The Chinese writing system is basically the same thing as hieroglyphs.

The Chinese writing system is basically the same thing as hieroglyphs. Why did they never adopt the more convenient Pajeet writing system along with Buddhism?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    To keep the peasants ignorant and illiterate

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      They had mass vernacular readership earlier than Europe during the Song. They had crime novels and self-help books for urbanite commoners in the 1000s already so that's midwit BS.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >mf cheap genre bullshit is older than my entire country
        >MFW theres fan fiction (there must be maybe of the romance of the 3K) older than my entire country

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Chinese fan fiction is historically at least entirely respectable, it was considered perfectly fine to rework or add onto existing works, or provide annotations and citations, rather than actually writing wholly independent works. Water Margin, Journey to the West, etc. all had that in the 17th century at least. So yes.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >crime novels
        Any examples? I know they had legal dramas (Judge Bao) but I thought those were set in verse. And those were really not the same thing as pulp.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I mixed up the time periods for crime fiction but they did have self-help books during the Song already which many in Kaifeng were supposed to be able to read.
          Like shouqin yanglao xinshu 壽親養老新書 about how to care for elderly relatives from 1085.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Chinks are practically allergic to illiteracy compared to most other peoples tbh

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      If that's the case then they should've stuck with Feudalism and Hereditary Nobles instead of a meritocratic centralized administration that allowed anyone who can prove themselves to enter.

      https://i.imgur.com/dWoUOqP.jpg

      The Chinese writing system is basically the same thing as hieroglyphs. Why did they never adopt the more convenient Pajeet writing system along with Buddhism?

      Because Buddhism came in very late and by then the Chinese writing system had already matured.

      >Why did they never adopt the more convenient Pajeet writing system along with Buddhism

      The Chinese explicity adopted logographic writing so that everyone- most importantly the Emperor and his Officials- can communicate with one another regardless of language. This sped bureaucracy and administration without causing the drama of linguistic-culture wars and grievances. This is something Sanskrit will never replicate since as a syllabary, it is tied to the phonetics of the language.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        it's ideogram nature allowed for centralized administration over a vast area and a diverse populace. There's a theory that chinese transitioned from an inflicted language to a isolating one. Almost all surviving chinese dialects diverged from han dynasty chinese. Which means that almost all of the pre-Qin languages died off, probably due to Qin's policy of standardization. Classical chinese itself is likely a product pidgin koine language across the central plain at the time.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >it's ideogram nature allowed for centralized administration over a vast area and a diverse populace.
          Did it though? They still had a common written language in the form of Classical Chinese. Sure, they vocalized it after different local traditions, but the same goes for Latin; <IVSTITIA> would historically be /xusˈtiθia/ to a Spaniard, /dʒʌsˈtJʃiə/ to an Englishman, and /jʊsˈtJt͡sia/ to a German.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          chu language still exist, it's called vietnamese
          >the word for “child” in the Chu language was something like /*koːn/ (written as “觀”), which is a cognate with Vietnamese con (昆)
          https://www.quora.com/Did-the-aboriginals-of-Chu-Wu-and-Yue-all-share-the-same-language

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Aren't the Viets Yue instead of Chu?

            Its literally in their name: Vietnam is "Nanyue" in Chinese.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            viets are both if you're talking about yue state
            but if you mean baiyue then no
            yue state and chu rulers had the same surname so ethnically they were both vietnamese and chu conquered yue anyway

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The most that demonstrates is that the Chu language was probably related to Vietnamese, not that it's its direct ancestor.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            high iq scholars think that there was a southwestern middle chinese language spoken in south china, from this sprang xiang, pinghua and annamese middle chinese, if xiang is considered a descendant of chu then vietnamese has to be too

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            vietnamese is a pidgin. Vietnam came very close to speaking full chinese but the chaos from the late Tang onwards led to the northern vietnam being more autonomous and power shifted back to the Viet-Muong speaking chieftains (although these chieftains are bilingual in chinese as well)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Muong speaking chieftains
            that theory is based on vietnamese being rooted in northern vietnam and chinese merging with muong otherwise where else would austroasiatic words have come from, if chu language was already littered with aa words there wasn't any bilingualism, vietnamese are the descendants of chu people that migrated to vn and spoke chu language

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The most that demonstrates is that the Chu language was probably related to Vietnamese, not that it's its direct ancestor.

            Hmm, so the Kinh Duong Vuong larp wasn't without basis...
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinh_D%C6%B0%C6%A1ng_V%C6%B0%C6%A1ng

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Not really, that area was thoroughly Tai (or Austro-Tai if we're talking Viet as a whole). Of course, 15th century Annamese or Cantonese had no way to know that.
            Austronesians are river-Black folk and their entry river flows in through the Annamites down in lower northern Vietnam. During late Tang, Tais frick off into Laos and Thailand, leave straddlers in the mountain chiefdoms with those ridiculous bronze drums. Vietnamese come in from the south and slowly replace the Annamese Chinese as the overlord of the area. The Viet-Muong langauges originate in that southern portion of n. Vietnam. Though Viet (Chinese loanword - rice farmers copying Chinese) and Muong (Tai loanword - mountain tribals copying the montagnards) tell you which side they landed on.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Austronesians
            Austroasians*, less confusingly called Mon-Khmer.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            yes, vietnamese origin is from the yangtze, lots of o2a floating around in china

            Not really, that area was thoroughly Tai (or Austro-Tai if we're talking Viet as a whole). Of course, 15th century Annamese or Cantonese had no way to know that.
            Austronesians are river-Black folk and their entry river flows in through the Annamites down in lower northern Vietnam. During late Tang, Tais frick off into Laos and Thailand, leave straddlers in the mountain chiefdoms with those ridiculous bronze drums. Vietnamese come in from the south and slowly replace the Annamese Chinese as the overlord of the area. The Viet-Muong langauges originate in that southern portion of n. Vietnam. Though Viet (Chinese loanword - rice farmers copying Chinese) and Muong (Tai loanword - mountain tribals copying the montagnards) tell you which side they landed on.

            >slowly replace
            what an npc parrotting a shit theory rofl, how did loosely civilised muongs living in the mountains manage to conquer the rrd when chams with a developed civilisation couldn't

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >The Chinese explicity adopted logographic writing so that everyone- most importantly the Emperor and his Officials- can communicate with one another regardless of language.
        They still had a common written language, though, namely Classical Chinese (i.e. the written form of Old Chinese.) Now Mandarin has that role. If you actually write two different Sinitic languages in hanzi, it's loosely intelligible but only the general idea. Yes, you can vocalize the same Classical Chinese text in the pronunciation of any Sinitic language, but an etymological spelling of their common ancestor would do just as well for that; General Chinese is one such attempt.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Chinese

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >If that's the case then they should've stuck with Feudalism and Hereditary Nobles instead of a meritocratic centralized administration that allowed anyone who can prove themselves to enter.
        there was no real meritocracy in china you had exams for buirocrats that enabled centralised emperors rule.Exams were hard and nobles educated their kids for a decate for it there was no way some rice farmer could pass it.China is an example of how to enslave a nation with complexity complex writing system complex laws complex religions . Meritocracy arrived in china with Genghis Khan.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >there was no real meritocracy in china
          The entire point of the meritocratic centralized bureaucracy was to decrease the Imperial State's reliance upon the landed Feudal Nobility, who were seen as unreliable as they had the resources to challenge the Monarchy.

          >Exams were hard and nobles educated their kids for a decate for it there was no way some rice farmer could pass it.
          1) Its hard because the bureaucracy needed to limit the people it has to hire or else it gets bloated and swamped. Plus you have to consider the quality of officials entering the service
          2) The aristocracy of China at the time were the Scholar-Bureaucrats, not the nobility. "Nobles" during the Imperial Period were merely peerage ranks awarded by the Throne like modern British knighthoods. They did not come with lands at all, just a stipend that is added to your original salary. And they weren't inheritable unless you're an Imperial clan's relative.
          3) Commoners and non-bureaucrat people entered & passed the exams all the time. Usually they come from urban mercantile & artisan classes who can afford to send their kids to school. Peasants they had a chance too: it was common practice for peasant clans to pool money and send a promising young relative to the academy in hopes that he passes, becomes an official with a nice state salary, and help his folks back home.

          Pic related: a Map showing the birthplaces of Ming Dynasty officials with Jinshi Degrees, the highest degree you need to graduate from to enter Nationwide-level Civil Service. Many of them come from trading hubs such as Guangdong, Fujian & Zhejian, meaning these were mostly the sons of common merchants, not nobles.

          >Meritocracy arrived in china with Genghis Khan.
          Wrong. The Mongol Yuan Dynasty was the least meritocratic of the Imperial Dynasties as it had a fricking race-based Caste System which put the Mongols & Steppe-Nomads on top regardless of ability.
          >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty#Social_classes

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >At the same time the Mongols imported Central Asian Muslims to serve as administrators in China, the Mongols also sent Hans and Khitans from China to serve as administrators over the Muslim population in Bukhara in Central Asia, using foreigners to curtail the power of the local peoples of both lands.
            And in the article it says that there were bunch of rich chinese it was just a little easier if you were a mongol or something else.They wanted to preserve power so they couldn't alow all chinese buirocrats hollding all positions.In the military they certainly had meritocracy they just had problems with scholars and buirocrats.And who could blame them If I took power in any modern country I would also do full buirocatic purge and not alow their kids to enter for some time.You want to crush the old system and change it not become a parto
            of the system.
            Also it notes that the system of rule was a mix between mongol one and Chinese one.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >And who could blame them If I took power in any modern country I would also do full buirocatic purge and not alow their kids to enter for some time.You want to crush the old system and change it not become a parto
            of the system.
            And that's why Mongol Rule was so short in China: it was not meritocratic, not open to the common people, racially discriminative, and put a favored foreign minority class above the majority of the country's population.

            Now compare this to the Manchu Qing Dynasty which adopted the Meritocratic Bureaucratic system. Mongol rule lasted only what, two or three generations (89 years in fact), Qing Rule lasted 250 years.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The Mongols stripped the privileges of the Muslim Semu, dumbass. Only the Christians retained it.

            Wrong. The Yuan dynasty went full traditionalist towards the end, destroying the Semu system and Han Chinese officers in the Yuan military like Chen Youding genocided Semu people in Fujian.

            The Mongols exchanged populations at the beginning. Han Chinese soldiers, officers and officials were sent to Central Asia (Chagatai Khanate) and Xinjiang like Beshbaliq (Jimsar County), Samarkand and Bukhara to rule Central Asian Muslims while the Yuan sent Central Asian Muslims east to Korea and China as soldiers and officials.

            The Chagatai Khanate was extremely anti Muslim and passed anti-Muslim laws discriminating against them while favouring Han Chinese officials over them while victims versa in the Yuan, the Central Asians became the Semu class.

            But the Chagatai and Yuan both ended their policies in the 14th century. The Chagatai converted to Islam while the Yuan ended all Semu Central Asian Muslim privileges starting from the 1320s to the 1360s, stripping them of pensions, titles and stripping them of even their religious rights and favoured Han Chinese officers like Chen Youding to genocide the Semu Muslims when the Muslims revolted against the Yuan in the 1350s Ispah rebellion. The Yuan passed laws enforcing Confucianism.

