Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Learning another language..
Message-ID: <1995Jan9.030143.7640@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <3eeqdk$5q4@nic.umass.edu> <1995Jan7.030332.9863@midway.uchicago.edu> <3eoqan$4ds@nic.umass.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 03:01:43 GMT
Lines: 125

In article <3eoqan$4ds@nic.umass.edu> smailer@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Ira Smailer) writes:
>Daniel von Brighoff (deb5@woodlawn.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: (I've crossposted to sci.lang since the topic is no longer transla-
>: tion.  Follow ups to there alone, please.)

>: >: >Ira Smailer (smailer@twain.ucs.umass.edu) wrote:
>: >
>: >: >: Due to the limited number of syllables (and general shortness
>: >: >: of words) in Chinese, there is infinitely more room for confusion.

I know I missed the original discussion in which these remarks were
made, but you seem to be making a semi-empirical argument here rather
than simply expressing an opinion.

>: One of the reasons why it might look like Mandarin (which, keep in
>: mind, has the fewest distinct syllables of any Chinese dialect)
>: should be more confusing than Japanese is the misconception that
>: every word in Chinese is monosyllabic.  This has never been the case,
>: not even in Classical Chinese (which, as a written language, can
>: rely on different characters to distinguish homophones), and certain-
>: ly not now.  Many if not most common words are two syllables long in
>: Guoyu and Putonghua.
>
>Urm, thanks for pointing out this misconception, which I do not have,
>btw.

Didn't you just make reference to the "general shortness of words in
Chinese" vis-a-vis Japanese?
>
>However, even if you argue that in Chinese most words are disyllabic,
>you have to extend the same argument to Japanese too. What's the
>average number of syllables in a Japanese word? Definitely not one.

Not so fast:  I wouldn't mind seeing some harder data on this.  Many
of the most common Japanese words are monosyllabic (e.g. me "eye, sight",
mi "body, self", hi "sun, day; fire", ie "house", hou "direction, side",
ha "tooth", e "picture", ne "root, source; sound", etc.) and by far the
majority of the disyllabic words are borrowed from Chinese, where they
are less likely to have homophones.

>Rather, they tend to have more syllables than Chinese words. Therefore, 
>if you do some more mathematics with the
>number of syllables --> how many combinations, I still have a point :)

The number of distinctive two-syllable combinations in Japanese
(roughly 400; see my previous post) is still paltry compared to the
number of distinctive Mandarin syllables (at least 1,300).  If you
have a point, I fail to see what it is. 
>
>: Personally, I find Japanese more confusing because of the number
>  ^^^^^^^^^^
>: of Sino-Japanese words that have the same pronunciation even 
>: though written with different kanji.  Just open to Kengyusha's to
>: random and see how many homophonese there are!  For the most part,
>: tones and other distinctions (i.e. retroflex vs. palatal, etc.)
>: keep these same words from being homophones in Chinese (when they
>: do in fact exist in Chinese).
>
>I think we shouldn't oversee the fact that we are talking about 
>*personal* opinions. We can argue till we are blue in the face
>but I will *still* find Chinese more confusing, even though I
>like it better than Japanese.

We aren't *just* arguing opinions; why did you even begin counting
syllables if you weren't trying to argue that Mandarin is objectively
more confusing than Japanese?

>: Mr. Smailer also writes:
>: >I don't think tones should be included. When people learn Chinese,
>: >the pronunciation of tones is exaggerated, but in actual speech the
>: >differences tend to wash out to a certain degree. 
>
>: I must ask, how much Chinese do you speak?  In Mandarin it's true that
>:  particles, the second syllables of compounds, and other words do tend 
>: to lose their tones, but it's a big jump from that to saying tthat tones 
>: don't matter.  That would be like saying he distinctions between vowels 
>: don't matter in English because a lot of people slur them.  End thet's 
>: jest net tre, es et?
>
>*Sigh* Where did I say that tones don't matter?

Read your previous post or take a glance below.

>To illustrate what I was
>trying to say, remember back to the days when you were starting to 
>learn Chinese? Didn't your 1st-semester-TA take far more trouble
>with his/her pronunciation than in later semesters? Also, you might
>remember at first, students would pretty much try to sing the tones. 
>But later, since that is too slow, this is dropped. 

I don't understand what this has to do with anything previously said.
And I didn't learn Chinese from a TA anyway.
>
>: >I was told that you
>: >can also speak a passable Chinese without knowing any tones whatsoever :)
>: >So the role of tones as a means of alleviating confusion seems sort
>: >of minor.
>
>: Someone was either 1) grossly exagerrating or 2) taking you for a
>: ride.  Saying you can speak Chinese without tones is like saying you
>: can speak English without voicing distinctions.  Yes, people with
>
>Well, I hardly think you are a native speaker of Chinese. So, when
>you see a word that you don't know/forgot the tone of, what do you
>do? Make a guess, right? And people probably still understand what
>you are saying.

Sometimes they do, sometime they stare at me like I just said Jesus
was Jewish.

>Similar problems are faced by people whose native 
>dialect is not Mandarin. The point is, that even if you slur over/
>butcher your tones, native speakers can still fathom what you are
>driving at. A non-native speaker cannot, though. Therefore, the
>ocassional person who mispronounces the tones can get by. If
>everybody does it, nobody understands anything.

I don't agree,  And even if I did, it wouldn't be reason enough to
eliminate tones from consideration when you are discussing distincitive
syllables.

-- 
	Daniel "Da" von Brighoff (deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /\
	5242 S. Hyde Park Blvd., Apt. 303		    /__\
	Chicago, IL  60615				   /____\
