委婉语

A text from the 课外阅读 at the end of Unit 8 in my textbook is entitled “委婉语”. I must admit that when I first saw the title I thought it must be about the language of some ethnic minority out in the northwest, but no, it’s about tactful language. For those who don’t know, “tactful” is not an ethnic group, nation or culture. It means finding some polite, roundabout way to express oneself without doing so directly, usually so as to preserve the other party’s feelings or face. Anyway, here’s the text:

 委婉语

活中,ç»?常è¦?用到委婉语。我们说æŸ?一活动“是å?¯å?–çš„â€?。“å?¯å?–çš„â€?,这是委婉语è¯?。它带有赞æˆ?的倾å?‘,但没有直接表示赞å?Œï¼Œä¹Ÿè®¸è™½èµžæˆ?å?´è¿˜æœ‰ä¿?留,或者内心里赞å?Œï¼Œè€Œè¡¨é?¢ä¸Šä¸?便说。如果对æŸ?一活动或å?šæ³•è¡¨ç¤ºâ€œå?¯ä»¥ç?†è§£â€?,这自然也是一ç§?委婉语è¯?。它既没有表示赞å?Œï¼Œä¹Ÿæ²¡æœ‰è¡¨ç¤ºå??对,å?ªä¸?过表示“å?¯ä»¥ç?†è§£â€?对方为什么这样。这å?¯ä»¥è¯´æ˜¯ä¸€ç§?ç?†è§£è€Œé?žæ”¯æŒ?(但也ä¸?å??对)的æ„?æ€?。对一ç§?å?šæ³•æˆ–æ´»åŠ¨ï¼Œé»‘å?¯ä»¥è¡¨ç¤ºâ€œæ¬£èµ?â€?,“欣èµ?â€?也是一个委婉语è¯?。表示“欣èµ?â€?带有æŸ?ç§?感情æˆ?分,仿佛在说:你å?šå¾—ä¸?错嘛,颇有点æ„?æ€?嘛。至于怎样表æ€?,我现在还没想好;但我ä¸?å??对你这样å?šï¼Œä¸?仅我ä¸?å??对,在感情上多少是å?Œä½ ç«™åœ¨ä¸€è¾¹çš„。

    瞧�表示“���,表示“�以�解�,表示“欣��,这三�委婉表现法包��多么��的语义和细微的差别。这就是为什么人们在生活中这样喜欢用委婉语�的缘故。

Much easier than that newspaper article I just “translated”. Well, then the article asks which of these 委婉语è¯? expresses the most agreement, and which expresses the least. Well, it seems fairly clear to me that å?¯ä»¥ç?†è§£ expresses the least agreement. I vote for å?¯å?– for the one that expresses the most agreement, but I could well be completely wrong on that. The back of the book doesn’t have answers for the 课外阅读 questions, unfortunately.

No Comments

a first

From a comment on this post on Peking Duck, I found this article, and it looks like maybe it’ll be the first real newspaper article I decipher on my own.

Rough translation done off the cuff piece by piece as I read the article follows:

扬州市�止市民自�在城区�绿

Yangzhou City forbids citizens to sponatneously plant green in the city area.

(Yes, I know, it’s really bad English. I’m not doing this to give you a good translation, I’m doing this to see how well I understand the article.)

本报�京3月25日电(记者郑晋鸣  通讯员刘春龙)以往人们认为���树�绿化总是好事情,但江��扬州市的新规定打破了这一传统观点。该市规定在绿化规划范围内的城区公共场所,今年���许个人或者��自��绿。

Nanjing, March 25 (Reporter Zheng Jinming, Correspondent Liu Chunlong) Formerly people believed thought as long as one planted trees to “green” [the city, I presume] it was always a good thing, but Jiangsu Province’s Yangzhou City’s new regulation has broken this traditional idea. This city rules that in city area public places within the scope of the greening programme, this year will not allow individuals or work units to spontaneously plant green.

扬州市园林局城市绿化办出具的数�显示,扬州市城区绿化覆盖率已达到

40%,未被�被覆盖的空地已�“稀缺�资�。现在扬州市内哪里需��树,�什么树,�多少棵,都��过相关部门的科学论�,市园林局已出�详细的绿化规 划。�悉,为了方便�期养护管�,扬州市绿化部门对�下的�棵树都�登记于册。如今扬州市内�点绿化工程一般都由专业绿化人员完�,�有很少部分�型绿化 工程是在绿化部门的指导下由��或社会团体�加。

Yangzhou City Forestry Bureau Greening Office provided data that shows, Yangzhou City city area has already reached 40% green coverage. [what the hell is this: 率?!] Land that hasnt’t yet been planted has become a “scarce” resource. Now in Yangzhou City which places need trees planted, plant what kinds of trees, plant how many trees, will all have to undergo scientific demonstration by the relevant authorities, the city Forestry Bureau has already published a detailed greening programme. It is reported that, for convenient maintenance later on, Yangzhou City Greening Department will register each tree planted. Now key greening projects in Yangzhou City will in general be completed by professional greening workers, work units and social organisations will take part in only a very few small-scale greening projects under the guidance of the Greening Department.

 “市民动手�与绿化的热情值得赞扬和鼓励,但城市绿化也是一门科学,如果没有规划��讲方法,胡栽乱�,�仅树�容易存活,还会造�绿化资�的浪费。�相 关绿化专家�记者表示。

“The enthusiasm of the citizens to actively participate in greening merits praise and encouragement, but greening the city is also a science, if there’s no plan, let alone method, messily planting, isn’t just hard for the trees to survive, it could also create a waste of greening resources.” and involved greening professional told the reporter.

从国内很多城市以往�验看,因为��方法�当以���视养护等原因,市民自��树的效果并�好,一般新栽树木到�年的�活率�到 20%,所以,这些年�,扬州市倡导�引导市民用“以资代劳��“认养绿地�等其他形�代替亲手�树。

Looking at the past experience of many cities in China, because the method of planting was unsuitable as well as reasons of not attaching importance to maintenance, etc, the result of citizens sponatneously planting trees has really not been good, in general the rate of survival to the next year of newly planted trees hasn’t reached 20%, therefore, in the last few years, Yangzhou City has initiated, and guided citizens to use “Capital representing labour”, “Undertake to care for green land” and other was to substitute for planting with one’s own hands.

è¿™ç§?倡导与å?—京航空航天大学崔益å?Žå‰¯æ•™æŽˆæ??出的“虚 拟ç§?æ ‘â€?主张ä¸?谋而å?ˆ,崔副教授表示:通过改å?˜æˆ‘们的生活方å¼?,节约木æ??,达到等å?ŒäºŽç§?树的目的,比如:节约一张废纸,æ??出一本旧书,使用“液体木æ??â€? 等。

This kind of proposal and the “Fictitious planting” view raised by Nanjing Astronautics and Aeronautics University Assistant Professor Cui Yihua happen to agree, Assistant Professor Cui explains: Having undergone a change in our lifestyle, saving timber has reached equality with the goal of planting trees, for example, saving a piece of waste paper, donate an old book, use “liquid timber”, etc.

Alright, finally done. Shit, took about two and a half hours. Still, I was doing other things at the same time, like getting lunch, chatting with lzh, and other excuses. Not too hard, really. Got me a fair bit of new vocab, but not too much.

Now remember: I’m not asking for comments on my translation skills. I’m just trying to see how well I can understand a real live news report. Newspaper reading is something I’ve been thinking about doing for a while, but never got around to it until I followed that link and thought, hey, that article doesn’t look too hard.

One character I couldn’t find in the dictionary: 率

One cool word I came across as I was looking for something else: 虚无主义/nihilism.

Anyway, if you spot something that I misunderstood, leave a comment. Remember, it’s my comprehension I’m testing, not my translation.

No Comments

disgusting

Simply disgusting.

And on this theme: Right-wing extremist crimes are up 14% in Germany.

Obviously some people prefer not to learn from history, and no, I’m not just talking about the Germans.

No Comments

比目鱼

So following a link left by a commentator on Danwei, I found 比目鱼. 比目鱼 means flatfish or flounder. I’m not sure if there’s some kind of blingual pun in there. Anyway, on the front page is this short introduction:

比目鱼(bimuyu.com)是一个关于网络文化�网络技术�网络生活��网络生活��网络文化�纯文学��纯文学�商业电影��商业电影以���玩�的网站.

So is that a long, convoluted way of saying it’s a site about everything?

