Characters are objectively harder, even for Chinese

[39degN]

yeah, so we dont use [女巽] any more!

to be frank, Vietnamese is the ugliest alphabetic script in the world. and Vietnamese romanization's side effect maybe not appear in a short term period, but i believe it will appear sooner or later.

[nnt]

but i believe it will appear sooner or later.

Like the Messiah?

Romanized Vietnamese has already been invented by Jesuits to propagate Holy Messages to Vietnam, so it may be God's will to save our soul (and much more) from those devilish characters.... It's a matter of religions, or sects, I said...

May be beautiful? Perhaps. Everything, especially beauty, is relative or relativistic

[39degN]

Like the Messiah?

Romanized Vietnamese has already been invented by Jesuits to propagate Holy Messages to Vietnam, so it may be God's will to save our soul (and much more) from those devilish characters.... It's a matter of religions, or sects, I said...

hehe, no offence, that's their agenda. tho good will.

my only religion is myself, i m sorry to say that, i know i will visit a nice place called hell after death. fogive me...

yeah, the second ugliest is chinese character, haha

if pinyinization is the only way of language evolution, at least we should invent our own alphabet, why should we become a copy cat? you can live without so many things in this world, but creativity.

[sunyata]

As for dictionaries - of course they don't need or have them. There is always a nerd around who can remind you how to write 打喷嚏 if such a need arises.

This contemptuous statement seems to sum up your attitude to people who take an interest in matters like 'difficult characters'.

I am not being contemptuous here...Nerds are not necesarrily bad people. If you have memorized how to write "打喷嚏" and I have offended you with my comment - I am sorry.

What I was trying to propose is that fogetting how to write certain characters (even if they may be "basic vocubulary" - quite a relative term in itself ) is not such a big problem. If I forget how to write "打喷嚏' date='" what problems does that create for me or a native speaker who makes the same "mistake"?

All we need is for Sunyata to come out of denial as to whether this poor, innocuous, well-picked-over example is a part of 'basic vocab' in Chinese.

First of all, I spent almost 9 months in China before I even heard this expression used in conversation. As 39degN has pointed out, how often do you really use this expression in everyday conversations or in written communication?? Sure, the word itself describes a common phenomenon of human existence, but that does not imply it's a frequently used expression.

Lastly, if your idea of basic Chinese vocab is that it consists of words like "sneeze," "dustpan," "fart," burp" and so on, then I guess you should memorize those characters immediately. Personally, I don't see those characters as very useful, which is precisely why I don't see forgetting them as a problem. This is also why I am not convinced by dmoser's reasoning...

[sunyata]

BTW, one good result of this thread has been the continuous exposure of the participants to the expression "打喷嚏". I think few of us will now ever forget how to write it. I am having dreams about it already...

[beirne]

sunyata says:

Lastly, if your idea if basic Chinese vocab is that it consists of words like "sneeze," "dustpan," "fart," burp" and so on, then I guess you should memorize those characters immediately. Personally, I don't see those characters as very useful, which is precisely why I don't see forgetting them as a problem. This is also why I am not convinced by dmoser's reasoning...

It appears that we a paradox here. Earlier discussion defended the character system on the basis of how it makes for beautiful literature and poetry (a valid point). Now it is suggested that being able to write a broad variety of words isn't very important. I'm hoping that good writing isn't being limited by the character system to authors and poets. I'll also be happy to be told that sunyata's comments aren't representative of the average Chinese person.

[sunyata]

Now it is suggested that being able to write a broad variety of words isn't very important.

Stop reading between the lines...When did I mention a "broad variety of words"? I only mentioned 4 words, 2 of which I added myself. The real paradox is that people still keep posting to this thread, even though they don't have anything new to say (I know - I am one of them ).

I'm hoping that good writing isn't being limited by the character system to authors and poets.

Then what should good writing be limited to? - the letters of peasants and the proletariat? Of course, good writing in any language is primarily defined by fine examples of literature and poetry. Naturally, that doesn't mean you have to be able to write fine Chinese poetry in order to be considered fluent...It just means, out of all Chinese characters in use today, there are many more important ones to remember, besides "sneeze," "dustpan" and the like.

I'll also be happy to be told that sunyata's comments aren't representative of the average Chinese person.

Umm, so what do you believe an "average Chinese person" thinks? How many Chinese people do you know to make that conclusion?

[bathrobe]

Lastly, if your idea of basic Chinese vocab is that it consists of words like "sneeze," "dustpan," "fart," burp" and so on, then I guess you should memorize those characters immediately.

Actually, 放屁 is an extremely useful expression in Chinese.

First of all, I spent almost 9 months in China before I even heard this expression used in conversation.

There is a lot of vocab that you don't encounter if you weren't brought up in China. I'm thinking especially of those little words and expressions that form part of everyday life. (To take a couple of possible examples from English, 'to make your bed', 'to set the table' etc. are expressions you would be unlikely to hear unless you lived with a family, or perhaps worked in a hotel or restaurant.)

[39degN]

Actually, 放屁 is an extremely useful expression in Chinese.

gentlemen, seems we off the topic so much...

[pazu]

Anh NNT, I know it's a simple name, especially for a well-informed Vietnamese like you, and it's the biggest temple (pagoda) in TP My Tho.

I went there with my friend who was graduated from a university in HCMC one day and I asked the meaning of this temple because the name was written outside the temple in Quoc Ngu, my friend kept thinking and couldn't come up with any meaning. We walked inside and I found the name in Chinese characters, so I asked him, "does that mean something like "forever long?" And he "ahhhhhhhhhhhh, oh yes!" Why couldn't he come up with the meaning of these two words earlier if it's so obvious as you have claimed. The meaning is easy to understand, but can still cause some trouble for a university graduate in Vietnam! While the Hanzi version 永長 should be easy to pass the meaning to anyone with a primary education in Chinese characters. Again, I'm not saying a Chinese kid performs better than a Vietnamese U grad, what I wanted to say, is that a latinized word contains lesser meaning than the Hanzi, so it can cause some trouble for understanding in some situations.

Anh NNT, and you have confused a "simple" or "difficult" characters with number of strokes.

Do you think 夨 is a simpler character than 龜?

And 39degN, indeed I found your message offensive too because it seems to me that you don't know much about Vietnamese latinized system and how come you have the conclusion that this is not beautiful? After 5 months of studying this language I found it quite systematic and scientific in many aspects especially the latinization of the diverse phonetic transition from south to north. But this may worth another post for discussion.

[39degN]

wow, nnt, are you Vietnamese? i'm sorry for my offense. i didnt know that! i thought you are a westerner marstered wonderful vietnamese and chinese for years.

And 39degN, indeed I found your message offensive too because it seems to me that you don't know much about Vietnamese latinized system and how come you have the conclusion that this is not beautiful? After 5 months of studying this language I found it quite systematic and scientific in many aspects especially the latinization of the diverse phonetic transition from south to north. But this may worth another post for discussion.

yeah, i'm sorry, pazu, but i just meant they look like that... sorry for my pertly jumping to conclusion.

[nnt]

you have confused a "simple" or "difficult" characters with number of strokes.

I didn't. I just gave [女巽] because it does not seem to have many strokes or to be too complicated, and its splitting into parts is simple (everything is relative...) and is a character I am actually searching (found it for a person's name)...

I may guess its pronunciation should not be very far from the character 巽 , but I also need its meaning too. It's for an old Vietnamese name. To know how to pronounce it in Nôm, you must already know its pronunciation(s) in Fan Tie in order to deduce its Hán Việt pronunciation(s), and then to guess its others possible pronunciations in Nôm. Compared with Chinese characters for CHinese, Hán/Nôm is even harder, especially for Vietnamese...

[sunyata]

Actually, 放屁 is an extremely useful expression in Chinese.

Of course it is useful. In fact, almost every word in a language is useful, otherwise it wouldn't exist. 放屁 is useful for you, 打飞机 is useful for others...But does that mean it's crucial to remember how to write it???

