Live data from Hacker News

Just 'English with Hanzi'

oldnorthwhale.com

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#21
post #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…

Tai languages are a completely different language family to Chinese, written using Indian abugidas and largely prisoner to a confluence of religious affectation, court ritual and the popular language of the peasantry as popular literacy never occurred. By contrast, Chinese has an uninterrupted written history spanning thousands of years with world leading poetry, philosophy and science. In terms of historical and linguistic nuance, comparing the two on the basis of an excluded adverb is like eating a banana and declaring it tree-rice.

(Re: child as can't post reply - Assam was always effectively surrounded by larger empires (Tibet, Myanmar, Bengal/Pala/northern India) and a disease-ridden tropical backwater so I guess its cultural and political fate was always to be dominated by larger outside influences.

Actually IIRC there's some linguistic history in the Taic languages that Ahom influence moved eastward through Myanmar. If you look at the geography (much wider spaces) it makes sense that you'd shift focus to richer climes. Perhaps much as the south Indian seafarers who contributed so critically to Cambodia saw it as a vast and wealthy land with geographic echoes of home.)

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#22
This article seems overly critical trying to impose a stance. I have never heard anyone say "因为雨下得很大,所以我决定不去了".

> The Sausage Sentence: English stacks relative clauses. Modern Chinese attempts to shove that complexity into a single pre-noun modifier using de (的), creating bloated, breathless sentences that tax the memory.

This is given without any evidence. "Creating bloated, breathless sentences that tax the memory" sounds like something Claude might write. IMO, 的 is far from as negative as the author (or AI) portrays it; arguably better than the multitude of English synonyms (his, her, theirs, its).

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#23
post #20

This article seems to completely ignore the fact that languages change over time on their own and attributes all differences between Literary Chinese and Modern Standard Chinese to contact with European languages, which is rather excessive. Lu Xun was interested in translation, but he was even more interested in writing for the common folk, i.e. not in some relexified foreign language. There are definitely some innov…

Fun fact: Luxun proposed dropping Hanzi entirely. The communist party conveniently forgets to teach that part to the youth because it doesn't fit their nationalist narrative.

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#24

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 chang…

As I understand it, Classical Chinese literature has long been inscrutable and full of references to other texts, requiring a tutor to explain everything as you read it, who learned from a tutor, and so on.

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#25
The article is mistaken on a number of linguistic points. For example 们 was used to mark plurals way before some 19th century translation, if you look at things that were written in the vernacular and not in Classical Chinese.

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#26
post #20

This article seems to completely ignore the fact that languages change over time on their own and attributes all differences between Literary Chinese and Modern Standard Chinese to contact with European languages, which is rather excessive. Lu Xun was interested in translation, but he was even more interested in writing for the common folk, i.e. not in some relexified foreign language. There are definitely some innov…

Fun fact: Luxun proposed dropping Hanzi entirely. The communist party conveniently forgets to teach that part to the youth because it doesn't fit their nationalist narrative.

Even more than that: Romanization was the official goal of the Communist party until Stalin talked them out of it!

https://faroutliers.com/2004/04/24/how-stalin-and-the-cultur...

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#27

I'm not one of those AI haters, and as long as you give it enough love, I have nothing against the usage of AI in blog posts. Actually, I'm even quite disappointed that I'm not allowed use AI to correct my grammar here anymore. That said, this has so much fill-words and weird section titles that reading becomes torture. Not to mention the lack of sources.

There's a whole spectrum between "full AI slop" and "no AI usage". This article is far towards the former.

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#28
post #22

This article seems overly critical trying to impose a stance. I have never heard anyone say "因为雨下得很大,所以我决定不去了". > The Sausage Sentence: English stacks relative clauses. Modern Chinese attempts to shove that complexity into a single pre-noun modifier using de (的), creating bloated, breathless sentences that tax the memory. This is given without any evidence. "Creating bloated, breathless sentences that tax the memory"…

In any case, Classical Chinese did the same thing but with 之.

Re: Just 'English with Hanzi'

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact: Luxun proposed dropping Hanzi entirely. The communist party conveniently forgets to teach that part to the youth because it doesn't fit their nationalist narrative.

Even more than that: Romanization was the official goal of the Communist party until Stalin talked them out of it! https://faroutliers.com/2004/04/24/how-stalin-and-the-cultur...

Nice! Didn't know that. I wonder if they Romanized transliterated 'Vissarionovich' as a test case. Regardless, with pinyin they certainly did a better job than the Taiwanese!

Pretty chilling evidence for the emergence of post-revolution Mandarin as newspeak, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Post reply on HN