Live data from Hacker News

Just 'English with Hanzi'

oldnorthwhale.com

1–10 of 58 posts

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#2
An article for those who read both because none of the grammatical exemplars are really explained. You have to take his word for it without transliteration or explanation.

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#3
> Traditional Chinese relies on context: “Rain heavy, not go”, “雨大,不去了”.

> Modern Chinese demands explicit logic: “Because the rain is heavy, therefore I will not go.””因为雨下得很大,所以我决定不去了。”

Two observations. One, I see this in Thai, too, which might yet preserve that earlier syntax. ไม่เผ็ด ไม่กิน ("No spicy, no eat") is perfectly fine in Thai, though it is possible (and very unidiomatic) to create a formal conditional using เพราะ ("because").

Two, it's also true that ancient languages in general have a different logic to their syntax than their modern descendants. I've always felt it was easier to read and understand academic French than ancient Latin, despite having much less training in the former than the latter. There is probably a shift that happens, that isn't always deliberate, when speakers of a language encounter a radically different world than one they were born into. And add contact to that: the author write of creolization, though it's not only about vocabulary and syntax. That's the just the visible. It's often about changing how we perceive things. To return to Thai, squid, octopus, and cuttlefish are all ปลาหมึก. For English speakers, those are similar things, but all clearly distinct. But for Thai speakers, they're all ปลาหมึก, just different types.

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#4
> He argued that Modern Chinese has become “lazy” by forgetting how to use its own verbs. instead of “researching” (研究, yanjiu), speakers “conduct research” (进行研究, jinxing yanjiu)

I can't help but think of this classic essay about Java OOP: https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdo...

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#5
post #2

An article for those who read both because none of the grammatical exemplars are really explained. You have to take his word for it without transliteration or explanation.

Probably true. Though as someone who can read both English and Chinese, I thought the translations in the article does a good job of representing the traditional vs modern grammar styles. Not sure what more explanation would be necessary

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#6
> Traditional Chinese relies on context: “Rain heavy, not go”, “雨大,不去了”.

> Modern Chinese demands explicit logic: “Because the rain is heavy, therefore I will not go.””因为雨下得很大,所以我决定不去了。”

Interestingly the "traditional grammar" is much more conversational and natural, while the latter is expected for modern written work.

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#7
There is a similar path with Chinese painting. The language of painting was refined over millennia, but the last 2 centuries caused an extremely rapid integration of Western influences. This article is interesting because language is like water to a fish, the invisible medium humans live through. Since art is more 'foreign' and 'superfluous', the change were more obvious and there was much more debate regarding this evolution than in linguistics.

I discussed with a painter in the artistic lineage of Shi Guoliang, and he told me he remembered how much that could be seen as "Western art painted with a Chinese brush". I think the criticism was more directed towards such painters than say the Lingnan school that explicitly sought to revitalize Chinese painting through foreign influences, because it's really in the foundations of the painting -- how perspective and light are tackled through the 'scientific' system rather than the elaborate symbolic system of classical painting.

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#8
post #2

An article for those who read both because none of the grammatical exemplars are really explained. You have to take his word for it without transliteration or explanation.

Did you want the article to teach you read Classical Chinese?

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#10

How do we know this isn't just a difference in register? Classical Chinese was extremely literary, but did people actually speak that way?

This is a point I was also wondering the whole time. The vulgarisation of literature happened all over Europe at varifying times and in different stages. We don’t see these as changes in the language itself, but instead the authors daring to write the way they actually always spoke.

There’s something in bemoaning the loss of a poetic register in written language, but that’s a different and much less significant change.

Post reply on HN