Re: Invention of the Alphabet

Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-Chinese dictionary, too?
>
> Peter> Where would I even find one? It would do me no good at all.
>
> Obviously: in the country where this script was invented.

So you'll buy me a plane ticket and a hotel reservation so I can go to
Anyang to see a dictionary?

> Peter> Single characters rarely even have a definition;
> >> Mine does. And most, if not all, Chinese-Chinese dictionary
> >> have
>
> Peter> Your what? C-E or C-C?
>
> My Chinese->English dictionary.
>
> Peter> the definitions are for the two-character units listed
> Peter> under the characters.
> >> Maybe, that's because it's easier to find *English
> >> equivalents* when considering 2-character units. That doesn't
> >> mean single characters do not mean anything, nor that the
> >> 2-character units aren't compounds.
>
> Peter> I didn't say they don't mean anything at all. I said they
> Peter> don't function on their own.
>
> Neither do most English word function on their own. You need to
> formulate a sentence.
>
> And most Chinese character do function on their own -- at least as
> "abbreviations". We often do that when writing headlines.
>
> >> According to your argument, shall I call English expression
> >> "train station" 1 word, because a French-English dictionary
> >> puts it under "gare (n. f.)"? And because a German-English
> >> dictionary puts it under "Bahnhof (n. m.)"? And English
> >> "central station" and French "station centrale" are both 1 word
> >> expressions, because it's "Hauptbahnhof" in a German-English or
> >> German-French dictionary?
>
> Peter> What a peculiar way of arguing you have.
>
> You're running out of arguments?
>
> Maybe, you should tell me why it is justifiable for you to judge the
> 'wordness' of Chinese characters based on your Chinese->English (or
> English->Chinese) dictionaries, but at the same time it is
> unjustifiable for me to analogously argue about the 'wordness' of
> English expressions based on English<->German and English<->French
> dictionaries.

I know what books about Chinese tell me.

Chinese-English dictionaries follow the analysis by linguists who study
Chinese.

Jeez.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Just how stupid is Quesada?
    ... Nay?", that almost everybody supports Spidey's marriage, unlike Joe ... Newsarama user that Quesada made a ... "Peter Parker never was a family man. ... templates undermines both the universe and the point of the characters. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)
  • Re: Just how stupid is Quesada?
    ... Newsarama user that Quesada made a ... "Peter Parker never was a family man. ... If you can tell me that Spider-Man would have ... templates undermines both the universe and the point of the characters. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)
  • Re: Just how stupid is Quesada?
    ... Newsarama user that Quesada made a ... "Peter Parker never was a family man. ... If you can tell me that Spider-Man would have ... templates undermines both the universe and the point of the characters. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)
  • Re: OMD Irony
    ... you love those same characters. ... ?I've grown up with Peter, ... Ultimate Spider-Man and the adult Peter in the 616 stories. ... and Marvel will be forced (ala the Clone Saga) to relent. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)
  • Re: Has it been tried to represent tones with punctuation ...
    ... Peter> hence written with two characters. ... For Chinese, that should at least ... Peter> syllables counting tone? ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading