Tag: Pīnyin Was Plan A

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.

Categories
Culture Experiences Language Learning Theocratic

jiàoyù

jiàoyù (jiào·yù teaching · educating [→ [education]] 教育) ← 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.]

At the time of this writing, jw.org was featuring the article “Can Education and Money Guarantee a Secure Future?”. Of interest to those of us in the Mandarin field, this article mentions the comments and experiences of several Asians. Where the English version of this article uses the word “education”, the Mandarin version uses this week’s MEotW, “jiàoyù (jiào·yù teaching · educating [→ [education]] 教育)”. (Since this article is from a relatively recent issue of The Watchtower, it provides the option to show Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).)

Related Expressions

The “jiào (teach | {teaching [→ [religion]]} | cause/ask 教)” in “jiàoyù (jiào·yù teaching · educating [→ [education]] 教育)” is a verb meaning “teach”. It also appears in past MEotW “jiàodǎo (jiào·dǎo teaching · {guiding [→ [instructing]]} 教导 教導)”, which means “teach” or “instruct”, and in “jiàoxun (teaching → [reprimanding | knowledge gained from an error; lesson; moral] 教训 教訓)”, which means “reprimanding” or “lesson”. (“Jiàoxun (teaching → [reprimanding | knowledge gained from an error; lesson; moral] 教训 教訓)” is also discussed in the MEotW post on “jiàodǎo (jiào·dǎo teaching · {guiding [→ [instructing]]} 教导 教導)”.) This “jiào (teach | {teaching [→ [religion]]} | cause/ask 教)” can also effectively mean “religion”, as it does in “Jīdū Jiào ((Jīdū Christ 基督) (Jiào Teaching → [Religion] 教) → [Christianity | Christian])” and in “Tiānzhǔ Jiào ((Tiān·zhǔ Heavenly · Lord → [Catholic] 天主) (Jiào Teaching → [Religion] 教) → [Catholicism])”.

The “yù ({give birth to} | rear; raise; {bring up}; cultivate | educating [→ [education]] 育)” in “jiàoyù (jiào·yù teaching · educating [→ [education]] 教育)” is a verb meaning “educate”. In other contexts, such as in the expressions “shēngyù ({giving [of] birth} [→ [fertility]] 生育)” and “yùzhǒng (yù·zhǒng {giving birth to} · breeds → [breeding] 育种 育種)”, it can mean “give birth to”.

Verbs or Nouns

While “jiàoyù (jiào·yù teaching · educating [→ [education]] 教育)” and its constituent morphemes are verbs, they can also be nouns. As the MEotW post for “jiàodǎo (jiào·dǎo teaching · {guiding [→ [instructing]]} 教导 教導)” explains:

One interesting thing to note about “jiàodǎo (jiào·dǎo teaching · {guiding [→ [instructing]]} 教导 教導)” (and about “jiàoxun (teaching → [reprimanding | knowledge gained from an error] 教训 教訓)”, for that matter) is that their component morphemes seem to basically be verbs. In certain contexts, however, they are used as nouns. An example of this being done in English is that “teach” and “teaching” are verbs (e.g. “Jesus was teaching the crowd.”), but in certain contexts, “teaching” is used as a noun (e.g. “The crowd was amazed at the teaching Jesus shared with them.”). When a word is used this way, it’s called a verbal noun, or a gerundial noun. Verbal nouns are quite common in Mandarin.

Usage Examples

Here are a couple of examples of “jiàoyù (jiào·yù teaching · educating [→ [education]] 教育)” in use, taken from the above-mentioned article:

English:

Can Education and Money Guarantee a Secure Future?

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Jiàoyù (Jiào·yù Teaching · Educating → [Education] 教育) hé ({(together) with} → [and] 和 和/龢) Cáifù (Cái·fù Wealth · {Being Wealthy} 财富 財富) Néng (Can 能) Dàigěi (Dài·gěi Bring · {to Give to} 带给 帶給) Rén (People 人) Měihǎo (Měi·hǎo Beautiful · Good 美好) de (’s 的) Wèilái (Wèi·lái (What) {Is Not Yet} · Come → [Future] 未来 未來) Ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)?

English:

Like Franklin, many have concluded that there is more to life than pursuing higher education and riches.