            Chen Youding fought as a Yuan loyalist against the Ming. The Ming defeated him and took over Fujian which Chen Youding had cleared of hundreds of thousands or even millions of Semu Central Asians butchered in the Ispah rebellion in the 1350s-1360s.

            The Ming is the sole reason Hui people still exist in China. The Yuan dynasty was helping genocide their Muslim Semu class and was reimposing full scale Han rule all over at the end, there would only be Christian Semu, Mongols and Han in the Yuan lands.

            The Yuan was overthrown after multiple natural disasters and plagues in China, not because of anti-Han discrimination.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Bull. True meritocracy began with the Song.
          >rice farmer
          Nobody thinks it was ever rice farmers although there were some cases.
          >Many individuals of low social status were able to rise to political prominence through success in the imperial examination. According to studies of degree-holders in the years 1148 and 1256, approximately 57 percent originated from families without a father, grandfather, or great-grandfather who had held official rank. However most did have some sort of relative in the bureaucracy.
          Song China was wealthy and pretty urbanized, they weren't all just rice farmers.
          There were hundreds of thousands of candidates at one point.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      literally the opposite. they wanted all the dialects to use the same charcter system despite not being able to orally understand each other.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >dialects
        Except in China's case they're fully fledged languages. There's less difference between Portuguese and Romanian than there is between Mandarin and Wu.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Divergent dialects of Middle Chinese, more like.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            By that standard, the Romance languages are divergent dialects of Latin.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That's surely what they'd be called if the Roman Empire was still more or less around.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >he still thinks there is any good difference between language and a dialect
            Most italians still understand simple latin spoken at them

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Probably less if you read it in actual reconstructed pronunciation.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Even in reconstructed they do, but eccleastiacal is of course easier.
            But considering as well that a north italian might not understand a south italian the border between language and a dialect is purely political

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I suppose, but I still feel like there's a point at which two varieties are so different that it's just *silly* to say they're "dialects", or vice versa.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yea but we have different languages which are ridicously close while having dialects which are further apart. Almost all european countries have these dialect/languages as minorities.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            They literally are. We just call them languages because they've been standardized and have long since ceased being pidgin Latin.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            How long would they have to evolve to no longer be dialects of Latin by your standards? Are the IE languages all dialects of Proto-Indo-European?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but the difference between languages and dialects is like the difference between species and subspecies: mostly arbitrary.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Pretty much, but like I said I feel like there's a certain point where two varieties are so far apart it's kind of ridiculous to call them "dialects", or vice versa.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah. The issue is that you can easily say that about Mandarin and Cantonese.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I fully agree they're two different languages, though.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Then why do they understand each others writing?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Because Cantonese speakers learn to write in Mandarin in terms of vocabulary and grammar, even if they read it in their own readings of the characters, and do so in all but the most informal of circumstances. If you show a Mandarin speaker actual written Cantonese, they'll have some idea what it's saying, but they certainly won't understand everything.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Chinese writing and Chinese speaking are basically different languages

      It's like Europe in the middle ages were educated people spoke the local language but wrote in latin
      The Chinese writing system united China

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        They literally couldn't figure out phonemes, I suppose that was at least a big contributing factor.

        That is no longer the case, modern Chinese is written Mandarin. Only classical Chinese was like that.

        it's ideogram nature allowed for centralized administration over a vast area and a diverse populace. There's a theory that chinese transitioned from an inflicted language to a isolating one. Almost all surviving chinese dialects diverged from han dynasty chinese. Which means that almost all of the pre-Qin languages died off, probably due to Qin's policy of standardization. Classical chinese itself is likely a product pidgin koine language across the central plain at the time.

        It seems quite clear that modern Chinese is actually agglutinative if not polysynthetic, characters only make it seem isolating.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >They literally couldn't figure out phonemes, I suppose that was at least a big contributing factor.
          They reconstructed older forms of Chinese themselves. Goes without saying that they understood what phonemes they were using.
          >It seems quite clear that modern Chinese is actually agglutinative if not polysynthetic, characters only make it seem isolating.
          Schizo hours

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >They reconstructed older forms of Chinese themselves.
            Little was achieved until the concept was imported.
            >Schizo hours
            >我是一个要去中国的美国人
            Sentence from a course, should be 100%correct. Please explain how it works without 要去中国的 being only one word.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Please explain how it works without 要去中国的 being only one word.
            Why would it be?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Because it's best explained if it is, essentially making it "I am a wantgotochina American." and, I really can't come up with an explanation where it isn't one word.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Because it's best explained if it is, essentially making it "I am a wantgotochina American." and, I really can't come up with an explanation where it isn't one word.

            Ack, should have replied to [...]

            That's just an adjective phrase and we have them in English. The only difference is the position of the noun it's modifying is infront instead of behind.

            >[我是] [一个要去中国的] [美国人]
            Noun, Adjective, Noun.
            >[I'm] [an American] [who's always wanted to go to China.]
            Noun, noun, Adjective.

            I can tell you're a not overly familiar with grammatical concepts type.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      moron

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The Chinese were one of the earliest mass literate societies.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      In 2022 America I think this may be the answer to our problems

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because it isn't anything like hieroglyphs. Most hieroglyphs were vocables not words.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      汉子在历史原来根埃及象形一样,但是今天你是对的。 这个

      Tones and homonyms combined make alphabets annoying for anything beyond kids books.

      也是重要的原因,中文的谐音字为了让拼音成为标准是太多的。

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        汉字 not 汉子, right? You're probably not trying to compare a guy with hieroglyphics, kek.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          对啊,当录入时我没看到了生词。

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Tones and homonyms combined make alphabets annoying for anything beyond kids books.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      pinyin is fine

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        It's fine until you run into anything with loads of homophones.
        Just try having any ability to understand "Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den" (施氏食獅史) in it's pinyin form "Shī-shì shí shī shǐ". 94 different pictograms, but only 4 separate words in pinyin script.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          That poem is in Classical Chinese and is deliberately constructed to be difficult to understand. A very weak argument.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          That's in Classical Chinese. This is what you get when you treat Mandarin and Classical Chinese as if they were two stages or registers of the same language when they're as different as French and Latin. If you translate it into actual Mandarin it's not ambiguous at all, and if you read it in actual reconstructed pronunciation it's also not particularly ambiguous.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Then how do people understand conversations or the radio or audiobooks?

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They don't have a single unified language so anything beyond pictographs would be unintelligible from one region to the next.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      One can look at things like Koine Greek and Church Latin to see that's bunk. Phonemes never prevented the rest of the world from having common written tongues.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      That's a medieval problem. It's 2022, they can standardize Mandarin across the nation within a year tbh

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Haven't they been trying to do that for a while?

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You're being incredibly hypocritical or just plain ignorant. The greeks got their writing system from the Phoenicians, and the latins straight up borrowed from the greeks without any big innovation like the greeks did with vowels.
    Indian scripts similarly aren't a direct copy of Aramaic, they have twice as many letters and can represent vowels.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Sees that nobody fricking gives a shit about learning a gazillion chink characters
    >makes an alphabet
    >literacy explodes

    Have you kneeled today anons

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Is rejected by the court anyways
      >Hangul is not implemented up until Japanese Colonization in the 1900s.
      >Modern day Koreans can't read the shit their ancestors wrote and have to learn Chinese.
      Never not funny.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Hey, give them some credit, they revived it in the 1600s. If it wasn't for Jap annexation it prolly still would've gotten to the same level it is now, since it was already being used for poetry and shit centuries earlier

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        day Koreans can't read the shit their ancestors wrote and have to learn Chinese.
        Well yeah, because their ancestors wrote in Chinese and not Korean. That's what happens when your ancestors wrote in a foreign language.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        the Japs did so fricking much for Korea it's unreal. it would just be another Vietnam or Cambodia if it wasn't for jap occupation

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Modern day Koreans can't read the shit their ancestors wrote and have to learn Chinese.
        Modern europeans cant read latin or greek .And you are talking about nobles only.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        We also cannot read what Newton wrote, since he published in latin. We read translations.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >dumb down language for he low IQ
      >aesthetics and class implode

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Alphabet and language are not the same thing. If you write a language in a different alphabet, it's still the same language.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Not for the sinosphere. If you read anything in Japanese that's supposed to be more high-brow or fantasy-ish, usage of more obscure characters is the only real way to up the register.
          For example instead of the colloquial 寒い, an author might use the poetic 寒冷 which phonetically on its own does not mean anything and you would need to know the characters to make it out.
          冒涜 for slander but boudoku could mean anything.
          And SO many proverbs that depend entirely on having read them.
          Say u yo kyoku setsu o hete 紆余曲折を経て to a nip who's never read it and it sounds like random monosyllables + something actually japanese at the end.
          Their languages are built around hanzi from having used them all the time.
          Koreans and Vietnamese don't suffer as much because they lack a real history of literacy, but China and Japan both would.
          And even in their cases, Koreans for instance struggle to disambiguate same sounding phonemes that they still use hanzi in advanced texts even though they abolished them.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >For example instead of the colloquial 寒い, an author might use the poetic 寒冷 which phonetically on its own does not mean anything and you would need to know the characters to make it out.
            Going by JMdict it's literally one of two common words pronounced かんれい. You underestimate native speakers.
            >冒涜 for slander but boudoku could mean anything.
            It's ぼうとく not ぼうどく, and it's literally the only word JMdict gives for the reading ぼうとく.
            >Say u yo kyoku setsu o hete 紆余曲折を経て to a nip who's never read it and it sounds like random monosyllables + something actually japanese at the end.
            Doesn't mean you can't learn it as an idiom. English speakers know what 'hocus pocus' or 'helter skelter' are despite not being composed of any identifiable parts. And きょくせつ is apparently a common word (and the only word with that reading) so it might not be complete gibberish. At worst it would be an idiom with a fossil word in it, like 'kith and kin', 'to have one's druthers', 'wait with bated breath'...

