Categories
Culture History

chá

chá (tea 茶) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Long before drinking tea became a big part of English culture, it had been a big part of Chinese culture. As Wikipedia summarizes:

An early credible record of tea drinking dates to the third century AD, in a medical text written by Chinese physician Hua Tuo.[source] It was popularised as a recreational drink during the Chinese Tang dynasty [(618–907 CE)], and tea drinking subsequently spread to other East Asian countries. Portuguese priests and merchants introduced it to Europe during the 16th century.[source] During the 17th century, drinking tea became fashionable among the English, who started to plant tea on a large scale in British India.

Similarly, the English word “tea” and its doublet “chai” originally came from the words for “tea” in different Chinese languages. This week’s MEotW, “chá (tea 茶)”, is the word for “tea” in Mandarin.

“Tea” and its Doublet

Hold on, you may say, what’s a doublet? Here is a definition:

doublet

One of two (or more) words in a language that have the same etymological root but have come to the modern language through different routes.

So, how did “tea” and its doublet “chai” both end up in the English language after having come from the same root through different routes?

Linguists Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne discussed this on their podcast Lingthusiasm:

Lauren: One of the things I always find interesting about these loanwords that come to us in batches from particular domains is how it highlights global history, and usually global histories of trade and different power dynamics that have operated over that history. One of my absolute favourite stories is the story of tea. We’ve already talked about “chai” and “chia” in Nepali, “tea” in English. The words for “tea” in many of the world’s languages appear to be related. They’ll either have some kind of /te/ or /ti/ pronunciation or some kind of /t͡ʃ/ – “chia,” “chai” pronunciation. That’s because there were two main places in China from which tea travelled to all the different markets in the world.

Gretchen: In Mandarin, which is historically more spoken towards the centre of China, the word for tea is “cha,” but in Min Nan, which is also a variety of Chinese as spoken in the coastal province of Fujian, it’s pronounced /te/. They use the same character, but they’re pronounced differently, which is very common for how Chinese gets written. The key thing here is “coastal” because people who encountered the plant and the drink tea via the sea, via Fujianese traders, learned to pronounce it /te/ or variants on /te/. In French and German, it’s /te/. In English, it used to be /te/ until the vowel shifted. Whereas people who encountered tea through Central China, through land routes like the silk road – so through Sinitic “cha” – you get Mandarin “cha,” Korean “cha,” Japanese “ocha,” but also Hindi “chai,” Persian “chai,” Arabic “shai,” Turkish “chai,” Russian “chai,” and you’re down to Swahili “chai,” all goes through that land route, and sometimes via Persia, to get from “cha” to “chai.” The great maps that people have produced where you can tell if people encountered tea through the land route where they get “cha,” which becomes “chai,” or through the sea route, which becomes “te” and variants on “te” like “tea.”

The Development of Modern Mandarin

The mention above of historical Mandarin reminds me of a book that I read a while ago, A Billion Voices: China’s Search for a Common Language, by David Moser. Here is an excerpt:

After the fall of the Qing Dynasty and the establishment of the Republic of China in 1912, an urgent priority for the new Chinese government was the task of establishing a common language for a linguistically fractured China. When Mao took power in 1949, language unification continued to be of vital importance to the nation building agenda. Faced with the challenge of unifying a vast country populated with hundreds of ethnicities, languages, and dialects, these political leaders were confronted with some of the same linguistic problems and conundrums raised above: Is there such a thing as ‘the Chinese language’? Should the Chinese people share a common tongue? How should it be defined? How should pronunciation, vocabulary, and correct usage be determined? Should one standard language replace the numerous other regional variations, or should all other forms of Chinese continue to flourish? Should written Chinese continue to use the centuries-old character system, or should it be replaced with an alphabet, or some other phonetic system? And who, after all, is the final arbiter for such decisions?

In the PRC, the twentieth century quest for a solution to these problems has resulted in a version of Chinese called Putonghua. How did China arrive at this common language?

