Tag: The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

mìmì

mìmì (mì·mì {[is] secret} · {[is] dense → [[is] intimate; close] → [[is] secret; confidential]} [(thing)] → [[is] secret; confidential; clandestine | secret [(thing)]] 秘密 秘/祕密) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

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).

Secrets

This week’s MEotW, “mìmì (mì·mì {[is] secret} · {[is] dense → [[is] intimate; close] → [[is] secret; confidential]} [(thing)] → [[is] secret; confidential; clandestine | secret [(thing)]] 秘密 秘/祕密)”, is used in verse 2 (WOL, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus) of 1 Corinthians 13:

Screenshot of “mìmì” in 1 Co. 13:2 (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.)

While the two morphemes in “mìmì (mì·mì {[is] secret} · {[is] dense → [[is] intimate; close] → [[is] secret; confidential]} [(thing)] → [[is] secret; confidential; clandestine | secret [(thing)]] 秘密 秘/祕密)” sound the same, they are different morphemes, with different meanings. The first one, “mì ({secret (n)} [→ [secretary (abbr.)]] | {[is] secret; mysterious; difficult to understand; obscure} [→ [[is] seldom seen; rare]] | {keep sth. secret; hold sth. back} [→ [block; obstruct]] 秘 秘/祕)”, here means “secret” (used as an adjective). Interestingly, this “mì ({secret (n)} [→ [secretary (abbr.)]] | {[is] secret; mysterious; difficult to understand; obscure} [→ [[is] seldom seen; rare]] | {keep sth. secret; hold sth. back} [→ [block; obstruct]] 秘 秘/祕)” also appears in “mìshū (mì·shū secret · documents (person) → [secretary] 秘书 秘書)”, which means “secretary”, and it can be used as an abbreviation for “secretary”. (Yes, in both English and Mandarin, the word for “secretary” is based on the word for “secret”. So, be nice to office secretaries, congregation secretaries, etc. everywhere, since they are literally keepers of secrets!)

The second morpheme in “mìmì (mì·mì {[is] secret} · {[is] dense → [[is] intimate; close] → [[is] secret; confidential]} [(thing)] → [[is] secret; confidential; clandestine | secret [(thing)]] 秘密 秘/祕密)”, “mì ({[is] dense; thick} [[→ [[is] intimate; close] [→ [[is] secret; confidential]]] | [→ [[is] fine; meticulous]]] 密)”, literally means “dense; thick”, and can effectively mean “intimate; close”. (Compare the English expression “thick as thieves”.) That meaning, in turn, can effectively mean “secret” (used as an adjective), which is how it is used in “mìmì (mì·mì {[is] secret} · {[is] dense → [[is] intimate; close] → [[is] secret; confidential]} [(thing)] → [[is] secret; confidential; clandestine | secret [(thing)]] 秘密 秘/祕密)”. Another expression in which it’s used that way is “mìmǎ (mì·mǎ {dense → [intimate] → [secret]} · {sth. indicating a number} → [cipher; code | password; PIN] 密码 密碼)”, which can mean “code”. For example, the Mandarin Was Life Created? brochure uses “yíchuán (yí·chuán {leaving behind} · {passing on} → [genetic] 遗传 遺傳) mìmǎ (mì·mǎ {dense → [intimate] → [secret]} · {sth. indicating a number} → [code] 密码 密碼)” to translate “genetic code”. (Compare: English WOL, CHS+Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) WOL, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus.)

Exotic East Syndrome

Speaking of secrets, some may be fascinated by the seemingly secret knowledge of the Chinese characters. However, 1 Corinthians 13:2 tells us that even understanding “all the sacred secrets and all knowledge” means nothing if one does not have love, and while Chinese characters may seem alluringly secret and mysterious to those looking on from outside the culture, they certainly are not sacred. Only things from God are sacred, and Chinese characters are the unnecessarily complex, haphazardly designed, highly imperfect products of mere imperfect humans.

And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
—1 Corinthians 13:2.

Regarding this tendency of some to exoticize Chinese characters and other aspects of Chinese culture, the MEotW post on “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)])” pointed out:

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.