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Going by JMdict it's literally one of two common words pronounced かんれい. You underestimate native speakers.
            You are missing my point. 寒 and 冷 are indeed extremely common. But they're almost never written together like that. And if you do write かんれい, well what the hell could that mean? 官令 as in official order? かん and れい are literally phonemes with dozens of possible meanings behind them and this goes for many other syllables. At least Chinese has tones.
            >It's ぼうとく not ぼうどく, and it's literally the only word JMdict gives for the reading ぼうとく.
            Ditto for this. Nobody usually says 冒涜. Colloquially it would be 悪口. Sometimes 中傷 which may be worse.
            >At worst it would be an idiom with a fossil word in it, like 'kith and kin', 'to have one's druthers', 'wait with bated breath'...
            Well in my view, with 60+% of Japanese vocabulary being Chinese derived and barebones indistinguishable monosyllables and the proportion only increasing with register, I'd say most idioms in Japanese especially the 4 kanji compounds are mostly fossil words. Actually your fossil word analogy applies to basically all kanji.
            In my opinion kanji are simply inextricable from the language. But true, I could've shown better examples of what I meant.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >But they're almost never written together like that.
            No, I'm saying JMdict literally lists 寒冷 as a common word, not 寒 and 冷 individually.
            >And if you do write かんれい, well what the hell could that mean? 官令 as in official order?
            Like five things, two of which are common, going by JMdict. Context helps a lot.
            >At least Chinese has tones.
            And Japanese has pitch accent, though it doesn't carry as much information.
            >Ditto for this. Nobody usually says 冒涜. Colloquially it would be 悪口. Sometimes 中傷 which may be worse.
            And yet will an educated native speaker not understand it if they hear it? If they don't, having it written as ぼうとく wouldn't make it any harder to look up (and does anyone recognize the kanji 涜 who hasn't heard the spoken word ぼうとく anyway?)
            >Actually your fossil word analogy applies to basically all kanji.
            I don't see how. Most of them are just ordinary words.
            >In my opinion kanji are simply inextricable from the language. But true, I could've shown better examples of what I meant.
            Then how do people listen to audiobooks or the radio? How do blind people read anything? You know Japanese Braille has no kanji, right?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >JMdict
            I'm calling BS on their frequency criteria.
            >Like five things, two of which are common, going by JMdict. Context helps a lot.
            ...context about which sino-xenic compound the speaker means. Again you don't get it. Kanrei means nothing in actual Japanese. What gives it meaning are the Kanji. There is a dilemma. Either they scrap kanji and go back to pure native Japanese (like North Koreans do) save for some very common foreign compounds and dumb down their language to what peasants used to speak, they scrap and keep the compounds (which turn into same sounding disyllabic gibberish pretty much) or they keep kanji and have a full etymological understanding of the random syllables they utter and don't abandon their rich literary history that's bound to kanji.
            >And yet will an educated native speaker not understand it if they hear it? If they don't, having it written as ぼうとく wouldn't make it any harder to look up (and does anyone recognize the kanji 涜 who hasn't heard the spoken word ぼうとく anyway?)
            What makes them educated is that they know that 冒 means risk and 涜 means defile. You wouldn't call someone who couldn't understand affixes like micro-, hyper- educated either, but sadly most Japanese and Chinese words are all like that!
            >I don't see how. Most of them are just ordinary words.
            Kanji aren't words. They are phonemes which meant things to MC speakers and whose pronunciation the Japanese butchered and rendered indistinguishable since they adopted them.
            >Then how do people listen to audiobooks or the radio? How do blind people read anything? You know Japanese Braille has no kanji, right?
            I strongly doubt they have a grasp on Japanese nearly as robust.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >...context about which sino-xenic compound the speaker means. Again you don't get it. Kanrei means nothing in actual Japanese. What gives it meaning are the Kanji.
            What gives it meaning historically are the morphemes it's composed of. What gives it meaning today is how it's used. English speakers don't know the component morphemes of "obstinate" or "peculiar" (though they're obvious once you know Latin), that doesn't mean they don't know what those words mean.
            >Either they scrap kanji and go back to pure native Japanese (like North Koreans do)
            North Koreans use some native coinages but they still use plenty of Sino-Korean words.
            >they scrap and keep the compounds (which turn into same sounding disyllabic gibberish pretty much)
            Not really. Some of the morphemes would be less obvious than others (but then, every Japanese child learns what ぜったい means as a unit before she learns the component parts) but it would still be obvious that, for instance, 〜がく mean -ology.
            >What makes them educated is that they know that 冒 means risk and 涜 means defile.
            Again though, does anyone know the character 涜 who doesn't already know the spoken word ぼうとく anyway?
            >Kanji aren't words.
            Some stand for words on their own, but I mean Sino-Japanese words would just be ordinary words.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >English speakers don't know the component morphemes of "obstinate" or "peculiar" (though they're obvious once you know Latin), that doesn't mean they don't know what those words mean.
            Kinda poor example since English uses pretty much, as another anon put it, an etymography. So much doesn't sound the way it's spelled that spelling bees exist. But the orthography is very useful for understanding etymologies. The same goes for Japanese. Strip it of kanji and it becomes an unrecognizable mess of きょう きょ せい そう which 1) does keep sounding the same, 2) is aesthetically unpleasant and disconnected from history.
            And btw, how do you think words like 革命, 民主, 信仰心 are coined? Most of these Wasei Kango are neologisms. They could only create them by knowing the component kanji. Inb4 >kaku+mei would work too, no. You needed the kanji to make new compounds like those. You really think some random nip without kanji would come up with "shinkou" instead of who fricking knows, "kamishinji" which actually doesn't work because they have no native word for faith or belief?
            >North Koreans use some native coinages but they still use plenty of Sino-Korean words.
            Only furthers my point.
            >Again though, does anyone know the character 涜 who doesn't already know the spoken word ぼうとく anyway?
            Probably not. But most likely they would ask what the frick ぼうとく is supposed to mean as it's impossible to glean the meaning from the parts unlike say, やました or how German works with very recognizable components and affixes to their compounds.
            >but I mean Sino-Japanese words would just be ordinary words.
            Sure, those that are common or easily distinguishable. Most of the more sophisticated ones, ones you'd see in fiction or poetry would go away along with much of the vocab in use historically. In other words, linguistic aesthetic death.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Actually I'll just add on to my post there because I really want to emphasize the loss of aesthetics.
            >私の思想
            >わたし の しそう Watashi no Shisou
            >四季の移ろいは寒冷を歓迎した
            >しき の うつろい は かんれい を かんげい した Shiki no Utsuroi wa Kanrei wo Kangei shita
            It's just painful to look at. Kanji are the only thing that beautifies Japanese's primitive child-like (in kids' media kanji are indeed written in kana) phonemes and gives it any etymology.
            The same applies to Chinese's bird-speak. What kind of poetry, calligraphy could they write with the same ching chong syllables? There's a reason Korea has never had, and never will have, any kind of high literature. Maybe Vietnam, but no clue about them tbh.
            They are simply not suited towards phonetics.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >There's a reason Korea has never had, and never will have, any kind of high literature.

            Before the 1980s, a lot of Korean books were printed in mixed script though, including novels and poetry

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Actually I'll just add on to my post there because I really want to emphasize the loss of aesthetics.
            Again aesthetics are inherently subjective.
            >child-like (in kids' media kanji are indeed written in kana)
            And what makes you think that that's indicative of any intrinsic childishness of kana rather than just... the fact that kids haven't learned kanji yet? You know the Tale of Genji was written all in hirgana, right?
            >The same applies to Chinese's bird-speak. What kind of poetry, calligraphy could they write with the same ching chong syllables?
            That's mostly a Mandarin problem. If you look at more conservative southern Sinitic languages there's a lot fewer homophones, and even less so in Middle Chinese.
            >There's a reason Korea has never had, and never will have, any kind of high literature.
            That's a comical level of confidence with which to assert that when you've given no indication you even read Korean.
            >They are simply not suited towards phonetics.
            Which is why every spoken conversation on anything beyond basic everyday topics devolves into 50% "wait, which homophone is that?" questions. Oh wait, no it doesn't.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Which is why every spoken conversation on anything beyond basic everyday topics devolves into 50% "wait, which homophone is that?" questions. Oh wait, no it doesn't.
            See first point

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Kinda poor example since English uses pretty much, as another anon put it, an etymography.
            Not really; it has a good bit of etymological information, but it's still unmistakably an etymological system.
            http://zompist.com/spell.html
            If it actually was fully etymological it would look more like this:
            https://hbmmaster.tumblr.com/post/149100917318/%C3%A6nglisc-%E1%BC%90%CF%84%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82al-speling-r%C3%A9forme
            >So much doesn't sound the way it's spelled that spelling bees exist.
            That's not that unique, France has their dictées.
            >Strip it of kanji and it becomes an unrecognizable mess of きょう きょ せい そう
            No more than the spoken language- which people manage to communicate in.
            >is aesthetically unpleasant
            Inherently subjective.
            >And btw, how do you think words like 革命, 民主, 信仰心 are coined? Most of these Wasei Kango are neologisms. They could only create them by knowing the component kanji.
            More precisely they're neologisms created using elements from Literary Chinese. But a Korean acquaintance has told me that even people who don't know hanja still use Sino-Korean morphemes productively to some extent.
            >Only furthers my point.
            How so? Your point was that dropping Han characters makes Sino-Xenic vocabulary unusable.
            >Probably not. But most likely they would ask what the frick ぼうとく is supposed to mean as it's impossible to glean the meaning from the parts unlike say, やました or how German works with very recognizable components and affixes to their compounds.
            My point is precisely that even with the kanji you can't glean the meaning because if you don't know the word you probably don't know the kanji anyway. A more useful approach would be to glean the meaning from context.

            [...]
            [...]
            That's just an adjective phrase and we have them in English. The only difference is the position of the noun it's modifying is infront instead of behind.

            >[我是] [一个要去中国的] [美国人]
            Noun, Adjective, Noun.
            >[I'm] [an American] [who's always wanted to go to China.]
            Noun, noun, Adjective.

            I can tell you're a not overly familiar with grammatical concepts type.

            I'm literally a linguistics major. I have never heard it claimed that 一个要去中国的 is a single word here and it's still not clear why you think it is.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Not really; it has a good bit of etymological information, but it's still unmistakably an etymological system.
            Ack, I mean an alphabetical system.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Actually I'll just add on to my post there because I really want to emphasize the loss of aesthetics.
            Again aesthetics are inherently subjective.
            >child-like (in kids' media kanji are indeed written in kana)
            And what makes you think that that's indicative of any intrinsic childishness of kana rather than just... the fact that kids haven't learned kanji yet? You know the Tale of Genji was written all in hirgana, right?
            >The same applies to Chinese's bird-speak. What kind of poetry, calligraphy could they write with the same ching chong syllables?
            That's mostly a Mandarin problem. If you look at more conservative southern Sinitic languages there's a lot fewer homophones, and even less so in Middle Chinese.
            >There's a reason Korea has never had, and never will have, any kind of high literature.
            That's a comical level of confidence with which to assert that when you've given no indication you even read Korean.
            >They are simply not suited towards phonetics.
            Which is why every spoken conversation on anything beyond basic everyday topics devolves into 50% "wait, which homophone is that?" questions. Oh wait, no it doesn't.

            >No more than the spoken language- which people manage to communicate in.
            Not without trouble a lot of times and with compulsory kanji education so people know what that せい phoneme is supposed to mean. Also Chinese TV has subtitles all the time and for a good reason.
            > if you don't know the word you probably don't know the kanji anyway.
            And if you don't know the word, knowing the kanji would show you the meaning. Happens very often, you learn the kanji and the words with them.
            >How so? Your point was that dropping Han characters makes Sino-Xenic vocabulary unusable.
            It very much does. For many compounds in use colloquially it's not an issue, but most sino-xenic vocabulary sounds the goddamn same. Koreans dropped lots of them, especially northerners but they don't care much because they never had a history of vernacular or any kind of mass literacy anyway. They could just start fresh.

            For an exaggerated example, try to read anything about Chinese history (even a manga like kingdom) without Kanji. It's a sea of the same goddamn phonemes all the time and Kanji are literally necessary. And please don't focus on how this example is so shit, I know it is but you get the point.
            >And what makes you think that that's indicative of any intrinsic childishness of kana rather than just... the fact that kids haven't learned kanji yet?
            Well, how about how Japanese IS objectively primitive. Its phonetic inventory is literally just barebones CV syllables! Pitch accent by the way is cope.
            Also see https://wals.info/feature/12A#2/36.6/106.7
            Apart from Indo-European languages, syllabic complexity is kind of underwhelming anywhere.
            You mention Middle Chinese derived dialects as if they're supposed to be better, it's still ching chong for the most part but with k and ts sometimes.
            >You know the Tale of Genji was written all in hirgana, right?
            more like in Early Middle Japanese when Japanese was still moderately more complex and distinguishable phonetically.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Not without trouble a lot of times and with compulsory kanji education so people know what that せい phoneme is supposed to mean.
            People can learn what かくせい and せいべつ and せいぶつがく mean without knowing kanji, just like people can know what 'enervate' or 'profound' or 'quotidian' mean without knowing Latin.
            >Also Chinese TV has subtitles all the time and for a good reason.
            Not because of the "dialects" that are essentially separate languages?
            >And if you don't know the word, knowing the kanji would show you the meaning.
            Depends on the word; some are more self-evident than others. But again, the kanji won't help you here because if you don't already know the word you probably don't know them anyway.
            >For many compounds in use colloquially it's not an issue, but most sino-xenic vocabulary sounds the goddamn same.
            Then how does anyone in any of those countries listen to audiobooks?
            >For an exaggerated example, try to read anything about Chinese history (even a manga like kingdom) without Kanji. It's a sea of the same goddamn phonemes all the time and Kanji are literally necessary.
            And in English it isn't? Pinyin without tones and Sino-Japanese as a whole have similar numbers of total distinct syllables.
            >Its phonetic inventory is literally just barebones CV syllables!
            And? So is Hawaiian, and several other languages.
            >Pitch accent by the way is cope.
            How so? It's a phonemic distinction.
            >Apart from Indo-European languages, syllabic complexity is kind of underwhelming anywhere.
            I'm not sure how the conclusion you'd draw from that is 'other languages have overly simple syllables' rather than 'IE languages have abnormally complex syllables'.
            >You mention Middle Chinese derived dialects as if they're supposed to be better, it's still ching chong for the most part but with k and ts sometimes.
            Hokkien, for instance, preserves way more distinctions that Japanese or Mandarin.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >People can learn what かくせい and せいべつ and せいぶつがく mean without knowing kanji, just like people can know what 'enervate' or 'profound' or 'quotidian' mean without knowing Latin.
            Strong assumptions. And all those cited examples sound far more distinct and like actual recognizable words than any of the Japanese ones.
            >And in English it isn't? Pinyin without tones and Sino-Japanese as a whole have similar numbers of total distinct syllables.
            And reading both without Hanzi is absolute cancer. You can see how laughable Mandarin is with all the memes around the sameish names and phonemes in those wiki pages.
            弘農郡 > こうのうぐん/Hongnong commandery. Just kill it with fire.
            >Then how does anyone in any of those countries listen to audiobooks?
            I mean, do they even? What's the frequency? Is their comprehension equal to western audiobook listeners'? I doubt it.
            >And? So is Hawaiian, and several other languages.
            And those languages aren't exactly known for their beauty, nice prose, poetry or anything... That's an Indo-European domain, pretty much. Chinese or Japanese poetry wouldn't be as "nice" or notable without the characters and calligraphy. I mean, can you imagine anyone being impressed with Indonesian poetry and all those simple syllables? Man, I can't.
            >I'm not sure how the conclusion you'd draw from that is 'other languages have overly simple syllables' rather than 'IE languages have abnormally complex syllables'.
            The latter have become the standard.
            >Hokkien, for instance, preserves way more distinctions that Japanese or Mandarin.
            Granted, Hokkien does sound very nice and varied in comparison, but still not that nice.
            >Uhhh... what major phonemic distinctions has Japanese lost since then?
            Plenty at least according to this video https://youtu.be/yMQwt3q-PVQ
            Anyway it's getting late, so I might not reply as quickly.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >more like in Early Middle Japanese when Japanese was still moderately more complex and distinguishable phonetically.
            Uhhh... what major phonemic distinctions has Japanese lost since then?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Aesthetics aren't subjective you can do neuroimaging to check if something is perceived as beautiful

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            To check if a particular person perceives something as beautiful. But different people may perceive different things as beautiful.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You could commission a study testing control groups on whether they think hanzi (which people gladly have seared on their bodies) or pingpongchingchong or samahataokotoro are more aesthetic and in all likelihood the former would win. Wasn't there even a fad over them with Ezra Pound etc?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I dunno, I think well-done Latin calligraphy can look pretty nice too. But I also don't think looking nice makes something actually a good writing system.

            >By that standard, Chinese characters have no coherence either, since speakers of different languages pronounce them completely differently.

            Except there is because the system wasn't phonetic to begin with. asiatics, Japs, and Chinks say 天, 劍, 國 differently but they all know it means "Heaven" "Sword" and "Country" respectively. Coherency is important for a Logographic Language the same way people wordlessly understand universal signage like hazard & stop signs. If no one agrees that certain characters refer to a certain something then it falls apart.

            Meanwhile in the phonetic alphabet over in the West, you have bullshit disagreements like how Germans and Anglos couldn't decide if "W" has a v or w sound, or Hungarians pronouncing the single "S" as "Sh" while others don't.

            >Except there is because the system wasn't phonetic to begin with.
            Sure it was. The origin of the graphemes may be pictographic, but it wouldn't be a full writing system (rather than proto-writing) without phonetic borrowing and phono-semantic compounds. It's essentially a defective syllabary ("defective" in the technical sense of not making all the phonemic distinctions of a language) with semantic classifiers for disambiguation.
            >asiatics, Japs, and Chinks say 天, 劍, 國 differently but they all know it means "Heaven" "Sword" and "Country" respectively. Coherency is important for a Logographic Language the same way people wordlessly understand universal signage like hazard & stop signs. If no one agrees that certain characters refer to a certain something then it falls apart.
            But they don't stand for abstracted meanings. They stand, in general, for particular morphemes in Old Chinese and their descendants, as well as native Japanese morphemes conventionally used historically to gloss them. For example, 走 means 'run' in Japanese but 'walk' in Mandarin. 手紙 means 'letter' in Japanese and 'toilet paper' in Mandarin. Many very common words in Mandarin are written with characters borrowed purely for their sound like 的 or 這 because they didn't have a conventionally associated character.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I dunno, I think well-done Latin calligraphy can look pretty nice too.
            It does, because certain languages evolved along with their writing system. Standards in orthography came about. Chinese, Japanese, etc. sound like shit but they look very nice. Western languages look and sound nice.
            French, for example, wouldn't look exactly as "nice" or prestigious if their laughably barebones sounds were written the way they were spoken. Wazo instead of oiseau, o instead of eau, guvernmä instead of gouvernement, etc. Imagine if Vietnamese ruled France and thought "ah frick let's make this shit simpler." There is history and culture in words and no amount of utilitarian value should butcher them to please outsiders.
            What these hardcore utilitarian pinyin advocates shill for is something like that brought to an extreme. Which, to anyone with a normal value system, makes sense as to why Mao's suggestions were shot down by sensible moderates and even fricking Stalin and why Japanese are very reluctant to part with Kanji to some people's dismay.
            Except, perhaps, for people stuck in their ivory towers and wanting to accomplish something with their linguistics diplomas? I mean, have you seen what Victor Mair posts nowadays on his blog? Some zany shit I tell you, belonging in TheApricity. Should raise some eyebrows as to his deeper intentions along with certain wackos he encourages in his Sino-Platonic Papers.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >French, for example, wouldn't look exactly as "nice" or prestigious if their laughably barebones sounds were written the way they were spoken. Wazo instead of oiseau, o instead of eau, guvernmä instead of gouvernement,
            I disagree, wazo sounds and looks cool. The problem is that much of French literature is lyrical and depends on older full pronunciations of those works to properly rhyme or achieve other literary effects.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Chinese, Japanese, etc. sound like shit but they look very nice.
            You think they sound like shit. If your aesthetic sense had developed accustomed to them you'd probably think they sound nice.
            >There is history and culture in words and no amount of utilitarian value should butcher them to please outsiders.
            Is it for outsiders? The existing system isn't terribly pleasant for the kids who have to spend years learning it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            im chinese and i think mandarin sounds ass. theres a good reason: mandarins sounds are basically a conlang invented by peasants. advantages: crisp clarity between syllables, disadvantages: sounds cacophonous. southwestern dialects are smoother and more organically developed.
            japanese is a nice sounding language, with appropriate levels of aggressive sounds that dont nearly break it, so idk what that idiot is on about.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >mandarins sounds are basically a conlang invented by peasants.
            for >bureaucratic purposes no less. it was bound to be less than aesthetic. how do you fix this? reinvent chinese again. and this time dont let chicom sons of peasants frick it up again.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You think they sound like shit. If your aesthetic sense had developed accustomed to them you'd probably think they sound nice.
            No, I would say, objectively, they sound shit and primitive. Maybe not compared to many other languages, maybe even most, but certainly compared to complex western languages. Again,

            You could commission a study testing control groups on whether they think hanzi (which people gladly have seared on their bodies) or pingpongchingchong or samahataokotoro are more aesthetic and in all likelihood the former would win. Wasn't there even a fad over them with Ezra Pound etc?

            this would almost definitely be the case if you did a neuroimaging study or some shit. Relativity is an unfalsifiable copout.
            >Is it for outsiders?
            It is. The only people you hear clamoring for "abolish kanji!! So inefficient!" are outsiders and foreigners. You rarely hear that in Japan itself, or even China. Korea is an exception because of extreme butthurt towards Japanese occupation and the mixed script.
            And considering the high literacy and education in countries like taiwan, HK, China, Japan, it would be a short-sighted decision. Basically abandoning so much for what, somewhat faster literacy acquisition for 1 generation? Reminder that despite Hangul's "scientificness" Koreans have not a single Nobel Prize compared to Japan.
            >kids
            They also don't complain and they have an easier time learning them, moreover Asians tend to have a more spatial intelligence profile regardless so they have it easier anyway. Yukio Mishima taught himself plenty how to read as a little kid, it's probably somewhat harder but not that much.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I would say, objectively, they sound shit and primitive.
            objective on what metrics you specious moron?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            On your mom's ass you b***h.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >No, I would say, objectively, they sound shit and primitive.
            How does one objectively measure that? 'Pleasant' or 'unpleasant' aren't properties of [observed] at all, they're properties of the pair [observer, observed].
            >It is. The only people you hear clamoring for "abolish kanji!! So inefficient!" are outsiders and foreigners.
            http://kanamozi.org/

            How about this https://wals.info/feature/12A#0/19/153
            They have primitive phonotactics, phonetic inventories and a very limited range of sounds, how is this even a discussion.

