Tag: Writing Systems

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 “mǐ (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
Language Learning Science

Jīdū

Jīdū (Christ 基督) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Earlier Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material rendered the English meaning of “Jīdū (Christ 基督)” as “Foundation · {Directing (Person)} → [Christ]”, on the supposition that the meanings of the Mandarin syllables used in “Jīdū (Christ 基督)” may have mattered in their selection for inclusion in “Jīdū (Christ 基督)”. (In contrast, “Yēsū (Jesus 耶稣 耶穌)” (Jesus) is a name, not a title like “Jīdū (Christ 基督)” is, so, like the Mandarin syllables used in other Mandarin names of Bible personages, the Mandarin syllables for “Yēsū (Jesus 耶稣 耶穌)” were obviously also chosen mainly for their sounds, with only secondary consideration given to their meanings.) Unfortunately, while it seems to make some sense, it turns out that this earlier rendering of the English meaning of “Jīdū (Christ 基督)” was a case of Trying Too Hard 😜. (Oh, well, as I once heard a cable guy say as he was preparing to make a new cable, “too much is better than not enough”.)

Now, when one looks up “Jīdū (Christ 基督)” in the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus Expressions resource, one will see a note about why the English meaning of “Jīdū (Christ 基督)” is now simply rendered as “Christ”:

(This is a transcription of “Christ”, so the syllables were chosen mainly for their sound, not their meaning. For more info, see this Language Log post by Victor Mair.)

Who Is Victor Mair and What Did He Say About This?

Victor H. Mair, who has been mentioned several times in this blog, is an American sinologist and a University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations. He also inspired and helped to edit the highly regarded ABC Chinese-English Dictionary. So, we can be pretty sure he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to Mandarin words. (In fact, for what it’s worth, after my several years of researching the Mandarin language, I have come to consider him the most trustworthy living scholarly authority on the Chinese languages.)

Concerning the etymology of “Jīdū (Christ 基督)”, Prof. Mair said the following in the above-mentioned Language Log blog post:

Jīdū 基督 is a short form of Jīlìsīdū 基利斯督, which is a transcription of “Christ”, from Ancient Greek Χριστός (Khristós).

So, I revised the English meaning in the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus Expressions resource entry for “Jīdū (Christ 基督)”, added the note quoted above, and am gradually revising occurrences of “Jīdū (Christ 基督)” in existing Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material as time allows. Of course, going forward, new Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus material that includes the expression “Jīdū (Christ 基督)” will simply use “Christ” as its English meaning.

A Reminder That Speech Is Primary

This situation with “Jīdū (Christ 基督)”, in which the deciding factor in how the word is formed is how it sounds, reminds us that regardless of the Chinese cultural obsession with characters and the meanings represented by their intricate visual designs, the basic scientific principle about human languages holds true, that the primary aspect of human languages is actually speech, which represents meanings with sounds. Writing, even writing as revered as Chinese characters are with all their visual embellishments, is at best secondary.

Categories
Culture Language Learning Technology

yǔyán

yǔyán (yǔ·yán language; tongue · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

The Mandarin field is an example of a language field. What though, is a language? For a long time, the production output of the earthly part of Jehovah’s organization was exclusively or mainly paper publications. So, when it would count the languages it was supporting in its production, it was really counting the writing systems that it printed on paper. Meanwhile, in worldly Chinese culture, there is an obsession with the Chinese characters writing system, which has become a proud and deeply embedded cultural tradition. Such factors may influence people serving in the Mandarin field to focus on the Chinese characters writing system when they think of the Mandarin language.

However, linguists, people who study language scientifically, hold that when it comes to languages, speech is primary, and writing is secondary. This excerpt from the MEotW post on “zuìchū (zuì·chū most · {at the beginning} [→ [initial[ly]; prime; [at] first; original[ly]]] 最初)” summarizes the scientific evidence in this regard:

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.

What Do the Words Actually Mean?

It’s also worth considering the actual root meanings contained in the words used in English and Mandarin to mean “language”. Regarding the etymology of the English word “language”, the Online Etymology Dictionary says:

late 13c., langage “words, what is said, conversation, talk,” from Old French langage “speech, words, oratory; a tribe, people, nation” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *linguaticum, from Latin lingua “tongue,” also “speech, language,” from PIE [Proto-Indo-European] root *dnghu- “tongue.”

Clearly, the focus of the root meanings above is on speech and the tongue, which is used for speech—writing is not even mentioned.

Consider also this week’s MEotW, the Mandarin word generally used to mean “language”, “yǔyán (yǔ·yán language; tongue · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言)”. As can be seen from this expression’s Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus information, the morphemes used in this Mandarin expression also focus on speech and the tongue, which is used for speech—writing is not even mentioned.

So, when we think of a language, a yǔyán (yǔ·yán language; tongue · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言), even a Chinese one, we should really be thinking about a way of speaking, a variety of speech, not any writing system, even one as traditionally revered and glamourized as Chinese characters are. Thus, the Mandarin language field is not the field in which we preach to and teach people who read and write with Chinese characters. After all, if people speak Mandarin but cannot read or write the Chinese characters, they still count as being among those we are trying to help in the Mandarin field. That’s because the Mandarin language field is actually the field in which we preach to and teach people whose mother tongue—their first language or way of speaking—is Mandarin.