Tag: Pīnyīn

Categories
Culture Experiences Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

dòngnù

dòngnù (dòng·nù {have moved} · anger; rage; fury → [get angry; lose temper; fly into a rage] 动怒 動怒) 👈🏼 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).

Moved to Anger

This week’s MEotW, “dòngnù (dòng·nù {have moved} · anger; rage; fury → [get angry; lose temper; fly into a rage] 动怒 動怒)”, is used in verse 5 (WOL) of 1 Corinthians 13:

Screenshot of “_dòngnù_” in 1 Co. 13:5 (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 13:5:

English:

does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury.

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

📖 📄 📘 bú (not 不) zuò ({does do} 做) bù (not 不) guīju (guī·ju (following) {dividers → [rules]} · {carpenter’s squares → [regulations]} → [following established standards] 规矩 規矩) de (’ 的) shì (things 事), bù (not 不) qiú ({does seek} 求) zìjǐ (self 自己) de (’s 的) lìyì (lì·yì {sharpening → [advantage]} · benefit → [benefit] 利益), bù (not 不) qīngyì (qīng·yì lightly · easily 轻易 輕易) dòngnù (dòng·nù {does have moved} · anger → [does get angry] 动怒 動怒), bú (not 不) jìjiào (jì·jiào {does count} · {does dispute about} 计较 計較) biéren (bié·ren other · people 别人 別人) zàochéng (zào·chéng {have created} · {to come to be} 造成) de (’s 的) shānghài (injuring → [injury] 伤害 傷害),

In the example above, the Mandarin phrase “bù (not 不) qīngyì (qīng·yì lightly · easily 轻易 輕易) dòngnù (dòng·nù {does have moved} · anger → [does get angry] 动怒 動怒)” corresponds with the English phrase “does not become provoked”. As for the morphemes in “dòngnù (dòng·nù {have moved} · anger; rage; fury → [get angry; lose temper; fly into a rage] 动怒 動怒)”, they literally mean “have moved anger/rage/fury”, and effectively mean “get angry; lose one’s temper; fly into a rage”.

Angrily Holding On to Tradition

I remember more than one Mandarin field language learner who reacted angrily when I suggested that using Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) more and deemphasizing characters would help them progress in learning Mandarin. Rather than appreciating the evident truth of what I was saying, or being thankful that I was trying to help them, they seemed offended and upset that I had dared to suggest something so out of step with the human traditions that they had been taught all their lives, and, perhaps, indignant that I had, in their estimation, dismissed and invalidated the blood, sweat, and tears that they had personally invested for years and years into the long, hard, bitter struggle that is learning characters.

On the one hand, some may say that such reactions are only human, but on the other hand, the words of 1 Corinthians 13:5 that love “does not become provoked” show that actually, such ones are not completely acting out of Christian love when they react that way. As the Insight book says:

Love “does not become provoked.” It does not look for an occasion or an excuse for provocation. It is not moved to outbursts of anger, which is a work of the flesh. (Ga 5:19, 20) One having love is not easily offended by what others say or do. He is not afraid that his personal “dignity” may be injured.

Happily, not all Mandarin field language learners react as mentioned above. Rather than reacting out of personal indignation, cultural pride, traditionalism, and chauvinism, or the tribalism of the embattled few in “the club” who have long endured together the difficult burdens of dealing with the unnecessarily extraordinarily complex characters, even some long-time Mandarin field language learners who have worked hard for a long time to learn characters listen humbly to the information I share with them about the linguistic truths that apply to our Mandarin field language learning, and are appreciative that these truths help to set them free from the unnecessary burdens imposed by mere human tradition.—John 8:32.

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Names Technology

jiǎntǐ‐zì

jiǎntǐ (jiǎn·tǐ simplified · {body → [style] → [typeface; font]} → [simplified Chinese] 简体 簡體)‐zì (characters 字) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This is a reposting of a post that was originally posted on December 7, 2020. I took the opportunity to flesh out the original post and this repost with additional material.]

For a long, long, long time, Chinese characters were just Chinese characters. Then, in 1956, the Communist government of mainland China issued what came to be known as the First Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (a second round of Chinese character simplification was later attempted and ultimately rescinded), and official simplified Chinese characters came into the world. (Some characters had been unofficially simplified and used for various purposes, both everyday and artistic, before that.)

