Tag: Writing

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

quèzáo

quèzáo+ (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) ← 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 + Symbols re all the “flashcards” in the heading, paragraph, etc. that they are placed at the beginning of.]

The Shēngmìng Láizì Chuàngzào Ma? ((Shēngmìng Life 生命) (Lái·zì Came · From 来自 來自) (Chuàng·zào Initiating · {Making, Creating} → [Creating] 创造 創造) (Ma [? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)? → [Was Life Created? (lc)]) (Was Life Created? (lc)) brochure and the Shēngmìng de Qǐyuán—Zhíde Sīkǎo de Wǔ Ge Wèntí ((Shēngmìng Life 生命) (de ’s 的) (Qǐ·yuán {Rising → [Starting]} · Source → [Origin] 起源/原)—(Zhí·de Worth · Getting → [Worth] 值得) (Sī·kǎo {Thinking About} · Examining 思考) (de ’s 的) (Wǔ Five 五) (Ge [mw] 个 個/个) (Wèn·tí Asking · Subjects → [Questions] 问题 問題) → [The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (lf)]) (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (lf)) brochure were originally published back in 2010, but relatively recently, the English version of the Was Life Created? brochure was updated to the December 2022 Printing, and the Mandarin version of it was updated to the February 2023 Printing. Also, the Was Life Created? brochure and the Origin of Life brochure are now in the Teaching Toolbox section in the JW Library app. So, it would be good to consider some of the expressions used in the Mandarin versions of these publications that can be so helpful when discussing whether life was created.

Is That a Fact?

Many people today dogmatically declare, “Evolution is not just a theory, it’s a fact, a fact, I say, a fact!”

This week’s MEotW, “quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿)”, can be useful when discussing this subject. It can be seen in use in the last paragraph of section 1 of the Origin of Life brochure, which section is entitled, in English, “How Did Life Begin?”:

English:

Given the facts, are you willing to make such a leap? Before answering that question, take a closer look at the way a cell is made. Doing so will help you discern whether the theories some scientists propound about where life came from are sound or are as fanciful as the tales some parents tell about where babies come from.

Mandarin (WOL, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus):

📖 📄 ➕ Kànguo (Kàn·guo {looking at} · {having passed} → [having looked at] 看过 看過) yǐshàng (yǐ·shàng at · above’s 以上) shìshí (shì·shí matters · {being solid} → [facts] 事实 事實) zhīhòu (zhī·hòu it · {after (that)} 之后 之後), nǐ (you 你) xiāngxìn (xiāng·xìn it · {do believe (that)} → [do believe (that)] 相信) shēngmìng (life 生命) shì (was 是) pèngqiǎo+ (pèng·qiǎo {having bumped into} · {being coincidental} → [by chance] 碰巧) chǎnshēng (chǎn·shēng {given birth to → [produced]} · {given birth to → [caused to exist]} → [brought into being] 产生 產生) de ({’s (thing)} 的) ma ([? ptcl for “yes/no” questions] 吗 嗎)? Huídá (Huí·dá {circling back} · {to answer} 回答) zhèige (zhèi·ge this · [mw] 这个 這個) wèntí (wèn·tí asking · subject → [question] 问题 問題) zhīqián (zhī·qián it · {before (that)} 之前), qǐng (please 请 請) zǐxì+ (zǐ·xì {the young of domestic animals → [with attention to detail]} · {finely → [carefully]} 仔/子细 仔/子細) kànkan (kàn·kan {look at} · {look at} 看看) xìbāo (xì·bāo tiny · womb → [cell] 细胞 細胞) de (’s 的) gòuzào+ (gòu·zào {constructing → [structure]} · making → [structure] 构造 構造). Zhèyàng (Zhè·yàng this · {form of → [way of]} 这样 這樣) zuò (doing 做) néng (can 能) bāngzhù (help 帮助 幫助) nǐ (you 你) kànchū (kàn·chū see · out 看出), yìxiē (yì·xiē one · {indefinite number of} → [some] 一些) kēxué‐jiā ((kē·xué {branches of study} · learning → [science] 科学 科學)‐(jiā -ists 家) → [scientists]) jiù (regarding 就) shēngmìng (life’s 生命) qǐyuán (qǐ·yuán {rising → [starting]} · source → [origin] 起源/原) tíchū (tí·chū {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise] → [refer to]} · out 提出) de (’s 的) lǐlùn+ (lǐ·lùn reasonings · {discussings → [theories]} → [theories] 理论 理論) jiūjìng (jiū·jìng {studied carefully → [actually]} · {in the end} 究竟) shì (are 是) zhèngjù ({(by) evidence} 证据 證/証據) quèzáo+ (què·záo firmly · chiselled → [(shown) to be irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) de ({’s (theories)} 的), háishi (hái·shi {still more → [or]} · are 还是 還是) xiàng (as 像/象) yǒuxiē (yǒu·xiē {(there) are having → [(there) are]} · some 有些) fùmǔ (fù·mǔ fathers · mothers 父母) jiěshì (jiě·shì {untying → [solving]} · explaining 解释 解釋) bǎobao (bǎo·bao treasures · treasures → [precious/darling babies] 宝宝 寶寶) cóng (from 从 從) nǎli (nǎ·li which · inside → [where] 哪里 哪裡/裏) lái (come 来 來) shí ({(particular) times} 时 時) suǒ ({those which (they)} 所) shuō (say 说 說/説) de ({’s (things)} 的) nàyàng (nà·yàng that · {form → [way]} 那样 那樣) méiyǒu (méi·yǒu not · having 没有 沒有) gēnjù (gēn·jù root · evidence → [basis] 根据 根據).