            >Reminder that despite Hangul's "scientificness" Koreans have not a single Nobel Prize compared to Japan.
            thats dumb, koreans have nukes, japan doesnt. nobels are a israelite controlled joke prize anyway. in what clown world does obama deserve a peace prize

            [...]
            so you have nothing but "because i feel its so" like a woman, moronic troony

            You are moronic

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What's objectively bad about small phonologies and simple phonotactics?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What's objectively bad? Clearly, they fall short on this defined metric you inquired about. At this point, you're just baiting.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't inquire about whether they have large phoneme inventories and complex phonotactics, I asked about on what grounds they are 'objectively' unpleasant or primitive. 'Unpleasant' and 'primitive' are not well-defined categories.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Are there many other languages that get ridiculed in a similar way Chinese does, and probably Vietnamese if they were more relevant?

            >clearly
            no they dont, not really. what youre saying is stupid, almost like saying the pyramids are bad because theyre a perfect geometric shape. saying theyre objectively primitive is a troony non sequitur.

            exactly, hes a moronic troony who cant even quantify the aesthetic qualities of languages. mandarin has a jumble of conflicting sounds, but its not primitive sounding at all. the more one pokes at his stupid premises, the more idiotic he reveals himself.

            [...]
            making the most of an atomized ruleset? sounds brilliant and sophisticated to me.

            You need to stop coping with your trans obsession. Your language sounds like utter garbage and the only thing that saves it aesthetically are the goddamn symbols. Otherwise it's literal cacophonous, disjointed bird-speak.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Are there many other languages that get ridiculed in a similar way Chinese does, and probably Vietnamese if they were more relevant?
            EVERY language gets ridiculed by people who don't like the people/culture. Pretty much every opinion about the aesthetics of a language is really about the people/culture.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No. "ching chong" and the like verges on pure contempt unseen for most languages and crucially, it's not even far off from the actual language like in Chongqing.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The whole reason that common sequences of sounds in Chinese are considered worthy of mockery is because of attitudes towards the speakers and their culture, though.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The whole reason that common sequences of sounds in Chinese are considered worthy of mockery is because of attitudes towards the speakers and their culture, though.

            its disappearing too. america and europe's governments are afraid to criticize china because theyre dependent on them for their economies. chinese luxury brands are already starting to be seen as prestigious.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Not anymore, Zhang.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            what does this have to do with what i posted

            heres an example of hollywood bending to please china

            but lets not shit up the thread topic which is interesting

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            lmao the sheer hypocrisy of americans
            >the freer the market the freer the people, capitalism'll sort itself out
            china becomes a big market for films
            >NOOOO HOW DARE THEY KOWTOW TO XINNIE THE SHIT, WHY ISN'T THE GOVERNMENT STOPPING THIS?!

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            IQfy was awful in june, why did things become more civil? i noticed vietnamese spammer and most of the poltroons are apparently gone.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            IQfy is always an anti-sino board. Stop deluding yourself .

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            no it "wasnt" you lying esl (poojeet? viet spammer?). his was chill before poltroons banned from pol spilled over. i know because i was there when it was first made.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >his was chill before poltroons banned from pol spilled over. i know because i was there when it was first made.
            The chinkspammer is as old as this board. Lurk more. He already got triggered by IQfy back then.

            https://desuarchive.org/his/search/text/Karayuki/page/33/
            https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/2071687/#2072021

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            im not sure what you mean
            it was more chill back then and china spammer is a psycho whod get triggered by slight criticism

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That is the fricking point. He spammed those rape pasta cause IQfy didn't worship chink smarr pee pee like him and his inbred ancestors.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            well your point is dull. every group had freaks, yet it was a chill place with decent mods where real discussion could be had. hiss mods these days are only active like twice a day now.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Top Gun 2 did not show in China. Chinks can't watch it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            i said it sounds like ass you moron, which is somewhat true, yet it has a decent phonological spread and organic dialects of chinese sound nice and compliment musical instrumentation well.

            dumb troony, your problem is you hold onto your idiotic takes too personally. you should instead go back to basics and find proper grounding.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >organic dialects of chinese sound nice
            No, they don't. Marginally better than Mandarin at best.
            Harping on this minor point I made that's just peripheral to the entire discussion, are you legitimately autistic?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >No, they don't. Marginally better than Mandarin at best.
            again, youre incapable of rendering any objective metrics for judging aesthetics. go back 2 skool ijiot

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >objective metrics for judging aesthetics.
            I literally showed you one where Chinese languages all shared the same classification and yet you cope like cantonese or southerners speaking with heavy southeast asian substrate influence often do, and you probably are one yourself. Touched a nerve so that you went overdrive projection mode you troon.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            no you made empty claims without a proper basis and without establishing proper supporting arguments. so far your best is "because i feel its so". idk why im even bothering with someone as moronic as you.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Arguing over aesthetics always means arguing with some degree of "feels" you utter autist
            I'm going to sleep but your languages do sound like dogshit only redeemed by symbols compared to IE languages. That's all really

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Btw and that's okay because you have more spatial skills and less verbal ones, you should play to your strengths.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            but your idiocy rests entirely on feel. you clearly dont know what youre talking about, otherwise youd have tried to establish real metrics for it. but even that would have failed because you claimed "objectivity" about aesthetics, which is philosophically impossible if you actually knew anything about aesthetics. even kant knew this.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That was clearly meant somewhat facetiously. I can't believe you're so hung up about that. If you don't like that word think of it as consensus based rather than objectivity, hence the neuroimaging claim.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >cantonese or southerners speaking with heavy southeast asian substrate influence often do
            idk what the hells this supposed to mean. even northeners originally promoted cantonese as a literary language as it preserved more literary qualities in classical poetry.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No they did not. Stop repeating urban legends made up in the 20th century.

            https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/13296368/#q13307990

            https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12244603/#q12261686

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            moron, the choice between mandarin and cantonese as the national language was close. if they chose cantonese they easily could have filled in any gaps.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Not really, not any more than German almost became the national language of the US but lost by one vote.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            youre being reasonable about this so i looked it up. it does appear to be questionable. i wont push the story claim so hard. i looked more at SYS's cantonese, and he appeared to speak it with many mandarinisms from the written language.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12859397/#q12861911

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >clearly
            no they dont, not really. what youre saying is stupid, almost like saying the pyramids are bad because theyre a perfect geometric shape. saying theyre objectively primitive is a troony non sequitur.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >No, I would say, objectively, they sound shit and primitive.
            How does one objectively measure that? 'Pleasant' or 'unpleasant' aren't properties of [observed] at all, they're properties of the pair [observer, observed].
            >It is. The only people you hear clamoring for "abolish kanji!! So inefficient!" are outsiders and foreigners.
            http://kanamozi.org/

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            exactly, hes a moronic troony who cant even quantify the aesthetic qualities of languages. mandarin has a jumble of conflicting sounds, but its not primitive sounding at all. the more one pokes at his stupid premises, the more idiotic he reveals himself.

            [...]
            How about this https://wals.info/feature/12A#0/19/153
            They have primitive phonotactics, phonetic inventories and a very limited range of sounds, how is this even a discussion.
            [...]
            You are moronic

            making the most of an atomized ruleset? sounds brilliant and sophisticated to me.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Reminder that despite Hangul's "scientificness" Koreans have not a single Nobel Prize compared to Japan.
            thats dumb, koreans have nukes, japan doesnt. nobels are a israelite controlled joke prize anyway. in what clown world does obama deserve a peace prize

            On your mom's ass you b***h.

            so you have nothing but "because i feel its so" like a woman, moronic troony

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >sour grape

            If chinks or asiatics get any Scientific nobel prize then they would talk about it nonstop till the end of world.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Western languages look and sound nice.
            French sounds like gays talking the Dutch sound like Monkeys.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            why do some idiots consider chinese "objectively ugly" whatever the frick thats supposed to mean? the chinese language is orderly and gridlike just like their sense of governance and civil exams

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It sounds like a bunch of cats fighting .

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            meme
            where are the objective reasons

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >meme
            It is not.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >bro im telling you fighting people sound like fighting mammals
            ok moron

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Harsh Dongbei and Coastie Accents.
            This is extremely based though, like those classic barfights in movies. Look at that, everyone is fighting. If this was in the US its just going to be 2 or 4 Black folk suckerpunching each other while the rest of the gang have their phones out and whooping like monkes.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            yeah its amusing, and thats a notable comparison. in china everyones fricking stressed and hungry. Black folk in america still havent felt real starvation from our dystopia yet.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Written Chinese, yes. I'm not sure if the several spoken Chinese languages are particularly more so than any other language.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            There is spoken japanese and there is written japanese, instead of speaking on behalf of the native speakers ask them

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, it's not identical. Nonetheless, do audiobooks not exist in Japan? There are whole websites full of them.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >dumb down language for he low IQ
        I hate poeple like you I bet you are an elitist frick with muh it should be complex so only I can acess it.What are you typing this on oh i bet its not a pc and memory you made from transistors at home go do it brainlet.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      He literally invented it, and I quote him, for the imbeciles whom I suffer looking at wanting to say something, but being unable to.
      He never wrote any himself.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese all have high literacy rates. So what's the point?

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn't Southern Chinks get roped into standard Mandarin? Why is Wu allowed to be it's own language but Shandong isn't?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Because the South had always been so far from the centers of Imperial power, which is almost always in the North of Yangtze.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    China would have fragmented into several countries based on their supposed “dialects” if they did.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Sharing a common writing system across all groups within China is what facilitates them to unite under the Chinese banner. Remember all those Chinese “dialects” are actually mutually unintelligible but all tied to the same writing system. If they had adopted the phonetic system very early on, there would be several countries in China right now. Is this intentional by their past emperors’ intellect and foresight or just a pure coincidence, who knows?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Tibetan does something very similar with an etymological phonetic system; speakers of different Tibetan "dialects" (which are pretty different from each other) still read Classical Tibetan in the pronunciation of their local spoken variety for the most part, to my understanding.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    it was basically the only way to keep some semblance of cultural and administrative cohesion in an empire stretching across like 5 time zones with at least three times as many mutually-unintelligible languages running around inside of it. this letter means dog, we don't give a frick if you guys pronounce it as cat or fox or mouse or monkey or whatever, the letter itself always means dog. this way the guys who keep the gears turning in your painful bureaucratic mess of an empire are all on the same page, and as an added bonus any foreign group that gets conquered or conquers you will inevitably use the same writing system and become that much closer to sinicizing.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >shou chuu sei kei jou kyo juu dai
      Grim. Mandarin was a mistake.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Zoeng Zungzeng gingsoeng heoi Cunghing.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        based cantonese

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          It's a beautiful language. At some point I considered learning it to read Classical Chinese in since it preserves more audible distinctions.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Vietnamese preserves the most, have fun.

            based cantonese

            It's literally just "Tsing tsong from piiig Tsina" (Chinese caricature from the early 20th cent.) instead of "Ching chong ping pong of Chyna" (Chinese caricature today).
            All jokes aside, a Sino-Tibetan language with long vowels is just fricked in the head. not even the weirdest of the weird mountain or jungle, rice or wheat munchers out there do that.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Vietnamese preserves the most, have fun.
            I think it's actually Hokkien. But both of those are much more limited in availability of audio resources.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Vietnamese preserves the most,
            >Vietnamese

            Bruh their shit got fricked to oblivion by Pierre who forced them to use Latin script

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            They're talking about phonetic distinctions in Chinese-derived words. Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation preserves 2,050 distinct syllables; the only modern variety that preserves more is Hokkien with 2,219. Compare this to Cantonese with 1,885, Mandarin with 1,370, Shanghainese with 684, Sino-Korean with 524, and Sino-Japanese with 410 (and that's kan'on and go'on combined.) That's why Vietnamese doesn't have nearly as many problems with homophones.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          It's a beautiful language. At some point I considered learning it to read Classical Chinese in since it preserves more audible distinctions.

