Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d211477388/htdocs/chineselanguageforums/viewtopic.php on line 1049

Strict Standards: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d211477388/htdocs/chineselanguageforums/viewtopic.php on line 1049
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4572: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4574: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4575: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4576: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
Chinese Language Forums - Chinese Etymology Institute • View topic - WW (037) --- Chinese written characters are, now, easy

WW (037) --- Chinese written characters are, now, easy

WW (037) --- Chinese written characters are, now, easy

Postby Tienzen » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:40 pm

This new etymology consists of the five premises below.
1. Premise one --- All (each and every) Chinese words (characters) are composed of from a set of word roots.

2. Premise two --- The meaning of all Chinese words can be read out from their faces.

3. Premise three --- The pronunciation of all Chinese words can be read out from their faces.

4. Premise four --- an etymology memory algebra, with only 220 root words (R), it generates 300 commonly used compound roots (also as sound modules, M). Thus, R + M = 220 + 300 = 520. With these 520, all 60,000 Chinese written words are generated. That is,
etymology memory algebra is R + M = R x M

5. Premise five --- with the premise four, the Chinese character system can be mastered in 90 days for anyone who knows not a single Chinese character at the beginning.


The first three premises have been validated via,
a. Existential introduction (they are valid for, at least, one example),
b. Existential generalization (they are valid for, at least, two or more examples),
c. Universal proof (they are valid for any arbitrary (randomly) selected case).

Note: if there is one case which fails on those premises, the universal proof must be abandoned. Yet, no such a case is reported thus far. You (the world) are encouraged to report such a case via the "comment post" of this blog, and your report can be reviewed by both me and the world. If you are right, the universal proof of these premises must be abandoned.


As the first three premises are based on a system with,
i. a root set of 220 members,
ii. a sound module set of 300 members,

then, the premise four (4) must be valid if the first three premises are valid. In fact, the premise 4 is the direct deduction (consequence) from the first three premises.


For your convenience, I, however, will provide more examples for helping you to see an easier understandable picture on premise 4. If you are new to Chinese language, please visit the page at http://www.chineseetymology.com/exhibite.php

If you are more comfortable on reading Chinese text, please visit the page at http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cw1.htm
Tienzen
Founder
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 12:10 pm
Location: USA

Re: WW (037) --- Chinese written characters are, now, easy

Postby Ling » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:24 am

Tienzen, Sir,

I have a big problem with outlandish explanations of the roots of characters being used to produce the meaning of a character.

E.G. 去 qu go. The lower squiggle is a "Pot to indicate you are going on a journey. Therefore, Pot means Go. (Whether Pot means Go or not is an extension of an idea, but whether the squiggle means Pot is something else)

I do not know what the character originally meant in the mind of the originator (and neither, now, does anyone else) but only a cook would care what pot might be required for a journey and cooks couldn't read. The Master, who did the reading, would be interested in the horses and provisions, in general.

I have said I don't believe the highly intellectual officials of Classical China have been acknowledged for their mental acuity, but, today I wrote a meaning for 天 tian Heaven/sky which, I felt explained a possible insight into classical culture. "Man lives between Heaven and Earth, wishing it were heavenly but wanting all Man's pleasures".

As I have said before, this may not be the correct explanation, but it gives the writer the benefit of an intelligent (rather than an irrational) mind.

I would like to see more effort by professional interpreters to show the extraordinary intellect of people, whose writing, for its esoteric concentration, is so difficult for us to understand.
Ling
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:33 pm

Re: WW (037) --- Chinese written characters are, now, easy

Postby Tienzen » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:23 pm

Ling wrote:Tienzen, Sir,

I have a big problem with outlandish explanations of the roots of characters being used to produce the meaning of a character.

E.G. 去 qu go. The lower squiggle is a "Pot to indicate you are going on a journey. Therefore, Pot means Go. (Whether Pot means Go or not is an extension of an idea, but whether the squiggle means Pot is something else)

I do not know what the character originally meant in the mind of the originator (and neither, now, does anyone else) but only a cook would care what pot might be required for a journey and cooks couldn't read. The Master, who did the reading, would be interested in the horses and provisions, in general.


Ling, it is very nice that you try so hard on Chinese etymology. Unfortunately, you are handicapped by not being able to read Chinese, especially the Classic Chinese.

In some of my writings, I said that the book of So-wen (說 文, written about 1900 years ago) is 70 % correct on the etymology while it did not point out that Chinese system is an axiomatic system. When 說 文 is correct, I keep that etymology. The etymology for both 去 and 天 is correct in 說 文, and I used 說 文's explanations in my book too. So, the bottom part of 去 (being a pot) is not my saying but been known for the past 1900 years. This is why all the Chinese philologists in China and in Taiwan did not come out to challenge my work. There are three differences between my work and the 說 文.

