Tag: Victor H. Mair

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

yǔzĂș

yǔzĂș (yǔ·zĂș language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} èŻ­æ— èȘžæ—) đŸ‘ˆđŸŒ Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This reposting of a post that was originally posted on February 15, 2021 seems to be a fitting companion to the recent reposting of the post on “yǔxĂŹ (yǔ·xĂŹ language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} èŻ­çł» èȘžçł»)”. It discusses the important basic issue of how Mandarin should be classified as a language, a subject about which much political and cultural propaganda has unfortunately been spread.]

While “language family” seems to be a commonly accepted linguistic term, there does not seem to be universal consensus on what terms to use for subdivisions of language families. This is suggested by the wording used in the Wikipedia article on language families, under the subheading “Structure of a family”:

Language families can be divided into smaller phylogenetic units, conventionally referred to as branches of the family because the history of a language family is often represented as a tree diagram. A family is a monophyletic unit; all its members derive from a common ancestor, and all attested descendants of that ancestor are included in the family. 


Some taxonomists restrict the term family to a certain level, but there is little consensus in how to do so. Those who affix such labels also subdivide branches into groups, and groups into complexes.

So, it seems that one common—but not universal—language classification scheme is:

  • family > branch > group > complex


In contrast, noted American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair, in his article “The Classification of Sinitic Languages: What Is ‘Chinese’?” (p. 749), sets out a slightly different language classification scheme:

  • family > group > branch > language > dialect

The Mandarin Word for “Language Group”

Regardless of whether we consider language families to be first subdivided into branches or into groups, an accepted and acceptable Mandarin translation for “language group” is this week’s MEotW, “yǔzĂș (yǔ·zĂș language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} èŻ­æ— èȘžæ—)”, as Prof. Mair confirms in the article (p. 747) mentioned above.

If “zĂș (clan; race; tribe; {ethnic group}; nationality [→ [class or group of things or people with common characteristics]] 族)” seems familiar, perhaps that is because it occurs in some fairly well-known scriptures. For example, the 2019 Edition of the Mandarin New World Translation Bible translates “every nation and tribe and tongue and people” in Revelation 14:6 as “měi (every æŻ) ge ([mw] äžȘ 怋/缇/äžȘ) guĂłzĂș (guó·zĂș national · {ethnic group} → [nation] ć›œæ— ćœ‹æ—), bĂčzĂș (bĂč·zĂș sectional · {ethnic group} → [tribe] 郚族), yǔyĂĄn (yǔ·yĂĄn language · {(type of) speech} èŻ­èš€ èȘžèš€), hĂ© (and 撌) mĂ­nzĂș (mĂ­n·zĂș {(of) people} · {ethnic group} → [people] 民族)”.

The Mandarin Word for “Language Branch”

For reference, the Mandarin word for “language branch” is “yǔzhÄ« (yǔ·zhÄ« language · branch èŻ­æ”Ż èȘžæ”Ż)”, as Prof. Mair confirms in the article (p. 747) mentioned above.

It’s interesting to note that according to Prof. Mair’s article (p. 737) mentioned above, not only are Mandarin and Cantonese separate languages (not just “dialects”), it would be more accurate to consider them to be in separate language branches, as defined by the language classisification scheme he uses:

Cantonese and Mandarin are separate languages. Cantonese is not a ‘dialect’ of Mandarin or of Hanyu, and it is grossly erroneous to refer to it as such. Since Cantonese and Mandarin are separate languages (or, perhaps more accurately, separate branches), it is wrong to refer to them as ‘dialects.’ The same holds for Hokkien, Shanghainese, and so forth.

That Mandarin and Cantonese should really be considered to be in separate language branches emphasizes to us politically neutral Mandarin field language learners that we must not repeat or be misled by the politically motivated erroneous assertion that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. are just dialects of “Chinese”. That might be even more wrong than saying that English, French, Spanish, etc. are just dialects of “European”!

