Tag: Speech

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Science Theocratic

chuĂĄn

chuĂĄn (boat; ship; vessel èˆč èˆč/舩) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week, we are revisiting “chuĂĄn (boat; ship; vessel èˆč èˆč/舩)”, an expression that was featured in an early Expression of the Week post on the tiandi.info blog. (If you need login information for the parts of tiandi.info that require it, request it by email, and include information on how you learned of tiandi.info and/or what group/cong. you are in.)

As shown in the image below, the first printing of the Insight book (on p. 328 of Volume 1) included a section regarding the Chinese character for “chuĂĄn (boat; ship; vessel èˆč èˆč/舩)”:

P. 328 of Vol. 1 of the first printing of the _Insight_ book (1988), with a section about “èˆč”

However, this section on this Chinese character no longer appears in current versions of the Insight book. Why might it have been removed?

Murky Speculation

Several years after the above-mentioned tiandi.info post was originally posted, I appended the following update to it:

Note that the section about the Chinese character “èˆč (chuĂĄn)” that was originally in the Insight book, Vol. 1, p. 328 is not present in the more recently published Chinese version of the Insight book.

Perhaps it was eventually decided that the origins of Chinese characters, which have been used for thousands of years, are too murky to do anything more than speculate about. I myself have recently become convinced that Chinese characters in general have been over-glamourized by the world.

It’s also worth going over an interesting, well-researched comment that the tiandi.info post mentioned above received. (Thanks again, Ed!) Here are a couple of excerpts from it:

The Insight article isn’t the only place in the Slave’s writings that the reference to this Chinese character appears. It originally appeared in the article “Chinese Characters—Why Are They Written That Way?” in g84 8/8 p. 23 [Here is a link to that article. Note that in addition to mentioning “chuĂĄn (boat; ship; vessel èˆč èˆč/舩)”, this old article unfortunately repeats the Ideographic Myth. Also, it conflates language with writing, when actually, linguists understand that language primarily has to do with speech.—ed.], which ended with the caveat, “The similarity between the thoughts behind many of the Chinese characters and the Bible record of man’s early history is nothing less than remarkable. Although the evidence is only circumstantial, it is, nonetheless, fascinating to think that there is a possibility that the Chinese [characters contain Biblical concepts].”

The article was written in response to the book The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language, which had been published only a few years earlier. This book is full of fascinating parallels between Biblical accounts and elements that appear to comprise certain Chinese characters.

There are many resources available these days even to English speakers that contain scholarly research into the meaning and origins of Chinese characters. During the course of learning the language, I have made it a hobby to investigate some of these. I have to say that, based on what I have discovered, I disagree with the coauthors of Discovery of Genesis. In fact, there is a web site that has existed for several years for the purpose of rebutting these claims. While I don’t know the author’s motive for putting up the page, it does seem to have logical arguments.




For an alternative to Zhongwen.com, you could try looking up èˆč at this site. (Disclosure: this web site is run by me.)

Truly right-hearted people won’t be stumbled if we share accurate knowledge from the Bible with them. But in any case, it’s best not to get too involved with matters of speculation that could be of interest to us but not have a direct bearing on God’s word of truth.

Sound vs. Meaning

The Raccoon Bend website page mentioned in the above quote contains some technical points such as the following:

A typical error made
is to analyze a semantic-phonetic compound as though it were compound-indicative (which they refer to as “ideographic”).

In other words, some mistakenly treat a character component that indicates sound as if it indicates meaning. The information at the Chinese-Characters.org link that the brother quoted above provided indicates that doing that with “èˆč” seems to be what led to the story of “vessel + eight + mouths/persons”, when this character should actually be understood as being made up of the components “vessel + [phonetic (sound) component]”.

Stories vs. the Truth

As humans, we naturally love stories, since our minds use stories to make sense of the world around us. Also, stories add or reveal meaning or significance regarding things that these things would lack if they were not part of a story. However, not all stories are true. And while even fictional stories can help to reveal deeper truths about life, like Jesus’ parables did, false stories can take us farther away from the truth, if we let them. As the apostle Paul warned in 2 Timothy 4:3, 4:

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

While Chinese characters sometimes have appealing stories attached to them, let us make sure that we don’t let mere love of a good story take us away from the truth in any way. While naive tourists may be easily misled by appealing but false stories, as literal or figurative missionaries in the Mandarin field, we have a responsibility to serve God and our Mandarin-speaking neighbours “with spirit and truth”.—John 4:23, 24.

