Tag: Pīnyīn

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning Theocratic

húzi

húzi (hú·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] 胡子 鬍子) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW, “húzi (hú·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] 胡子 鬍子)”, is used, along with the expression “húxū (hú·xū beard; moustache; whiskers · beard; moustache 胡须 鬍鬚)”, to translate “beard” in the Mandarin version of the 2023 Governing Body Update #8 video.

“_Húzi_” used in the Mandarin version of the 2023 Governing Body Update #8 video

Morphemic Breakdown

In “húzi (hú·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] 胡子 鬍子)”, “hú (beard; moustache; whiskers 胡 鬍)” means “beard; moustache; whiskers”. (Note that this is the meaning of the Simplified Chinese character “胡” when it corresponds to the Traditional Chinese character “鬍”. This Simplified character can also correspond to the Traditional characters “胡” and “衚”, which have different meanings.)

As for “zi ([suf for nouns] 子)”, it is used in “húzi (hú·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] 胡子 鬍子)” as a suffix that is attached to nouns. Other examples of this in use are:

  • cèzi (cè·zi brochure; booklet · [suf for nouns] 册子 冊子)
  • dùzi (dù·zi belly; abdomen; stomach; bowels · [suf for nouns] 肚子)
  • rìzi (rì·zi {sun → [day]} · [suf for nouns] 日子)
  • shīzi (shī·zi lion · [suf for nouns] 狮子 獅子)
  • qīzi (qī·zi wife · [suf for nouns] 妻子)
  • érzi (ér·zi son · [suf for nouns] 儿子 兒子)
  • háizi (hái·zi child · [suf for nouns] [→ [son; daughter]] 孩子)
  • sūnzi (sūn·zi grandson · [suf for nouns] [→ [son’s son]] 孙子 孫子)

In specific cases, like in “nánzǐ (nán·zǐ male · person [→ [man]] 男子)” and in “nǚzǐ (nǚ·zǐ female · person [→ [woman]] 女子)”, “子” is written in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) with a third tone, and is used to mean “person”.

Avoiding Unnecessary Divisions

One of the things that the above-mentioned video touches on is that we should not let the matter of beards become a cause for division among God’s people. In the Mandarin field, it may be that some hesitate to use or speak of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), out of concern about causing real or perceived division, since many Mandarin field publishers are still accustomed to the traditional primacy of Chinese characters in worldly Chinese culture. Of course, we should avoid using or speaking about Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) in situations and ways that would truly lead to unnecessary division among Jehovah’s people—every situation is different, and we must try our best to be motivated by Christian love and to use discernment and sound judgment in every situation.

Also, let me emphasize that I, on this blog or anywhere else, do not presume to be giving authoritative spiritual direction to any of God’s people—that is the privilege and responsibility of the slave class. (Matthew 24:45–47) Rather, like any publisher who gives talks, gives comments, or just discusses various subjects both technical and spiritual with fellow believers, I seek to share what I have learned from my studies and my experience, that hopefully can be helpful to fellow workers in Jehovah’s service.

Beards vs. Writing Systems

One thing I notice is that while the Bible and the organization have specifically commented on and provided direction for God’s people living in different time periods concerning beards, it seems that neither the Bible nor the organization has specifically commented on or provided direction about any particular writing system like Chinese characters or Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). (Note, though, that the organization’s actions may have done some speaking of their own—over time, overall, the organization has gradually been making available more and more official material that contains Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).)

As far as I know and can recall, one of the only scriptures in the Bible from which we can gain some insight about writing systems is 1 Corinthians 14:8–11:

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.

This scripture speaks about the primary importance of understandable speech when it comes to how Christian ministers should use language, while not bothering to even mention writing systems. This reflects well the reality that linguists are familiar with, that because of the way that Jehovah created us humans to use language, speech is primary, and writing is secondary, if anything. Indeed, many, many languages don’t even have a writing system! And yet, as Revelation 14:6 shows us, this does not stop the preaching of the good news in any of these tongues, that is, spoken languages:

And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people.

(Interestingly, while it mentions “every…tongue”, or spoken language, this scripture doesn’t bother to mention writing systems either.)

