Tag: The Princess Bride

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

quèzáo

quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) ← 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.]

The Shēngmìng Láizì Chuàngzào Ma? ((Shēngmìng Life 生命) (Lái·zì Came · From 来自 來自) (Chuàng·zào Initiating · {Making, Creating} → [Creating] 创造 創造) (Ma [? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)? → [Was Life Created? (lc)]) (Was Life Created? (lc)) brochure and the Shēngmìng de Qǐyuán—Zhíde Sīkǎo de Wǔ Ge Wèntí ((Shēngmìng Life 生命) (de ’s 的) (Qǐ·yuán {Rising → [Starting]} · Source → [Origin] 起源/原)—(Zhí·de Worth · Getting → [Worth] 值得) (Sī·kǎo {Thinking About} · Examining 思考) (de ’s 的) (Wǔ Five 五) (Ge [mw] 个 個/个) (Wèn·tí Asking · Subjects → [Questions] 问题 問題) → [The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (lf)]) (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (lf)) brochure were originally published back in 2010, but relatively recently, the English version of the Was Life Created? brochure was updated to the December 2022 Printing, and the Mandarin version of it was updated to the February 2023 Printing. Also, the Was Life Created? brochure and the Origin of Life brochure are now in the Teaching Toolbox section in the JW Library app. So, it would be good to consider some of the expressions used in the Mandarin versions of these publications that can be so helpful when discussing whether life was created.

Is That a Fact?

Many people today dogmatically declare, “Evolution is not just a theory, it’s a fact, a fact, I say, a fact!”

This week’s MEotW, “quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿)”, can be useful when discussing this subject. It can be seen in use in the last paragraph of section 1 of the Origin of Life brochure, which section is entitled, in English, “How Did Life Begin?”:

English:

Given the facts, are you willing to make such a leap? Before answering that question, take a closer look at the way a cell is made. Doing so will help you discern whether the theories some scientists propound about where life came from are sound or are as fanciful as the tales some parents tell about where babies come from.

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

📖 📄 📘 Kànguo (Kàn·guo {looking at} · {having passed} → [having looked at] 看过 看過) yǐshàng (yǐ·shàng at · above’s 以上) shìshí (shì·shí matters · {being solid} → [facts] 事实 事實) zhīhòu (zhī·hòu it · {after (that)} 之后 之後), nǐ (you 你) xiāngxìn (xiāng·xìn it · {do believe (that)} → [do believe (that)] 相信) shēngmìng (life 生命) shì (was 是) pèngqiǎo (pèng·qiǎo {having bumped into} · {being coincidental} → [by chance] 碰巧) chǎnshēng (chǎn·shēng {given birth to → [produced]} · {given birth to → [caused to exist]} → [brought into being] 产生 產生) de ({’s (thing)} 的) ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)? Huídá (Huí·dá {circling back} · {to answer} 回答) zhèige (zhèi·ge this · [mw] 这个 這個) wèntí (wèn·tí asking · subject → [question] 问题 問題) zhīqián (zhī·qián it · {before (that)} 之前), qǐng (please 请 請) zǐxì (zǐ·xì {the young of domestic animals → [with attention to detail]} · {finely → [carefully]} 仔/子细 仔/子細) kànkan (kàn·kan {look at} · {look at} 看看) xìbāo (xì·bāo tiny · womb → [cell] 细胞 細胞) de (’s 的) gòuzào (gòu·zào {constructing → [structure]} · making → [structure] 构造 構造). Zhèyàng (Zhè·yàng this · {form of → [way of]} 这样 這樣) zuò (doing 做) néng (can 能) bāngzhù (help 帮助 幫助) nǐ (you 你) kànchū (kàn·chū see · out 看出), yìxiē (yì·xiē one · {indefinite number of} → [some] 一些) kēxué‐jiā ((kē·xué {branches of study} · learning → [science] 科学 科學)‐(jiā -ists 家) → [scientists]) jiù (regarding 就) shēngmìng (life’s 生命) qǐyuán (qǐ·yuán {rising → [starting]} · source → [origin] 起源/原) tíchū (tí·chū {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise] → [refer to]} · out 提出) de (’s 的) lǐlùn (lǐ·lùn reasonings · {discussings → [theories]} → [theories] 理论 理論) jiūjìng (jiū·jìng {studied carefully → [actually]} · {in the end} 究竟) shì (are 是) zhèngjù ({(by) evidence} 证据 證/証據) quèzáo (què·záo firmly · chiselled → [(shown) to be irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) de ({’s (theories)} 的), háishi (hái·shi {still more → [or]} · are 还是 還是) xiàng (as 像/象) yǒuxiē (yǒu·xiē {(there) are having → [(there) are]} · some 有些) fùmǔ (fù·mǔ fathers · mothers 父母) jiěshì (jiě·shì {untying → [solving]} · explaining 解释 解釋) bǎobao (bǎo·bao treasures · treasures → [precious/darling babies] 宝宝 寶寶) cóng (from 从 從) nǎli (nǎ·li which · inside → [where] 哪里 哪裡/裏) lái (come 来 來) shí ({(particular) times} 时 時) suǒ ({those which (they)} 所) shuō (say 说 說/説) de ({’s (things)} 的) nàyàng (nà·yàng that · {form → [way]} 那样 那樣) méiyǒu (méi·yǒu not · having 没有 沒有) gēnjù (gēn·jù root · evidence → [basis] 根据 根據).

Looking at the morphemes in “quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿)”, “què (firmly; indeed; truly; really 确 確)” can mean “firmly” or “indeed”, and indeed, it appears in the expression “díquè (dí·què {in reality}; truly; really · indeed; truly; really; certainly 的确 的確)”, which means “indeed”. As for “záo (chisel (v or n) 凿 鑿)”, in this context, this expression means “chiselled”. Taken together then, the morphemes in “quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿)” literally mean something like “firmly chiselled”, and are used to effectively mean “[(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable”.

What Is Actually Rock Solid?

While evolution is believed in by many in the world today, the evidence, such as that discussed in the Origin of Life brochure, shows that it is actually creation that is zhèngjù ({(by) evidence} 证据 證/証據) quèzáo (què·záo firmly · chiselled → [(shown) to be irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) de ({’s (teaching)} 的), rock solid, as if chiselled in stone, firmly.

Similarly, in Mandarin language learning, many, because of the weight of long tradition and much worldly propaganda, believe in prioritizing Chinese characters, but it’s actually the modern linguistic principle that speech is primary, and writing is secondary that is zhèngjù ({(by) evidence} 证据 證/証據) quèzáo (què·záo firmly · chiselled → [(shown) to be irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) de ({’s (teaching)} 的), by evidence from both modern linguistics and God’s Word itself.

For example, on their podcast called Lingthusiasm, linguists Lauren Gawne and Gretchen McCulloch said:

Lauren: I think that is one of the things that makes it really hard for people who grow up in highly literate, highly educated societies to tease writing and reading apart from language. But actually, when you step back, you realise that writing is actually super weird.

Gretchen: It’s so weird! It’s this interesting – it really is a technology. It’s a thing you do on top of language to do stuff with language, but it’s not the language itself. There are thousands and possibly millions of languages that have never been written down in the history of humanity. We have no idea. We’ve never met a society of humans, or heard of a society of humans, without language. But those are spoken and signed languages, which are just kind of there. Writing, by contrast, was invented somewhere between 3 and 4 times in the history of humanity.

Of course, in keeping with the rock solid, evidence-based Bible teaching that God created us, rather than saying that spoken languages “are just kind of there”, we would say that God purposely created us to primarily use language through his gift of speech. It’s not surprising then, that God’s Word the Bible contains the following passage at 1 Corinthians 14:8–11, which emphasizes the primary importance of understandable speech, while not bothering to even mention the mere human invention of writing:

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.

For convenience:

The direct link for the current generation Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resource for the Origin of Life brochure is:

The short link for Chinese field language-learning links for the Origin of Life brochure 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 Origin of Life brochure will be made available in the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web resource as time allows.

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science

duōyú

duōyú (duō·yú {(too) much/many} · surplus; excess → [unnecessary; surplus; superfluous; uncalled-for; redundant | excessive] 多余 多餘) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Following on from last week’s MEotW post that discussed unnecessary ceremony, this week’s MEotW is “duōyú (duō·yú {(too) much/many} · surplus; excess → [unnecessary; surplus; superfluous; uncalled-for; redundant | excessive] 多余 多餘)”, which means “unnecessary; surplus; superfluous; uncalled-for; redundant”, or “excessive”.

Here are the usage examples for this expression provided by the Pleco app’s built-in dictionary:

📖 📄 📘 Shāndiào (Shān·diào delete · {to be dropped → [away]} 删掉 刪掉) duōyú (duō·yú {(too) many} · excess → [superfluous] 多余 多餘) de (’ 的) cíyǔ (cí·yǔ words · expressions 词语 詞語)

cut out superfluous words and phrases

📖 📄 📘 Zài (in 在) jíshì (jí·shì {gathered (things) → [country market]} · market → [country market] 集市) shang (upon 上) chūshòu (chū·shòu {put out} · {to sell} 出售) duōyú (duō·yú {(too) many} · surplus → [surplus] 多余 多餘) de (’s 的) nóng (farming 农 農) chǎnpǐn (chǎn·pǐn {given birth to → [produced]} · products 产品 產品)

sell surplus farm products in the market

📖 📄 📘 Shìshí (Shì·shí matters · {being solid} → [facts] 事实 事實) zhèngmíng (zhèng·míng proved · {to be clear} 证明 證明) wǒmen de ((wǒ·men us · [pl] 我们 我們) (de ’s 的) → [our]) dānxīn (dān·xīn {carryings on a shoulder pole → [bearings of (heavy)]} · hearts → [worryings] 担/耽心 擔/耽心) shì (were 是) duōyú (duō·yú {(too) many} · excess → [uncalled-for] 多余 多餘) de (’s 的).

Facts proved that our worries were uncalled-for.

Speaking of “unnecessary”…

Are Chinese Characters Necessary?

This question may be downright heretical to Chinese culture purists, who would say things like “Of course characters are necessary!” and “Chinese culture without the characters would be inconceivable, just inconceivable! Yes, that would be totally and utterly inconceivable!”

If one’s goal is to fit in with the current Chinese world, especially if one is living in a place where the characters are used in everyday life, government services, etc., then of course one will need to know at least some characters, eventually. But, does that mean that Chinese characters should be the primary focus of Mandarin field language learners from day one?

Both modern linguistics (language science) and God’s Word the Bible itself testify against this. A basic principle of modern linguistics is that speech is primary, not writing, and at 1 Corinthians 14:8–11, the Bible emphasizes the primary importance of understandable speech, not even mentioning writing when it does so:

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.

So, while the characters seem necessary from the point of view of traditional worldly Chinese culture that’s intent on glorifying and perpetuating itself, someone whose primary goals in learning Mandarin are to praise Jehovah and to reach the hearts of Mandarin-speakers with the good news of the Kingdom should really primarily focus on understanding Mandarin speech and speaking Mandarin understandably, from the very beginning:

Your first linguistic goal should be to “utter speech easily understood.” [emphasis added] (1 Corinthians 14:8-11) Though people may be tolerant, mistakes or a heavy accent may distract them from listening to your message. Giving attention to proper pronunciation and grammar right from the start will prevent you from forming bad habits that are hard to break.
—“Serving With a Foreign-Language Congregation”, in the March 15, 2006 Watchtower.