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Hěn (very 很) duō (many 多) rén (people 人) gēn (with 跟) Āfù (Franklin 阿富) yíyàng (yí·yàng {(of) one} · pattern → [the same] 一样 一樣), kànchū (kàn·chū see · out 看出) shēnghuó (shēng·huó life · living 生活) zhōng (within 中) yǒuxiē (yǒu·xiē {(there) are having → [(there) are]} · some 有些) shì (things 事) bǐ ({compared to} 比) zhuīqiú (zhuī·qiú pursuing · seeking 追求) gāoděng (gāo·děng high(er) · rank 高等) jiàoyù (jiào·yù teaching · educating → [education] 教育) hé ({(together) with} → [and] 和 和/龢) cáifù (cái·fù wealth · {being wealthy} 财富 財富) gèng (more 更) zhòngyào (zhòng·yào {being weighty} · {being important} 重要).

Education in the “Deep Things” of the World

In addition to the issues discussed in the above-mentioned article, the world’s higher education also tends to indoctrinate people in the “deep things” of this world that we know is ruled by Satan. Regarding these, chapter 10, paragraph 17 of the Revelation Climax book says:

Satan has other “deep things” today, such as complicated speculations and philosophies that flatter the intellect. In addition to permissive, immoral reasonings, these include spiritism and the theory of evolution. How does the all-wise Creator regard these “deep things”? The apostle Paul quotes him as saying: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise ones.” In contrast thereto, “the deep things of God” are simple, lucid, and heartwarming. Wise Christians shun the “deep things” of Satan’s sophisticated world. Remember, “the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever.”—1 Corinthians 1:19, Kingdom Interlinear; 2:10; 1 John 2:17.

Should Chinese characters be counted as being among the “deep things” of Satan’s world? Well, they do come from Satan’s world, and, as per the above quote’s description, they certainly are complicated, and many do seem to enjoy how they flatter the intellect. Also, if they are allowed to, they can serve Satan’s interests by greatly adding to the weighty difficulties faced by Mandarin field language learners. In this respect, Chinese characters are like all the human traditions surrounding the Sabbath that added unnecessary weighty burdens to those trying to serve God in Jesus’ time, except that instead of just affecting God’s people one day a week, characters make things much harder than necessary for Mandarin field language learners every single day.

The article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A” says the following about the attitude of many of those highly educated in Chinese characters towards the prospect of Chinese writing reform that would make things much easier for future language learners:

…as noted above, “opposition [to Chinese writing reform] ‘comes primarily from intellectuals, especially from high level intellectuals.’ ” Lǔ Xùn (鲁迅/魯迅, Lu Xun), considered by many to be the greatest Chinese writer of the twentieth century (he wrote “The True Story of Ah-Q”, “Diary of a Madman”, and “My Old Hometown”), had this to say about the matter:

In addition to the limitations of social status and economic means, our Chinese characters present another high threshold to the masses: their difficulty. If you don’t spend ten or so years on them, it’s not easy to cross this threshold alone. Those who cross over it are the scholar-officials, and these same scholar-officials do their utmost to make writing as difficult as possible because it makes them especially dignified, surpassing all other ordinary scholar-officials.

…

Chinese characters and the Chinese literary language are already difficult enough by their own nature. On top of that, the scholar-officials have purposely devised all of these additional difficulties that get added on. Such being the case, how could anyone hope that the masses would have any affinity for the Chinese writing system? But the scholar-officials precisely want it to be this way. If the characters were easy to recognize and everybody could master them, then they would not be dignified, and the scholar-officials would lose their dignity along with them.

Being more concerned about one’s own “dignity” than about what would greatly relieve the suffering of others certainly sounds to me like an attitude that’s characteristic of people of Satan’s world. Don’t let Satan’s world—including its well-meaning Mandarin language teachers—“educate” you (in other words, brainwash you) into having such an ungodly and unchristian attitude!

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science

jítǐ zhǔyì

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]) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Generally speaking, Western societies are considered to be relatively individualistic, while Eastern societies, like Chinese ones, are considered to be relatively collectivistic, emphasizing the collective, or group, over the individual. This week’s MEotW, “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])”, seems to be the main Mandarin expression referring to such collectivism. (The MEotW post on “kǒngbù huódòng ((kǒng·bù fearing · terror → [terrorist] 恐怖) (huó·dòng living · moving → [activities] 活动 活動) → [terrorism; terrorist activities])” contains a brief discussion about some other Mandarin -isms.)