So, while the prevailing worldly Chinese culture may tell us that Chinese characters are awesome and that we should all primarily focus on learning them, the Bible and the organization consider beards more worthy of mention than writing systems like Chinese characters. One thing that the above-mentioned video points out as something to avoid is “contradicting the guidance from the organization”, and it’s not difficult to avoid this with regard to, say, Chinese writing systems when there is no guidance from the organization about this subject (unless one has a tendency to, say, carry on as if there has been guidance from the organization to focus on Chinese characters when, actually, as far as I am aware, there has not been any such guidance, and what writing system to use remains a personal decision).

At the same time, though, if we focus on the inhumanly and unnecessarily numerous and complex Chinese characters so much that our abilities to understand spoken Mandarin and to speak Mandarin understandably remain seriously underdeveloped, then we would obviously not be following the counsel at 1 Corinthians 14:8–11 about the need to prioritize and use understandable speech in our ministry.

Traditions and Divisions

It is evident, then, that if any publisher were to make a fuss in support of the Chinese characters writing system or opposing or ridiculing the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) writing system, that publisher would be doing so because of some mixture of personal opinion/ignorance, human tradition, and cultural pride, not because of any scriptural basis or direction from the organization. And, as we should know, the Bible and the organization DO have a lot to say about the importance of NOT doing things because of things like personal opinion/ignorance, human tradition, and cultural pride. Such things can certainly cause unnecessary division among God’s people, since our unity as God’s people comes, not from together following human traditions and ways of doing things, but from together following direction from the Bible and from God’s organization. Let us, then, follow the actual direction from the Bible and from God’s organization so that we can build each other up spiritually, and so that we can really do the best we can to help praise and glorify Jehovah—not any human culture—and accomplish well the great work that he has given us to do in these last days.

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Names Science Technology

Yànwén

Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW is “Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文)”, which seems to be the most commonly used Mandarin expression referring to the modern Korean writing system. In English, we refer to this writing system as “Hangul” or “Hankul”, depending on which romanization system we prefer.

The Korean text “Joseongeul” and “Hangeul,” written in Hangul, the native Korean script.

The Korean text “Joseongeul” and “Hangeul,” written in Hangul, the native Korean script. [source]
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License logo metalslick

“…By Any Other Name”

One of the first things I noticed while researching this topic is that Korean, English, and Mandarin each have multiple names for the modern Korean writing system. Here is Wikipedia’s summary of its names in Korean and in English:

Official names

The Korean alphabet was originally named Hunminjeong’eum (훈민정음) by King Sejong the Great in 1443.[source] Hunminjeong’eum (훈민정음) is also the document that explained logic and science behind the script in 1446.

The name hangeul (한글) was coined by Korean linguist Ju Si-gyeong in 1912. The name combines the ancient Korean word han (한), meaning great, and geul (글), meaning script. The word han is used to refer to Korea in general, so the name also means Korean script.[source] It has been romanized in multiple ways:

  • Hangeul or han-geul in the Revised Romanization of Korean, which the South Korean government uses in English publications and encourages for all purposes.
  • Han’gŭl in the McCune–Reischauer system, is often capitalized and rendered without the diacritics when used as an English word, Hangul, as it appears in many English dictionaries.
  • hān kul in the Yale romanization, a system recommended for technical linguistic studies.

North Koreans call the alphabet Chosŏn’gŭl (조선글), after Chosŏn, the North Korean name for Korea.[source] A variant of the McCune–Reischauer system is used there for romanization.

Other names

Until the mid-20th century, the Korean elite preferred to write using Chinese characters called Hanja. They referred to Hanja as jinseo (진서/真書) meaning true letters. Some accounts say the elite referred to the Korean alphabet derisively as ‘amkeul (암클) meaning women’s script, and ‘ahaetgeul (아햇글) meaning children’s script, though there is no written evidence of this.[source]

Supporters of the Korean alphabet referred to it as jeong’eum (정음/正音) meaning correct pronunciation, gungmun (국문/國文) meaning national script, and eonmun (언문/諺文) meaning vernacular script.[source]

In addition to all the above, some dictionaries, including the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, use the English name “onmun” to refer to the modern Korean writing system. This is apparently derived from the Korean name “eonmun (언문/諺文)”, mentioned in the last paragraph of the above quote. Speaking of “eonmun (언문/諺文)”, the Chinese characters used to write it are the same as the Traditional characters used to write this week’s MEotW “Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文)”, indicating that this is where this Mandarin expression came from.