A Simple, Elegant, Effective Alternative

The above quote also appears in the article “SPEECH is Top Priority, Not Characters”, which contains other information as well showing why it is that characters and their visual extravagances and traditional complexities are often duōyú (duō·yú {(too) much} · excess → [excessive] 多余 多餘) for Mandarin field language learners. Here is an excerpt:

Publishers need to learn to understand Mandarin speech to benefit spiritually from Mandarin meetings, because the talks, comments, etc. at such meetings are made of Mandarin speech, not characters. In fact, focusing on characters makes this problem worse because it makes learning Mandarin speech harder and slower. At the very least, it distracts from learning Mandarin speech.

In contrast, the simple, elegant Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) writing system handily does the job of representing Mandarin speech in written form without the unnecessary complexities and ceremonial baggage of the characters. When you do need to use a writing system for Mandarin, then, use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) when you can, and just use characters when you have to. Seriously, doing so is not inconceivable!

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science Theocratic

yīnyì

yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translating → [transcribing | transcription] 音译 音譯) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Appendix A2 of the English New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition), entitled “Features of This Revision”, discusses vocabulary changes that have been made in the current revision, words that have been translated differently than before. As noted in various entries in the excellent resource Referenced Theo. Expressions (RTE), Appendix A2 of the current Mandarin version of the New World Translation Bible (nwtsty) correspondingly discusses words that have been translated differently in the current revision of the Mandarin NWT Bible, compared to how they had been translated before.

Since we base what we say in Jehovah’s service on his Word the Bible, the vocabulary used in it—and the way those vocabulary words are translated—should be reflected in how we speak in our ministry, at our meetings, etc. So, it is beneficial for us Mandarin field language learners to be familiar with the latest thinking from the organization on how Bible terms should be translated into Mandarin.

Units of Measurement

Appendix A2 of the current Mandarin version of the New World Translation Bible (nwtsty) points out that in previous editions of the Mandarin New World Translation, basically metric system units of measurement were used, although sometimes units from the original language were used. However, the whole number metric measurements that were considered best to use in the main text generally ended up being inexact conversions from the original measurements. Also, some metric units of measurement are named differently in different places. For example, some places use “mǐ (metre 米)” to mean “metre”, while other places use “gōngchǐ (gōng·chǐ {collective → [metric]} · {Chinese foot (⅓ of a metre)} → [metre] 公尺)”. So, the current version of the Mandarin NWT in most scriptures uses the original language units of measurement through what in Mandarin is called “yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translating → [transcribing | transcription] 音译 音譯)”, and in footnotes it provides the metric equivalents and perhaps other information.

What does “yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translating → [transcribing | transcription] 音译 音譯)” involve? Some Chinese-English dictionaries say that this word is used to mean either “transliterate”/“transliteration” or “transcribe”/“transcription”. What’s the difference? Is there a difference?

[Note on terminology: “Writing system” and “script” are synonymous, while an “orthography” is a “set of conventions [connected to a writing system/script] for writing a language, including norms of spelling, capitalization, emphasis, hyphenation, punctuation, and word breaks”.]

Transliteration?

The Wikipedia page on transliteration provides the following summaries to help define transliteration:

Transliteration is a type of conversion of a text from one script to another that involves swapping letters (thus trans- + liter-) in predictable ways

Transliteration is not primarily concerned with representing the sounds of the original but rather with representing the characters, ideally accurately and unambiguously.

Systematic transliteration is a mapping from one system of writing into another, typically grapheme to grapheme [e.g., letter to letter]. Most transliteration systems are one-to-one, so a reader who knows the system can reconstruct the original spelling.

Echoing the above quote, the academic paper “Two Steps Toward Digraphia in China” (Sino-Platonic Paper Number 134), by Xieyan Hincha, provides this rigorous definition of transliteration:

By transliteration is meant the letter-by-letter conversion of a text written in an alphabet into another alphabetical script, if necessary using diacritical marks, in such a way that the text can be correctly converted back into the original text by means of a transliteration table.

Transcription?

Now, compare the above to summaries provided by the Wikipedia page on transcription that help to define transcription:

Transcription in the linguistic sense is the systematic representation of spoken language in written form.

