4 ms·

Couldn't the same thing be said for the horrendous spelling and grammar issues of English? For what it's worth, my spouse has a Master's degree in Chinese peda

by beat 8y ago

Couldn't the same thing be said for the horrendous spelling and grammar issues of English? For what it's worth, my spouse has a Master's degree in Chinese pedagogy. I've not heard such arguments from her. A single book, weighed against observation, isn't proof.

FabHK 8y ago
> horrendous spelling and grammar issues of English? Sure, English has pretty horrible orthography, arguably the worst among alphabetic languages (though it's not that easy to reform, either, see eg. [1]). But it's still more phonetic than Chinese. Spanish has a beautiful orthography, and pretty close correspondence between written and spoken word. "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 believe Latinization is a good instrument with which to overcome illiteracy." This was said by Mao Zedong (oh, dang, that's so ambiguous, I mean 毛泽东) in 1936, see [2]. "This has led many Chinese in the past to advocate the abolition of characters in favor of an alphabetic system, but such programs have met with little success." [3] So, the idea that the Chinese writing system is too cumbersome is by no means new, or "Western", for what it's worth. > A single book, weighed against observation, isn't proof Well, no. But there is more than a single book, there are decades of discussion and scholarship on this. It's conceivable to me that China could benefit from a move to alphabetic writing, and translations of Classical Chinese into vernacular (and anyone who wants can go study characters and Classical Chinese texts in the original, just like anyone in the West can go learn Latin and ancient Greek and Hebrew and read the classics in the original, or the Bible, for that matter). [1] https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform.htm https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform... [2] http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp171_chinese_writing_reform.pdf http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp171_chinese_writing... [3] http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/VISIBLE_TRACES/curriculum/pdf/CIAessay1.pdf http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/VISIBLE_TRACES/curric...
- tivert 8y ago
  > Sure, English has pretty horrible orthography, arguably the worst among alphabetic languages (though it's not that easy to reform, either, see eg. [1]). English orthography, summed up, is: all the orthographies from all the languages from all the time periods cobbled together into a monster.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    Nicely put.
- knolax 8y ago
  I don't think quoting Mao is doing your argument any favors. >It's conceivable to me that China could benefit from a move to alphabetic writing, and translations of Classical Chinese into vernacular The issue is not that classical texts become illegible, the issue is that all written language becomes illegible. For example, in the other DeFrancis source you provide, he uses the term "shuangwenzhi", the meaning of which I simply could not figure out. I saw the English "digraphia" below, at which point I assume he may have meant "双文zhi" but I am still unclear what he meant by "zhi". As of right now only 66% of the phrase he used has any semantical meaning and I am still unclear as to what he meant to say by "shuangwenzhi". Without the English translation I don't think I would've deduced any of the semantic meaning of that term. >So, the idea that the Chinese writing system is too cumbersome is by no means new, You are correct, this argument isn't new, it's outdated.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    Nicely put :-) The emergence of smart ubiquitous always-connected computers (with Unicode) does change the evaluation maybe. I think one of the fundamental arguments against the Chinese script (it takes about twice as long to learn than alphabetic writing) stands, while others are outdated, indeed (nobody struggles with building Chinese typewriters anymore). However, there are many arguments put forward against switching to an alphabetic script that strike me as misguided (that the Chinese language is so special, that it has so many homonyms, that characters are uniquely suited to it and indeed indispensable, that it allows speakers of different "dialects" to communicate, etc.). At any rate, good discussion.

by beat 8y ago

FabHK 8y ago

> horrendous spelling and grammar issues of English? Sure, English has pretty horrible orthography, arguably the worst among alphabetic languages (though it's not that easy to reform, either, see eg. [1]). But it's still more phonetic than Chinese. Spanish has a beautiful orthography, and pretty close correspondence between written and spoken word. "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 believe Latinization is a good instrument with which to overcome illiteracy." This was said by Mao Zedong (oh, dang, that's so ambiguous, I mean 毛泽东) in 1936, see [2]. "This has led many Chinese in the past to advocate the abolition of characters in favor of an alphabetic system, but such programs have met with little success." [3] So, the idea that the Chinese writing system is too cumbersome is by no means new, or "Western", for what it's worth. > A single book, weighed against observation, isn't proof Well, no. But there is more than a single book, there are decades of discussion and scholarship on this. It's conceivable to me that China could benefit from a move to alphabetic writing, and translations of Classical Chinese into vernacular (and anyone who wants can go study characters and Classical Chinese texts in the original, just like anyone in the West can go learn Latin and ancient Greek and Hebrew and read the classics in the original, or the Bible, for that matter). [1] https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform.htm https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform... [2] http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp171_chinese_writing_reform.pdf http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp171_chinese_writing... [3] http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/VISIBLE_TRACES/curriculum/pdf/CIAessay1.pdf http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/VISIBLE_TRACES/curric...

tivert 8y ago
> Sure, English has pretty horrible orthography, arguably the worst among alphabetic languages (though it's not that easy to reform, either, see eg. [1]). English orthography, summed up, is: all the orthographies from all the languages from all the time periods cobbled together into a monster.
- FabHK 8y ago
  Nicely put.
knolax 8y ago
I don't think quoting Mao is doing your argument any favors. >It's conceivable to me that China could benefit from a move to alphabetic writing, and translations of Classical Chinese into vernacular The issue is not that classical texts become illegible, the issue is that all written language becomes illegible. For example, in the other DeFrancis source you provide, he uses the term "shuangwenzhi", the meaning of which I simply could not figure out. I saw the English "digraphia" below, at which point I assume he may have meant "双文zhi" but I am still unclear what he meant by "zhi". As of right now only 66% of the phrase he used has any semantical meaning and I am still unclear as to what he meant to say by "shuangwenzhi". Without the English translation I don't think I would've deduced any of the semantic meaning of that term. >So, the idea that the Chinese writing system is too cumbersome is by no means new, You are correct, this argument isn't new, it's outdated.
- FabHK 8y ago
  Nicely put :-) The emergence of smart ubiquitous always-connected computers (with Unicode) does change the evaluation maybe. I think one of the fundamental arguments against the Chinese script (it takes about twice as long to learn than alphabetic writing) stands, while others are outdated, indeed (nobody struggles with building Chinese typewriters anymore). However, there are many arguments put forward against switching to an alphabetic script that strike me as misguided (that the Chinese language is so special, that it has so many homonyms, that characters are uniquely suited to it and indeed indispensable, that it allows speakers of different "dialects" to communicate, etc.). At any rate, good discussion.