Speaking of “Yànwén (Yàn·wén {Proverb (Korean: Vernacular)} · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 谚文 諺文)”, as mentioned at the beginning of this post, this seems to be the expression most commonly used in Mandarin to mean “Hangul”—it is, for example, the main expression used to refer to Hangul in the Mandarin version of an Awake! article about Hangul. Also used in that Mandarin version of that Awake! article—once—to refer to Hangul is the expression “Hánwén (Hán·wén Korean · Writing → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system)] 韩文 韓文)”. Another Mandarin expression referring to the modern Korean writing system is “Cháoxiǎn Zìmǔ ((Cháo·xiǎn {Royal/Imperial Court [→ [Dynasty]]} · Rare → [North Korea | Chosŏn (Tw pron.: Cháoxiān)] 朝鲜 朝鮮) (Zì·mǔ Word · Mothers → [Letters (of an Alphabet) [→ [Alphabet]]] 字母) → [Hangul/Hankul (modern Korean writing system) (name used in North Korea)])”, which corresponds to the Korean expression “Chosŏn’gŭl (조선글)”, mentioned above. (“Cháoxiǎn (Cháo·xiǎn {Royal/Imperial Court [→ [Dynasty]]} · Rare → [North Korea | Chosŏn; [Great] Joseon [State] (Tw pron.: Cháoxiān)] 朝鲜 朝鮮)” corresponds to “Chosŏn”, the Korean name for North Korea—these two expressions are in fact written with the same Chinese characters.)

An Exceptionally Phonetic Writing System

In the linguistics podcast Lingthusiasm, in the episode entitled “Writing is a Technology”, linguist Gretchen McCulloch said the following about Hangul:

“But Korean’s really cool.” The thing that’s cool about it from a completely biased linguist perspective is that the writing system of Korean, Hangul, the script, is not just based on individual sounds or phonemes, it’s actually at a more precise level based on the shape of the mouth and how you configure the mouth in order to make those particular sounds. There’s a lot of, okay, here are these closely related sounds – let’s say you make them all with the lips – and you just add an additional stroke to make it this other related sound that you make with the lips. Between P and B and M, which are all made with the lips, those symbols have a similar shape. It’s not an accident. It’s very systematic between that and the same thing with T and D and N. Those have a similar shape because they have this relationship. It’s very technically beautiful from an analysis of language perspective.

[Note that the above quote alludes to the featural aspect of Hangul. The term “featural” refers to distinctive features, which are components of speech such as nasality, aspiration, voicing, place of articulation, etc. which are subphonemic, that is, below the level of phonemes. In his book Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems, pp. 196–198, John DeFrancis concludes that while Hangul has a featural aspect, and while it is an ingenious system of phonemic representation, it is not a featural writing system.]

Regarding how precisely Hangul represents the sounds of Korean speech, the above-mentioned Awake! article says:

In Korean schools there are no spelling contests! Why not? Because Hankul represents the sounds of Korean speech so accurately that writing them down correctly as you hear them presents no challenge.

Elsewhere, that Awake! article also explains how Hangul systematically represents the sounds of Korean syllables:

All Korean syllables consist of two or three parts: an initial sound, a middle sound (a vowel or vowels) and, usually, an ending sound. Words are made up of one or more syllables. Each syllable is written inside an imaginary box, as shown below. The initial sound (a consonant or the silent ㅇ) is written at the top or upper left. If the middle vowel is vertically shaped, it is written to the right of the initial sound, while horizontally shaped vowels are written under it. Letters may also be doubled, adding stress, and multiple vowels may be compressed and written alongside each other. If the syllable has a final consonant, it always appears in the bottom position. In this way, thousands of different syllables can be represented with Hankul.

I don’t speak or read Korean, but from what I can gather from information like the above quotes, it seems that Hangul is like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) (“Piecing Together of Sounds”), but for Korean.

