Chinese Characters

There was a local news item the other day regarding Chinese authorities concern about the “purity” of the Chinese language. They are apparently contemplating means to prevent the popularization of non-Chinese words (mainly English) together with the use of non-Chinese letters and characters.

Let me admit first up that I have no knowledge at all of Chinese – I can neither read, write nor speak any words in that language, so what I am saying now is based on my general knowledge, not on specifics. But I understand that Chinese is not a phonetic language (it is tonal), in that a Chinese “word” cannot be broken down into individual vowels and consonants, like words based on the Indo-Persian–Greek-Latin languages (ie English!). I am hoping that someone, with knowledge of Chinese, will correct me if I am wrong!

Be that as it may, how the Chinese authorities are going to enforce the “purity” of their language is difficult to imagine. Being an authoritarian government I suppose they could employ undercover “word police” arresting people who dare to use non-Chinese words in their speech. The trouble with this approach is that it poses two problems for the “language purity” authorities and the Chinese people in general:-

a. As soon as authorities “ban” the use of a word the message has to be disseminated somehow. The media generally – posters, the press, TV, the internet and cell phone SMS would all need to be employed to spread the message. Immediately many millions of people who had never heard of the “undesirable” word would now know what it was! So rather than curtailing the spread, the consequence would be to spread it even further – albeit, with a warning.

b. The world is a dynamic place and language follows. Many “new” words would represent new ideas, technology, inventions and concepts and “slang”, which may have no equivalent in Chinese characters or sounds. If the authorities wish to prevent these “new” words from entering and “polluting” their language they will need to employ an army of linguists to study every and all publications and the social media so as to constantly devise new characters or combinations of existing characters to equate to the new “sounds” and meanings.

The French tried this (to prevent the encroachment of English into French) and I believe that they have given up a battle they discovered they would never win. Society changes faster than any government authority can hope to emulate and as I said before language follows a similar course. This is the “advantage” of English – it is so adaptable – it absorbs and incorporates any new, useful word, from whatever language and then “adopts” it as its own – and nobody cares one way or another.

English (simply put) is based on three principal languages – Latin, Germanic (Saxon) and French, but has incorporated words (at least the sound but with Anglicized spelling) from Scandinavia (Norse), Holland (Dutch), Greece, the Middle East (Arabic), India, Australian Aboriginal, North American Indian, many other countries and yes, even Chinese.

Remember that a language is purely a means of communication, so it does not really matter which language is used as long as people understand the message! English has now been adopted as the “official” language of air and marine safety and many other international organizations. This came about, through a process of “soft power” – admiration, striving to emulate the activities of successful people, in music, in literature and a general accessibility. Authoritarian rule will never stop a “natural” process.

Tall Poppy Syndrome

We never seem to learn do we – "we" as in the human race I mean. Something like 2500 years ago Herodotus, the Greek historian (born c 484 BC and who died sometime between 421 and 415 BC) stated in his famous “The Histories” that:

“It is always great buildings and the tall trees which are struck by lightning. It is God’s way to bring the lofty low.... For God tolerates pride in none but Himself.”

He was referring to humans and how we try to gain some, often unfair, advantage over our fellow being. This is of course usually in the context of money (what’s new?). Herodotus also recorded that the Greeks had astutely observed the fact that:

“Human prosperity never abides long in the same place.”

To my way of thinking all human life has one purpose and one only – the well being of humanity. And I wonder whether all the technological advances we have made, and continue to make, on an exponential growth pattern, actually do HELP humanity. Money is very useful in this regard if used to assist those in need – to purchase their requirements. But do we need huge arsenals of weapons; do we need to spend countless billions on developing new or more ‘refined’ ways of killing each other? Wouldn’t it be much better to spend this money trying to right some of the wrongs and injustices of the past, to the extent that those who may have felt they had been treated unjustly or in some other way wronged, feel compensated and have no need to take further action?

The three basic requirements of humanity seem to be slipping further out of the reach of many – adequate food, adequate shelter and personal security. These still seem to elude the one billion people (according to the World Health Organization) currently at the point of starvation, who often live in the most hazardous regions – particularly South America, Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia. So what are the wealthy doing about it?

As I said before the purpose of human life is to help humanity. Why aren’t we doing it? There is enough food thrown away in the developed countries to feed all those in need. Are we those “great buildings and the tall trees” to be laid low by God because He “tolerates pride in none but Himself?” To consider oneself ‘above’ or ‘better’ than others, who are starving with lack of shelter and without any personal security, is surely ‘pride’; is surely ‘hubris’.

This, surely, is pride asking for a fall?

Also consider the observation that “Human prosperity never abides long in the same place.” It would seem that not many in Wall Street read Herodotus or if they did they didn’t think it would apply to them – they cared for no one but themselves and the money they were ‘making’ through their obscene commissions (vide the 2008 Global Financial Crisis). Certainly, I would guess, the Australian banks and insurance companies thought they were above all this ‘nonsense’ – how wrong they were (they also obviously never read Herodotus).

If you follow my thinking that as humans our main purpose in life is to help our fellow beings you will understand my continual reference to the "Law" of Cause and Effect (or if you prefer, You Reap What you Sow), and to the importance of ethics in our relationships. It is needful to be always fair, honest, kind, compassionate, empathetic, moderate and just in all our dealing. To be anything else is to invite the Gods to cut you down to size and to ‘bring the lofty low’.

In colloquial English - call this the ‘tall poppy’ syndrome – and in Australia at least we seem to take a perverse pleasure in seeing the ‘self promoted mighty’ laid low and cut down to the size of normal human beings.