FANDOM


Day thirty-three -- traditional Chinese etymology vs PreBabel (Chinese).


      Question -- from "sangi39" -- ... As such, I believe that your proposed etymology works almost exclusively using more modern character forms where the original form has been essentially hidden and the writing style becomes more standard in terms of brush strokes and so on.

            Answer -- The word "modern" in your post refers to the year of 220 B.C. which is 220 years before Christ, and it is 2,230 years ago.

      Question -- from "sangi39" -- Going back to the oracle bone script and its reconstructed pronunciation as well as the later script forms and their proposed pronunciation almost entirely overturns your Chinese etymology for complex characters as well as some simple ones and also works in line with already established linguistic thought ...

            Answer -- The "Physics" written by Aristotle is still the treasure of mankind today although most of its statements are wrong according to the modern physics. For physics, the truth is written by the universe, not by Aristotle. Thus, the truth on Chinese Etymology is determined by the Chinese word system (word universe) itself, not by any "already established linguistic thought." Any physics law is true only if it can describe the universe on its behaves, its phenomena, its whatnot, etc.. Thus, the correct Chinese Etymology must be able to describe everything about the Chinese word system, its word form structure, its phonetics, its meaning arising mechanism, etc.. The "already established linguistic thought" is as great as Aristotle's Physics but is simply ignorant about the facts of the true Chinese Etymology. I do not understand your statement, "...entirely overturns your Chinese etymology for complex characters...." In Chinese Etymology, the more complex character is, the more precise its innate meaning is depending upon its morphic structure. The G2 (generation 2) word is more confined than a G1 (generation 1) word, and G5 more than G4, etc.. Please see the examples at,
            http://www.chinese-etymology.com/exhibite.php


      Question -- from "sangi39" -- All in all, the Chinese people haven't been taught written Chinese in the "break down a character" method because ...


            Answer -- Indeed, never, never, never for the past 5,000 years in the China's history, all the Chinese people haven't been taught written Chinese in the "break down a character" method, as no one ever knew about the true Chinese Etymology. Chinese written system was viewed as the most chaotic system in the world by both Western Sinologists and Chinese linguists. In 1920s, the slogan was, "Without abandon the Chinese written system, the China as a nation will surly perish." In 1950s, the simplified Chinese character system was launched to rid of the shame of that "modern (in your term)" system. Yet, as I said in a previous post, I am the inventer of "Chinese Etymology" but not the inventer of the "modern" Chinese word system.

      Question -- from "sangi39" -- Therefore, I generally cannot accept your etymologies for various characters simply because they appear almost exclusively to use the more modern forms rather than actually going back further and looking at their original forms and pronunciations ...

      Finally, although a new approach may be needing in order to teach Chinese characters, especially now where the phonetic and semantic link between written form and spoken word has been lost, it may not be wise or even correct to state that your new approach relates to Chinese character etymology, especially since it so drastically departs from linguistic theory as a whole and not just Chinese character etymological theory, but should simply be called a new approach in which characters are broken down into apparent constituent parts ...

      So, in conclusion, I wouldn't personally accept this as a Chinese etymology, i.e. the developmentally history of Chinese characters in relation to form, meaning, and pronunciation, but I would accept this as a new method of teaching Chinese characters specifically.

            Answer -- If a person is writing a thesis on "the history and the evolution of the modern technology" while he puts all his efforts on studying the technology of Roman time exclusively, he will definitely conclude that the links from the ancient to the modern has been lost. If he begins his study from 18th century, he might see more lights. The oracle characters, the seal characters and the bronze characters were, indeed, parts of the history of the Chinese written system. Yet, there was a "revolution" in 215 B.C.. "Revolution" means drastically departing from the old. Using the pre-revolution facts to measure the post-revolution facts is doomed to fail. This is what the "already established linguistic thought" is all about. This is why that no one ever knows that the Chinese word system is a PreBabelized (axiomatic) system. If you do not know about that revolution, I will inform you about it in my next post.

      Question -- from "sangi39" -- This "universal" language may better be termed "a new approach to learning Chinese characters in light of lost links between phonology and semantics with modern Chinese characters and the various Chinese languages" rather than "an etymology of Chinese characters" or "a universal language".

            Answer -- For three long months, we were talking about PreBabel, a universal language, never talking about Chinese Etymology until very, very recently. The PreBabel is not Chinese Etymology. The Chinese Etymology is PreBabel (Chinese). If you don't know the difference between the two, you should know it now. At least, you are told now.


Signature --
PreBabel is the true universal language, it is available at
http://www.prebabel.info

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.