Tag: Translation

Categories
Current Events History Theocratic

āijiā‐āihù

āijiā‐āihù ((āi·jiā {one after another} · households 挨家)‐(āi·hù {one after another} · doors 挨户 挨戶) → [door[-/ ]to[-/ ]door; house[-/ ]to[-/ ]house]) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Notes: Tap/click on a Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to reveal its “flashcard”; tap/click on a “flashcard” or its Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · 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.]

As of this writing, the English version of jw.org is featuring this announcement:

BREAKING NEWS | House-to-House Preaching Will Resume on September 1, 2022

The Mandarin version of jw.org renders this announcement this way:

📖 📄 📘 JÍSHÍ (JÍ·SHÍ {(IMMEDIATELY) APPROACHING} · {(PARTICULAR) TIME} → [(OF NEWS) LIVE] 即时 即時) XĪNWÉN (XĪN·WÉN NEW · {(THAT WHICH) IS HEARD} → [NEWS] 新闻 新聞) | 2022 Nián (Year 年 年/秊) 9 Yuè (Moon → [Month] 月) 1 Rì (Sun → [Day] 日) Huīfù ({(There) Will Be Restored} → [(There) Will Be Resumed] 恢复 恢復) Āijiā‐Āihù ((Āi·jiā {One After Another} · Households 挨家)‐(Āi·hù {One After Another} · Doors 挨户 挨戶) → [House-to-House]) Chuándào (Chuán·dào Spreading · Way → [Preaching] 传道 傳道)

As can be seen from the above Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus information, the organization is currently translating “house-to-house” into Mandarin as “āijiā‐āihù ((āi·jiā {one after another} · households 挨家)‐(āi·hù {one after another} · doors 挨户 挨戶) → [house-to-house])”, which literally means “one after another households one after another doors”.

Blasts from the Past

Chinese field “old-timers” may remember that this wasn’t always the expression used to translate “house-to-house”. Here are some expressions that have been used to do so in the past:

  • āijiā‐zhúhù ((āi·jiā {one after another} · households 挨家)‐(zhú·hù {one by one} · doors 逐户 逐戶) → [door[-/ ]to[-/ ]door; house[-/ ]to[-/ ]house (old translation)])

    • Regarding this expresison, the Referenced Theocratic Expressions (RTE) resource says: “from house to house (old translation); Acts 5:42 NWT(2001-C 1984-E, 2013 not checked) +pinyin “from house to house”; w11 2/1 p.13 ∼传道 “door-to-door preaching”. Without the hanzi, it seems this is not recognisable to most Chinese; one suggested 每家都去 (měi jiā dōu qù); 2019-NWT uses 挨家挨户 āijiā’āihù (which is in ABC [the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary])”
    • “Zhúhù (Zhú·hù {one by one} · doors → [door[-/ ]to[-/ ]door] 逐户 逐戶)” on its own has been used in the past.
      • RTE says about this expression: “house-to-house; w08 7/15 1st std article title (dict.cn “door to door”). See also 挨家逐户. Without the hanzi, it seems this is not recognisable to most Chinse, so try using 每家都去 instead.”
  • zhújiā‐zhúhù ((zhú·jiā {one by one} · households 逐家)‐(zhú·hù {one by one} · doors 逐户 逐戶) → [door[-/ ]to[-/ ]door; house[-/ ]to[-/ ]house (old translation)])

    • RTE: “house-to-house; 2009 songbook song 101; g00 7/8 p.30. See also 逐户, 挨家逐户, 挨家挨户 (ABC dictionary), and 逐家.”
    • As with “zhúhù (zhú·hù {one by one} · doors → [door[-/ ]to[-/ ]door] 逐户 逐戶)”, “zhújiā (zhú·jiā {one by one} · households → [house[-/ ]to[-/ ]house (old translation)] 逐家)” has also been used on its own in the past.

      • RTE: “house-by-house; my 108 (Paul entering one house after another to persecute). In 2009 songbook song 101 as part of 逐家逐户 (hence wtl09 doesn’t find this occurrence if you search for just 逐家)”

Sticking with False “Perfection” vs. Progress

While the older expressions mentioned above are not technically wrong or incorrect, the currently used expression “āijiā‐āihù ((āi·jiā {one after another} · households 挨家)‐(āi·hù {one after another} · doors 挨户 挨戶) → [door[-/ ]to[-/ ]door; house[-/ ]to[-/ ]house])” is the best one the organization knows of at this time for translating the English expression “house-to-house”.

