The orthography of Mandarin and Japanese includes an alphabet consisting of thousands of characters, the majority of which comprise dozens of strokes. Although East Asian people have higher IQ scores on average, we are not superhuman - our memory capacity is bound by human limits, and the decreased frequency of actually writing kanji on paper has naturally resulted in our forgetting how to write many of them. Is this surprising?
Furthermore, orthography is not part of language in a fundamental sense - it's merely a useful tool that accompanies a language. Therefore, I do not see the writing system becoming less stable as a significant issue. Consider Korea as an example: they used to use kanji in their orthography but have almost completely eliminated it with virtually no adverse effects. While laypeople often assume orthography is an integral part of a language, this is just not the case from the linguistic perspective.
So I would say this text is biased by the "western" view of the writer, something that could be categorized as "Orientalism". A study about this phenomenon is valid, is important. But this post is not a good study.
Edit. I should have realized that. I just came back from China and my kids were watching a children's show with the following subtitles: "一二一二一二一二一二一二一二一二一二一二". Took me a while to realize the subtitles were not broken. The characters were marching chanting "one two one two..." :)
I tried the same with Google's IME and I couldn't use digits as input, like the Japanese IMEs let you do. I could find the character for 叁 quickly enough, but 壹 was only on the second or third page. Still, I suck at Chinese and I found it.
Now, writing these characters is an entirely different story. I think any character that's rarely written and appears only in one common word runs the risky of being forgotten, even if that word is quite simple and used on a day-to-day basis. A word like 喷嚏 (sneeze) in Chinese or 薔薇 (rose) in Japanese fit the bill.
The Japanese fallback, in case you forgot the character is quite simple: you'd just use either Katakana or Hiragana with different connotations[1]. I'm not quite sure what the fallback would be in Chinese, but I guess that would often be picking another character with a close or same pronunciation, as Chinese speakers often do on purpose as a sort of pun.
I also expect there are still fewer cases of "character amnesia" in China than Japan, since the fallback mechanism is simpler and more standardized in Japan, and children are taught far less Kanji in school than their counterparts in Mainland China, Hong Kong or Taiwan.
[1] While Hiragana gives a familiar connotation, writing the word as バラ in Katakana is "more official", if anything, since names of flora and fauna are conventionally written using Katakana in official contexts, especially when you want to use the exact scientific name. This is the equivalent of using Latin names in Western countries, e.g. Rosa hirtula would be サンショウバラ.
Does that work for larger numbers, keep adding strokes?
That's not to say it's never done, but it feels like an outlier. As if a friend found a word too hard to understand and drew a picture instead, and then the author wrote an article about how spelling is so difficult that it leads English speakers to draw words instead of writing them.
But the thing that struck me the most was just how confused people were when I asked them about it. It just didn't seem to be anything that was an actual issue for them.
The analogy I've used in the past is, you read kanji with your mind but you write them with your hand, so being unable to remember a kanji is more akin to forgetting a guitar chord or a keyboard shortcut - if your hands stop making the motions, you'll eventually forget them.
In my experience, most people of my generation have generally forgot and usually just write "lower case letters but big" or block letters.
So yeah, I don't think there's anything inherently chinese about forgetting writing things you don't use.
[0] https://www.genitorialmente.it/2016/10/alfabeto-corsivo-maiu...
I think digital is a big crutch for Japanese/Chinese because you have input methods that help you write what you want to say, so you don't actually need to remember how to write kanji as much in daily life.
It happens in a English too, where you see a chunk of letters and mis-predict which word they represent in a way which affects its meaning [0], and sometimes that will also affect pronunciation. [1]
An example from the link:
> "The complex houses married and single soldiers and their families."
A reader linearly scanning along doesn't know whether "complex" is an adjective or a noun, and then whether "houses" is a noun or a verb. I'm pretty sure all human languages have similar problems where a certain amount of look-ahead or backtracking is necessary.
For another example to highlight pronunciation changes, consider the ambiguity of:
"I saw the rhino live in the zoo."
That could mean that the rhino was doing the verb of living, in which it rhymes with "give", or it could also mean that the speaker was seeing it in-person, in which case it rhymes with "drive".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...
https://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/stonelion.php
Both rely on intonation (in addition to volume and pauses) for disambiguation, but the fun trick is that in the Chinese version the intonation is an integral part of the lexeme (i.e. it distinguishes between "words").
But I have to say, these kind of sentences (and full-fledged poems) are quite a different beast from simple cases of garden path sentences or syntactic ambiguity[1]. The poem lion-eating poet and the "buffalo buffalo buffalo..." sentence are both highly contrived and unlikely to be understood correctly on the first few goes even with the perfect prosody. They are cool "language hacks", but they do not occur in daily language and I personally believe (although I guess die-hard generative linguists would disagree) that they don't teach us very much about the language itself (except for what are the cool artistic possibilities it opens).
Wow.. I had to read that sentence three times before I got it right.
I went to the first link in your comment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence ), selected the Japanese version of the article, and took the first sentence:
> 袋小路文（ふくろこうじぶん）とは、文法的には正しいけれども、誤読が生じやすい書き出しで始まる文のことである。
As is usual for Japanese, this sentence contains a mix of Chinese(-origin) ("kanji", e.g. 袋 小 路 文 法 的) as well as Japanese phonetic ("kana", e.g. ふくろこうじぶん) characters. Usually, when in a multi-kanji word, kanji are pronounced with (a time-changed version of) Chinese pronunciation. For example, 文法 is "bun-pou", not "fumi-nori" or something else. However, the first character of the article title (fukurokoubunji), 袋, is "fukuro" here despite being in a four-kanji word. Further, 小 is "kou" here, which is nonstandard enough that its dictionary entry does not even list it as a possible pronunciation! [1] Then 路文 are both in Chinese pronunciation (ji-bun), but this does not necessarily make sense because the word is not split in two down the middle, but instead as 袋-小路-文 (bag-lane-sentence, where bag-lane is English cul-de-sac / blind alley). [2]
Now fukurokoubunji is a bit of a specialised word, so it might not be a great example. But in the rest of the sentence, we find 文, which is always pronounced "bun" (sentence) here, even when appearing separately, but could also (though more rarely) have been "fumi" (letter) — nothing but semantical context helps distinguish. Then we have 正しい "tada-shi-i", where 正 could have been "sei" as in 正確 "sei-kaku" (accurate) or "shou" as in 正直 "shou-jiki" (honest), but it isn't just because しい come after. Similarly, 生 in 生じやすい is "shou"(-ji-ya-su-i), which is conjugated from the base form 生じる "shou-ji-ru" and could have been "u" (生まれる "u-ma-re-ru") or "sei" (先生 "sen-sei") or "i" (生きる "i-ki-ru") or more (生 is somewhat infamous for having many readings). And I could go on: 書 could be "syo" (文書 "bun-syo") but is "ka" (書き出して "ka-ki-da-shi-te" conjugated from 書く "ka-ku").
This is a bit like the comments elsewhere here noting that the Chinese word for "sneeze" is a bad example because it happens to have so uncommon characters in it — and then people point to examples like "onomatopoeia" and "diarrhoea" as similar tricky examples in English. I can't comment on Chinese, but existence does not necessarily say much about frequency.
[1]: https://jisho.org/search/%E5%B0%8F%20%23kanji — Kun are the Japanese readings (chiisai, ko, o, sa), and On are the Chinese readings (only "shou" in this case)
[2]: This analysis of 袋小路文 is not completely etymologically honest. By the etymology ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B0%8F%E8%B7%AF#Etymology_... ), we see that the "kouji" pronunciation of 小路 is really a corruption of ancient "ko-michi", which is a consistent Japanese-Japanese reading of the two characters. However, because "ji" is also an (uncommon) Chinese reading of 路, if you don't know the etymology of the word, the re-analysis is appropriate in the context of how hard it is to read the written language.
It's not a Chinese reading at all (as you can tell because it's ... wildly out of place with the the actual Chinese-derived readings ろ・る, onyomi are supposed to have semi-regular correspondences with each other and with Chinese Chinese readings). It's really just rendaku of ち, the basic root of fossilized compound みち (with still-salient prefix "honorific" み).
But most importantly, you never really see either 袋 or 小路 and expect them to have any other readings; maybe you'd expect しょうろ if you don't know the latter, but unless you're already literate in a Chinese or are blindly memorizing kanji tables, the other reading of 袋 (たい) probably isn't even salient, because it's one of those kanji that almost always takes its kunyomi even in compounds.
Side note, the line about u-onbin kind of buries the implication that this is a loanword from western Japanese, which is the culprit of several quasi-systematic but unevenly distributed divergences from regular sound changes.
So perhaps my analysis of 袋小路文 wasn't very accurate at all. Yet I hope my point about 正, 生, 書, etc. stands.
Might also mean; "Noted native-American zoologist 'I Saw The Rhino' lives at the zoo"
English is phonetic, it just borrows its pronunciation rules from many differing (and sometimes directly opposed) other languages.
Then there’s a percentage where they’re just direct borrowings from other languages and you need to have an idea of how that language pronounces words (especially French), so really only 10-15% or so of English words end up being true exceptions.
To do this you need to know 56(!) rules.
I think this actually demonstrates how complex English pronunciation actually is.
As a non native speaker of English, and a native speaker of a phonetic language, I strongly object to the notion that it's easy to guess English word pronunciation by just reading it.
There's a simple and consistent way to compare languages in this way too, too: train a neural net to map spelling to pronunciation on one half of the dictionary, then test it on the other half. The more complicated and less consistent the orthography is, the more mistakes it'll make. People have in fact done this exact experiment, and English scores extremely poorly in it; for spelling, closer to Chinese, in fact, than many other European languages: https://aclanthology.org/2021.sigtyp-1.1/
https://jochenenglish.de/misc/dearest_creature.pdf
The joy of English pronunciation
George Nolst Trenit´e (1870–1946)
1 The text
Dearest creature in creation
Studying English pronunciation,
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse.
I will keep you, Susy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy;
Tear in eye, your dress you’ll tear;
Queer, fair seer, hear my prayer.
Pray, console your loving poet,
Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!
Just compare heart, hear and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word.
Sword and sward, retain and Britain
(Mind the latter how it’s written).
Made has not the sound of bade,
Say—said, pay—paid, laid but plaid.
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as vague and ague,
But be careful how you speak,
Say: gush, bush, steak, streak, break, bleak,
Previous, precious, fuchsia, via,
Recipe, pipe, studding-sail, choir;
Woven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.
Say, expecting fraud and trickery:
1
Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,
Branch, ranch, measles, topsails, aisles,
Missiles, similes, reviles.
... (7 pages of pain follow) ...
and the the Oxford and US pronunciation (at the time, it has changed since) in phonetic.
Does a language stop being phonetic when you have to include other information provided by the rest of the word? I'm not a linguist by any means, but "ough" being pronounced a couple different ways depending how it's used doesn't seem like it'd preclude the language from being considered phonetic in general.
I can only write Chinese via an IME these days. For one, I’m left handed so writing characters was always a struggle since stroke order worked against me, but it’s mostly how I only use Chinese anyways.
I told my wife our kid should learn to write via an IME as well and she was just horrified about that, though. None of the teaching material really supports it.
The “ou” diphthong in “hound” and “double” or “would” is pronounced differently. Or “ieu” in “lieutenant” vs “lieu”. Or “oo” in “poor” vs “root” Or “berry” in “berry” vs “strawberry”
I could go on forever. There’s no other western language I know of that behaves like that.
Indeed, there has been a tendency over the centuries, particularly in the US, to move towards writing words how they sound or pronouncing words how they're written. Lieutenant is an interesting example, since in the UK we pronounce that "lef-tenant" traditionally, but the US moved to the (IMO superior) "lieu-tenant". Nowadays, most young people would probably use the US pronunciation.
