Tag: Pīnyīn

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 + Symbols 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) yì (one 一) diǎn (point (regarding which) 点 點) wǒ (I 我) yào (must 要) zébèi+ (zé·bèi reprove · prepare → [reprove] 责备 責備) nǐ (you 你), jiùshì (jiù·shì (which) exactly · is 就是) nǐ (you 你) ràng ({have allowed} 让 讓) 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 爱 愛) 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.

Categories
Current Events

qiāngjī àn

qiāngjī+ (qiāng·jī gun · striking → [shooting] 枪击 槍擊) àn+ ({long, narrow table or desk} → [incident] 案) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcards”

Gun violence is unfortunately still all over the news media. As of this writing, jw.org is featuring the article “School Shootings—What Does the Bible Say?”. The Mandarin version of this article uses the expression “qiāngjī (qiāng·jī gun · striking → [shooting] 枪击 槍擊) àn ({long, narrow table or desk} → [incident] 案)”, this week’s MEotW, to correspond with the English expression “shooting”. (“Xiàoyuán (Xiào·yuán school · {garden → [area for special purposes]} → [school grounds] 校园 校園) qiāngjī (qiāng·jī gun · striking → [shooting] 枪击 槍擊) àn ({long, narrow table or desk} → [incident] 案)” is used to specifically correspond with “school shooting”.)

What’s on the Table?

Interestingly, the literal meaning of “àn+ ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” is “long, narrow table or desk”. (In fact, the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, says that “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” has a meaning, from archaeology, of “rectangular stand for supporting wine vessels”.) At the same time, “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” is also used to effectively mean “case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal”.

This may be because a table or desk is often used to hold certain things related to a specific set of information or a specific area of concern. For example, “bureau”, which means “desk”, is used in “Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)”, the name of the American federal government agency that is focused on domestic (internal to the USA) intelligence and security, while the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is focused on foreign intelligence.

Perhaps unexpectedly, “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” appears in the word “dá’àn+ (dá’·àn answering; replying · {long, narrow table or desk → [set of information]} → [answer; reply; solution] 答案)”, which effectively means “answer; reply; solution”. In “dá’àn (dá’·àn answering; replying · {long, narrow table or desk → [set of information]} → [answer; reply; solution] 答案)”, “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” apparently literally refers to a table or desk which holds a set of information that provides an answer or reply.

As shown in the MEotW post on “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)”, “àn ({long, narrow table or desk} [→ [case (of law/etc.); incident | record; file; set of information | plan; proposal]] 案)” also appears in “Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Fāng’àn+ (Fāng’·àn {Direction → [Method]} · {Long, Narrow Table or Desk} → [Plan]} 方案)”, an official name for Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).

Easier to Decipher

Sometimes “qiāngjī (qiāng·jī gun · striking → [shooting] 枪击 槍擊) àn ({long, narrow table or desk} → [incident] 案)” is rendered as a single word. However, this blog and other Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources render such expressions as two separate words, to make them easier to decipher and read. The following excerpt from the MEotW post on “Liánhé Guó ((Lián·hé United · {Closed → [Joined]} 联合 聯合) (Guó Nations 国 國) → [United Nations])” explains further:

Avoiding Mental Indigestion

Another thing that may be noted about the rendering “Liánhé Guó ((Lián·hé United · {Closed → [Joined]} 联合 聯合) (Guó Nations 国 國) → [United Nations])” is that it has a space between “Liánhé (Lián·hé United · {Closed → [Joined]} 联合 聯合)” and “Guó (Nations 国 國)”, whereas this expression is often rendered as the single word “Liánhéguó (Lián·hé·guó United · {Closed → [Joined]} · Nations → [United Nations] 联合国 聯合國)”. In this blog and in other resources that contain Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material, such added spaces are included in certain expressions so that they are easier to parse (mentally digest and separate into meaningful parts) and read.

Regarding differing Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) renderings, the MEotW post for “diǎnliàng (diǎn·liàng {dot → [light (v); ignite]} · {to be bright} [→ [illuminate; shine light on]] 点亮 點亮)” said:

Regarding standards and conventions, even officially recommended ones, for things like language and writing, views and practices vary in different places, and at different times.

When it comes to Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), another factor to keep in mind is that due primarily to cultural prejudice, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) has simply not been used much overall, relatively speaking, especially as a full writing system on its own. So, it has not really gone through much of the process of receiving the widely agreed upon tweaks and refinements that a system typically receives as it gets tried out and put to extensive use by many people.

As a relatively “young” alphabetical writing system, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) can often benefit from following the example of a more “experienced” alphabetical writing system like the English writing system. It seems reasonable to conclude that this is the case with “Liánhé Guó ((Lián·hé United · {Closed → [Joined]} 联合 聯合) (Guó Nations 国 國) → [United Nations])” following the word separation example of “United Nations”. In contrast, “Liánhéguó (Lián·hé·guó United · {Closed → [Joined]} · Nations → [United Nations] 联合国 聯合國)” is kind of like “Unitednations”—significantly harder to decipher and read.

The above-mentioned MEotW post concludes:

In the end, what matters most re how anything is written is not just what is officially recommended or what happens to be popular among changing, imperfect humans. Rather, what matters most is what really works best to accomplish the goal of writing: To communicate to readers. This is especially true when God-honouring and life-saving Bible truths need to be communicated. So, this blog and the other Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources will continue to seek to render Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) in ways that maximize how clearly, easily, effectively, and appropriately it communicates with readers.

