Tag: The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy

Categories
Culture Experiences History Language Learning Languages

jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng

jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng ((jī chicken 鸡 雞/鷄)‐(tóng {together with} 同 同/仝)‐(yā duck 鸭 鴨)‐(jiǎng speaking 讲 講) → [people not understanding each other because of speaking different languages (from Cantonese)]) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Yes, this expression comes from Cantonese, but the above Mandarin version does appear in Mandarin dictionaries, so it qualifies as a Mandarin expression!]

Recently, while out to dinner with one of the first families to serve in the local Cantonese congregation, along with the circuit overseer serving the local Chinese circuit and his wife, the subject came up of how Mandarin and Cantonese are actually different languages, not just dialects of the same language.

Chickens Talking with Ducks

The wife of the circuit overseer asked what the difference is between a language and a dialect. So, I proceeded to explain something that is emphasized by American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair, that a primary way accepted by most linguists to distinguish a language from a dialect is mutual intelligibility, as is discussed in this excerpt from the MEotW post on “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”:

It has been said that “a language is a dialect with an army and navy”, but in his article Professor Mair gives us a more linguistically correct and useful way to distinguish between a language and a dialect:

Regardless of the imprecision of lay usage, we should strive for a consistent means of distinguishing between language and dialect. Otherwise we might as well use the two terms interchangeably. That way lies chaos and the collapse of rational discourse. Mutual intelligibility [emphasis added] is normally accepted by most linguists as the only plausible criterion for making the distinction between language and dialect in the vast majority of cases. Put differently, no more suitable, workable device for distinguishing these two levels of speech has yet been proposed. If there are to be exceptions to the useful principle of mutual intelligibility, there should be compelling reasons for them. Above all, exceptions should not be made the rule.

What is mutual intelligibility? Simply put, in linguistics, two or more speech varieties are said to be mutually intelligible if they are “able to be understood by one another’s speakers”. For example, if one person only knows English, and another person only knows Spanish, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—English and Spanish are not mutually intelligible, and are suitably recognized as being different languages, not just different dialects of “European”.

Similarly, if one person only knows Mandarin, and another person only knows Cantonese, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible. So, while they may be “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · {(patterns of) speech} 方言)”, linguistically, Mandarin and Cantonese should really be considered to be different languages, not just different dialects of “Chinese”.

Indeed, I have heard people use this week’s MEotW, “jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng ((jī chicken 鸡 雞/鷄)‐(tóng {together with} 同 同/仝)‐(yā duck 鸭 鴨)‐(jiǎng speaking 讲 講) → [people not understanding each other because of speaking different languages (from Cantonese)])”, to specifically describe Mandarin-speakers and Cantonese-speakers trying to talk to each other, and not understanding each other. 🐓 🦆

After I explained the gist of the above, one of the daughters of the family at the dinner—who had been labouring for decades under the misconception that Mandarin and Cantonese are just dialects and that someone who knows one can easily learn the other—said, “Now I don’t feel like an idiot.”

Uncommon Knowledge?

It could be said that ones such as this family and this circuit overseer and his wife, who have all worked so hard and served for so long in the Chinese language fields, should already have known such a basic thing about the Chinese languages. However, the following things are unfortunately true:

