Chinese may replace English in this century

[imron]

before May 4 1919, Chinese people use 文言文wenyanwen as written Chinese.

Doesn't this then contradict somewhat your initial post that said that Chinese was a stable language? Surely part of the very reason for the 白话 movement was because 文言文 was too different from the language that people used in their everyday life?

[tanklao]

Doesn't this then contradict somewhat your initial post that said that Chinese was a stable language? Surely part of the very reason for the 白话 movement was because 文言文 was too different from the language that people used in their everyday life?

What I said is Chinese is more stable than European languages including English.

[gougou]

What I said is Chinese is more stable than European languages including English.

I am a student of English as well as Chinese. Granted, I have been studying English longer than Chinese, but still I find it significant that I can understand most of Macbeth, while I virtually understand nothing of the 红楼梦 (not to mention that I can't read the traditional characters it was written in).

[tanklao]

I am a student of English as well as Chinese. Granted, I have been studying English longer than Chinese, but still I find it significant that I can understand most of Macbeth, while I virtually understand nothing of the 红楼梦 (not to mention that I can't read the traditional characters it was written in).

Really? The fact is that most literate Chinese can read it. Is your mother toungue Chinese? Can you read newspapers in Chinese? what about 三国演义？

[imron]

What I said is Chinese is more stable than European languages including English.

But the differences between 文言文 and 白话 are surely just as great (if not greater) than between say Shakespearean English and modern English.

Especially if you also take into account the changes that occurred with Chinese characters on mainland China during the simplification process. Both of these would appear to be major shakeups of the language, and both have happened in the last 100 years. By comparison, English, on the other hand, has been reasonably stable during that same time period.

Also, when you mention that primary students are easily reading 三国演义, do you mean that they are reading the original traditional character version, or the modern simplified character version?

[gougou]

Is your mother toungue Chinese?

Like I said, I'm a student. Mother tongue is German.

[zozzen]

I am a student of English as well as Chinese. Granted, I have been studying English longer than Chinese, but still I find it significant that I can understand most of Macbeth, while I virtually understand nothing of the 红楼梦 (not to mention that I can't read the traditional characters it was written in).

If you mean just to read 紅樓夢, it should be fairly easy reading for junior secondary students. And a decade ago when i was in beijing, some PKU students even told me that they read it at age 9-12. If 紅樓 is too difficult, try Jinyong's novels and see how much you can understand.

[zozzen]

But the differences between 文言文 and 白话 are surely just as great (if not greater) than between say Shakespearean English and modern English.

Especially if you also take into account the changes that occurred with Chinese characters on mainland China during the simplification process. Both of these would appear to be major shakeups of the language, and both have happened in the last 100 years. By comparison, English, on the other hand, has been reasonably stable during that same time period.

Also, when you mention that primary students are easily reading 三国演义, do you mean that they are reading the original traditional character version, or the modern simplified character version?

hmm, it's only up to where you're brought up. If a child lives in Taiwan or Hong Kong, then he'll read traditional one. Thanks to a great Japanese game and manga, 三國演義 is actually a fairly popular novel among boys at primary school and secondary school. Only a few today want to read 紅樓, but dozens of my friends read 三國 at very young age, but when i was young i was buried by Jinyong's greatest novels and didn't read any of the Four Classics until i'm grown up.

i think there's a false assumption that "traditional texts" can only be read by literate Chinese.

Here is one of the best piece of Cantonese opera written by Tang Di Sheng in the last century. In early 20 century, these operas were mainly targeted for the working class and lower class.

See how much you understand it:

http://blog.buyren.net/blog.php?do=showone&tid=28925

[imron]

i think there's a false assumption that "traditional texts" can only be read by literate Chinese.

Just as there is a false assumption that English native speakers have more difficulty reading works written over a hundred years ago, than Chinese native speakers have when reading works written over a hundred years ago.

三國演義 is actually a fairly popular novel among boys at primary school and secondary school.

I agree. I have several friends whose children enjoy reading that story. However the ones who are still in primary school are not reading the original version, but usually a version that uses modern language, and I don't just mean simplified versus traditional characters, but also more modern grammar and vocabulary.