In what follows, I will present a brief historical overview of that process, and trace the trajectory of Putonghua as it moved into the twenty-first century.

The Cantonese Connection

Getting back to how historical words for “tea” in different Chinese languages ended up leading to the words “tea” and “chai” in English, here is some other information, that I found on the World Atlas of Language Structures website:

Most words for ‘tea’ found in the world’s languages are ultimately of Chinese origin, but they differ significantly in their form due to their coming via different routes. The differences begin already on Chinese soil. Most Sinitic languages have a form similar to Mandarin chá, but Min Nan Chinese, spoken e.g. in Fujian and Taiwan, has instead forms like te55 (Chaozhou). The Dutch traders, who were the main importers of tea into Europe, happened to have their main contacts in Amoy (Xiamen) in Fujian. This is why they adopted the word for ‘tea’ as thee, and in this form it then spread to large parts of Europe. The influence from Amoy is also visible in many languages spoken in the former Dutch colonies, as in Malay/Indonesian and Javanese teh. However, the first European tea importers were not the Dutch but the Portuguese, in the 16th century; their trade route went via Macao rather than via Amoy, and consequently Portuguese uses chá, derived from Cantonese cha.

Thus, as in other aspects, it seems that the first contact between the West and China when it comes to tea involved the Cantonese.

Categories
Culture Current Events History Technology

rèlàng

rèlàng (rè·làng heat · wave 热浪 熱浪) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Currently, many around the world are being affected by heat waves, which scientists say is part of a pattern of global warming caused by human activity. As of this writing, jw.org is featuring the article “Climate Change and Our Future—What the Bible Says”. The Mandarin version of this article uses the expression “rèlàng (rè·làng heat · wave 热浪 熱浪)”, this week’s MEotW, to translate the English expression “heat wave”.

It seems that “rèlàng (rè·làng heat · wave 热浪 熱浪)” is just a simple, straightforward exact translation of “heat wave”. While sometimes, like with “zhǐnán‐zhēn ((zhǐ·nán {(points with) finger → [points]} · south 指南)‐(zhēn needle) [compass])” (a previous MEotW), the Mandarin expression for “compass”, East and West approached the same thing from opposite directions, other times, like with “rèlàng (rè·làng heat · wave 热浪 熱浪)” and “heat wave”, the reality referred to is so simple and the applicable metaphors are so obvious that East and West settled on the same linguistic solution.

While “rèlàng (rè·làng heat · wave 热浪 熱浪)” is definitely not a loanword (like previous MEotWkǎlā’OK (karaoke 卡拉OK)” is), which is a word that’s adopted from one language into another language without translation, it seems possible that it’s a calque, or loan translation, which is “a word or phrase in a language formed by word-for-word or morpheme-by-morpheme translation of a word in another language”, according to one of the definitions of “calque” listed by Wordnik.

Wordnik—Chinese Field Connections

By the way, while this blog is mainly about Mandarin expressions, it’s written in English, mainly for English-speakers, and often it will compare Mandarin expressions to English expressions. Of course, it will use English words—like “loanword” and “calque”—to discuss Mandarin expressions. So, it’s good for it to have a resource to refer to like Wordnik, which claims to be “the world’s biggest online English dictionary, by number of words”. Being online, it is not constrained by the limitations imposed by the millennia-old medium of paper, as delightfully explained in this TED talk given by Erin McKean, the founder of Wordnik:

Here are a few quotes from the above video:

Why are you blaming the ham for being too big for the pan? You can’t get a smaller ham—the English language is as big as it is. So if you have a ham butt problem and you’re thinking about the ham butt problem, the conclusion that it leads you to is inexorable and counter-intuitive—paper is the enemy of words.

They’re like, “Oh my, people are going to take away my beautiful paper dictionaries?” No, there will still be paper dictionaries. When we had cars, when cars became the dominant mode of transportation, we didn’t round up all the horses and shoot them. You know, there’re still going to be paper dictionaries but it’s not going to be the dominant dictionary. The book-shaped dictionary is not going to be the only shape dictionaries come in, and it’s not going to be the prototype for the shapes dictionaries come in.

[I still use the illustration about cars and horses when talking to people who worry about what would happen to Chinese characters if Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) were ever to get widely adopted.]

Lexicography [the practice of compiling dictionaries] is not rocket science, but even if it were, rocket science is being done by dedicated amateurs these days. You know, it can’t be that hard to find some words.

This is a little-known technological fact about the Internet, but the Internet is actually made up of words and enthusiasm, and words and enthusiasm actually happen to be the recipe for lexicography. Isn’t that great?

If we get a bigger pan, then we can put all the words in. We can put in all the meanings. Doesn’t everyone want more meaning in their lives?

The web page for this TED talk says it was part of the TED2007 conference. I remember that after I saw it, it influenced my thinking as I subsequently contributed to some of the projects for Chinese-field unofficial language-learning resources. (E.g., “We can do this, whether or not it’s rocket science!” “We can transcend paper now!” “Including the meanings is good! Doesn’t everyone want more meaning in their lives?”) Many such resources, like the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus Expressions (Web) resource, the Referenced Theocratic Expressions (RTE) resource, and even, in a way, the 3-line, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus, etc. material resources can be thought of as specialized dictionaries. (In 3-line, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus, etc. material resources, you can look up Mandarin words in the order in which they appear in certain official Mandarin publications!)

Making Good Use of Bigger Pans

Years ago, there was one project that was discussed, for creating an unofficial pocket-sized paper dictionary for Chinese theocratic terms that was to be…about the size of what we now call a smartphone, except, of course, thicker. Looking back, it’s not surprising that that project never came to fruition, partly because of the limitations of paper. Those limitations would have necessitated selecting for inclusion in the proposed pocket-sized dictionary a subset of the full dictionary also being worked on (which we now have in the form of the RTE), and they also would have led to difficulties regarding formatting and printing out for such a small form factor—it was just too small a pan.

Also, note that 2007, the year that the above-mentioned TED talk was given, was also the year that the iPhone came out. The iPad followed not long after in 2010, and pretty soon, smartphones and tablets proliferated among those in the Chinese fields, along with resources like apps, websites, digital publications, etc. that were designed for such mobile devices. When entire libraries can be contained in one’s smartphone or tablet, one is probably not usually inclined to seek out paper equivalents. Indeed, to many who grew up with touchscreen mobile devices, paper publications that don’t allow things like resizing of text or looking up information on words seem broken.

Categories
Culture Language Learning Technology Theocratic

zuìchū

zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Notes: “PyP” is short for “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus”. Tap/click on a Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to reveal its “flashcard”, tap/click on a “flashcard” or its Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · 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.]

Zuìchū (Zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” is the very first expression that occurs in the current Mandarin New World Translation Bible, at Genesis 1:1 (WOL; PyP):

📖 📄 📘 Zuìchū (Zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初), Shàngdì (Shàng·dì Above’s · {Emperor → [God]} → [God] 上帝) chuàngzàole (chuàng·zào·le {initiated · made, created → [created]} · [indicates a change] 创造了 創造了) tiāndì (tiān·dì heavens · earth 天地).

At Revelation 2:4 (WOL; PyP), the current Mandarin NWT Bible also uses “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” when it talks about not leaving “the love you had at first”:

📖 📄 📘 Búguò (Bú·guò not · {do pass} → [however] 不过 不過), yǒu ({(there) is having} 有) (one 一) diǎn (point (regarding which)) (I 我) yào (must 要) zébèi (zé·bèi reprove · prepare → [reprove] 责备 責備) (you 你), jiùshì (jiù·shì (which) exactly · is 就是) (you 你) ràng ({have allowed}) zìjǐ (selves’ 自己) zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} → [at first] 最初) de (’s 的) nèi (that 那) fèn ({portion of} 份) ài (love) lěngdàn (lěng·dàn {to be(come) cold} · {to be(come) bland → [to be(come) indifferent]} 冷淡) xialai (xia·lai down · {to come} 下来 下來).

