Characters are objectively harder, even for Chinese

[ala]

No offense' date=' 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. [/quote']

Hanyu Pinyin is more accurate than Korean Hangul usage, because Korean hangul is not spelled 100% phonetically.

About popularization, I think romanization of certain dialects can be popularized by the public, because there is a general misconception that these dialects cannot be written using characters (or if written, seen as very difficult to standardize, "vulgar", and aesthetically unpleasing). So the answer of No to question #2 is certainly not definite. The other historical issues do not matter, as Chinese characters are still taught. This to me is the best way to introduce digraphia with minimal shock and initially limited (yet socially pervasive) scale.

[beirne]

39degN says:

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.

The implied comparison in the topic description is that characters are harder than a good phonetic writing system. That is the frame of reference.

No one is comparing characters to letters. We are comparing the characters with phonetically spelled words. With a good phonetic alphabet learning how to write, and for that matter read, a new word is fairly trivial. The hard part is learning the meaning. Once you have associated the sound of the word with the meaning you are done. Reading and writing follow from the sound.

With characters one must not only learn to connect the meaning and the sound, but it is also necessary to know which characters form the word. There may or may not be useful semantic and phonetic clues in the characters. If there are new characters one must also learn to write them. Then the learner must remember them over time, even if the word is not common.

[39degN]

sorry, buddy, my logic is kinda messy right now, coz i m so sleepy.

dont take above seriously, c ya later.

[pazu]

if written, seen as very difficult to standardize, "vulgar", and aesthetically unpleasing

So you come up with some other reasons for romanization?? ha?

But it seems to be even more far-fetched.

You never look at Cantonese as an example, it's an easy, smooth and yet a semi-governmental approach to write down Cantonese on paper, using Hanzi, though not standardized as 白話文 but if you have a chance to read the Apple Daily you will know it works that way.

[wushijiao]

About popularization, I think romanization of certain dialects can be popularized by the public, because there is a general misconception that these dialects cannot be written using characters (or if written, seen as very difficult to standardize, "vulgar", and aesthetically unpleasing).

I'm not sure about that. If I were Shanghaiese and realized that Wu might be destroyed in the long run (50-200 years), I'd try to start a "Wu Preservation Society"- popularizing a single alphabet, newspaper circulation, radio programs...etc. But if you tried to do that on a mass scale, I think you'd hit the firm political wall of the CCP. I'm not sure the boys in Beijing are too happy about the popularity and the semi-officialness of Yue and Minnanhua (Taiwanese), let alone more dialects.

So if I were a Chinese oligarch with the intent to "unite" the country, I'd certainly destroy any non-token attempt to popularize a dialect, thus keeping characters.

[hparade]

if you have a chance to read the Apple Daily you will know it works that way

it's pretty awful to me, persoanlly, maybe just i don't like cantonese persoanlly, no offense

So if I were a Chinese oligarch with the intent to "unite" the country, I'd certainly destroy any non-token attempt to popularize a dialect, thus keeping characters.

this is really the concern for the government, CCP does not intend to destroy dialects, but nor do they want them to become standardised...

[ala]

But if you tried to do that on a mass scale, I think you'd hit the firm political wall of the CCP. I'm not sure the boys in Beijing are too happy about the popularity and the semi-officialness of Yue and Minnanhua (Taiwanese), let alone more dialects. So if I were a Chinese oligarch with the intent to "unite" the country, I'd certainly destroy any non-token attempt to popularize a dialect, thus keeping characters.

But half of the Standing Committee speak Shanghainese. Still you are right. Actually, Shanghainese is the most censured Chinese dialect. "Where is Shanghainese played on the radio?" The only forms of Shanghainese allowed to be aired are those quite incomprehensible to native Shanghainese speakers (where people still say "We" as Ngu'ni instead of my username, the kind of Shanghainese found in the film Flowers of Shanghai). Just two years ago there was a local drug commercial in plain conversational Shanghainese, and a few days later the dialogue was replaced with Mandarin. If an audio clip can be censured, standardizing writing is an impossibility..... Writing is very powerful.

[sunyata]

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?

Look, Mr. Bathrobe, will you please stop making a debate competition out of this? My points are rather simplistic in contrast to dmoser's. And what you claim I am presuming to say - you are presuming yourself. You know quite well what I am trying to say, why keep exaggerating it over and over? Does this make you feel better about yourself? Rather ridiculous, as you say...

Now, back to your adapted versions of my points. I was not claiming that "certain characters aren't worth remembering because they aren't worth writing." I am merely looking at the practical side of things, and I can't see what serious problems are created by someone forgetting how to write “打喷嚏”。 Will you tell me why this is such a great problem for native speakers?

The primary reason that such a phrase may be easily forgotten even by a native speaker is because two of its characters are not frequently used. I mean, how many compound words are 喷 and 嚏 used in, besides the phrase "打喷嚏"? Are you starting to see my point, or is it still too difficult to comprehend without bending it to suit your own argument? Talking about arrogant...