1. 說 文 did not point out that Chinese system is an axiomatic system, as the ancients did not have the knowledge about the axiom system. Thus, 說 文 did not point out explicitly that for every Chinese character,
a. its meaning can be read out from its face.
b. its sounding can be read out from its face.

2. The meaning of every root in my system is in agreement with 說 文 and many other old etymology books. In 說 文, there are 540 roots, way too many, and those extra roots in fact "prevented" people to recognize that the meaning of every character can be read out from its face. In my 220 roots, not a single one is invented by me. I was simply weeding out 320 roots which veiled the truth.

3. In general, there is no error in 說 文 about the etymology. But, the 說 文 lacks the understanding about some linguistic principles (only known by the modern linguistics). I made all the corrections on them.

Trust me, if I used some (or any) outlandish etymology in my system, many Chinese philologists will be all over me by now.

Until you understand the old tradition on Chinese etymology, you will have no idea about this field which cannot be judged by IQ , as too much "knowledge" must be learned first.


Ling wrote:I have said I don't believe the highly intellectual officials of Classical China have been acknowledged for their mental acuity, but, today I wrote a meaning for 天 tian Heaven/sky which, I felt explained a possible insight into classical culture. "Man lives between Heaven and Earth, wishing it were heavenly but wanting all Man's pleasures".

As I have said before, this may not be the correct explanation, but it gives the writer the benefit of an intelligent (rather than an irrational) mind.

I would like to see more effort by professional interpreters to show the extraordinary intellect of people, whose writing, for its esoteric concentration, is so difficult for us to understand.


My way of "using and organizing" the roots is dramatically different from the old etymology, such as in the 說 文. But, again, in the case for 天, mine is identical to the 說 文.

Your saying above is a great personal insight of your own, but it is not the etymology for the word. Sorry, until you learn the basic (說 文 and many, many other old books), all your own insights are simply outlandish ideas. We must not challenge the ancients unless we have strong proofs that they were wrong, and the "New Chinese Etymology" is simply the result of this principle.
Tienzen
Founder
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 12:10 pm
Location: USA

Re: WW (037) --- Chinese written characters are, now, easy

Postby Ling » Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:51 am

Tienzen,

The world was flat for more than 1900 years and it took an adventurer, with a bright, challenging mind to discover that fact, not a student or a group of scholars.
With due respect, sir.
Ling
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:33 pm

Re: WW (037) --- Chinese written characters are, now, easy

Postby Tienzen » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:36 am

Ling wrote:Tienzen,

The world was flat for more than 1900 years and it took an adventurer, with a bright, challenging mind to discover that fact, not a student or a group of scholars.
With due respect, sir.


This is not a good analogy. The Earth was made by Nature while we were trying to find out its design. The Chinese characters were made (designed) by the ancient Chinese. Whatever it is, it was their design. Of course, we can criticize their design and try to come up a better one of our own, and this was the precise intention in the 1920s and was the cause for the implementing the simplified system.

Using English as an example. The entire English vocabulary forms a big "data" set. When we organize that set according to the alphabet order, it becomes a dictionary. If we organize it according to the roots, it become a etymology book. When we organize it by synonyms and antonyms, it becomes a thesaurus.

說 文 is an etymology book, and there is nothing wrong about its etymology. It only failed to point out that the Chinese system is an axiomatic system and failed to point out "explicitly" (although did implicitly) that the meaning of every character can be read out from its face.

康 熙 字 典 is organized as a dictionary (according to the 部 首, the leading radicals) and is not an etymology book but it does encompass all the etymology "data". Of course, it fails to show that Chinese system is an axiomatic system and failed to point out that the meaning of every Character can be read out from its face.

Yet, these two books are the Bible of Chinese vocabulary. Most of their "data" is correct. The only difference between my work and these two books are how the data are organized, and I have removed their shortcomings of failing to point out that Chinese is an axiomatic system.

Yet, "every" individual etymology in my books is checked with both of those books and with many other lesser books. In majority (over 99%), I adopted their sayings. Only in a very few cases, I disagreed with their etymology. And, in those cases, I provided strong arguments for my position. Thus, there is a big difference between the following two situations,

1. disagreeing with the literature,
2. ignorant about the literature.

If someone is ignorant about the literature, his critique about the literature carries no weight at all and will not get any attention from the professional.

If Chinese language is the second language for a person, it would have taken him over 50 years to grasp the two books ( 說 文 and 康 熙 字 典) fully, as you might already see the fact that all those famous Western Sinologists did not grasp these two books. But if he studies my system fully first without the outlandish bursts all the time, he could begin to study those two books in a year and can grasp them in one more year.

P. S. I not only checked my work (on every individual etymology) with those two books. I did study "every" listing of these two books many times.
Tienzen
Founder
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 12:10 pm
Location: USA


Return to Words of the Week (read and reply only)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron