng declare; proclaim; announce · {raise → [make known]} 宣扬 宣揚)”, etc.

The “chuán ({pass on}; {hand down}; spread; transmit [→ [summon]] 传 傳)” in “xuānchuán (xuān·chuán declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] 宣传 宣傳)” means “pass on; hand down; spread; transmit”, and it also appears in expressions like “chuándào (chuán·dào spreading · way → [preaching] 传道 傳道)”, “Chuándàoshū (Chuán·dào·shū Spreading · Way · Book → [Ecclesiastes] 传道书 傳道書)”, “chuánjiǎng (chuán·jiǎng spread · {speak of; say; tell} [(that)] 传讲 傳講)”, “chuántǒng (chuán·tǒng {passed on} · {gathered together (things) → [interconnected system]} → [tradition | traditional] 传统 傳統)”, etc.

The above-mentioned morphemes in “xuānchuán (xuān·chuán declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] 宣传 宣傳)” are both basically verbs, and “xuānchuán (xuān·chuán declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] 宣传 宣傳)” itself is also basically a verb. However, it’s also used as a noun, making it a verbal noun, or a gerundial noun, in those cases.

How Bad Is It?

As mentioned in the excellent Referenced Theo. Expressions (RTE) resource, “it seems 宣传 [xuānchuán] is a neutral word in Chinese (can be either positive or negative)”. Indeed, the morphemes that make up “xuānchuán (xuān·chuán declaring; proclaiming; announcing · {passing on}; spreading; transmitting → [conducting propaganda; propagating; disseminating; publicizing | propaganda] 宣传 宣傳)”, mentioned above, are themselves both morally neutral. Like any technology, whether the things that these morphemes represent result in good or harm depends on how they are used. Unfortunately, we are now living in the last days of a world ruled by Satan the Devil, a world filled with self-seeking people who totally would misuse anything that would potentially enable them to exert influence over other people.—2 Timothy 3:1–5; 1 John 5:19.

It should not be surprising, then, that the worldly Chinese governing authorities may at times disseminate what many would recognize as propaganda—biased, misleading distortions of the truth meant to promote certain viewpoints, political or cultural objectives, etc. Add to that how Eastern culture generally encourages people to conform to the group and not question authority, and it’s not surprising that many who grew up marinated in Chinese culture have come to just accept such propaganda as fact, as just the way things are in the Chinese world.

As for the West, even though it has more of a culture of questioning authority, it, along with the world in general that the Internet can reach, has been experiencing a rise in misinformation and disinformation. Social media and other technologies that have become available have given people more power to select what information they want to take in, and, egged on by engagement-seeking algorithms, many have unfortunately chosen to just focus on information sources that tell them what they want to hear, whether it’s true or not. As the Bible foretold long ago:

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.
—2 Timothy 4:3, 4.

As Jehovah’s people, we especially need to be wary of any worldly propaganda, because we want to be the true worshippers spoken of by Jesus, ones who “must worship with spirit and truth”.—John 4:23, 24.

Unfortunately, these days, even something as basically human as language gets politicized, so even just being language learners in the Mandarin field, we still need to watch out for worldly propaganda. Below are a couple of commonly accepted beliefs about the Chinese languages that are actually propaganda, not truth.

Propaganda About “Dialects”

“Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. are just dialects of the one Chinese language.” The truth is that being mutually unintelligible, Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. are really different languages, like French and English are different languages. The erroneous belief that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. are just dialects of the one Chinese language has been promoted by the worldly central governing authorities in China to bolster the idea that China is indeed one big happy political entity that should have a central government—them.

Historically, though, it wasn’t always the case that there was just one government over the land that China now occupies. That didn’t become the case until Qín Shǐhuáng ((Qín {Qin (dynasty)} 秦) (Shǐ·huáng Beginning · Emperor 始皇) (the founder of the Qín dynasty and the first emperor of China)) conquered the other Warring States—which were peers of his own state of Qín ({Qin (one of the Warring States)} 秦)—and became the first emperor of a forcefully unified China. If it wasn’t for this, China could conceivably have become like modern-day Europe, with several peer states which are recognized as having their own distinct languages and cultures.

So, there is no need to allow the idea that Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. are just dialects to sabotage our efforts to learn Mandarin well by making us think that we can just take Cantonese, etc. and twist it a little to get Mandarin—all we would get then is a twisted mess!

Propaganda and the Characters

“Chinese characters are the primary aspect of the Chinese languages.” The truth is that when it comes to human language, speech is primary, not writing.

However, given how so many people around the world are so enchanted with the visually intricate Chinese characters, some may feel that the characters give China a certain amount of cultural—and maybe even political—soft power. Many also feel that characters have a unifying effect on Chinese people, since they use characters to write even if they speak different Chinese languages, as explained above. Thus, many may also feel that there may be some political advantages to characters for China’s worldly central ruling authorities. So, they may thus be motivated to promote Chinese characters over, say, a system like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) that doesn’t have the same perceived visual and cultural pizzaz that the characters have, and that is only for Mandarin.

The truth is, though, that there is really no technical requirement for any language, Chinese or otherwise, to be written using Chinese characters—Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) works fine as a writing system for Mandarin without incurring the extraordinary costs in time and effort that the characters do, and separate but similar alphabetical systems can conceivably be designed and used for other Chinese languages as well.

Re the supposed unifying effect of the Chinese characters, there is not necessarily really much of a unifying effect among the Mandarin-speakers, Cantonese-speakers, Japanese-speakers, Korean-speakers, etc. who may use characters to write, any more than the use of the Latin alphabet unifies English-speakers, French-speakers, Italian-speakers, Mandarin-speakers, etc. who may use it to write. An especially stark current example of the relative insignificance of any unifying effect that a script or writing system may have is that unfortunately, Russia and Ukraine have hardly been unified because of their both using the Cyrillic script.

We who are Jehovah’s people in particular don’t need a product of human culture like the Chinese characters to unite us—we are united by the culture of spirit and truth from Jehovah God himself!—John 4:23, 24.

Don’t Be a Gullible “Tourist”!

As Jehovah’s people, let us make sure we are advancing the interests of God’s Kingdom, and not unwittingly serving the interests of worldly Chinese governments. As missionaries and rescue workers in the Mandarin field, and not just tourists (email me for login information, and include information on who referred you and/or what group/cong. you are in), let us be focused on what really helps us to do our God-honouring and life-saving work better. Let us not be misled by the self-serving xuānchuán (xuān·chuán declaring · spreading → [propaganda] 宣传 宣傳), the propaganda, from Satan’s world.