132 messages over 17 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 17 Next >>
Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6586 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German
| Message 121 of 132 29 November 2012 at 7:14am | IP Logged |
alphabetsoup wrote:
As many in this thread have stated, the use of hanzi helps reduce ambiguity when reading. |
|
|
But this ambiguity of meaning only exists because of the writing system! If the baihua movement had been successful people would actually be writing vernacular Mandarin and there would be no problems of ambiguity. In fact, I'm not sure there'd be much of a problem, if any, even if you continue writing in the exact same way as now. Any book that can be read aloud and understood by the listener doesn't have problems with "ambiguity". I get half a million ghits on "有聲書", meaning "audiobook". All these books could be written in a phonetic script and retain as much meaning as the audiobook versions. And of course we have the Dungans.
Victor Mair wrote:
The following quatrain will serve to show that, even in highly elliptical verse which is fraught with inversion and other poetic effects, homophony does not pose a problem so long as the author is attentive to making himself clear:
Vehmu kolkhoz yu yigeh rzh'in,
Da chui, mazhon bu nanv'in.
Tinzhyan zwu khueh ba bin zhuon,
Yityan do khi yu s'i fon.
There is a man on our kolkhoz
Who is always fighting, never stops running around;
He hears the workers loading ice,
But the whole day long pokes his nose into things.
(cited in Sushanlo and Imazov, p. 48)
Taken by themselves, many of the words in this quatrain are indeed ambiguous: yu ([tone] I stroll, go, wander, travel; oil, grease, fat; II have; III right; again, still), rzh'in (I person; II bear, endure, suffer; III recognize, acknowledge), da (I catch, hunt, place, put, set, detain hold, keep, increase, throw on or over; father, from, out of; II beat, strike, hit, and dozens of idiomatic usages; III big), chui (I pound, beat), ma (I mother; hemp; take [away]; play; numb; II horse; III curse, scold, swear), zhon (I open [up or wide]; look at with wonder; II to grow; support, maintain, control; shoe; III to swell, blow up; a unit of length; account [book]), and so forth for all of the monosyllabic words.
The same phenomenon exists in other languages as well. Take, for example, the English sentence 'We can ring up the operator right away and have her tell the highway patrol that a drunk bear from the state park is creating a traffic jam at the cloverleaf." Over half of the words in this sentence are possessed of a plurisignification that can only be disambiguated through juxtaposition with other words in set semantic structures. It would take a perverse or seriously deficient reader to insist that "can" here signifies "metal container" or "toilet," that "ring" signifies "a small circular band," and so on. |
|
|
The "reduce ambiguity of meaning" or "homophone" arguments don't have any solid footing. It's just made up. There's no ambiguity problem unless one is intentionally trying to make one.
Quote:
What I also don't understand is the overwhelming support of pinyin being used as the phonetic alphabet. |
|
|
Well, I guess the people who advocate script reform usually support Pinyin as it's already widely used in China and understood by pretty much everyone who is literate. It's been shown to function as a replacement for Hanzi (many works have been written and published in it), whereas Zhuyin Fuhao is not adapted for running text. Pinyin has capitalization rules, word spacing and it's also easier to use to write sound combinations that don't exist in Mandarin, which is important when writing foreign names, for example.
Quote:
Instead of completely eradicating hanzi, why not simply introduce a sort of furigana for uncommon characters? It would remove many of the problems most people have with a character system overall. |
|
|
I think this is the opinion of Victor Mair, and it makes sense to me, too. Abolishing the hanzi is just not going to happen anytime soon; they're far too nationalistically important for that. They're also beautiful and culturally and historically important. I'd be very sad if they were abolished. I love them. However, seeing as they're not very efficient, the question is what can be done to alleviate the problems they carry. If I was named dictator of Sinitic writing systems, here's what I'd do:
* I'd encourage a system of ruby/furigana characters to help people with the sound of less common characters.
* I'd develop a rules set for word spacing and implement it.
* I'd mandate the use of the underline or the underlying dot or a similar system to mark proper names.
* Possibly I'd develop a set of "phonetic only" characters that shall be used when writing foreign names, loan words and anything where you forgot how to write the specific character in question.
* Since hanzi can pretty much only be used for Mandarin and (more or less) Cantonese, I'd set up commissions to develop and/or standardize phonetic writing systems for the other sinitic languages, teach them to the people who live in those regions and subsidize authors who want to write in those languages.
* I'd set up a commission to standardize the Cantonese writing system and develop similar rules for it as I mentioned for Mandarin. I'd make Cantonese and Cantonese writing a mandatory subject in Hong Kong and maybe Guangdong province.
* I'd combine Jyutping and Yale to make a good Canto romanization scheme that's easy on the eyes and teach it to kids in HK and GD.
* Oh, and I'd probably reinstate traditional characters on the mainland. The Singaporeans can keep them, though. Ha! That'll learn 'em.
