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) 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 “ (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]

Categories
Culture Current Events

rùqīn

rùqīn (rù·qīn enter; {go into} · invade; {intrude into} → [invade; intrude into] 入侵) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

On February 24, 2022, Russia sent significant military forces into Ukraine, resulting in the largest scale open warfare in Europe since World War II. Knowing certain Mandarin expressions will help us in the Mandarin field as we hear about and talk about Ukraine in the time ahead.

The article “Russia Invades Ukraine” has been featured on jw.org since not long after the crisis began, and the Mandarin translation of that article’s title is “Éluósī (Russia 俄罗斯 俄羅斯) Rùqīn (Rù·qīn Enters · Invades → [Invades] 入侵) Wūkèlán (Ukraine 乌克兰 烏克蘭) 🔗”. So, we can see that this week’s MEotW, “rùqīn (rù·qīn enter; {go into} · invade; {intrude into} → [invade; intrude into] 入侵)”, corresponds with the English word “invades”.

To Be Resultative…

Another way to say “invade” in Mandarin is “qīnrù (qīn·rù invade; {intrude into} · {enter | [go] into} → [invade; intrude into] 侵入)”, which has the same morphemes as “rùqīn (rù·qīn enter; {go into} · invade; {intrude into} → [invade; intrude into] 入侵)”, but in reversed order. There may be a difference between these two words, since the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary refers to “rùqīn (rù·qīn enter; {go into} · invade; {intrude into} → [invade; intrude into] 入侵)” as a verb, while it refers to “qīnrù (qīn·rù invade; {intrude into} · {enter | [go] into} → [invade; intrude into] 侵入)” as a resultative verb, in which “ (enter; {go into}; join 入)” is taken to mean “into”, as opposed to the verb “enter”.

Or Not to Be Resultative?

On the other hand, the dictionaries I have checked re “ (enter; {go into}; join 入)” itself, including the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, emphasize its meaning as being the verb “enter”, and not so much as being the preposition “into” (although I think it can be used that way). If we indeed take both their morphemes to be verbs, then it would seem that the case of “rùqīn (rù·qīn enter; {go into} · invade; {intrude into} → [invade; intrude into] 入侵)”/“qīnrù (qīn·rù invade; {intrude into} · {enter | [go] into} → [invade; intrude into] 侵入)” is similar to the case of “fǎlǜ (law 法律)”/“lǜfǎ (law 律法)”.

Regarding “fǎlǜ (law 法律)”/“lǜfǎ (law 律法)”, the MEotW post for “fǎlǜ (law 法律)” had this to say:

But, Why?

If “lǜfǎ (law 律法)” and “fǎlǜ (law 法律)” both mean basically the same thing, why did the world’s Mandarin-speaking population bother to switch the order of “ (law; statute; rule; regulation 律)” and “ (law | method; way; mode | standard; model | {magic arts} | {follow; model after} 法)” in popular usage? Who knows? Appendix A2 of the Mandarin NWT Bible, probably wisely, does not get into the why of it, just mentioning that “fǎlǜ (law 法律)” is now the more common usage. Even if it turns out that there was a reason, it may not be what most would consider a good reason. Sometimes people are just weird, and, speaking as a Chinese person myself, that includes Chinese people—just look at some of the arbitrary ways in which Chinese characters have been designed, that have turned trying to figure out the pronunciations and meanings of unfamiliar Chinese characters into a guessing game.

Speaking of what’s commonplace or popular and why, I am reminded of this quote from William Goldman, who wrote the screenplay for The Princess Bride as well as the screenplays for several other successful, well-known movies:

Nobody knows anything…Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess

Speaking of The Princess Bride, that movie is a treasure trove of quotable quotes, including this one that serves as a precautionary admonition to us Mandarin language-learners:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.