Chinese vs. spanish

Pre-College Issues High School Life
81

<p>^and why a phonetic writing system is superior..?! most characters are compounded with parts that have its own meaning, only really simple characters don't. for example: unusual elements like "vanadium" people who don't know enough chemistry don't know what vanadium is and won't be able to guess it out... but in chinese is 钒, even someone have none of chemical knowlegde, be just by the left coumpound of it the "钅" which means metal, he could have guess that 钒 is some metal even he have no clue how to pronounce it, and most times the chemical property that the dictionary will give us is less revelant than the fact that it is a metal in the reading.</p>

<p>and as big as china is, people in different provinces speakes different dialect, and a nonphonetic writing system works perfectly right and efficient in such condition</p>

82

<p>Well, one would need to define superior. You picked out a very interesting example to suggest Chinese has some advantages -- and I'll grant you you are right. But it's such a narrow advantage. The person could recognize that you are talking about a metal, but not even be able to turn around to someone sitting in the room and say "hey what is vanadium exactly?" because he/she wouldn't know how to say the word. He/she would have to point to it and hope the other person knew how to say it. Or he/she would look it up in a dictionary that contains phonetic correpondences (how are two systems better than one except in the very narrow examples you gave)?</p>

<p>If superior equates to more beautiful, maybe there is an argument there too.</p>

<p>A phonetic system contains all these other advantages, though:</p>

<p>1) Much easier -- and quicker -- to write.
2) A much enhanced possibility of reading and understanding a word one has never encountered in writing before.
3) Allows for much faster learning. This has been proven in studies again and again.
4) The nonphonetic system of writing as a support to communication between those of different dialects: a kind of intra-country esperanto. Good. On this level Chinese is better. But it is an historical accident. People within China can read the same things even among different dialect speakers. However, there will likely through history have been far fewer readers given the barriers to literacy that characters have. And again, this ability within the country is a barrier to those outside the country who never learned characters.
5) If Chinese characters are superior, why did Mao and the Communists opt to dumb them down by simplifying them? Or why did the Vietnamese jettison characters altogether for a romanization based system? Or why are word processing packages for Chinese based on phonetics systems that are used to help translate characters?</p>

<p>For the purposes of the OP, especially, Spanish is a far superior a choice to Chinese.</p>

<p>Look, I like characters (esp. the traditional ones) but they are a luxury of dubious general value. In terms of brute efficiency, give me an alphabet anyday.</p>

<p>Oh, another superiority of Chinese I would grant you (same as beauty I guess): Chinese calligraphy is superior.</p>

83

<p>IMO, Arabic's script is much more visually appealing than Chinese, and much more efficient at the same time. But that might just be because it resembles cursive to me.</p>

84

<p>to bedhead:

if you look at my first post in this thread, you will notice the same thing I suggested to the thread starter... just because: you cannot learn chinese in one year, and you can learn well spanish in on year...</p>

<p>this is getting off topic... but anyways I just cannot stay here quiet looking people saying: "chinese character is meh", and some even think it shall be deleted...Cmon. I never mean that non-phonetic is superior. in fact in the development or language and writing system, sound based and meaning based are parallel. and both have its own advantage. specially letter based system(not necesarily phonetic) are good in the development of computer, due to the keyboard is letter based.
back to the vanadium example, if you encounter that in a ramdon reading, it is enough knowing that it is metal(thus implying properties like electric conducting, shiny, relatively hard, dense, solid in normal conditions...etc) properties like its fusion temp, valence electron are irrevelant unless you are reading something of chemistry than you should already know what vanadium is.
I agree with some of you point, however our definition of efficiency may differ, did you mean by efficient having a simplest language structure enough for only necesary comunication? like the "newspeak" in "1984"?</p>

<p>advantages in a non phonetic system is also comparable just little remark:

well in this paragraph you just said characters are difficult. IMO it can be treated as a disadvantage but can also as an advantage, as more difficult things are more appreciatted, and that is why only character's caligraphy is considered as art.

simplifying chinese didn't make it phonetic, it still remain its nonphonetic meaning based property. I have no clue how old Vietnamese is like so I cannot judge, but by the week I was in vietnam and used a vietnamese systemed computer, it is not easier to type than chinese. the invention of pinyin are used to mark pronounciation in dictionaries, just like in english dictionary there is also pronounciation symbols in "[]"(don't know its official name) after every word to mark the pronounciation. word processing system used also pinyin because it is alphabet based(not because it is phonetic based) and the evolution of computer technology used typewriter styled keyboard which is invented in Europe below a alphabet based writings.
yeah, i think this discussion shall end. one reason i like CC is that you can get some serious discussion without getting into blaming wars.
pd: simplified chinese characters are as beautiful as traditional ones... trust me.
if by the time passing, chinese disappears due to "natural selection" it could be a huge cultural loss and a pain for the world. i feel I am alphabetizing too, I can no longer write well(even still read well), and it is really depressing...</p>

<p>A Co</p>

85

<p>
[quote]
I agree with some of you point, however our definition of efficiency may differ, did you mean by efficient having a simplest language structure enough for only necesary comunication? like the "newspeak" in "1984"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, the fact that Chinese is more complex can rob communication of its richness to a large degree in my opinion. This would be highly debatable and is a huge generalization, I realize. But when it takes so long to write out characters, it tends to rob people of time to think and formulate their concepts vs. just the brute exercise of producing their writing. This was my experience in an academic context where I was told by my Chinese colleagues that students spent the vast majority of their time writing out their papers rather than thinking out their conclusions. Undoubtedly things are easier now that there is word processing. I don't think that because something is more difficult to master that that connotes depth. Language is a tool for expressing sometimes beautiful or elegant concepts more, in my formulation, than it is an end in itself. </p>

<p>Language's beauty is multivariate -- and includes what is seen as well as heard. You emphasize the pictorial beauty and elaborateness of Chinese and that is fair because it has these and I am not trying to take that away at all. In fact in my post I alluded to that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
non phonetic system is Much easier -- and quicker -- to read

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True, once you have mastered it. Until then: ouch! This parallels the statement it's easy once you know it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
if you look at my first post in this thread, you will notice the same thing I suggested to the thread starter... just because: you cannot learn chinese in one year, and you can learn well spanish in on year...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think actually we don't really disagree. I have belabored the efficiency issues of Chinese because of the OP. I think one has to define what superior is and I have defined it along those lines -- i.e. efficiency or ease of learning.</p>

<p>I never suggested that Chinese ought to die out or that it was ugly.</p>

86

<p>I don't think the writing system puts people off learning to write... when Chinese is a native language, learning to write is a gradual process. I think of it this way: the intellectual class in China is literate despite the writing system, and the rural poor wouldn't be very literate even if the language was phonetic. </p>

<p>Whereas the universal writing system is very, very important in facilitating communication between people with different dialects. Chinese dialects are mostly mutually unintelligible-- they're only labelled "dialects" because of the writing system. </p>

<p>The problem is that this makes Chinese virtually impossible to learn as a second language. How is it going to become an international language if it's so hard? I do think pinyin should be more widely used (it's the phonetic form for Mandarin)... and that is happening, but slowly.</p>

87

<p>I think a more basic writing system actually would allow more rural Chinese to be literate.</p>

<p>Even the top bums of the bums here in America can read and write.</p>

88

<p>In the next World War, who do you think we are more like to ally with? The South/Central American Federation, or the Neo-Chinese Empire? That's the politically correct question to ask.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
I don't think the writing system puts people off learning to write... when Chinese is a native language, learning to write is a gradual process. I think of it this way: the intellectual class in China is literate despite the writing system, and the rural poor wouldn't be very literate even if the language was phonetic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think that's a very helpful distinction, though there is a kernel of truth here. It's true because people are by definition immersed in their own language day and night as they grow up. But look at the following notion:</p>

<p>
[quote]
John DeFrancis, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, reports that his Chinese colleagues estimate it takes seven to eight years for a Mandarin speaker to learn to read and write three thousand characters, whereas his French and Spanish colleagues estimate that students in their respective countries achieve comparable levels in half that time.2

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is a higher barrier to entry even for native speakers. The appropriate comparisons would be how much more time would it take the intellectual classes to learn Chinese vs. similar people in European countries learning their own languages -- and the same for poorer people. Literacy is harder to obtain in Chinese full-stop. It seems that literacy would quite likely be at a significantly higher rate if the language were phonetic.</p>

90

<p>Spanish is easier, but if you want a challenge, go for Chinese. Don't be fooled by this "You'll use Spanish more often" thing because even though I live in Arizona, where there's a giant Hispanic/Latino minority, I've never used it. Everyone speaks English. </p>

<p>Go for the language you'd want to learn. I wish I took French over Spanish.</p>

91

<p>there is some misunderstandings of Chinese... we all seems to agree that Chinese is a difficult language, but it is not because of characters. Even it is true that writing characters is relatively harder the write ABC, it is still not that hard for normal person to handle. In fact, it is true that chinese kid learn 6 years of writing chinese during the elementary school, but the concentration of characters we learn is so loose, is like in average we just learn 2 characters per day(because stuffs like literature, poems, pinyin, structure are all covered at language art class). In the elementary years, we also get a solid mathematical base, in which, if we don't do anything but just learning characters, it is expected to be masterized within 2 years for native speaker.
In my expericience, the top difficulties for westerns learning chinese are:
1. cultural and sentence-structural difference between chinese and latin-greek systemed language
2. speaking the 4 toned phonetic.
3. know the words.
writing is difinitely less difficult than those above.