I do take some slight umbrage with the implication that some people seem to be making in this thread that language features can't be criticised or that one language can't be better than another. I'm don't see why this would necessarily be true. Even with spoken languages. There are a ton of annoying aspects to English that simply aren't issues in other languages, and I think it's fair to criticise other languages for their failings too. This is especially true of writing systems, which are human inventions rather than something we learn intuitively.
Logographic/logo-syllabic orthographies are harder to learn and remain proficient at than alphabets/abjads, for native speakers and second language learners alike. Alphabets are an innovation that improved on ancient orthographies and enabled a wider range of people to be able to communicate as easily by writing as they do by speaking. Besides the issue mentioned in the article, the writing systems in China/Japan are associated with other issues we rarely see here. Even dictionaries are a non-obvious challenge with logographic languages, which has resulted in several competing ways to sort words.
> “berry” in “berry” vs “strawberry”
Am I misunderstanding the point you are making or is my pronunciation just off? I would pronounce both parts of both examples the same.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/lieut...
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/straw...
Only in some dialects, not in the standard form.
The alphabet is a pretty awesome invention (alphabet > kana-style syllabary > kanji-style logography) but English writing is at least as complex as JP writing, just in different dimensions.
JP's phonetics, for example, are dead simple compared to English's, but they do a good job making up for it by having a few thousand Kanji.
I'm not so sure about that. Do you know about pitch accent?
Japanese, despite being extremely logical and so beautiful in so many ways, is still hard to learn for me, and of course learning the writing system is not done in the blink of an eye (unlike the Latin-based writing system we use), but pitch accent isn't really the problem here.
Are you sure about that?
"Ghoti" is mentioned a few times there, but basically "fish" is a nonsensical pronunciation that breaks several rules. There's a reason (well, a few reasons) why if you ask English speakers how to pronounce "ghoti" and they've never seen it before, they'll probably all guess some variation of "go-tee" or "go-tie".
Some context-dependent examples: "read": /ɹid/ vs. /ɹɛd/; "lead": /lid/ vs. /lɛd/ (plumbum); "desert": /ˈdɛz.ɚt/ vs. /dɪˈzɝt/.
It doesn't matter. It won't be a top-down decision. It'll just be a long, slow progression of people slowly realizing that writing in kanji for this character is annoying, so maybe I'll just write it phonetically, and then that character, and then there will be a year or two where there's a phase change and suddenly it's everywhere, even though nobody decided.
And people will complain and whine and moan about the "beauty" of the kanji disappearing. And even though they have a point, it won't matter because the kanji will still be there as much as they ever were, and all one has to do is go study them... but they won't. Because complaining about how other people should keep doing something hard is easy, but actually doing the hard thing yourself is hard, and the vast, vast majority of the complainers won't actually do anything about it other than complain, but take the easier options themselves, just maybe a year or two later than others.
I have no beef with the people taking the easier option. Life is full of things to spend effort on and we can't give maximum effort to all of them. I am annoyed at people who complain about how other people can do vast, vast quantities of work so they can briefly feel slightly better about themselves in some way.
Kanji is not just “harder”. It’s better.
But that does not on its own mean that Japanese couldn't evolve out of Kanji. It is not the case that if Kanji goes away, the entire rest of the language MUST stay static. It in fact would not. It would begin a multi-decade process of adjustment to the new issues.
It has happened before in other contexts, and it will happen again. There's a lot of signs that Chinese is on the verge of such a change (on a decadal time scale), which carries somewhat different baggage, but roughly the same amount of it.
What really throws the wrench into the whole thing is computers, and I don't just mean that it will simply speed up or slow down such a change, but that it could send all of this flying out in an entirely new direction. If we're all wearing augmented reality goggles full time in 20 years, what will happen to ideograms if every ideogram you see comes with floating pronunciation guides, and your googles can also translate phonetic spellings transparently in real time back into kanji/ideograms? Could languages like English start growing something like ideograms, presumably descended from modern-day emoji, if computers erase the disadvantages of emoji that cause languages to largely go alphabetic thousands of years ago?
What I absolutely do know is this: In 50 years, no language will be the same as it is today. Guessing what the changes will be, especially in a rapidly evolving novel landscape, is really hard. I don't think kanji/ideograms being seriously diminished is off the table.
Not only are kanji needlessly complex because of history, there's also extra work like stroke order (another needlessly "important" thing).
Hira/kata is so much easier, but I ended up giving up the language after I both realised that I wouldn't live there and that they're just romanising so much anyways.
Imo, the biggest efficiency gain from kanji comes from reading. Meaning is grasped instantly because you don’t need to worry about phonetics. Pronunciation follows a general set of rules, such that even when encountering new words you can guess at how they’re pronounced, while grasping meaning at a glance.
To compare it to latin languages, the difference is like going from reading everything out loud to reading silently.
I'd agree with you if you'd said Korean, where the makeup of the character has direct rules for pronouncing it, if you learn the simple rules then you can read any Korean character - this is the middle ground they should drop kanji for, imo
But then again.. it's that other problem: Reading when there's kanji is much faster. Even for beginners. If you don't understand a word in kanji then it doesn't work, but as soon as you understand it it's way easier and faster to read.
Really not hard to do. A symbol on the syllable bearing the pitch accent would solve the issue
> And then there are the words with little or no pitch accent difference, only context
What's happened is that effectively a written "shorthand" has emerged that has evolved somewhat separately from how people speak. Losing kanji would mean losing this shorthand, in favor of writing more closely akin to the way people actually speak, but this is how the vast majority of written languages work. Preserving this shorthand seems like thin gruel to justify the complexity of kanji.
I wouldn't compare kanji to shorthand. Shorthand is typically not easy to read, normal writing is easier. Reading written, fully-spelled English is fast. Reading hiragana is slow (and I've been reading hiragana for a long time)- it's slow, and mentally much harder than reading with kanji. The only issue (and that is of course an issue, but tiny compared to Chinese) is that there's a lot to learn before everything can be read fluently. But reading only hiragana is just.. too hard, for any serious amount of text. It's not hiragana per se, it's the language itself with its limited set of phonemes which contributes to the difficulty.
> Reading hiragana is slow (and I've been reading hiragana for a long time)- it's slow, and mentally much harder than reading with kanji.
What's the ratio of hiragana-only text that you read compared to Kanji? And does the hiragana text uses spaces between words? My strong suspicion is "low" and "no", respectively. Familiarity breeds comfort with any writing system, and word breaks are a fabulous ergonomic tool for easing reading.
Could part of that be due to the fact that your vocabulary was also increasing at that time?
Perhaps related is the abjad used in Arabic and Farsi. Vowels are written with diacritics above or below the main part of the character, which represents a consonant. However, in modern Arabic, the vowels are rarely written and are inferred from context.
The bigger problem for Japanese is the absence of spacing between words. Even if you write everything in hiragana with spacing, it's significantly slower to read than when kanji is present without spacing. The mixing of kana and kanji usually provides a hint as to where word boundaries are, because there are few cases where kana is followed by kanji in the same word (eg お and ご), and kana which follows the kanji are most often a continuation of the word (okurigana) or a particle. Some words are usually written in kana despite having kanji available, and their presence can sometimes make it more difficult to read because they might look ambiguous with a particle or okurigana, and you have to figure out from context what was intended, which slows down reading slightly.
As for "translate in real time", that won't happen because from Japanese to English it would mean to translate before the sentence is done, knowing the intention of the speaker before the speaker says anything. For the simple reason that in Japanese the verb comes at the end while in languages like English it's typically the second word. Using an AI wouldn't be any better than when I used to translate for my wife and the other way around. It works but is hardly satisfactory for anything more than occasionally (speak, wait to hear the translation, speak back, ditto).
A Star Trek universal transparent real-time translator will not happen.
As for dyslexia.. I don't see the connection. Dyslexia is a problem of reading and writing, and it exists independent of the language, and also the writing system (it has been sometimes claimed that Japanese children are less affected by dyslexia than people learning Latin-based languages, and I for some time kind of thought so too.. but I have since seen multiple cases of dyslexia related to Japanese as well, it's the exact same problem)
Rates of dyslexia are much higher in countries with less phonetic spelling systems. The general conclusion from this is that, while dyslexia may exist at equal rates in countries with phonetic spelling, its effects are diminished to the point where many individuals with it can read unimpaird.
> A Star Trek universal transparent real-time translator will not happen.
I never claimed it would. A delay of a few seconds between speech and translation is acceptable, much the same way actual translators do it.
As an individual I only have anecdotal "evidence", but for what it's worth - I already mentioned that I've seen dyslexia in Japanese children, but not only that - I've also seen that dyslectic bi-lingual children have dyslexia both in Japanese and in their European language.
Unless I see real evidence I'll continue to assume that dyslexia is simply under-reported in e.g. Japan. As has been the case for so many other things - nobody speaks of lactose intolerance in Japan, though it obviously exists.
I don't think anyone today would seriously argue that Hanja is preferable, though. In retrospect, it's clear that the benefits of easily accessible universal literacy are too substantial to ignore for the sake of tradition.
It's necessary to use Hanja today in educated contexts because Hangul has too many homophones, and most educated (technical, literary, scientific) vocabulary has a Sinitic origin and therefore are more homophonic than typical Korean words.
I don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but it really is surprising that all these pro-kanji comments seem to ignore the concept of context altogether. It's very circular reasoning being used to try and explain why kanji are necessary.
> If this [writing tones] was so easy, pinyin (a standardized writing) would have replaced characters decades ago!
Which is saying that the reason Pinyin has not replaced traditional characters because it cannot accurately transcribe Chinese speech.
Easy to understand for a fluent speaker, but a learner might struggle.
We saw back when we had keypad phones, the youth would write "txt" speak because it was faster to type with 10 digits. I'm pretty sure there was a decline in literacy rate around this time, the youth struggled with spelling because they wrote rarely, but texted frequently. Smartphones fixed that problem, because they provide the full keyboard and auto-correct.
My guess is, if you took the tones out of pinyin, then a generation or two later there would be less literacy. Children would struggle to add the tones even though they know how to speak the word. Writing already contains far less information than speech. Over several more generations, the speech could even change because the written word has lost the tonal information. Compared to the past, we read far more, speak less, and write even less, and most writing has been replaced by typing.
> mchncl lmt xsts t th wdth f sngl xhst prt, t bt 62% f th br dmtr fr rsnbl pstn rng lf.
> Th rd vlv s smpl bt ffctv frm f chck vlv
That's just from a Wikipedia page I have open from earlier. Already quite a bit harder to decipher.
I wonder if there is any evidence of that other than boomers complaining about it.
>Over several more generations, the speech could even change because the written word has lost the tonal information.
That happens automatically with every language already. It's not like a race to the bottom where suddenly no one knows how to communicate though.
>Compared to the past, we read far more, speak less, and write even less, and most writing has been replaced by typing.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Frankly, the whole language seems like such a mess that maybe they should?
I assume it's already done anyway for some terms. Why isn't this more widespread?
Citation needed.
I think that despite lower IQ scores on average South Korea has been consistently beating Japan in go in the recent years, and more importantly they get rid of hanja (Korean version of kanji) from their writing system.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...
Nobody here is defaming Lynn. You can disagree with the appellation (though I find a number of fact-checked publications claiming that he does describe himself that way), but I don't think it's reasonable to call the argument libelous.
That you even dare to quote this pseudo scientific crook is just mind boggling.
Relevant quote:
What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples.
Calling his output research is abhorrent.
But also in most other IQ tests, Ashkenazi Jewish and East Asian people tend to score the highest.
But yes, it stood out to me too, and I'm confused how you're the only person commenting on it.
