Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese are totally unrelated languages. Chinese languages are sino-tibetan, Vietnamese is austro-asiatic, Japanese is japonic, and Korean is alone in its own family. Totally unrelated to each other as far as we can trace.
Despite that, they all used to use the same writing system and, shockingly, they were mutually intelligible when written down. In Japanese this method of reading Chinese (without actually knowing Chinese) was called kundoku but I think that the other languages also had ways to read & write Chinese writing with very light translation. Even today, Chinese writing unites the different dialects/languages of China.
My proposed lingua franca is the Chinese writing system. Everybody should keep their own writing systems, but they should also learn to transcribe into Chinese, the only extant written language in which this is really possible.
everything you said is true because chinese script is not based on pronounciation, but on (highly abstracted) images. these icons are universal because the concepts they represent are universal.
This is only partially true. Very early on, this was the case - Chinese characters started as pictograms representing objects and concepts. But this was fairly limiting in how much complexity you could capture without creating an unmanageably large set of unique pictograms. So the system evolved to use compound characters (characters made up of 2 or more components) incorporating phonetic (i.e. pronunciation) information into the writing system.
Most Chinese characters used in past 2000 years are made up of parts related to their meaning or category of meaning, and parts related to the pronunciation of the spoken word they represent (at least at some point in time, typically in Old Chinese) - these are called phono-semantic compound characters. The first comprehensive dictionary of Chinese characters that was created almost 2000 years ago already classified over 80% of all characters as phono-semantic compounds. This percentage also went up over time in later dictionaries as new compound characters were still being added.
As an example the character for book (書) - is made up of 2 parts, the semantic part is 聿 (brush - in its original form a literal picture of a hand holding a brush) on top (so the word is related to writing or painting), and 者 on the bottom (the meaning of 者 is not important here (it was a picture of a mouth eating sugarcane originally, but lost this meaning long time ago), but 者 in Old Chinese was pronounced similar to the Old Chinese spoken word for book, so it serves a purely phonetic function here)
When Chinese writing was adopted in Japan, it wasn’t really used to write Japanese - it was used to write Classical Chinese. Literate people would translate from Japanese to Chinese (which they would have been fluent in) and write it down in Classical Chinese grammar and vocabulary, not spoken Japanese grammar. They could also read it back and translate on the fly into spoken Japanese for Japanese speaking audience. They also brought in the Chinese pronunciation of the Characters into Japanese (in fact several different versions of this over time - see Go-on, Kan-on, etc.) so the phonetic hints in the characters were still useful when learning the system.
Attempting to write spoken Japanese using Chinese characters was difficult, initially they would actually use Chinese characters stripped of their meaning to represent Japanese syllables. These were later simplified to become modern kana
Spoken Chinese itself evolved beyond the monosyllabic written Classical Chinese (which remained quite rigid), so for a long time, Chinese also wrote essentially in a different language from how they spoke. It was only fairly recently that vernacular Chinese began to be written (rather than Classical Chinese) with it’s polysyllabic words (most words in modern Chinese have 2 or more syllables, and require 2 or more characters to write, further distancing modern words from the original simple pictogram meanings)
So while the idea of some kind of universal abstract concept representation divorced from phonetics sounds intriguing, in practice it is a poor way to capture the complexity and nuance of spoken languages, and all languages (including Chinese) that attempted to adopt it ended up having to build various phonetic hints and workarounds to make the system actually useful and practical for writing.
Yes, learning a few letters that form syllables and through that you can read words even though you don’t know what they mean is not practical, it’s better to learn a some thousand symbols and, if you don’t know a symbol at all, you can’t even say it out loud because you can’t read it.
Ideograms are the imperial units of language.
China has an extremely high literacy rate, so the difficulty in learning the system is, at least, provably surmountable.
The strength of being able to unite communication historically across East Asia and potentially around the world is a pretty big plus. Offering such a strength impossible in other systems, ideograms are hardly equivalent to imperial units.
