Compounds (辭) vs. Characters (字) and the need to preserve the latter

[Mark Yong]

Hi, rezaf,

No, I do not expect that we would completely revert back to 文言文 - that would require a change in policy of a magnitude comparable to the Cultural Revolution! But that said, 梁啟超’s early-20^th century works do demonstrate how well-adapted 文言文 can be to the modern world. My hope is that these unique features of the Chinese written language do not die out in the name of institutionalised change (yes, thank you for pointing out the difference between change and evolution).

Based on my personal experiences doing business correspondences via e-mail with suppliers from mainland China and Taiwan, I have found that the Taiwanese do tend to employ a relatively more formal and literary style of writing. I am not familiar with the Taiwanese education system, but the Wikipedia article on Education in Taiwan does make clear mention about Classical Chinese being part of the secondary school curriculum (but to what extent, I do not know).

[Mark Yong]

Hi, Iriya,

I concede the etymological validity of the examples like 从 and 网 - those are well-documented in the 說文解字. What I take issue with are things like the merging of 裡 and 里 into 里, 發 and 髮 into 发, the removal of the phonetic elements in 廣 and 廠 (广 is a separate word that means ‘cliff’), etc. There are also examples where complicating the characters were with valid reason - one example is adding the 雨 radical to 云 (the original form for ‘cloud’) to make it 雲, in order to distinguish it from 云 ‘to say’.

I think you have made your stance very clear in your last sentence, and I respect your opinion. I, on the other hand, am a prescriptive linguist by nature, and am totally for the preservation of what I believe is good in the language. May I kindly request that we agree to disagree, leave it as that, and allow others who may have supportive input to the post at hand to proceed?

[Hofmann]

What the mainland government actually did is standardize what the people have already been using for centuries. Very few new characters actually had to be invented.

What is your criterion for "very few?"

Also, natural evolution is what happens when there are no script reforms.

[Hofmann]

OK How about I try this? I go to Chinese Wikipedia, click "隨機條目," change it to "大陸簡體" and pick out all the new characters in the first paragraph.

"景东彝族自治县在中华人民共和国云南省中部偏西，是普洱市下属的一个县。"

...And someone will eventually ask about 国 and 耳 and maybe 东 and 属.

国: Find one before 1900.

耳: The first stroke should be long. The penultimate stroke (Oh noes! Do you know the stroke order?) is short.

东: 草書 is not 楷書. 'Nuff said.

属: It was actually two horizontal strokes after 尸.

[Iriya]

We've been through this debate SO MANY times. See the numbers, for example, here.

Only 21% of the newly created simplifications were made after 1949, according to 《中国语文的时代演进》, where Zhou Youguang cites data from 李乐毅. Of all 2,235 simplified characters in the 《简化字总表》, 521 are newly adopted simplified forms, while the remaining 1,714 are simplifications by analogy. The origins of said 521 forms are as follows:

- 13% originated in the pre-Qin era.

- 18% during the Qin and Han

- 6% during the Wei, Jin and Southern and Northern Dynasties

- 6% during the Sui, Tang and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period

- 15% during the Song, Liao, Jin and Yuan

- 10% during the Ming, Qing and Taiping Heavenly Kingdom

- 11% during the ROC

- 21% during the PRC, including pre-1949 "liberation characters" (解放字)

Anyway, Wenlin says: "The simple form 国 dates back to the Sòng dynasty (960-1279); it has 玉 (yù) 'jade' in place of 或. There was a variant 囯 with 王 (wáng) 'king' in the middle."

And are you seriously trying to prove something by showing me the Japanese stroke order?

[Guest realmayo]

Next Iriya will be telling us that the English written language needs spelling reform to more accurately reflect the spoken version. I'm sure there's a long thread about that somewhere here too.

