The Chinese Language: Fact and Fanstasy: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| followed_by = | | followed_by = | ||
}} | }} | ||
== | == Dominion Lede == | ||
{{TOCleft}} Cloned [[:en:The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy]]. See discussion page. | {{TOCleft}} Cloned [[:en:The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy]]. See discussion page. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
==Main points== | ==Main points== | ||
* There is not a unique "[[:en:Chinese language]]". There is a group of related ways of speaking, which some may call [[:en:dialect]]s, others call [[:en:topolect]]s (a [[:en:calque]] of Chinese [[wikt:方言|方言]], fāngyán; DeFrancis uses the term "[[:en:regionalect]]s"), and still others would regard as separate [[:en:language]]s, many of which are not [[:en:Mutual intelligibility|mutually intelligible]]. One such variant, based on the [[Beijing dialect|speech]] of the [[:en:Beijing]] area, has been chosen as the [[:en:standard language]] in the [[:en:People's Republic of China]], and is now known as "[[:en:Putonghua]]", or common language. | * There is not a unique "[[:en:Chinese language]]". There is a group of related ways of speaking, which some may call [[:en:dialect]]s, others call [[:en:topolect]]s (a [[:en:calque]] of Chinese [[wikt:方言|方言]], fāngyán; DeFrancis uses the term "[[:en:regionalect]]s"), and still others would regard as separate [[:en:language]]s, many of which are not [[:en:Mutual intelligibility|mutually intelligible]]. One such variant, based on the [[:en:Beijing dialect|speech]] of the [[:en:Beijing]] area, has been chosen as the [[:en:standard language]] in the [[:en:People's Republic of China]], and is now known as "[[:en:Putonghua]]", or common language. | ||
* The [[:en:Written Chinese|Chinese writing system]] has a heavy [[:en:Phonology|phonological]] basis, shown in the phonetic elements common in more than 95% of [[:en:Chinese character]]s. Unfortunately they are missing from many common characters, and were removed from numerous "simplified" characters, causing many scholars to miss the point that they are a necessary resource for Chinese readers. It is not a brilliant [[:en:Ideogram|ideographic]] script; it is a poor [[:en:Phoneme|phonetic]] script. | * The [[:en:Written Chinese|Chinese writing system]] has a heavy [[:en:Phonology|phonological]] basis, shown in the phonetic elements common in more than 95% of [[:en:Chinese character]]s. Unfortunately they are missing from many common characters, and were removed from numerous "simplified" characters, causing many scholars to miss the point that they are a necessary resource for Chinese readers. It is not a brilliant [[:en:Ideogram|ideographic]] script; it is a poor [[:en:Phoneme|phonetic]] script. | ||
* Although there are characters in the [[:en:Written Chinese|Chinese writing system]] that visually represent concepts, such as 一 二 三 for ''one'', ''two'', and ''three'', Chinese writing is not ideographic in the sense that the symbols represent ideas divorced from language. There can be no such thing as a completely ideographic writing system, where there would be [[:en:symbol]]s to stand for all possible individual concepts and where [[:en:morphemes]] or [[:en:phoneme]]s would play no significant role in writing individual words. For instance, most Chinese words are written as [[:en:Chinese character#Phono-semantic compounds|phono-semantic compounds]] that include a non-ideographic, phonetic element. | * Although there are characters in the [[:en:Written Chinese|Chinese writing system]] that visually represent concepts, such as 一 二 三 for ''one'', ''two'', and ''three'', Chinese writing is not ideographic in the sense that the symbols represent ideas divorced from language. There can be no such thing as a completely ideographic writing system, where there would be [[:en:symbol]]s to stand for all possible individual concepts and where [[:en:morphemes]] or [[:en:phoneme]]s would play no significant role in writing individual words. For instance, most Chinese words are written as [[:en:Chinese character#Phono-semantic compounds|phono-semantic compounds]] that include a non-ideographic, phonetic element. | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
All of these are dealt with in separate chapters, at length, in the book. | All of these are dealt with in separate chapters, at length, in the book. | ||
== Significance and Criticism == | |||
The book is significant in a number of fields of discourse, primarily linguistics of course, and its controversial theses have generated much criticism. | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
