Path to Classical Chinese? (sorry if it's long, jump to tl;dr)

[Shi Guangli]

First of all, hello to all the member of this community. Before I joined in, I read many posts concerning chinese and often found good answers and perspectives

 

I would like to ask your opinion and experiences regarding eventually studying older forms of chinese.

I just started studying modern mandarin, but I've been keen on chinese culture for many ears now. My problem is that I am as excited with the perspective of eventually being able of reading works by authors like Lu Xun without slumpy translations as I am with eventually being able to read Sima Qian, Tang poetry, and outstretching this a bit, who knows, works like the Spring and Autumn Annals.

 

I am aware of the work needing to be done to get to such heights, but I think it's fairly possible, for I have no schedule for learning, I just learn.

______________

tl;dr

 

So what now? This seems like a longshot, but I really just want to know what to expect during my study from those of you who intended and achieved the same. These are the main questions too those who may be already bored with all the text I've writen:

 

-I've already started on working on mandarin with the New Practical Chinese Reader and I also have Modern Mandarin Chinese - A Practical Guide. Next on the list of books to get is Remembering Simplified Hanzi. Should I stick with these?

-For all my material needs regarding mandarin, I reckon simplified hanzi will suit me best, since it's the majority of the stuff around. Is it, however, viable to learn both simplified and traditional hanzi at the same time or should I master one and then understand the other?

-Where is the line drawn? What are the main differences (I'm aware of the vagueness of this question) between mandarin, classical chinese and old chinese? Is it something conceptually simillar to the differences between romance languages and Latin? (I'm graduating in classical studies next year, so I will understand comparisons of this sort since my first language is Portuguese).

 

Again, sorry for the long post!

 

[aone]

小哥，加油昂，看好你！

[Shelley]

Admirable goals.

 

I cannot comment on most of your questions but as to learning full form or simplified, it depends on what you think you can cope with, if you have the time and desire learning both together would be a time saver considering your final aims.

 

If you only have time for one then if you are really serious about reading classical i would say common sense dictates you should concentrate on full form.

 

IMHO once you really get to grips with characters the differences become obvious and absorbing both at the same time is not too difficult.

[OneEye]

Should I stick with these?

 

The more I think about learning languages, the more I'm convinced that this is more important than the actual choice of textbook or study method. The books you've chosen are fine, as long as you do stick with them.

 

 

 

Is it, however, viable to learn both simplified and traditional hanzi at the same time or should I master one and then understand the other?

 

That's a question that's been discussed to no end, but the general consensus is — and I agree — that you should pick one or the other, doesn't matter which, and only worry about the other once you're at a reasonably high level of proficiency. That's not to say you ought to cast out all materials in the other script, just don't make any special effort to learn it. Once you can read well in one, the other will be pretty easy.

 

 

 

Where is the line drawn? What are the main differences (I'm aware of the vagueness of this question) between mandarin, classical chinese and old chinese? Is it something conceptually simillar to the differences between romance languages and Latin? (I'm graduating in classical studies next year, so I will understand comparisons of this sort since my first language is Portuguese).

 

There's a bit of confusion in terms here. Mandarin is a spoken language, classical Chinese is an ancient written language (though some people use it to mean the written standard up through the beginning of the 20th century), and Old Chinese refers to the spoken language of the pre-Qin period which scholars like Baxter, Sagart, 鄭張尚芳 and others attempt to reconstruct. I think you mean to ask about the difference between classical, literary, and modern written Chinese.

 

As far as classical/literary/modern Chinese, it's tough to draw a parallel, but I'll make a crude stab at it. If Classical Chinese (古文, defined as Zhou through Han) is analogous to Classical Latin, then so-called "Literary" Chinese (文言文) is more like medieval Latin. That is, it was the written standard, if you can call it that, for the Chinese-speaking world even though spoken languages differed. Modern Chinese can take a range of forms, from the very colloquial to the extremely formal, almost classical phraseology of things like legal documents and some academic papers. In general, writers in Hong Kong and Taiwan tend more toward the latter than their counterparts on the mainland, but there are exceptions on both sides (and I'm mostly speaking from experience with work in my own field).

 

The thing is, if you learn Mandarin and modern Chinese, and then learn classical when you're ready for it, you'll be able to spot a more classically-influenced turn of phrase in modern Chinese writing, and the difference will be clear to you. Reading about it won't help the way being able to read it for yourself will.

