25 messages over 4 pages: 1 2 3 4 Next >>
tibbles Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5192 days ago 245 posts - 422 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Korean
| Message 17 of 25 30 June 2011 at 7:19am | IP Logged |
Aquila123 wrote:
By reshaping it to a cyllabic system, you need only around 500 charcters plus 4 diacritic signs for the tones.
|
|
|
Such a system has existed for close to 100 years already and uses nowhere near 500 symbols -- probably 50 max.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuyin_table
However, no Chinese speaker in their right mind would ever want to replace the character based system with that or any other phonetic system. Why must a system of writing be phonetic? There are benefits to a writing system being non-phonetic, for instance the support of a myriad of distinct dialects. In the case of Chinese, making it phonetic would be applying a Mandarin dialect bias and most likely kill off all the other Chinese dialects. That's a non-starter.
1 person has voted this message useful
| Fiveonefive Diglot Groupie Japan Joined 5694 days ago 69 posts - 88 votes Speaks: English*, Japanese Studies: Swedish
| Message 18 of 25 02 July 2011 at 4:03am | IP Logged |
But written Chinese is already phonetic. Well phono-semantic if you want to get technical.
1 person has voted this message useful
| Vlad Trilingual Super Polyglot Senior Member Czechoslovakia foreverastudent.com Joined 6585 days ago 443 posts - 576 votes 2 sounds Speaks: Czech*, Slovak*, Hungarian*, Mandarin, EnglishC2, GermanC2, ItalianC1, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Serbian, French Studies: Persian, Taiwanese, Romanian, Portuguese
| Message 19 of 25 02 July 2011 at 4:47am | IP Logged |
And if you want to be really precise, it's morphemographic :)
1 person has voted this message useful
| Saim Pentaglot Senior Member AustraliaRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5084 days ago 124 posts - 215 votes Speaks: Serbo-Croatian, English*, Catalan, Spanish, Polish Studies: Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, Occitan, Punjabi, Urdu, Arabic (Maghribi), French, Modern Hebrew, Ukrainian, Slovenian
| Message 20 of 25 02 July 2011 at 10:58am | IP Logged |
tibbles wrote:
Aquila123 wrote:
By reshaping it to a cyllabic system, you need only around 500 charcters plus 4 diacritic signs for the tones.
|
|
|
Such a system has existed for close to 100 years already and uses nowhere near 500 symbols -- probably 50 max.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuyin_table
However, no Chinese speaker in their right mind would ever want to replace the character based system with that or any other phonetic system. Why must a system of writing be phonetic? There are benefits to a writing system being non-phonetic, for instance the support of a myriad of distinct dialects. In the case of Chinese, making it phonetic would be applying a Mandarin dialect bias and most likely kill off all the other Chinese dialects. That's a non-starter. |
|
|
It's already doing this. Written Mandarin (also known as "Written Standard Chinese") is totally distinct from the written forms of the other Chinese languages. It's easier to understand for Mandarin-speakers than the spoken forms for sure, but this is also true for Romance languages. Written Mandarin is already pushing out other Chinese "dialects"; Written Cantonese is for example pretty much limited just to comic books and the like. There was a time when the written language favoured no vernacular, but this was when Classical Chinese was still in use.
1 person has voted this message useful
| Snowflake Senior Member United States Joined 5960 days ago 1032 posts - 1233 votes Studies: Mandarin
| Message 21 of 25 07 July 2011 at 5:30am | IP Logged |
To the original question, take a look at FSI, CLO and Assimil. These materials will not take you into advanced, though they can take you pretty far. After a while you can reevaluate when to tackle characters. Good luck!
1 person has voted this message useful
|
newyorkeric Diglot Moderator Singapore Joined 6380 days ago 1598 posts - 2174 votes Speaks: English*, Italian Studies: Mandarin, Malay Personal Language Map
| Message 22 of 25 07 July 2011 at 5:53am | IP Logged |
The old Colloquial Chinese and DeFrancis's textbooks are all pinyin.
1 person has voted this message useful
| xiongshi7 Newbie United States Joined 4942 days ago 21 posts - 25 votes Studies: Mandarin
| Message 23 of 25 13 July 2011 at 4:09am | IP Logged |
CDevin wrote:
I am slowly introducing myself to Mandarin, and have decided not to
learn Chinese characters. I've recently worked through Fluenz Mandarin 1+2 and 3,
which I thought was amazing, with its good mix of exercises of various types (spoken,
auditory, and written). Fluenz is a great program if you're not looking to learn
characters, and now that I've completed it, I'm looking for suggestions on what to try
next. I've read that Rosetta Stone is not good, and that Pimsleur, while perhaps good
for cramming, does not teach much vocabulary. I've looked at Rocket Chinese, however
because of it's conversation-based format, it also seems like it would come up short,
like Pimsleur for in-depth, long-term, structured learning.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what I should turn to next? Many thanks in
advance! |
|
|
Although I have only been studying Mandarin for a year, I think you're making a
tremendous mistake by abandoning hanzi at this stage of learning. I too purchased
Fluenz, and although I have yet to complete the program, it contains nothing in the way
of hanzi, which is tremendously important. Do you remember when you were a kid learning
how to read? I bet your teacher wrote the/a word on the blackboard and you copied that
word into your notebook and then you would read from your primary reading book and see
the word you just copied into your notebook. Then the association with the word in its
proper context would take place for you. Learning hanzi is pretty much the same, at
least for me, in the process of learning Mandarin. I am now able to watch SinoVision
TV (news, dramas) and read the hanzi subtitles on the screen. This further helps me
with my listening skills as well. Granted I only know about 350 characters, but most
movies or tv shows don't use many polysyllabic words/hanzi characters, so it's not to
difficult to get the drift of the conversation. Furthermore, it's kind of fun.
1 person has voted this message useful
| leosmith Senior Member United States Joined 6551 days ago 2365 posts - 3804 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Tagalog
| Message 24 of 25 14 July 2011 at 3:52am | IP Logged |
Fiveonefive wrote:
But written Chinese is already phonetic. Well phono-semantic if you want to get technical.
|
|
|
Close. But I believe something like 5% of the characters have more than one pronunciation, so I have to disagree.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.3125 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|