Yes, I was referring to the writing system. It appears that the correct term to be used is "logosyllabic", not "symbolic". > Chinese characters do not constitu

Yes, I was referring to the writing system. It appears that the correct term to be used is "logosyllabic", not "symbolic". > Chinese characters do not constitute an alphabet or a compact syllabary. Rather, the writing system is roughly logosyllabic; that is, a character generally represents one syllable of spoken Chinese and may be a word on its own or a part of a polysyllabic word. The characters themselves are often composed of parts that may represent physical objects, abstract notions, or pronunciation. Literacy requires the memorization of a great many characters: educated Chinese know about 4,000. The large number of Chinese characters has in part led to the adoption of Western alphabets as an auxiliary means of representing Chinese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Chinese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Chinese