[anonymoose]

As has been pointed out, language is first and foremost a tool, and will evolve to perform its function as a tool. The reason why many (the majority of) characters have become obsolete is simply because they were unnecessary. To suggest that some redundant characters are revitalised is rather arbitrary. I mean, firstly, would they perform to any advantage over what is currently available? And how would you choose which characters to revitalise? Why not go all the way back to 甲骨文 in that case? Every language has been through a process of evolution. If one flips through a comprehensive English dictionary, one will find many archaic or obsolete (and unfamiliar even to native English speakers) words. Suggesting to revive obsolete characters is no different to suggesting to revive obsolete words in English, or any other language for that matter. If revival is of value, then it will take place spontaneously (as has been the case with 囧, albeit with a new meaning).

As for the question of universality, I think that is a fairly weak argument. I mean, in the case of 廉 and 便宜, any literate native speaker will understand 廉 anyway. The reason why chinese uses 便宜 and japanese 安い is because they are different languages. If all languages used 廉, or the traditional version of every other piece of vocabulary, then there would only be one language. If the objective is to be able to communicate with Japanese people, then instead of wasting time trying to learn obsolete characters that may have a common (but probably obscure) use in japanese, it would make more sense just to learn standard modern japanese.

Of course, as an academic exercise, it is interesting to consider obscure characters. But practically, it doesn't have much value.

[roddy]

Their language is a tool for them, nothing more.

in day to day life, of course, but try simultaneously posting on Tianya.cn to propose more efficient hammers, and a more efficient script, and see which one gets you more opprobrium.

[Guest realmayo]

As has been pointed out, language is first and foremost a tool, and will evolve to perform its function as a tool.

A hammer is a tool. A typical hammer is a pretty big, heavy thing. Now consider the tool that a jeweller uses when cutting diamonds. It will be a lot smaller and precise than a regular hammer. Did it "evolve" to this size, ie getting smaller and smaller every few years until eventually it got to a suitable size and weight? No, someone said: I need a tiny hammer. And after some work, he got one.

Written language is not spoken language. If all you want to do is replicate the spoken language, fine, although that is probably easier said than done. If you want the written language to be capable of more than that, then again, fine, no problem with that either -- but again, it will take some work. What I'm trying to say is that there is no natural law that says a written language should or will be the same as the spoken one. Most languages (certainly if you include extinct ones) don't have a written language. If written language is a tool, then it's one which we can shape in order to carry out the different functions we demand of it -- again, these functions need not always be identical to those we require of the spoken language. Is whadd-eye think.

So with regard to the original post, if enough people want to use those characters in the written language I think it's perfectly feasible. All of us here have made the effort to become familiar with the QWERTY-layout keyboard, even though it is neither the most intuitive or intelligent design. So for me, there's no "you-can't-mess-with-language" reason why the ideas in the original post would not work. The only question is whether enough people are convinced that the changes would be first beneficial and second worth the effort required to bring them about, ie reshape slightly the tool that is the written language.

[anonymoose]

A hammer is a tool. A typical hammer is a pretty big, heavy thing. Now consider the tool that a jeweller uses when cutting diamonds. It will be a lot smaller and precise than a regular hammer. Did it "evolve" to this size, ie getting smaller and smaller every few years until eventually it got to a suitable size and weight? No, someone said: I need a tiny hammer. And after some work, he got one.

That's a completely bogus argument. A hammer is an inanimate object incapable of evolution. A language, on the other hand, is an organic entity, constantly undergoing change. Surely you don't need this difference to be spelt out to you? Yes, a new hammer was invented to meet the new need, and the old hammer was discarded when it became obsolete. Now that's more analogous with characters.

Written language is not spoken language. If all you want to do is replicate the spoken language, fine, although that is probably easier said than done. If you want the written language to be capable of more than that, then again, fine, no problem with that either -- but again, it will take some work. What I'm trying to say is that there is no natural law that says a written language should or will be the same as the spoken one. Most languages (certainly if you include extinct ones) don't have a written language. If written language is a tool, then it's one which we can shape in order to carry out the different functions we demand of it -- again, these functions need not always be identical to those we require of the spoken language.

That's right. Language, be it spoken or written, is constantly being shaped in order to carry out the functions we demand of it. The reason why obsolete characters have become obsolete is because they no longer perform any practical function.

So with regard to the original post, if enough people want to use those characters in the written language I think it's perfectly feasible.

