Tag: Pīnyin Was Plan A

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, 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 problems 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.

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

zìdà

zìdà (zì·dà {(consider) self} · {to be big → [to be great]} 自大) 👈🏼 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).

How Do We View Ourselves?

This week’s MEotW, “zìdà (zì·dà {(consider) self} · {to be big → [to be great]} 自大)”, is used in verse 4 (WOL) of 1 Corinthians 13:

Screenshot of “_zìdà_” 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),

The individual morphemes in “zìdà (zì·dà {(consider) self} · {to be big → [to be great]} 自大)”, which are relatively simple and well-known, literally mean “self” and “big”. When these morphemes are put together in “zìdà (zì·dà {(consider) self} · {to be big → [to be great]} 自大)”, the resulting expression effectively means “(consider) self to be great”, corresponding, in 1 Corinthians 13:4 in the current English and Mandarin versions of the New World Translation Bible, with the English expression “puffed up”.

A Nation That Calls Itself “Central Nation”

As discussed in the MEotW post on “Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China | Chinese] 中国 中國)”, “the people of China have long viewed their nation as central to the world that they knew, or cared most about, to the point that ‘China was the only culture to use the concept for its name’ ”:

The English translation of Zhongyuan as the “Middle Kingdom” entered European languages through the Portuguese in the 16th century and became popular in the mid-19th century. By the mid-20th century, the term was thoroughly entrenched in the English language, reflecting the Western view of China as the inward-looking Middle Kingdom, or more accurately, the Central Kingdom or Central State. Endymion Wilkinson points out that the Chinese were not unique in thinking of their country as central, although China was the only culture to use the concept for its name.[source]

This cultural trait is such a thing that there are several words and concepts related to it, including “Sinocentrism”.

While many worldly Chinese people think nothing of calling their nation “Central Nation”, or think that this is only natural considering China’s history, many cultures consider calling oneself the centre of the world to be puffed up, overly and offputtingly self-important. As a Chinese person, I find this proud, self-centred aspect of worldly Chinese culture to be regrettable. Note that this characteristic should not be taken as a stereotype to be applied to all individual Chinese people, since each individual is different. However, it does tell us something about part of the true nature of worldly Chinese culture.

The Mark of B Players and Bozos

When it comes to writing systems, the zìdà (zì·dà {(consider) selves} · {to be big → [to be great]} 自大) attitudes of many people in China unfortunately motivated them to act as B players, as described by Steve Jobs. The MEotW post on “gāo’ào (gāo’·ào {[is] (considering self to be of) high (status)} · {[is] proud; haughty; arrogant} 高傲)” discusses this:

The below quote was recently added to the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A”:

This tendency of many to prioritize their own pride and position over what’s really better for everyone is also described in this quote from Guy Kawasaki about something he learned from Steve Jobs:

A players hire A+ players. Actually, Steve believed that A players hire A players—that is people who are as good as they are. I refined this slightly—my theory is that A players hire people even better than themselves. It’s clear, though, that B players hire C players so they can feel superior to them, and C players hire D players. If you start hiring B players, expect what Steve called “the bozo explosion” to happen in your organization.

Yes, Pīnyīn was Plan A, but China unfortunately let the proud, self-serving B players have their way.

Note that what makes someone a B player or worse is not necessarily that person’s level of intelligence, skill, talent, etc. What characterizes B players or worse is their proud, self-serving rejection of others who are better in some way, their need to feel superior to others.

Yes, rather than embracing Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as the way forward for the benefit of all, as it deserves to be embraced based on its technical merits, many worldly Chinese people showed a zìdà (zì·dà {(consider) selves} · {to be big → [to be great]} 自大) attitude and stuck with the characters that they had personally invested heavily in, and that brought them status and glory in the status quo.

Jesus Loves Those Who Are Humble Like Children

At Luke 22:25, 26, Jesus himself explained what it takes for one to be viewed by him and his Father as a truly great A player, and not an inferior B player:

But he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. You, though, are not to be that way. But let the one who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the one taking the lead as the one ministering.

Also, Luke 9:46–48 says this about Jesus:

Then a dispute arose among them about which one of them was the greatest. Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a young child, stood him beside him, and said to them: “Whoever receives this young child on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me also receives the One who sent me. For the one who conducts himself as a lesser one among all of you is the one who is great.”

Chinese character chauvinists often say that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is for children. Well, according to Jesus’ words above, that would be fine with him, even if that were true! When this matter is examined in the light of first principles of linguistics (language science), though, it becomes obvious that it’s categorically not true that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is just for children—Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) works fine for people of all ages as a full writing system for Modern Standard Mandarin, including its most complex and advanced expressions. So, anything that can be spoken and understood in Modern Standard Mandarin can be written and understood in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), regardless of the ages of those involved.

As Mandarin field language learners who are dedicated to, and who glorify, the true God Jehovah, let us not unthinkingly adopt the thinking and attitudes of proud, self-centred, self-glorifying worldly people, regardless of what human nation they come from. Remember, we are here in the Mandarin field, not to be gullible, unquestioningly admiring tourists (email me for login information, and include information on who referred you and/or what group/cong. you are in), but to be missionaries and spiritual rescue workers in this world that Jehovah God views as a spiritual disaster area.