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

No, I did not say that poetry and high literature are the only things worth studying and using one's literacy skills for. I merely believe that these two things define, in almost every language, that, which is considered good writing. If you consider good writing to be defined by something else, well, that is only your own personal opinion as well and has little bearing on this discussion. (BTW - how can you lead a discussion without an exchange of opinions? It seems you and dmoser can only be appeased by reading your own monologues)

I am really sorry if I hurt your precious sense of pride with something in my posts, but that doesn't mean you can put words in my mouth and get away with it that easily.

[bathrobe]

I can't see what serious problems are created by someone forgetting how to write “打喷嚏”

You are implying that it doesn't matter if words like these kinda 'fall through the cracks'. In terms of a writing system, it does matter, and it is exactly the problem that is being addressed by this thread.

The primary reason that such a phrase may be easily forgotten even by a native speaker is because two of its characters are not frequently used.

That may be part of the reason. But much more important is the extraordinary difficulty of the second character. Just for argument's sake, if it were written 喷啼, for instance, far fewer people would have trouble reproducing it. (The character 喷 has a reasonable frequency. It is the 嚏 that is the problem).

No, I did not say that poetry and high literature are the only things worth studying and using one's literacy skills for. I merely believe that these two things define, in almost every language, that, which is considered good writing.

True, they do define what is good writing. But 'high culture' forms only part of what a writing system should be designed to do. In fact, most people are only ever likely to read popular literature, which will inevitably contain characters using popular speech, including vulgar phrases like 'burp', 'fart', etc., etc., etc. (In fact, even high literature is likely to contain these).

Again, the point I was making in my post, aggressively phrased though it was, is that you can't justify letting certain words or expressions fall through the cracks merely because you don't think they're important.

Your larger point seems to be (if I may be forgiven for putting words in your mouth again): 'the Chinese get along just fine with their current system; little expressions like 'fart', 'burp', etc. are not worth getting worked up over; why come on with all this nonsense about the superiority of an alphabetic system?'

Well, that is a valid opinion and you are free to hold it. Still, I think it's for the Chinese, not foreigners, to decide whether or not dmoser's point is an issue worthy of consideration.

[sunyata]

Well, that is a valid opinion and you are free to hold it. Still, I think it's for the Chinese, not foreigners, to decide whether or not dmoser's point is an issue worthy of consideration.

I am glad we agree on something...

This is exactly my attitude. I didn't see any Chinese participants in this thread "getting worked up" about what dmoser was describing, so it appeared to me that forgetting how to write certain characters is not a problem significant enough to justify the superioroty of alphabetical systems.

[nosferatu2083]

If characters are objectibly harder, even for Chinese, which I don't know for sure because I'm studying pinyin now, then I think that they will find ways of going around it. Maybe foreign languages will become more widespread in Chinese areas. Maybe technology or some other way of representing ideas will slowly make things easier.

Sorry but I just had to make this thread even longer.

[woodcutter]

John K Fairbank, in the introduction to "East Asia: Tradition and Transformation", notes that despite the difficulty of chinese characters, societies which use them have generally had higher rates of literacy than those which do not (at a similar level of economic development). He attributes this to the fact that such societies have developed a greater respect for education and the written word due to the effort which must be put into learning to write. So to side-line characters due to the difficulty of learning them might be counter-productive.

[beirne]

I hesitate to get back into this discussion but I can't help myself. It may be useful to define the term "literacy". Literacy includes both reading and writing. I can write every word I know in both English and Spanish (I really speak Spanish, this isn't just writing "buenos dias" :-) ). I can also write every Chinese word I know using Pinyin. I cannot, however, write every word I know in Chinese using the characters. The original point, though, is that the characters are harder, even for the Chinese, which I am not. We have already gathered that there are a number of characters representing everyday items that educated Chinese forget how to write. Less-well educated Chinese will presumably be able to write even fewer characters. I would be interested to know how the writing aspect of literacy was defined in these studies. Do the studies emphasize mastery of both reading and writing, just reading, or some sort of basic level of function?

[ala]

In Japan the number of characters an average Japanese can write correctly drops to a pitiful 500 after schooling (this isn't considering compound character words, just individual characters, which character goes with what isn't considered here). Recognition is much higher though. Japan still has >99% literacy because there is kana fallback, makes you wonder still.

[Altair]

From what I have read and understand, “literacy” in Japanese is indeed defined in a fairly specific way. I think I recall that basic literacy is defined as “mastery” of the two syllabaries (including about 100 symbols) and the 1000 or so Kyooiku Kanji (教育漢字) taught in elementary school. High school students are required to master 2000 plus Kanji. Almost all Kanji involve multiple readings. Outside of personal and place names, these 2000 or so Kanji (the Jooyoo Kanji 常用漢字) are what are needed to read newspapers, but college students need probably a total of 3000 to cover the type of materials they would work with. In other words, one can be defined as “literate” even though one cannot read a vast amount of basic material, including the personal names of neighbors or the name of the town down the road.

