4 ms·

I was reading a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Metal_Colossi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Metal_Colossi) and was struck by the dif

I was reading a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Metal_Colossi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Metal_Colossi) and was struck by the difference in length of the Chinese quotes and translations. E.g.: 收天下兵, 聚之咸陽, 銷以為鍾鐻金人十二, 重各千石, 置廷宮中. 一法度衡石丈尺. 車同軌. 書同文字. was translated into He collected the weapons of All-Under-Heaven in Xianyang, and cast them into twelve bronze figures of the type of bell stands, each 1000 dan [about 30 tons] in weight, and displayed them in the palace. He unified the law, weights and measurements, standardized the axle width of carriages, and standardized the writing system.

cwilby 2y ago
I just started learning Chinese about 2 months ago, to me it seems they stuff whole concepts into characters. For example, "去" (pronounced "Qú") is "going to the". "超市" (prounced "Chao Shi") is "supermarket" "去超市" (pronounced "Qú Chao Shi") is "going to the supermarket". 3 syllables vs 7 syllables. To me, it seems that instead of composing letters into words to convey meaning, they have more letters that are mini-words unto themselves.
- mook 2y ago
  Don't forget all the abbreviation. "超市", supermarket, is abbreviated from "超級", super, and "市場", market. The equivalent in English would be "sup-mark" or something along those lines. (Or in Japanese, just "super".)
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Since we're now talking about verbal rather than written: > No matter how fast or slow, how simple or complex, each language gravitated toward an average rate of 39.15 bits per second, they report today in Science Advances. -- https://www.science.org/content/article/human-speech-may-have-universal-transmission-rate-39-bits-second https://www.science.org/content/article/human-speech-may-hav...
    - cwilby 2y ago
      This tracks - it's difficult to speak at the same pace in Chinese as I can English. That said - are those 39.15 bits plaintext? Compressed? Encrypted? The size of a word does not correlate with it's concept - I still posit that some languages can transfer concepts faster than others, minus our baud rate. Edit: Or, perhaps I am not as gifted an English speaker as my bias has presumed :| For example, I had to lookup "syntagmatic".
- shxdsg 2y ago
  Actually “去” is pronounced “Qù”
  - cwilby 2y ago
    Thank you
yongjik 2y ago
I don't speak Chinese, but my understanding is that it's not a totally fair comparison: classical Chinese text was often highly abbreviated, to such a degree that you have to be an expert historian to interpret it correctly. For example, the characters comprising your example text starts like: collect (收) [from] [all] soldiers (兵) under the sky (天下), gather (聚) at(?) (之) Xianyang (咸陽), melt (銷) and (以) become(?) (為) bell-stand (鍾鐻) metal (金) person (人) twelve (十二) ... As you can see, the English "translation" is more like an annotated translation. E.g., the original doesn't say who did it, or what he collected from soldiers: we just inferred "weapon" because what else could be melted into statues? Similarly, "standardized the axle width of carriages" is just: cart (車) same (同) axle width (軌). We're supposed to infer "standardized" because we are talking about the Emperor's deeds.
inkyoto 2y ago
Classical Chinese (Ancient or Old Chinese – multiple terms are used), the language the quote was written in that predates Middle Chinese and, by extension all modern Chinese languages, had a very different grammar with many features of it having all but disappeared from all Chinese languages. Classical Chinese texts are incomprehensible to a modern Chinese person who has not invested sufficient amounts of time and effort into completing Classical Chinese studies first. There is a book, «Classical Chinese for everyone: a guide for absolute beginners» by Bryan W. van Norden that is easy to read and gives a gentle introduction into Classical Chinese. The old grammar and vocabulary coupled with the Chinese style of writing metaphorically with an abundant application of allusions and with the same Chinese characters having multiple unrelated meanings, makes Ancient Chinese texts very terse and notoriously difficult to understand even for the educated Chinese people.

cwilby 2y ago

I just started learning Chinese about 2 months ago, to me it seems they stuff whole concepts into characters. For example, "去" (pronounced "Qú") is "going to the". "超市" (prounced "Chao Shi") is "supermarket" "去超市" (pronounced "Qú Chao Shi") is "going to the supermarket". 3 syllables vs 7 syllables. To me, it seems that instead of composing letters into words to convey meaning, they have more letters that are mini-words unto themselves.

mook 2y ago
Don't forget all the abbreviation. "超市", supermarket, is abbreviated from "超級", super, and "市場", market. The equivalent in English would be "sup-mark" or something along those lines. (Or in Japanese, just "super".)
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Since we're now talking about verbal rather than written: > No matter how fast or slow, how simple or complex, each language gravitated toward an average rate of 39.15 bits per second, they report today in Science Advances. -- https://www.science.org/content/article/human-speech-may-have-universal-transmission-rate-39-bits-second https://www.science.org/content/article/human-speech-may-hav...
  - cwilby 2y ago
    This tracks - it's difficult to speak at the same pace in Chinese as I can English. That said - are those 39.15 bits plaintext? Compressed? Encrypted? The size of a word does not correlate with it's concept - I still posit that some languages can transfer concepts faster than others, minus our baud rate. Edit: Or, perhaps I am not as gifted an English speaker as my bias has presumed :| For example, I had to lookup "syntagmatic".
shxdsg 2y ago
Actually “去” is pronounced “Qù”
- cwilby 2y ago
  Thank you

yongjik 2y ago

I don't speak Chinese, but my understanding is that it's not a totally fair comparison: classical Chinese text was often highly abbreviated, to such a degree that you have to be an expert historian to interpret it correctly. For example, the characters comprising your example text starts like: collect (收) [from] [all] soldiers (兵) under the sky (天下), gather (聚) at(?) (之) Xianyang (咸陽), melt (銷) and (以) become(?) (為) bell-stand (鍾鐻) metal (金) person (人) twelve (十二) ... As you can see, the English "translation" is more like an annotated translation. E.g., the original doesn't say who did it, or what he collected from soldiers: we just inferred "weapon" because what else could be melted into statues? Similarly, "standardized the axle width of carriages" is just: cart (車) same (同) axle width (軌). We're supposed to infer "standardized" because we are talking about the Emperor's deeds.

inkyoto 2y ago

Classical Chinese (Ancient or Old Chinese – multiple terms are used), the language the quote was written in that predates Middle Chinese and, by extension all modern Chinese languages, had a very different grammar with many features of it having all but disappeared from all Chinese languages. Classical Chinese texts are incomprehensible to a modern Chinese person who has not invested sufficient amounts of time and effort into completing Classical Chinese studies first. There is a book, «Classical Chinese for everyone: a guide for absolute beginners» by Bryan W. van Norden that is easy to read and gives a gentle introduction into Classical Chinese. The old grammar and vocabulary coupled with the Chinese style of writing metaphorically with an abundant application of allusions and with the same Chinese characters having multiple unrelated meanings, makes Ancient Chinese texts very terse and notoriously difficult to understand even for the educated Chinese people.