Tag: Pīnyin Was Plan A

Categories
Culture Theocratic

zìzhì

zìzhì (zì·zhì self-·{controlling → [control]} 自制) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

The ninth and final part of the fruitage of the spirit listed is self-control.— Jiālātàishū (Jiālātài·shū Galatia · Book → [Galatians] 加拉太书 加拉太書) 5:22, 23.

Galatians 5:22, 23 (WOL nwtsty-CHS+Pinyin)

The English word “self-control” is translated into Mandarin in the above scripture as “zìzhì (zì·zhì self-·{controlling → [control]} 自制)”, this week’s MEotW.

Literally a Verb, Effectively a Noun

Note that in “zìzhì (zì·zhì self-·{controlling → [control]} 自制)”, “zhì ({work out}; formulate; stipulate | restrict; control; govern | system; institution; -ism 制)” is effectively used to mean the noun “control”, even though in this context its literal meaning is actually the verb “controlling”. This seems to be a case of “zhì ({work out}; formulate; stipulate | restrict; control; govern | system; institution; -ism 制)” acting as a verbal noun, or gerundial noun. Verbal/gerundial nouns were discussed in the MEotW post on “jiàodǎo (jiào·dǎo teaching · {guiding [→ [instructing]]} 教导 教導)”:

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.

Over-Simplified But Still Extaordinarily Complex?

The character “制”, used to write the “zhì ({work out}; formulate; stipulate | restrict; control; govern | system; institution; -ism 制)” in “zìzhì (zì·zhì self-·{controlling → [control]} 自制)” in both simplfied and traditional characters, is an interesting example of the different compromises involved in those two different writing systems.

If one looks up the simplified character “制” in a dictionary, one may see possible meanings as varied as “restrict; control; govern”, and “make; manufacture”. It turns out that this is because the simplified character “制” can correspond to the traditional character “制”, which can mean “restrict; control; govern”, and it can also correspond to the traditional character “製”, which means “make; manufacture”.

While using the single simplified character “制” to correspond to both “制” and “製” results in not requiring people to learn and remember the relatively complex traditional character “製”, it also results in the simplified character “制” getting “overloaded” (a term that’s used in computer programming) with multiple meanings, which in turn can result in greater ambiguity. At the same time, the simplified character “制” is still a character—it’s still significantly more complex and hard to learn and remember than an alphabetic represention would be. In comparison, the traditional characters “制” and “製” offer reduced ambiguity and can perhaps be said to work better as characters, but at the obvious cost of even greater complexity.

Too Many Words That Sound the Same?

Those invested in characters may point out that even simplified characters are often less ambiguous than Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), which renders “制”, “製”, and also every other character pronounced “zhì” as just “zhì”. The great advantage of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), though, is its elegant simplicity and significantly greater ease of learning and remembering compared to any character writing system.

It is indeed unfortunate that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) has inherited a spoken Mandarin language that has come to have many homophones in it, probably from centuries of inappropriate cultural reliance on characters that are seen to disambiguate speech that is heard, instead of just making sure that the speech itself is not riddled with homophones. Even so, the truth is that today homophones are no more a problem in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) than they are in spoken Mandarin, which people speak to each other all the time without having problems with homophones. How do Mandarin speech and the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) that simply and directly represents it accomplish this? “Content is king, but context is God.”

(For a more in-depth discussion about homophones in Mandarin and whether they really make Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) unworkable as a writing system for Mandarin, see the subheading “But There Are So Many Words That Sound the Same!” in the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A”.)

Categories
Culture History Names

dài

dài ({take the place of}; replace; subsitute | replacing; substituting → [acting; substitute | generation [→ [period; era; age]]] 代) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW, “dài ({take the place of}; replace; subsitute | replacing; substituting → [acting; substitute | generation [→ [period; era; age]]] 代)”, basically literally means “take the place of” or “replace”. Why, then, is it used to mean “generation”? This tweet briefly explains:

Yes, the Chinese concept of a “generation” is that it is something that takes the place of or replaces what was there before—the emphasis seems to be on continuation, and a new generation is viewed as having done well if it lived up to or maintained what came before it. In contrast, in the English-speaking world, a “generation” is something new that is generated—the emphasis seems to be more on innovation, progress, and a new generation is viewed as having done well if it improved upon what came before it, and moved things ahead. For example, the English expression “next generation” indeed implies innovation and progress compared to previous generations, such as when applied to vehicles, computers, and other technology.

The Case of Star Trek: The Next Generation

Fans of Star Trek also generally naturally accept that of course in many aspects the world of Star Trek: The Next Generation is more advanced than the world of Star Trek: The Original Series—the ships are faster and more powerful, the special effects are better, etc. (Note that Star Trek: The Original Series was just called Star Trek when it first came out. “Star Trek: The Original Series” is a retronym that was applied to the show after other shows based on it began to appear.)

