|
language in China, eclectically
2007 - 2011 Sinoglot. Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial - Share Alike 3.0 License unless otherwise noted ·
contact info @ sinoglot · com Despite what any beginning Mandarin student will tell you, there’s a severe limitation on the number of available characters, and it’s an historically recent occurrence. Though it’s only been a short time in the history of the language since any real systemic effort towards standardisation has occurred (秦始皇 mythology aside) I believe it to have had a significant impact and a potentially greater impact in the future. There was once great variety in the written language even during the later stages of modern simplification. Up until recently the only real limitation was the ability to carve a block for printing. Even today some regional characters exist (e.g. 俺 ǎn), though they’re not used in any formal settings, although in at least a couple cases the simplification process took advantage of these regional variations or pronunciations1. In this post I’m focusing on contractions as they are what would most likely instigate the creation of new characters. In topolects, non-standard characters for contractions are used frequently, many of which are not supported by Unicode or any similar character encoding system. I’ve accumulated a small library of texts on dialects of Wu, and many of these books are written solely with characters, many of which are non-standard. This means it becomes a cut-and-paste job for the editor or print shop2. But before we get to modern contractions, it may be worth looking at the history of some of this type of contraction. Historical fusions Types of modern contractions Dialectal use of obscure characters 不好 becomes 孬, pronounced /fe213/ in the Wenzhou dialect of Wu (and apparently nāo in Taiwan, and though a combination of 勿5 and 好 would perhaps be more appropriate for Wu). Also in the Wenzhou dialect, [fɑi˧˧] is 不爱 though unsurprisingly it seems it’s not a character supported by my computer. In Taiwan 只要 becomes 嘦, jiào. In these later cases the character is more representational of the syllable’s component parts, both visually and aurally, almost as though it were a self-contained fanqie transcription. This sort of dialectal transcription may be one case where technology is more a hindrance than a help. We’re limited by the finite number of characters presentable with the few standards out there today, each referring to an individual vector image for each character. Only a small set of these dialectal contractions are able to be written and that number is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Click here for part two of this series. 1. see the Global Maverick post on 让’s simplification, and my response post on the same topic at the Annals of Wu. 4 commentsLeave a comment |
What's this?
Meta Recent Posts
2009 - 2011 Sinoglot. Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial - Share Alike 3.0 License unless otherwise noted ·
contact info @ sinoglot · com
Past Comments
Bloody Fish
(15)
Dyslexia
(1)
Number Taboos in Sino-Korean
(16)
Dialects & Kong Qingdong
(3)
|
Excellent post, this and the sequel.
In the early 20th century China also imported a number of characters from Japan, which were created by combining semantic components. Once entered in Chinese they were however used in a way similar to (phonological) contraction. See http://www.garyfeng.com/wordpress/2008/08/26/%E7%93%A9-the-only-chinese-character-pronounced-as-2-syllables/
Are you meaning characters that were imported or rather specific combination? For example, if I recall correctly, 银行 is a Japanese import, but only as that pairing. 银 and 行 were both in use, just not together to mean the place to deposit money.
However the vast majority of Japanese-created characters (kokoji) are only used in Japan. 腺 xiàn is the only one I know of that wasn’t originally Chinese but is now widely used in China.
Excellent posts, thank you. Sinoglot’s quickly making a name for itself. One minor comment: although Pulleyblank definitely wrote the book on Early Middle Chinese, the book you link to, [i]Outline of Classical Chinese Grammar[/i], does not deal with Middle Chinese (ca. Tang dynasty) but with the language of the high classical period (ca. Warring States).
You’re absolutely right. Thanks for that. I’ll leave the link in all the same for those otherwise not familiar with Pulleyblank.