You're talking about "those characters" as though they're some new invention that could fill a gap in the language - if only enough people would accept them. But the reality is that those characters were accepted at one point. The reason that they are not any more is that they no longer perform a useful function.

[rezaf]

You're talking about "those characters" as though they're some new invention that could fill a gap in the language - if only enough people would accept them. But the reality is that those characters were accepted at one point. The reason that they are not any more is that they no longer perform a useful function.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Changes in human history are very periodic. Usually when things get too complicated people start to simplify them and when things get too easy they start to complicate them. The reason behind wild simplifications in 20th century was to educate more peasants, but now that many people are literate more and more people might gradually feel that a simplified form is not enough. I don't think we can be so sure about the future of the language. It is possible that some of the old functions and characters regain life in a new postmodern form.

[Guest realmayo]

anonymoose, I think you have an idealised notion of what a written language is. It's an artificial construction. Chinese is a great example of this. In the past, most people didn't write. So, writing did not need to reflect the spoken language. Later, people decided that the written language needed to be made closer to the spoken one. And some of them wanted to force into it structures from European languages. Then with character reform came different changes to make it simpler. With the Communists and their control of media as well as preference for Communistic language, it changed again.

These are all changes brought intentionally.

Saying that tools evolve: well, wild strawberries with tiny berries "evolved" into commercial strawberries with big berries that we like better, but they evolved that way because we caused them to. Sure, certain changes, especially in the spoken language, may happen by chance. But the written language is different.

All I'm trying to say is that if enough people see a benefit making certain changes to the written language, there's no "natural law of language evolution" to stop them. If people wanted to resurrect old parts of Chinese -- like in Jurassic Park where they use DNA from extinct animals to re-create them -- then why not? If they wanted to re-emphasise the clarity and compression that is one characteristic of written Chinese, why not?

The reason that they are not any more is that they no longer perform a useful function.

Yes, that clarity and compression which had been a valued characteristic of written Chinese was subordinated to the importance of increasing literacy. Again, not some magic "evolution" but a decision. No reason why that couldn't be reversed, if it was wanted.

Do you really need this difference to be spelt out to you?

I think that the difference I am trying to spell out is that between a spoken language and a written one. If you don't see that, or if you hear what I'm saying but don't think that there is really such a difference, so be it. I feel that what you are saying would largely make sense if we were talking about a spoken language. But we're talking about a written one. And surely the briefest of glances through the changes in written Chinese over the last say 100 years shows that that it isn't t some independently evolving organism. In fact I can't think of a better language to choose to illustrate this point!

[Guest realmayo]

Yep, agree with Rezaf. Think about Western (European) culture: it was influenced by Classical learning, then that was all but wiped out, then it was brought back.

Look at Latin-like words in the English language: people (some of them!) in England spoke Latin, then stopped speaking Latin, then started using Latin-like vocab from 1066 onwards, then shovelled in a lot more Latin-like words during the Renaissance.

It wasn't "evolution" that magically and completely at random caused Shakespeare and his contempories to invent English words with Latin roots -- it was a decision that they made, because they thought the language would benefit from it. See the parallel?

[anonymoose]

These are all changes brought intentionally.

Saying that tools evolve: well, wild strawberries with tiny berries "evolved" into commercial strawberries with big berries that we like better, but they evolved that way because we caused them to.

Your point being...? Noone suggested otherwise.

All I'm trying to say is that if enough people see a benefit making certain changes to the written language, there's no "natural law of language evolution" to stop them.

No reason why that couldn't be reversed, if it was wanted.

The key here is "if it was wanted". I think we actually agree on most parts of this argument. The difference is that you think, or at least imply, that there is "a want", whereas my contention is that there is no want, at least not currently, because there is no need.

[anonymoose]

It wasn't "evolution" that magically and completely at random caused Shakespeare and his contempories to invent English words with Latin roots -- it was a decision that they made, because they thought the language would benefit from it. See the parallel?

I think your understanding of the term "evolution" is incorrect. Evolution is not the "cause" of anything. Evolution simply describes a gradual process of change. Here is a Wikipedia page for your reference.

[Guest realmayo]

Erm, I think you're nit-picking. Check out the wiktionary definition linked to on that page.