Some criticize Jehovah’s organization for sometimes changing rather than somehow being completely perfect from the beginning, but change is required for progress. The alternative for any imperfect humans in this system of things is to continue being less correct, less good than they could be, e.g. continuing to believe in hellfire, the Trinity, etc., and continuing to meddle in politics, to support the wars of human nations, etc. We can be thankful then that Jehovah’s organization continues to pursue better and better ways of thinking, speaking (and translating), and doing. As the Bible says at Proverbs 4:18:

But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light
That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.

Categories
Culture Language Learning Technology Theocratic

zuìchū

zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Notes: “PyP” is short for “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus”. Tap/click on a Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to reveal its “flashcard”, tap/click on a “flashcard” or its Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · 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.]

“Zuìchū (Zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” is the very first expression that occurs in the current Mandarin New World Translation Bible, at Genesis 1:1 (WOL; PyP):

📖 📄 📘 Zuìchū (Zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初), Shàngdì (Shàng·dì Above’s · {Emperor → [God]} → [God] 上帝) chuàngzàole (chuàng·zào·le {initiated · made, created → [created]} · [indicates a change] 创造了 創造了) tiāndì (tiān·dì heavens · earth 天地).

At Revelation 2:4 (WOL; PyP), the current Mandarin NWT Bible also uses “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” when it talks about not leaving “the love you had at first”:

📖 📄 📘 Búguò (Bú·guò not · {do pass} → [however] 不过 不過), yǒu ({(there) is having} 有) yì (one 一) diǎn (point (regarding which) 点 點) wǒ (I 我) yào (must 要) zébèi (zé·bèi reprove · prepare → [reprove] 责备 責備) nǐ (you 你), jiùshì (jiù·shì (which) exactly · is 就是) nǐ (you 你) ràng ({have allowed} 让 讓) zìjǐ (selves’ 自己) zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} → [at first] 最初) de (’s 的) nèi (that 那) fèn ({portion of} 份) ài (love 爱 愛) lěngdàn (lěng·dàn {to be(come) cold} · {to be(come) bland → [to be(come) indifferent]} 冷淡) xialai (xia·lai down · {to come} 下来 下來).

“Original Intention”? “Beginner’s Mind”?

While “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” appears multiple times in the current Mandarin NWT Bible, the expression “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [original desire/aspiration/intention | (Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)”, which may seem somewhat related, does not appear in the current Mandarin NWT Bible.

In normal Mandarin usage, “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [original desire/aspiration/intention] 初心)” effectively means “original desire/aspiration/intention”. We should be aware, though, that the expression “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [original desire/aspiration/intention | (Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)” (shoshin in Japanese) is also used in Zen Buddhism to mean “beginner’s mind”, an attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject.

While “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)”, as used in Zen Buddhism, apparently refers to one’s own unprejudiced mental approach to learning about a reality, “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)”, as used in the Bible, refers to the very beginning of a reality itself, prior to any possible subsequent deviation or corruption. It seems that following the Bible’s example of focusing on the truth of the original reality of something naturally produces the beneficial openness and freedom from preconceptions referred to by the Zen Buddhist usage of “chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心)”, especially when we do so with the courage and humility that the Bible often encourages us to cultivate.—2 Timothy 1:7; Joshua 1:9; Proverbs 18:12; 22:4.

Remembering where Zen Buddhism came from and where the Bible came from can help us to understand the difference between the Zen Buddhist concept of chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心) and the concept of zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初) that is often mentioned in the Bible. Having come from imperfect, limited humans, the Zen Buddhist concept of chūxīn (chū·xīn beginning; original; initial; {first (in order)} · heart; mind → [(Zen Buddhism) beginner’s mind (attitude of openness, free of preconceptions, when studying a subject)] 初心) is unsurprisingly about how an imperfect, limited human can view something—that’s ultimately all it can really be about anyway. On the other hand, the Bible shares with us God’s views of things, and God was actually there at the zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初) time of literally everything in the universe. Also, he has seen how everything has developed since that zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初) time, and he can also perfectly foresee how everything will turn out in the future.

Holding On to Mandarin Field First Love

How might someone leave ‘the love he had at first’ in the Mandarin field? A publisher may have originally entered the Mandarin field with pure motivations, out of love for God and neighbour. Over time, though, with repeated exposure to proud worldly Chinese traditional culture, might some self-glorifying pride creep in regarding knowledge of that worldly Chinese culture, and regarding having gone far down the rabbit hole of the notoriously complex Chinese characters? If so, then the original love that had motivated that publisher may eventually get corrupted, and perhaps even left behind, leaving pride as his main motivation. May we never let that happen to us!

