Tag: Victor H. Mair

Categories
Current Events Theocratic

shìwēi kàngyì

shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威) kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議) ← 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.]

At the time of this writing, perhaps because of the pro-Palestinian protests taking place on campuses across the US, jw.org was featuring the Awake! article “Is Protest the Answer?”. Where the English version of this article uses the word “protest”, the Mandarin version (for which official Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is available) uses this week’s MEotW, “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威) kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議)”. For example, the article’s title is rendered in English and Mandarin as follows:

English:

Is Protest the Answer?

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Shìwēi (Shì·wēi Demonstrating · Strength → [Holding Demonstrations] 示威) Kàngyì (Kàng·yì Opposing · Commenting → [Protesting] 抗议 抗議) Néng (Can 能) Jiějué (Jiě·jué {Untie → [Solve]} · Decide → [Solve] 解决 解決) Wèntí (Wèn·tí Asking · Problems → [Problems] 问题 問題) Ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)?

Breakdown

The “shì (show; indicate; notify; instructing; reveal; manifest; demonstrate 示)” in “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [putting on a show of force | demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)” can mean “show” or “demonstrate”, and other expressions in which it appears include “biǎoshì (biǎo·shì indicate; express · show 表示)”, “xiǎnshì (xiǎn·shì {to be evident/obvious} · show 显示 顯示)”, “shìfàn (shì·fàn {showing; demonstrating [of]} · pattern; model; example → [demonstrating; setting an example | demonstration] 示范 示範/范)”, and “Qǐshìlù (Qǐ·shì·lù {Opening → [Enlightening]} · Showing · Record → [Revelation] 启示录 啟示錄)”.

The “wēi (might; power; strength; force 威)” in “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [putting on a show of force | demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)” means “might; power; strength; force”, and it also appears in expressions such as “quánwēi (quán·wēi authority · power 权威 權威)” and “wēixié (wēi·xié {(with) power} · {upper part of the human body → [coerce; force] → [threaten]} → [threaten; menace; imperil; intimidate] 威胁 威脅)”.

So, “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [putting on a show of force | demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)” can mean “demonstration of strength”, as when people hold a demonstration to show how strongly supported their cause is. In different contexts, it can alternately mean “putting on a show of force”.

In “kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議)”, “kàng (resist; fight; oppose; defy 抗)” means “resist; fight; oppose; defy”, and other expressions that use it include “dǐkàng (dǐ·kàng resist; withstand · {resist; fight; combat; defy} 抵抗)”, “duìkàng (duì·kàng facing · resisting 对抗 對抗)”, “fǎnkàng (fǎn·kàng {turn over → [oppose]} · resist 反抗)”, and “kàngjù (kàng·jù resist; fight; defy · resist; repel; {ward off} 抗拒)”. The other morpheme “yì (discussing; conferring; {exchanging views}; {talking over}; commenting; remarking [→ [(exchanged) opinion; view]] 议 議)” can mean “discuss” or “comment on”, and it’s also used in “jiànyì (jiàn·yì {build; construct → [propose; advocate]} · discussing → [propose; suggest; recommend] | {building; constructing of → [proposing; advocating of]} · discussing → [proposal; suggestion; recommendation] 建议 建議)” and in recent MEotW “zhēngyì (zhēng·yì contending · discussing [→ [dispute; controversy]] 争议 爭議)”.

So, “kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議)” can mean something like “commenting about opposing”, and indeed, a protest is intended to make a statement about opposition to something.

Verbs? Nouns?

The two expressions “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [putting on a show of force | demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)” and “kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議)” can each be used on its own, but, as mentioned earlier, they are used together in the above-mentioned Awake! article to correspond with the English word “protest”. Interestingly, just as “protest” can be a verb or a noun, both “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [putting on a show of force | demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)” and “kàngyì (kàng·yì resisting; fighting; opposing; defying · {discussing | commenting [on]; remarking [on]} → [protesting | protest (n)] 抗议 抗議)” can also be a verb or a noun.

Additionally, by analyzing it down to the morphemes, we can see that “shìwēi (shì·wēi {showing; indicating; revealing; manifesting; demonstrating [of]} · might; power; strength; force → [demonstrating (as a protest); marching; holding a demonstration | demonstration] 示威)”—which can literally mean “demonstrating strength”—has verb-object construction.

The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, says the following about verb-object construction in Mandarin:

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’. See also Stative Verb (S.V.).

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Languages Names Science

Yuèyǔ

Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW, “Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語)”, is a term that over the years one may occasionally have come across in the Chinese fields. For example, it used to be used on publication download pages on jw.org, where it has been replaced by a term that is more familiar to many: “Guǎngdōnghuà (Guǎng·dōng·huà {Wide · East → [Canton]} · Speech → [Cantonese speech/language] 广东话 廣東話)” (“Cantonese”).

The Language(s)

Regarding “Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語)”, the Wikipedia article on Yue Chinese provides this summary:

Yue (Cantonese pronunciation: [jyːt̚˨]) is a branch of the Sinitic languages primarily spoken in Southern China, particularly in the provinces of Guangdong and Guangxi (collectively known as Liangguang).

The term Cantonese is often used to refer to the whole branch, but linguists prefer to reserve the name Cantonese for the variety used in Guangzhou (Canton), Wuzhou (Ngchow), Hong Kong and Macau, which is the prestige dialect of the group. Taishanese, from the coastal area of Jiangmen (Kongmoon) located southwest of Guangzhou, was the language of most of the 19th-century emigrants from Guangdong to Southeast Asia and North America. Most later migrants have been speakers of Cantonese.

Yue varieties are not mutually intelligible with other varieties of Chinese,[source] and they are not mutually intelligible within the Yue family either.[source]

This Wikipedia page also cites Ethnologue as saying that the number of native speakers worldwide of Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語) was recently about “86 million (2022)[source]”. That’s not as many as Mandarin has (no other language/language branch currently has as many native speakers as Mandarin does), but that’s still a lot of people.

Regarding how Cantonese relates to other Chinese speech varieties, note the following excerpt from the MEotW post on “yǔzú (yǔ·zú language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} 语族 語族)”:

It’s interesting to note that according to Prof. [Victor H.] 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”!

Some Geography

To clarify regarding some of the places related to “Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語)”:

  • Guǎngdōng (Guǎng·dōng Wide · East → [Guangdong (Canton) Province] 广东 廣東)
  • Guǎngzhōu (Guǎng·zhōu Wide · Prefecture → [Guangzhou (Canton (city))] 广州 廣州)
    • This is the capital city of Guǎngdōng (Guǎng·dōng Wide · East → [Guangdong (Canton) Province] 广东 廣東) province.
  • Guǎngxī (Guǎng·xī Wide · West → [Guangxi (Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region)] 广西 廣西)
    • This is an autonomous region that’s located just to the west of Guǎngdōng (Guǎng·dōng Wide · East → [Guangdong (Canton) Province] 广东 廣東).

Some History

This summary from the Wikipedia article on Baiyue provides us with some historical background:

The Baiyue, Hundred Yue, or simply Yue, were various ethnic groups who inhabited the regions of Southern China and Northern Vietnam during the 1st millennium BC and 1st millennium AD.[source][source][source] They were known for their short hair, body tattoos, fine swords, and naval prowess.

…

The Yue tribes were gradually displaced or assimilated into Chinese culture as the Han empire expanded into what is now Southern China and Northern Vietnam.[source][source][source][source] Many modern southern Chinese dialects bear traces of substrate languages[citation needed] originally spoken by the ancient Yue. Variations of the name are still used for the name of modern Vietnam [Yuènán (Yuè·nán Yue · South → [Vietnam] 越南)], in Zhejiang-related names including Yue opera, the Yue Chinese language, and in the abbreviation for Guangdong.

…

The modern term “Yue” (traditional Chinese: 越、粵; simplified Chinese: 越、粤; pinyin: Yuè; Cantonese Jyutping: Jyut6; Wade–Giles: Yüeh4; Vietnamese: Việt; Early Middle Chinese: Wuat) comes from Old Chinese *ɢʷat.[source] It was first written using the pictograph 戉 for an axe (a homophone), in oracle bone and bronze inscriptions of the late Shang dynasty (c. 1200 BC), and later as 越.[source]

Is Cantonese Only Spoken?

Native Cantonese speakers I have known, like those in the Cantonese congregation that I used to be in, would tell me that the Cantonese we spoke was spoken Chinese, and that the Chinese in the official publications of the time, which was different in some ways from spoken Cantonese, was written Chinese. However, as I gained more knowledge about the history and the language situation of China, I came to understand that actually, the Chinese writing in the publications we were using was Mandarin, which was used because Mandarin-speaking people had gained political power in China, resulting in Chinese publications generally being published in Mandarin—it wasn’t a matter of spoken and written Chinese being different, but rather, of Cantonese and Mandarin being different.

Eventually, the organization came to also publish publications written in other Chinese varieties in addition to Mandarin. As of this writing, searching for “Chinese” on jw.org results in the following options, which includes Cantonese options:

Chinese varieties on jw.org as of 2024-04-14

Something to Remember

This week’s MEotW, “Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語)”, reminds us that while the central government of China wants everyone to just think of China as one monolithic political entity that should be governed by them, the central government, modern China actually is made up of many different parts. If it wasn’t for Qín Shǐhuáng ((Qín {Qin (dynasty)} 秦) (Shǐ·huáng Beginning · Emperor 始皇) (the founder of the Qín dynasty and the first emperor of China)) (Wikipedia article), who (rather forcefully) united several warring states and became the first emperor of China, China could have ended up like modern Europe, with its several independent nations.

These different parts of modern China, that in an alternate timeline could have become independent nations, each have their own history, including their own linguistic history—just like modern France, Spain, Germany, etc. have historically had their own mutually unintelligible languages, modern Guǎngdōng (Guǎng·dōng Wide · East → [Guangdong (Canton) Province] 广东 廣東), Shànghǎi (Shàng·hǎi Upon · {the Sea} → [Shanghai] 上海), Fújiàn (Fú·jiàn {Blessing (abbr. for the city name Fúzhōu)} · {Established (abbr. for the city name Jiànzhōu)} → [Fujian (Province)] 福建), etc. also have historically had their own mutually unintelligible languages, even if China’s central government would like everyone to just (erroneously) call them dialects of “Chinese”. This reality of China’s many mutually unintelligible languages is being emphasized, not for any political purpose, but rather, to help us language learners in the Chinese fields to be equipped with the truth as we try to make practical progress in learning and using Chinese languages to spread our God-honouring and life-saving message.

Categories
Culture Current Events Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

yì‐nián‐yí‐dù

yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually]) ← 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.]

This week’s MEotW, “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])”, occurs in the following sentence, which, at the time of this writing, jw.org is featuring to invite people to attend the Memorial:

English:

We invite you to attend our annual event to remember the death of Jesus Christ.

Mandarin:

📖 📄 📘 Wǒmen (Wǒ·men we · [pl] 我们 我們) yāoqǐng (invite 邀请 邀請) nǐ (you 你) cānjiā (cān·jiā {to take part in} · {to add to} → [to attend] 参加 參加) zhèige (zhèi·ge this · [mw] 这个 這個) yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [annual]) de (’s 的) jìniàn (jì·niàn remembering · {thinking of} → [commemorating] 记/纪念 記/紀念) jùhuì (meeting 聚会 聚會), jìniàn (jì·niàn {to remember} · {to think of} → [to commemorate] 记/纪念 記/紀念) Yēsū (Jesus 耶稣 耶穌) Jīdū (Christ 基督) wèi (for 为 為/爲) rénlèi (rén·lèi human·kind 人类 人類) xīshēng (xī·shēng sacrificed · {(as with a) domestic animal} → [sacrificed] 牺牲 犧牲) shēngmìng (life 生命).

“Yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((Yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” on one level of literalness means “one year one occasion/time”, which effectively means “annual”. Its final morpheme “dù (degree; extent; {degree of intensity} | {spending; passing (of time)} [→ [mw for occasions/times]] 度)” in this expression serves as a measure word for occasions or times, which likely derives from its meaning of “spending; passing (of time)”. In other expressions, “dù (degree; extent; {degree of intensity} | {spending; passing (of time)} [→ [mw for occasions/times]] 度)” can also mean “degree; extent; degree of intensity”:

  • 📖 📄 📘 dùguò (dù·guò {spend; pass (time)} · pass; cross → [spend; pass (time/etc.) | pull/get through; survive] 度过 度過)
  • 📖 📄 📘 tàidu (tài·du state · degree → [attitude; manner] 态度 態度)
  • 📖 📄 📘 wēndù (wēn·dù {(of) being warm} · {degree of intensity} → [temperature] 温度 溫度)
  • 📖 📄 📘 zhìdù (zhì·dù system · extent → [system] 制度)

Same Character, Different Tones

Note that in “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])”, the morpheme meaning “one” is first pronounced “yì (one 一)”, with a fourth tone, and then it’s pronounced “yí (one 一)”, with a second tone. This is tone sandhi, and as the MEotW post on “diǎnliàng (diǎn·liàng {dot → [light (v); ignite]} · {to be bright} [→ [illuminate; shine light on]] 点亮 點亮)” said:

On the other hand, the unofficial Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources join the official Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) publications, old and new, in explicitly indicating tone sandhi for “bù (not 不)” and “yī (one 一)” (e.g., “búzài (bú·zài not · again; further; continuing; anymore 不再)” instead of the standard “bùzài (bù·zài not · again; further; continuing; anymore 不再)”) to make things easier for readers, even though this practice is not included in the GB/T 16159-2012 [PRC national] standard’s recommendations.

In the end, what matters most re how anything is written is not just what is officially recommended or what happens to be popular among changing, imperfect humans. Rather, what matters most is what really works best to accomplish the goal of writing: To communicate to readers. This is especially true when God-honouring and life-saving Bible truths need to be communicated. So, this blog and the other Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resources will continue to seek to render Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) in ways that maximize how clearly, easily, effectively, and appropriately it communicates with readers.

Same Characters, Different Word Boundaries

Another interesting thing to note is that the last two morphemes in “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” can in some contexts form the expression “yídù (yí·dù [(at)] one · {spending; passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [once; at one time; on one occasion; for a time] 一度)”, which is appropriately written in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) without a space or other word divider between the two morphemes. Why then, does this blog post render “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” with a hyphen (that acts as a word divider) between its last two morphemes?

The reason for the different renderings of the same two morphemes in the two different expressions is, well, because we are indeed dealing with two different expressions. Whereas “yì‐nián‐yí‐dù ((yì one 一)‐(nián year 年 年/秊)‐(yí one 一)‐(dù {spending; passing (of time)} → [mw for occasions/times] 度) → [once a year; annual | annually])” uses its last two morphemes in a “one-[word divider]-[measure word]” pattern, as does “yí (one 一) ge ([mw] 个 個/个)”, “yídù (yí·dù [(at)] one · {spending; passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [once; at one time; on one occasion; for a time] 一度)”, treated as one word without a space in it, is used to effectively mean “once; at one time; on one occasion; for a time”. The ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, edited by John DeFrancis and Victor H. Mair, among others, provides these examples of this expression in use:

📖 📄 📘 Wǒmen (Wǒ·men we · [pl] 我们 我們) yídù (yí·dù (at) one · {passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [once] 一度) shì (were 是) hǎo (good 好) péngyou (friends 朋友).
We were once good friends.

📖 📄 📘 Tā (she 她) yídù (yí·dù (at) one · {passing (of time) → [mw for occasions/times]} → [for a time] 一度) duì (towards 对 對) huìhuà (huì·huà painting · paintings 绘画 繪畫) gǎn (felt 感) xìngqù (interest 兴趣 興趣).
She was interested in painting for a time.

Context Is the Key, Not Characters

The above points about how the characters “一” and “度” can have different pronunciations or meanings in different contexts remind us that Chinese characters are NOT the ultimate clarifiers of meaning in Mandarin. This excerpt from the MEotW post on “yǔjìng (yǔ·jìng language · {(set of) boundaries → [(bounded) place; area] → [condition; situation; circumstances]} → [context] 语境 語境)” explains further:

Context and Mandarin Writing Systems

Research into the importance of context turned up a couple of interesting sayings from the business world:

Content is king.
—Bill Gates

Content is king, but context is God.
—Gary Vaynerchuk

Mandarin field language-learners may hear the assertion from Chinese culture traditionalists that it is necessary to use Chinese characters to clarify the ambiguity that results from Mandarin having so many homophones, words that sound the same but that have different meanings. The insinuation, or even the outright accusation, is that the upstart Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) system is thus unusable as a writing system for Mandarin, that the Chinese characters writing system is still the rightful king. Besides, there is so much existing content written in Chinese characters, and content is king!

However, a little consideration of the yǔjìng (yǔ·jìng language · {(set of) boundaries → [(bounded) place] → [situation]} → [context] 语境 語境), the language situation or context, shows up the fallacy of this assertion. The Chinese characters writing system exists along with Mandarin speech, and if Chinese characters are truly required to clearly communicate meaning in Mandarin, then that would mean that Mandarin speech on its own, without the help of visible characters, is unusable as a means of communication. That, however, is obviously not true—people who are proficient in spoken Mandarin communicate clearly with each other all the time, undoubtedly pretty much as clearly as proficient English speakers communicate with each other.

The key reason why proficient Mandarin speakers can communicate clearly with each other despite all of the homophones in Mandarin is not that they are constantly referring to Chinese characters, although people do occasionally do that in the current characters-saturated cultural climate. No, the key reason why Mandarin-speakers routinely communicate clearly with each other is because they use sufficient context to clarify any potentially ambiguous homophones. And, since Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is a simple and direct representation of Mandarin speech, anything that is understandable when spoken in Mandarin is understandable when written in Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)—1 Corinthians 14:8–11.

So, while Chinese characters-based content may be so predominant in the Chinese world that it’s king there, context is God, relatively and metaphorically speaking, and Mandarin speech and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) rightly rely on context, not on Chinese characters, just like we rightly rely on God, not on merely human kings.