[pazu]

Anh NNT,

I didn't. I just gave [女巽] because it does not seem to have many strokes or to be too complicated, and its splitting into parts is simple (everything is relative...) and is a character I am actually searching (found it for a person's name)...

The difficulty level of a character can never be judged by its strokes or complicity (stroke = structural complicity, tell me if you think differently), a character is easy because it's commonly used. [女巽] isn't yet implemented in the unicode font of Windows XP, so it's a rare character.

A name is not necessarily = common characters, some people like to have call their boys 鑫淼尛朤㠭掱㗊 (haha, I'm trying the Cangjie IME on my computer now indeed. ) 鑫淼 is easier of course, because it's really quite common, while the remaining, well...

I can check the meaning of this character for you if you really need it, but I have to go to my friend's Chinese school first... they have the Hanzi Dazidian which contains many weired characters.

[nnt]

[女巽] isn't yet implemented in the unicode font of Windows XP, so it's a rare character.

A name is not necessarily = common characters

The character I mentioned is in the Sursong.ttf font included in Office XP CHS and in "Office proofing tools" and standardized by the Unicode organization. Sure, the purpose of this font is to include rare but existing characters not found in any other font.

I don't talk about characters invented for people's names.

[bathrobe]

Of course it is useful. In fact, almost every word in a language is useful, otherwise it wouldn't exist. 放屁 is useful for you, 打飞机 is useful for others...But does that mean it's crucial to remember how to write it???

This is all getting rather ridiculous. We have got to the point where Mr Sunyata is presuming to tell us that certain characters aren't worth remembering because they aren't worth writing! Don't you think it's a little arbitrary (not to mention arrogant) to be telling others what is 'worth writing' and what isn't?

You may consider poetry and high literature to be only thing worth using your literacy skills for, but that is your own personal opinion and has little bearing on what purports to be a discussion about the writing system.

[pazu]

come on, anh nnt, you still don't get the point.

[beirne]

39degN says:

Nothing is absolute hard, to judge if things hard you have to choose something as frame of reference, no matter you chosen Spanish or French or some language else, you have to compare their whole systems with character writing system, not only pronunciation and spelling or some little detail, but also the expressions(and wording and grammar, i believe the grammar of spanish and french will drive you crazy, russian did the same to me for sure, as every one knows chinese has the almost easist grammar in the world) and so on, you have to focus on the whole pic. having no problem with spelling, but only know 100 vocabularies, would you call that mastered the writing system? As I have mentioned mastered the regulations of a system doesn't mean mastered the whole system, and alphabetic system's spelling regulations maybe easy to learn, but it doesn't mean the course of mastering enough vocabularies to be able using the language to write something is easy tooooooooooo. contrarily alphabetic system's less characteristic of every vocabulary than character will certainly increase the difficulty to study new words. i hope I made myself clear.

Yes, but the point is that Characters are objectively harder. The goal here is not to analyze Chinese as a whole. While I'd like to discuss whether Chinese grammar is simple, (I'm not sure) that is another topic. The Chinese language is definitely not harder for Chinese, as all languages are equally easy for native speakers. Whether Chinese is harder for native speakers of other languages is another interesting topic, but the point of this topic really isn't for us learners to whine about how difficult Chinese is.

39degN says in relation to writing characters when one has only heard the word, not seen it written:

Yeah, I see what you mean, but I think I have answered that already, we only have 3000 common characters, even some vocabularies we have never been writing down, their components belong to those 3000 characters, you will been able to get a general pic if you have a basic training of writing.

I know that there are some meaning clues in the characters, but there are an awful lot of characters that sound like yi4. Most other syllables also map to multiple characters. This also involves being able to write all 3000 characters, which is what started this thread. One area of discussion might be to get a sense of how many characters people can usually write. I can see recognizing 3000 characters, but with the discussion about 打喷嚏 and 畚箕 I wonder where the numerical cutoff actually is for being able to write characters.

