News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by hyh1048576 on Monday April 21, 2014 @07:53PM (#7624802)
As a native Chinese speaker I read that article years ago when my English was just enough to read long articles like that. I found it so damn funny and with a great sense of humor (maybe a Chinese sense of humor). I don't understand why people think it's "unrelentingly pessimistic" that is "unjustified". I even recommended this to my friend who studies linguistics and teaches Chinese to foreigners.

I'm from Peking University and I don't really know "how to write the character 嚔, as in da penti 打喷嚔 'to sneeze'" either. I think it's a general problem in the era of computer and internet, as people input Chinese with pinyin, not with pen and ink. It's going to be interesting to see how Chinese evolve with modern technology.

Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by dennisgorelik on Monday April 21, 2014 @11:05PM (#7625538)
What's the reason to keep Chinese hieroglyphs if all people know and use pinyin anyway?
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by lvturner on Monday April 21, 2014 @11:28PM (#7625625)
Jump in a Beijing taxi and show the taxi driver the pinyin for the address you wish to go to instead of the Chinese characters. Report back on how well it works out for you.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by gebe on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @07:51AM (#7627072)
One reason is ambiguity, this is an extreme example but shows a bit of the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-Eating_Poet_in_the_Stone_D...
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by rangibaby on Monday April 21, 2014 @11:38PM (#7625663)
A lot of people have asked this same question for a long time.[0]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters#B...

Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by Frqy3 on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @03:27AM (#7626282)
They provide a significantly greater density of conceptual labels, allowing better mental separation of the homophones.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by owenjonesuk on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @02:50AM (#7626175)
Different dialects of Chinese use the same characters. Cantonese, for example. Switching to pin yin would only work for mandarin.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by Kronopath on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @10:17AM (#7627758)
Disregarding your question, which others have answered plenty well already, I find it funny that you refer to them as hieroglyphics, since actual Egyptian hieroglyphics ended up being discovered to be phonetic as well!
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by damaohouzi on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @10:30AM (#7627842)
partially phonetic
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by ekianjo on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @04:51AM (#7626485)
Because each pinyin could mean a thousand of different things, so it's way easier to understand what they mean with an ideogram.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by mitosis on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @11:38AM (#7628311)
Chinese writing does not encode sounds. It encodes meaning. If you write Chinese in pinyin, all you do is write down the sounds, not the meaning.

Said differently: why do we keep writing English like this, instead of using a phonetic alphabet? Same reason.

Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by prewett on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @01:34PM (#7629073)
Some of the characters do actually encode sounds, typically in the right side of the character. However, the encoding is more like a memory aid than it is phonetical. 中 (zhong1), 钟 (zhong1), 种 (zhong3/zhong4); 艮 (gen3), 跟 (gen1) 根 (gen1), but 很 (hen3). And it doesn't always work: 立 (li4), 位 (wei4), 拉 (la1).
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by aaronz8 on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @12:52AM (#7625879)
Not everyone knows and uses pinyin, especially older people.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by damaohouzi on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @10:29AM (#7627835)
They are not hieroglyphs, you will see no pinyin publicaly in China. Many ignorant americans come to China having studied Pinyin and they fall flat on their face.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by chewxy on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @12:46AM (#7625861)
An interesting typo I've been seeing in the last week around China is 什么 -》 神马/神么

In fact, typing this on a pinyin keyboard, I can see why this is the case

Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by edwinyzh on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @01:09AM (#7625927)
actually, "神马/神么" is an intentional typo, a "Internet culture" thing in recent years. Many similar examples too.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by chewxy on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @04:11AM (#7626389)
What could be the reason for it? Is it a "you" -> "u" SMS lingo type of thing?
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by inportb on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @04:16AM (#7626400)
I think it's more of a "lol" -> "lawl" or "btw" -> "btdubz" type of thing.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by dferlemann on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @07:10AM (#7626919)
pretty close, except 神马 actually means Godly Horse, 神么actually means God? Not really funny when I explain it out, it's the typo and pronunciation variance that's kinda funny.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by edwinyzh on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @08:08AM (#7627136)
No, you are wrong, not even close. "神马/神么" are just variants of "什么"("what" in English). Young people use these Internet-ish words just for fun.

Literally, "神" doesn't mean "God", "God" in Chinese is "上帝".

I'm a native Chinese.

Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by franzwong on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @09:28AM (#7627490)
I am also native Chinese. In Hong Kong, "神" means God.
Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by edwinyzh on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @01:07PM (#7628872)
Well, since most audience here are non-Chinese speaking people, how about let's be clear. So in this context, "神马/神么" are Mandarin words, and I believe that people in HK speak Cantonese and don't usually use these Mandarin words.

On the other hand, IMHO, just IMHO, "God" being translated into Chinese(Cantonese) as "神" is not thoughtful as it introduces confusion.

Re:Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (1992) by edwinyzh on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @06:08AM (#7626728)
no, hard to explain for me in plain English, inportb's explanation below should be close.