          Vietnamese preserves the most, have fun.

          [...]
          It's literally just "Tsing tsong from piiig Tsina" (Chinese caricature from the early 20th cent.) instead of "Ching chong ping pong of Chyna" (Chinese caricature today).
          All jokes aside, a Sino-Tibetan language with long vowels is just fricked in the head. not even the weirdest of the weird mountain or jungle, rice or wheat munchers out there do that.

          https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/13296368/#q13307990

          [...]

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, Mandarin was prestigious. That doesn't indicate any intrinsic deficiency of the other Sinitic languages as languages.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The last Chinese dynasty was called Ching

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It’s easy to learn you guys are just morons. Anyone who is actually good at any language will laugh at the morons who think they can tell native speakers how to “fix” it after watching a YouTube video

      The problem with the Ching Chong thing is that the way westerners pronounce fake Chinese is so far off from actual Chinese that Chinese people from China couldn’t even tell you’re trying to mock them. It’s like going “hey, watch me speak English.” *incoherent mumbling*

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Anyone who is actually good at any language will laugh at the morons who think they can tell native speakers how to “fix” it after watching a YouTube video
        Writing systems aren't languages, though. The Chinese languages (yes, languages, plural) would still be the Chinese languages if they were written in phonetic writing systems. Just like Vietnamese is still Vietnamese even though it's now written in Roman letters instead of Chinese characters, and Mongolian is still Mongolian even though it's now written in Cyrillic instead of traditional Mongolian script, and...

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Writing systems aren't languages, though.
          帰る
          変える
          買える

          替える
          換える
          飼える
          If your writing system allows you to not have to develop more complex sounds because you can distinguish homonyms in writing, maybe you're not entirely right.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Those are yamato kotoba, though. They existed before kanji were imported to Japan, so obviously people can tell by context because they didn't originally have any kanji to disambiguate them. Not to mention that 変える, 替える and 換える are three ways of writing the same word. The proper target of concern regarding homophones is Sino-Japanese vocabulary, which was often imported or coined without concern for audible intelligibility.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Those are yamato kotoba, though. They existed before kanji were imported to Japan, so obviously people can tell by context because they didn't originally have any kanji to disambiguate them.
            Yes, they certainly existed in some form, but probably not with the same sound for completely unrelated concepts. Old Japanese, pretty much anything before Modern Japanese, sounded very, very different.
            Maybe the blame can be pushed on kana instead.
            >Not to mention that 変える, 替える and 換える
            Not 変える but the latter two yes.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, they certainly existed in some form, but probably not with the same sound for completely unrelated concepts.
            As far as I can tell, they're all かへる in historical kana. Every natural language has a certain degree of homophony. Like
            bear (animal)
            bear (carry)
            bear (tolerate)
            bear (turn slightly)
            bare (naked)
            bare (expose)
            in English or
            bi (bisexual)
            bye (goodbye)
            by (preposition)
            buy (purchase)
            >Not 変える but the latter two yes.
            Do you have some reason to think it's etymologically unrelated?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        when your language has six contrasting affricates i think the jokes are kind of earned

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          when the west has six contrasting africans immigrating i think the jokes are kind of earned

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Aren't x j q pretty clearly allophones of s z c?
            >Always appear before high front vowels/medials, other sibilants never do
            >Come from same historical initials as s z c, not as sh zh ch
            >Retroflex series (sh zh ch) adds r which alveolo-palatal series (x j q) has nothing corresponding to
            >Other languages in region have allophony of alveolar sibilants to alveolo-palatals before high front vowels, like Japanese, Korean, and I believe Mongolian

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >The Chinese writing system is basically the same thing as hieroglyphs. Why did they never adopt the more convenient Pajeet writing system along with Buddhism?

    Too hard to change. Japan still can't get away from Chinese characters despite using two others (three others if you count Roman letters).

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Though logographs is excellent in theory, Chinese logographs are a mess. There is little to no semantic coherence between what is written and what is said. One sign can stand for many totally unrelated concepts. There is also no underlying framework that guides the creation of new ad-hoc logographs. It's memetically bankrupt, but the kicker is that the Western alphabetic writing system is even worse

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >the Western alphabetic writing system is even worse

      ?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >There is also no underlying framework that guides the creation of new ad-hoc logographs.
      does the phono-semantic compound system mean nothing to you

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >There is little to no semantic coherence between what is written and what is said.
      What do you even mean by that?
      >One sign can stand for many totally unrelated concepts.
      Can you give an example? To my understanding, they mostly stand for particular morphemes or occasionally two historically related morphemes.
      >the kicker is that the Western alphabetic writing system is even worse
      How so? And what would you advocate instead?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >the Western alphabetic writing system is even worse
      How? Learning a Latin or Cyrillic is incredibly easy and they're very consistent systems in languages that use diacritics (i.e all of them except for English)

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Because there is no fricking coherence in the way the Alphabet is used either.

        Go ahead, try pronouncing this without consulting the net.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          This works once you learn the rules of Polish. Hell, even without Polish, if you figured out how Czech is pronounced as Chek, you can deduce that Szczecin will sound something along like lines of that too.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Read anon's original post: he's talking about memetics and the fact that none of the fricking Westerners agree with a single standard on how to use the Alphabet makes it even worse than Chinese in terms of coherence.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >these different languages have less coherence than one language, thus alfabeth is trash

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            But Chinese isn't one language any more than Romance is. They don't agree on what the characters mean or how they sound, though, it's just that they do all but the most informal of writing in Mandarin even if they don't speak it on a daily basis.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Its moronic in the first place trying to make a writing system for a group of languages. Even in the romance example most romance speakers can pretty well understand each others scripts

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It wasn't made for a group of languages. It was made for Old Chinese, so when people wanted to write down its descendants they used the same script.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Just as the latin script was made for latin but when the languages evolved away from it they modified the script accordingly

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Somewhat, though Latin script has been adapted to a lot more unrelated languages.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Which i think proves the effiency of the alphabeth, it is far more adaptable to many languages while being way easier to learn and to write

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It's not like you can't adapt Chinese characters to other languages; it has happened. But in general, yes, alphabets are more adaptable.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          By that standard, Chinese characters have no coherence either, since speakers of different languages pronounce them completely differently.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >By that standard, Chinese characters have no coherence either, since speakers of different languages pronounce them completely differently.

            Except there is because the system wasn't phonetic to begin with. asiatics, Japs, and Chinks say 天, 劍, 國 differently but they all know it means "Heaven" "Sword" and "Country" respectively. Coherency is important for a Logographic Language the same way people wordlessly understand universal signage like hazard & stop signs. If no one agrees that certain characters refer to a certain something then it falls apart.

            Meanwhile in the phonetic alphabet over in the West, you have bullshit disagreements like how Germans and Anglos couldn't decide if "W" has a v or w sound, or Hungarians pronouncing the single "S" as "Sh" while others don't.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          What's your opinion on the Musa alphabet? It solves that problem pretty well.
          https://musa.bet/

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    alphabets are always developed/adopted by civilizations that didn't create the pictograms. that's how it was with the sumerians and the koreans/japanese. since China still considers itself culturally an extension of those old chinese empires, it makes sense that they would not ditch the highly prestigious pictograms for low-prestige, foreign alphabets

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Why could it not be "yào qù Zhōngguó de" with "de" being a clitic that applies to the whole verb phrase? Like "the man I saw yesterday's hat".

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Ack, should have replied to

      Because it's best explained if it is, essentially making it "I am a wantgotochina American." and, I really can't come up with an explanation where it isn't one word.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      IDK. Maybe because English isn't my native language so I'm not used to sentences like that.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Hieroglyphs are logographic script but completely different functionally.

    Egyptian religious script represents syllables, and not even full ones, since they omit vowels. We have no idea how ancient Egyptians actually spoke.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      We do have some idea, based on Coptic reflexes, borrowings to and from Egyptian, and comparison to its Afro-Asiatic sisters. But we don't know in much detail or with much certainty.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Egyptian religious script represents syllables
      contains logograms, mono- and multiliteral readings, not just syllables

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The ancient Egyptians spoke Greek. Before Alexander came there they already spoke it...

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        What brings you to that conclusion?

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The absolute state of the Chinese "language"

    The Story of Mr Shi Eating Lions, recited in Mandarin Chinese
    Translation: In a stone den was a poet Mr Shi, who loved eating lions and determined to eat ten. He often went to the market to watch lions. One day at ten o'clock, ten lions just arrived at the market. At that time, Mr Shi just arrived at the market too. Seeing those ten lions, he killed them with arrows. He brought the corpses of the ten lions to the stone den. The stone den was damp. He had his servant wiping it. The stone den being wiped, only then did he try to eat those ten lions. While eating, he just realised that those ten lions were in fact ten stone-lion corpses. Try to explain this.

    The Story About the Youngest Lady Attacking a Chicken, recited in Mandarin
    Translation: The Youngest Lady was lonely, and thus collected some chickens, a kind of chickens from thorn bushes. Those chickens were somehow starving and started clucking. The Youngest Lady brought out a winnowing basket of millet to feed the chickens. After being fed, one chicken jumped onto Lady’s bookcase. The Youngest Lady was outraged and instantly shooed the chicken. The chicken panicked and then hopped onto the teapoy. The Youngest Lady was upset and hence threw the winnowing basket at the chicken. The basket straightaway hit a pottery figurine on the teapoy and totally smashed it. As the chicken kept clucking and hid under the teapoy, the Youngest Lady was so annoyed that she took off clog to beat the chicken. Even though the chicken was dead, the Youngest Lady still felt agitated, so she composed ‘The story about the Youngest Lady attacking a chicken’.

    Only bugmen could come up with a "language" that sounds utterly moronic like this.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      That's a stupid example. Those only "work" because they're written in Classical Chinese (i.e. written Old Chinese) and read in Mandarin. It's like writing in Latin and pronouncing it in those words' French descendants. If you translate them into actual Mandarin they're perfectly intelligible, and if you read them in reconstructed Classical Chinese pronunciation they're also not ambiguous.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        So how did they know that centuries in the future all those words would sound the same in modern Mandarin?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Because it was written in the 20th century, but imitating the grammar and vocabulary of Classical Chinese. Same as people kept writing in Latin after it wasn't spoken natively anymore.