“Original Intention”? “Beginner’s Mind”?

While “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” appears multiple times in the current Mandarin NWT Bible, the expression “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [original desire/aspiration/intention | (Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)”, which may seem somewhat related, does not appear in the current Mandarin NWT Bible.

In normal Mandarin usage, “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [original desire/aspiration/intention] 初心)” effectively means “original desire/aspiration/intention”. We should be aware, though, that the expression “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [original desire/aspiration/intention | (Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)” (shoshin in Japanese) is also used in Zen Buddhism to mean “beginner’s mind”, an attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject.

While “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)”, as used in Zen Buddhism, apparently refers to one’s own unprejudiced mental approach to learning about a reality, “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)”, as used in the Bible, refers to the very beginning of a reality itself, prior to any possible subsequent deviation or corruption. It seems that following the Bible’s example of focusing on the truth of the original reality of something naturally produces the beneficial openness and freedom from preconceptions referred to by the Zen Buddhist usage of “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)”, especially when we do so with the courage and humility that the Bible often encourages us to cultivate.—2 Timothy 1:7; Joshua 1:9; Proverbs 18:12; 22:4.

Remembering where Zen Buddhism came from and where the Bible came from can help us to understand the difference between the Zen Buddhist concept of chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心) and the concept of zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初) that is often mentioned in the Bible. Having come from imperfect, limited humans, the Zen Buddhist concept of chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心) is unsurprisingly about how an imperfect, limited human can view something—that’s ultimately all it can really be about anyway. On the other hand, the Bible shares with us God’s views of things, and God was actually there at the zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初) time of literally everything in the universe. Also, he has seen how everything has developed since that zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初) time, and he can also perfectly foresee how everything will turn out in the future.

Holding On to Mandarin Field First Love

How might someone leave ‘the love he had at first’ in the Mandarin field? A publisher may have originally entered the Mandarin field with pure motivations, out of love for God and neighbour. Over time, though, with repeated exposure to proud worldly Chinese traditional culture, might some self-glorifying pride creep in regarding knowledge of that worldly Chinese culture, and regarding having gone far down the rabbit hole of the notoriously complex Chinese characters? If so, then the original love that had motivated that publisher may eventually get corrupted, and perhaps even left behind, leaving pride as his main motivation. May we never let that happen to us!

First Things First in Language Learning

The way God made us, zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初), language-wise, there was speech. Only later did imperfect humans eventually come up with some writing systems to visually represent and record some forms of speech. Indeed, there have been, and there still are, many speech-only languages, with no corresponding writing system. Ethnologue, a resource on world languages, says:

Ethnologue (24th edition) has data to indicate that of the currently listed 7,139 living languages, 4,065 have a developed writing system. We don’t always know, however, if the existing writing systems are widely used. That is, while an alphabet may exist there may not be very many people who are literate and actually using the alphabet. The remaining 3,074 are likely unwritten.

Technological First Priority

Writing systems are technologies. About writing, linguist Gretchen McCulloch says:

It 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.

As with any technology, under-engineering and over-engineering in writing systems are by definition bad. Chinese characters are obviously over-engineered—full of “ceremony”, way more complicated than necessary to fulfil their original purpose of representing Chinese speech. In fact, in the minds of many, Chinese characters have culturally become a thing on their own, the most important thing about Chinese languages, even. Thus, characters have been allowed to improperly overshadow Mandarin, etc. speech, which is actually of primary importance. As the English saying goes, that’s putting the cart before the horse.

Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is sometimes ridiculed for being just for beginners, but the simplicity and elegance with which it fulfils its zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} → [original] 最初), original purpose of representing Mandarin speech are actually very good things. As Leonardo da Vinci is alleged to have said, simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.