[tanklao]

Also, when you mention that primary students are easily reading 三国演义, do you mean that they are reading the original traditional character version, or the modern simplified character version?

In mainland China, textbooks are all in modern simplified characters. So the primary students of course read the the modern simplified character version.

I know that you may argue that Chinese is not so stable, don't you? I have to emphasize that compared with English, Chinese is more stable.

I agree. I have several friends whose children enjoy reading that story. However the ones who are still in primary school are not reading the original version, but usually a version that uses modern language, and I don't just mean simplified versus traditional characters, but also more modern grammar and vocabulary.

When we were at that age, students mainly read simplied characters version as modern grammar version was not so available. We didn't encouter severe language problems although sometimes we were confused a little. We could understand it and enjoy it.

[imron]

I have to emphasize that compared with English, Chinese is more stable.

You can emphasize it all you like, but that doesn't make it any more correct. Where is the evidence that it is more stable? To me, it seems no more or no less stable, and the only thing we can say for sure is that both Chinese and English as they were written and spoken several hundred years ago are different from how they are written and spoken today. I have given you specific examples of major changes that have occurred in the Chinese language. Where are the examples of a greater magnitude that would demonstrate English is more unstable? For example, the split in spelling between American and British English is one such change, however the differences here are far less than the differences between simplified and traditional characters.

We didn't encouter severe language problems although sometimes we were confused a little.

Do you think if you had been reading the traditional character version that you would have encountered more, less, or the same amount of problems?

[tanklao]

Do you think if you had been reading the traditional character version that you would have encountered more, less, or the same amount of problems?

Yeah, I would have had more problems if I read the traditional character version at that age. but today traditional Chinese can be transformated directly to simplied Chinese machinely.

What simplified character（简） to traditional character（簡） is what color to colour.

In a long-range of history, don't you think that Chinese is more stable?

It seems that I am forced to give in a little bit at this point.

[imron]

What simplified character（简） to traditional character（簡） is what color to colour.

Haha, you picked an easy one, how about 听 and 聽.

It seems that I am forced to give in a little bit at this point.

It's probably just as well, because the next point I was going to make is that a stable language is a dead language Cases in point Latin and 文言文.

The way people speak and think is always changing over time, and languages that fail to adapt die out. And as horrible a concept as it sounds, today's internet slang is probably going to be the formal language of tomorrow

[renzhe]

I am glad that someone is standing by my side.

Lots of no-Chinese speakers who do not experence the simplicity of Chinese post too much comments on Chinese. Lots of Chinese speakers who are lack of confidence on their own languages just follow that somewhat misleading comments. This is why the dicussion is going almost in one direction.

Do you think it is stupid to make so many ir-relative words to discribe, say, pig or fish.

In this aspect the simplicity of Chinese it is obvious. I do NOT intend to choose some words just on purpose to prove my idea. These examples are everywhere in Chinese. This is a fact!

It's a fact that you're a native Chinese speaker who has never had to learn it as a foreign language and it appears simpler to you because of this. Those of us who have had to learn both English and Chinese as a foreign language know how ridiculous your arguments are.

So French has several different words to describe different types of pigs. Great. Now use the exact same logic on the words "mother", "father" and "brother". Please illustrate this conciseness of the Chinese language and explain how it makes Chinese simpler:

Mother/Mum: "妈", "母", "娘", "妈咪", "妈妈", "老妈", "母亲"

Father/Dad: "父", "父亲", "爸", "爸爸", "老爸", "爹"

Brother: "哥", "哥哥", "弟", "弟弟", "兄", "兄弟", "弟兄", "大哥", "长兄", "幼弟"

And while we're at it, and you are claiming that there is no grammar in Chinese, and that it's so simple, you can explain to me the difference between complements like 住, 了 and 下, which all indicate the ability to successfully complete an action when combined with 得 or 不. Don't forget to mention that in some cases you HAVE to use the complement, in other cases you mustn't use it and have to use the auxiliary verbs like 可以 or 能, and in some cases you can use either, but they mean different things.