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning Theocratic

hĂșzi

hĂșzi (hĂș·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] èƒĄć­ 鬍歐) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW, “hĂșzi (hĂș·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] èƒĄć­ 鬍歐)”, is used, along with the expression “hĂșxĆ« (hĂș·xĆ« beard; moustache; whiskers · beard; moustache èƒĄéĄ» 鬍鬚)”, to translate “beard” in the Mandarin version of the 2023 Governing Body Update #8 video.

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

Morphemic Breakdown

In “hĂșzi (hĂș·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] èƒĄć­ 鬍歐)”, “hĂș (beard; moustache; whiskers èƒĄ 鬍)” means “beard; moustache; whiskers”. (Note that this is the meaning of the Simplified Chinese character â€œèƒĄâ€ when it corresponds to the Traditional Chinese character “鬍”. This Simplified character can also correspond to the Traditional characters â€œèƒĄâ€ and â€œèĄšâ€, which have different meanings.)

As for “zi ([suf for nouns] 歐)”, it is used in “hĂșzi (hĂș·zi beard; moustache; whiskers · [suf for nouns] → [beard; moustache; whiskers] èƒĄć­ 鬍歐)” as a suffix that is attached to nouns. Other examples of this in use are:

  • cĂšzi (cÚ·zi brochure; booklet · [suf for nouns] 憌歐 憊歐)
  • dĂčzi (dĂč·zi belly; abdomen; stomach; bowels · [suf for nouns] è‚šć­)
  • rĂŹzi (rÏ·zi {sun → [day]} · [suf for nouns] æ—„ć­)
  • shÄ«zi (shī·zi lion · [suf for nouns] 狼歐 獅歐)
  • qÄ«zi (qī·zi wife · [suf for nouns] 抻歐)
  • Ă©rzi (Ă©r·zi son · [suf for nouns] 愿歐 慒歐)
  • hĂĄizi (hĂĄi·zi child · [suf for nouns] [→ [son; daughter]] 歩歐)
  • sĆ«nzi (sĆ«n·zi grandson · [suf for nouns] [→ [son’s son]] 歙歐 歫歐)

In specific cases, like in “nĂĄnzǐ (nĂĄn·zǐ male · person [→ [man]] 男歐)” and in “nǚzǐ (nǚ·zǐ female · person [→ [woman]] 愳歐)”, “歐” is written in PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) 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 PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł), 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 PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) 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 PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł). (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 PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł).)

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 PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) 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 Current Events History Language Learning Names Science Technology

HāmǐjĂ­duƍdĂčn

HāmǐjĂ­duƍdĂčn (Armageddon ć“ˆç±łć‰ć€šéĄż ć“ˆç±łć‰ć€šé “) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Notes: Tap/click on a PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) expression to reveal its “flashcard”; tap/click on a “flashcard” or its PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) 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.]

At the time of this writing, jw.org was featuring an article with the following title:

English:

Will Armageddon Begin in Israel?—What Does the Bible Say?

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 HāmǐjĂ­duƍdĂčn (Armageddon ć“ˆç±łć‰ć€šéĄż ć“ˆç±łć‰ć€šé “) DĂ zhĂ n (Dà·zhĂ n {Big → [Great]} · War ć€§æˆ˜ ć€§æˆ°) HuĂŹ (Will 䌚 會) zĂ i (in 朹) YǐsĂšliĂš (Israel 仄è‰Č戗) BĂ ofā (BĂ o·fā Explode · {Issue Forth} → [Erupt] 爆揑 爆癌) ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 搗 旎)? ShĂšngjÄ«ng (ShĂšng·jÄ«ng (the) Holy · Scriptures → [the Bible] ćœŁç» 聖經) de (’s 的) Guāndiǎn (Guān·diǎn {Looking At → [View]} · Point → [Viewpoint] 观ç‚č 觀點) ShĂŹ (Is æ˜Ż) ShĂ©nme (ShĂ©n·me What · [suf] 什äčˆ ä»€/甚éșŒ)?