However, some Star Trek fans prefer Star Trek: The Original Series to Star Trek: The Next Generation, and do not view Star Trek: The Next Generation as better in every way compared to the original show. For example, many fans view original series characters like Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Dr. McCoy as their favourite characters in all the Star Trek shows. Indeed, some would say Mr. Spock is the most iconic Star Trek character of them all.

By the way, the Mandarin translation of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” in mainland China is apparently “Xīngjì Lǚxíng: Xià-Yí-Dài ((Xīng·jì Stars · {Boundaries → [Among]} → [Interstellar] 星际 星際) (Lǚ·xíng Travelling · Going → [Journeying] 旅行): (Xià Below → [Next] 下)-(Yí One 一)-(Dài Replacing → [Generation] 代) → [Star Trek: The Next Generation (mainland China translation)])”, according to the mainland Chinese version of Wikipedia. In contrast, “Star Trek: The Next Generation” is apparently called “Yín Hé Fēilóng (((Yín Silver 银 銀) (Hé River 河) → [Milky Way]) (Fēi·lóng Flying · Dragon [→ [Pterosaur]] 飞龙 飛龍) → [Star Trek: The Next Generation (Taiwan translation)])” (obviously not a literal translation) in Taiwan. While Wikipedia is of course not always right, in this case I have not been able to find any better source.

However, in an article on the official Star Trek website, I did find out about a big (literally) Chinese connection to Star Trek:

The building, according to Mashable.com, is the headquarters of NetDragon Websoft, a Chinese gaming and mobile Internet company. And the site notes, “Company Chairman Liu DeJian is reportedly an uberTrekkie, licensing from CBS the rights to build an Enterprise replica. Construction began in 2008 and was finished in 2014; the project cost $160 million total. The building is the only officially licensed Star Trek building on the planet.”

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

Speaking of generations of technology, and of replacings, it’s good for us Mandarin field language learners to remember that writing systems are technologies, and technologies are known to sometimes get replaced by newer generations of technologies. Also, with regard to Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) specifically, the original plan for modern-day China was for Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to one day replace Chinese characters. As the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A” says:

Pīnyīn was actually Plan A for modern-day China, but Plan A has not been fully followed through on, largely because of old-fashioned selfish pride, nationalism/“culturalism”, and traditionalism, with some intellectual self-indulgence thrown in there for good measure. As Jehovah’s people, we have been trained to recognize that these are very bad reasons for doing something, or for not doing something.

Letter from Mao Zedong re a “basic reform” of Chinese writing, involving a transition from Chinese characters to alphabetic writing

(The above picture is from the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, by John DeFrancis.)

Nostalgia, Progress, and Generations

While humans of different cultures and generations disagree as to whether new generations are necessarily better, whether in technology, Star Trek, writing systems, or life in general, God’s Word helps us to understand his view of passing generations of humans and human activity.

Here are a few scriptures that come to mind in that regard:

A generation is going, and a generation is coming,
But the earth remains forever.
—Ecclesiastes 1:4

Do not say, “Why were the former days better than these?” for it is not out of wisdom that you ask this.
—Ecclesiastes 7:10

Jesus said to him: “No man who has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well-suited for the Kingdom of God.”
—Luke 9:62

Brothers, I do not yet consider myself as having taken hold of it; but one thing is certain: Forgetting the things behind and stretching forward to the things ahead,
—Philippians 3:13

“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever,
—Daniel 2:44

Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.
—1 John 2:17

Categories
Culture Language Learning

miànzi

miànzi (miàn·zi face · [suf for nouns] [→ [reputation; prestige; esteem; honor]] 面子) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Many who are reading this English-language blog are undoubtedly familiar with the English expression “lose face”. What many may not know, though, is that this English expression is actually a semantic loan translation from the Mandarin expression “diūliǎn (diū·liǎn lose · face 丢脸 丟臉)”. In support of this, Wikipedia cites no less an authority than the Oxford English Dictionary (OED):

8f. to save one’s face: to avoid being disgraced or humiliated. Similarly, to save (another’s) face. Hence save-face adj. = face-saving … Originally used by the English community in China, with reference to the continual devices among the Chinese to avoid incurring or inflicting disgrace. The exact phrase appears not to occur in Chinese, but ‘to lose face’ (diu lien), and ‘for the sake of his face’, are common.