First Things First in Language Learning

The way God made us, zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} 最初), language-wise, there was speech. Only later did imperfect humans eventually come up with some writing systems to visually represent and record some forms of speech. Indeed, there have been, and there still are, many speech-only languages, with no corresponding writing system. Ethnologue, a resource on world languages, says:

Ethnologue (24th edition) has data to indicate that of the currently listed 7,139 living languages, 4,065 have a developed writing system. We don’t always know, however, if the existing writing systems are widely used. That is, while an alphabet may exist there may not be very many people who are literate and actually using the alphabet. The remaining 3,074 are likely unwritten.

Technological First Priority

Writing systems are technologies. About writing, linguist Gretchen McCulloch says:

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.

As with any technology, under-engineering and over-engineering in writing systems are by definition bad. Chinese characters are obviously over-engineered—full of “ceremony”, way more complicated than necessary to fulfil their original purpose of representing Chinese speech. In fact, in the minds of many, Chinese characters have culturally become a thing on their own, the most important thing about Chinese languages, even. Thus, characters have been allowed to improperly overshadow Mandarin, etc. speech, which is actually of primary importance. As the English saying goes, that’s putting the cart before the horse.

Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is sometimes ridiculed for being just for beginners, but the simplicity and elegance with which it fulfils its zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} → [original] 最初), original purpose of representing Mandarin speech are actually very good things. As Leonardo da Vinci is alleged to have said, simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

Categories
Current Events History

duòtāi

duòtāi (duò·tāi {letting/making fall} · fetuses/embryos → [[inducing [of]] abortion] 堕胎 墮胎) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

With recent legal developments in the USA, abortion has become a topic of intense discussion. The Mandarin version of a recently featured article on jw.org, “What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?”, contains some Mandarin expressions that are relevant to this topic. Of these, the primary one is of course “duòtāi (duò·tāi {letting/making fall} · fetuses/embryos → [[inducing [of]] abortion] 堕胎 墮胎)”, this week’s MEotW, which corresponds with the English expression “abortion”.

Verb-Object Construction

“Duòtāi (Duò·tāi {letting/making fall} · fetuses/embryos → [[inducing [of]] abortion] 堕胎 墮胎)”, with the verb “duò ({letting/making fall} 堕 墮)” and its object “tāi (fetuses/embryos 胎)”, is an example of a Mandarin expression with verb-object construction.

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 having verb-object construction:

V.O. (Verb-Object Construction, Dòng-Bīn Jiégòu 动宾结构).

Many English verbs get translated into natural Chinese as a verb plus an object noun, e.g. chīfàn for ‘eat’, shuōhuà for ‘speak’, etc. It is important for two reasons to know what is merely a verb in Chinese and what is actually a verb-object construction.

First, verb-object constructions can never take a second object, i.e. chīfàn can never be followed directly by something else to be eaten.

Second, a verb and its object can be separated from one another, thus allowing

(i) aspect particles to be placed directly after the verb, e.g. chīle fàn ‘after finishing eating’;

(ii) modification of the object, e.g. chī Zhōngguófàn ‘eat Chinese food’; and (iii) quantification of the noun, e.g. chīle sān wǎn fàn ‘ate three bowls of rice’.

Sounds Like…

In addition to meaning “fetus; embryo”, “tāi (fetus; embryo | tire 胎)” also functions as a loanword that means “tire”, as in “car tire”. This is because of the pure coincidence of how similar “tāi (fetus; embryo | tire 胎)” and “tire” sound. This reminds us that with languages, as modern linguists say, speech is primary and writing is secondary. Thus, because of them sounding similar when spoken, “tire” is translated into Mandarin as “tāi (fetus; embryo | tire 胎)”, instead of as a word written with some Chinese character that looks like a car tire or something like that.

Trivia Showing Something Vital

A brief web search indicates that Norma McCorvey—who, using the pseudonym “Jane Roe”, was the plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade legal case at the centre of the recent controversy—was apparently partly raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Even if she was, though, she obviously didn’t continue to live faithfully as one. This reminds us that it’s vitally important for each of us to make the truth our own—our own ongoing decisions and actions are what determine who and what we are, not how we happened to have been raised.