Oh yeah, if you start learning it when you are like 4yo and have high mental plasticity and see it everywhere around you everyday sure it isn’t a problem, but it doesn’t make the ideogram/logogram system any less convoluted, unpractical and arbitrary… one has to learn from 3000 to 4000 symbols just to be able to read most publications. You are right, it’s hardly equivalent, imperial units aren’t that bad
Just like using Arabic numerals were a huge improvement from Roman’s, the alphabet was a huge improvement from pictograms, ideograms and logograms
I disagree. I doubt you read any alphabet letter by letter. You read words or you don’t read fluently. So the reality is: alphabets aren’t inherently better, and I think the continued existence of Chinese as a viable writing system shows this to be the case.
The one advantage alphabets have is they have a more gentle ramp up, but I don’t think they are inherently better. In fact your example of Roman vs Arabic numerals is a preference for logogram over atomistic writing system.
If your written language isn’t messy you actually read syllables.
There is this guy called Paulo Freire that developed a literacy method for adults that is really impressive and it was tested in several parts of the world. It has a whole part about making it relatable to the person learning and using its environment and social reality, but the reading/writing part is based on phonetics, so in two months his method can get adults from poor regions that have never went to school reading and writing - but as it’s based on phonetics, and language is messy, at start they mix syllables that have same sound, like stuff with c and k, or ch and sh, or ks and x, but if they know how it sounds they can read it, and regardless of grammatical mistakes when writing, what they write is understandable and “right” when it comes to phonetics, so even though it’s “wrong” you can still read and understand it, and that’s possible because the written language is based on syllables… now imagine having to teach 3000 to 4000 different symbols and if you make one stroke to the wrong side or miss one stroke it’s a completely different word?
The continued existence of written Chinese means as much as the continued existence of Christianity and how it spread through other continents, it has nothing to do with how good it is, but with historical power relations - and if Chinese becomes the next Lingua Franca, as it will probably be, it will because China won at capitalism and conquered the world’s markets, and not because its language is good - I actually can’t say if the language is good or not, but the writing system, it’s beyond bad.
Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese are totally unrelated languages. Chinese languages are sino-tibetan, Vietnamese is austro-asiatic, Japanese is japonic, and Korean is alone in its own family. Totally unrelated to each other as far as we can trace.
Despite that, they all used to use the same writing system and, shockingly, they were mutually intelligible when written down. In Japanese this method of reading Chinese (without actually knowing Chinese) was called kundoku but I think that the other languages also had ways to read & write Chinese writing with very light translation. Even today, Chinese writing unites the different dialects/languages of China.
My proposed lingua franca is the Chinese writing system. Everybody should keep their own writing systems, but they should also learn to transcribe into Chinese, the only extant written language in which this is really possible.
everything you said is true because chinese script is not based on pronounciation, but on (highly abstracted) images. these icons are universal because the concepts they represent are universal.
This is only partially true. Very early on, this was the case - Chinese characters started as pictograms representing objects and concepts. But this was fairly limiting in how much complexity you could capture without creating an unmanageably large set of unique pictograms. So the system evolved to use compound characters (characters made up of 2 or more components) incorporating phonetic (i.e. pronunciation) information into the writing system.
Most Chinese characters used in past 2000 years are made up of parts related to their meaning or category of meaning, and parts related to the pronunciation of the spoken word they represent (at least at some point in time, typically in Old Chinese) - these are called phono-semantic compound characters. The first comprehensive dictionary of Chinese characters that was created almost 2000 years ago already classified over 80% of all characters as phono-semantic compounds. This percentage also went up over time in later dictionaries as new compound characters were still being added.
