Talk:The Chinese Language: Fact and Fanstasy: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Fork == | == Fork == | ||
Received this yesterday and am part way thru it. See the basic problem and will write it up either here or on the obverse. In summary, a lot of it comes across as petty and pedantic. For example, on the essential matter of whether or not the Hanzi carry meaning, stated as the negation of the "myth" 'Chinese characters represent ideas instead of sounds', DeFrancis grants both that the characters have meaning and are intermediate between phonemes and words being closer to the latter. The rest is like that, it's all basically a lack of perspective, some valid points being made but a lack of a bigger picture, in particular to the matter of whether a universal script should be logographic or alphabetic, etc. [[User:Root|Root]] 14:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | Received this yesterday and am part way thru it. See the basic problem and will write it up either here or on the obverse. In summary, a lot of it comes across as petty and pedantic. For example, on the essential matter of whether or not the Hanzi carry meaning, stated as the negation of the "myth" 'Chinese characters represent ideas instead of sounds', DeFrancis grants both that the characters have meaning and are intermediate between phonemes and words being closer to the latter. The rest is like that, it's all basically a lack of perspective, some valid points being made, most but not all of which will be already known to knowledgeable readers, but a lack of a bigger picture, in particular to the matter of whether a universal script should be logographic or alphabetic, etc. [[User:Root|Root]] 14:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:57, 29 January 2010
Fork
Received this yesterday and am part way thru it. See the basic problem and will write it up either here or on the obverse. In summary, a lot of it comes across as petty and pedantic. For example, on the essential matter of whether or not the Hanzi carry meaning, stated as the negation of the "myth" 'Chinese characters represent ideas instead of sounds', DeFrancis grants both that the characters have meaning and are intermediate between phonemes and words being closer to the latter. The rest is like that, it's all basically a lack of perspective, some valid points being made, most but not all of which will be already known to knowledgeable readers, but a lack of a bigger picture, in particular to the matter of whether a universal script should be logographic or alphabetic, etc. Root 14:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
