4 ms·

> Instead we'll use it only for king, which will be the phonetic for this set, and add little signs called radicals to distinguish the rest This is something I

> Instead we'll use it only for king, which will be the phonetic for this set, and add little signs called radicals to distinguish the rest This is something I would dearly enjoy to have a genuine expert opinion on. I've looked at some research[0] (§1.3 in particular), and as far as I understand, the idea that radicals are essentially/purely phonetic doesn't match with historical records. Meaning, if I understand correctly, characters used to be systematically considered as semantic combinations, with authors "debating" about the proper way to interpret some characters (again, see §1.3 where Xu Shen proposes different interpretations than Confucius's). [0]: http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/1513/bottero.wen_zi.pdf http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/1513/bottero.wen_zi.pdf

CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
I've always learned that there are sound components and meaning components, radicals are just an afterthought to make dictionairies work. I don't think we need to look too much about what ancient scholars thought about characters, they were not around when the characters were created, were not trained to do science and didn't know as much about the evolution of languages as us.
- mbivert 2y ago
  > I've always learned that there are sound components and meaning components The Shuowen indeed already mentions sounds. But the fact that there are sound components isn't contradictory with them being also semantic. > I don't think we need to look too much about what ancient scholars thought about characters Let's say that I enjoy the study of ancient thought processes, and that some of it seems to be recorded in etymology & the like. > were not trained to do science I believe their approaches were different, more "naive" perhaps, which might be the source of confusion. Let me give you and example where we currently fall short, and where they did not. Consider political organisation: from Plato (The Republic) we knew that they studied the way one political system changes to another, and studied the causes of this evolution. Yet, the overwhelming majority of contemporary people have been "in-doctrinated" to think that democracy is paramount. Not only are we disregarding history and previous data, but most businesses, where we all spend a considerable amount of time, for subsistence, are fundamentally non-democratic: we're also severely inconsistent. Perhaps ancient Greeks didn't had modern means (e.g. peer-reviewed papers, social "sciences"), but they nevertheless captured the jest of it, while we're essentially not.
  - CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
    >But the fact that there are sound components isn't contradictory with them being also semantic No, I mean only sound, not semantic. >Perhaps ancient Greeks didn't had modern means (e.g. peer-reviewed papers, social "sciences"), but they nevertheless captured the jest of it, while we're essentially not. You're making a very unfair comparaison, the average ancient Greek did know even less about politics than we did. I don't follow your conclusion at all.
    - mbivert 2y ago
      > No, I mean only sound, not semantic. But that's my point regarding the paper mentioned above: I have the impression that this viewpoint doesn't match with the way old beards used the language: > In other words in each of these quotations, the author uses the graphic structure of a character to represent a key notion in the discursive reasoning to support or confirm a reality or a fact. The meaning of the character can be systematically related to the meaning of the graphic components > [...] > According to these texts, characters are analysed into pure semantic components: “west” and “rice” for “grain”; “cereal,” “entering” “rice” for “broomcorn millet”; “eight” and “ten” for “tree,” and the choice of the components is essentially explained in terms of the Yin/Yang and Five Elements theories. Of course, I am well aware of the modern viewpoint, which disregards such systematic semantic interpretations, but I am wondering whether I understand the paper correctly: « were really characters components always understood semantically in the past? » And I am cautiously wondering about it, precisely because all Chinese speakers I've talked to shrugs the idea off (« am I missing something? »). > You're making a very unfair comparaison Alright, but we were talking about ancient scholars, it seems fair to compare them to modern scholars. Let me try to rephrase myself. My point was multiple: (1) ancient scholars were trained to do science, just not the way we do (2) not being "trained to do science" in the modern sense isn't sufficient to disregard their viewpoint; (2') the converse is also true: being "trained to do science" in the modern sense isn't sufficient to validate a viewpoint. Example: many trained scientists or engineers will hold democracy in high-esteem despite the previous "research" & history. That's to say, I believe it's well worth studying their viewpoints, despite the fact that they "weren't trained to do science," as commonly understood today.

CorrectHorseBat 2y ago

I've always learned that there are sound components and meaning components, radicals are just an afterthought to make dictionairies work. I don't think we need to look too much about what ancient scholars thought about characters, they were not around when the characters were created, were not trained to do science and didn't know as much about the evolution of languages as us.

mbivert 2y ago
> I've always learned that there are sound components and meaning components The Shuowen indeed already mentions sounds. But the fact that there are sound components isn't contradictory with them being also semantic. > I don't think we need to look too much about what ancient scholars thought about characters Let's say that I enjoy the study of ancient thought processes, and that some of it seems to be recorded in etymology & the like. > were not trained to do science I believe their approaches were different, more "naive" perhaps, which might be the source of confusion. Let me give you and example where we currently fall short, and where they did not. Consider political organisation: from Plato (The Republic) we knew that they studied the way one political system changes to another, and studied the causes of this evolution. Yet, the overwhelming majority of contemporary people have been "in-doctrinated" to think that democracy is paramount. Not only are we disregarding history and previous data, but most businesses, where we all spend a considerable amount of time, for subsistence, are fundamentally non-democratic: we're also severely inconsistent. Perhaps ancient Greeks didn't had modern means (e.g. peer-reviewed papers, social "sciences"), but they nevertheless captured the jest of it, while we're essentially not.
- CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
  >But the fact that there are sound components isn't contradictory with them being also semantic No, I mean only sound, not semantic. >Perhaps ancient Greeks didn't had modern means (e.g. peer-reviewed papers, social "sciences"), but they nevertheless captured the jest of it, while we're essentially not. You're making a very unfair comparaison, the average ancient Greek did know even less about politics than we did. I don't follow your conclusion at all.
  - mbivert 2y ago
    > No, I mean only sound, not semantic. But that's my point regarding the paper mentioned above: I have the impression that this viewpoint doesn't match with the way old beards used the language: > In other words in each of these quotations, the author uses the graphic structure of a character to represent a key notion in the discursive reasoning to support or confirm a reality or a fact. The meaning of the character can be systematically related to the meaning of the graphic components > [...] > According to these texts, characters are analysed into pure semantic components: “west” and “rice” for “grain”; “cereal,” “entering” “rice” for “broomcorn millet”; “eight” and “ten” for “tree,” and the choice of the components is essentially explained in terms of the Yin/Yang and Five Elements theories. Of course, I am well aware of the modern viewpoint, which disregards such systematic semantic interpretations, but I am wondering whether I understand the paper correctly: « were really characters components always understood semantically in the past? » And I am cautiously wondering about it, precisely because all Chinese speakers I've talked to shrugs the idea off (« am I missing something? »). > You're making a very unfair comparaison Alright, but we were talking about ancient scholars, it seems fair to compare them to modern scholars. Let me try to rephrase myself. My point was multiple: (1) ancient scholars were trained to do science, just not the way we do (2) not being "trained to do science" in the modern sense isn't sufficient to disregard their viewpoint; (2') the converse is also true: being "trained to do science" in the modern sense isn't sufficient to validate a viewpoint. Example: many trained scientists or engineers will hold democracy in high-esteem despite the previous "research" & history. That's to say, I believe it's well worth studying their viewpoints, despite the fact that they "weren't trained to do science," as commonly understood today.