Re: All languages are equally fit
Richard Herring
<r...@rudhar.eu> writes
>My impression so far is that even if many Japanese Kanji and many
>Chinese Hanzi are logographic and not ideographic, at least the sun
>character in the Japanese sentence LSD gave is indeed ideographic.
"Is"?
Show someone who knows nothing of Chinese or Japanese the "sun", "moon"
and "mouth" characters, and see if they can tell you which is which. If
the characters are truly ideographic, it should be obvious to them.
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
> In message <vv3te59g2v1gcimg7fkfutcgt4vj89c...@4ax.com>, Ruud Harmsen
No, that would be the case if they were more clearly _pictographic_.
Remember, for centuries European scholars believed the Egyptian
hieroglyphs were ideographic, and for most of _them_ it's clear what
they depict.
Joachim Pense
No, they should not. That would be "iconic", or maybe "index". An
ideographic character can well be symbolic. The digits are an example.
Joachim
Richard Herring
<119f4342-ade7-4ed2...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> writes
>On Nov 9, 10:10�am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> In message <vv3te59g2v1gcimg7fkfutcgt4vj89c...@4ax.com>, Ruud Harmsen
>> <r...@rudhar.eu> writes
>>
>> >My impression so far is that even if many Japanese Kanji and many
>> >Chinese Hanzi are logographic and not ideographic, at least the sun
>> >character in the Japanese sentence LSD gave is indeed ideographic.
>>
>> "Is"?
>>
>> Show someone who knows nothing of Chinese or Japanese the "sun", "moon"
>> and "mouth" characters, and see if they can tell you which is which. If
>> the characters are truly ideographic, it should be obvious to them.
>
>No, that would be the case if they were more clearly _pictographic_.
Of course you're quite right. But how else would you convey a
language-free "idea" of concrete objects, if not by drawing pictures of
them?
>Remember, for centuries European scholars believed the Egyptian
>hieroglyphs were ideographic, and for most of _them_ it's clear what
>they depict.
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<sn...@pense-mainz.eu> writes
doesn't share with some random "non-ideographic" character like, say,
"tea"? (assuming of course that that one isn't "ideographic" too ;-)
--
Richard Herring
Joachim Pense
> In message <hd9h60$k99$01$2...@news.t-online.com>, Joachim Pense
> <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> writes
>>Richard Herring (in sci.lang):
>>
>>> In message <vv3te59g2v1gcimg7...@4ax.com>, Ruud Harmsen
>>> <r...@rudhar.eu> writes
>>>
>>>>My impression so far is that even if many Japanese Kanji and many
>>>>Chinese Hanzi are logographic and not ideographic, at least the sun
>>>>character in the Japanese sentence LSD gave is indeed ideographic.
>>>
>>> "Is"?
>>>
>>> Show someone who knows nothing of Chinese or Japanese the "sun", "moon"
>>> and "mouth" characters, and see if they can tell you which is which. If
>>> the characters are truly ideographic, it should be obvious to them.
>>>
>>
>>No, they should not. That would be "iconic", or maybe "index". An
>>ideographic character can well be symbolic. The digits are an example.
>>
> So, what property of the "sun" character makes it "ideographic", that it
> doesn't share with some random "non-ideographic" character like, say,
> "tea"? (assuming of course that that one isn't "ideographic" too ;-)
>
I am not an advocate of the theory that Chinese writing is ideographic. They
still have an idea associated that is more than just the word they are
associated to, in particular if they are radicals. Why do you think "tea"
would not be ideographic?
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
> In message
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
And the present-day shapes of Chinese characters are indeed
stylizations of ancient pictographs, a few of which remain
recognizable in the OBI. But if someone _tells_ you they represent a
sun and a moon and a man and a woman and a horse, you can sort of see
it. (Lots of those popular books on "learning the kanji" make pictures
from the shapes that have nothing to do with the actual pictures they
developed out of -- as it happens, Mesopotamian scribes did the same
thing, inventing fanciful pictographs picturing the things named by
various cuneiform signs (i.e., logograms) that have nothing to do with
the actual pictures they developed from (which appear on archaic
tablets that have been excavated elsewhere).