I wonder if these people justify having a shitty writing mechanism by being smart. "It's so needlessly complex, but we're smart so we can afford it" when in reality if you're smart you want it as simple as possible.
And then he comes on HN and rationalizes the fact that he can't spell. Ironic.
"While men are stronger than women on average, we are not superhuman" <- To me, this doesn't seem condescending. Not 100% sure why - perhaps because the difference in the trait (between men and women) is much larger?
"While left-leaning people are smarter than right-leaning on average, we're not superhuman" <- This definitely does seem condescending - perhaps because the skill in question is intelligence, and the statement reads as "You're stupider than me, but please strain your brain to understand".
"While rich people have higher IQ scores on average, we're not superhuman" <- I find this a bit less condescending than the previous one, not sure why. But still annoying for the same reason as previous.
"While whites are stronger than east asians on average, we're not superhuman" <- Again condescending and annoying, but I still think the intelligence statements are more grating.
My conclusion - the statement is irritating because it carries with it an implication people would be surprised Asian people can forget things too. Additionally, it gives the intention that because other groups are stupider, it needs spelling out in simple terms that they're not godly intellects.
Hanja, in daily life, has largely disappeared from colloquial Korean for those under 40 or so. It's still preserved in some formal settings like medicine and law, and is used to appeal to older generations. I've been with my wife long enough to remember when Hanja was still very common to see on newspapers.
There are some small vestigial problem with eliminating from daily life, the large number of monosyllabic Chinese-origin loan words in modern Korean can sometime create ambiguity when written in Hangul. Native Korean speakers will sometimes disambiguate these words by referring to the Hanja, but that's largely disappearing as a habit as well.
Younger Korean generations still learn it in K-12, but it's mostly wasted class time in an already overly crammed education. The kids who focus on it are really geared towards becoming lawyers, and certain kinds of doctors (mostly traditional medicine). STEM focused kids will focus on English instead. As a result there's an active linguistic process occurring where English loan words are slowly replacing Chinese-origin words and concepts in active and modern Korean.
I don't too much about Japanese, but I do have a sense from native speakers that writing the same words in the four major writing systems offers some sense of nuance to how close a reader might be to a concept, or how they might consider it in various ways. From visits there, I did notice the expectation that native speakers could seamlessly read and jump between the systems, often within the same sentence. But I also understand that the pronunciation of Kanji is somewhat nonstandard, and it's not immediately clear how to say something written purely in Kanji (sometimes this is supported by providing explanatory superscripts in another system next to the Kanji). Why persist with this? I suppose it's the nuance that's being conveyed, and this nuance is still prized among native Japanese speakers.
I do get the sense that China has no particular plans on moving away from the system, as it's a unifying source of national identity (and has been for centuries). And they really have very few other options. The main problem is that China is a highly linguistically diverse country, and Chinese offers the ability to transmit ideas instead of sounds which allows speakers of non-mutually-intelligible "dialects" to communicate. Moving to a Latinate system or even to Zhuyin Fuhao (Bopomofo) encodes sounds, not ideas, and risks fracturing the state. It would only become possible if there was a concerted effort, maybe over a couple generations, to Mandarinize and discourage the use of local dialects, but that would also be highly disruptive. Koreans, Japanese (and other adjacent non-Sino languages like Vietnamese, etc.) escaped this either through a higher level of linguistic uniformity, or strong efforts to standardize or teach a national dialect that the writing system (Hangul, Chữ Quốc ngữ, Hiragana, etc.) could amplify.
Does he? Read his last paragraph.
Y U gna be late
It's grammatically completely incorrect. But you can still understand it.
When it comes to chinese/japanese characters, many have the same phonetic reading. So you can do something similar, while selecting the wrong characters.
It's not "the parents" can't read it. It's that people who don't use electronics have a harder time reading it.
Chinese characters also had the benifits of photographic memory, presumably you are trained with the right method. The key is to detach the "listening/speaking" phonetics from the characters, wire your brain directly to visual ideograms along with reading/writing. Plus the grammar don't have conjugation nor declension, without the tense, case, voice, aspect, person, number, gender, mood, animacy, and definiteness and shit, which makes the scripts very fast to parse. I'd argue reading a paragraph of text is extremely fast in Chinese. You can grasp the general meaning from a large chunk of text without sequencially reading every word. It's like one of these novel apps that hightlight important vowel from English sentences for fast reading but still, you have to go to the translation layers of recall - sound - meaning process.
Sadly this art is lost because ideograms are fading in favor of PinYin in cyber world. The rise of shot-vids make literacy an expensive skill.
This is, in fact, the default stance held by most non-CCP linguists. If you read what experts in the Chinese language family say, it's basically "Chinese languages are mutually unintelligible and more distinct than the Romance languages, but because the government of China says they're just dialects and we (as linguists) recognize that the line between dialect and language is basically arbitrary, we'll call them dialects so we can just study the languages and avoid getting sucked into nasty political discussions."
As the saying goes, a language is a dialect with an army and a navy—and this works both to define distinct languages that are otherwise mutually intelligible and to merge dialects that aren't.
This is the correct understanding, even within mainland China, and across all times. The practice of assigning a "mandarin" based on where the capital is/was dates back at least hundreds of years, if not thousands. You can easily Google "Mandarin in Republic of China" to see the Republic of China's attempt to standardize its mandarin. It's really not a CCP issue.
Cf https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E6%B1%89%E8%AF%AD/22488993?fro...
To my mind assimilating Cantonese from Mandarin or vice versa is way easier than French <> Italian or Italian <> Spanish. Spanish <> Portuguese is an interesting contender.
Good luck pretending Mandarin and Cantonese are distinct languages while comparing German and French lol.
I say this as someone with a whole lot of Cantonese dna in my heritage before people get all up in arms. I've personally always figured the barriers to learning both Mandarin and Cantonese was cultural and there are plenty of people in Guangzhou who are perfectly bilingual
I currently speak and understand English, Spanish, Cantonese and Mandarin to varying degrees.
I was forced to take French for 2 years in high school. Never even took it seriously. But because of that, after 6 weeks of private Spanish tutoring, I was able to hold hour+ long conversations with strangers while backpacking LatAm.
I've spoken Cantonese my entire life (but not truly native level). I took an entire year of college level accelerated "Mandarin for Other Chinese Language Speakers". I took it quite seriously. I'm backpacking China right now. I still can't even talk to anyone for more than a couple minutes without having to use a translator or look up words.
> there are plenty of people in Guangzhou who are perfectly bilingual
There are also plenty who move to Guangzhou and Shenzhen and can't pick up Cantonese at all. Turns out having an authoritarian government force Mandarin on you will make the Cantonese speakers bilingual rather quickly.
Admittedly I am atypical in my exposure to languages and I do enjoy linguistics but it seems to me there's a high initial barrier to the dialects but after the initial wall is overcome it just becomes a mapping exercise and a handful of idioms.
I'd be curious to know which bits of Mandarin you find difficult? Vocab? The grammar is close enough that you have a huge advantage over almost every other language in the world especially for the everyday stuff. Reading and writing, if you know traditional you'll pick up simplified in no time (speaking from experience backpacking through China armed with only a paper dictionary we didn't have smartphones back in my day) the Cantonese tones are quite wild but if you can do tones you have a huge advantage of languages which don't have tones.
If I'm allowed an uncharitable take, my experience has been that a lot of people from China don't feel a drive to learn more languages maybe with the sole exception of English. Maybe it's the result of being in a country of a billion+ that all ostensibly speak the same language. I've always found it so frustrating encountering people who move to the UK to study and they can barely hold a conversation in English despite doing A levels, Bachelor's and Masters in the UK sometimes. For all the complaints that dialects are hard a lot of south east Asian people back in the day would pick up a handful of them and often learn the basics of other languages like Bahasa. This kind of mindset and interaction reminds me more of Europe in the sense that people are more adaptable out of necessity
Yes, they are. Modern Hanzi are a very bad phonetic alphabet.
While a minority of characters are indeed pure logograms (小，大，田，etc.), most modern Chinese words are two-syllabic. And syllables often don't have meaningful connection to the meaning of the word: 东西 （"east-west" literally, but means "a thing, object"), some characters have lost _any_ semantic meaning in most words (“子”), and many more characters can only be used as a part of another word ("bound forms", e.g. "据").
Classical Chinese was more logographic and less phonetic, but modern Chinese is not really close to it anymore.
alphabets, universally have one common property: they are sortable.
I challenge you to sort Chinese characters.
This is an idea from James Gleick's The Information. The Chinese may never be able to invent morse code alone, because encoding Chinese scripts is extremely hard, even today (think of all those massive code-points in CJK Unicode, with dups and errors)
Chinese text on the Internet may have some emulation of phonemes, but it's never systematically standarized. It just borrows some aspects here or there.
Chinese characters are in fact definitely sortable. There are multiple keys, the most popular ones being by stroke or by sound.
Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke-based_sorting
1. Less ambiguous order: With classic Kangxi radicals for example, it's not always clear which radical to pick, and there is no clear order when there are multiple characters with the same radical and stroke count. There are other, more modern systems out there, but they all have some ambiguities.
2. Phonetic lookup: If you hear a word and don't know how to write it, you can just try to look it up phonetically. Unless the writing system is extremely perverse (I'm looking at you Ongloti, er, I mean English), you can kinda guess how it's written or at least how it starts. With Chinese characters that is not possible. Sure, Chinese dictionaries often have Pinyin or Zhuyin (Bopomofo) indexes, but Pinyin and Zhuyin are alphabets.
Isn't this just an arbitrary order? Why could I not assign numbers to chinese characters and sort them? I know next to nothing about Chinese.
yeah but there are very limited number of alphabetical letters and commonly agreed order as a convention.
There's no such a thing in Chinese. For example, you can't easily sort names by A-Z in Chinese except PinYin (or Unicode codepoints for what matters)
You can't easily compile an encoding out of it, but for alphabets it's intuitive to invent an index for each letter into dash-dots as morse code. It's extremely difficult to do so for Chinese.
Back to the topic, OP talks about "Character amnesia", if you think Chinese characters as emoji, yeah you talk about actions represented in emoji, but you forgot how it was drawn exactly. You can't sort emoji, and emojis don't generally have a sound.
Sometimes a letter might represent a phoneme cluster (such as the letters "x" and "j" in English, that usually represent the consonant clusters /ks/ and /dʒ/ respectively). Sometimes there might be some ambiguity, like two letters being used for the same sound (both "c" and "k" can produce the sound /k/ in English) or one letter having two different pronunciations ("c" can be pronounced as either /k/ or /s/).
What distinguishes alphabets from all other similar written systems is that a single letter cannot represent a combination of a consonant and a vowel and that vowels can be independently represented by letters.
Other similar scripts are Abjad (like ancient Hebrew), where letters only represent consonants and vowels are implied from the context. The Ancient Hebrew script (which is different than the square Aramaic alphabet used to write Hebrew after circa 300 BC) is a later variant of the Proto-Canaanite script, an abjad which served as a basis to all later European alphabets (Etruscan, Greek, Latin, Runic and Cyrillic) and other Near Eastern alphabets (such as Aramaic, Arabic and Syriac). The only pre-modern alphabet (or abjad or abugida) I'm aware of that is not derived from Proto-Canaanite is Hangul (which is a true alphabet, unlike the two Japanese Kana).
Modern Hebrew and Arabic are mixed-alphabets, since some vowels can be represented by consonants, but not all of the vowels, and the letters that represent a vowel leave some ambiguity with regards to which vowels they represent (or whether they represent a vowel or a consonant).