Explain all this to me without grammar, and also explain why this is necessary, when you can explain all of this with the English word "can't", and I'll agree with everything you say.

I have to admit that character itself does NOT completely tell you the full meaning and the exact pronunciation, but at least it helps the learners memorize it. Moreover most uncommon used characters can almost imply the meanings.

By the way I should point out that 鲜 is not a 形声字xingshengzi. Instead it's a 会意字huiyizi. It can be explained like this it is a property of fish 鱼 and it is beautiful as the radical 羊 always means. Supposed that you are in the situation of acient time, you can easily guess that it means "fresh" and easily memerize it.

How can you do with "F-R-E-S-H"?

I would like to give you another example.

名 (míng) (a 会意字huiyizi)

名(name)= 夕 (night，a semantic part）+ 口 (mouth, a semantic part)

The character may be created in the following situation. One man is guarding for his tribe at night, and he could not tell who is it coming in the dark, and he must open his mouth to ask “what is your name”?

Well, for the word "FRESH", you can imagine the following situation:

A person is standing in front of a big apple tree, he sees "FRUIT" and wants to "EAT" it. The ancient Germanic word for eating was "ESSAN", so it is obvious how somebody seeing the word "FRESH in ancient times would think of "FR (uit) ESS (an)" when seeing fresh fruit. So it can be easily memorized.

[zozzen]

I agree. I have several friends whose children enjoy reading that story. However the ones who are still in primary school are not reading the original version, but usually a version that uses modern language, and I don't just mean simplified versus traditional characters, but also more modern grammar and vocabulary.

Is it written "modern language" or "traditional language" but more summarized? I think these readers are mainly shorter versions of the original story written in "traditional language". Perhaps explanation on certain words is needed, much like an English kid has to check their dictionary. As a matter of fact, the main way to circulate these "classical novels" wasn't a book itself, but a "storytelling master" (說書先生) who read aloud the book for audience in a tea house. They were just a vulgar and popular hobby for lower class.

I don't mean it's easy to understand all Chinese ancient texts. Without explanation, most Chinese texts in Pre-Qin (先秦百家) and Han (駢文) are extremely difficult. In my experience, reading baihua texts after the Ming dynasty (e.g. 明代散文體) is quite effortless because they almost resembles modern Chinese. The sentence structure is the same, most grammatical elements have already existed and you only need to check the meaning of some obsolete vocab.

It's probably just as well, because the next point I was going to make is that a stable language is a dead language Cases in point Latin and 文言文.

The way people speak and think is always changing over time, and languages that fail to adapt die out. And as horrible a concept as it sounds, today's internet slang is probably going to be the formal language of tomorrow

I share this thought too. I don't really understand the point of suggesting Chinese as a stable language. It seems to be suggested as an advantage, but it isn't at all.

Chinese, as one of the oldest continuing languages, has kept evolving over the past thousand years. 詩經 was a vulgar text around 2000-3000 years ago, but modern Chinese people definitely find it as difficult as foreign language. 齊百石 is famous for writting a poem that can even be read by countrywomen at his time, but today we won't be able to understand all these poems without training. It's too good to believe that a language used over a thousand year by billions of billions people could be stable.

[tanklao]

Chinese has no grammatical inflections – it possesses no tenses, no voices, no numbers (singular, plural; though there are plural markers), only a few articles (ie. equivalents to "the, a, an" in English), and no gender*.

I cite this from wikipedia.

In the article what I mean exactly it that Chinese has no grammatical INFLECTION. It do have some helper characters that complete the same function of English grammar.

Mother/Mum: "妈", "母", "娘", "妈咪", "妈妈", "老妈", "母亲"

Father/Dad: "父", "父亲", "爸", "爸爸", "老爸", "爹"

Brother: "哥", "哥哥", "弟", "弟弟", "兄", "兄弟", "弟兄", "大哥", "长兄", "幼弟"

Except artificial Language such as Eperanto, irregular and illogical words do exit in every racial language, of course including Chinese. The more frequently words are used, the more irregular and illogical they are. Amongst all the language I know, Chinese words are the most logical.