Edited by Ari on 29 November 2012 at 9:40am
7 persons have voted this message useful
| Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6586 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German
| Message 122 of 132 29 November 2012 at 7:35am | IP Logged |
shk00design wrote:
There was no effort to adopt a phonetic system like the Koreans. The most they came up with after the communist revolution was a simplified version of the characters to extend education to the masses. |
|
|
What? Both the Chinese republic and the early Communist Party tried to adopt a phonetic writing system. Here is a sample of John DeFrancis' book Nationalism and Language Reform in China. It's well worth reading. My favorite is the Peking University professor who argued that Esperanto should be the official language in China.
In another piece by John DeFrancis we can read what Mao himself thought on the matter:
Quote:
In 1936, Mao told the American journalist Edgar Snow:
In order to hasten the liquidation of illiteracy here we have begun experimenting with Hsin Wen Tzu—Latinized Chinese. It is now used in our Party school, in the Red Academy, in the Red Army, and in a special section of the Red China Daily News. We believe Latinization is a good instrument with which to overcome illiteracy. Chinese characters are so difficult to learn that even the best system of rudimentary characters, or simplified teaching, does not equip the people with a really rich and efficient vocabulary. Sooner or later, we believe, we will have to abandon characters altogether if we are to create a new social culture in which the masses fully participate. We are now widely using Latinization and if we stay here for three years the problem will be solved.3 (Snow’s emphasis).
Thanks to such high-level support, the Border Region Government gave legal status to the New Writing by legislating for it equal validity with the traditional character script in petitions, reports, correspondence, and other areas. It also decreed that the most important of the laws and public announcements should henceforth also be published in the Latinized script.
|
|
|
4 persons have voted this message useful
| clumsy Octoglot Senior Member Poland lang-8.com/6715Registered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5182 days ago 1116 posts - 1367 votes Speaks: Polish*, English, Japanese, Korean, French, Mandarin, Italian, Vietnamese Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written), Swedish Studies: Danish, Dari, Kirundi
| Message 123 of 132 05 December 2012 at 7:00pm | IP Logged |
Ari wrote:
That's incontestably true, of course. But there are some subtleties that are peculiar to Sinitic languages (and Japanese, to some extent):
* The figure 80% is arrived at in two different studies cited in the article. 80% have trouble writing characters. That's significantly higher than I believe you'll find in most other languages, though I don't have any studies to back it up.
* The phenomenon is as common in highly educated people. In most languages, the people with college and university degrees will have comparatively few spelling mistakes. This is not the case in Mandarin. Reposting a quote from Victor Mair I used earlier:
|
|
|
May be truth...
Actually I myself have problems writing even the simplest characters, despite having no problem reading them.
Ari wrote:
* I'd encourage a system of ruby/furigana characters to help people with the sound of less common characters.
* I'd develop a rules set for word spacing and implement it.
* I'd mandate the use of the underline or the underlying dot or a similar system to mark proper names.
* Possibly I'd develop a set of "phonetic only" characters that shall be used when writing foreign names, loan words and anything where you forgot how to write the specific character in question.
* Since hanzi can pretty much only be used for Mandarin and (more or less) Cantonese, I'd set up commissions to develop and/or standardize phonetic writing systems for the other sinitic languages, teach them to the people who live in those regions and subsidize authors who want to write in those languages.
* I'd set up a commission to standardize the Cantonese writing system and develop similar rules for it as I mentioned for Mandarin. I'd make Cantonese and Cantonese writing a mandatory subject in Hong Kong and maybe Guangdong province.
* I'd combine Jyutping and Yale to make a good Canto romanization scheme that's easy on the eyes and teach it to kids in HK and GD.
* Oh, and I'd probably reinstate traditional characters on the mainland. The Singaporeans can keep them, though. Ha! That'll learn 'em.
|
|
|
I would agree with most of those points, sometimes it is hard to learn all the character spelling for every single politician or place name.
In news if there was terrorist attack in a small village in Iraq how can they know how to transcribe it?
----------------------------
It has nothing to do with this thread, but I feel an urge to write it somewhere.
The Chinese character 目
means eye, but it can have sometimes other meanings 'list' among them.
品目 - list of articles
目錄 - list of content
I wonder if it's because it actually looks like a sheet of paper with lines writen through it.
Edited by clumsy on 05 December 2012 at 7:03pm
1 person has voted this message useful
| dampingwire Bilingual Triglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4669 days ago 1185 posts - 1513 votes Speaks: English*, Italian*, French Studies: Japanese
| Message 124 of 132 05 December 2012 at 7:56pm | IP Logged |
leonidus wrote:
Learning just to read them (3000-3500 to read a newspaper) is already
a daunting task, and will take 2-3 years of intensive study. Learning to write them by
hand would increase that amount of time at least two-fold, if not more. |
|
|
Sorry to dive in late like this, but I've only just stumbled over this thread.
I may be wrong and the Hanzi may somehow be fundamentally different to the Japanese
Kanji, but if I can learn to write 2042 Kanji in (... quickly checks records ...) about
4 months, then I'd have to say that that estimate is out by a factor of 5 at least and
probably an order of magnitude. That was using Heisig's method, and typically
30mins/day.
Now reading the Kanji is a bit different (in that most of them have multiple
readings and so you might as well learn how to "spell" each word once you know each of
the possible characters). But I'm lead to believe that the Hanzi are different (so that
each character generally has one sound).
So whatever other reasons there might be for moving away from Hanzi, "they're really
hard" doesn't seem to be a valid one. "They take longer to learn than a reasonable size
alphabet/syllabary" is undoubtedly true, but that's a different argument altogether.
2 persons have voted this message useful
| Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6586 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German
| Message 125 of 132 06 December 2012 at 8:06am | IP Logged |
dampingwire wrote:
I may be wrong and the Hanzi may somehow be fundamentally different to the Japanese Kanji, but if I can learn to write 2042 Kanji in (... quickly checks records ...) about 4 months, then I'd have to say that that estimate is out by a factor of 5 at least and probably an order of magnitude. That was using Heisig's method, and typically 30mins/day. |
|
|
Your experience is not typical. Natives take much longer than you do at learning to write that many characters. Quoting David Moser quoting DeFrancis:
Quote:
John DeFrancis, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, reports that his Chinese colleagues estimate it takes seven to eight years for a Mandarin speaker to learn to read and write three thousand characters, whereas his French and Spanish colleagues estimate that students in their respective countries achieve comparable levels in half that time.2 Naturally, this estimate is rather crude and impressionistic (it's unclear what "comparable levels" means here), but the overall implications are obvious: the Chinese writing system is harder to learn, in absolute terms, than an alphabetic writing system.3 Even Chinese kids, whose minds are at their peak absorptive power, have more trouble with Chinese characters than their little counterparts in other countries have with their respective scripts. Just imagine the difficulties experienced by relatively sluggish post-pubescent foreign learners such as myself. |
|
|
You might learn to write 2000 characters in four months, but most natives can't do it that fast. And of course, the characters need not only be learned, but also maintained. People aren't having problems with characters they never learned, but rather with ones they've already forgotten.
Quote:
Now reading the Kanji is a bit different (in that most of them have multiple readings and so you might as well learn how to "spell" each word once you know each of the possible characters). But I'm lead to believe that the Hanzi are different (so that each character generally has one sound). |
|
|
Well, yes and no. There are quite a few commonly occurring characters that have at least two common sounds, with some having three or four different ones. And lots of characters have some variant sounds that are however very rare. So yeah, more than half probably only have one sound that's commonly used, but it's nowhere near all of them.
We haven't discussed Cantonese speakers in this thread, for whom the writing system is even less efficient, of course. Even Mandarin speakers have lots of expressions that don't have commonly agreed-upon characters, Canto speakers even moreso (and the other Sinitic languages cannot be written in characters at all, which means that they cannot be written in China, period). In Cantonese, I'd wager that more than half of characters have double pronunciations, due to the division between "colloquial" and "literary" readings. I think most non-Mandarin Sinitic languages have this phenomenon; I know at least Taiwanese does.
1 person has voted this message useful
| firearasi Triglot Newbie China Joined 5757 days ago 4 posts - 5 votes Speaks: Mandarin*, Japanese, English Studies: Italian, Korean, Sanskrit
| Message 126 of 132 11 February 2014 at 3:37am | IP Logged |
It maybe inefficient for hand-writing, but currently the computer input methods are very
efficient. And characters are made for quick recognition, I can scan about 6 lines at a
glance when I am reading light novels(I don't know if one can do this for English books).
Source: native speaker. Sorry for my English.
Edited by firearasi on 14 February 2014 at 3:01am
1 person has voted this message useful
| shk00design Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 4448 days ago 747 posts - 1123 votes Speaks: Cantonese*, English, Mandarin Studies: French
| Message 127 of 132 13 February 2014 at 4:28pm | IP Logged |
Looked like many people already said everything that needs to be said. When it comes to printing space, Chinese
is a compact language. Even compared to English & French when you write 1 paragraph in English, it would take
more space to write a similar paragraph in French or Spanish. In most cases it takes less printing space to write
the equivalent in Chinese. Try to stretch each character phonetically like Vietnamese you actually take up more
alphabetic characters.
1 person has voted this message useful
| aabram Pentaglot Senior Member Estonia Joined 5537 days ago 138 posts - 263 votes Speaks: Estonian*, English, Spanish, Russian, Finnish Studies: Mandarin, French
| Message 128 of 132 25 February 2014 at 1:52pm | IP Logged |
firearasi wrote:
It maybe inefficient for hand-writing, but currently the computer input methods are very
efficient. |
|
|
I disagree. The very fact that due to homophones chinese input has to rely on predictive input and makes you choose from 10+ characters at times makes it quite inefficient. Choosing wrong character may alter the meaning or at least confuse while reading. Even our native Chinese language teacher often has wrong characters here and there in her handouts, mainly mixing up shi or de but also other characters. It is even worse with proper names containing rarer characters. It's just so inefficient to look through several sets of propositions to find that elusive character.
Edited by aabram on 25 February 2014 at 1:53pm
2 persons have 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 0.7188 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|