Compounds (辭) vs. Characters (字) and the need to preserve the latter

[anonymoose]

The focus of my post above was more on proposing the character 汭 (or 河汭) as a better alternative to the compound 河口 for translating “estuary” into Chinese, by way of serving as an example of how obscure single characters can still be made relevant today (I mean, we still have rivers and confluences today, don’t we?).

I sympathise with your argument, but I don't see what practical advantage 汭 (or 河汭) serves over and above 河口. The only rationale put forth so far is that fewer characters is a lesser burden on the eyes, and universality with Japanese (does Japanese even use 汭?), which in my humble opinion, are hardly compelling reasons to revitalise such characters.

[Mark Yong]

Okay, since practicality is the order of the day, then how about this:

To me, a practical language is an accurate one. And an accurate language provides unambiguous definitions.

In the English language, the “mouth of a river” and the “confluence of two rivers” are physically two different things altogether - I trust we are in agreement on this point.

To that end, what I am saying (and I think I did cite this point when I first raised the Kuala Lumpur example, though perhaps not as explicitly as I should have) is that in this particular instance, 河口 does not adequately differentiate between the “mouth of a river” and the “confluence of two rivers”. Having 河汭 and 河口 in the lexicon would provide this distinction. We’re not talking about burdening the eyes or achieving congruence with the Japanese lexicon here; we’re talking linguistic accuracy for functional practicality... fair enough?

Yes, I concede that one does not have to resort to reviving a whole plethora of obscure characters to supplant character compounds, in order to achieve linguistic accuracy in the Chinese language. 汭 just happened to be a convenient example, that’s all.

As-and-when the circumstances call for character compounds to provide accurate definitions where single characters cannot, then by all means, create the compounds. I did not say that single characters are all-end-all; in fact, I believe I did state in my original post that civilisation and the resultant development of more complex objects and concepts beyond the existing character lexicon necessitated character compounding. That I fully accept as the natural evolution of the Chinese language. We did not have computers or operating systems when 許慎 compiled the 『說文解字』 over a millennium ago. Fine - 電腦 and 操作系統, then, no argument.

Let us not even go so far as to use an obscure character like 汭 as an example. The colloquial Chinese terminology for “kidney” is 腰子. The correct word, of course, is 腎. Okay, if we must use the compound to re-clarify that we are referring to the kidney as an internal organ, then it is 腎臟. Now, what would your opinion be if the gradual convergence of the written language with the spoken language eventually resulted in the supplanting of 腎 with 腰子 in the written language?

Point in context: Just because we can say “cow-shed”, does not mean we should drop “barn” from our vocabulary.

[anonymoose]

To me, a practical language is an accurate one. And an accurate language provides unambiguous definitions.

The problem with your definition of a practical language is that it's impractical. It is impossible for any word to have an entirely unambiguous definition. Let's take your example from your first post of characters describing shades of red:

紅 Bright red

赤 Dark red

朱 Vermillion

絳 Purple red

緋 Dark red

丹 Cinnabar

Now, if we consider the character 红, it covers a broad range of shades. The other characters just have a narrower range so that, for example, 赤 distinguishes dark red from light red, but still extends across its own range at the darker end of the spectrum. Therefore, 赤 is not unambiguous either. So how unambiguous does a character's definition have to be to satisfy your requirement for a practical language? Should we take each of the 256 shades of red available on a computer and give them their own character to make their definitions unambiguous enough? Should we also give individual characters to the other 16776960 colours available on a computer when green and blue components are included? You see, we can have a large lexicon of characters with relatively specific definitions, or we can have a small lexicon with relatively vague definitions, but whatever level we choose is arbitary. I would contend that the reason why some of those characters for red are becoming rare or obsolete is because through the evolution of usage, they have naturally tended to an equilibrium where the number of distinct characters used is large enough to provide the required specificity, whilst few enough to avoid unnecessarily burdening the user.

The colloquial Chinese terminology for “kidney” is 腰子. The correct word, of course, is 腎. Okay, if we must use the compound to re-clarify that we are referring to the kidney as an internal organ, then it is 腎臟. Now, what would your opinion be if the gradual convergence of the written language with the spoken language eventually resulted in the supplanting of 腎 with 腰子 in the written language?

腎 is only the "correct" character by convention. If enough people recognise 腰子 as meaning kidney, then 腰子 is also correct (at least descriptively, if not prescritively). If, hypothetically,腎 were supplanted by 腰子, then the implication is that 腰子 has established itself as being a legitimate word for kidney, so I wouldn't have any objection, just as I have no objection to many other words having been superseded in the same way.

Point in context: Just because we can say “cow-shed”, does not mean we should drop “barn” from our vocabulary.

Indeed, and since we have "cow-shed" and "barn", then it seems perfectly reasonable to drop "byre" from our vocabulary.

[realmayo]

Mark, if anonymoose takes the view that if it's a good idea it will have already happened naturally and that if it's not a good idea than it won't have already happened naturally, then, logically there's no way to persuade him that any of this is a good idea because his logic suggests that, if it hasn't happened naturally, it can't be a good idea. Or indeed, the only way to see if it's a good idea is to wait and see if it takes off.

That said, I think he's right that if the motive for the changes you suggest is to make a "practical" "unambiguous" language then this is unrealistic. If you want to give writers more options, though, allowing them to say the same thing in a slightly different key or different register from the options currently available to them, then I see some hypothetical merit there. To go back to the Renaissance in England, there are lots of words like "copulate": this had the meaning of "to join together", but then in the 16th century people decided they needed a way of saying "fuck" that had a different tone and so "copulate" was given this additional meaning. And even today "copulate" is I guess preferred by doctors and vets when they are writing textbooks and articles.

If your suggestions could give writers in Chinese either i) additional registers or ii) another option for returning to the more compressed, classy, classical style, then I see no obstacle. And like much of the changes in written Chinese, these would perhaps not happen organically or "naturally" but would need a core of people to self-consciously adopt them. But as to whether there's a need for the changes, I have no idea -- probably only people who write in Chinese all the time could really answer that.

[anonymoose]

if anonymoose takes the view that if it's a good idea it will have already happened naturally and that if it's not a good idea than it won't have already happened naturally, then, logically there's no way to persuade him that any of this is a good idea because his logic suggests that, if it hasn't happened naturally, it can't be a good idea. Or indeed, the only way to see if it's a good idea is to wait and see if it takes off.

If you come up with a new idea, we can debate whether it is good or not. If all you have to offer is something old that has already failed the test of time, then the onus is on you to provide a convincing argument as to why it's a good idea if you want anyone to take you seriously.

[realmayo]

Come on, you could say that letting chickens potter around outside failed the test of time now that battery chicken 'farms' dominate and that attempts to build a market for outdoor-raised free-range chickens is bound to fail because it's an old idea whose time had come. Or traditional characters: I have no view on whether or not they should be re-introduced, but I imagine saying they should not be because they failed the test of time is one of the less persuasive arguments. Or again: those Latinate words in English: they failed the test of time but were re-introduced in the 16/17th century, along with tonnes of Classical thinking and learning that failed the test of time in Europe and was being preserved in only a few monasteries and more importantly by Arab scholars outside Europe.

To be honest, I don't think Mark has provided a convincing argument, but then I'm in no position to judge if writers in Chinese want some more tools at their disposal.

[OneEye]

The thing is, those tools are at writers' disposal. The characters are there. There are over 79,000 characters that can be rendered on a computer, provided you have an appropriate font, so it isn't an issue of supplying the tools. And just like James Joyce made the stylistic choice to use some very obscure words in his writings, so can any modern writer of Chinese use any character he chooses. That can, of course, make it hard for the average reader, and you will have some who like and some who dislike this style of writing. But the option is there.

Now as far as whether this sort of thing should be pushed upon people, I think not. A call for writers to use a more elegant, concise, and accurate writing style is one thing, a call for language reform and policy change is another.