Chinese and French words for pig and sheep

　　　猪 (male + pig) cochon

　　公猪 (male + pig) verrat

　　母猪 (female + pig) truie

　　小猪 (small + pig) porcelet

　　野猪 (wild + pig) sanglier

　母野猪 (female + wild + pig) laie

　小野猪 (small + wild + pig) marcassin

　　　羊 (sheep) mouton

　　公羊 (male + sheep) bélier

　　母羊 (female + sheep) brebis

　　小羊 (small + sheep) agneau

　小母羊 (small + female + sheep) agnelle

　　山羊 (hill + sheep) chèvre

　公山羊 (male + hill + sheep) bouc

　小山羊 (small + hill + sheep) cabris

Chinese and English words for fish
鲟鱼	sturgeon
鲤鱼	carp or cyprinoid
鲤鱼类淡水鱼	tench
鲢鱼	chub
青鱼	herring
鲑鱼	salmon
鲂鱼	gurnard
鲈鱼	weever
鲈科之鱼	grouper
鳟鱼	trout
虹鳟	steelhead
梭鱼	barracuda or snoek
小梭鱼	pickerel
条鱼	dace
铜盆鱼	scup
比目鱼     flounder
鳗鱼	eel
鲨鱼	shark
食人鲳	redeye piranha
硬骨鱼	teleost
软骨鱼	selachian
横口鱼	plagiostome 

How many words of fish can you recognize? Can you know that all the English words I listed are a kind of fish or fish related? Can anyone answear my question directly. Every Chinese speaker knows that they are fish or fish-related things as the Characters has told them. Obviously Chinese words are more logical than English.

[imron]

Is it written "modern language" or "traditional language" but more summarized? I think these readers are mainly shorter versions of the original story written in "traditional language". Perhaps explanation on certain words is needed, much like an English kid has to check their dictionary

To be honest I'm not really sure, there are so many different versions around. I have one friend who started his child out on the comic versions of 西游记 and then moved him on to the modernized version, and then the summarised version with more classical language and accompanying explanation, and then on to the original text (the kid is currently in middle school, and all of this happened over a number of years). My friend's purpose was to introduce his son to the classics first by getting him interested in the story, and then gradually giving him a deeper and deeper understanding of the text, so that by the time he reached the original text he would be able to understand and appreciate it at a far greater level.

All that aside though, my point was more that if you're going to be comparing languages, and say that English speakers have trouble reading older texts, whereas Chinese children can read older texts with hardly any problems, then in order to do a fair comparision you need to be comparing original texts with original texts, not original texts with modernised/summarised versions.

[renzhe]

In the article what I mean exactly it that Chinese has no grammatical INFLECTION. It do have some helper characters that complete the same function of English grammar.

It also has counting words, which are often illogical and very difficult to learn and which have no equivalent in any European language. In English, it's "a dog", "a cat", "a horse", "a cow". In Chinese, you have to know when to use "条", "只", "匹", "头", and dozens of others.

In place of tenses, it has complements: complements of state, complements of degree, resultative complements, potential complements.. English doesn't have these. There are far more complements, moods, etc, in Chinese than there are tenses in English.

These are all elements of grammar, and they are quite difficult. You can write books just to describe all the different situations where you have to use "了", and where not.

Not to mention that, due to extreme number of homonyms and near-homonyms coupled with the shortness of words and talking speed and tonal hints about the beginning and end of words and sentences, the listening comprehension is extremely context-related and takes a long time to master.

[zozzen]

a little bit out of topic.

it seems to me that written french in Louis XI's era resemble a lot modern French. Can anyone confirm it?

It also has counting words, which are often illogical and very difficult to learn and which have no equivalent in any European language. In English, it's "a dog", "a cat", "a horse", "a cow". In Chinese, you have to know when to use "条", "只", "匹", "头", and dozens of others.

you pick the simple one. What about bread, water, paper, and any uncountable nouns that sometimes can be countable.

[liuzhou]

'drivel' is uncountable and apparently, unlimited.