Differences and Possible Causal Factors

While researching this post, I came across a scientific paper that has some interesting information about individualism and collectivism, including some information about measurable regional variations in collectivism that have been found across the Chinese mainland. Here is a quotation from it, regarding individualism and collectivism in general:

The distinction between individualism and collectivism captures important differences in how the relationship between self and others is constructed, as well as whether the individual or the group is understood as the basic unit of analysis (Cross et al., 2011; Hofstede, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2010; Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis, 1995). People living in individualistic cultural contexts (e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom) tend to pay more attention to the achievement of their own goals and their own uniqueness. They have clear boundaries with others and pursue well-being or life satisfaction by sharing feelings and achieving personal success. In contrast, people living in collectivistic cultural contexts (e.g., China, Japan, and Korea) tend to be more concerned about maintaining harmonious relations with in-group members, and the boundaries between themselves and these others are much less firm. This distinction is reflected in cognition, perception, memory, cultural products, and even brain function (Morling, 2016; Nisbett & Masuda, 2003; Oyserman et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2007). Many explanations for these differences have been proposed, including cultural heritage (Ma et al., 2016), modernity (Inglehart & Baker, 2000), climato-economic theory (Van de Vliert et al., 2013), the subsistence system (Uskul et al., 2008), the historical risk of infectious disease (Fincher et al., 2008), and geographic and relational mobility (Oishi, 2010).

Later in the paper, the authors divide China into four regions, and present a table listing some factors that may have contributed to the varying degrees of collectivism in those regions.

Triple-Line Framework of variations within China.

…

Table 1. Ecological Factor Differences Among the Four Regions.

Region I Region II Region III Region IV
Collectivism Lowest Lower Higher Highest
Climate Harsh Harsh Comfortable Comfortable
Water Less Enough Less Enough
Rainfall <400 mm 400–800 mm 400–800 mm >800 mm
Subsistence
system		 Herder Wheat or herder/wheat-blended Wheat Rice
Voluntary
settlement		 No Yes No No
Population
density		 Low Low High High

Pluses and Minuses

Collectivistic societies can have certain good aspects, as expressed by this example sentence from the entry for “xūntáo (xūn·táo {cure (meat/etc.) with smoke} · {mould (as with clay)} → [influence positively; nurture; edify; train] 熏陶 熏/薰陶)” in Pleco’s built-in dictionary:

Zài jítǐ zhǔyì jīngshén de xūntáo xià, háizimen hùxiāng guānxīn, hùxiāng bāngzhù. [Word division was edited.]

Nurtured in the spirit of collectivism, the children care for each other and help each other.

However, recently, some research has come out that shows that some negative ways of thinking, feeling, and acting are more likely to be displayed by those in collectivistic societies.

To clarify, here is a definition of “zero-sum” :

Of any system where all gains are offset by exactly equal losses.

So, a zero-sum game or system is one in which another must lose for one to win—no win-win situations. That means that if you hold zero-sum beliefs, as, according to the studies referred to in the above post, collectivists are more likely to do, then you will think that any goodness that’s enjoyed by someone else is goodness that’s no longer available to you.

Zero-sum thinking makes it difficult to have true empathy for others who are suffering, and it makes it difficult to follow the Bible counsel at Romans 12:15:

Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep.

Collectivism and the Obsession with Chinese Characters

It seems, then, that there is a connection between collectivism and China’s obsessive refusal so far to move on from Chinese characters to more reasonable and modern writing systems like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). Consider this excerpt from my article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A”:

In addition to those who feel that phasing out the Hànzì [Chinese characters] would be a regrettable cultural loss, I have also noticed that there are some for whom knowledge of Hànzì is a matter of pride and self-identity. They are proud of knowing the Hànzì as they do, and they view their knowledge of the Hànzì as part of what makes them who they are, as something that distinguishes them from those who don’t know the Hànzì. Such ones may defend the Hànzì to the point of irrationality in the face of a more accessible alternative that would make them and their hard-earned knowledge of Hànzì less “special”, that would threaten to render worthless all of the blood, sweat, and tears they have invested into grappling with these “Chinese puzzles”. It’s as if they are saying, “That’s not fair! If I had to go through all this bitter hard work to learn characters before I could read and write Chinese, then everyone else has to too!”

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.

As Jehovah’s organization has commented, for us to follow well the command at Matthew 19:19 to “love your neighbor as yourself”, we must first love ourselves in a healthy way. Also, while Romans 12:3 telling each of us “not to think more of himself than it is necessary to think, but to think so as to have a sound mind” is mainly an admonition against the overly self-important thinking that individualistic societies can tend to promote, it also shows that it is necessary to think a certain amount of ourselves to have a balanced, sound mind.

In turn, it seems that our developing a balanced, healthy view of ourselves can contribute to our avoiding things like zero-sum thinking, and to our developing a balanced, healthy view of Chinese characters. From that balanced, healthy place, we can be free to develop a balanced, healthy view of the possible alternative of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), which could empower us to serve Jehovah and help others in the Mandarin field as well as we ought to be able to.