[realmayo]

One question -- is there a view that written Chinese in the mainland has been dumbed-down since 1949?

(I'm not referring to traditional vs simplified.)

[OneEye]

As far as I know, yes. From what I've been told (and not just by Taiwanese), the written Chinese used in Taiwan tends to me more elegant, and tends more toward 文言文 than that on the mainland. There is supposedly more focus on 文言文 education in Taiwan than on the mainland, which could explain that. This is all hearsay, but I've heard these things from many people from both sides of the strait.

[realmayo]

Ah, & this is why I really don't like this idea of an only-natural-evolution in the written language: writing is different from speaking, you've got time to draw on a wider pool of resources, more "tools" I suppose, but if you're never taught those tools in the first place you've got less to choose from.

I also wonder whether, if there is less ambition in this area in the teaching curriculum of the mainland versus that of Taiwan, how much that is for practical purposes (to promote wider literacy despite scant teaching resources) and how much is/was political (don't want none of that intellectual-type language here please Comrade).

[Mark Yong]

Consider my last post as an attempt to appeal to anonymoose’s practical approach to languages.

If you ask me what my primary motivations are behind the subject of this thread, I will be honest and say that they are utilising a broader vocabulary from a readily-available lexicon (even if it is archaic and has fallen somewhat out of fashion), and (paradoxically) elegance via economy of words.

For the practical and descriptive linguists who opine that languages serve solely as a tool to get a message across from A to B and that ‘less is best’, then with all due respect, they are not the correct target audience for this entire thread. I will raise my hand here and admit that I am a prescriptive linguist by nature; yes, language is a tool of communication for me, but I try to see within this tool the beauty and colours that it offers.

To cite another example in the English language: A ‘lively’ person may also be considered as ‘bubbly’. There is a word in the English language that combines both attributes: ‘ebullient’. Not many people know this word (I tested this on my Australian colleagues), and probably even fewer use it. But for the ‘less is best’ linguist, falling back on plain old ‘bubbly’ is perfectly fine. But (to use OneEye’s words) it is there to use if you so choose to. In that respect, I believe there is much to be said about having a wider vocabulary and word register (yes, thank you for the word, realmayo). Else, why bother to study the Classics and Shakespeare at high school, if surviving in the modern corporate world is the only motivation for studying a language?

There are differences between 大, 丕 and 龐, just as there are differences between ‘large’, ‘massive’ and ‘gargantuan’. But if we want to be purely practical, of course I could imagine us surviving on just 大 and ‘large’. Same goes for 遠, 遙 and 遐. The difference being, it is easier to pick up new words in English as long as you can spell it from a stockpile of the same 26 alphabets, than it is to digest a new character for every new word you encounter (and here, I use ‘word’ very loosely in the context of a ‘new character’, as opposed to a ‘new compound of a known set of characters’).

If we want to speak purely in terms of practicality and utility, then surely the Chinese script is less efficient compared to an alphabet-based writing system. Early 20^th century linguistic giants like 瞿秋白 were advocating the eradication of Chinese characters and replacing them with some alphabet-based writing system.

On the subject of the last three posts comparing the Chinese language situation in mainland China vs. Taiwan. The former could say that the latter’s adherence to the old system is resource-wasting and impractical; the latter could chide the former for a dumbed-down language and impoverished lexicon. It cuts both ways. I open my professional e-mail correspondences to my vendors in China with 『XXX 先生 台鑒』; they respond with just 『楊先生: 您好!』. It’s fine by me.

To me, the Chinese script is, for starters, imperfect and inefficient if compared with the versatility of alphabet-based writing systems (put it this way: I know of colleagues in Shanghai - native Shanghainese, mind you - who choose to e-mail each other in English). That notwithstanding, I have found merits within this albeit-imperfect system. A rich vocabulary register within its character lexicon and compactness rank high among those merits. Ironically, it is those same merits that have been suppressed in the name of linguistic progress, and this forms the motivation behind my starting this thread.

