|
 |
Learning Classical Chinese | ||
Tags: Mandarin | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6581 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes  Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German | Message 9 of 25 13 May 2011 at 10:18pm | IP Logged | |||||
How so? Explain. I thought the very reason why Chinese characters didn't evolve into an alphabet as happened with other scripts was because it was read in many different pronunciations and needed to be understandable and retain the same meaning, regardless of pronunciation. Surely there wasn't a single monolithic Middle Chinese pronunciation, but rather many dialects as today? For appreciation of poetry, I can understand that you need to know the pronunciation of the author to get the full appreciation, but for translating religious texts, I fail to see it as essential (preferable, maybe, but not essential).
I don't understand why it's impossible for the OP to reach a goal that has been achieved by several scholars already. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| yau Newbie Hong Kong Joined 4942 days ago 3 posts - 6 votes | Message 10 of 25 14 May 2011 at 2:41am | IP Logged | |||||
|
mandarin is a bastard language created by the manchurians who had a hard time learning
proper Chinese. In so doing they created many homophones and caused a split between the meanings and sounds of the words (音義離散) which hinder communication and understanding. Chinese is not supposed to be read in mandarin pronunications, just like Shakespeare is not supposed to be read in German. By the way mandarin is also very easy to learn for anyone who knows any of the southern tongues like Cantonese or Hokkien. Edited by yau on 14 May 2011 at 2:42am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| jsun Groupie Joined 5084 days ago 62 posts - 129 votes | Message 11 of 25 14 May 2011 at 3:13am | IP Logged | |||||
Sanskrit: kalpa Pali: kappa Chinese: 劫 劫 in Mandarin: jié in Cantonese: gip in Hakka: giap in Min: giap You see what I see now?
By "several" scholars. Even Nobel Prize winners are more than that. Edited by jsun on 14 May 2011 at 3:17am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Hampie Diglot Senior Member Sweden Joined 6658 days ago 625 posts - 1009 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English Studies: Latin, German, Mandarin | Message 12 of 25 14 May 2011 at 4:22am | IP Logged | |||||
|
Why would text critical buddhistic exegesis be more impossible than Christian? Christian deals with Latin, Greek,
Hewbrew, Aramaic, Ge’ez and Coptic and a lot of fragmented texts here and there. I don’t se anything in OT’s goal that’s inpossible. S/He is not saying: I want to be able to speak Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan and Classical Chinese fluently — but rather than s/he would be able to compare the translations with eatchother. When dealing with old classical dusty stuff this is usually done with a commentary, a text critical apparatus, a big grammar book and an even bigger dictionary and access to the scientific community where there are various other expert to ask for help. If it is buddhistic liturgy that is interesting many parts of Sanskrit and Classical Chinese won’t be needed, such as the Vedas or Lao-tzu, Confusius or other part of the non-buddhistic Chinese litterature tradition. As for reading Classical Chinese poetry: how is this relevant? People A) do not speak Classical Chinese B) buddhistic translations of sacred texts are not Chinese Poetry C) the OP will most likely never talk with people in any of these languages because, except Sanskrit, none of them have an active speaking community (very few classical and ancient languages do). Exactly how does the pronunciation of kalpa in Mandarin Chinese has anything to do with anything in this discussion? Most people today use modern mandarin pronunciation, some even Japanese or Korean, because frankly: they do not really have that good of an idea how Middle Chinese sounded since the writing is semi- ideographic. Gee, they even suspect that Chinese originally had no tones at all. Recontructed Old Chinese looks really funny with absurd consonant clusters compared to what is Chinese today — but, my, my, languages evolve over time. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| jimbo Tetraglot Senior Member Canada Joined 6293 days ago 469 posts - 642 votes Speaks: English*, Mandarin, Korean, French Studies: Japanese, Latin | Message 13 of 25 14 May 2011 at 5:07am | IP Logged | |||||
|
My stuff is in storage since I'm in the process of moving so I can't give the name of the dictionaries but please
note that one can find Chinese --> English and Chinese --> Chinese specialist dictionaries for Buddhist terms. Many of these will list the source word from which it was translated into Chinese. (Tons of Sanskrit words, for example.) National Taiwan University has a lot of resources on-line including Buddhist scriptures in several languages and lessons in Sanskrit, Pali, and Tibetan. I don't think anyone will say it will be EASY but the resources are there and should be possible with enough effort. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| audiophile Groupie United States Joined 5115 days ago 44 posts - 81 votes Studies: French | Message 14 of 25 14 May 2011 at 6:35am | IP Logged | |||||
|
As Chinese, we do learn some classic Chinese in middle school. You may want to start
with the Mandarin first. The Buddhist Chinese was only dated back at about 1500 years ago. So it is not very difficult for us syntax-wise. Only the Buddhist terms are difficult. You may start with some "easy" text, such as the one text below that contains Sanskrit/Tibetan/Chinese/english in the following link. Just click the green arrow to download the PDF. http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/12879333.html “一切有为法，如梦幻泡影，如露亦如电，应 作如是观” Edited by audiophile on 14 May 2011 at 6:42am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| yau Newbie Hong Kong Joined 4942 days ago 3 posts - 6 votes | Message 15 of 25 14 May 2011 at 7:23am | IP Logged | |||||
|
Proper Chinese script:
一切有為法, 如夢幻泡影,如露亦如電,應作如是觀 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| yau Newbie Hong Kong Joined 4942 days ago 3 posts - 6 votes | Message 16 of 25 14 May 2011 at 7:30am | IP Logged | |||||
|
"Exactly how does the pronunciation of kalpa in Mandarin Chinese has anything to do
with anything in this discussion? " It is a transliteration after all. "Most people today use modern mandarin pronunciation, some even Japanese or Korean " In fact, Japanese and Korean pronunciations are closer to Middle Chinese than mandarin which was created no more than 300 years ago. "they do not really have that good of an idea how Middle Chinese sounded since the writing is semi-ideographic." That is not true. By comparing Cantonese, Hakka, Hokkien and, in particular, Japanese, we do have a good idea what Middle Chinese sounds like. "Gee, they even suspect that Chinese originally had no tones at all. Recontructed Old Chinese looks really funny with absurd consonant clusters compared to what is Chinese today — but, my, my, languages evolve over time. " Exactly, and now we have different versions of Chinese - a few good proper descendants like Cantonese, Hakka and Hokkien, and one big ugly bastard that is mandarin who wants wipe all his elder siblings off this Earth. At the end of the day it's up to you to choose based on aesthetics or convenience. Edited by yau on 14 May 2011 at 8:33am 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