Peter T. Daniels
> > <s...@pense-mainz.eu> writes
> >>Richard Herring (in sci.lang):
>
> >>> In message <vv3te59g2v1gcimg7fkfutcgt4vj89c...@4ax.com>, Ruud Harmsen
> >>> <r...@rudhar.eu> writes
>
> >>>>My impression so far is that even if many Japanese Kanji and many
> >>>>Chinese Hanzi are logographic and not ideographic, at least the sun
> >>>>character in the Japanese sentence LSD gave is indeed ideographic.
>
> >>> "Is"?
>
> >>> Show someone who knows nothing of Chinese or Japanese the "sun", "moon"
> >>> and "mouth" characters, and see if they can tell you which is which. If
> >>> the characters are truly ideographic, it should be obvious to them.
>
> >>No, they should not. That would be "iconic", or maybe "index". An
> >>ideographic character can well be symbolic. The digits are an example.
>
> > So, what property of the "sun" character makes it "ideographic", that it
> > doesn't share with some random "non-ideographic" character like, say,
> > "tea"? (assuming of course that that one isn't "ideographic" too ;-)
>
> I am not an advocate of the theory that Chinese writing is ideographic. They
> still have an idea associated that is more than just the word they are
> associated to, in particular if they are radicals. Why do you think "tea"
> would not be ideographic?
Is the 'tea' character one of the tiny minority of characters with a
pictographic origin, rather than a radical + phonetic? Was it
originally a picture of a tea plant?
Richard Herring
>Richard Herring (in sci.lang):
>
>> In message <hd9h60$k99$01$2...@news.t-online.com>, Joachim Pense
>> <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> writes
>>>Richard Herring (in sci.lang):
>>>
>>>> In message <vv3te59g2v1gcimg7...@4ax.com>, Ruud Harmsen
>>>> <r...@rudhar.eu> writes
>>>>
>>>>>My impression so far is that even if many Japanese Kanji and many
>>>>>Chinese Hanzi are logographic and not ideographic, at least the sun
>>>>>character in the Japanese sentence LSD gave is indeed ideographic.
>>>>
>>>> "Is"?
>>>>
>>>> Show someone who knows nothing of Chinese or Japanese the "sun", "moon"
>>>> and "mouth" characters, and see if they can tell you which is which. If
>>>> the characters are truly ideographic, it should be obvious to them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, they should not. That would be "iconic", or maybe "index". An
>>>ideographic character can well be symbolic. The digits are an example.
>>>
>> So, what property of the "sun" character makes it "ideographic", that it
>> doesn't share with some random "non-ideographic" character like, say,
>> "tea"? (assuming of course that that one isn't "ideographic" too ;-)
>>
>I am not an advocate of the theory that Chinese writing is ideographic. They
>still have an idea associated that is more than just the word they are
>associated to,
Do the written English letters <tea> have an idea associated that is
more than just the word "tea"?
> in particular if they are radicals. Why do you think "tea"
>would not be ideographic?
Unless all characters are ideographic (in which case the definition of
"ideographic" is so broad it's useless) why _would_ it be?
I'm trying to understand what was meant by the statement "at least the
sun character is indeed ideographic", which implies that there's
something specially "ideographic" about that character that's not shared
by most others. Except that it's one of those few characters whose
origin was pictographic, I can't see what that would be.
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<d7a2f666-2985-45d0...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
AFAIK it's radical+phonetic, but it was just an example picked at
random. If I'm wrong, any radical+phonetic character representing a
concrete noun would do just as well.
--
Richard Herring
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> Is the 'tea' character one of the tiny minority of characters
Peter> with a pictographic origin, rather than a radical + phonetic?
Peter> Was it originally a picture of a tea plant?
It's not radical + phonetic. It's not pictographic. It's indicative.
茶 -> 艸 + 人 + 木
艸: herb/grass
人: man
木: wood/tree
None of these radicals would suggest that the word is pronounced
anything like [te24] or [ts'a35].
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> And the present-day shapes of Chinese characters are indeed
Peter> stylizations of ancient pictographs, a few of which remain
Peter> recognizable in the OBI.
The characters 日 and 月 are examples.
Peter> But if someone _tells_ you they represent a sun and a moon
Peter> and a man and a woman and a horse, you can sort of see it.
Not unlike Picaso's drawings.
Peter> (Lots of those popular books on "learning the kanji" make
Peter> pictures from the shapes that have nothing to do with the
Peter> actual pictures they developed out of -- as it happens,
Peter> Mesopotamian scribes did the same thing, inventing fanciful
Peter> pictographs picturing the things named by various cuneiform
Peter> signs (i.e., logograms) that have nothing to do with the
Peter> actual pictures they developed from (which appear on archaic
Peter> tablets that have been excavated elsewhere).
These pictures should not be taken as the originals of the characters.
They should only be treated as visual aids to help memorization. If the
authors are presenting them as though they were the former, these
authors should of course be blamed.
Peter T. Daniels
> In message
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
Then would even LSD consider it a candidate for "ideography"? Note
that all his examples (all two of them) come from the tiny fraction of
characters that developed directly from pictograms and have no
phonetic component.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> Peter> Is the 'tea' character one of the tiny minority of characters
> Peter> with a pictographic origin, rather than a radical + phonetic?
> Peter> Was it originally a picture of a tea plant?
>
> It's not radical + phonetic. It's not pictographic. It's indicative.
>
> 茶 -> 艸 + 人 + 木
>
> 艸: herb/grass
> 人: man
> 木: wood/tree
>
> None of these radicals would suggest that the word is pronounced
> anything like [te24] or [ts'a35].
Really? Have you examined the pronunciation of the word, and of the
morphemes designated by each of the components, in the Archaic Chinese
of the period when the script was codified? Pronunciations
reconstructed from the rime tables that date to nearly 1000 years
later?
Peter T. Daniels
> In message <hd9s9h$ik1$0...@news.t-online.com>, Joachim Pense
> <s...@pense-mainz.eu> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >Richard Herring (in sci.lang):
>> >> <s...@pense-mainz.eu> writes
> >>>Richard Herring (in sci.lang):
>
> >>>> In message <vv3te59g2v1gcimg7fkfutcgt4vj89c...@4ax.com>, Ruud Harmsen
I think that's what they mean. "Ideogram" vs. "pictogram" are another
source of major confusion.
LEE Sau Dan
>> Is the 'tea' character one of the tiny minority of characters
>> with a pictographic origin, rather than a radical + phonetic? Was
>> it originally a picture of a tea plant?
Richard> AFAIK it's radical+phonetic, but it was just an example
Richard> picked at random.
Show me it's phonetic part, please.
Richard> If I'm wrong, any radical+phonetic character representing a
Richard> concrete noun would do just as well.
--
Richard Herring
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes
>>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>
> >> Is the 'tea' character one of the tiny minority of characters
> >> with a pictographic origin, rather than a radical + phonetic? Was
> >> it originally a picture of a tea plant?
>
> Richard> AFAIK it's radical+phonetic, but it was just an example
> Richard> picked at random.
>
>Show me it's
its
>phonetic part, please.
If you're trying to tell me it's not radical+phonetic, why not just say
so?
> Richard> If I'm wrong, any radical+phonetic character representing a
> Richard> concrete noun would do just as well.
--
Richard Herring
Bart Mathias
> On Nov 10, 8:34 am, LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>> Peter> Is the 'tea' character one of the tiny minority of characters
>> Peter> with a pictographic origin, rather than a radical + phonetic?