The next type of similar system is abugida, which covers most of the Ethiopian, South Asian and South-East Asian scripts (Ge'ez, Devanagari, Tamil, Tibetan, Thai, Burmese, Khmer and many more). These are all probably derived from the Aramaic alphabet. In abugidas most letters represent a consonant that comes with default vowel (e.g. क in Devanagari used to write Hindi represents /ka/), but there are special diacritics that can modify a letter to have a different vowel (e.g. कॆ represents /ke/ in Devanagari) or even insert extra consonants or glides before the vowel. These combined forms together with the diacritics can get fairly irregular (especially in Ge'ez) and consonant clusters can become quite unwieldy and then about 80% of the consonants would just get dropped in Tibetan. But that's the general idea.
Then you've got syllabaries: these are pretty straightforward systems, where every letter represent a combination of a consonant (or a consonant cluster) and a vowel (sometimes a diphthong or a vowel with a glide). These scripts require you to remember more letters, but the combinations are simpler and more regular than most alphabets (let alone abjads and abugidas). This is the kind of writing system you see getting developed independently more often than others: Linear B, Japanese Kana, Cherokee, Vai, Yi.
Chinese characters are none of these. Characters never represent a single consonant or a stand-alone vowel that can combine with another consonant. In fact, bar few exceptions (such as 儿 in Mandarin) every character represents a full syllable and does not combine to form a syllable. But Chinese characters are not syllabaries either, since there are many characters that can be used to write each sound and they are not interchangeable with each other. A specific character has to be used based on the meaning of the word. This is how logographic writing systems works and modern Chinese is logographic language par excellence.
To appreciate that you have to compare Chinese characters with other logographic languages. Let's take Akkadian cuneiform (the writing system used for writing Babylonian and Assyrian) for example.
Cuneiform was first developed to write Sumerian, but this language was mostly dead by the times of Hammurabi (18th century BC), and it was a far-gone relic during the heyday of the Neo-Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar II. The Akkadians (i.e. the various Eastern Semitic language speakers of Mesopotamia) needed to write their own language with characters that represented Sumerian concepts, and they used the same methods modern Chinese (or Japanese) speakers use today: using a single Sumerian logogram in its own original meaning (but Akkadian pronounciation), transcribing a word using syllables that represent different words with same sounds and combining multiple logograms to form a new meaning. Like Japanese (but unlike Chinese), Akkadian cuneiform characters can represent a multi-syllable word and multiple logograms can combine to a new word with completely different (and unexpected) pronunciation. Akkadian is also commonly using logograms as word classifier (e.g to indicate geographical locations, gender, type of object and many other things[1]). These classifiers were written, but rarely (if ever?) pronounced.
Egyptian hieroglyphs, which I am even less familiar with than cuneiform, seem to have a far more developed system of classification (determinaties). They also seem to exhibit combinations of logograms to denote new meanigns and phonetic writing from a very early stage. In fact, Egyptian hieroglyphs, the quintessential "pictographic" in contemporary imagination, are mostly phonetic. Each hieroglyphs generally represents a cluster of 1-3 consonants, which probably came from the original pronunciation of the word it represented.
But this is like an abjad! And yes, the Proto-Canaanite abjad probably originated in a simplification of Egyptian hieroglyphs. And like abjads, which dveloped into mixed scripts (like Modern Hebrew and Arabic) and developed optional diacritics, Egyptian hieroglyphs also needed a method to disambiguate the multitude of similar-sounding words. And for that reason most phonetic Egyptian words (as far as I know) are accompanied by a logographic determinative [2] (classifer) that signifies whether it's the name of a God, a city, a house, a lotus flower, a lotus bud, another part of the lotus (stem, stalk or rhizome) or foxes skins. Yeah, these classifiers get rather specific. [3]
No system out there (including Japanese Kanji) is exactly like Chinese characters as used in Mandarin Chinese and other modern Chinese languages, but what I want to show here is that even though Modern Chinese is quite different from Classical Chinese, the writing system is still logographic. All logographic systems (including classical Chinese) have some phonetic features, at the very least in order to account for words that have no agreed-upon logogram. But what makes them logographic, is the pervasive use of logograms in a semantic role to disambiguate meanings.
[1] https://sumerianlanguage.tumblr.com/post/167245277900/hi-i-w...
[2] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/writing/sy...
[3] http://web.ff.cuni.cz/ustavy/egyptologie/pdf/Gardiner_signli...
I realized this in Taiwan when I started being able to recognize characters, know what it means in English, and have absolutely no idea what the word is in Mandarin. The written language is almost orthogonal to the spoken one.
I'm almost certain that this is true of Chinese script (after all, it was and is used for writing many languages!), but it might not be deducible based on this sort of experience.
I say thus because I had a very similar experience after I had to spend a month in the UAE. Thanks to frequent bilingual signs, I started recognizing common Arabic words, but I had no idea what the words are in Arabic or how to say them. But as far as I know, written Arabic is not at all orthogonal to spoken Arabic, every word is written exactly as it sounds.
Yes my wife is bilingual and she thinks in English but prefers reading in Chinese because it's more terse
I remember the great Peking->Beijing uplift. Reading "China reconstructs" magazines there were suggestions it was coming, and then it just went away. BBC newsreaders explained it was the new official look. Like Turkey-> Türkiye.
I suspect all syllabery/ideogram scripts have this latent problem. At 2,500 ideograms for "literate" there's a lot of potential to lose non core elements. "Educated" means over 5,000 heading to 10,000 and the complete set is north of 40,000 from what I understand. I can't imagine the investment in time to get there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Commonly_Used_Standa...
Some years ago I saw street-signs in China that had both Mandarin characters and also alphabetical versions, and I couldn't understand why they would go so far and then omit the accent marks.
I wonder if it's been fixed since.
I'd say that the most unusual pinyin mappings are "q" and "x", although both have some analogues in European languages as well.
The English sign-equivalent would be... Well, something so dumb that nobody does it. Like perhaps deleting the ascenders and descenders of letters dbqp so that they look like oooo, which doesn't even help with horizontal space.
If you still don't believe me--or those Wikipedia links I already provided--you test it yourself by finding a native Mandarin speaker. Ask them to decisively determine the meaning and pronunciation of certain Chinese words only from their pinyin with the accents stripped out, such as ma or hua.
There's a store with snacks and produce. Do you want to eat lizi, or do you want to eat lizi? (Don't bother squinting, it's the same letters.)
After moving here A: they weren't that tricky anyway (shire is a given, the only one I had to learn was *eicester) and B: I just get em to pronounce words in Maori.
The system/barriers were setup (as one’s always are) by incumbents, and the way they did it (while continuing to present it as ‘merit’ based) was to lean heavily on tests that require extensive memorization and tutoring, because only the wealthy can afford it.
This is one obvious sign of that. After all, who has time to memorize 40k different characters?
Personal background: I worked and studied in the US, I worked in China and I studied in India
And they aren't wrong, as even major China scholars like Yasheng Huang and Yuhua Wang point out that the Imperial Civil Service in China was stacked against merit due to structural issues that biased in favor of incumbents.
That said, similar issues continue to persist in China to this day due to the Zhongkao.
Specifically, if you didn't attend a academic high school (which only accepts around 45-55% of Zhongkao takers) you wouldn't be prepared for the Gaokao unless it was out of pocket at a cram school (which are now technically banned, but were anyhow exorbitantly expensive in a country where the median household income is $4,000). And if you couldn't pass the Gaokao, you couldn't attend university.
Furthermore, Academic High Schools tend to be few and far between, yet take the lion's share of resources unlike Vocational High Schools which most Chinese attend - but not the ones you meet in an air conditioned office unless you order from Meituan. In the vocational schools you see similar issues of teacher absence and lack of pedagogy.
The failure of the VET system in China has been a major sticking point in Chinese policymaking recently and a lot of domestic research is being done to understand why it failed [0][1][2]
[0] - https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ET-09-20...
[1] - https://www.ewadirect.com/proceedings/lnep/article/view/9075
In Germany only about 30% of high-school kids qualify academic high-school (merit-based) and are eligible to apply for university after two-years of exams that determine your final grade (and chances). There are literally only public schools.
I think you describe that it is very similar today in China after they banned the private tutoring a couple of years back. So, we are somehow back to “work hard on not to unequal grounds and your personal merit/luck will determine your future”.
Thanks for sharing additional detail and it resembles what I remember - but it does not seem to be “instrumented in a way to keep certain groups out of academia based on income or social standing”.
Imho a 30% ratio for university graduates is a sweet spot for society. We have great (free) vocational training programs in Germany that empower all those who did not go to university to make money quicker and they more often that not end up in financially better situations. University often pays off only for top university graduates once they pass 35/40 years of age.
China does not.
China's education spend is only 4.1% of GDP, and much of that is diverted to academic high schools and universities. Furthermore, vocational students are viewed as "bad students" and good faculty prefer to join academic high schools or private high schools due to a better salary and social standing. Furthermore, even SOE factories (the traditional hirer of vocational students) in China now prefer hiring college graduates instead of vocational students because of a glut of college graduates due to cultural shifts in the 2000s-2010s, anti-vocational student bias, and college graduates trying to get a stable "iron rice bowl" (to use the Korean term) government job.
> I think you describe that it is very similar today in China after they banned the private tutoring a couple of years back. So, we are somehow back to “work hard on not to unequal grounds and your personal merit/luck will determine your future”
I think that was the aim of the legislation, but in action it didn't help social mobility much, because upper income households just resorted to private or online tutoring, and everyone ignores it.
It's not like legislators send their kids to vocational schools - they also prefer to send them to academic or top private schools so that they can then attend university (either domestically or abroad).
> but it does not seem to be “instrumented in a way to keep certain groups out of academia based on income or social standing”.
In face value it doesn't, but in action urban academic high schools and primary schools get the lions share of funding, and until recently those are gatekept to people holding a hukou for that city.
This meant that urban migrants who weren't able to convert their rural hukou to an urban hukuo (because that meant losing their rural landholdings which is the only asset of worth they have), and their kids were stuck either in underfunded rural schools or crappy private primary schools in an urban area.
This has a significant impact on social mobility to this day, and is a major reason why China's median household income remains very low. Urban China's median household income is $6,000, but rural China's is around $3,000. This means the bottom half of urban society in China and much of rural China's society does not have much of a chance of upward mobility because they can't pay for private tutoring nor can they afford a good private high school if their kid fails the Zhongkao.
Overall 50% of the population are eligible to apply for university since completing higher tier education at a vocational school or completing specialized courses at "lesser" schools can also fullfill the acceptance requirements for related fields of study.
China's vocational high schools on the other hand don't open the same doors to tertiary education that a Fachoberschule student has because they are structurally segregated away from academic students.
This should include the students who do Abitur via FOS.
It’s still more merit based and class mobile than caste anything.
But the tests are the tests and require massive prep, eh?
And the tests require massive amounts of memorization and time to prep for, compared to western tests - even now.
Historically it was orders of magnitude worse though.
I agree that it is merit driven above anything else - not sure I would agree that this is favoring wealthy kids/certain social class in a more disproportionate way than what we see in India or the US.
Now, I will say that neither university nor high school in China or India imho prepare kinds for success in life or the corporate world. Europe (with a hands-off “you get no help and will just struggle your way through life and learn quick”) and the US (“here are actual experts dedicated to help you succeed) seem imho to produce capable graduates for the corporate world.
If one is a poor rural immigrant in an otherwise high end area, you don’t get to send your kids to the nice schools.
Urban cities of course don't want to hand out urban hukou easily because they don't want an influx of migrants straining social services.
But conversely, a lot of rural hukou holders do not want to give up rural hukou because it gives retirement benefits at 55 and is a requirement in order to keep their rural landholding.
This is why you have migrants with a rural hukou working in urban China but not gaining an urban hukou.