But anyway earlier you said

If revival is of value, then it will take place naturally

... which I think is where the main disagreement lies. I don't think that too many of the big changes to written Chinese over the last 100 years took place naturally!

[Hofmann]

"The simple form 国 dates back to the Sòng dynasty (960-1279); it has 玉 (yù) 'jade' in place of 或. There was a variant 囯 with 王 (wáng) 'king' in the middle."

I really wanted to avoid pointing out the obvious, but in 国, there is a dot on the 王, which is jade and not king.

And are you seriously trying to prove something by showing me the Japanese stroke order?

The function of that link was to clarify what I meant by "penultimate." The Japanese standard just happened to get it right.

[Mark Yong]

Here is a more practical example from my recent experience, and one that is not so “obscure” (since it appears that the bone of contention in the recent posts is on reviving characters that have no practical value).

In one of my random musings, I was trying to figure out a better way to translate “Kuala Lumpur” (that’s where I come from) into Chinese than the current transliteration 吉隆坡 - one that would retain its actual meaning.

Now, “Kuala” means “estuary” or “confluence of two rivers” and “Lumpur” means “mud”. The town was so named in 1857 because it was founded at the confluence of the rivers Klang and Gombak, and it happened to be a pretty darn muddy estuary. So, the question is, how does one translate that into Chinese, without being too wordy? Most place names in China are just two characters long, so let’s use that as a benchmark.

Translating “Lumpur” using one Chinese character is easy enough - 泥. But what about “Kuala”? The obvious choice would be the standard 河口 or 江口, but that is too long. That got me thinking - if the English language can have one word for “estuary”, surely there must be a corresponding character in Chinese for such a basic word. And as it turns out, the character is 汭. 《說文》 水相入貌。“The meeting of two waters.” The modern way of phrasing the preceding is 『河流會合的地方』.

My point is that, in my humble opinion, 汭 better-illustrates the word “estuary” or “confluence of two rivers” than 河口 and 江口. Okay, for those of you who did look up 汭 online on ZDic, you would have found out that it could also mean 『河流彎曲的地方』 “a river-bend”. Fine, like many other Chinese characters, 汭 can have alternate meanings. But is that any more ambiguous than using 河口 and 江口 today - both possibly meaning, quite literally, “the mouth of a river”? I would argue that if character compounding for re-clarification of meaning were required, 河汭 or 江汭 would do a better job at specifying the meaning “river confluence”.

And if one wants to be pedantic about it, I don’t think that at seven (7) strokes composed of two very common components 氵 and 內, 汭 is a terribly difficult character to add to one’s lexicon, wouldn’t you agree?

Again, it is not my place to tell 1.3 billion native Chinese that the way they say “estuary” today is incorrect (or, for that matter, tell the whole world that 『吉隆坡』 should really be 『泥汭』). I am just sharing my musings. After all, I am just a “foreigner”...

[anonymoose]

@Mark Yong

I don't think your example is really relevant to preserving characters. Many place names in China contain archaic characters, many of which are used only in the context of the place name. So archaic characters are retained when it is expedient to do so. Your example of Kuala Lumpur merely demonstrates idiosyncracies regarding translation of foreign names. Why is New York translated as 纽约, whereas New Zealand is 新西兰? Even when a commonly used character (新) is available to represent part of the name, it will not necessarily be used. The principal function of a place name is to identify a place. Its literal meaning in this context is of historical interest, but little practical value, and thus adding 汭 to one's lexicon is superfluous.

[Mark Yong]

anonymoose,

My using the Kuala Lumpur example was not intended to focus on the methodology of translating names of foreign places - it was circumstantial, due to the need to translate “estuary”, that’s all. As an aside, I happen to have my own list of foreign place names and the ways I think they should be accurately translated into Chinese based on their etymology (and let it be added, in most cases, no obscure characters are required) - but I will leave that for a separate thread... if anyone is interested.

The focus of my post above was more on proposing the character 汭 (or 河汭) as a better alternative to the compound 河口 for translating “estuary” into Chinese, by way of serving as an example of how obscure single characters can still be made relevant today (I mean, we still have rivers and confluences today, don’t we?).