>> Peter> Was it originally a picture of a tea plant?
>>
>> It's not radical + phonetic. It's not pictographic. It's indicative.
>>
>>
>> 嚙皚: herb/grass
>> 嚙瘡: man
>> 嚙踝蕭: wood/tree
>>
>> None of these radicals would suggest that the word is pronounced
>> anything like [te24] or [ts'a35].
>
> Really? Have you examined the pronunciation of the word, and of the
> morphemes designated by each of the components, in the Archaic Chinese
> of the period when the script was codified? Pronunciations
> reconstructed from the rime tables that date to nearly 1000 years
> later?
LSD's last statement is pretty safe. At the time of the character's
invention it is certain that 嚙踝蕭 began with a bilabial nasal and ended
with a velar stop, probably voiceless, with a vocalism of the high back
probably unrounded sort between.
嚙瘡 would have begun with some sort of voiced apico-laminal(?) consonant,
followed by a mostly high front vocalism and an apical nasal stop.
The only thing with any similarity to [te24] or [ts'a35] is the 嚙皚 part,
but that is the classifier, the part that should not be a phonetic.
Habein and Mathias analyzes the character as, instead of 嚙瘡 + 嚙踝蕭, 嚙瘟
with a stroke deleted, and claims that part is semantic/phonetic. If
that's wrong, it's Habein's fault! (She used a variety of
well-regarded--in Japan, at least--sources.) But 嚙瘟 tends to be a sloppy
phonetic anyway.
How *would* one draw a tea plant? My attempt might look like 嚙踝蕭.
Bart Mathias
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 8:34 am, LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
> > wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> >> Peter> Is the 'tea' character one of the tiny minority of characters
> >> Peter> with a pictographic origin, rather than a radical + phonetic?
> >> Peter> Was it originally a picture of a tea plant?
>
> >> It's not radical + phonetic. It's not pictographic. It's indicative.
>
>
> >> 艸: herb/grass
> >> 人: man
>
> >> None of these radicals would suggest that the word is pronounced
> >> anything like [te24] or [ts'a35].
>
> > Really? Have you examined the pronunciation of the word, and of the
> > morphemes designated by each of the components, in the Archaic Chinese
> > of the period when the script was codified? Pronunciations
> > reconstructed from the rime tables that date to nearly 1000 years
> > later?
>
> LSD's last statement is pretty safe. At the time of the character's
> with a velar stop, probably voiceless, with a vocalism of the high back
> probably unrounded sort between.
>
> followed by a mostly high front vocalism and an apical nasal stop.
>
> but that is the classifier, the part that should not be a phonetic.
>
> with a stroke deleted, and claims that part is semantic/phonetic. If
> that's wrong, it's Habein's fault! (She used a variety of
> phonetic anyway.
>
> How *would* one draw a tea plant? My attempt might look like 茶.
Bill Boltz looks at _families_ of characters that appear to have no
phonetic but that share a component and is able to reconstruct lost
phonetic readings that are consistent with the pronunciations of those
characters. Maybe he has one here, too.
LEE Sau Dan
Bart> Habein and Mathias analyzes the character as, instead of 人 +
Bart> 木, 余with a stroke deleted, and claims that part is
Bart> semantic/phonetic.
余 is pronounce [y35] in Mandarin and [jy22] in Cantonese. How can this
be a phonetic for 茶?
Bart> If that's wrong, it's Habein's fault! (She
Bart> used a variety of well-regarded--in Japan, at least--sources.)
Bart> But 余 tends to be a sloppy phonetic anyway.
Too sloppy that I don't think it make sense.
Bart> How *would* one draw a tea plant? My attempt might look like 茶.
:D
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Bart" == Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu> writes:
>
> Bart> Habein and Mathias analyzes the character as, instead of 人 +
> Bart> 木, 余with a stroke deleted, and claims that part is
> Bart> semantic/phonetic.