This week’s MEotW is “HāmǐjĂ­duƍdĂčn (Armageddon ć“ˆç±łć‰ć€šéĄż ć“ˆç±łć‰ć€šé “)”, the Mandarin syllables of which were obviously chosen first because of how much they sound like the English word “Armageddon” (and perhaps the original Hebrew word from which that came), not because of the meanings of the supposedly ideographic Chinese characters used to write them out (“Exhale Rice Lucky Much Pausing”??? đŸ€·đŸ»).

This emphasizes to us that when it comes to human language, SPEECH is primary—SOUNDS are the primary medium for transmitting meaning, and a writing system that transmits meaning purely with its visual symbols, without any dependency on speech sounds, is not a thing. However, this erroneous concept is so prevalent that there’s a name for it: The Ideographic Myth.

Several past MEotW posts have mentioned in passing the Ideographic Myth concerning Chinese characters, so it’s about time this blog took a deeper dive into this subject. Below are some selected excerpts from the chapter “The Ideographic Myth”, of the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, by John DeFrancis, along with some commentary.

the concept of written symbols conveying their message directly to our minds, thus bypassing the restrictive intermediary of speech

This is a definition of the concept of “ideographic” writing.

Aren’t Chinese characters a sophisticated system of symbols that similarly convey meaning without regard to sound? Aren’t they an ideographic system of writing?

The answer to these questions is no. Chinese characters are a phonetic, not an ideographic, system of writing
There never has been, and never can be, such a thing as an ideographic system of writing.

Indeed, Chinese characters are always used to represent some language’s speech, are they not? They can be used to represent the speech of multiple languages, but they are not used in any way in which they do not represent the speech of any language, are they? There are no Chinese characters that have no spoken pronunciation in any language, are there? So, while some may find the idea of Chinese characters being an ideographic writing system fascinating, in real-life, actual use, Chinese characters are a phonetic writing system representing a language’s speech sounds (which do the actual representing of meanings)—Chinese characters are not an ideographic writing system directly representing meanings.

Origin of the Myth

The concept of Chinese writings as a means of conveying ideas without regard to speech took hold as part of the chinoiserie fad among Western intellectuals that was stimulated by the generally highly laudatory writings of Catholic missionaries from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries.




It was not acquaintance with Chinese but decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing following Napoleon’s conquests in North Africa that led to the coining of several expressions related to the ideographic idea.




Decipherment of this script had long been impeded by the notion that it was symbolic of ideas, particularly mystical or spiritual ones. It was not just the discovery of the famous Rosetta Stone, with its bilingual text in three scripts (Hieroglyphic Egyptian, Demotic Egyptian, and Greek) that made this possible. As Gordon (1968:24) stresses: “The decipherment of Hieroglyphic Egyptian required the replacement of the deep-seated notion of symbolism by the correct view that the main (though not the only) feature of the script is phonetic.”

Champollion’s success in deciphering the Egyptian script was due to his recognition of its phonetic aspect.




The rebus idea seems obvious to us since we use it in children’s games, but it actually constitutes a stupendous invention, an act of intellectual creation of the highest order—a quantum leap forward beyond the stage of vague and imprecise pictures to a higher stage that leads into the ability to represent all the subtleties and precision expressible in spoken language. Writing is now directly, clearly, firmly related to language: to speech. If there was ever any question whether a symbol had a sound attached to it, this now receives a positive answer. In the earliest form known to us, the character for “wheat” was borrowed to represent the word “come” precisely because both were pronounced in the same way.




What is crucial is to recognize that the diverse forms perform the same function in representing sound. To see that writing has the form of pictures and to conclude that it is pictographic is correct in only one sense—that of the form, but not the function, of the symbols. We can put it this way:

QUESTION: When is a pictograph not a pictograph?

ANSWER: When it represents a sound.

The use of the pictograph for “wheat” to represent the homophonous word ləg (“come”) transformed the function of the symbol from pictographic depiction of an object to syllabic representation of a sound. This change in function has been the essential development marking the emergence of all true systems of writing, including Chinese.

Sinological Contribution to the Myth

The fact that some Chinese pictographs have not undergone a change in form parallel to the change in function has tended to obscure the significance of the change that did take place. As a result, the phonetic aspect of Chinese writing is minimized by many people, even specialists in the field.