Indeed, “qiāngjī (qiāng·jī gun · striking → [shooting] 枪击 槍擊) àn ({long, narrow table or desk} → [incident] 案)” is easier to decipher and read as two separate words, similarly to how “shooting incident” is easier to decipher and read than “shootingincident”.

Categories
Current Events

xǐshǒu

xǐshǒu+ (xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Note: 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”.]

As of this writing, nearing the middle of the year 2022, the subject of the COVID-19 pandemic has been, to say the least, on people’s minds now for a while. So, it would be good to be able to refer to things related to it in Mandarin when speaking to people in the Mandarin field, or when speaking to our brothers and sisters in the truth.

electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2—also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19

An electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2—also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19
Creative Commons Attribution License logo NIAID

This week’s MEotW, “xǐshǒu (xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手)”, literally means “wash hands”, something that has taken on even more importance than before after the COVID-19-causing coronavirus got added to the list of disease-causing things that washing our hands can help protect us from.

“Xǐshǒu (Xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手)” can also effectively mean “go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom”. Indeed, “xǐshǒu jiān+ ((xǐ·shǒu washing · hands 洗手) (jiān {space in between} → [room] 间 間) → [washroom; lavatory; toilet; restroom])” is a commonly used Mandarin expression which literally means “washing hands space in between”, and which effectively means “washroom; lavatory; toilet; restroom”.

Verb-Object Construction

“Xǐshǒu (Xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手)”, with the verb “xǐ (wash; bathe; rinse 洗)” (“wash”) and its object “shǒu (hand | personally | [→ [mw for skill]] 手)” (“hands”), is an example of a Mandarin expression with verb-object construction.

The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, tells us the following about the entries in it that are marked as having verb-object construction:

V.O. (Verb-Object Construction, Dòng-Bīn Jiégòu 动宾结构).

Many English verbs get translated into natural Chinese as a verb plus an object noun, e.g. chīfàn for ‘eat’, shuōhuà for ‘speak’, etc. It is important for two reasons to know what is merely a verb in Chinese and what is actually a verb-object construction.

First, verb-object constructions can never take a second object, i.e. chīfàn can never be followed directly by something else to be eaten.

Second, a verb and its object can be separated from one another, thus allowing

(i) aspect particles to be placed directly after the verb, e.g. chīle fàn ‘after finishing eating’;

(ii) modification of the object, e.g. chī Zhōngguófàn ‘eat Chinese food’; and (iii) quantification of the noun, e.g. chīle sān wǎn fàn ‘ate three bowls of rice’.

One Word? Not Two Words?

While “wash hands” is two words in the English writing system, the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) writing system typically renders “xǐshǒu (xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手)” as one word. The MEotW post on “Jìniàn Jùhuì ((Jì·niàn Remembering · {Thinking Of} → [Commemorating] 记/纪念 記/紀念) (Jùhuì Meeting 聚会 聚會) → [[the] Memorial])” (including a recently added comment there) went into some reasons why it can be good for the relatively “young” Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) writing system to at times emulate the relatively “experienced” English writing system, but in cases like the relatively digestible two-syllable “xǐshǒu (xǐ·shǒu wash · hands [→ [go to the washroom/lavatory/toilet/restroom]] 洗手)”, there is little practical reason relating to readability to impose English word separation conventions.

On the other hand, while “xǐshǒu jiān ((xǐ·shǒu washing · hands 洗手) (jiān {space in between} → [room] 间 間) → [washroom; lavatory; toilet; restroom])” is generally rendered in the world as one three-syllable word, this blog and other Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources will generally render such expressions as two separate words, to make them easier to read. This is similar to how in English, “changeroom” is a single two-syllable word, but “changing room” is separated into two words, rather than being rendered as the single three-syllable word “changingroom”.

“Melting” Away the Pounds Viruses

While researching the subject of washing hands in this age of COVID-19, I found the following interesting information:

…soap — all sorts of it: liquid, solid, honeysuckle-scented, the versions inexplicably only marketed to men or women — is…even more routinely effective than hand sanitizer. …

That’s because when you wash your hands with soap and water, you’re not just wiping viruses off your hands and sending them down the drain. You’re actually annihilating the viruses, rendering them harmless. Soap “is almost like a demolition team breaking down a building and taking all the bricks away,” says Palli Thordarson, a chemistry professor at the University of New South Wales…

…coronaviruses are…bits of genetic information — encoded by RNA — surrounded by a coat of fat and protein. Thordarson likes to call viruses “nano-sized grease balls.” And grease balls, no matter the size, are the exact type of thing soap loves to annihilate.

…

The soap takes care of the virus much like it takes care of the oil in the water. “It’s almost like a crowbar; it starts to pull all the things apart,” Thordarson says.

One side of the soap molecule (the one that’s attracted to fat and repelled by water) buries its way into the virus’s fat and protein shell. Fortunately, the chemical bonds holding the virus together aren’t very strong, so this intrusion is enough to break the virus’s coat. “You pull the virus apart, you make it soluble in water, and it disintegrates,” he says.

Then the harmless shards of virus get flushed down the drain. And even if it the soap doesn’t destroy every virus, you’ll still rid them from your hands with soap and water, as well as any grease or dirt they may be clinging to.

So, while technically soap and water disintegrates and dissolves coronaviruses, if a coronavirus subjected to soap and water could talk, it might say, “I’m melting!”