The Hangul of Mandarin?

If Hangul is like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) for Korean, then conversely, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is like Hangul for Mandarin, at least when it comes to what is accomplished by its technical design—both systems systematically represent the individual phonemes (distinct speech sounds that can distinguish one word from another) of the language it was designed for.

Another thing that Hangul and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) have in common is that they have both been bitterly opposed and ridiculed by supporters of Chinese characters. Even though it was sponsored by King Sejong of the Korean Yi dynasty, Hangul was opposed by scholars, etc. who were invested in the more complex Chinese characters, the Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) (or the Hanja, as the Koreans call them), and even though Hangul was created way back in the 1440s, the above-mentioned Awake! article says that “more than 400 years elapsed before the Korean government declared that Hankul could be used in official documents.” That was in 1894, and it would not be until 1949 in North Korea and the 1970s in South Korea that Hangul was promoted to become the dominant writing system in these places.

Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) was promoted by Máo Zédōng ((Máo Hair (surname) 毛) (Zé·dōng Marsh · East 泽东 澤東) (the founder of the People’s Republic of China)) and other early movers and shakers in modern China as a full writing system that was intended to eventually replace the Chinese characters, but when Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) was officially adopted by the PRC in 1958, it was not as a full writing system with equal status to that of the Chinese characters. (A scenario like that, with two writing systems for the same language, is known as digraphia.) (By the way, like Hangul and Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [Chinese] 中国 中國) Mángwén (Máng·wén Blind · Writing → [Braille] 盲文) (中国盲文/中國盲文, Chinese Braille), Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)—designed along similar principles as those other two systems—is indeed a full writing system, not just a pronunciation aid.) As with Hangul, scholars, etc. who were heavily invested in the Chinese characters wouldn’t stand for that. Even as late as 2001, China’s Law on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language of the People’s Republic of China said that in China, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is officially just “the tool of transliteration and phonetic notation”.

If Hangul took hundreds of years to become the dominant writing system in Korea, even with the added nationalistic motivation of it having been invented in Korea to be used instead of the characters invented in China, then Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) could take even longer to become the dominant writing system for Mandarin, if it ever does, and if this old system were hypothetically allowed to last that long—the supporters of invented-in-China Chinese characters are even more proudly and stubbornly resistant to the idea of changing away from Chinese characters in China itself.

At this rate, the current government of China, as long as it lasts, will probably never explicitly officially approve of using Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a full writing system for Mandarin in China, even if it’s just as an alternative to the characters instead of as a total replacement for them. Even if it actually wanted to do so, even this government would hesitate to approve of something like this that would probably be opposed by many of the people of China. (As a historic comparison, in 1977, the PRC promulgated a second round of simplified Chinese characters, but this was rescinded in 1986 following widespread opposition.)

Your Own Personal Hangul for Mandarin?

However, while that may be the situation with the proud worldly nation of China, what about each of us Mandarn field language learners, as individuals who are dedicated to Jehovah God and not to any worldly human culture? Especially if we don’t live in China, under the authority of the current government of China, we are free to choose for ourselves to use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a full writing system for Mandarin and thus be fully empowered by its simplicity and elegance to serve Jehovah better, as long as we don’t allow ourselves to be shackled by mere human tradition, or by peer pressure.

Even in China itself, people should take into account that Article 18 of the above-mentioned Law on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language of the People’s Republic of China says, in part:

The “Scheme for the Chinese Phonetic Alphabet” [Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)] is the unified norm of the Roman letters for transliterating the names of Chinese people and places as well as Chinese documents and is used in the realms where it is inconvenient to use the Chinese characters or where the Chinese characters cannot be used.

Technically, it could be said that the extraordinarily complex and inhumanly numerous Chinese characters are by their very nature inconvenient, and that when one does not know or remember some or all of the Chinese characters, “the Chinese characters cannot be used” in those situations…

The above-mentioned Awake! article mentions this historical milestone involving Hangul:

Finally, there was a Bible in Korean that could be read by nearly anyone​—even by women and children who had never had the opportunity to learn Chinese characters.

Many Mandarin field language learners, and literally tens of millions of Chinese people around the world as well, have also not learned Chinese characters. Will there ever be a Bible that uses Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as its main writing system, and not just as a small-print pronunciation aid for the Chinese characters? Perhaps time will tell.

Categories
Culture Experiences History Science Theocratic

jiéle hūn

jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) → [[got] married]) ← 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.]

A few years back, I wrote up a brief web page listing reasons for producing Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), etc. material for the Imitate (ia) book. Some, especially some who grew up in the West, may have felt that this book is made up of “just stories”, and ones that they were already quite familiar with, at that. However, we must remember that Chinese Bible students may often have a different perspective regarding the Bible accounts that are made to come to life in the Imitate book. As that web page said:

  • Many Chinese people in the world have not been exposed to Bible accounts the way many Westerners have.
  • Also, I have heard that some, perhaps many, Chinese Bible students tend to approach their Bible studies like intellectual exercises for accumulating chōuxiàng (abstract) head knowledge as if for a school exam, rather than as training for their hearts for their own real lives.

Later, the web page touches on how some of the real-world benefits of good storytelling like that found in the Imitate book involve empathy:

  • …
    • The actress Natalie Portman once said, “I love acting. I think it’s the most amazing thing to be able to do. Your job is practicing empathy. You walk down the street imagining every person’s life.”
  • The Imitate book helps build Bible students’ empathy towards Bible characters, which in turn helps Bible students realize that others would feel empathy towards them as well if they imitated these Bible characters—not everyone will just think they’re crazy, like many worldly friends or family members might think.

While even fictional stories can have the benefits described in the links and the quote above, true stories from the Bible can have even greater benefits, including spiritual ones.

Besides the Imitate book, another book from Jehovah’s organization that relates Bible accounts is the Learn From the Bible (lfb) book. The letter from the Governing Body in this book says that, similarly to the Imitate book, the Learn From the Bible book also “brings the Bible accounts to life and captures the feelings of those depicted”, while, unlike the Imitate book, it “tells the story of the human family from creation onward”. While the Learn From the Bible book is especially suitable for children, the letter from the Governing Body in this book says that “it can also be used to help adults who desire to learn more about the Bible”. So, it would be good to consider on this blog some of the expressions used in the Mandarin Learn From the Bible book.

Moses Tied the Knot

This week’s MEotW, “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) → [[got] married])”, appears at the beginning of Lesson 18 of the Mandarin Learn From the Bible book, which is entitled “Ránshāo (Rán·shāo Ignited · {to Be Burning} 燃烧 燃燒) de (’s 的) Jīngjí Cóng ((Jīng·jí Brambles · Thorns 荆棘 荊棘) (Cóng Clump 丛 叢) → [Bush])” (“The Burning Bush”):

English:

Moses lived in Midian for 40 years. He got married and had children.

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Móxī (Moses 摩西) zài (in 在) Mǐdiàn (Midian 米甸) shēnghuóle (shēnghuó·le lived · {to completion} 生活了) 40 nián (years 年 年/秊), tā (he 他) jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) → [got married]), yě (also 也) yǒule (yǒu·le had · {to completion} 有了) háizi (hái·zi children · [suf for nouns] 孩子).

The Mandarin Learn From the Bible book here uses “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) → [[got] married])” to correspond with the English expression “got married”. “Jiéle hūn ((Jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) → [[got] married])” is the past participle of “jiéhūn (jié·hūn {tie (a knot of)} · {marrying → [marriage]} → [marry; get married] 结婚 結婚)”, which corresponds to “get married” in English. Interestingly, while in English “tie the knot” can mean “get married”, “jiéhūn (jié·hūn {tie (a knot of)} · {marrying → [marriage]} → [marry; get married] 结婚 結婚)” literally means “tie (a/the) knot of marrying”.

Morphemic Breakdown

The “jié ({tie [(a knot of)]}; knit; weave; [→ [congeal; form; forge; cement | join together; bind; connect; unite | settle; conclude]] | {tying (of a knot)} → [knot | (electrical) junction | node | written guarantee; affidavit; bond] 结 結)” in “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) → [[got] married])” basically means “to tie”, and based on that, it can have a variety of effective meanings in different contexts. For example, a common expression in which it appears is “jiéguǒ (jié·guǒ {tied (into a knot) → [formed]} · fruit → [result | as a result] 结果 結果)”, which literally means “tied (into a knot) (i.e., formed) fruit”, and which effectively means “result”, or “as a result”.