The error of exaggerating the pictographic and hence semantic aspect of Chinese characters and minimizing if not totally neglecting the phonetic aspect tends to fix itself very early in the minds of many people, both students of Chinese and the public at large, because their first impression of the characters is likely to be gained by being introduced to the Chinese writing system via some of the simplest and most interesting pictographs
. Unless a determined effort is made to correct this initial impression, it is likely to remain as an article of faith not easily shaken by subsequent exposure to different kinds of graphs.




Myth vs. Reality

A limited number of pictographic or semantic characters
cannot be considered indicative of full systems of nonphonetic writing that can function like ordinary orthographies to express nearly everything we can express in spoken language. The fact is that such a full system of nonphonetic writing has never existed. The system of Chinese characters, the Sumerian, Accadian, and Hittite cuneiform systems, and the Egyptian hieroglyphic system were none of them complete systems of semantic writing.

How limited is the number of pictographic or semantic characters, like “äșș”, “揣”, â€œć±±â€, etc., as opposed to the number of characters with some phonetic component related to pronunciation? This table from p. 129 of the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy says that only about 3% of all Chinese characters are purely pictographic or semantic:

Table 7 Semantic Versus Phonetic Aspects of Chinese Characters, p. 129, _The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy_

This myth, it is apparent, exists in two aspects. Both must be rejected. The first is that the Chinese characters constitute an existing system of ideographic writing. This has been shown to be factually untrue. The second aspect is the validity of the ideographic concept itself. I believe it to be completely untenable because there is no evidence that people have the capacity to master the enormous number of symbols that would be needed in a written system that attempts to convey thought without regard to sound, which means divorced from spoken language. 
But while it is possible for a writing system to have many individual “ideographs” or “ideograms”, it is not possible to have a whole writing system based on the ideographic principle. Alphabetic writing requires mastery of several dozen symbols that are needed for phonemic representation. Syllabic writing requires mastery of what may be several hundred or several thousand symbols that are needed for syllabic representation. Ideographic writing, however, requires mastery of the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of symbols that would be needed for ideographic representation of words or concepts without regard to sound. A bit of common sense should suggest that unless we supplement our brains with computer implants, ordinary mortals are incapable of such memory feats.

Indeed, how many concepts or ideas exist, or could potentially come into existence as they get invented? That’s how many symbols an actual ideographic writing system would need to have. Obviously, even if such a system could be made to exist, it would be unusable by actual imperfect humans. Even Chinese characters, which “only” number somewhere over 100,000, are not numerous enough to be an actual ideographic writing system, and Chinese characters are already inhumanly complex and numerous.

Objections to the Term “Ideographic”

We need to go further and throw out the term itself.




Chinese characters represent words (or better, morphemes), not ideas, and they represent them phonetically, for the most part, as do all real writing systems despite their diverse techniques and differing effectiveness in accomplishing the task.




Both terms [“logographic” and “ideographic”] are inadequate and misleading because they fail to indicate that the process of getting from graph to word/morpheme involves the phonetic aspect of the latter and because this failure leaves the way open to the idea that we get from graph to word/morpheme by means of some nonphonetic, in a word, “ideographic”, approach. Only the adoption of some such term as “morphosyllabic”, which calls attention to the phonetic aspect, can contribute to dispelling the widespread misunderstanding of the nature of Chinese writing.

Chinese characters being a “morphosyllabic” writing system means that “each character is pronounced as a single syllable and represents a single morpheme”* (smallest unit of language SOUND with meaning)—a Chinese character does NOT bypass language sounds to directly represent an idea.

So, every time you hear in Mandarin a name like “HāmǐjĂ­duƍdĂčn (Armageddon ć“ˆç±łć‰ć€šéĄż ć“ˆç±łć‰ć€šé “)” that came from another language, and is made up in Mandarin of syllables that make no sense except that they sound like the name in the original language, remember that the Ideographic Myth is just that—a myth!

As worshippers of the one true God Jehovah, we carefully avoid spiritual idolatry, realizing that no visible idol or image can be allowed to replace the invisible, almighty Spirit Jehovah as the object of our worship. Similarly, us Chinese field language learners must also carefully avoid the linguistic idolatry of considering visible Chinese characters to be direct representations of meaning in Chinese languages, when the truth is that in human languages, including Chinese languages, meaning is primarily transmitted via invisible speech.

 

* John DeFrancis, The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1984), p. 125. ^