As an example the character for book (書) - is made up of 2 parts, the semantic part is 聿 (brush - in its original form a literal picture of a hand holding a brush) on top (so the word is related to writing or painting), and 者 on the bottom (the meaning of 者 is not important here (it was a picture of a mouth eating sugarcane originally, but lost this meaning long time ago), but 者 in Old Chinese was pronounced similar to the Old Chinese spoken word for book, so it serves a purely phonetic function here)
When Chinese writing was adopted in Japan, it wasn’t really used to write Japanese - it was used to write Classical Chinese. Literate people would translate from Japanese to Chinese (which they would have been fluent in) and write it down in Classical Chinese grammar and vocabulary, not spoken Japanese grammar. They could also read it back and translate on the fly into spoken Japanese for Japanese speaking audience. They also brought in the Chinese pronunciation of the Characters into Japanese (in fact several different versions of this over time - see Go-on, Kan-on, etc.) so the phonetic hints in the characters were still useful when learning the system.
Attempting to write spoken Japanese using Chinese characters was difficult, initially they would actually use Chinese characters stripped of their meaning to represent Japanese syllables. These were later simplified to become modern kana
Spoken Chinese itself evolved beyond the monosyllabic written Classical Chinese (which remained quite rigid), so for a long time, Chinese also wrote essentially in a different language from how they spoke. It was only fairly recently that vernacular Chinese began to be written (rather than Classical Chinese) with it’s polysyllabic words (most words in modern Chinese have 2 or more syllables, and require 2 or more characters to write, further distancing modern words from the original simple pictogram meanings)
So while the idea of some kind of universal abstract concept representation divorced from phonetics sounds intriguing, in practice it is a poor way to capture the complexity and nuance of spoken languages, and all languages (including Chinese) that attempted to adopt it ended up having to build various phonetic hints and workarounds to make the system actually useful and practical for writing.
Yes, learning a few letters that form syllables and through that you can read words even though you don’t know what they mean is not practical, it’s better to learn a some thousand symbols and, if you don’t know a symbol at all, you can’t even say it out loud because you can’t read it.
Ideograms are the imperial units of language.
China has an extremely high literacy rate, so the difficulty in learning the system is, at least, provably surmountable.
The strength of being able to unite communication historically across East Asia and potentially around the world is a pretty big plus. Offering such a strength impossible in other systems, ideograms are hardly equivalent to imperial units.
Oh yeah, if you start learning it when you are like 4yo and have high mental plasticity and see it everywhere around you everyday sure it isn’t a problem, but it doesn’t make the ideogram/logogram system any less convoluted, unpractical and arbitrary… one has to learn from 3000 to 4000 symbols just to be able to read most publications. You are right, it’s hardly equivalent, imperial units aren’t that bad
Just like using Arabic numerals were a huge improvement from Roman’s, the alphabet was a huge improvement from pictograms, ideograms and logograms
I disagree. I doubt you read any alphabet letter by letter. You read words or you don’t read fluently. So the reality is: alphabets aren’t inherently better, and I think the continued existence of Chinese as a viable writing system shows this to be the case.
The one advantage alphabets have is they have a more gentle ramp up, but I don’t think they are inherently better. In fact your example of Roman vs Arabic numerals is a preference for logogram over atomistic writing system.
If your written language isn’t messy you actually read syllables.
There is this guy called Paulo Freire that developed a literacy method for adults that is really impressive and it was tested in several parts of the world. It has a whole part about making it relatable to the person learning and using its environment and social reality, but the reading/writing part is based on phonetics, so in two months his method can get adults from poor regions that have never went to school reading and writing - but as it’s based on phonetics, and language is messy, at start they mix syllables that have same sound, like stuff with c and k, or ch and sh, or ks and x, but if they know how it sounds they can read it, and regardless of grammatical mistakes when writing, what they write is understandable and “right” when it comes to phonetics, so even though it’s “wrong” you can still read and understand it, and that’s possible because the written language is based on syllables… now imagine having to teach 3000 to 4000 different symbols and if you make one stroke to the wrong side or miss one stroke it’s a completely different word?
The continued existence of written Chinese means as much as the continued existence of Christianity and how it spread through other continents, it has nothing to do with how good it is, but with historical power relations - and if Chinese becomes the next Lingua Franca, as it will probably be, it will because China won at capitalism and conquered the world’s markets, and not because its language is good - I actually can’t say if the language is good or not, but the writing system, it’s beyond bad.