Secrets and Identities

It is of course possible for one to have a balanced approach to Chinese characters, in which love moves one to seek to acquire whatever knowledge of characters is needed to serve effectively in the Chinese field that one is in. Many take the approach of using a system like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) when they can, and learning to use characters when they have to. However, regarding how personally and emotionally important to them their knowledge of the secrets of Chinese characters has become to some people, the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A” said:

In addition to those who feel that phasing out the Hànzì would be a regrettable cultural loss, I have also noticed that there are some for whom knowledge of Hànzì is a matter of pride and self-identity. They are proud of knowing the Hànzì as they do, and they view their knowledge of the Hànzì as part of what makes them who they are, as something that distinguishes them from those who don’t know the Hànzì. Such ones may defend the Hànzì to the point of irrationality in the face of a more accessible alternative that would make them and their hard-earned knowledge of Hànzì less “special”, that would threaten to render worthless all of the blood, sweat, and tears they have invested into grappling with these “Chinese puzzles”. It’s as if they are saying, “That’s not fair! If I had to go through all this bitter hard work to learn characters before I could read and write Chinese, then everyone else has to too!”

…

…during the 2014 Stanford Commencement address, Bill Gates said:

If we have optimism, but we don’t have empathy, then it doesn’t matter how much we master the secrets of science, we’re not really solving problems—we’re just working on puzzles.

Mr. Gates’ above observation applies to the subject at hand in that while many enjoy trying to solve the puzzles presented by Chinese characters, and while many also enjoy being known for being good at solving these puzzles, empathy should move us to recognize that there are much bigger issues involved than just our personal enjoyment or glorification.

Yes, when even some worldly people can recognize the above points, we Christians should recognize even more the need to show love and empathy rather than being proud, self-glorifying, self-justifying, and self-serving. Also, we should be actively and determinedly following the course of true Christian love and empathy rather than just going along with others who are proud, self-glorifying, self-justifying, and self-serving. We should especially do so when we have scriptures such as this to guide us:

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.—1 Corinthians 8:1.

Love and AI

As touched on in the MEotW post on “réngōng (rén·gōng human · work → [artificial] 人工) zhìnéng (zhì·néng intelligence · ability → [intelligence] 智能)”, lately there has been much discussion in the media about the recent developments in AI (artificial intelligence). AI systems can now be given access to lots and lots of human knowledge, but I don’t think anyone can reasonably claim that modern AI systems have been taught to have love the way the Bible says we need to have love. And so, many continue to worry about AIs falling out of alignment with humans and maybe even harming humans, maybe even to the point of extinction. Yes, as God’s Word pointed out long ago in 1 Corinthians 13:2, if one has much knowledge, even of secrets, but does not have love (Greek: a·gaʹpe), it is ultimately of no benefit. Indeed, without love to guide its use, that knowledge could actually be used to bring great harm!

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science Technology

fā yǔyīn

fā ({send out} 发 發)
yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

While doing research for the MEotW post on “tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)‐wàng (forget 忘)‐zì (character 字)”, I came across the web article “Why is character amnesia in China considered problematic?”. One of the points it makes involves this week’s MEotW, “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” (send voice message):

Another feature that has gained huge popularity in China recently is that of ‘sending voice messages’ (发语音, fā yǔyīn). Chinese Whatsapp equivalent ‘WeChat’ was the first in the world to introduce this feature in its app. Social media research by University College London has shown that Chinese WeChat users find voice messaging convenient because it eliminates the need to text. Informants have reported that sending written messages always takes more time, and that inputting Chinese characters was a struggle (Wang & McDonald, 2013). With voice messaging, or even with pinyin input, people do not need to memorize the exact order of each stroke of a character when typing a text. They can just rely on knowing the pronunciation and recognizing the character. The prevalence of typing and texting on cellular devices has been correlated to reduced active-character knowledge by Chinese natives, leading to the tibiwangzi-phenomenon (Williams, 2016).

Sending, Language, Sounds

The “fā ({send out}; issue; emit [→ [deliver | utter; express | become rich]] 发 發)” in “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” literally means “send out; issue; emit”, and it can also be used to mean various things such as “deliver”, “utter; express”, and “become rich”. With such a variety of meanings, it shows up in various expressions, such as:

  • fāchū (fā·chū issue; send; emit · out 发出 發出)
  • fāchòu (fā·chòu emit · {being stinking} → [smell bad; stink] 发臭 發臭)
  • fāshēng (fā·shēng {issue forth} · {come to life} → [happen] 发生 發生)
  • fācái (fā·cái {issue forth} · wealth; riches → [get rich; make a fortune] 发财 發財) (“Fā ({issue forth (riches)} → [become rich] 发 發)” used on its own to mean “become rich” is probably an abbreviation of this expression.)
  • fāyīn (fā·yīn {sending out; issuing → [uttering] [of]} · sound → [pronouncing/articulating/enunciating | pronunciation; articulation; enunciation] 发音 發音)
  • etc.

The “yǔ (language; speech; tongue | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say 语 語)” in “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” basically means “language”. It can also particularly mean “speech”—according to a basic principle of linguistics, speech is the primary aspect of human language. This “yǔ (language; speech; tongue | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say 语 語)” is used in:

  • yǔyán (yǔ·yán language; tongue · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言)
  • Guóyǔ (Guó·yǔ National · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in Taiwan)] 国语 國語)
  • Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language [→ [(Modern Standard) Mandarin]] 汉语 漢語)
  • Hányǔ (Hán·yǔ Korean · Language 韩语 韓語)
  • Yīngyǔ (Yīng·yǔ English · Language 英语 英語)
  • etc.

(Note that while “Yīngyǔ (Yīng·yǔ English · Language 英语 英語)”, for example, refers to English language speech, “Yīngwén (Yīng·wén English · Writing 英文)” refers, not to English speech, but to English language writing.)

The “yīn (sound [→ [musical note/sound; tone; pronunciation | syllable | news; tidings]] 音)” in “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” basically means “sound”, and it can also be used to mean “musical note/sound”, “tone”, “pronunciation”, “syllable”, and “news; tidings”. It is used in:

  • shēngyīn (shēng·yīn sound; voice · sound 声音 聲音)
  • yīnyuè (yīn·yuè {(musical) sound} · music → [music] 音乐 音樂)
  • Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)
  • Zhùyīn (Zhù·yīn {Annotating of} · Sounds → [Zhuyin] 注音 註/注音)
  • Mǎtài (Matthew 马太 馬太) Fúyīn (Fú·yīn Blessings · News 福音)
  • etc.

Speech is Natural, Characters, Not So Much

Writing is by now an age-old technology for recording and transmitting human speech. Now, in 2023, audio recording and transmitting technology has been available for a long time that actually allows one to directly hear the recorded speech pretty much as it originally sounded. Additionally, such technology is getting more and more common and accessible, to the point that many are finding that it often is faster and easier to send audio voice messages than to write and send written messages, especially when using as complex and cumbersome a writing system as Chinese characters.

True, in some situations, writing has some advantages over speech, but overall, the linguistic principle remains true that when it comes to human language, speech is primary and writing is secondary. Indeed, if God had meant for us humans to mainly use writing to communicate, then he could easily have designed our bodies with built-in screens that are able to dynamically display writing, like even humans know how to make. Instead, God designed our brains and bodies such that parts of them are specialized for directly understanding and producing speech.

Thus, it is quite natural that people would often take advantage of technology that has become available that allows one to actually hear recorded speech, instead of always settling for the visual abstractions of writing. And, when writing is appropriate, it is similarly relatively natural for people to make use of writing systems like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) that are primarily phonetic, that is, focusing on directly representing the sounds of speech.

The National, the Political, the Universal(?), the Individual, the Rituals

On the other hand, rather than naturally reflecting divine wisdom, the attachment of many to Chinese characters instead reflects some human shortcomings. On a national level, the justification that characters are helpful in politically unifying China in spite of it being comprised of groups speaking different languages is yet another example of a human ruling authority prioritizing its own political power and survival over what’s actually good for the people. Besides, there’s actually nothing special about characters when it comes to being usable by people who speak different languages. As John DeFrancis put it in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, in the chapter entitled “The Universality Myth” (p. 159),

Chinese characters used by Asians speaking different languages are no more universal than are Latin letters used by Europeans who also speak different languages.

For example, while it’s true that the character “台” is recognized by both Mandarin-speakers and Cantonese-speakers as meaning “table”, it’s also true that “table”, written in Latin alphabet letters, is recognized by both English-speakers and French-speakers as meaning “table”.

(In China specifically, rather than characters, say, allowing Mandarin-speakers who don’t know Cantonese to understand written-out Cantonese speech, with its unique vocabulary and characters, and vice versa, what has actually happened is that the politically dominant Mandarin-speakers have basically forced speakers of Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. to learn and use written Mandarin instead of actual written Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc.)

On a more individual level, many who are attached to characters show that they cling to what is old and familiar, even if it is problematic, instead of reaching out for and embracing positive change and progress. Also, many who cling to characters and the intricate procedures required to handwrite them show that they prioritize traditions, rituals, and procedures over what really brings better results. As Jesus said, though, “wisdom is proved righteous by its works”, not by its traditions, rituals, and procedures.—Matthew 11:19.

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.