[Shi Guangli]

Well, I thank your for your helpful answers. The doubts regarding the traditional vs simplified remain, but I've already understood that it's what generally happens around this forum!   It now really seems to be a matter of personal preference and learning style. Quite honestly, given the written similarities between the characters, which I think doesn't take much to spot in most cases, I consider that it wouldn't be much effort to me learning most characters in pairs. I reckon that if we treat them like two of the same, our brains won't have to go through more complex efforts that would be required in learning one set and then the other, separately. However, if at any occasion should I see one hindering the other, I could also opt to leave one of them resting until due time

 

I guess that having my goals being set, I just have to start working. As for time, I have plenty, since I  live for little more else other than studying and gaming. I guess I can even cut a little bit extra time for Chinese from that one haha.

[Shelley]

I hope it goes well for you and remember any questions the folk here on the forums are only too happy to help.

[Michaelyus]

 

Note that "high" classical Chinese of e.g. the Analects and Mencius is roughly contemporaneous with e.g. the lyric poets Pindar and Simonides and the trio of great Athenian tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. In my opinion, Classical Chinese is generally more accessible to the general (as opposed to specialist) modern educated Chinese reader than Classical Attic to the modern educated Greek reader. 

 

The difference for the modern reader between Literary Chinese and Classical Chinese is (subjectively) not as great the difference between Hellenistic Koine and Classical Attic; I'd agree it's similar to Golden Age Latin vs scholastic Medieval and Renaissance Latin. Hence these two points of the language are generally conflated, even (or especially?) among those who've received a general Chinese education.

 

The break between modern standard Chinese (alias written vernacular Chinese as based on the standards of modern Mandarin in the official Chinese-speaking territories) and Literary/Classical Chinese is fairly sharp: an official change occurred after the May Fourth Movement and within the New Culture Movement by the 1920s, considered as revolutionary as Dante's De vulgari eloquentia or the use of Dimotiki as opposed to Katharevousa Greek in the 1970s. That famous piece of constrained writing, Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den, is meant to have been intended as a humorous and possibly lightly mocking farewell to the norms of Literary Chinese.

 

Many (indeed, most) universities where I reside teach both Classical Chinese alongside modern standard Mandarin in tandem when doing a formal degree course (as opposed to more directed courses). I think there'd be no substantial difficulty with doing both together, provided you had ample resources. 

[imron]

I think learning both traditional and simplified at the same time will be much slower for a beginner than just learning one well and picking up the differences later.

The reason being that characters are made up of smaller shapes or other characters squashed together. Once you know > 1000 characters, recognising these shapes is much faster and easier than when you are a beginner, so learning the shapes from the other form is quite fast.

Also consider the importance of exposure in learning and retaining character knowledge. If you are learning both but only have textbooks/reading material in one form, then you'll need to put in much more time learning something you don't need or use.

There are only about 500 characters that are significantly different between the two forms. Learn one well, and learning the other is relatively straightforward.

500 extra characters when you already know 3000 is not that much. 500 extra characters when you know 0 characters is a lot.

[Shi Guangli]

Well, I started the experiment today, and so far, so good. As I said, instead of separating both in sets, my plan is to try and learn them like they were (because they are) two of the same. And I already spotted some patterns of simplification (这/這, 谁/誰, 外语/外語) . I don't actually mind at all knowing two versions of the same character, because they're the same. Of course further experience will dictate how this works, but I actually find this quite fun and entertaining (for example, how ridiculously cramped  醫生 looks compared to 医生, and how its crampiness is proportional to the fun I take writing it). Also, the NPCR uses the simplified characters in the texts,  but the traditional are always added in the end of the lesson. Since I usually read and transcribe (I always avoid written translation) the texts after the lessons, what I did today was to convert the pinyin into both scripts, with no sneak-peeks. It went satisfyingly well! 

 

 

Pleco, which I've been using a lot, also allows me to search for either form and the counterpart is always shown on the side. Since I search most words in vocabulary lists to check for stroke order, I always check for the traditional forms too.

 

As for the textbooks I mentioned early, I'm dropping the prospect of buying Remembering Simplified Hanzi. I consulted some samples, and I thought the method was completely different from what I expected. While I see some people swear by its quality, it's really not how it works for me. As a matter of fact, I think it can actually be quite confusing. For everyone. I prefer a simple two way path between meaning and character, instead of having to go through silly stories about employees being told to shut up and having clams on their mouths in between. I hate mnemonics in general anyway