There are two main types of linguistic transcription. Phonetic transcription focuses on phonetic and phonological properties of spoken language. Systems for phonetic transcription thus furnish rules for mapping individual sounds or phones to written symbols. Systems for orthographic transcription, by contrast, consist of rules for mapping spoken words onto written forms as prescribed by the orthography of a given language. Phonetic transcription operates with specially defined character sets, usually the International Phonetic Alphabet. [emphasis added]

The above-mentioned academic paper “Two Steps Toward Digraphia in China” also provides a rigorous definition for transcription, which seems to specifically refer to phonetic transcription, as referred to in the Wikipedia quote above:

It is time to ask what exactly is a transcription system. It is a graphic system whose elements unambiguously represent the sounds of a spoken language. The transcription can be narrow or broad: in both cases one graphic symbol represents in principle precisely one single sound.

“There is Too Much…Let Me Sum Up”


To sum up, basically transliteration refers to mapping from one writing system to another writing system, while transcription refers to mapping from a language’s sounds to a graphic system like the IPA (phonetic transcription), or to a writing system with an orthography (orthographic transcription).

Thus, I would say that it’s not really appropriate to use “yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translating → [transcribing | transcription] 音译 音譯)”—which literally means “sound translating”—to mean “transliterate” or “transliteration”. From the literal meanings of its morphemes, “yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translating → [transcribing | transcription] 音译 音譯)” is a much better fit for meaning “transcribe” or “transcription”, which refer to mapping the sounds of a language to a graphic system or a writing system.

Going back to Appendix A2 of the current Mandarin version of the NWT Bible, when it says that this version in most scriptures yīnyì (yīn·yì sound · translates → [transcribes] 音译 音譯) (transcribes) the original language’s units of measurement, that means that it uses Chinese characters/Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to represent (as well as they can) how these units of measurement sounded in the original language. For example, the original language unit of measurement translated into English as “seah measure” is translated into Mandarin as “xìyà ({seah (measure)} 细亚 細亞)”.—2 Kings 7:1 (English/Mandarin).

Transliteration, Transcription, and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)

Besides offering definitions of transliteration and transcription, the academic paper “Two Steps Toward Digraphia in China” mentioned above also discusses whether these terms apply to Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). Here are a couple of quotes:

In the case of Chinese characters, ISO has established that a transliteration between Chinese characters and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is impossible: the supposedly more than 40,000 (“ideo-phonographic”) characters cannot be represented by the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet. There is no doubt about that. This clearly shows that Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Fāng’àn (Fāng’·àn {Direction → [Method]} · {Long, Narrow Table or Desk → [Plan]} 方案) is not a transliteration system, because it does not fulfill all the criteria of a transliteration system.

If Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Fāng’àn (Fāng’·àn {Direction → [Method]} · {Long, Narrow Table or Desk → [Plan]} 方案) were a transcription system, this table would contain three state-prescribed violations of the transcription principle, namely: y+i, y+in, and y+ing. In all three of these cases, two letters represent one sound. The same is true when writing y+u and w+u. This rule does not concern phonetic transcription; rather, it is an orthographic rule: in these cases <y> and <w> are artificial and arbitrary initial symbols. But phonetically these are not consonants. Consequently, in this respect Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Fāng’àn (Fāng’·àn {Direction → [Method]} · {Long, Narrow Table or Desk → [Plan]} 方案) is not a transcription system.

The above quote explains that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) does not qualify as a phonetic transcription system. However, it shows that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) has orthographic rules connected to it, meaning it could be used for orthographic transcription…

No, Could It Be?

So, this academic paper concludes that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is not a system for transliterating Chinese characters, nor is it a system for phonetically transcribing Mandarin speech. What is it, then? The paper comes to this conclusion:

As is well known, the Chinese leadership refuses to recognize Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a script and to permit digraphia [the state of having two standard scripts, Chinese characters and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)]. But scientific facts demonstrate that Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Fāng’àn (Fāng’·àn {Direction → [Method]} · {Long, Narrow Table or Desk → [Plan]} 方案), including its orthography, is a writing system for Chinese. [emphasis added]