The problem with hukou is fundamentally a social safety net problem - there is little to no social safety net in China, so the "migrant to urban area with rural hukou" is the least bad option out of multiple bad options (keep rural hukou and live in rural China barely eking a living or give up rural hukou and lose the only appreciating asset you had along with benefits at 55).
In essence, the lion's share of Chinese development is overly concentrated in a handful of urban agglomerations, and isn't spreading to rural China where 45-50% of Chinese still live to this day.
China is authoritarian, but the CCP absolutely does take public sentiment into account, and policies that have the chance of causing mass protests and discontent do get rolled back.
Zero Covid is a perfect example of this, as it was hastily rolled back after the wave of protests following the apartment fire in Urumqi due to Xinjiang CCP's hard Zero Covid enforcement.
And this is why China had not raised the retirement age until in the past few weeks despite trying for decades, and anyhow kicked that can down the line to 15 years.
A mixture of bonds/borrowing, federal bailouts, and (painful) corporate tax reform.
This is a major reason why provincial law enforcement has recently begun cracking down on unpaid corporate back taxes recently, because social spend is largely devolved to the provincial level.
The property crisis in China is itself a result of the retirement fund issue, as until recently provincial government's only financial lever was land sales, and retirement funds are largely the domain of provinces following Deng's reforms.
Parents won't give up rural hukou if it also means losing your landholding and early retirement stipend benefits.
If you're a migrant worker from a rural household, you are most likely an unskilled laborer and are earning around $300/month, with dad working on a construction site or Meituan and mom working in a factory doing unskilled assembly or service job.
Around $150 is spent on incidentals because living in an urban area is expensive, an additional $100 is sent back to your family (grandma, grandpa, kids because the one child policy was largely ignored in rural China) back home in your rural town, and you might have $50 left over to save for retirement, healthcare, etc.
This is not enough to buy urban property, which is the asset class that appreciated the most in China, and this means the only large asset you have is your rural landholding. Furthermore, that early retirement benefit means you're earning an additional $15-20/month while continuing to work as a laborer or a Meituan delivery driver.
Fundamentally, salaries are too low in China and the social safety net is nonexistent, and this is what is causing the issues like overproduction, deflation, and sagging consumer demand which we are seeing nowadays.
The only way to solve this problem is to either expand the welfare system dramatically (thus incentivizing the bottom half to spend more by having to save less) or increase wages (thus incentivizing the bottom half to spend more by allowing them to save at the same rate while spending more). Working on increasing the quality of life in rural China would also help dramatically.
Sadly, Chinese leadership at the top level continues to ignore social welfare spending and rural China due to financial and moral concerns.
I don’t disagree there is unfairness - but it exists everywhere and China just has more people than US, EU, Canada, UK combined.
You might be conflating "ideogram" with "radical", i.e. components of characters. There's probably a few hundred of those defined, but they're more like pieces of characters rather than whole ones. Combining radicals produces very different characters that have totally different meanings; learning the radicals alone buys you very little.
There are thousands of characters, and you have to know thousands. There are tens of thousands of characters in existence, although only highly educated folks will know anywhere near 10000 characters.
You won't have the words for "I" or "you". You might be able to read "melon" but not "fruit". You could read "papaya" and "corn" but not "vegetable". You could read "beef" or "lamb" but not "chicken". You could read "small" but not "few". You wouldn't be able to read "hello" or "goodbye", "happy" or "sad". But you'd be able to count 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, 20...
After that, you still have to learn how to combine the radicals in pretty much arbitrary ways to form several thousand characters. The way you combine them is sometimes related to the sound and/or meaning of the radicals, but it's not systematic at all.
The grandparent comment is massively downplaying the difficulty involved in learning to read and write Chinese.
Since the sound changes that had taken place over the two to three thousand
years since the Old Chinese period have been extensive, in some instances,
the phono-semantic natures of some compound characters have been
obliterated, with the phonetic component providing no useful phonetic
information at all in the modern language. For instance, 逾 (yú; /y³⁵/;
'exceed'), 輸 (shū; /ʂu⁵⁵/; 'lose', 'donate'), 偷 (tōu; /tʰoʊ̯⁵⁵/; 'steal',
'get by') share the phonetic 俞 (yú; /y³⁵/; 'agree') but their
pronunciations bear no resemblance to each other in Standard Chinese or any
other variety.
Or, consider 亭 (ting2), 叮 (ding1), 成 (cheng2), 打 (da3) which all supposedly derive their sound from 丁 (ding1) per the analysis at https://github.com/cjkvi/cjkvi-ids/. You can't just memorize the components and read all of these as "ding".
And beyond that, that doesn't help with being able to write. You can't just say "oh, I don't remember exactly how to write this word, but I'm just going to throw in some ideograph with the right phonetic component next to the radical and my reader will just know what I mean." You can't just take 瓦 (pottery) + 平 (ping2) to invent the word for vase. 瓶 (ping2) instead uses 并 (bing1), not to be confused with 井 (jing3).
For those who can’t read Chinese here, I’ll just note that this is basically the equivalent of forgetting how to spell certain words in English. For example, I can read just fine, but there are still words I’m not good at spelling.
I’m just noting this so that this problem doesn’t seem totally exotic or specific to Chinese(/Japanese).
If you can remember the word "chocolate" but not the spelling then you can guess it. You might write choklit or choclate or something but you can at least get close.
If you forget what 警察 (police officer, jing3cha2) looks like then you're just completely screwed. Maybe you can remember a radical or two but it's still just going to be wrong and not meaningfully recognisable.
I guess you could write down 景茶 (jing3cha2) and rely on the phonetics, or use a different word if you know one, but it's still wrong on a level that "choclit" just isn't.
Let's put it this way: We know what ancient might egyptian (most likely) sounds like because they gave their writting system the uniliterals, which are pronunciation guides for complex words. We know that they said waw, and we know what a waw sounds like. They did this probably so they would not to explode their character count from hundreds to thousands.
If a non-native did this in their own way would likely look wrong, but Chinese natives do occasionally use phonics to write or to substitute some characters with others.
I'm strictly referring to the handwritten language here, basically I don't think there is an analogue in alphabetic languages.
> However, this new digitally induced amnesia is not merely a matter of forgetting a few strokes in a rare character. Highly literate people are forgetting how to write the characters in words like ‘kitchen’ (厨房), ‘lips’ (嘴唇), ‘cough’ (咳嗽), and ‘broom’ (扫帚). Victor Mair (2014) provides a striking example of the severity of the character amnesia problem. The following image is of a shopping list hastily written by a social science researcher from the PRC. The writer of the list struggled to remember the characters in ‘egg’ (鸡蛋), ‘shrimp’ (虾仁), and ‘chives’ (韭菜), and simply resorted to Pinyin.
That is happening a lot with cooking, as I started to take it much more seriously when I moved to the US and now my cooking vocabulary in English is much better/wider than it is in my native Portuguese, so I'll frequently use words in english for stuff I should know in portuguese but don't remember.
I can't read Chinese, but I think the article has a better analogy: "most people can easily recognise the musical symbol for treble clef (𝄞), but very few could draw it by memory."
English orthography is exactly that. Exotic.
Imagine having such a strange spelling system that you have competitions where you try to recite spelling. Exotic.
We still have spelling contests at state and nation levels.
This feels more like "what's the Unicode character for 'full moon'?" I'd be able to recognize the result as correct, but if I don't know the answer, I just don't know.
(Of course, that goes too far in the other direction. I assume you can draw a few strokes to "get someone started" on a character and they'll pick it up, whereas most people wouldn't recognize the first half of a Unicode code point. As the grandparent poster said, it's an exotic problem that's hard to empathize with in phonetic languages)
In my experience this is not actually the case; I can usually remember a few parts of the character but draw a blank on the rest. You can see the picture of the grocery list that for some characters he got basically half the character right but gave up on the other half (shrimp is the combination of 虫 and 下, you can see he remembered the first half).
I guess there's several levels of character amnesia here, from "I remember half the character" to "I have no clue but I'll recognise it".
That one's just bizarre, since 虾 is also just the most intuitively obvious choice to form a substitute character if you do forget the right component. If anything, I don't think pinyin substitution is something you do unless you're a highly-educated computer user who deals regularly in Latin script. It's a striking "man bites dog" moment, but the one has been passed around since 2006 (cf. https://pinyin.info/readings/defrancis/chinese_writing_refor...) and is not, as far as I can tell, indicative of any particular trend. Discreet literacy outliers in jobs where you'd expect it are ... a thing in English too: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-43700153
(It's honestly weirder to see someone write jiu菜 than 9菜 too.)
This, it's honestly not helpful to pretend it's the same as misspelling a word in a phonetic language because it's not and it's not even a good analogy to begin to understand the issue.
I do not know if this is true in all the German dialects, but at least some pronounce "wider" with short "i" and "wieder with long "i", so they are easy to distinguish when heard (like the difference in English between "fill" and "feel").
English and German appear to have had a similar semantic evolution for this pair of words, because "wider" means "against", while "wieder" means "again", so in both cases a single word has evolved to cover these two different meanings and the variants have become differentiated in pronunciation too.
"ie" is always long. For "i" it depends on the splitting of the word, i think. I don't know if this is a concept in other languages too. I think the rule is that if the "i" is at a split, then it is long, but i'm not sure and there are always exceptions to every rule in German. Consider "Schnit|zel", "Lis|te" (short) vs "Bi|bel", "Wi|der|stand" (long).
From what you say I assume that the literary pronunciation is also with long "i", which is good to know.
Perhaps they were influenced by the different spelling, because I have seen this phenomenon in other countries, where despite a mostly phonetic writing some words were spelled differently than pronounced, for etymological or other reasons, and then the pronunciation of those words by many people has shifted, matching the spelling and not the traditional pronunciation.
I don't know any German, so I can't comment on this, but I'll add that the concept of a spelling contest (like we have in English) wouldn't make sense in a lot of languages because the spelling of words are so obvious/consistent.
That explains why it looks like a 'silly' version of english to english speakers.
What is true however is that of you learn the pronunciation rules you should be able to read a text correctly even if you have no clue what you’re saying. That’s not true of English for example.
- b, v and sound like /b/, because v lost its original pronunciation and w was lent from other languages.
- h lost its sound and became silent (used to be a soft /f/).
- g can sometimes sound like /j/ (there was some pressure to remove these uses).
- x can be an /s/ at the start of a word (due to Greek ancestry).
Those are considered mistakes, but they do not change the pronunciation of the words.
For the concrete rules: https://www.rae.es/ortograf%C3%ADa/valores-fonol%C3%B3gicos-.... You can see the exceptions to "one letter, one sound" are very few.
That said, Spanish and German are both so much better than English that the difference between them can be disregarded in this context. The irony is that almost any major European language (with the notable exception of French) has better spelling than English; and even French, although it's horribly overcomplicated, is more consistent when it comes to reading.
And the authors article is referring to the writing of the logograph - 注音 is strictly for pronunciation.
We have a word describing what it is, we have a symbol of how it looks, and we have a word of how it is pronounced "and". We also tend not to write ampersands down by hand. Its a more common symbol. However unlike the treble clef the meaning and the pronunciation is the same so perhaps the example isn't as good?
I can share a more personal story: after spending a year studying abroad in Britain, I almost forgot how to write Chinese characters—even my own name—since I hadn't written any for over a year! However, when I returned to Taiwan, I was able to recall most of them within minutes. I consider this a temporary phenomenon that fades quickly with focus and a bit of practice.
