knolax
>You can still do something similar in English where you say your name is "rainbow" but you spell it "rhaynbeau",
This is an insulting borderline racist comparison and ties to the same old western trope of treating our names like random sounds. "rhaynbeau" Isn't a word and doesn't carry any meaning.
I gotta ask, you're the third white western male living in Taiwan who brings up this same tired argument with the same contrived source; Do you people have a club or something?
Here's another quote from the source you use:
> "There is no doubt that romanized Classical Chinese would be gibberish"
Invariably these proponents of phonetic writing for Chinese are non-native speakers[1] from the west who seem to have an intense hatred for any aspect of the Chinese language that they consider "Classic Chinese" derived[3]. This of course extends to any sentence that goes beyond "where's the bathroom" and "hello my name is bob" except not even the second example because Chinese names are what these people would consider "classical derived". So you propose a system that would not be able to transcribe __names__. Go to Korean wikipedia and click on a disambiguation page[0]. Or go ask them to show you their ID card[2]. These are a people whose entire national identity is based around not using Chinese writing. A lifetime of both native chinese speakers and non-chinese alike not being able to pronounce my NAME right when rendered in Pinyin is apparently not evidence enough that it's an inadequate system.
> This is a Chinese dictionary: https://imgur.com/a/rdxVh9i
You also leave out that double digit percentages of the Dungan language comes from Arabic and Persian, Russian, Turkic etc. Not even their names are Chinese. What little Chinese is left is a fraction of the amount of Chinese morphemes a normal Chinese speaker knows. Even in your example the entry for "da" has 10 semantically, phonetically, and etymologically different entries. The PRC also tried to enforce phonetic writing on the Yi and Zhuang languages, which had their own scripts that work on the same principles as Chinese. The result was low literacy rates and a population that predominantly still used the old writing system.
I could very well turn your argument against you. Why doesn't English spell pique, peak, peek the same? Pours, pores, poors? Why did a phonetic writing system slowly evolve into what is essentially a logographic script. Why were you able to read the above example relatively easily, but sdrow eht esrever I fi ylkciuq sa ylraen ton? It's almost as if mature readers of all scripts focus primarily on morpheme clusters when reading, and whatever gains you have from supposedly phonetically regular spelling are offset by that, assuming no pronunciation differences of course. By the time you force everyone to either memorize the "proper" pronunciations or simply force them to only use your privileged dialect your orthography will already be out of date. You can reform again, but by then your lexicon will be so etymologically and semantically starved[6] that you'll probably have to construct all your technical terms from some dead language with a stable orthography anyways.
> an actual analysis whether Sinitic languages
It's called general Chinese. The only phonetic system that works for most dialects, and whose spelling requires the same amount of memorization as writing with logographic characters. Of course if your kind had your way, by the time you could force it on every Chinese speaker it would be out of date and not even regular anymore. Of course these discussions usually don't even touch on the concept of morpheme regularity.
Of course all this text is useless because you probably don't speak Chinese well enough to evaluate any primary source, and the motivation for all this is less rational and more a personal vendetta you non-native speakers hold against Chinese being "too hard to learn"[5]. What's funny is it's the same sentiment you expats have for Vietnamese and Korean, Arabic or even Dutch. Even if we lobotomize our language for your sake you'll simply demand we all adopt English anyways.
[0] https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%88%98%EB%8F%84_(%EB%8F%99%...
[1] or some sort of deranged newspeak proponent, usually diaspora
[2] https://learn.microsoft.com/en- us/answers/questions/815368/acceptable-types-of-identification-%28az-900-test%29?orderby=newest
[3] Usually the argument against 施氏食獅史, somehow a several sentence long story every native chinese reader would understand being rendered as gibbereished shi shi shi shi shi shi, or maybe shi Shi shi shi shi if you're generous, is a totally reasonable reform in your eyes.
[4] https://www.ddginc-usa.com/can-you-read-this.htm
[5] Not limited to language apparently, no cultural differences can be tolerated by you globalists types. Even chopsticks compel your type to proclaim > "Really? A fork and a spoon is far more superior. It shocks me that chopsticks are still used and that people like using them" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35877051
[6] > Romanticized bullshit views built around Chinese characters.
Leads to Oxymoronic statements where Refusing To "Romanize" is because of "Romanticism". How absurdity like this is supposed to be easy for non-native learners and native children to grasp is beyond me.
Think of it as trying to compress several kilobytes of information down to several bytes of information and then trying to reconstruct the original data all in the CPU when you have dedicated hardware several orders of magnitude more powerful and which uses a non-compatible black box compression scheme.
You're missing the point entirely, the amount of characters you used is enough for 2 or 3 sentences. This was not an example constructed in good faith.
IEEE Spectrum was the same paper that got duped into publishing a story about a self driving car that didn't exist. It's a tabloid piggybacking off of the IEEE's brand recognition. The fact that a NASA spokesperson bothered to reply at all surprises me.
> Blacks were significantly more likely to have a deadly weapon than a white suspect. Yet more white suspects were killed.
More white suspects were killed because there's more than 4 times as many whites. Ang again the data is on all shootings and not just cases of unjustified shootings. The data on whether or not the people they shoot is self reported, and if you watch any of the bodycam footage you can clearly see that many of these "armed" suspects weren't armed at all and had dropped their guns and had their hands up when they were shot[0][1].
Even if you bring up that the predominantly white police also happen to kill white civilians it doesn't change the fact that they're still getting away with murder unless rioting happens. White police getting away with murdering whire civilians is still wrong.
> So despite being 13% population, in 2016 blacks committed 53% of murders, 54% robberies, 43% weapons offences, 38% of all violent crimes.
38% of all violent crimes that were caught. They're caught more because they're more heavily policed. I've worked in security before. 90% of the time if a guy pulls out a knife or gets violent he's white. And this was a city with a relatively low white population too. And no, showing that the data also shows whites committing more crimes in other areas does not mean it isn't biased. You're assuming that the data is biased because of intentional malice when it's sampling error. Whether or not violent crime is caught depends on how heavily a specific community is physically patrolled but crimes like sex assault and drug don't.
Citing self reported "threat perception failures" from the police of one specific city doesn't reliably say anything about who's shooting who. Are black police more likely to shoot unarmed blacks or are they just less likely to lie about the suspect being armed?
> white "liberal saviors"
I'm not white and I'm not a "liberal". Hispanic and Black people wanting more police is completely irrelevant to me. You also cherry-picked your data when in your own source it shows a higher percentage of Hispanic and Black people wanting fewer police than whites.
None of this tangent about police violence will change the fact that Vincent Chin's murderer is alive and was not given any jail time by a white jury. Two white men commited a hate based murder and are walking free to this day.
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6BBA5EAqoxo
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile
That casea didn't even pass the grand jury. Compared to Ronnie Long who got 44 Years when the races were reversed.
> 2. Tony Timpa
"Random events" is a funny way to say a consistent pattern of Whites police killing mostly nonwhites and White murderers and lynch mobs getting away with no consequences. Vincent Chin's death was racially motivated and the all white jury punish to convict his murderers. That is a race problem.
> Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men. [0]
[0] https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/us/ronnie-long-nc-wrongful-co...
Can you provide more info on this? I wasn't able to find anything specific.
Vincent Chin's murderers didn't get any jail time. The woman who falsely accused Emmett Till is still alive and well. It took months of rioting for them to begin convicting people like Chauvin instead of just giving them paid vacations. I don't know the situation in Germany but at least in the US that statement isn't far from the truth.