As for the “hūn (wedding; marrying; {getting married} [→ [marriage; wedding]] 婚)” in “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) → [[got] married])”, it’s basically a verb that means “to wed” or “to marry”. It’s often used as a verbal noun, or gerundial noun, as it is in “hūnyīn (hūn·yīn {marrying → [marriage]} · marriage → [marriage; matrimony] 婚姻)”.

What About the “Le”?

Okay, but what about the “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了)” in “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) → [[got] married])”? The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, says that when “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了)” is used this way, it’s an aspect marker. What’s that? The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary explains it like this:

A.M. (Aspect Marker, Tǐbiāojì 体标记).

Aspect means the stage of completion of an action. Chinese usually uses verbal suffixes as a means of indicating this information. Examples of Chinese aspect include the:

(i) durative (action in progress, much like ‘-ing’ in English), e.g., zhe in kànzhe ‘is watching’;

(ii) perfective (completed action), e.g., le in ànle wǔ ge diànyǐng, ‘saw five movies’; and

(iii) experiential (much like the ‘ever’ in the question ‘Have you ever . . . ?’), e.g., guo in jiànguo tā ‘have met him before’.

Note that aspect is not the same thing as tense. Tense refers to when the action takes place relative to when the utterance is actually spoken, and so at most any language can have only three tenses: past, present and future. Aspect, on the other hand, can occur in any tense, so that even completed action can be spoken of in the

(a) past, e.g., Tā zuótiān dàole Běijn̄g ‘He arrived in Beijing yesterday’;

(b) present, e.g., Tā xiànzài dàole Běijīng ‘He has now arrived in Beijing’; or

(c) future, e.g., Tā míngtiān zhèige shíhou yǐjing dàole Běijīng ‘He will already have arrived in Beijing by this time tomorrow’.

(See also M.P. for usage of le as a sentence-final particle.)

(“M.P.” is this dictionary’s abbreviation for “modal particle”, which is what “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了)” is when it’s at the end of a phrase or sentence (and thus followed immediately by a punctuation mark). More information on modal particles can be found on this list that’s in alphabetical order.)

When Should There Be a Space Before “Le”?

Different publications follow different rules about when to put a space before “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了)” when it appears in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) text. Even the PRC government’s official national standard (actually, it’s a set of recommendations) for Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) orthography, GB/T 16159-2012, is not as clear, precise, and thorough as one might wish in this regard. (GB/T 16159-2012 is discussed in more detail in the MEotW post on “diǎnliàng (diǎn·liàng {dot → [light (v); ignite]} · {to be bright} [→ [illuminate; shine light on]] 点亮 點亮)”.)

When it comes to when to put a space before “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了)” in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) text, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material follows the guidelines put forth in this excerpt (available from this page on pinyin.info) from the book Chinese Romanization: Pronunciation and Orthography, by Yin Binyong and Mary Felley:

_Pīnyīn_ orthography rules for “le (了)”, 1st page, from the book _Chinese Romanization: Pronunciation and Orthography_

_Pīnyīn_ orthography rules for “le (了)”, 2nd page, from the book _Chinese Romanization: Pronunciation and Orthography_

_Pīnyīn_ orthography rules for “le (了)”, 3rd page, from the book _Chinese Romanization: Pronunciation and Orthography_

(The highlights were added by me. Note that this book calls “le (-ed | {to completion} | [(at the end of a phrase/sentence) indicates a change] 了)”, as used in “jiéle hūn ((jié·le {tied (a knot of)} · {to completion} 结了 結了) (hūn marrying → [marriage] 婚) → [[got] married])”, a “tense particle”, or a “tense-marking particle”. Also, its term for “modal particle” is “mood particle”.)

For convenience:

The direct link for the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resource for the Learn From the Bible book is:

The short link for Chinese field language-learning links for the Learn From the Bible book is:

More Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web material based on the Mandarin Learn From the Bible book will be made available in the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web resource as time allows.