Writing a word you don't know using characters requires at least two steps. First you must determine the sound, and then you need to determine which character is used in the context of the particular word. With a good phonetic system (not English) you determine the sound and write it down. Therefore the opportunity for error is less with a phonetic writing system.

I said:

I did wonder when I wrote this if the issue of misspelling via homophones would come up. I don't have a real good answer on this one. If a character that sounds the same but has a different meaning can be used, though, doesn't that imply that the important part of a writing system is conveying pronunciation?

39degN said:

Sure the conveying pronunciation is important, do you mean characters doesn't deserve the honor to delivery it?

I'm just wondering if since words can be understood when the semantically incorrect characters with the right pronunciation are used doesn't that indicate that a phonetic writing system for Chinese would be adequate?

39degN said:

you mean your Chinese isn't that good is because Characters are too hard? Pin yin right now is not a writing system, it can't carry all the Chinese language information yet.

My knowledge of the characters isn't that good, but I'm more frustrated about using the spoken language. I didn't work on the characters the first couple of years because I was interested in speaking Chinese when I went to China and didn't have time to work on characters. This distressed my teacher who believes the characters are the heart of the Chinese language. I discovered early on, though, that no one uses pinyin so it is only currently useful for educational materials and roadsigns. Later on I found it was annoying being illiterate so I started learning the characters properly. I'm at about the 1000 character point, so I have a way to go.

What information can't be conveyed in pinyin, other than wenyanwen, poetry, and other literature? If it requires characters, how do people convey the information in speech?

39degN says:

If you don't know nitrogen, benzene, and chlorine, can you figure out that they are chemistry terms?

But in Chinese, 硝基苯 and so on, all easy characters. In character language one can not only pronounce these, but also get the general meaning of the words. i.e. they are combinations. Even tho he is not so familiar with chemistry.

Is 苯 a well-known character? It doesn't show up in my frequency charts. Pretty much everyone who has reason to encounter the words nitrogen, benzene, and chlorine know those words. Nitrogen is in the atmosphere and chlorine is used in pools and drinking water. Benzene is less common, but at least one can read the word and pronounce it. While one can guess 苯 from 本，it is only fortuitous that both characters is pronounced exactly the same.

Recognizing chemical names in English is not particularly difficult because of the way they are combined and other clues such as suffixes, elements you already know, etc. My knowledge of Chinese chemical notation is nil other than knowing that there is a unique character for each element so I will take your word that 硝基 helps indicate that 苯 is a chemical.

In any case, we will need a broader selection of examples to prove this point.

[wushijiao]

No offense, but I can't believe this thread is still going on.

Alphabets represent sounds. For example, tell me a word in Spanish that I don't know, even a "rare" one (even more rare than sneeze), and I'll probably be able to write it down correctly. I might mess up the "b/v" or I might miss a silent "h", but it would still be understood. Same goes for pinyin. Some alphabets are better than others. The Korean one is supposed to be really accurate.

There should only be a few questions.

1) Can Chinese be understood in alphabet form?

2) Should that alphabetic form be popularized?

For question 2, I say "no" for historical, financial, and aesthetic reasons. And if 2 is "no", then question 1 becomes irrelevant.

That's my fiddy cent.

[39degN]

agree with wushijiao, but i just wanna give a quickly replying to beirne:

Yes, but the point is that Characters are objectively harder. The goal here is not to analyze Chinese as a whole. While I'd like to discuss whether Chinese grammar is simple, (I'm not sure) that is another topic. The Chinese language is definitely not harder for Chinese, as all languages are equally easy for native speakers. Whether Chinese is harder for native speakers of other languages is another interesting topic, but the point of this topic really isn't for us learners to whine about how difficult Chinese is.

nothing is absolutely hard. you have to choose a frame of reference.

letters are abjectively easier, but they mean nothing. compare with characters, they are meaningless, because every character carried information there, information+information=vocabulary, so character helps to build your vocabularies. but one letter is just a letter.

if you really wanna compare them, you should compare character with your vocabulary, not only letters. hope i made myself clear this time.

good night. (or nice day)