          >People can learn what かくせい and せいべつ and せいぶつがく mean without knowing kanji, just like people can know what 'enervate' or 'profound' or 'quotidian' mean without knowing Latin.
          Strong assumptions. And all those cited examples sound far more distinct and like actual recognizable words than any of the Japanese ones.
          >And in English it isn't? Pinyin without tones and Sino-Japanese as a whole have similar numbers of total distinct syllables.
          And reading both without Hanzi is absolute cancer. You can see how laughable Mandarin is with all the memes around the sameish names and phonemes in those wiki pages.
          弘農郡 > こうのうぐん/Hongnong commandery. Just kill it with fire.
          >Then how does anyone in any of those countries listen to audiobooks?
          I mean, do they even? What's the frequency? Is their comprehension equal to western audiobook listeners'? I doubt it.
          >And? So is Hawaiian, and several other languages.
          And those languages aren't exactly known for their beauty, nice prose, poetry or anything... That's an Indo-European domain, pretty much. Chinese or Japanese poetry wouldn't be as "nice" or notable without the characters and calligraphy. I mean, can you imagine anyone being impressed with Indonesian poetry and all those simple syllables? Man, I can't.
          >I'm not sure how the conclusion you'd draw from that is 'other languages have overly simple syllables' rather than 'IE languages have abnormally complex syllables'.
          The latter have become the standard.
          >Hokkien, for instance, preserves way more distinctions that Japanese or Mandarin.
          Granted, Hokkien does sound very nice and varied in comparison, but still not that nice.
          >Uhhh... what major phonemic distinctions has Japanese lost since then?
          Plenty at least according to this video https://youtu.be/yMQwt3q-PVQ
          Anyway it's getting late, so I might not reply as quickly.

          >Strong assumptions.
          Blind Japanese people manage to. Koreans and Vietnamese manage to in their languages.
          >弘農郡 > こうのうぐん/Hongnong commandery. Just kill it with fire.
          What's bad about that?
          >I mean, do they even? What's the frequency?
          Well, there are whole big sites full of audiobooks.
          >And those languages aren't exactly known for their beauty, nice prose, poetry or anything... That's an Indo-European domain, pretty much
          That's the most hilariously parochial statement I've ever heard. Have you ever heard of, say, Arabic?
          >Chinese or Japanese poetry wouldn't be as "nice" or notable without the characters and calligraphy.
          Have you heard of Dungan?
          http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/dungan.html
          >I mean, can you imagine anyone being impressed with Indonesian poetry and all those simple syllables? Man, I can't.
          If you speak Indonesian, sure. Your ability to imagine anyone's aesthetic tastes could be different than yours is comically weak.
          >The latter have become the standard.
          How do you figure?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/dungan.html
            Ahh, I see where you're coming from now, posting Victor Mair and shit. A.k.a it ties in with the postmodern academic urge to get rid of tradition, culture, anything that binds a people to get what modern Koreans basically are, a soulless disconnected husk, instead of something like the Japanese.
            Dungan is spoken by the Hui, basically perennial Persian-Arab larpers. They used a different script back then, now it's no different with the cyrillic script they got from communists.
            >What's bad about that?
            If you don't get it, you don't get it. Absurdly simple phonetics are masked and beautified with a writing system that's been in use for a people's entire history for prose, poetry, anything their culture's written. I stand by my utilitarian defense, but the aesthetic, cultural benefits far outweigh it.
            Just look at Vietnamese "calligraphy" to see a culture trying to ape their past customs and failing because they're using a script imposed on them by foreign powers and got cucked by vulgar utilitarianism.
            >If you speak Indonesian, sure. Your ability to imagine anyone's aesthetic tastes could be different than yours is comically weak.
            Cool story bro.
            >Blind Japanese people manage to. Koreans and Vietnamese manage to in their languages.
            They "manage to". Sure, I believe that. But the full breadth of their proficiency is limited.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Ahh, I see where you're coming from now, posting Victor Mair and shit.
            Okay, but who wrote a thing is not an argument. You have to refute the argument itself. If a statement is true, it's true no matter who's saying it, and if it's false, it's false no matter who's saying it.
            >But the full breadth of their proficiency is limited.
            Do you have any concrete evidence of this or do you just assume it must be the case?

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The Japanese should have just adopted Siddham script to write their language instead of Chang characters + woman version of Chang characters.
    >All this is particularly relevant for Sanskrit (and its written form in the Siddham script), which for Kūkai is not a language parallel with Chinese, let alone Japanese, but is the privileged means of expression for the Dharma-body itself. The fundamental sounds and letters of Sanskrit have a relationship to reality that is not symbolic but productive and iconic. For instance, the letter a “is the mother of all letters, the essence of all sounds, and the fountainhead of every aspect of reality”
    If only he had learned to write his works in Siddham script instead of Classical Chinese, he could have created a productive shift of Japanese to a regular alphasyllabic script to propagate the Dharma

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone has already pointed out why China felt it necessary to have a non-phonetic writing system.

    But
    >Pajeet writing system
    >Convenient.
    Sanskrit is a syllabary and is impossible to be used by any Sinic languages. Its incredibly inconvenient from the Chinese standpoint.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Alphasyllabaries/abugidas are far superior to alphabets and Chang moon runes. The Ethiopians and Indians are the only ones who have cottoned into this so far

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Only for languages where most consonants are followed by schwas, and there is no tone. It would be extremely inconvenient for Chinese when any consonant can be followed by somewhere between ten to 25 vowels × five tones.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          The truth is, the alphabet can be tailored to any language. Any vowel and tone can be marked with a unique letter. The real reason why all languages aren't switching to Latin is because of tradition. To be able to read older literature and to continue writing as your predecessors did.

          Fir me the abjads are the biggest pain in the ass. It'd very difficult to make words out with just consonants.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Thats cute but Sanskrit is still impossible to use for Sinitic languages.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >To be able to read older literature
            Does anyone actually read original printings of old literature? English-speakers read Shakespeare, but we don't read the original printings from the 1600s, we read modern editions, and those modern editions could just as well be in another writing system.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            He's fricking bullshiting. Chinese and Japanese have to learn classical Chinese if they want to read old literature like westoids do with Latin and Classical Greek. Them using the modern Kanji just makes it easier to learn Classical Chinese. They can probably pick out some words here and there like you and I can pick out of the word from ancient Latin text but both us and east asian need to learn to real thing to actually read anything our ancestors wrote

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Chinese and Japanese have to learn classical Chinese if they want to read old literature like westoids do with Latin and Classical Greek.
            Well, except the stuff that's in vernacular, but yes.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Thats cute but Sanskrit is still impossible to use for Sinitic languages.

          This guy have never learnt a language and is just making dumb assumption.

          Had you done minimal research you would realize that alphabets are perfectly capable of expressing tones with diacritic. The Jesuits seamlessly romanized Vietnamese and Vietnamese have more tones than Chinese. In fact, it's way easier to learn tones with alphabet because the tones are represented by discernable words(for instance: á, ạ, à are different words). You don't need to guess from a single character like with moon runes.

          Chinese writings is straight up primitive, they're a relic from the past. Most society advanced from logograph to syllabary long ago. Chinese runes are amphibian while alphabets are mammals, they are more evolved. I get that Chinese don't want to use Latin because muh culture but the fact that chinks couldnt figure out a native alphabet of their own while everyone around them (Mongols, Koreans, Tibetans, Manchus) did, despite being the oldest people around is pathetic. Ancient Mesopotamian moved on from logographic writings 4000 years ago, before Chinese civilization even exist

          Not to mention Chinese writings are difficult for mathematics and programming. In fact I'd wager China stagnated scientifically because of its writing system. Let's not forget Chinese couldn't figure a decent numeral system in addition to sticking with a backward language.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Ancient Mesopotamian moved on from logographic writings 4000 years ago, before Chinese civilization even exist
            Bullshit, Sumerians never moved on from logograms, that was Akkadians.
            But you see, China never had peoples who could just supplant bureaucratic and cultural precedent like that and implement a syllabary, and most importantly, early enough so that the sunk cost doesn't pile up over millennia of literary tradition by tens of millions of people by that point.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            This guy have never learnt a language and is just making dumb assumption.

            Had you done minimal research you would realize that alphabets are perfectly capable of expressing tones with diacritic. The Jesuits seamlessly romanized Vietnamese and Vietnamese have more tones than Chinese. In fact, it's way easier to learn tones with alphabet because the tones are represented by discernable words(for instance: á, ạ, à are different words). You don't need to guess from a single character like with moon runes.

            Chinese writings is straight up primitive, they're a relic from the past. Most society advanced from logograph to syllabary long ago. Chinese runes are amphibian while alphabets are mammals, they are more evolved. I get that Chinese don't want to use Latin because muh culture but the fact that chinks couldnt figure out a native alphabet of their own while everyone around them (Mongols, Koreans, Tibetans, Manchus) did, despite being the oldest people around is pathetic. Ancient Mesopotamian moved on from logographic writings 4000 years ago, before Chinese civilization even exist

            Not to mention Chinese writings are difficult for mathematics and programming. In fact I'd wager China stagnated scientifically because of its writing system. Let's not forget Chinese couldn't figure a decent numeral system in addition to sticking with a backward language.

            If you start fresh like any newly arrived tribe, sure you can start with alphabets or syllabaries, no problem.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Chinese runes are amphibian while alphabets are mammals, they are more evolved.
            I agree Chinese characters aren't a sensible writing system, but that's not a very good metaphor, because evolution doesn't have a goal.
            >In fact I'd wager China stagnated scientifically because of its writing system.
            Isn't the Song often considered to have had the beginnings of what could have become an industrial revolution?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            > In fact I'd wager China stagnated scientifically because of its writing system.
            it did extra complexity created always hurts people in the long run.Be it in laws software or writing system.Poeple who mastered complexity want to keep their position in society and dont want someone to master something they needed 10 years for in 6 months.So they fight to preserve the inefficient structure.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Thats cute but Sanskrit is still impossible to use for Sinitic languages. Also Sanskrit isn't even an Alphabet, its a syllabary.

            >Not to mention Chinese writings are difficult for mathematics and programming. In fact I'd wager China stagnated scientifically because of its writing system. Let's not forget Chinese couldn't figure a decent numeral system in addition to sticking with a backward language.

            Is this why Pajeets have such an advanced civilization as opposed to a bunch of backwards petty kingdoms who only got unified by outsiders?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Thats cute but Sanskrit is still impossible to use for Sinitic languages.
            Again, why exactly?
            >Also Sanskrit isn't even an Alphabet, its a syllabary.
            It's an abugida. Don't correct people on terminology if you don't know it yourself.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, why exactly?
            A lot of fricking anons here already said it: it doesn't take into account tones and its consonant-vowel arrangement doesn't work for Sinitic languages.

            Fricking Sanskrit doesn't even have letters for certain sounds like "NG" or "Z" historically, so how the frick would Zhang Zongchang gonna spell his name? Jhanna Jonna Jhanna like some 60s Hippie Psychedelic band lmao miss me with that shit.