On the matter of what simplified Chinese characters are called in Mandarin, Wikipedia provides this summary:

Simplified Chinese characters may be referred to by their official name above [(简化字; jiǎnhuàzì)[source]] or colloquially (简体字; jiǎntǐzì). In its broadest sense, the latter term refers to all characters that have undergone simplifications of character “structure” or “body”[source], some of which have existed for millennia alongside regular, more complicated forms. On the other hand, the official name refers to the modern systematically simplified character set, which (as stated by then-Chairman Mao Zedong in 1952) includes not only structural simplification but also substantial reduction in the total number of standardized Chinese characters.[source]

For reference, this is the term used on jw.org when referring to Mandarin written using simplified Chinese characters:

jw.org referring to Mandarin written using simplified Chinese characters

jw.org refers to simplified Chinese characters as “jiǎntǐ (jiǎn·tǐ simplified · {body → [style] → [typeface; font]} → [simplified Chinese] 简体 簡體)” characters.

The Great Simplified vs. Traditional Debate

While it seems obvious that simpler is generally better, there is actually much, much debate about the pros and cons of simplified characters vs. traditional characters, as discussed in these articles:

The following posts summarize how many feel about traditional and simplified characters:

Standards and Compromises

While the simplified characters themselves are indeed easier to learn and remember compared to the traditional characters, for many, they have become another set of characters in addition to the traditional characters that has to be learned and remembered. (There is, at least, some overlap between the two systems. Where do they overlap? That is yet more information that has to be learned and remembered…) And while simplified characters have been simplified, they are still characters, and characters are inherently extraordinarily complex and hard to learn and remember.

xkcd: Standards

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licence logo Randall Munroe [source]

The simplified characters became a new standard that many have had to learn in addition to that of the traditional characters.

While Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is also a different system to be learned and remembered, it is in a whole different league compared to any system of Chinese characters when it comes to ease of learning and remembering. One of the scholars who helped create Hangul (or Hankul), the Korean alphabet, said of it: “The wise can learn it in one morning, and even the unwise can learn it in ten days.” Being also a phonetic alphabet, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) can be reasonably said to be in the same ballpark (with the added advantage that the Latin alphabet letters used in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) are already familiar to many people)—downright revolutionary compared to the years (decades?) required to learn even simplified characters.

Simplified characters are thus a compromise that mainland China, Singapore, etc. have settled on—simpler than traditional characters, but perhaps thus not as good at being characters. Meanwhile, they are still characters, still having many of the complexities and vagaries of characters. They fall short of the fundamental reform envisioned by Máo Zédōng ((Máo Hair (surname) 毛) (Zé·dōng Marsh · East 泽东 澤東) (the founder of the People’s Republic of China)) (Wikipedia article), 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)) (Wikipedia article), and others, that would have involved eventually moving on from any kind of characters to alphabetic writing.

Letter from Máo Zédōng endorsing a transition from Chinese characters to alphabetic writing

A letter written by Máo Zédōng ((Máo Hair (surname) 毛) (Zé·dōng Marsh · East 泽东 澤東) (the founder of the People’s Republic of China)) endorsing “a basic reform” involving a transition from Chinese characters to alphabetic writing1

 

1. John DeFrancis, The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1984), p. ii. ^

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Names Technology

fántǐ‐zì

fántǐ (fán·tǐ complicated; complex; difficult · {body → [style] → [typeface; font]} → [traditional Chinese] 繁体 繁體)‐zì (characters 字) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This is a reposting of a post that was originally posted on November 30, 2020. I took the opportunity to flesh out the original post and this repost with additional material.]

For a long, long, long time, Chinese characters were just Chinese characters. Then, in 1956, the Communist government of mainland China issued what came to be known as the First Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (a second round of Chinese character simplification was later attempted and ultimately rescinded), and official simplified Chinese characters came into the world. (Some characters had been unofficially simplified and used for various purposes, both everyday and artistic, before that.)

Name?

To distinguish these newfangled official simplified Chinese characters from the Chinese characters that had existed before, and that continue to be used by many people in many parts of the world, retronyms were coined to refer to these pre-existing Chinese characters, just as the term “acoustic guitar” was coined to refer to a regular non-electric guitar after electric guitars came along.