Looking at the morphemes in “quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿)”, “què (firmly; indeed; truly; really 确 確)” can mean “firmly” or “indeed”, and indeed, it appears in the expression “díquè (dí·què {in reality}; truly; really · indeed; truly; really; certainly 的确 的確)”, which means “indeed”. As for “záo (chisel (v or n) 凿 鑿)”, in this context, this expression means “chiselled”. Taken together then, the morphemes in “quèzáo (què·záo firmly; indeed; truly; really · {[is] chiselled} → [[is] [(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿)” literally mean something like “firmly chiselled”, and are used to effectively mean “[(shown) to be] conclusive; authentic; irrefutable”.

What Is Actually Rock Solid?

While evolution is believed in by many in the world today, the evidence, such as that discussed in the Origin of Life brochure, shows that it is actually creation that is zhèngjù ({(by) evidence} 证据 證/証據) quèzáo+ (què·záo firmly · chiselled → [(shown) to be irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) de ({’s (teaching)} 的), rock solid, as if chiselled in stone, firmly.

Similarly, in Mandarin language learning, many, because of the weight of long tradition and much worldly propaganda, believe in prioritizing Chinese characters, but it’s actually the modern linguistic principle that speech is primary, and writing is secondary that is zhèngjù ({(by) evidence} 证据 證/証據) quèzáo+ (què·záo firmly · chiselled → [(shown) to be irrefutable] 确凿 確鑿) de ({’s (teaching)} 的), by evidence from both modern linguistics and God’s Word itself.

For example, on their podcast called Lingthusiasm, linguists Lauren Gawne and Gretchen McCulloch said:

Lauren: I think that is one of the things that makes it really hard for people who grow up in highly literate, highly educated societies to tease writing and reading apart from language. But actually, when you step back, you realise that writing is actually super weird.

Gretchen: It’s so weird! It’s this interesting – 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.

Of course, in keeping with the rock solid, evidence-based Bible teaching that God created us, rather than saying that spoken languages “are just kind of there”, we would say that God purposely created us to primarily use language through his gift of speech. It’s not surprising then, that God’s Word the Bible contains the following passage at 1 Corinthians 14:8–11, which emphasizes the primary importance of understandable speech, while not bothering to even mention the mere human invention of writing:

8 For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. 10 It may be that there are many kinds of speech in the world, and yet no kind is without meaning. 11 For if I do not understand the sense of the speech, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a foreigner to me.

For convenience:

The direct link for the current generation Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus resource for the Origin of Life brochure is:

The short link for Chinese field language-learning links for the Origin of Life brochure is:

More Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web material based on the Mandarin Origin of Life brochure will be made available in the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus web resource as time allows.

Categories
Culture Languages

zìmǔ

zìmǔ+ (zì·mǔ character; word · mothers → [letters (of an alphabet) [→ [alphabet]]] 字母) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

As previous MEotW posts (like this one) have shown, “zì (character; word; letter 字)” in Mandarin can mean “character”, such that “Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字)”, for example, means “Chinese characters”. In fact, even though “zì (character; word; letter 字)”, like its English counterpart “character”, can refer to printed or written letters or symbols in general, Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) are such an 800-pound gorilla in Chinese culture that in Mandarin, “zì (character; word; letter 字)” by itself is often understood to specifically mean the Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字), the Chinese characters. This way of thinking has spilled over into the English-speaking world as well, which is why when English-speaking publishers in the Chinese fields speak of “the characters”, that’s generally understood to mean “the Chinese characters”, which in turn is understood to mean the 汉字 and not the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), even though Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is also Chinese and made up of characters (printed or written letters or symbols).