No Comments

thoroughly buggered

Just learnt a new word: 彻底/che4 di3, meaning thorough or penetrating. How? SMS. Texted lzh to find out why she wasn’t online even though she should be back in her office after lunch, her answer was “电脑彻底å??了”, which I understood fine, cos she’s been battling this fucked up lump of shit the entire time she’s been in this job, but I had to look up 彻底. So I think I’d translate her answer into 新西兰è¯? as “The computer is thoroughly buggered”.

Just so you know.

No Comments

my/我的

Sinosplice John has a post up looking at the differences in usage between English ‘my’ and Chinese ‘我的’. In my current frazzled, pre-caffeinated state I have nothing to say about the post, I might have another look at it later when I’m feeling a little more human, but those of you who are interested should go have a look.

No Comments

Hold on to your seats, make sure you’ve taken your medicine

Because following this link will take you to the biggest surprise you’re likely to have this year.

Oh, and the article has a cool photo of Long Hair’s back.

No Comments

schwa

So I think I managed to fix the schwa in that Peking/Beijing rant. I managed to somewhat incompetently (somewhat? Completely!) follow John‘s instructions and get a couple of IPA fonts installed and kind of working.

As for making pdf files work properly, I dunno, next time I think I’ll just google it and get an HTML version. It should be possible to copy text straight out of a pdf file, but I’ve never managed to make it work for me.

So basically, yes, I am hopelessly incompetent. But I am slowly learning how to use fancy modern things like electric lights and bicycles.

No Comments

That Peking/Beijing thing I mentioned…

So yesterday I mentioned finding an article explaining how Peking became Beijing. At the time, I’d only downloaded it (bloody pdf) and hadn’t read it. Well, I read it last night, and it had the bullshit detecters zinging.

Now, I should make clear that I am no expert on these matters. But I am interested and I ain’t stupid. Well, not very stupid. Anyway, I read it through and some things struck me as being reasonable, others as not.

The article is titled Backhill/Peking/Beijing (if that link doesn’t work, go to the Sino-Platonic Papers and look under March 2007), and is by Bosat Man. I just googled him, and the only two relevant links on the first page are to this very article. Then there’s a couple of pages about Buddhism in which the words “bosat” and “man” appear separately and not as names, then the rest of the results seem to be all in Danish, which is not a good sign, so I click on “English only”, and…. it makes absolutely no difference. I suppose I could work a little harder to track down some information about this person, but there’s a big pot of coffee sitting next to me begging to be poured into a mug and I’m just a blogger, so bugger it, on to the article.

The article begins with:

The three main contributing factors to the discrepancy between Peking and Beijing are: 1. a plethora of romanisations, 2. a welter of local pronunciations, and 3. a phonological change over time.

So far so good. He then spends a lot of time discussing how the plethora of romanisations and the existence of only one script for the Sinitic languages (i.e. the characters, the ‘Sinitic languages’ being what are more commonly referred to as the Chinese dialects) leads to much confusion. A lot of this is irritating, particularly his insistence on using Wade-Giles. The most irritating bit is his insistence on calling the characters ‘tetragraphs’. There’s nothing wrong with the word, except that ‘characters’ is perfectly adequate and describes the exact same thing. He also points out that most of the ‘dialects’ (he says ‘topolects’ is a better translation for 方言. I can’t say I disagree, but ‘dialect’ is the word more commonly used and I doubt there are too many people reading this who are in a position to get fussy over the choice of terms, so I’ll stick with the more commonly used terms where possible) were never written. Well, there are characters specific to certain dialects, but still, he’s right. The trouble is, most of this is irrelevant to the subject at hand. The question of how Peking became Beijing has nothing to do with romanisation or characters. The dialects are relevant, but I can’t see how that relevance is anything more than marginal. I would have thought that the key element was phonological change, and that the dialects were only relevant in how they inform us of and affected that phonological change. It takes Mr Man a long time to even begin to address that issue, though, in fact, it takes him until the last paragraph on page 2.

On page 3 we finally get to a discussion of how Beijing got its name. It’s on this page, however, that we start to go astray:

[dammit, now I find myself in need of things like IPA. A pinyin tone tool would also be useful…. Any ideas how to make this happen would be aprreciated, along with help on how to lift text out of a pdf and put it into a normal page and all sorts of other technical stuff. But for the time being, in the absence of proper IPA characters, take *e as that upside down e thing, and I’m not including 汉字 in any quotations]

“The oldest form of the tetragraph for “north” depicts two men standing back to back. North was the direction to which one turned his back because it was cold.

[snip]

There can be no doubt that the etymology of the Chinese word for “north” (tentatively reconstructed as pÉ™k) is intimately related to the word for “back” (tentatively reconstructed as bÉ™k).

[snip]

Even the least linguistically astute observer will note that the ancient Chinese word for “back” is almost indistinguishable in sound from the English word “back”. Is this but sheer coincidence, the extraordinary implications of which we should hastily sweep aside before we become seduced by some grand but preposterous Sino-European consanguinity? I think not.”

So the stage is set. He now goes on to demonstrate the historical relationship between the Sinitic and Indo-European languages.

Now, I don’t know about you, but having just waded through a lot of largely irrelevant fluffle about romanisations, scripts, and dialects only to be taken off on yet another tangent as soon as I finally arrive at The Point doesn’t put me in a particularly charitable mood. See, it’s just that any purported relationship between the Sinitic and Indo-European languages is irrelevant, I’ve quite simply never heard such a claim before, and although Mr Man provides a fair bit of evidence, it doesn’t strike me as being a particularly strong argument. It’s all possible, of course, but so is the existence of Nessie. There are differences between ‘possible’, ‘probable’, and established fact (known to scientists as ‘theory’, but the silliness of the evolution/intelligent design/creationism “debate” is proof enough that most people can’t handle the word ‘theory’ properly, so we’ll stick to saying ‘established fact’ even though it’s not as accurate). Mr Man spills a fair bit of ink establishing the relationship between the ‘bei’ of Beijing, the ‘bei’ meaning “back” and a variety of Indo-European words meaning “back” or something similar, then goes on to assert that the ‘jing’ of Beijing originally meant “hill” and goes on to describe how it is related to a variety of Indo-European words meaning “hill” or something similar, until eventually, at the bottom of page 4, he finally gets back to the subject and starts explaining how this word originally meaning “Backhill”, now meaning “Northern Capital”, came to change its pronunciation from something along the lines of pik-king (in the area surrounding Beijing, that is) to the modern day Beijing.

Now, the description of the phonological change strikes me as being perfectly reasonable and matches what I have heard before on the subject. I don’t know how accurate it is, but it strikes me as being reasonable, therefore I won’t dispute it. Anybody more familiar with the subject is free (and welcome) to comment.

My next problem is where he starts talking about the cause of this phonological shift.

“The inquisitive layman naturally wants to know why this happened. Most authorities would assert that it was simply a natural language change. Not being satisfied that anything in the universe happens without a cause or concatenation of causes, I feel compelled to seek a reason for these dramatic modifications in the northern topolects. It seems to me that a possible explanation might lie in the protracted influence of Altaic peoples in north China from the beginning of the tenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century. The Khitans (907 – 1125), Tanguts (1032 – 1227), Jurchens (1115 – 1234), Mongols (1206 – 1367), and Manchus (1644 – 1911) controlled large portions or all of China north of the Yangtze throughout most of the second millenium. The latter two dynasties ruled vast empires that included the whole of China. The deep impact of these non-Sinitic peoples on many facets of Chinese society (institutions, food, music, costume, etc) can easily be shown. Language, too, was unmistakeably affected. Hundreds of well-known Chinese words (as well as the ideas and objects they represented) were adopted from the Tatars and their kin. To name only one example of a more systematic type of change, the Chinese historical linguist, Tang Yu, has assembled abundant evidence that the characteristic retroflex suffix (-r) of certain northern topolects was due to contact with foreign peoples. I suspect that the diphtongization of the simple vowel in the first syllable of Pik-king (“Northern Capital”) was also due to similar causes since it too is a rather late development and is still restricted almost wholly to the northern topolects. The late Mantaro Hashimoto had begun to develop a theory of the Altaicization of Chinese but unfortunately passed away before he was able to describe this phenomenon in detail. The theory surely merits further investigation; eventually it may help account for the shift from Peking to Beijing.”

Bezdomny’s quick note: The Altaic peoples mentioned are now considered more or less part of Chinese history and their kingdoms and dynasties can be found in tables of the Chinese dynasties with Chinese names which may be better known than their own Altaic names. The Khitan founded the Liao/è¾½ Dynasty, the Tangut the 西å¤?, the Jurchen the Jin/金.

Again it’s a fairly weak argument. We go from more or less established influence of Altaic languages (I’m in no position to judge the quality of the research mentioned or how well accepted it may be) to a mere supposition. I mean, it is quite likely that the influence of the Altaic languages played some role in this phonological shift, but Mr Man offers no evidence whatsoever. He offers instead evidence of other Altaic influences on Chinese language, culture and society and a Japanese scholar who was working on demonstrating the Altaicization of Chinese and on this basis supposes that the Altaic languages may bear some responsibility for the shift from Peking to Beijing. This does not strike me as being a good example of the scientific method.

He then goes off on yet another barely relevant ramble about other dialects and languages and how those who, like him, still insist on Peking over Beijing need not feel guilty since in the majority of dialects and languages (i.e. those he cites) a name resembling Peking is used instead of Beijing.

So I was excited to come across this article claiming to explain how Peking became Beijing, even if it came in the form of a rather large (1MB) pdf file, but when I read it I was disappointed. Actually getting to what I wanted, an explanation of how Peking became Beijing, meant wading through a large amount of irrelevant fluffle, much of which had my bullshit detecters damn near burnt out.

4 Comments

gender imbalance

So this article is the usual article about the gender imbalance in Asia, all the usual stuff, written in the usual paint-by-numbers style of modern Western journalism on Asia.

But I have a problem, and it’s the usual invocation of the One Child Policy:

“In rural China, where there is no pension system for 800 million people, terror of old age with no carer or pension is rampant, accentuated by the one-child system.”

What’s the problem? Well, quite simply, the One Child Policy in its strictest manifestation applies only to urban Han people. 800 million people in rural China subject to the One Child Policy? Bollocks. The restrictions vary according to location (urban vs. rural and province by province), ethnicity (Han face the tightest restrictions; other ethnic groups have more leeway) and family history.

For example, my wife has a perfectly legal younger brother, even though she was born several years after the One Child Policy was implemented. In fact, many people in her village of her generation have siblings. Why? At the time she was born, in the early ’80s, rural people were allowed two children. Even today, many rural people, even Han, are allowed a second child. One of the more distasteful exceptions to the One Child Policy is that which allows rural families a second child if the first is a girl or disabled. Well, given the historical preference for sons, that exception is an unfortunate necessity.

Alright, yes, many female foetuses are aborted and many baby girls are killed. Not denying that. I’d be a fool to try and pretend that doesn’t happen. The reasons, however, have less to do with any government policy and more to do with the traditional ideas the article mentions. Unfortunately, in China and I guess India, education in rural areas, especially the more remote areas, is rather lacking and tradition remains very strong. There are still parts of China where girls are not educated (what’s the point? she’s only going to get married, make babies, cook and clean). Infanticide happens (but often for far more complex reasons than any Western journalist is interested in), sex-selective abortion happens. The One Child Policy may contribute to some of these problems in certain circumstances, but it is not to blame, and the phrase “accentuated by the one-child system” in the quotation above attributes far more blam to the policy than is warranted.

And then at the end of the article, we have this:

“Most Chinese regimes in history, as the communists know, have been toppled from below.

Western commentators like to project China and India as economic giants effortlessly on the move. But societies that are so dysfunctional rarely sustain rapid growth or stable government for long.

There will be change. The questions are how and when?”

First of all, the journalist is right to question the coverage of China by his colleagues who focus on the economy. But is China really as dysfunctional as he claims? China has many problems, true, but I would not describe it as a dysfuntional society.

Secondly: There will be change, indeed, but has Mr Hutton not noticed the changes that are happening? It’s not all negative, some good things are happening.

Alright, I don’t mean to be an apologist, and I sure as shit don’t want to become a “useful idiot”, I’m not denying all that is wrong in this country. But sloppy, lazy journalism that misrepresents the case pisses me off. That’s all. Am I asking to much to expect journalists who write about China actually have some understanding of the place?

And on the subject of idiocy in the news: check out Taro Aso’s latest ç‹—å±?.

No Comments