  • Even publishers who are learning a language to serve in that language’s field generally consider such linguistic (language science) knowledge to be specialized technical knowledge that is beyond what they need to learn, and possibly beyond what they could even comprehend.
  • Western-educated publishers learning a Chinese language may unwittingly go along with the Western worldly tendency to exoticize things related to China. (John DeFrancis, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (p. 37), calls this “Exotic East Syndrome”.) They may be content with—or even enjoy—the alluring veil of mystery and mystique surrounding certain things related to China and Chinese culture. Thus, they don’t seek to learn about and understand deeper truths about such things, that may pierce through this obscuring veil, and burst this bubble.—Compare 2 Corinthians 3:14, including the margin note.
  • The central ruling authorities of China have long actively promoted the scientifically incorrect idea that the different varieties of speech in China are just dialects of the one Chinese language. This idea is political propaganda supporting the idea that it’s good for there to be central ruling authorities in China.
  • Traditional worldly Chinese language instructors and others who are knowledgeable about Chinese languages and Chinese characters are eager to promote and perpetuate the traditional thinking about Chinese languages and characters, that they have invested so much time and effort in, and that they are so proud of.
  • Chinese-educated publishers who are already steeped in the traditional ideas about Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc., and who are thus lauded and deferred to as experts by other publishers, may be eager to simply unquestioningly pass on the cultural knowledge and ideas that they were taught, and that they are lauded and respected for.
  • The Bible makes it clear that Satan the Devil is “a liar and the father of the lie”. It also describes him as “the great dragon…who is misleading the entire inhabited earth”. So, while we can only speculate about the details of what strings are purposely pulled in the spirit realm by Satan and his demons as opposed to what human folly they simply passively observe, we can be sure that Satan is delighted with all the ways in which people are misled in and about the Chinese culture, in which the dragon is considered a positive, revered symbol.—John 8:44; Revelation 12:9.

So, for reasons such as the above, even the basic linguistic truth that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. actually function as different languages is unfortunately not yet common knowledge among those serving in the Chinese fields. As the saying goes, which some say is a Chinese proverb, “error will travel over half the globe, while truth is pulling on her boots”.

Jesus said, though, that true worshippers worship “with spirit and truth”, and that “the truth will set you free”. With regard to Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc., the truth about them can even set one free from unnecessarily feeling like an “idiot”, as the sister mentioned above so eloquently put it, because of labouring under all the political propaganda, traditions, and other kinds of misinformation and wrong thinking that unfortunately surround Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc.—John 4:23; 8:32.

Huge Worldwide Effects

In addition to being hugely freeing for individual language learners, spreading the truth about the Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc. is also important on a larger scale, since the worldwide Mandarin field, for one, is the largest language field in the world, and probably the largest language field that has ever existed in human history. For comparison, according to Ethnologue, a resource on world languages, the worldwide Mandarin field (those worldwide whose mother tongue is Mandarin) is about twice the size of the second largest worldwide language field, the Spanish field, and it’s about two and a half times the size of the third largest worldwide language field, the English field. Allowing various untruths to continue to divert and bog down the language-learning efforts of those who come to help in the worldwide Mandarin field can have incalculable overall negative effects on the preaching work in this enormous field.

Chart: Languages by First-Language Speakers—2019

So, even as we hang on to Bible truth, let us also hang on to the linguistic truths that we learn, and let us do what we can to share them with our fellow workers in the vast worldwide Chinese fields.

Categories
Culture History Names

dài

dài ({take the place of}; replace; subsitute | replacing; substituting → [acting; substitute | generation [→ [period; era; age]]] 代) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW, “dài ({take the place of}; replace; subsitute | replacing; substituting → [acting; substitute | generation [→ [period; era; age]]] 代)”, basically literally means “take the place of” or “replace”. Why, then, is it used to mean “generation”? This tweet briefly explains:

Yes, the Chinese concept of a “generation” is that it is something that takes the place of or replaces what was there before—the emphasis seems to be on continuation, and a new generation is viewed as having done well if it lived up to or maintained what came before it. In contrast, in the English-speaking world, a “generation” is something new that is generated—the emphasis seems to be more on innovation, progress, and a new generation is viewed as having done well if it improved upon what came before it, and moved things ahead. For example, the English expression “next generation” indeed implies innovation and progress compared to previous generations, such as when applied to vehicles, computers, and other technology.

The Case of Star Trek: The Next Generation

Fans of Star Trek also generally naturally accept that of course in many aspects the world of Star Trek: The Next Generation is more advanced than the world of Star Trek: The Original Series—the ships are faster and more powerful, the special effects are better, etc. (Note that Star Trek: The Original Series was just called Star Trek when it first came out. “Star Trek: The Original Series” is a retronym that was applied to the show after other shows based on it began to appear.)