So, when we want to refer to a letter of an alphabet, as opposed to a Chinese character, when speaking Mandarin, we can make that clear by using this week’s MEotW, “zìmǔ (zì·mǔ character; word · mothers → [letters (of an alphabet) [→ [alphabet]]] 字母)”. In Mandarin, a zìmǔ+ (zì·mǔ character; word · mothers → [letters (of an alphabet) [→ [alphabet]]] 字母) is literally a “character/word mother”, something that characters or words come from.

How is it that even Chinese characters or words come from letters? Well, contrary to the traditional Chinese cultural view that Chinese characters are the primary aspect of Chinese languages, linguists (language scientists) now recognize that speech is primary and writing is secondary. So, a Mandarin expression is not primarily something written with Chinese characters, but rather is primarily something spoken in Mandarin. Whereas a Chinese character coarsely represents an entire syllable, letters of alphabets in general represent the individual speech sounds (called phonemes by linguists) that make up the spoken expressions that are the primary part of a language, and this is especially true of a purpose-designed phonetic alphabet like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).

For example, whereas the Chinese character “字” represents an entire Mandarin syllable as one coarse unit, the Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression “zì (character; word; letter 字)” finely spells out the initial sound, the final sound, and even the tone that actually make up that Mandarin syllable.

That speech and the individual sounds that make it up are the real foundation of any human language is such an important, unignorable linguistic principle that even schoolchildren in China (see especially the Z.T. subheading) learn basic Mandarin speech and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) before getting immersed in Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字), Chinese characters, as tradition dictates.

Perhaps, then, it would be appropriate for Chinese culture, which values filial piety, to be more respectful towards the letters of its phonetic alphabet Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), which, both linguistically and educationally, are the “mothers” of the characters it loves so much!

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

Zhōngwén

Zhōngwén+ (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

As discussed in last week’s MEotW, the expression “Zhōngguó+ (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)” is commonly used to refer to China, since historically, China views itself as the centre of the world, so much so, in fact, that it is the only nation to name itself as such. We can see then that Mandarin expressions starting with “Zhōng (Central → [Chinese] 中)-” can refer to things related to China.

In that case then, are “Zhōnghuà (Zhōng·huà {Central → [Chinese]} · Speech 中话 中話)” or “Zhōngyǔ (Zhōng·yǔ {Central → [Chinese]} · Language 中语 中語)” used to refer to any Chinese language, similarly to how “pǔtōnghuà (pǔ·tōng·huà common; universal · {through(out) → [common]} · speech → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in China)] 普通话 普通話)” and “Guóyǔ (Guó·yǔ National · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in Taiwan)] 国语 國語)” are used to refer to Mandarin? Apparently not, according to my dictionaries.

Instead, Chinese people commonly use “Zhōngwén+ (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)”—this week’s MEotW—to mean “Chinese language”. It should be noted, though, that although “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)” is often used to refer to Chinese speech (e.g., in “shuō (speak 说 說/説) Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)” (“speak Chinese”)), “wén (writing; script [→ [language | culture]] 文)” really means “writing”.

Why do so many Chinese people thus conflate writing with speech and language, when they, while related, are really distinctly different things? This seems to be a symptom of the deeply ingrained Chinese cultural conceit that the Chinese characters are the primary aspect of the Chinese languages—to many Chinese people, the characters are the language. This is contrary to the principle recognized by modern linguists (language scientists) that speech is the primary aspect of any language, not writing. The truth of this basic linguistic principle is shown by the fact that many languages don’t even have a writing system, showing that the required foundation of a language is its speech, not its writing.

Our Creator himself touches on this matter in his Word the Bible:

8 For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. 10 It may be that there are many kinds of speech in the world, and yet no kind is without meaning. 11 For if I do not understand the sense of the speech, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a foreigner to me.—1 Corinthians 14:8–11.

Yes, Jehovah God himself, the One who designed us with our ability to use language, emphasizes the primary importance of understandable speech when it comes to communicating with people, especially when communicating about the potentially life-saving good news of the Kingdom.

Chinese people, however, often have the mistaken view, based on nothing more than deeply ingrained human tradition and not a little cultural pride, that their characters writing system is the primary aspect of the Chinese languages. So, we must take that into consideration when they or people deferring to them erroneously tell us, with all sincerity, that we need to focus first on Chinese characters in our efforts to learn one or more of the Chinese languages. The truth, as testified to by both real language experts among humans and by the Creator himself, is that speech—both understanding speech and speaking understandably—should be our primary focus as Chinese field language-learners.

Regarding the expression “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)”, another thing I have noticed is that when Mandarin-speakers say “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)”, they mean Mandarin speech, but when Cantonese-speakers say “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)”, they mean Cantonese speech. As a Chinese person, I must reluctantly admit that with such habits, and with naming their nation “Zhōngguó+ (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)”, the central nation of the world, many Chinese people have taken quite far the tendency of imperfect humans to consider themselves the centre of the universe!