In the English-speaking world, the pre-official simplification characters have come to be called “traditional Chinese characters”, as opposed to the “simplified Chinese characters”. In the Chinese-speaking world, as is true of many things regarding Chinese characters, the situation is…complicated. Wikipedia summarizes the situation thusly:

Traditional Chinese characters (the standard characters) are called several different names within the Chinese-speaking world. The government of Taiwan officially calls traditional Chinese characters standard characters or orthodox characters (traditional Chinese: 正體字; simplified Chinese: 正体字; pinyin: zhèngtǐzì; Zhuyin Fuhao: ㄓㄥˋ ㄊㄧˇ ㄗˋ).[source] However, the same term is used outside Taiwan to distinguish standard, simplified and traditional characters from variant and idiomatic characters.[source]

In contrast, users of traditional characters outside Taiwan, such as those in Hong Kong, Macau and overseas Chinese communities, and also users of simplified Chinese characters, call them complex characters (traditional Chinese: 繁體字; simplified Chinese: 繁体字; pinyin: fántǐzì; Zhuyin Fuhao: ㄈㄢˊ ㄊㄧˇ ㄗˋ). Users of simplified characters sometimes informally refer to them as “old characters” (Chinese: 老字; pinyin: lǎozì; Zhuyin Fuhao: ㄌㄠˇ ㄗˋ).

Users of traditional characters also sometimes call them “full Chinese characters” (traditional Chinese: 全體字; simplified Chinese: 全体字; pinyin: quántǐ zì; Zhuyin Fuhao: ㄑㄩㄢˊ ㄊㄧˇ ㄗˋ) to distinguish them from simplified Chinese characters.

In my experience in the Chinese fields in Canada, I have always heard traditional Chinese characters referred to using this week’s MEotW, “fántǐ (fán·tǐ complicated; complex; difficult · {body → [style] → [typeface; font]} → [traditional Chinese] 繁体 繁體)‐zì (characters 字)”. For reference, this is also the term used on jw.org when referring to Mandarin written using traditional Chinese characters:

jw.org referring to Mandarin written using traditional Chinese characters

jw.org refers to traditional Chinese characters as “fántǐ (fán·tǐ complicated; complex; difficult · {body → [style] → [typeface; font]} → [traditional Chinese] 繁体 繁體)” characters.

Beloved by Traditionalists and Purists, But Complicated

Many feel that traditional characters are the best characters of all, since, in their estimation, the official simplified characters have lost some of the heart and soul of characters. As a symbolic example, some point to how the simplified character for “love”, “爱”, omits the “heart” radical (“心”), which is appropriately in the traditional character for “love”, “愛”.

Yes, as the above post mentions, the obvious, glaring issue with traditional characters is—aggravated by the fact that there are tens of thousands of them—their extreme, extraordinary complexity, the result of their problematically complex basic nature, along with thousands of years of accumulated occasionally arbitrary design decisions and developmental cruft. For example, note the below excerpt from p. 82 of the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, by John DeFrancis:

In the case of the rendition for the huáng meaning “sturgeon” we have two variants, one written with the “yellow” phonetic and the other with the “emperor” phonetic, both combined with the semantic element for “fish”:

魚 “fish”
鱑 “fish” + huáng “yellow” = huáng “sturgeon”
鰉 “fish” + huáng “emperor” = huáng “sturgeon”

While etymological research might succeed in clarifying the basis for some of the variation, in many cases, as one specialist in Chinese paleography concludes, “it is simply a matter of the whim of the writer” (Barnard 1978:203).

Scribal whim goes far to explain a diversity bordering on chaos in the forms of the Chinese characters as they evolved in the Shang dynasty and during the long years of political and administrative disunity in the Zhou dynasty (ca. 1028–221 B.C.). The situation was aggravated by the fact that characters were created by writers living in different historical periods, which inevitably meant changes in sounds over the years, and speaking different dialects, which inevitably affected their choice of phonetic elements in the creation of new characters.

Their inherent extraordinary complexity, exacerbated by an accumulated millennia-long history of design decisions made on a whim, out-of-date phonetic elements, etc., causes especially the traditional characters, and even the (moderately) simplified characters, to be extremely difficult for us imperfect humans to learn and to remember. This has lead to character amnesia and the Great Wall of unfamiliar characters being real things, even among those who have been studying characters for decades. How complex can traditional characters get? Theoretically, there is no upper limit!

The extreme, extraordinary complexity of traditional characters undoubtedly contributed greatly to illiteracy having been widespread in China for much of its history. Even for those who are privileged to be able to devote the extraordinary amount of time and effort needed to learn traditional characters, it’s a long, hard slog, compared to learning a comparatively simple and compact alphabetical writing system. It’s little wonder, then, that there have been serious, concerted efforts to simplify and even replace traditional Chinese characters.