Some of the Many Chinese Faces of “Face”

Besides “liǎn ({face (n)} [→ [[self-]respect; reputation]] 脸 臉)”, as used in the expression “diūliǎn (diū·liǎn lose · face 丢脸 丟臉)” mentioned above, another Mandarin word used to mean “face” is “miàn (face [→ [surface; top | cover; outside | side; aspect | personal esteem; reputation | superficial | face-to-face]] | {[wheat] flour} | {noodles (made with wheat flour)} 面/靣)”, as used in this week’s MEotW, “miànzi (miàn·zi face · [suf for nouns] [→ [reputation; prestige; esteem; honor]] 面子)”. Yet another Mandarin word used to mean “face” is “yán (face; countenance [→ [prestige; dignity; reputation; honour]] 颜 顏/顔)”.

In its article on “Face (sociological concept)”, Wikipedia lists several Mandarin expressions based on the above-mentioned words.

Another way to see expressions based on the above-mentioned words is to use Pleco’s Wildcard Search. The excellent Sinosplice blog has a recent post about this handy feature of Pleco.

Face with Regard to Chinese Characters

Preoccupation with “miànzi (miàn·zi face · [suf for nouns] [→ [reputation; prestige; esteem; honor]] 面子)” in the eyes of worldly Chinese people can lead to a preoccupation with Chinese characters, since worldly Chinese people are so proud of these quintessential symbols of worldly Chinese culture, and many of them look down on those who don’t share this proud view of theirs. However, is focusing on Chinese characters really the key to glorifying Jehovah in the Mandarin field, as opposed to glorifying worldly human Chinese culture, or glorifying ourselves in the eyes of proud worldly Chinese people?

The Bible itself actually shows us that the key to glorifying Jehovah and reaching hearts in any language field, including the Chinese language fields, is actually understandable speech:

8 For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. 10 It may be that there are many kinds of speech in the world, and yet no kind is without meaning. 11 For if I do not understand the sense of the speech, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a foreigner to me.
—1 Corinthians 14:8–11

In accordance with long-established Chinese tradition, many may assume that focusing on Chinese characters is the way to eventually master Mandarin speech. Actually, though, as a writing system, Chinese characters are technically one of the most difficult conceivable ways to represent Mandarin speech. True, Chinese characters are “everywhere”, but this ubiquity and cultural prevalence of theirs does not change the reality that they are so inherently complex and haphazardly designed, and thus exceptionally difficult and time-consuming to learn and remember.

As a tool for learning, reading, and writing modern Mandarin speech, simple and elegant Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) obviously works much better compared to the complex, convoluted Chinese characters. Historically, Plan A for modern mainland China was actually to eventually replace Chinese characters with Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). Of course, that has not happened, but that’s not because Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) doesn’t work well as a writing system for modern Mandarin—it does. The reasons why modern mainland China has continued to mainly use Chinese characters have more to do with human pride, prejudice, apathy, and tradition than with the actual relative merits of Chinese characters compared to Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).

As for Chinese characters being “everywhere” in the Chinese world, this cultural dominance of Chinese characters in the wider Chinese world makes the current relative abundance of official and unofficial Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)-containing material based on the publications of Jehovah’s organization seem kind of miraculous. Considering the way that Jehovah and Jesus have directed the development of the worldwide Mandarin field, perhaps it is not so far-fetched to think that extensive practical benefits to the preaching work in the worldwide Mandarin field have been allowed to outweigh mere human pride, prejudice, apathy, and tradition.

_Enjoy Life Forever!_ Bk., Lesson 1 (WOL CHS+Pinyin)

_Enjoy Life Forever!_ Br., Lesson 1 (Pīnyīn Plus)

Considering the cultural dominance of Chinese characters in the Chinese world, it’s kind of miraculous that there is now so much official and unofficial Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)-containing material based on the publications of Jehovah’s organization.

(The official material shown above is spiritual food for helping people learn spiritual things; the unofficial material shown above is not spiritual food, but rather, language-learning material for helping people learn the Mandarin language, so that they can be more effective in the Mandarin field.)

Don’t Follow the Pharisees

Like many worldly Chinese people throughout history and down to the present day, many of the Jews in Jesus’ day were excessively concerned with what Jesus called “glory from men”:

41 I do not accept glory from men, 42 but I well know that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in the name of my Father, but you do not receive me. If someone else came in his own name, you would receive that one. 44 How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?
—John 5:41–44.

As Jesus pointed out, unfortunately for those Jews, their preoccupation with “glory from men”, “glory from one another”, prevented them from ‘having the love of God in them’, and it prevented them from “seeking the glory that is from the only God”. So, rather than being preoccupied with miànzi (miàn·zi face · [suf for nouns] [→ [reputation; prestige; esteem; honor]] 面子) like many in Satan’s world are, let us instead be like Jesus in pursuing, not “glory from men”, but rather, glory from, and for, Jehovah God himself.