            >It's an abugida. Don't correct people on terminology if you don't know it yourself.
            So why are you b***hing about alphabets then when Sanskrit is being talked about here.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >it doesn't take into account tones
            But you can add diacritics. Thai is a Brahmic script for instance and it does that.
            >and its consonant-vowel arrangement doesn't work for Sinitic languages.
            Then how's it work for Thai and Tibetan?
            >Fricking Sanskrit doesn't even have letters for certain sounds like "NG" or "Z" historically, so how the frick would Zhang Zongchang gonna spell his name? Jhanna Jonna Jhanna like some 60s Hippie Psychedelic band lmao miss me with that shit.
            So you add or repurpose letters or add diacritics, as people have always done. Obviously to write a different language the script will generally need modification.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >But you can add diacritics. Thai is a Brahmic script for instance and it does that.
            For that matter, Xiaoerjing and Dungan both don't represent tones and are used in practice so apparently it's not really necessary.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That's because the people who first invented programming spoke English. I don't think a language that uses acronyms frequently like HOG, AUC, or AdaGrad is suitable for programming.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            (I'm only the first anon you are replying to)
            No, really the indian script only makes sense when your language has most consonants followed by a single vowel, and no tone. (Which I think is no longer the case even for modern Hindi, they only keep writing it as if it was.) Yes, then it makes perfect sense to write only consonants, and then use diacritics in case the vowel is different. But for a language with a lot of unpredictable vowels and tones, it becomes a huge bother - virtually all syllables will need a diacritics, and how do you write tones, if you already write vowels as diacritics?
            >Not to mention Chinese writings are difficult for mathematics and programming.
            No on the contrary. I just thought yesterday how well would Chinese work for something like Sinclair Basic. All programming languages could be one character, one command. It would work pretty well.
            >In fact I'd wager China stagnated scientifically because of its writing system. Let's not forget Chinese couldn't figure a decent numeral system in addition to sticking with a backward language.
            What are you talking about? Chinese has a perfectly regular base 10 system.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >No, really the indian script only makes sense when your language has most consonants followed by a single vowel
            Sinitic languages don't normally have consonant clusters, do they?
            >and no tone.
            So again, add diacritics, like Thai does.
            >But for a language with a lot of unpredictable vowels and tones, it becomes a huge bother - virtually all syllables will need a diacritics, and how do you write tones, if you already write vowels as diacritics?
            This isn't a hypothetical, Thai and Tibetan already exist.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Sinitic languages don't normally have consonant clusters, do they?
            I'm not talkiing about consonant cluster. What I'm talking about is that the indian scripts were made for languages where most consonats are followed by the same vowel most of the time, so you only need to write vowels that are different from that one. Such as a made up sentence "Ghətərəmə əkimətə rətugə." you can only write the i and u.
            >So again, add diacritics, like Thai does.
            Thai and Tibetan are both a massive mess. Possibly the only two languages that can rival English in this aspect.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It's not like they're worse than Chinese.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >No on the contrary. I just thought yesterday how well would Chinese work for something like Sinclair Basic. All programming languages could be one character, one command. It would work pretty well.
            As someone starting my masters in programming, this sounds like hell
            You know in programming most of it isnt actually any commands?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Chinese couldn't figure a decent numeral system
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_rods#Rod_numerals
            What's wrong with these exactly?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Let's not forget Chinese couldn't figure a decent numeral system in addition to sticking with a backward language.
            https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seki_Takakazu
            Certainly didn't prevent them from making the same discoveries as Newton, etc...

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >In fact I'd wager China stagnated scientifically because of its writing system.

            Imperial China was surrounded by alphabet & abugida users among their South & Southeast Asian neighbors and they were all less advanced & less literate than they were. You can have the simplest writing system imaginable but its not gonna do you jackshit if you don't teach it to your people. The Imperial Chinese have buttloads of schools that taught literacy to kids for the benefit of the Imperial Bureaucracy, whereas Pajeets and SEAsians have Brahminical classes that hoarded literacy unto themselves or in the case of Buddhist SEAsian kingdoms, were disinclined to read since Monks existed to interpret texts for the busy farmer plebs.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >b-but we're more advanced than SEAsians and Pajeets
            typical petty chink. Lower than rats but hey at least we're aren't as low as other rats. You're still backward people that needed to learn from the west in the end. You already lost the moment you use this Anglo website and write in English. We own you. I bet you got the knowledge of how literacy works in South Asia from sources written in English too

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Pajeet white worship.
            Typical.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Indians are white

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Black person

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Let's not forget Chinese couldn't figure a decent numeral system in addition to sticking with a backward language

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzhou_numerals

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_numeral

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_rods

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Hui

            >native alphabet of their own while everyone around them

            Khitan Mongolics used logographs and Jurchen ancestors of Manchus used logographs and Tanguts used logographs. They didn't voluntarily forget and abandon them on purpose.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It's another why did the civilization with mutually unintelligible dialects not have a phonetic script post

            That being said, you might have a point with the numeral post. The chinese spoken language is actually amazing for numbers so maybe that's why they started dominating in math as soon as they got arabic numerals.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Zero logic in your post. The alphabet is more flexible than abudiga. Your reasoning can only be emotional.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Why is it impossible? Especially when languages related to Chinese (like Tibetan) and languages typologically similar to/in a common Sprachbund with Chinese (like Thai) use them.

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >The Chinese writing system is basically the same thing as hieroglyphs
    hieroglyphs make more sense than modern Chinese writing which is shortned and reduced hieroglyphs so they dont resemble the thing they were supposed to represent.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Hieroglyphs are partly syllabic, partly logographic.

      >modern Chinese writing which is shortned and reduced hieroglyphs so they dont resemble the thing they were supposed to represent.

      That's only true for Oracle-Bone descended characters. By the warring states, that's not the case.

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    the true best writing system is tengwar

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Seems like hell for dyslexics.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        dyslexics are weak and will not survive the winter

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      What about Musa?
      https://musa.bet
      Or Uniscript?
      https://omniglot.com/conscripts/uniscript.htm

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because their writing system is actually superior in a lot of ways. Our letters don't mean shit.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >our letters don't mean shit

      This has to be the stupidest thing I ever read

      >bolts and steel don't mean anything to the building

      okay Hoss

  23. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It is Crazy that with the exception of three countries (China, Japan, and Korea) literally the entire planet writes using Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Sure they've evolved a lot but the letter A is still a picture of a bull (Turn A upside down to see). And even the Koreans only kinda use Chinese, since Hangul is a non-organic constructed system that only resembles Chinese because the Koreans used the shapes they were familiar with.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >It is Crazy that with the exception of three countries (China, Japan, and Korea) literally the entire planet writes using Egyptian Hieroglyphs.
      Hell, Hangul might be at least partially descended from Phags-pa. Cherokee is an arguable exception, though; the letter forms are based on Latin but the sounds have nothing to do with their Latin sounds.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I consider Cherokee to be like Hangul, in that yeah, it didn't organically evolve, but it's still very much based upon principals of English/Chinese writing respectively. Using the same shapes and ideas, even if they are kinda messed up. If you want to be pedantic you can even squint your eyes and say Hangul is still logographic since the letters are obstensibly meant to resemble the shape of the mouth making the represented sound.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >it didn't organically evolve

          Did any non-pictogram system of writing organically evolve? At the start, someone had to sit down and establish "this symbol means this and that symbol means that". Even the Phoenician alphabet had to choose which hieroglyphics to base the letters on.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What I'm saying is that those choices happened over long periods of time with no centralized decision making or authority. A lot like memes actually, just countless anonymous scribes shitposting with the symbols on clay tablets over literal thousands of years with individual aspects getting popular and adopted or rejected and discarded by pure popularity until it finally accidentally arrived as a phonetic writing system. Cherokee and Hangul on the other hand are products of a singular event with a singular authority going "This is what writing is, deal with it".

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >I consider Cherokee to be like Hangul, in that yeah, it didn't organically evolve, but it's still very much based upon principals of English/Chinese writing respectively.
          Sorta? It's a syllabary and not an alphabet.
          >If you want to be pedantic you can even squint your eyes and say Hangul is still logographic since the letters are obstensibly meant to resemble the shape of the mouth making the represented sound.
          Wouldn't that rather make it featural?

  24. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Be Egyptian, build pyramids that last forever
    Be Babylon, produce tower that falls and destroys all language
    Be Chinese, produce greatest culture, wall and city that lasts forever
    Be Indian, build mausoleum to put all your dead Indians.

    Geez anon I don't know why.

  25. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    chinese is very efficient for parsing

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      How so?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The frick are you smoking? Block print with no spaces is the worst language in the world for parsing.

  26. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    nicest sounding mandarin

    worst sounding japanese

  27. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's over

  28. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I remember asking a Chinese student in my fairly ethnically diverse elementary school that's about grade three. I asked is there any way you can like sound out a Chinese character like you can sound out in English word? And he said no you can't. And I just thought how is that possibly a useful language for anything but just like butter insanity

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I wonder what "frickin checked" sounds like in Chinese.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=zh-CN&text=fricking%20checked&op=translate

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        "biden is president"

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          if you prefer
          拜登是总统

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      That's not completely true, though. You can't know for sure how a character you don't know is pronounced, but most characters are composed of a phonetic component indicating approximate pronunciation plus a semantic element indicating general category of meaning. If you already recognize the spoken word, it can sometimes be possible to figure out what word a character you don't know is based on that. It's not a good system, but there is a logic to it. This piece gives a better idea:
      http://zompist.com/yingzi/yingzi.htm

  29. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    if its not clear
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/gop-hammers-biden-allowing-emergency-oil-reserves-china-compromising-energy-security
    biden sold usas oil reserves to china. this is civilizational suicide and impeachment isnt enough, every redpilled patriot knows biden and hunter deserve to be hanged

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Ok Peng. How is the lockdown and banking business? Winnie did more damages to Chyna than what Jopedo did to Murica.

  30. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    americas losses are a dying man, chinas are growing pains.
    the wealth is being siphoned into ccp families and ccps plan is to shrink chinas population to about 700 million, maybe even 300 million. easier to manage the people that way.

  31. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Chink chank chonk bink bonk

  32. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I saw those "above" and "below" characters on a circular saw and for a long time assumed they were really strange diagrams illustrating raising and lowering the blade respectively, which is what turning the wheel towards either of the characters actually did
    I figured it out one day when I tried google translating "raise" and "up" and things like that into chinese when the idea occurred to me, but it's kind of interesting that without knowing what they were it was still reasonably apparent what they meant, considering that the chinese script hasn't really been pictographic for centuries

  33. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone explain this to me? I saved it because it's kinda funny, but i only get the top - Westerner who thinks Chinese script is easy, and the "certified burried scholar" part.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly, Googling the parts written in English would be a decent start.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      All iceberg pics are nonsense, that's literally the meme format.
      >red, blue, green
      >orange, yellow, purple
      >pink, light blue
      >cyan, burgundy
      >neon, blorange
      >colors only perceptible by birds?!, ~~*yellow*~~
      >color spectrum is a israeli psychop
      >vantablack as the ultimate truth
      >Black person brown

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *