Categories
Culture Theocratic

réncí

réncí (rén·cí {[is] benevolent; kind; humane; compassionate; sensitive} · {[is] compassionate; kind; loving} [→ [[is] kind | kindness]] 仁慈) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

The fifth part of the fruitage of the spirit listed is kindness.— Jiālātàishū (Jiālātài·shū Galatia · Book → [Galatians] 加拉太书 加拉太書) 5:22, 23.

Galatians 5:22, 23 (WOL nwtsty-CHS)

The English word “kindness” is translated into Mandarin in the above scripture as “réncí ({being kind} → [kindness] 仁慈)”, this week’s MEotW.

Note that the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus information for “réncí ({being kind} → [kindness] 仁慈)” (← tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”), as used in the above context, shows that in the above context it literally means “being kind”, which in turn effectively means “kindness”. The Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus information renders the literal meaning this way because in this case “réncí ({being kind} → [kindness] 仁慈)” is a stative verb.

Stative Verbs

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 stative verbs:

S.V. (Stative Verb, Xíngróngcí 形容词).

These entries are frequently translated into English as adjectives, even though they actually behave in Chinese as verbs. That is, the sense of ‘to be’ is already incorporated into these verbs, e.g. Zhèige hěn hǎo ‘This is quite good.’ In fact, it is simply ungrammatical to place the verb shì, ‘to be’, directly in front of a stative verb.

Because stative verbs are actually verbs, they are directly negated by , e.g. bù hǎo ‘not good’, and can be further modified by adverbs of degree such as hěn ‘quite’, fēicháng ‘extremely’ and shífēn ‘very; utterly’. One common function of stative verbs is that they may serve as adverbs to other actions, e.g. mànmàn in mànmàn chī ‘Take your time (eating)’ and rènzhēn in rènzhēn de xiě ‘write carefully’.

Sometimes a Verbal Noun

One might wonder, though, why “réncí ({being kind} → [kindness] 仁慈)” is used in the above scripture to translate “kindness”, a noun, if “réncí ({being kind} → [kindness] 仁慈)” is a stative verb there. This seems to be a case of “réncí ({being kind} → [kindness] 仁慈)” acting as a verbal noun, or gerundial noun. Verbal/gerundial nouns were discussed in the MEotW post on “jiàodǎo (jiào·dǎo teaching · {guiding [→ [instructing]]} 教导 教導)”:

One interesting thing to note about “jiàodǎo (jiào·dǎo teaching · {guiding [→ [instructing]]} 教导 教導)” (and about “jiàoxun (teaching → [reprimanding | knowledge gained from an error] 教训 教訓)”, for that matter) is that their component morphemes seem to basically be verbs. In certain contexts, however, they are used as nouns. An example of this being done in English is that “teach” and “teaching” are verbs (e.g. “Jesus was teaching the crowd.”), but in certain contexts, “teaching” is used as a noun (e.g. “The crowd was amazed at the teaching Jesus shared with them.”). When a word is used this way, it’s called a verbal noun, or a gerundial noun. Verbal nouns are quite common in Mandarin.

Multifaceted

Réncí (Rén·cí {[is] benevolent; kind; humane; compassionate; sensitive} · {[is] compassionate; kind; loving} [→ [[is] kind | kindness]] 仁慈)”, then, like many Mandarin words, is multifaceted. Sometimes it acts as an adjective, sometimes it’s a stative verb that seems like an adjective, and other times it functions as a noun. Here are examples of it being used in these different ways:

Used as an adjective:
📖 📄 📘 (he 他) shì (is 是) ge ([mw]個/个) hěn (very 很) réncí (kind 仁慈) de (’s 的) rén (person 人).

Used as a stative verb that seems like an adjective:
📖 📄 📘 (he 他) hěn ({very much} 很) réncí ({is kind} 仁慈).

Used as a verbal noun:
📖 📄 📘 (he 他) hěn ({very much} 很) yǒu (has 有) réncí ({being kind} → [kindness] 仁慈).

Categories
Culture Theocratic

xǐlè

xǐlè (xǐ·lè {[being] happy} · {[being] joyful} → [joy | [is] joyful] 喜乐 喜樂) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

The second part of the fruitage of the spirit listed is joy.— Jiālātàishū (Jiālātài·shū Galatia · Book → [Galatians] 加拉太书 加拉太書) 5:22, 23.

Galatians 5:22, 23 (WOL nwtsty-CHS)

The English word “joy” is translated into Mandarin in the above scripture as “xǐlè (xǐ·lè {being happy} · {being joyful} → [joy] 喜乐 喜樂)”, this week’s MEotW.

Note that the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus information for “xǐlè (xǐ·lè {being happy} · {being joyful} → [joy] 喜乐 喜樂)”, as used in the above context, shows that its morphemes (like; {be fond of} | {[being] happy; delighted; pleased} [→ [happy event (e.g. wedding; pregnancy) | happiness; delight]] 喜)” and “ ({be glad to; find pleasure in; enjoy} | {[being] happy; joyful; pleased; cheerful; glad} [→ [pleasure; enjoyment]])” in the above context literally mean “being happy” and “being joyful”, respectively. The Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus information renders the literal meanings this way because in this case “ (like; {be fond of} | {[being] happy; delighted; pleased} [→ [happy event (e.g. wedding; pregnancy) | happiness; delight]] 喜)” and “ ({be glad to; find pleasure in; enjoy} | {[being] happy; joyful; pleased; cheerful; glad} [→ [pleasure; enjoyment]])” seem to be stative verbs.

Stative Verbs

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 stative verbs:

S.V. (Stative Verb, Xíngróngcí 形容词).

These entries are frequently translated into English as adjectives, even though they actually behave in Chinese as verbs. That is, the sense of ‘to be’ is already incorporated into these verbs, e.g. Zhèige hěn hǎo ‘This is quite good.’ In fact, it is simply ungrammatical to place the verb shì, ‘to be’, directly in front of a stative verb.

Because stative verbs are actually verbs, they are directly negated by , e.g. bù hǎo ‘not good’, and can be further modified by adverbs of degree such as hěn ‘quite’, fēicháng ‘extremely’ and shífēn ‘very; utterly’. One common function of stative verbs is that they may serve as adverbs to other actions, e.g. mànmàn in mànmàn chī ‘Take your time (eating)’ and rènzhēn in rènzhēn de xiě ‘write carefully’.

Sometimes a Verbal Noun

One might wonder, though, why “xǐlè (xǐ·lè {being happy} · {being joyful} → [joy] 喜乐 喜樂)” is used in the above scripture to translate “joy”, a noun, if “ (like; {be fond of} | {[being] happy; delighted; pleased} [→ [happy event (e.g. wedding; pregnancy) | happiness; delight]] 喜)” and “ ({be glad to; find pleasure in; enjoy} | {[being] happy; joyful; pleased; cheerful; glad} [→ [pleasure; enjoyment]])” are stative verbs there. This seems to be a case of “ (like; {be fond of} | {[being] happy; delighted; pleased} [→ [happy event (e.g. wedding; pregnancy) | happiness; delight]] 喜)” and “ ({be glad to; find pleasure in; enjoy} | {[being] happy; joyful; pleased; cheerful; glad} [→ [pleasure; enjoyment]])”, and thus also “xǐlè (xǐ·lè {being happy} · {being joyful} → [joy] 喜乐 喜樂)”, acting as verbal nouns, or gerundial nouns. These were discussed in the MEotW post on “jiàodǎo (jiào·dǎo teaching · {guiding [→ [instructing]]} 教导 教導)”:

One interesting thing to note about “jiàodǎo (jiào·dǎo teaching · {guiding [→ [instructing]]} 教导 教導)” (and about “jiàoxun (teaching → [reprimanding | knowledge gained from an error] 教训 教訓)”, for that matter) is that their component morphemes seem to basically be verbs. In certain contexts, however, they are used as nouns. An example of this being done in English is that “teach” and “teaching” are verbs (e.g. “Jesus was teaching the crowd.”), but in certain contexts, “teaching” is used as a noun (e.g. “The crowd was amazed at the teaching Jesus shared with them.”). When a word is used this way, it’s called a verbal noun, or a gerundial noun. Verbal nouns are quite common in Mandarin.

Multifaceted

Xǐlè (Xǐ·lè {[being] happy} · {[being] joyful} → [joy | [is] joyful] 喜乐 喜樂)”, then, like many Mandarin words, is multifaceted. Sometimes it acts as an adjective, sometimes it’s a stative verb that seems like an adjective, and other times it functions as a noun. Here are examples of it being used in these different ways:

Used as an adjective:
📖 📄 📘 (he 他) shì (is 是) ge ([mw]個/个) hěn (very 很) xǐlè (xǐ·lè happy · joyful → [joyful] 喜乐 喜樂) de (’s 的) rén (person 人).

Used as a stative verb that seems like an adjective:
📖 📄 📘 (he 他) hěn ({very much} 很) xǐlè (xǐ·lè {is happy} · {is joyful} → [is joyful] 喜乐 喜樂).

Used as a verbal noun:
📖 📄 📘 (he 他) hěn ({very much} 很) yǒu (has 有) xǐlè (xǐ·lè {being happy} · {being joyful} → [joy] 喜乐 喜樂).

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

yǔzú

yǔzú (yǔ·zú language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} 语族 語族) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

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, “yǔzú (yǔ·zú language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} 语族 語族)”, as Prof. Mair confirms in the article (p. 747) mentioned above.

If “ (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 每) ge ([mw]個/箇/个) guózú (guó·zú national · {ethnic group} → [nation] 国族 國族), bùzú (bù·zú sectional · {ethnic group} → [tribe] 部族), yǔyán (yǔ·yán language · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言), (and 和) mínzú (mín·zú {(of) people} · {ethnic group} → [people] 民族)”.

The Mandarin Word for “Language Branch”

For reference, the Mandarin word for “language branch” is “yǔzhī (yǔ·zhī language · branch 语支 語支)”, 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”!