3 ms·

>But only essentially though translation. Classical works are not translated into Modern Chinese. I think that's the source of our disagreement. When the writ

by knolax 8y ago

>But only essentially though translation. Classical works are not translated into Modern Chinese. I think that's the source of our disagreement. When the writing system is focused on semantics, then the threshold where something is considered translation is different than for a phonetic writing system. >Latin works are still part of the Western literary canon. Yes, but most modern westerners can not read Latin on it's own, because of the writing system. >My point was the poem is more of a stunt than a real statement about a real language. What is a "real language" here? The poem is comprehensible to modern Chinese, although the grammar follows Classical Conventions. What makes it not a "real language"?

tivert 8y ago
> What is a "real language" here? The poem is comprehensible to modern Chinese, although the grammar follows Classical Conventions. What makes it not a "real language"? I should have been more specific: I meant a real living language. The poem is a stunt that demonstrates how far modern Mandarin pronunciation has diverged from Classical Chinese (which is dead as a spoken language), but it doesn't make much of a statement about the practicality of replacing hanzi with a phonetic system for writing modern living Mandarin.
- knolax 8y ago
  >doesn't make much of a statement about the practicality replacing hanzi with a phonetic writing system for everyday use. What is everyday use? Surely a writing system should be capable of more than "Hello, my name is Knolax?". If a proposed new writing system was incapable of representing Shakespeare in any comprehensible way, would it be suitable for English? I realize now that you consider Classical Chinese as a seperate language from Modern Chinese. I and most Chinese speakers would probably disagree, but I don't think that's a line that can be drawn without a lot of nitpicking from both of us.
  - tivert 8y ago
    > What is everyday use? Surely a writing system should be capable of more than "Hello, my name is Knolax?". If a proposed new writing system was incapable of representing Shakespeare in any comprehensible way, would it be suitable for English? Sorry I edited on you, but what I meant was a phonetic system could be used in all ways contemporary spoken Mandarin is currently used without getting too tripped up by homophones. There would obviously be difficulties when dealing with very old texts, but I think such difficulties are inevitable regardless of the language as the changes pile up. Something will be lost unless you spend the appropriate effort learning the state of language as it existed when the text originally written. > I realize now that you consider Classical Chinese as a seperate language from Modern Chinese. I and most Chinese speakers would probably disagree, but I don't think that's a line that can be drawn without a lot of nitpicking from both of us. Yeah.
    - knolax 8y ago
      > I meant was a phonetic system could be used in all ways contemporary spoken Mandarin is currently used without getting too tripped up by homophones. Except phonetic writing systems are aren't even capable of representing Chinese names correctly. I think you're underestimating the extent to which homophones are prevalent in Chinese. It's not just classical texts, it's all written texts and most non-trivial spoken words, including names. The vast majority of Chinese morphemes are only a syllable long, and have up to hundreds of homophones. Unlike most European languages, Chinese names do not all come from a fixed list like "John. Mary, Jane, etc..." and are instead constructed directly from morphemes. The result is that whenever you encounter a Chinese name transliterated phonetically in any system, there is no deterministic way of converting it back into Chinese without ambiguity.
      - tivert 8y ago
        > I think you're underestimating the extent to which homophones are prevalent in Chinese. It's not just classical texts, it's all written texts and most non-trivial spoken words, including names. The vast majority of Chinese morphemes are only a syllable long, and have up to hundreds of homophones. I guess my question is how much of a problem are these in spoken communication (say over a telephone where there's less shared situational context)? My intuition is that if the prevalence of homophones were so troublesome to make a phonetic writing system difficult/impractical to use, they'd also make spoken telephone conversations similarly difficult/impractical. Since Chinese people can obviously speak productively on the telephone, then there must be enough context in the phoneme-stream that it's sufficient to effectively communicate without the extra context provided by the characters. That's not to say the characters don't provide an extra layer of depth and subtlety to written text over phonetic writing.

by knolax 8y ago

tivert 8y ago

> What is a "real language" here? The poem is comprehensible to modern Chinese, although the grammar follows Classical Conventions. What makes it not a "real language"? I should have been more specific: I meant a real living language. The poem is a stunt that demonstrates how far modern Mandarin pronunciation has diverged from Classical Chinese (which is dead as a spoken language), but it doesn't make much of a statement about the practicality of replacing hanzi with a phonetic system for writing modern living Mandarin.

knolax 8y ago
>doesn't make much of a statement about the practicality replacing hanzi with a phonetic writing system for everyday use. What is everyday use? Surely a writing system should be capable of more than "Hello, my name is Knolax?". If a proposed new writing system was incapable of representing Shakespeare in any comprehensible way, would it be suitable for English? I realize now that you consider Classical Chinese as a seperate language from Modern Chinese. I and most Chinese speakers would probably disagree, but I don't think that's a line that can be drawn without a lot of nitpicking from both of us.
- tivert 8y ago
  > What is everyday use? Surely a writing system should be capable of more than "Hello, my name is Knolax?". If a proposed new writing system was incapable of representing Shakespeare in any comprehensible way, would it be suitable for English? Sorry I edited on you, but what I meant was a phonetic system could be used in all ways contemporary spoken Mandarin is currently used without getting too tripped up by homophones. There would obviously be difficulties when dealing with very old texts, but I think such difficulties are inevitable regardless of the language as the changes pile up. Something will be lost unless you spend the appropriate effort learning the state of language as it existed when the text originally written. > I realize now that you consider Classical Chinese as a seperate language from Modern Chinese. I and most Chinese speakers would probably disagree, but I don't think that's a line that can be drawn without a lot of nitpicking from both of us. Yeah.
  - knolax 8y ago
    > I meant was a phonetic system could be used in all ways contemporary spoken Mandarin is currently used without getting too tripped up by homophones. Except phonetic writing systems are aren't even capable of representing Chinese names correctly. I think you're underestimating the extent to which homophones are prevalent in Chinese. It's not just classical texts, it's all written texts and most non-trivial spoken words, including names. The vast majority of Chinese morphemes are only a syllable long, and have up to hundreds of homophones. Unlike most European languages, Chinese names do not all come from a fixed list like "John. Mary, Jane, etc..." and are instead constructed directly from morphemes. The result is that whenever you encounter a Chinese name transliterated phonetically in any system, there is no deterministic way of converting it back into Chinese without ambiguity.
    - tivert 8y ago
      > I think you're underestimating the extent to which homophones are prevalent in Chinese. It's not just classical texts, it's all written texts and most non-trivial spoken words, including names. The vast majority of Chinese morphemes are only a syllable long, and have up to hundreds of homophones. I guess my question is how much of a problem are these in spoken communication (say over a telephone where there's less shared situational context)? My intuition is that if the prevalence of homophones were so troublesome to make a phonetic writing system difficult/impractical to use, they'd also make spoken telephone conversations similarly difficult/impractical. Since Chinese people can obviously speak productively on the telephone, then there must be enough context in the phoneme-stream that it's sufficient to effectively communicate without the extra context provided by the characters. That's not to say the characters don't provide an extra layer of depth and subtlety to written text over phonetic writing.