Literacy in languages that are written in syllabaries and that have simple syllabic structures is also different from literacy in languages that are written with alphabets or that have complex syllabic structures. “Sounding out” words in English is difficult for kids even when they know the proper phonetic values of the individual letters. Once this process is mastered, the initial difficulty is forgotten. This is similar to how swimmers or bike riders cannot easily recall what it feels like not to be able to swim or read a bike.

I believe linguists have shown that humans do not naturally separate syllables into individual phonemes. This must be learned. Even most adults cannot properly distinguish phonemes and simply rely on spelling to guess the number of “sounds” in a word. Learning to sound out syllabaries is much easier, since this is much closer to how humans naturally divide up sound.

Because of all these difficulties, comparing literacy across different languages is subject to misinterpretation and manipulation. The issues are different.

[dmoser]

I think Altair is quite right, and the points are well taken. But I think Beirne raises the crux of the matter, which is: How easy is it to write down everything you can say? What is a writing/(reading) system for??

The vast character set and the weak phonetic nature of the Chinese system makes it harder to achieve this basic requirement.

Yesterday a friend of mine forgot how to write qing 卿 as in guowuqing 国务卿, "Secretary of State". So it's not just "kitchen Chinese" words like "sneeze" and "dustpan".

[language-researcher]

it is enough that u can know how to read that character'嚏'。“噴嚏”會認就行啦，我在中國長這么大就沒有寫那兩個字的印象。許多這樣的生僻詞，不必浪費時間在上麵。

[dmoser]

“噴嚏”會認就行啦，我在中國長這么大就沒有寫那兩個字的印象。許多這樣的生僻詞，不必浪費時間在上麵。

Sigh. I can't believe some of these posts. We've gone from "No, there's no problem! Chinese have no trouble remembering characters!" to "Okay, so we can't remember a lot of characters. So what? Who needs to write down anything, anyway?" I guess this is progress of a sort.

This rather saddens me, because it reminds me of how many Chinese people on the borderline of literacy simply give up rather than struggle with the characters. My Chinese mother-in-law has a daughter living in the US, but never writes letters to her. When I asked her why she said "My mind is not as good as it used to be. I just have to look up too many characters to write a letter. It hardly seems worth it anymore."

She blames her mind. I'm not so sure. I think the character system must share a little bit of the blame. (With a seriously asthmatic grandson, she might very well have the occasion to write 噴嚏, and 咳嗽, and 哮喘 to concerned relatives, but what's the point of struggling with these characters and looking them up? I'd quit writing, too.)

[Guest Yau]

Sigh. I can't believe some of these posts. We've gone from "No, there's no problem! Chinese have no trouble remembering characters!" to "Okay, so we can't remember a lot of characters. So what? Who needs to write down anything, anyway?" I guess this is progress of a sort.

While i believe a reform is needed, i think some arguments here are detached from the fact we see today. You may think it's another boasting of chinese culture, but i try to collect all counter-arguments here, and you may explain it:

1. About the illiteracy, it isn't the case in hongkong and taiwan.

2. For science development, what about Arabic world that uses alphabet systems and what about taiwanese achievement?

3. there's too many reports that kids in hongkong and taiwan do better than their western counterparts in writing, solving maths and science problem. (the latest report can be seen in report conducted by british gov't. http://www.worldclassarena.org/v5/default.htm)

4. And yes, Chinese is difficult to learn, but i can't see it's more difficult than any other language. Don't forget most of us here have a long struggling experience with english and most chinese won't say english is especially easier.

It directly leads us to a question: if disadvantages mentioned previously were all valid, how could we explain these facts?

i think dmoser's frustration is caused by your arguements that ignore all these facts. You may be capble of making a theory on linguistc comparison, but we tend to believe what we see every day.

In fact, this attitude is consistent with the modern characters reform in last century. At that time, china was struggled with povety and breakdown of the traditional values. They lost almost every war with other countries and living standward were far behind the modern civilization. And somebody told that: it's the fault of chinese characters and confucius, abolish it and china would be strong.

People at that time were willing to follow it, but why? not because there's any strong linguistic arguments, but because of the provety they saw.

After half century, we have the same arguments again, but people resist to have reform and don't believe the same arguments. So i ask again, why? Since it's inconsistent with the facts.

Today Chinese is precautious about any reform on their traditional values. They did it too far and too much. Any effort on preserving it, though sometimes stupid and naive, is appreciated.

[ala]

After half century, we have the same arguments again, but people resist to have reform and don't believe the same arguments. So i ask again, why? Since it's inconsistent with the facts.

What are the facts? None of the facts you listed addressed dmoser's anecdote. Like a slippery snake avoiding the point.