> Can you imagine a well-educated native English speaker totally forgetting how to write a word like "knee" or "tin can"? Or even a rarely-seen word like "scabbard" or "ragamuffin"? I was once at a luncheon with three Ph.D. students in the Chinese Department at Peking University, all native Chinese (one from Hong Kong). I happened to have a cold that day, and was trying to write a brief note to a friend canceling an appointment that day. I found that I couldn't remember how to write the character 嚔, as in da penti 打喷嚔 "to sneeze". I asked my three friends how to write the character, and to my surprise, all three of them simply shrugged in sheepish embarrassment. Not one of them could correctly produce the character. Now, Peking University is usually considered the "Harvard of China". Can you imagine three Ph.D. students in English at Harvard forgetting how to write the English word "sneeze"??
This page is from 02004: http://web.archive.org/web/20040811151534/http://pinyin.info.... Possibly the rest of the article is not simply an excerpt from it.
A better example might involve a common English word with a wierd, non-phonetic spelling. A word that you might imagine it forgivable for even someone who recieved an English PhD to misspell. After all Chinese is a seperate language from English and it is neccessary for it to be evaluated in its own context.
If you think this definetly couldn't happen in English, take a look again at this post -- for it contains eight outright, unambiguous, misspellings of common English words that I would not be surprised if even an English PhD from Harvard made on occassion, especially if your choice of three students were unlucky and they were having embarassingly bad days. (After all, English PhDs isn't the study of spelling, it's the study of literature).
Even if sneeze was a word that you were taught once in school and hadn't used for 30 years, you would still likely get close to the correct spelling from the sound (sneaze, snease, sneeze), and seeing the misspelling also helps with recall and to self correct.
This is the "virtual circle" of speaking/listening -> reading -> writing -> referred to by the author, which is not possible with Chinese.
It's true that there are some weird non-phonetic English words that PhDs would likely misspell, but it's not 100% of the language and you still could at least make an attempt.
It's possible to just write Chinese in phonetic form (e.g. pinyin), which bypasses this issue, but you have a secondary problem, which is the extremely narrow range of syllables (~400 * 4/5 tones = 1600-2000), resulting in quite ambiguous text.
Just because people are able to understand strict phonetic transcriptions, doesn't mean it's a good way to convey information (which is why almost no language relies on just strict phonetic transcriptions).
And how many people drink an espresso every day and think it has an x in it.
I knew plenty of elite students who would make classic English blunders like "expresso" or "pacifically"
Arguably, "espresso" isn't an english word, but spelling it with an "x" as "expresso" isn't as incorrect as you may think. There's two main theories behind which word to use: "espresso" meaning to "press out" the coffee, or "expresso" meaning "expressly made for the customer" as it's quicker to make than a filter coffee. This is further confused by the Latin root being "exprimire" meaning "to press or squeeze out".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/espresso-vs-expresso...
Maybe language is fine if it conveys the intended meaning.
My point was addressing "tsinghua students..." and "Harvard students..." unless they were literary scholars or grammarians their wield of the language may be at the level of "educated" but still plenty fallible. I'm sure those of us who did any post grad would have met people who were smart in a given axis and otherwise very ordinary along the other axes.
Not ti mention spelling differences and even all the unique words in different English countries. Or within the uk
So it turns out that humans are rather flexible
What is harder is to distinguish the meaning of all these characters. Let's take this set as an example: 里理哩鲤鯉俚娌悝锂鋰
Ok, they are all pronounced the same, but guessing or knowing all their meanings is a different game. "鲤" has to be a fish that's pronounced li3. That might still be easy, but the more abstract the meaning-giving character radical is, the harder it becomes to distinguish all of them.
Strictly in terms phonetics, why couldn’t “weird” be spelled “wierd” when English also has “tier”? I’m guessing the Normans are to thank for turning “wyrd” into “weird”.
That's for situations where they had to write something by hand but didn't have their phone with them to check (otherwise they can just spend a second to look at the character), which isn't a common occurrence.
If anything it’s a statement on how the orthography of English in particular doesn’t well match the phonetic structure of the language - something due to a confluence of factors in English several hundred years ago, including the rise of printing.
Then again, if you knew some Old English, you would know correcting everyone and forcing them to use the "original form" is a silly goose chase. You'd know better than to remind everyone that children is a pesky double plural, and childer (from the old English cildru, and like the German Kinder) is more than enough? Or to remind everyone that's it's not "a newt tail" but rather "an EWT tail" and please mind your ewts and a good day to you to sir.
Or maybe there will be some people who would still keep doing that, who am I fooling...
A (native) PhD student forgetting how to spell onomatopeia might be normal, but 3 I would say is statistically unlikely.
Spelling is simply not as hard as remembering hanzi, even in English.
The reason is just digital input really. Pinyin and Romaji typing have become so common that a lot of people write Hanzi/Kanji by hand less and less and it's so complicated of a skill there's really no other way to get it in your brain other than practice. I even notice it myself, I easily recognize 10x more characters than I can accurately write.
I actually did a deep dive into the issue of unfamiliar characters coming up when reading, and how people handle them. I won't go into all the details, but the general takeaway is:
1. Unfamiliar characters can actually be quite rare or quite common depending on the material you're reading.
2. It's not much of an issue for people either way.
Because shrimp meat is something I see written out EVERYWHERE.
It just seems like such an odd outlier example. Like talking about a friend that spells "been" as "bin." I'm sure it could happen, but it's not indicative of a broader trend.
The story was reported by Victor Mair, though, who is extremely opposed to using characters and often exaggerates the issues with them.
Personally, I've seen a lot of Chinese people's written notes, and I don't think I've ever seen them resort to pinyin, even among people that didn't go to college. I just asked a few Chinese friends about this, and they told me they never resort to pinyin either.
Of course, you _can_ escape to Hiragana if you're so inclined, but then you would show that you don't know the character - so it's just avoided.
Ambiguity is king in Japan.
Does that imply learning the advanced literary culture, that is usually associated with prestige academia, has a vastly higher threshold in Chinese than in English?
It’s pretty disturbing for language itself to be a potentially retarding force on learning.
I don't think it has a slowing effect. Except maybe by adding annoying/useless classes for mid/primary students - which is just par for course everywhere else. I can name 3 objectively completely useless classes from my european youth (plus one in college) that were only there because 'culture'.
There are lots of examples of this, where English has a foreign-sounding word for something whereas German has a Germanic one. For example oxygen vs. Sauerstoff.
It's a lifesaver as an adult foreign learner, but I don't really see anything preventing native writers of Chinese and Japanese from benefitting from this general process as well. I've wondered if the guys who pass those truly insane 6,000+ character exams have to fall back on some sort of hack at that point.
That's to say, the task may feel insurmontable at first, but if you give time to your body to adjust, it should become easier.
Thinking about it, this recalls me of a Leonardo quote (pertaining visual memory then):
> « I myself have proved it to be of no small use, when in bed in the dark, to recall in fancy the external details of forms previously studied, or other noteworthy things conceived by subtle speculation; and this is certainly an admirable exercise, and useful for impressing things on the memory. »
I remember reading about similar observations regarding visual memory, where students trained to memorize visual information would outperform their peers (observations perhaps in the 1800s/early 1900s, IIRC a woman was in charge of this).
For Japanese I use a keyboard.. should be fine but.. no. Whenever we're at a table and need to jot something down on paper, or near a whiteboard, I feel like an illiterate person, because I can't write by hand. I can read stuff I can't write. Even hiragana. I never did enough practice. My wife writes down everything so easily.. and I can't. Writing romaji.. argh. I hate that I can't write, by hand, what I can read.
Classical methods would have you drilling characters for hours upon hours of wasted time.
> It takes about 10 seconds or so to set an image in your mind of the scene for a character, then a handful of reviews over the following weeks. Then you never forget it.
But after a few hundred kanji the system starts to get so complicated, with more and more elaborate and contrived mnemonics, that IMO it isn't worth continuing that approach. But that's fine, at that point you're already on board and can learn the rest from reading real texts.
(The negative of abandoning Heisig after the first few hundred kanji is that you also stop writing kanji at that point.. which adds to my difficulty of hand-writing Japanese)
There are in fact many people who have learned 4000+ Chinese characters, using this or other methods.
Aside: Do you learn simplified or traditional? I learned traditional. I would have anyway because my wife is Taiwanese, but I advocate others to do the same because it is arguably the same difficulty if not easier. And going traditional -> simplified is tractable whereas the reverse is not.
Learning the Heisig method is similar: learning from a perspective of handwriting is easier, and you get the ability to read “for free.” It’s a better approach, even if you never need to write by hand.
It's divide and conquer. When you are reading the book, you are indeed just learning the characters. It's a significant ~2-3 month investment that maybe doesn't make sense unless you plan on living and working in the country. But once you've gotten through it, it absolutely feeds back into vocab acquisition, since the characters are now completely unambiguous to you. Much like how Latin/Greek helps with English, you can also work out what entirely new words might mean if you are familiar with their characters.
The time is better invested in simply studying how to distinguish visually similar characters. That alone solves the problem directly.
> The time is better invested in simply studying how to distinguish visually similar characters.
But you still have to know what you're distinguishing between, which might only arise after repeated mistakes. Heading off this frustration directly by studying characters may not have been the best use of my time in absolute terms, but it did wonders for my overall motivation and made me feel like I was doing more than treading water. Pre-Heisig I was reading specific books intended for foreign learners, while afterwards I was just reading the newspaper.
>But you still have to know what you're distinguishing between, which might only arise after repeated mistakes.
I'm learning Korean at the moment and it's particular brutal for this IMHO. Some words have taken a long time to properly understand due to repeatedly mistaking them for very similar words, and there are a lot of these in Korean.
> language acquisition or just memorizing characters
My question is if "character amnesia" describes trivial errors or if people are forgetting characters to a significant extent. In other words, is this article genuine or is it the equivalent of claiming English writers suffer from "word amnesia" because they sometimes need to look up a spelling?
The article says "all three simply shrugged in sheepish embarrassment", which in context, reads clearly to me that they were embarrassed for not knowing where to start, not that they wrote them down with minor errors that they were embarrassed about after checking a dictionary. The rest of the article strongly reinforces this interpretation. For example: "‘lift the pen, forget the character’... this new digitally induced amnesia is not merely a matter of forgetting a few strokes in a rare character..."
Regarding your question, there is a difference between not knowing how to write a word and not knowing how to spell a word. If someone in English doesn't know how to spell 'sneeze' or any other word, they can at least come close enough and convey information 'fuzzily' via text using an incorrect spelling. Now that I'm writing this, though, I suppose with character sets like Chinese if you know characters that are close enough you potentially could use other characters to convey the information, like mouth-fart for sneeze or something along these lines. But I don't speak the language, so that is just a theory.
Do Chinese speakers use the language this way if there is a character they don't know how to write?
I'm by no means an expert on the topic but one thing I have noticed in learning Chinese languages is that there are a huge number of homophones. That means there are probably 20 other characters with the same pronunciation for any given syllable that are considered different words (not to get into it here but the conception of a word in Chinese languages can be a bit odd too). It seems to be very common for people to use the character for a similar sounding word or syllable to write slang words or local dialect words that don't have an official character.
As is the difference between "fitter" and "filter" in English.
Part of the distinction is that you can always at least misspell the word when using an alphabet. That's why the shopping list used an alphabetic script.
Anecdotally, I can usually remember a few parts of the character but draw a blank on the rest. You can see the picture of the grocery list that for some characters he got basically half the character right but gave up on the other half (shrimp is the combination of 虫 and 下, you can see he remembered the first half).
I guess this is analogous to only remembering the main themes of a piece and forgetting how the rest of it goes. I'll recognise it when I hear it, but can't recall it off the top of my head.
Just like it doesn't matter that I frequently am uncertain about spelling for some words because we have spell check built into everything.
Do Chinese usually use pinyin to enter characters or what is the normal method? Whatever it is, they don't need to remember the character strokes apparently.
