On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Ross Clark wrote:
> Even Classical Chinese (~2000 years ago) had only 90% monosyllabic
> (single-character) words, so 10% 2-character or more.
When talking about polysyllabic words, one has to discern compositions from
root morphemes. A composition may have attained a new meaning as a special
word where the new meaning is literally wrong, but it is still a composition
which may either be understood immediately or only after studying the
etymology.
Examples:
German "Bleistift" (pencil) is composed of "Blei" (lead) and "Stift" (pen),
which is literally wrong because pencils are not made of lead but it is
immediately understood as a composition.
Chinese "sōngshǔ" (squirrel) is composed of "sōng" (pine tree) and "shǔ"
(rat), which is literally wrong because squirrels are not a kind of rats but
it is immediately understood as a composition.
These two words both fit in a monosyllabic language but their English
translations "pencil" and "squirrel" do not.
> That figure would have
> increased steadily of course, until apparently > 50% today. This is a result
> of continuing formation of new (compound) words, partly under pressure from
> increasing homophony because of sound changes esp. in Mandarin.
These words are still compounds of monosyllabic words even if their meaning
is different from an immediate interpretation based only on the constituents.
The question is: how many Chinese words are there that are polysyllabic
without being a composition? How many characters are in the Chinese script
that are not a word of their own but only used for writing polysyllabic
words? Even if English were written in a syllabic script there would be lots
of syllable characters that are no words of their own. I suppose, in Chinese
this case would be much less common.
--
Helmut Richter