[quote]

[quote]
John DeFrancis, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, reports that his Chinese colleagues estimate it takes seven to eight years for a Mandarin speaker to learn to read and write three thousand characters, whereas his French and Spanish colleagues estimate that students in their respective countries achieve comparable levels in half that time.2

[/quote]

[/quote]
.</p>

<p>first, as I argued above, the 7 to 8 years estimated is too far to be precise
second: characters=/=words.
characters formed words, just like letter form words for english. the difference is characters have meaning but letters ussually not.
how the guy difined "comparable level" is still a myth, but you realised that with 3000 characters how many words can we form?? how can respective country archieve the "comparable level" if there isn't such unit of "characters"
and we don't need to know 3000 characters in order to have a good reading, I mearly know as much as 600 to 700 characters, and I feel that I have a pretty solid reading ability in chinese. normally, knowing 2000 words is enough for foreigh learners and that only require a small amount of characters.</p>

<p>pd: English is not pure phonetic based neither.</p>

92

<p>Qihqi: I respect everything you've said. I think the debate has played out. I'll let you have the last word.</p>

<p>I thought about my recommendation for Spanish for this speaker, and I think I might have gone the other way if 1) the OP said he/she was really good at languages and 2) he/she demonstrated a burning interest in Chinese society and culture.</p>

<p>So here's a question for you: I have an 11 month old daughter who will be bilingual anyway since we don't speak English at home. I want her to learn Chinese too, and will put her in a day care situation and possibly elementary school to get her this experience.</p>

<p>So here's something I had never really thought about before but maybe will now: Cantonese or Mandarin for my daughter? </p>

<p>One advantage is that I could follow her studies if it's in Mandarin. But learning Cantonese as a kid would enable her to learn a language that's even tougher than Mandarin and she'll be able to read in any case.</p>

<p>What would you suggest?</p>

93

<p>Mandarin has many more speakers and is much more widely spoken, isn't it? If yes, I think the question answers itself. </p>

<p>BedHead, what do you speak at home? I've read before that instead of completely outing English, it's best if one parent speaks a language and the other speaks another language (however, it's recommended that one speak their native language at the risk of passing on a less than decent accent in a foreign language).</p>

94

<p>Portuguese. My daughter lives in an environment of almost all Portuguese. But I speak only English to her and spend considerable time saying and repeating things. She'll get English from her environment eventually. And Spanish will be easy for her. </p>

<p>I avoid speaking Portuguese with her because a) I make grammatical mistakes and I don't want her to be confused -- and experts say this is the biggest problem and b) it prolongs confusion to have shifting going on between languages. I may be prolonging the confusion because I don't speak English with my wife; this should stop.</p>

<p>For me, ultimately, the most important thing will be to choose environments that are happy for her whatever the language. But, man, if she could speak Chinese with a native's accent, it'd be the most surprising thing coming from the mouth of a toe-headed, blue-eyed girl.</p>

95

<p>I'm biased towards Spanish because I'm minoring in it and I think it's the most beautiful, practical language that I know anything about... but really, unless you're up for the <em>huge</em> challenge of learning a language so drastically different from English (which I presume is your native tongue) go with Spanish. Learning Chinese is a huge process.</p>

96

<p>

I am scared... haha.... just joking...</p>

<p>my friend, I could suggest you to learn both. first mandarin then cantonese. the effort of learning two vs. learning only differs a little. Is like to learn Portuguese is easy if one already knows Spanish...In fact, learning cantonese after knowing mandarin is even easier: both shares same writing, word pool and grammatical structure, only difference is that the same words are pronounced differently, thus making those two sound different. In theory, learning one of those dialects can be done by linking the pronounciation rules of both, if one already knows one of them. If you feels better let your daughter learn first cantonese then madarin the result will be same, just a little more harder, as there is not an official pronounciation for cantonese nor for any province dialect. PM me if you have further questions :-) </p>

<p>To everyone: we are really agreed in most parts. the only point that I don't agree and thus the reason I am debating against you guys is the idea of "pinyin (or other phonetic and/or letter based system) will substitute charecters in long run" argument. And in fact this details are far from being relevant for the original question.</p>

97

<p>
[quote]
To everyone: we are really agreed in most parts. the only point that I don't agree and thus the reason I am debating against you guys is the idea of "pinyin (or other phonetic and/or letter based system) will substitute charecters in long run" argument. And in fact this details are far from being relevant for the original question.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree entirely with you Qihqi that pinyin or another phonetic system will not substitute for characters.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback. I guess I'll start her on Mandarin, only because I'll know what her lessons are about. With Cantonese, I'd be lost.</p>