Most folks these days use Pinyin. The T9 input method (Pinyin, but using a nine-key telephone pad) is popular with folks who grew up using dumbphones.
Finally, voice input is really popular in China. Lots of folks send texts (on WeChat) as short voice messages. WeChat even has a feature to auto-transcribe these voice messages.
In mainland China, it’s pinyin, but in Taiwan, they often use Bopomofo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bopomofo
But it does matter that you don't know the spelling for some words. For one, you don't always have a computer to fix it for you. For two, the computer's spelling is often wrong and you need the human knowledge to fill that gap.
The problem is not that people can't recognise the words; it's that we can't write them if given pen a paper. If the phone gets it wrong you just choose the nth choice instead of the first.
You can't be serious. I thought that the "you need to be good at algebra because you won't have a calculator in your pocket" argument died out naturally. I can't recall the last time I actually made hand-written notes.
> For two, the computer's spelling is often wrong and you need the human knowledge to fill that gap.
It happens to me once a month that the computer cannot recognize a correctly spelled word, and virtually never in English.
Then you are an extreme outlier. Most people write plenty of things down by hand in their day to day life. And there's no reason for the argument to die out, because it's completely correct.
> It happens to me once a month that the computer cannot recognize a correctly spelled word, and virtually never in English.
Again, this seems like an outlier. False positives and false negatives are both quite common in spell checkers.
If that were the case then the problem described in the article would be limited to just a few outliers like me. But it's not.
> Again, this seems like an outlier.
No u. The fact that you are on this website means that you most likely are educated, therefore you are likely to use uncommon words unknown to the spellchecker. Most people focus on just a handful of basic words needed for everyday life, and besides that, very few people actually care about correct spelling. All of my friends have at least college degree and 50% of them pay zero attention to correct spelling, I can only assume that average Joe cares even less.
In short, it's the same nominal sound with varying tones ("shi", which is closer in pronunciation to "shirr" than "she"), repeated about a hundred times, which is of course meaningless in spoken form (since there's not enough context to differentiate between the various forms), but actually conveys a story in written form.
With the shift toward typing and (especially mobile) computerization in the recent era, it's really not surprising (to me, at least) that Chinese society is moving in a direction where literacy no longer extends to recall of individual characters, and only encompasses recognition, since recall is no longer as necessary of a skill in day-to-day life.
There's a close relative of Mandarin (Dungan) which is written in the Cyrillic alphabet. The spoken language is tonal, but tones aren't used in the written language because written words are polysyllabic, and if you know how to speak Dungan, you can reliably infer the tones.
In normal texts written in modern Chinese, this is not a problem. Nobody writes real texts like the "shi" poem. In cases where something can only be understood in written form, you can rephrase it to avoid homophones.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...
You may think it’s not needed, because that information isn’t available in spoken Chinese. The same is true for written English - putting spaces between words, dividing texts into paragraphs, capitalizing them, differentiating between different pauses (a comma, period, semicolon, etc. all signifying what kind of pause something its), quotation marks, parenthesis, etc. - none of this is available in our spoken language, and we’re still able to understand it. In theory, we could get rid of them all and understand what’s being written. In practice, most people would find the result to be an incomprehensible mess.
The same goes for Chinese. Written languages, for the most part, are more than a simple transcription of spoken sounds.
Unless Chinese is somehow unique among all human languages, this isn't true. Chinese would be just as intelligible if written in a phonetic script (like Pinyin) as it is when written using the characters.
Now, it would be an incredibly shocking transition for Chinese people who have already spent their entire lives writing with characters. However, after the transition to Pinyin, especially for young people who wouldn't ever learn the characters, written Chinese would still be perfectly understandable.
That being said, I don't favor replacing the characters, because the transition would be extremely difficult and because the characters are very culturally important to China. They've been in use for a good 3000 years, and people are very attached to them. Phonetic scripts are technically superior, but the cultural and practical arguments for sticking with the characters are still stronger.
I was talking about English in that paragraph:
> The same is true for written English - putting spaces between words, dividing texts into paragraphs, capitalizing them, differentiating between different pauses (a comma, period, semicolon, etc. all signifying what kind of pause something its), quotation marks, parenthesis, etc. - none of this is available in our spoken language, and we’re still able to understand it. In theory, we could get rid of them all and understand what’s being written. In practice, most people would find the result to be an incomprehensible mess.
The very next sentence you wrote was
> The same goes for Chinese.
So you were talking about both English and Chinese in that sentence.
I was talking about English in the sentence you quoted. In the next paragraph, I said that Chinese was the same as English in this regard. That's why I couldn't (and still can't) understand your comment.
You're saying it isn't true that removing those parts of English would mean "most people would find the result to be an incomprehensible mess" unless Chinese is unique? Chinese has absolutely no connection to written English becoming a mess after removing those elements of written English.
Or are you objecting to the paragraph after the one you quoted, where I say the same thing that happens in English is true for Chinese? "Unless Chinese is somehow unique among all human languages, this isn't true" that Chinese would be like English? That doesn't make any sense to me unless you misread my initial comment to mean the complete opposite of what it was saying.
You very clearly wrote that Chinese would become an incomprehensible mess if written in Pinyin.
You first stated that there would be a severe loss in fidelity in switching to Pinyin. Then you gave an analogy showing how removing various non-phonetic elements of written English would make it an incomprehensible mess. Immediately after that, you said that the same applies for Chinese.
I'm objecting to your argument that Chinese would be an incomprehensible mess if written alphabetically.
> I'm objecting to your argument that Chinese would be an incomprehensible mess if written alphabetically.
That's fine, but it runs directly counter to your initial comment. If a phonetic transcription would make Chinese just as easy to understand as it is written now, it would be quite different from English, and almost every other written language, all of which include non-phonetic elements in order to facilitate reading.
Now, you're obsessing over some pretty obvious misinterpretations of what I've written, and you're ignoring the argument you yourself initially made.
> If a phonetic transcription would make Chinese just as easy to understand as it is written now, it would be quite different from English, and almost every other written language, all of which include non-phonetic elements in order to facilitate reading
Pinyin, the phonetic transcription of Standard Chinese, is written with spaces and punctuation. You're going on about something that doesn't exist.
It still isn't a very good argument, though. Most English speakers get by without any knowledge of classical languages, and accept having to look up words in a dictionary.
The Chinese characters do indeed contain semantic information that Pinyin (the standard Romanization) does not, but in practice, you don't need that extra semantic information. If you write down a single word in Pinyin, it may have a few homophones, whereas the same word, written in Chinese characters, would be unambiguous. However, in written Pinyin texts, you would almost always be able to figure out which word is meant from context. In the few cases in which that would not be possible, the author could slightly rephrase the text to make it unambiguous.
Most languages on Earth (that have a writing system) are written using alphabets. Chinese is not so special that it could not be written using an alphabet as well. The reason why China hasn't switched to an alphabetic script is because of cultural attachment to the script, not because the Pinyin doesn't work just as well in a practical sense.
In what I wrote, I was assuming there would be no unfamiliar characters, but there would be one or more unfamiliar words composed of two or more characters.
I was trying to put forward the best argument I could think of for retaining the characters, but like you, have decided it isn't worth the additional effort of learning thousands of characters up front to become literate when you can use a phonetic script and look up any unfamiliar words in a dictionary instead.
And yes, this is also 100% applicable to English.
This just proves that a phonetic writing is not sufficient, but it does not mean that the phonetic writing must be replaced with traditional writing.
To resolve the ambiguity of the phonetic writing, both in Chinese and in Japanese, where the ambiguity is much worse, it is enough to retain at most a couple hundred symbols to be used as semantic classifiers. It is likely that a great part of the traditional radicals would be suitable to be retained as classifiers, with perhaps a part of them omitted if redundant and a few other symbols added, if necessary.
Then the writing could be phonetic, but with classifier symbols attached to words, wherever the ambiguity makes them necessary.
This is not a new method. The oldest writing systems, like those of Egypt or Mesopotamia, also used classifier symbols (with meanings like: "a kind of human", "a kind of god", "a kind of animal", "a kind of stone", "a kind of wood", "a body part", "a kind of tool" and so on) attached to the words written phonetically, to avoid ambiguities.
If one would have to learn only 200 classifier symbols and with lower stroke counts than most symbols used now, that would be a great simplification.
Many of the Chinese characters are actually intended to be composed of two parts, a semantic classifier and a phonetic symbol, but this principle is applied too inconsistently and with too many variants, so the system can be greatly simplified by using a simple phonetic writing like Pinyin together with semantic classifiers inserted in the text only if they are necessary.
That is not entirely true in the case of Mandarin, but it is more true in the case of Cantonese (and a few other Chinese languages).
Owing to the historical loss of sounds (especially finals) over the course of the Mandarin development, many Mandarin words tend to be longer (3-4 syllables are common) compared to their counterparts in, say, Cantonese where they are most of the time (but not always) are two syllables long due to the fact that Cantonese has retained more sounds from Middle Chinese (plus, the intermingling with the Bat Yue) over the course of its development.
Which is why the «Lion eating poet in the stone den» still makes some sense when read out loud in Cantonese (also in Wu, Min) and makes no sense in Mandarin.
https://pinyin.info/readings/zyg/what_pinyin_is_not.html
correctly however, the text was not meant as an argument against romanization but as a playful example of how pinyin are unfit for classical rather than modern vernacular chinese.
Sounds like Buffalo buffalo, but it's more like someone being clever than pointing out an actual problem with the language.
English, being the composite/mongrel language that it is has really complicated patterns for how you put letters together. For example the "i before e except after c as in neighbor and weigh" sort of thing (which does not cover all of the exceptions of course). This sort of thing has lead to the existence of spelling competitions in the English-speaking world (spelling bees). My Hungarian wife was surprised that such a thing existed. In Hungarian it is much closer to see-what-you say, with only a few exceptions (not that the rules are kind on English-speaking Hungarian learners like myself).
No, they're really not. First, they have 46 characters (each), not 56, though there are another 36 combination characters like ちゃ. Regardless, the problem here is that number comes from the total number of allowed sounds in the entire language. Japanese has an extremely small number of total possible sounds in the language compared to most other languages, particular western ones, and almost all syllables are of the form consonant+vowel: there's basically no way to write, for instance, a word ending in a hard "t" sound, so when Japanese adopts such words, it adds a vowel ending like "tu", and does this for every syllable with a hard consonant without a following vowel. Because of this, loanwords can be really hard to recognize even if you're a speaker of the language that word was adopted from (usually English these days), because the sounds don't map over very well.
And because there's so few total possible syllables, there's a huge number of homophones. The main reason kanji is still around is because it resolves ambiguity and makes it much, much easier to read Japanese text: trying to read text that's all in hiragana (or katakana) is cumbersome, even if spaces are added (Japanese text doesn't normally have spaces).
The other thing that makes alphabets more popular in the long run is that they spread easier because they're easier to adapt to different languages compared to syllabaries (indeed, it's not uncommon for a syllabary to become semi-alphabetic as part of such adoption).
On the other hand - western scholars can understand what the spoken word sounded like - but eastern readers have a much harder time what ancient words sounded like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rime_dictionary
Western writing systems "decay" faster. Look at french writing - the spellings are phonetic for the time they were first put to paper - but they sound nothing like the current pronunciations.
That's simply not true.
Ancient Chinese calligraphy and language is so different that you have entire PhD fields about it.
By contrast, as someone who has studied basic Latin in high school, I can read stuff from the walls of Pompeii without issue. I can directly read Latin texts from 700AD or so with the standard difficulty of reading handwriting.
See: http://www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/view_img.php?lang=en&id_...
Now, perhaps if I were Chinese, I could read ancient graffiti on the Great Wall, but nobody seems to have ever mentioned that.