So, I ask that the readers take my views for what they are, and with no expectation whatsoever from my part that they be convinced in any way (but if any are convinced, then it will be a bonus for me!).

[skylee]

Re Mark's post above. I support wider vocabulary and elegance in writing, and have no objection to economy of words. But I don't support using archaic words (what is the benefit of using words that most people don't know except showing that you are better educated?). I don't like 汭 either (if 河口 is considered not accurate we could use 河流交匯處).

oh I am a layman, with no qualifications to support my personal views.

[imron]

To me, a practical language is an accurate one. And an accurate language provides unambiguous definitions.

like many other Chinese characters, 汭 can have alternate meanings.

So is using 汭 practical or impractical?

Anyway, as an Australian who knew the meaning of ebullient without needing to look it up in the dictionary, and who also sees the value in having a wide vocabulary and word register, I am also reminded of the wise words of William Strunk and E.B. White, who mentioned in the Elements of Style:

Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able. Anglo-Saxon is a livelier tongue than Latin, so use Anglo -Saxon words. In this, as in so many matters pertaining to style, one’s ear must be one’s guide: gut is a lustier noun than intestine, but the two words are not interchangeable, because gut is often inappropriate, being too coarse for the context. Never call a stomach a tummy without good reason.

If you admire fancy words, if every sky is beauteous, every blonde curvaceous, every intelligent child prodigious, if you are tickled by discombobulate, you will have a bad time with Reminder 14. What is wrong, you ask, with beauteous? No one knows, for sure. There is nothing wrong, really, with any word all are good, but some are better than others. A matter of ear, a matter of reading the books that sharpen the ear.

[Hofmann]

腺

[anonymoose]

腺毛

[jkhsu]

I'm all for having a large vocabulary (in any language) at your disposal. However, in my mind, choosing appropriate words for your target audience is more important than just knowing a lot of words.

[jkhsu]

To me, the Chinese script is, for starters, imperfect and inefficient if compared with the versatility of alphabet-based writing systems (put it this way: I know of colleagues in Shanghai - native Shanghainese, mind you - who choose to e-mail each other in English).

I need clarification on this statement. Are you saying that the reason these Chinese colleagues email each other in English is because they found writing in Chinese inefficient? Is that really the reason?

[rezaf]

It's not because they don't know how to use Chinese or because they find Chinese inefficient. 白领s and especially Shanghainese 白领s are seriously 崇洋媚外 and would do anything to show off their English. Most of them have even developed a new form of language by mixing Shanghainese, Mandarin and English. I really enjoy listening to this language in starcucks.

Edit: It might be for the same reasons that I just used those Chinese words in an English text!

[jkhsu]

It's not because they don't know how to use Chinese or because they find Chinese inefficient. 白领s and especially Shanghainese 白领s are seriously 崇洋媚外 and would do anything to show off their English.

Thanks rezaf. This is pretty much what I thought as well.

Edit: I agree with the "show off their English" part but not the term 崇洋媚外.

[skylee]

jkhsu, I also find that statement odd, but for a different reason. I don't understand the significance of Shanghainese writing emails in English.

I mean, we do it here all the time. Before hastily labelling people 崇洋媚外, please consider that there are Chinese people who genuinely find it easier to write in English, either because they are not good at Chinese, or because they are not good at or used to typing Chinese. I do it sometimes, and some of my friends do it more often. Personally I find it much easier / faster to write in English than in Chinese.

At work, I regard communciating with people on/from the Mainland or Macau a tough task, because they write in Chinese (I suppose people in Macau can also write in Portugese but they don't do this to us). Sometimes we have to convert lots of information to Chinese for their consumption. When we communicate with people in Taiwan, surprisingly they write in very good English, and that makes things a lot easier. IIRC I have only received one email from someone in Shanghai seeking business, and that email was written in such a bad style, mixing Chinese with English, that made people seriously doubt the writer's language ability.