The Duality Code

[Angelina]

I don't see how Han expansion led to attempts to get rid of Chinese characters.

 

 

 

I mean the other way around, when China was the object. Let's see what The Duality Code will say, are the Chinese trying to civilize the barbarians by not giving up on Chinese characters? 

[Demonic_Duck]

I maintain two facts:

1. 白 has the meaning of 'white; pure, unblemished; bright' in the Unihan Database.

2. 馬 has the definition of military (武) in the Kangxi Dictionary and the 說文解字.

Therefore it is perfectly valid to read 白馬 as 'pure military'.

So your book is a work of entertainment rather than scholarship. Nothing wrong with that, but you should be clearer about what you're actually selling here.

[Angelina]

yeah, Umberto Eco was not a scholar either haha 

 

 

anyway, I can't wait to read this book

[Guest realmayo]

'Pride comes before a fall'

Pride includes 'ride'

Formerly, people who rode horses were those of high status

Those of high status are more likely to be proud

Everyone else enjoys seeing them fall.

Ride comes before a fall.

So 'pride' comes from 'ride'.

 

While I do not believe there is any etymological reason to link "pride" and "ride" it is a fun exercise which can take you in interesting directions and lets us play in the endless possibilities of language. The same may be true of parts of The Duality Code (great title!).

[Guest realmayo]

I mean the other way around, when China was the object.

 

Ah Angelina I see, you're introducing anti-colonial argument in an apparently unrelated topic.

[Angelina]

 

my pleasure 

[WKC]

Demonic_Duck,

 

I maintain that The Duality Code is very much a work of scholarship.  Scholars make hypothesis, this is not to say that such a hypothesis is a work of fiction for entertainment.

 

I maintain that there is a Duality Code, and my book is an introduction to deciphering that code.  Deciphering that code is another way of saying  classical exegesis.  

 

Mao Zedong told Henry Kissinger, "Chinese language is not bad, but the Chinese characters are not good." [John DeFrancis, The Prospects for Chinese Writing Reform, at Pinyin.info]  There was something that was perceived as "not good" in Chinese characters.  That something is the Duality Code that Mao tried to get rid of but was prevented from doing so.  That something caused:

1 - Lu Xun to say, "汉字不灭，中国必亡."  

2 - Qian Xuantong to advocate replacing the Chinese language with Esperanto.

3 - Mori Arinori to propose replacing the Japanese Language with a simplified form of English.

4 - Hara Takashi to propose reduction of Kanji towards total abolition.

 

There is a secret in 漢字.  My book introduces the decryption of The Duality Code that exists in 漢字.

[WKC]

realmayo,

 

My book puts forward a hypothesis.  I am open to people saying that my hypothesis is incorrect once they have read the book and understand all of what I say.

[Angelina]

Mao Zedong told Henry Kissinger, "Chinese language is not bad, but the Chinese characters are not good."

 

 

 

Lu Xun to say, "汉字不灭，中国必亡."

 

 

 

when you read between the lines: duality code

 

cool 

[Demonic_Duck]

realmayo,

My book puts forward a hypothesis. I am open to people saying that my hypothesis is incorrect once they have read the book and understand all of what I say.

That's very thoughtful of you to consider other viewpoints as long as they come from people who have paid you $15. I also notice that there's no preview of your book available on Amazon.

[WKC]

Angelina,

 

Very good.  Indeed when you read between the lines.  "Who but a madman, Lu Xun taunted his readers, would dare to read between the lines of the Confucian classics?  Who but a madman would dare to discover the awful truth on each page where between the words 'virtue and benevolence' is the hidden message: 'Eat people!'"  [Vera Schwarcz, The Chinese Enlightenment: Intellectuals and the Legacy of the May Fourth Movement of 1919]

 

吃人 can be read to mean 'oppression, exploitation'.  Imperial China was a hierarchical society where the 文士, ruled over the illiterate.  

[WKC]

Demonic_Duck,

 

I am quite happy for you to keep disagreeing with me if that is your wish.

[WKC]

My last post for today.  I will respond to any other posts in this thread tomorrow.

 

 

Demonic_Duck,

 

If you think someone who has familiarity with the Kangxi Dictionary, the 說文解字, the works of Lu Xun, John DeFrancis, Huan Saussy, David Moser, Vera Schwarcz (and many other academics quoted in my book) has written a work of entertainment as opposed to an academic work, then there is little else that I can say to you to convince you otherwise.

 

The price of my book pales in comparison to the years of academic study that went into researching the book.

[OneEye]

Having read books by academics does not make you an academic.

 

So far it seems like you're using 說文解字 as your main source for character etymology and Unihan as a source for character meaning. You've already lost a lot of credibility if that's the case. The former is nearly two thousand years out of date and is largely based on mystical 陰陽五行 principles—not a reliable source for character etymology whatsoever*. The latter is not an authoritative source by any means.

 

I've ordered your book out of curiosity, but haven't read it yet of course. So far I'm not optimistic based on your comments in this thread.