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

yǔxì

yǔxĂŹ (yǔ·xĂŹ language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} èŻ­çł» èȘžçł») ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This is a reposting of a post that was originally posted on February 8, 2021. It discusses the important basic issue of how Mandarin should be classified as a language, a subject about which much political and cultural propaganda has unfortunately been spread.]

[A past] MEotW post mentioned that English and Spanish are generally considered by modern linguists to be in the Indo-European language family. This concept of a language family is used in modern linguistic genealogical (or genetic) language classification:

A language family is a group of languages related through descent from a common ancestral language or parental language, called the proto-language of that family. The term “family” reflects the tree model of language origination in historical linguistics, which makes use of a metaphor comparing languages to people in a biological family tree
Linguists therefore describe the daughter languages within a language family as being genetically related.[source]

The Mandarin Translation

As confirmed by American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair in his article “The Classification of Sinitic Languages: What Is ‘Chinese’?” (p. 747), an accepted and acceptable Mandarin translation for “language family” is “yǔxĂŹ (yǔ·xĂŹ language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} èŻ­çł» èȘžçł»)”, this week’s MEotW.

The “yǔ (language; speech | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say èŻ­ èȘž)” in “yǔxĂŹ (yǔ·xĂŹ language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} èŻ­çł» èȘžçł»)” means “language”, particularly, the speech of a language, which modern linguists (language scientists) recognize to be the primary aspect of a language.

“XĂŹ ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] çł»)”, as used in “yǔxĂŹ (yǔ·xĂŹ language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} èŻ­çł» èȘžçł»)”, literally means “tied [(things)]”, and effectively means “system”, “series”, or “family”. Note that in this usage, the character â€œçł»â€ is the same in both simplified and traditional forms. Looking up the character â€œçł»â€ in the dictionary can get tricky, because the simplified character â€œçł»â€ can correspond to the traditional characters â€œçł»â€, “係”, and also “çč«â€, all of which have different, though sometimes related, meanings. This is an example of the complexities and vagaries of characters in general, and of how simplified and traditional characters relate to each other, as mentioned in the MEotW post on “jiǎntǐ (jiǎn·tǐ simplified · {body → [style] → [typeface; font]} → [simplified Chinese] çź€äœ“ ç°Ąé«”) zĂŹ (characters 歗)”.

BTW, an interesting other usage of “xĂŹ ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] çł»)” is in “YĂ­n HĂ© ((YĂ­n Silver 银 銀) (HĂ© River æČł) → [Milky Way]) XĂŹ ({Tied (Things)} → [System] → [Galaxy] çł»)”, in which “xĂŹ ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] çł»)” effectively means “galaxy”.

Pinwheel Galaxy

The Pinwheel Galaxy, another kind of xĂŹ ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] çł»)

The Mandarin Connection Is
Complicated

We have discussed that English and Spanish are generally considered by modern linguists to be in different groups in the Indo-European language family. How about Mandarin? What is Mandarin’s place in its language family tree?

Unfortunately, the answer to this seemingly simple question is complicated, by at least two major factors.

One complicating factor is that scientific genetic (or genealogical) language classification itself is not a fully worked out thing. The EncyclopĂŠdia Britannica put it this way:

So far, most of the languages of the world have been grouped only tentatively into families, and many of the classificatory schemes that have been proposed will no doubt be radically revised as further progress is made.

Another complicating factor was mentioned in the MEotW post on “fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀)”:

China’s central government is highly motivated to convince people that China is one unified political and cultural entity which should thus be governed by one central government—them

Yes, there is an excess of politics and its propaganda when it comes to the language situation in China, perhaps resulting in a relative dearth of actual scientific research into that situation. Additionally, pervasive political and cultural pressures tend to induce unscientific distortions and self-censorship in whatever research does get done. In his article mentioned above (p. 749), Prof. Mair describes the situation this way:

The contentious, non-scientific nature of the debate over the SLG/F [Sinitic (Chinese) Language Group/Family] is manifest in the circumlocutions used to designate its constituent members: “speech forms,” “varieties,” “styles,” “regionalects,” “dialects” (no matter how far up or down the taxonomic scale one may go), and so forth. At the same time, scholars openly admit that the main reasons why they do not use normal linguistic terminology (family, group, branch, language, dialect) in dealing with the SLG/F are due to sociopolitical and cultural factors. The fallacy of such a bizarre approach is evident when one considers that all nations have special sociopolitical and cultural circumstances, yet an impartial analytical outlook does not allow such circumstances to interfere with pure linguistic research.

The Mandarin Connection—A Common View

In view of the complications mentioned above, what can be said at this time about Mandarin’s place in its language family tree?

At this time, it seems to be traditionally accepted that there is a Sino-Tibetan language family, and that Mandarin is a language (some would unscientifically say “dialect”) in the Sinitic branch of this language family.

It should be noted, however, that even the Wikipedia article on the Sino-Tibetan language family says that there is not yet convincing evidence that the Sino- and Tibetan parts of this hypothetical language family are actually connected in the way that would justify considering them to be together in the same language family:

Several low-level subgroups have been securely reconstructed, but reconstruction of a proto-language for the family as a whole is still at an early stage, so the higher-level structure of Sino-Tibetan remains unclear. Although the family is traditionally presented as divided into Sinitic (i.e. Chinese) and Tibeto-Burman branches, a common origin of the non-Sinitic languages has never been demonstrated.

The Mandarin Connection—Prof. Mair’s View

From my research so far, I have come to consider Prof. Mair, mentioned above, to be the most knowledgeable and trustworthy living authority I know of on the language situation in China.1 The following are some points he made in a relatively recent article, mentioned above, on how Sinitic (Chinese) languages like Mandarin should be classified:

If efforts to link Sinitic with other major language groups continue to be as unconvincing as they have been to date, it may well be that Sinitic will end up being classified as a family unto itself. Because it remains to be determined whether Sinitic is a group or a family, I provisionally style it the Sinitic Language Group/Family (SLG/F). (p. 737)

Cantonese and Mandarin are separate languages. Cantonese is not a ‘dialect’ of Mandarin or of Hanyu, and it is grossly erroneous to refer to it as such. Since Cantonese and Mandarin are separate languages (or, perhaps more accurately, separate branches), it is wrong to refer to them as ‘dialects.’ The same holds for Hokkien, Shanghainese, and so forth. (p. 737)

I
remain agnostic [non-committal] about whether the SLG/F is actually a family unto itself or whether it is more or less closely linked to some other group(s)─such as Tibeto-Burman or Austronesian─in a family (p. 745)

The scientific classification of languages should not be held hostage to extra-linguistic political and cultural prejudices. (p. 746)

In the scientific classification of modern Sinitic languages, as much as possible, data should be drawn from the strikingly different spoken varieties, not from standard written forms. Writing is a second-order linguistic phenomenon. Since most speakers of Sinitic throughout prehistory and history have been illiterate, the nonessentiality of writing for the existence of the SLG/F is self-evident. (pp. 746–747)

The classification of the SLG/F, both internally and externally, is still in the beginning stages; much difficult work remains to be done. (p. 750)

‘Chinese’, ‘dialect’, and other terms in broad popular usage should be employed with extreme caution in technical discussions of the countless varieties of speech forms that currently exist and that have existed at various periods and places during the past in the East Asian Heartland (EAH) and Extended East Asian Heartland (EEAH) (p. 750)

There is an urgent need for the classification of the SLG/F, but this cannot be accomplished satisfactorily without precise, linguistically justifiable terminology. (p. 751)

The people of China have a right to conceive and speak of the languages of their country however they wish; linguists of the world have a duty to study the languages of China according to universal principles. If linguists abandon their scientific duty, the current chaos and lack of consensus concerning the nature of Sinitic will continue, much to the detriment of our understanding not only of the languages of China, but to linguistics as a whole. (p. 751)

Be Wary of What You May Hear About Mandarin

So, as we seek to learn Mandarin, let us keep in mind that while others—including well-meaning ones who are sincerely sharing what they themselves learned—may tell us certain things about Mandarin and how it relates to other varieties of speech, some of what they tell us may not be scientifically verified truth. More research needs to be done in some areas. Also, unfortunately, we need to be wary of the abundant political and cultural propaganda that has been spread about Mandarin and about the language situation in China in general.

1. American linguist, sinologist, author of Chinese language textbooks, lexicographer of Chinese dictionaries, and Professor Emeritus of Chinese Studies at the University of HawaiÊ»i at Mānoa John DeFrancis was also an exceptionally knowledgeable and trustworthy authority on the language situation in China. Sadly, he passed away in 2009. He did leave behind many excellent writings, though. I highly recommend his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1984). ^

Categories
Culture Current Events History Science Technology Theocratic

app

app (a-p-p)

This week’s MEotW, “app” (sometimes written as “APP”), is now the organization’s official way to translate “app” in Mandarin, as much as there is an official way to do so. For example, it’s used in the Mandarin version of the 2024 Governing Body Update #5 video, at around the 11:06 mark—the subtitles say “app”, while the narrator says what sounds like “ay pee pee”.

“app” used in the Mandarin version of the 2024 Governing Body Update #5 video

(By the way, note that in this screenshot, the JW Library app is shown in Dark Mode—afters many years of people being used to using computer displays with white backgrounds that mimick paper, the organization is showing that there is nothing objectionable about the dark or black backgrounds enabled by computing device displays, backgrounds which can be easier on the eyes in some situations. After all, the default mode of the universe that Jehovah created is dark mode!)

An Unexpected Pronunciation

Yes, interestingly, as we can hear from the aforementioned video, when one refers to the JW Library app in Mandarin, in addition to using the English app name “JW Library” instead of a corresponding native Mandarin expression, one spells out the letters of “app” instead of just saying the English word “app”.

Why use three syllables to pronounce this exceedingly simple one-syllable English word in such an unusual and unexpected way? An Internet search turned up a Quora page discussing this question, which page contains the following excerpt that seems to summarize the points made in many of the replies:

Since the the original form “application” is not widely known, app is thought to be an acronym. In the aspect of pronunciation, closed syllables ending with p do not meet the Chinese pronunciation habit.

So, in other words, some believe that:

  • Being unfamiliar with the English word “application” that “app” is an abbreviation for, many Mandarin-speaking people erroneously thought that “app” is an acronym/initialism like “USA” or “PRC”, and acronyms are pronounced by saying the names of the letters in them. [2024-08-21: Thanks to reader SB for bringing up the matter of acronyms vs. initialisms. It seems that there is agreement that initialisms are, or can be, pronounced letter by letter, like “USA” and the Mandarin “app” are. However, there is not agreement about whether expressions pronounced that way count as acronyms, since some hold that only expressions like “NASA” that are pronounced as words should be considered acronyms.]
    • The fact that the Mandarin “app” is sometimes written in all upper case letters as “APP”, like an acronym/initialism would be written, lends credence to this theory.
  • Because Mandarin does not have words that end with a “p” sound, people who have only ever spoken Mandarin are not used to saying such words, and thus were naturally inclined to not just pronounce “app” like it is pronounced in English.
    • Some drag Chinese characters and PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) into discussion of this question, but these writing systems are just secondary visual representations of the actual primary factor relating to this issue, which is the system of sounds used in Mandarin speech. (I believe that technically, this is referred to as Mandarin phonology.)
    • Personally, I have doubts about this proposed factor, since other one-syllable English words ending with a “p” sound, like “jeep” (“jĂ­pǔ (jeep ć‰æ™ź)”) and “Trump” (“TĂšlǎngpǔ (Trump ç‰čæœ—æ™ź)/Chuānpǔ (Trump (Tw) ć·æ™ź)”), have been borrowed by Mandarin without requiring Mandarin-speakers to spell out their letters. I suppose it’s possible, as some have said, that putting “app” through this process results in a Mandarin expression that sounds confusingly similar to other expressions.