However, some Star Trek fans prefer Star Trek: The Original Series to Star Trek: The Next Generation, and do not view Star Trek: The Next Generation as better in every way compared to the original show. For example, many fans view original series characters like Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Dr. McCoy as their favourite characters in all the Star Trek shows. Indeed, some would say Mr. Spock is the most iconic Star Trek character of them all.

By the way, the Mandarin translation of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” in mainland China is apparently “Xīngjì Lǚxíng: Xià-Yí-Dài ((Xīng·jì Stars · {Boundaries → [Among]} → [Interstellar] 星际 星際) (Lǚ·xíng Travelling · Going → [Journeying] 旅行): (Xià Below → [Next] 下)-(Yí One 一)-(Dài Replacing → [Generation] 代) → [Star Trek: The Next Generation (mainland China translation)])”, according to the mainland Chinese version of Wikipedia. In contrast, “Star Trek: The Next Generation” is apparently called “Yín Hé Fēilóng (((Yín Silver 银 銀) (Hé River 河) → [Milky Way]) (Fēi·lóng Flying · Dragon [→ [Pterosaur]] 飞龙 飛龍) → [Star Trek: The Next Generation (Taiwan translation)])” (obviously not a literal translation) in Taiwan. While Wikipedia is of course not always right, in this case I have not been able to find any better source.

However, in an article on the official Star Trek website, I did find out about a big (literally) Chinese connection to Star Trek:

The building, according to Mashable.com, is the headquarters of NetDragon Websoft, a Chinese gaming and mobile Internet company. And the site notes, “Company Chairman Liu DeJian is reportedly an uberTrekkie, licensing from CBS the rights to build an Enterprise replica. Construction began in 2008 and was finished in 2014; the project cost $160 million total. The building is the only officially licensed Star Trek building on the planet.”

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

Speaking of generations of technology, and of replacings, it’s good for us Mandarin field language learners to remember that writing systems are technologies, and technologies are known to sometimes get replaced by newer generations of technologies. Also, with regard to Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) specifically, the original plan for modern-day China was for Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to one day replace Chinese characters. As the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A” says:

Pīnyīn was actually Plan A for modern-day China, but Plan A has not been fully followed through on, largely because of old-fashioned selfish pride, nationalism/“culturalism”, and traditionalism, with some intellectual self-indulgence thrown in there for good measure. As Jehovah’s people, we have been trained to recognize that these are very bad reasons for doing something, or for not doing something.

Letter from Mao Zedong re a “basic reform” of Chinese writing, involving a transition from Chinese characters to alphabetic writing

(The above picture is from near the beginning of the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, by John DeFrancis.)

Nostalgia, Progress, and Generations

While humans of different cultures and generations disagree as to whether new generations are necessarily better, whether in technology, Star Trek, writing systems, or life in general, God’s Word helps us to understand his view of passing generations of humans and human activity.

Here are a few scriptures that come to mind in that regard:

A generation is going, and a generation is coming,
But the earth remains forever.
—Ecclesiastes 1:4

Do not say, “Why were the former days better than these?” for it is not out of wisdom that you ask this.
—Ecclesiastes 7:10

Jesus said to him: “No man who has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well-suited for the Kingdom of God.”
—Luke 9:62

Brothers, I do not yet consider myself as having taken hold of it; but one thing is certain: Forgetting the things behind and stretching forward to the things ahead,
—Philippians 3:13

“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever,
—Daniel 2:44

Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.
—1 John 2:17

Categories
Culture Theocratic

liángshàn

liángshàn ({[is] good} [→ [goodness]] 良善) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

The sixth part of the fruitage of the spirit listed is goodness.— Jiālātàishū (Jiālātài·shū Galatia · Book → [Galatians] 加拉太书 加拉太書) 5:22, 23.