>
> 余 is pronounce [y35] in Mandarin and [jy22] in Cantonese. How can this
> be a phonetic for 茶?
What were the pronunciations 2000 years ago when the system was
established?
António Marques
Again, there is not *the* 'sun' character. There is one chacracter
associated with ri4, there is another associated with tian1, and there
is a sequence of 2 associated with tai4yang2. All three mean 'sun'. If
you mean one of them, you don't use the character(s) for one of the
others. This seems to be simply one more case of LSD presenting things
wrongly, either through dumbness or malice, and people taking him at
face value because he should know. Bottom line: never take important
conclusions from LSD's word.
Bart Mathias
>>>>>> "Bart" == Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> writes:
>
> Bart> Habein and Mathias analyzes the character as, instead of 人 +
> Bart> 木, 余with a stroke deleted, and claims that part is
> Bart> semantic/phonetic.
>
> 余 is pronounce [y35] in Mandarin and [jy22] in Cantonese. How can this
> be a phonetic for 茶?
There are those who see it as the phonetic in 舎, 叙, 途, etc., as well,
none of which are [y] in Mandarin, I bet.
But those are the sort of cases that make it a "sloppy phonetic" to me.
LEE Sau Dan
>> 余 is pronounce [y35] in Mandarin and [jy22] in Cantonese. How
>> can this be a phonetic for 茶?
Bart> There are those who see it as the phonetic in 舎, 叙, 途,
Bart> etc., as well, none of which are [y] in Mandarin, I bet.
They're, in Mandarin,
/she4/
/xü4/
/tu2/
The second one has the [y] rhyme.
Bart> But those are the sort of cases that make it a "sloppy
Bart> phonetic" to me.
To me, too.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Bart" == Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu> writes:
>
> >> 余 is pronounce [y35] in Mandarin and [jy22] in Cantonese. How
> >> can this be a phonetic for 茶?
>
> Bart> There are those who see it as the phonetic in 舎, 叙, 途,
> Bart> etc., as well, none of which are [y] in Mandarin, I bet.
>
> They're, in Mandarin,
> /she4/
> /xü4/
> /tu2/
>
> The second one has the [y] rhyme.
>
> Bart> But those are the sort of cases that make it a "sloppy
> Bart> phonetic" to me.
>
> To me, too.
How were those morphemes pronounced 2000 years ago, when the script
was codified?
Bart Mathias
Beats me. I'd ask Bill Boltz, but I've only run into him once in the
last 42 years, and wouldn't even know where to look for him (with
Googling, anyway).
It's pretty sure that those three characters would have had different
initials, different medials, and different finals 2000 years ago. But
there are cases where "phonetics" deviate quite a bit in one of two of
those items.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 8:26 am, LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
> > wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Bart" == Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu> writes:
> >> >> 余 is pronounce [y35] in Mandarin and [jy22] in Cantonese. How
> >> >> can this be a phonetic for 茶?
>
> >> Bart> There are those who see it as the phonetic in 舎, 叙, 途,
> >> Bart> etc., as well, none of which are [y] in Mandarin, I bet.
>
> >> They're, in Mandarin,
> >> /she4/
> >> /xü4/
> >> /tu2/
>
> >> The second one has the [y] rhyme.
>
> >> Bart> But those are the sort of cases that make it a "sloppy
> >> Bart> phonetic" to me.
>
> >> To me, too.
>
> > How were those morphemes pronounced 2000 years ago, when the script
> > was codified?
>
> Beats me. I'd ask Bill Boltz, but I've only run into him once in the
> last 42 years, and wouldn't even know where to look for him (with
> Googling, anyway).
At the University of Washington.
> It's pretty sure that those three characters would have had different
> initials, different medials, and different finals 2000 years ago. But
> there are cases where "phonetics" deviate quite a bit in one of two of
> those items.-