It’s also interesting that “app”, with its spelled-out letters, is used in Mandarin to correspond with the English word “app”, including in official media published by the organization, even though a native Mandarin expression meaning “app” does indeed exist. As shown in dictionaries, “yĂŹngyĂČng (yĂŹng·yĂČng apply · use | applied · used [(instance/etc.)] [→ [applied; for practical application; practical | application; practical use | (computing) app]] ćș”甚 應甚)” may be used to mean “app”, and just as “app” is short for “application”, “yĂŹngyĂČng (yĂŹng·yĂČng apply · use | applied · used [(instance/etc.)] [→ [applied; for practical application; practical | application; practical use | (computing) app]] ćș”甚 應甚)” is short for “yĂŹngyĂČng chĂ©ngxĂč ((yĂŹng·yĂČng applied · used (instance) → [application] ćș”甚 應甚) (chĂ©ng·xĂč {journey → [procedure]} · order; sequence → [(computer) programme] 繋ćș) → [application programme])” (or “yĂŹngyĂČng chĂ©ngshĂŹ ((yĂŹng·yĂČng applied · used (instance) → [application] ćș”甚 應甚) (chĂ©ng·shĂŹ {journey → [procedure]} · pattern → [(computer) programme (Tw)] çš‹ćŒ) → [application programme (Tw)])” in Taiwan).

“Resistance Is Futile”

While Chinese traditionalists may futilely carry on about keeping Chinese culture “pure”, the common use of “app” in Mandarin is yet another example of Chinese culture naturally being influenced by Western culture, since the phenomenon of the modern mobile app followed on from the Western invention of the iPhone. Regarding the influence of Western culture on Chinese people, I have also noticed that some Chinese people seem to consider it “cool” to sprinkle in some English words here and there when they are speaking Mandarin, Cantonese, etc., even when they know the corresponding native Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. expressions.

Speaking of “cool”, a recent Language Log blog post written by Victor Mair and entitled “The Englishization of Chinese enters a new phase” said the following about “cool”, and about our MEotW “app”:

He takes the well-known example of “cool” (I’ll summarize what he says here). Before the year 2000, if somebody mentioned in a praiseworthy way that something was “kĂč 酷”, which at that time literally meant “cruel; ruthless; brutal; oppressive; savage”, people would consider that he was mixing English “coo[l]” in his Chinese speech, because at that time English “cool” was still in the early stages of being absorbed into Chinese. Standard dictionaries listed only the negative, pejorative meanings of “kĂč 酷”; there was not a trace of the positive meaning of “neat; nifty” and so forth. However, with the passage of time and with more and more saying “coo[l]” in a positive, approbatory sense, it gradually became a Chinese word. Now, if you say that someone or something is “kĂč 酷” (i.e., “cool”), no one would think that you’re mixing English in your speech. The positive meanings “cool; neat; nifty” have now become the primary definitions for “kĂč 酷”.


people are no longer feeling the need to syllabize, much less hanziize, English words. They just say them flat out, and nobody blinks an eye that they are English words in Chinese. They have already instantly become Chinese terms — at least in speech. Nobody has cared to figure out how they should be written in hanzi [Chinese characters]. Even if you write them, you write them with roman letters
the roman alphabet has become an integral part of the Chinese writing system




There are hundreds of such words in current Chinese discourse, and they are at diverse stages of absorption into Chinese, e.g., “app”, “logo”, and “PtĂș Pć›Ÿ” (lit. “P picture/image”).

Yes, along with the “JW Library” app name, “app” is yet another example of how English words and Latin alphabet letters—like those used in PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł)—are being incorporated into how people speak and write Mandarin Chinese “in the wild”, in the real world.

Anyway, as discussed in the 2024 Governing Body Update #5 video mentioned above, we stay neutral with regard to the world’s conflicts. While this obviously includes the world’s wars and political conflicts, in principle, this also applies to the world’s culture wars and its cultural conflicts and competitions. Our focus should be on how we can advance the interests of God’s Kingdom, and promote God’s righteous ways of doing things.—Matthew 6:33.