Galatians 5:22, 23 (WOL nwtsty-CHS+Pinyin)

The English word “goodness” is translated into Mandarin in the above scripture as “liángshàn ({[is] good} [→ [goodness]] 良善)”, this week’s MEotW.

Note that the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus information for “liángshàn ({[is] good} [→ [goodness]] 良善)” (← tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”) shows that when put together in this context, both of the morphemes that make up “liángshàn ({[is] good} [→ [goodness]] 良善)” individually basically mean “good” or “goodness”, and so the resulting whole word also means “good” or “goodness”.

Of the two morphemes that make up “liángshàn ({[is] good} [→ [goodness]] 良善)”, “shàn ({[is] good [at]} [→ [charitable; kind; friendly; virtuous]] 善)” is sometimes used as a word on its own, but the other morpheme “liáng (good; fine; desirable; virtuous (bound form) 良)” is not used as a word on its own—it’s what’s known as a bound form.

Bound Forms

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 bound forms:

B.F. (Bound Form, Niánzhuó Císù 粘着词素).

Morphemes which do not function as free words in a sentence and cannot be handled using one of the other bound category labels, such as prefix, suffix, measure word, or particle. A given character may represent a free word in one or more of its meanings but a bound morpheme in other meanings. E.g. qiǎng 抢 is a bound form meaning ‘take emergency measures’ in qiǎngshòu 抢收 but a free form as a verb meaning ‘pillage’.)

In addition to these meaningful bound forms, which we define and illustrate with one or more examples, there are many characters which have no meaning of their own but simply represent a syllabic sound. E.g. 8pú 葡 and 6táo 萄 in pútao 葡萄 ‘grapes’. For these entries we provide neither entry label nor definition but simply note words in which the character occurs.

The Monosyllabic Myth

This seems to be a good place to mention the Monosyllabic Myth. This is the mistaken belief that in Chinese, every word is monosyllabic (one syllable), represented by a character, and that conversely, every syllable is a word.

One factor that contributes to this mistaken belief is that unlike how words are obviously separated by spaces in English writing, the Chinese characters writing system puts all characters the same distance apart from each other regardless of word boundaries—the main units below sentences seem to be characters, not words. Another contributing factor is that in good old paper Chinese dictionaries, the main entries are each based on a single character, not on a single word, which may contain more than one syllable—while English dictionaries are dictionaries of words, traditional Chinese dictionaries have been dictionaries of characters.

The Reality of Mandarin Syllables

The reality, though, as newer Chinese dictionary apps like Pleco make obvious, is that in Mandarin there are syllables like “liáng (good; fine; desirable; virtuous (bound form) 良)”, which is not a word on its own, but which combine with other syllables to form words like “liángshàn ({[is] good} [→ [goodness]] 良善)”, which have two or more syllables. While text written in Chinese characters all runs together into a single hard-to-parse mass, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) text uses word separation to clearly show word boundaries, like how in the above image it’s clear that “liángshàn ({[is] good} [→ [goodness]] 良善)” is a separate word from the words before and after it.

John DeFrancis, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (pp. 184–185), explains the different types of syllables in Mandarin, with regard to how free they are to stand on their own as words:

DEGREES OF SYLLABIC FREEDOM

Syllables like wǒ that are intelligible even in isolation are at the opposite extreme from syllables like hù, allegedly “butterfly” but actually a mere phonetic element devoid of meaning and tightly bound as part of the two-syllable expression hùdiǎr. Between these two extremes are meaningful syllables that are semibound in the sense that they always occur bound but have a certain flexibility in joining with other syllables. There are thus three types of Chinese syllables:

  1. F: free, meaningful
  2. SB: semibound, meaningful
  3. CB: completely bound, meaningless

These three categories are roughly comparable in English to the free form teach, the semibound form er in “teacher” and “preacher,” and the completely bound forms cor and al in “coral.”