 

____________________

 

* Here's an interesting quote about the Shuowen's reliability from Liu Zhao, the current Head of Fudan University's Center for Research on Chinese Excavated Classics and Paleography: 「從今天對古文字的掌握程度看，毫無誇張地說，凡是古文字中有的而《說文》對其形體進行過解說的字，80-90%是有問題的。」劉釗《古文字構形學》。 For a good, reliable treatment of the Shuowen's inaccuracies, I'd recommend 季旭昇《說文新證》. For an intro to how the forms in the Shuowen were already highly corrupted (remember, the time between the appearance of 甲骨文 and the Shuowen was nearly as long as the time between the Shuowen and today), see 杜忠誥《說文篆文訛形釋例》.

[iand]

Why the term "duality" instead of "polysemy" or "ambiguity"? Is there some sense in which there is two of something, rather than many?

If you eliminate Chinese characters, and instead write "baí mǎ," how have you eliminated any duality? Wouldn't a straight replacement of Chinese characters with a phonetic alphabet introduce more ambiguity? After all, mǎ can also mean code, serial number, yard, agate, ant, etc. Of course there a skill to determining what is meant, which people use every day when listening to someone speak, and which the Koreans and Vietnamese use for their current writing systems. But could you elaborate on just what kind of duality they're not encountering that those reading a text written with Chinese characters are?

[Demonic_Duck]

If you think someone who has familiarity with the Kangxi Dictionary, the 說文解字, the works of Lu Xun, John DeFrancis, Huan Saussy, David Moser, Vera Schwarcz (and many other academics quoted in my book) has written a work of entertainment as opposed to an academic work, then there is little else that I can say to you to convince you otherwise.

The price of my book pales in comparison to the years of academic study that went into researching the book.

Name-dropping things you've read parts of doesn't increase your credibility, nor does amount of time spent researching a book necessarily translate to value for the reader. And again, the fact that you offer no preview makes it seem like you yourself aren't confident in the quality of your work.

[WKC]

OneEye,

 

The two dictionaries that I refer to in my book are the Kangxi Dictionary and the 說文.  I note with interest that you do not hold the 說文 in high esteem.  For a etymological dictionary that was compiled c. 100 CE, this ancient text is still in publication and can be purchased even today.  This shows that there are people who still value it today.  I also note  the following:

1. The Kangxi Dictionary (published 1716 CE) quotes the 說文 extensively.  

2. The 漢語大字典 (published from 1986 CE) also quotes the 說文 extensively.

3. The online 漢典 (http://www.zdic.net/) provides online reference for the 說文.

 

I totally understand that there will be an alternative point of view regarding the 說文.  But to question the 說文's reliability will be tantamount to questioning the reliability of those that quote the 說文 – such as the Kangxi Dictionary, the 漢語大字典, and zdic.  All I will say is that there are parties who will not wish for the Duality Code to be understood.  That was the reason for wanting to do away with 漢字 in the first instance.

 

The translation of 漢字 to English was an area of concern.  I chose the Unihan Database because it is an indepedent database and readers can verify translations for themselves.  Translations listed by the Unihan Database are agreed by the Ideographic Rapporteur Group (IRG).  "IRG members include Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, Taipei Computer Association, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and USA. Representatives from the Unicode Consortium also attend IRG meetings for coordinating the synchronization between the ISO/IEC 10646 standard and Unicode." according to http://www.ogcio.gov.hk/en/business/tech_promotion/ccli/iso_10646/irg.htm

 

I believe the Unihan Database provides the translations for 漢典 (http://www.zdic.net/), the Chinese Text Project (http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en) and other online Chinese-English translation services.

 

I am at a loss as to why the Unihan Database would be considered "not an authoritative source by any means".  To question the authority of the Unihan Database is to question the expertise of the IRG and parties such as the Chinese Text Project that use the database.

[WKC]

iand,

 

Duality because of yin and yang, Heaven and Earth, dragon and phoenix where duality is more accurate than polysemy.

 

Eliminating 漢字 in favour of a phonetic script like Pinyin introduces problems with homophones – you are quite correct on that point.  This is perhaps why Qian Xuantong proposed replacing the Chinese language with Esperanto, and Mori Arinori proposed replacing the Japanese language with a simplified form of English.

 

Eliminating 漢字 does eliminate the Duality Code because it is my hypothesis that 漢字 is encrypted with the Duality Code.  By this I mean that even a single character such as 字 carries an encryption.  My book provides the tools for reading the encryption in characters such as 字, 口, and many others.

[WKC]

Demonic_Duck,

 

I am sufficiently confident in the quality of my work to have it published.  I am also quite certain that my work will be controversial. 

[imron]

But to question the 說文's reliability will be tantamount to questioning the reliability of those that quote the 說文

I think both you and OneEye would agree with that statement!

 

The crux of the argument being that although the importance and significance of 說文 is not in doubt, excavations and study of oracle bones (which were not available when 說文 was written) cast the accuracy of many of the etymological explanations in doubt (which in turn also affects the reliability of any source that quotes 說文).

 

You should have a look at some of the research and analysis that OneEye and the team at Outlier have been doing while compiling their dictionary.  David Moser (who you mention above) speaks highly of them.