Modern Korean people can't even read stuff older than a century or so because the language changed from using Chinese characters to the home-grown Hangul character set, and that was only completed a few decades ago.
By contrast, English speakers can read Shakespeare just fine mostly, with a little difficulty understanding some words that are no longer used.
Once calligraphy/handwriting is involved, the situation on the Western side is not much better either. Modern Anglosphere children probably would struggle with 19th-century cursive like https://www.pinterest.com/pin/375276581427478862/ ; in Germanic countries, the handwriting system underwent deeper changes, so nobody apart from selected nerds and antiquarians can read Kurrent as in Goethe's letters - https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Goethe_Brief_(nich... - or even the newer Sütterlin. Contra what some posters here claim, Roman cursive (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cursive) is right out. I don't think this should be conflated with the question of whether the writing system is understood by future readers - as an imperfect computer analogy, an ASCII text document is in some meaningful sense more futureproof than an Autodesk Animator .FLI, even if the former is on a five-inch floppy and the latter is on a USB thumb drive.
(As for the effects of the Japan's Chinese character simplification, I think they are a bit overstated. I accidentally bought a 旧字体 copy of Mishima's Haru no Yuki at a book sale once, and at least as an L2 speaker I didn't find it particularly more painful to read than I find unmodernised Shakespeare as an L2 speaker of English.)
The Proto-Sinaitic alphabetic script is the oldest (1800–1500 BCE) and evolved from Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols. It contained simplified characters representing consonants, The Phoenician alphabet came later, around 1050 BCE, evolving from Proto-Sinaitic. It became a widely used script with 22 consonantal characters and was highly influential, serving as a foundation for both the Paleo-Hebrew and Greek alphabet. The Etruskan alphabet was adapted from the Greek alphabet in the 8th centry BCE and the Roman alfabet was adapted from the Etruskan alphabet in the 7th century.
Alphabets with 20–30 letters seem to be close to a neurolinguistic optimum for balancing simplicity with expressiveness. The Armenian script was designed by monk and linguist Mesrop Mashtots in the 5th century CE to enable the translation of the Bible into Armenian. With 39 letter it represents Armenian phonetics. The Khmer alphabet with 74 characters evolved from the ancient Pallava script, which was developed in Southern India around the 4th century CE. By the 7th century CE, the Khmer people had adapted the Pallava script, creating an early form of the Khmer script. This script was initially used to write Sanskrit and Pali, the languages of Hindu and Buddhist texts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3seWGtZ3DQ&t=3035s
The whole series is worth a watch if you're into writing.
Meanwhile, if you remember how the character is pronounced and can identify it in a lineup, it's far easier to use the phonetic approaches. (Even if your input method doesn't auto-correct the word based on context, experienced typists will also memorize the position of common words, so even they don't need to stop and look at the individual candidates in most situations.)
I'm not sure if the author has studied Vietnamese. I'm a native Vietnamese, and I believe the language is perfectly phonetic.
If I hear a word, I can write it. If I see a word, I can pronounce it, regardless of whether I understand the meaning.
It's interesting that among the 4 countries (China/Japan/Korea/Vietnam), it's the only one that completely reinvented the language into Latin based. I think that refactor addressed the phonetic issue well enough. When I was there, there was also no TV program for "spelling bees" or something like that. Even a third grader could read/write almost any word (even when they don't understand the text yet)
Edit: adding to this original post to reply a common theme people brought up in multiple posts.
I think bringing up dialects and provincial accents is not convincing. There is one official way "gia đình" should be pronounced. It's taught in school, even in the South. Pronouncing it as "da đình" can still be understood, and it doesn't retract from the point that the language is phonetic.
In other words, assuming I know nothing about the meaning of the word, if I hear "da đình" I can correctly write down it as so. I wouldn't know that in Saigon that also means "gia đình". But I definitely can write it down exactly.
I don't think using provincial speaking accent is a good line of argument here. Otherwise, no language in the world can satisfy the phonetic requirements. Any group of people can have different accents, different tones, different sound length and pauses.
Not if you account for variations of pronunciation in dialects. Not even the most phonetically accurate accent, the Hanoian Northern accent which I am a native speaker of, is perfect.
For example, you could hear Northern Vietnamese people say "dổ", "dá" instead of "rổ", "rá". Morning dew is pronounced "xương" but is written as "sương". These characters are pronounced with greater clarity in the Central and Southern regions, but they have their own peculiarities too. Til' this day I still find it iffy they call someone named "Diễm" as "Yỉm". Unless you have seen the correct way to spell those words before, you can't say for sure. Even now as a working adult I find myself referring to the dictionary to make sure my accent doesn't embarrass me in official emails.
In a perfect world, we can have one single Vietnamese accent that aims to pronoun all these words true to the intended way of the alphabet, but it isn't practical. That being said, one can get pretty far in Vietnamese when encountering new words.
There is nothing wrong with being sentimental, I lift heavy weights, collect vinyl and do film photography because I like the aesthetic of these activities. But let me force my own kids to learn whatever I think they should learn just like me at home rather than everyone forcing everyone else's kids in school.
I somehow kept the habit of handwriting for years. But as a guy in my early 30s, I do notice characters fade away from my brain from time to time, which wasn't a thing at all in the 20s. And to my surprise, some of the characters are fairly frequently used - I was just completely stuck when I was trying to recall them.
Probably that's how brains and organs peaked and will slowly break down over the following decades just like hard drives.
I started to learn Chinese in the 80s at my high school and then in the 90s in Taiwan and was laughably bad at writing. Literally, people would laugh at my characters not only because they looked terrible, but also because I was using the wrong stroke order.
Now, it is possible for me to get away with not knowing how to write characters or the stroke order. Using pinyin and recognizing the characters (or certain radicals) is enough to take me very far in social media, texting, etc.
For instance, for one of the phrases in the article ti2bi3wang4zi4 knowing the last character (zi, 字) and kind of remembering wang is enough to recognize the entire colloquialism when I type in the pinyin tibiwangzi: 提筆忘字
In Taiwan they have a TV game show featuring college students, basically like a crossword featuring 4-character colloquialisms and other phrases that have obscure characters. It's quite fun for the audience to watch, almost everyone is writing characters in the air in front of them as they try to remember the hard characters.
It always struck me that a phonetic alphabet for writing rather was much simpler and easier to learn than a system based on pictograms. So much that a society could achieve the same level of literacy with much lower cost if they adapted a phonetic system.
But I wonder if that is actually true? Has there been comparative studies of what mainland China did compared to Taiwan (which kept the traditional system) or Vietnam (which adopted latin letters) and its effect on literacy. Obviously hard to do ...
That said, you can look at Korean for a historical example of how a well-designed alphabet can fare when replacing a historical Chinese-based system. It actually spawned whole new literary genres by making writing more accessible to large segments of the populace that were effectively excluded before.
Using an alphabet would make things far more easier, but then how would people from different parts of China understand each other?
Languages are the walls between cultures.
Chinese also seems to be moving to the very phonetic and regular Pinyin that (for Mandarin) doesn't suffer from character amnesia.
I do agree that languages are walls between peoples and should be taken down with a global language. Maybe in few decades the kids speak some kind of Chinglish.
We already have the global language. It's called English lol
Around 82% of people don't speak English. Mandarin at around 86% isn't that far off.
Lingua francas come and go, and it's a lot more about weapons than about linguistics.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266808/the-most-spoken-l...
Most of those Chinese speakers learned it as a native speaker.
No language worldwide is even close to English in terms of learning demand. Chinese doesn't even rank in the top 3.
This "wall" makes the west an open book to china, while for the west it is hard to crack the Chinese. For one thing, think of the implications on recruiting people to spy or interpret intercepted messages from china or on espionage in general.
Also the impact of this "problem" on running a well-functioning highly-productive and scientific powerhouse society is highly exaggerated and easily refuted by empirical facts.
Just think of what Japan and China managed to accomplish in engineering and scientific accomplishment in the last 50 years and they both use character-based languages.
After months of hitchhiking I came back home unconcerned.
I think the fact that it's a black box makes us overhype China.
What makes a 2nd Language easier or not to speak is how closely related it is to your native language.
English is not any easier to speak than Chinese if your native language is far removed from both.
It is definitely harder to write though. Writing systems can be absolute in difficulty.
> Writing systems can be absolute in difficulty
These things contradict each other.
You are thinking of writing as part of Language difficulty which is fair(I mean it is in a practical sense and I don't disagree) but it doesn't make as much of a dent as you might think compared to difficulty of everything else.
According to the FSI who tracks the number of class hours it takes their diplomats to reach sufficient mastery, Korean and Arabic are still Category IV Languages for native English speakers (along with Japanese, Chinese) despite having a much easier writing system than those two.
Your OCR engine in the brain might generate "𰻞" for 'zh_hant_適' if reversed, doesn't mean it can't recognize the latter.
I think the question is rather: should it? Is there a real benefit for average Joe to memorize insane amount and complexity (at least to my untrained eye) of such characters? I think my brain would just explode. I'd rather use my memory for something more creative.
"There is a bit of irony in all this: the digital technology is both a cause of and a solution to the problem."
? How is it a solution?
The first, 喷 "erupt", is not exactly common either but is at least used in a few other compounds like 喷水 "fountain".
English orthography is terrible (i.e. a single vowel can be a half-dozen letters), but there's a limit to how complicated it can be to write a word that one knows how to say.
(I'm pretty sure this isn't eye dialect: I consulted the rhyming dictionary a lot, to make sure I was swapping spellings between two words with the same phonemes. I also tried to avoid reanalysis, though some of these words might not quite achieve that.)
I would be quite surprised if someone couldn't spell that word, unless it was a child.
It’s beautiful and culturally significant, and that will never be forgotten. But it doesn’t fit well with modern writing.
These teens have become accustomed to reading and writing sentences composed of such acronyms, and they even use them in real-life conversations—much to the annoyance of cultural conservatives. This phenomenon highlights how online communication can influence offline speech patterns.
That's why all the comments that mention efficiency of different writing systems are heavily downvoted.
But if we think about writing systems' evolution as an optimization problem that optimizes for "efficiency" (whatever that means. It is pretty hard to define so I'm not even going to try) we could easily imagine some systems being stuck at a local minimum. Or maybe even all of them being stuck at different local minimums some of which are smaller than the others.
Text input is now universally phonetic, and young people have a lot of trouble remembering how to write words.
Add to this the enormous (and increasing) use of English words, written either in katakana or actually in Roman letters, and it's plain that Japan is further down the road of losing its writing identity than China is.
Thar said, South Asian languages are phonetic so similar problems to Chinese do not exist.
The best comparison for character amnesia in Chinese would probably be Japanese.
Many native English speakers can't pick up a pen and paper and write intelligibly and would be in real trouble if they lost their phones; an increasingly annoying number TALK into their phones, not even pretending to type and just spewing auto-corrected crap out into the world.
I'm skeptical of this claim. My family doctor had bad handwriting, and one time the hospital worker had to call him to ask if he ordered a x-ray or Ct scan.
Apparently, it became slightly better recently, now that doctors spend less time scribbling things and mostly type them instead.
What the author describes is a phenomenon like wanting to write the word "analogous" but having no idea how to even begin putting pen to paper. Not writing the word and ending up with "analagous" by mistake.
There are cases, almost certainly overrepresented here, where a character has some truly unique variation that the writer forgets. They know it is different but forget how. In almost all other instances it is a matter of forgetting “is it heart or fire here?” as these two are very similar. It’s like spelling with an i instead of an e.
> After Japanese administration ended, the system soon became obsolete. Now, only a few scholars, such as those who study the aforementioned dictionary, learn Taiwanese kana.
_Jena_1820-09-20.jpg){kind=link}