[Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus

[James Ma]

In general there are no Chinese characters indicative of a vowel or a
consonant. Speaking orthographically, Chinese is ideograph-based, whereas
English phonograph-based. These are two different orthographical systems.
What is distinctive about Chinese language is that each character is
constructed as an idea or a concept and has its historical, literary and
aesthetic origin. This is probably why learning Chinese presents a
considerable challenge for speakers of phonograph-based languages. David
was correct, there wasn’t a romanisation system until 1950s when Pinyin was
created as a romanisation system for standard Chinese, Hanyu 汉语, hence
Hanyu Pinyin 汉语拼音.


James


On 29 October 2017 at 22:55, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Halliday would describe it as a difference in aperture. "Man" is open,
> while "men" is half-open. You can feel and even see your jaw moving when
> you move from one to the other.
>
> Aperture is best thought of dynamically, as a movement from one posture to
> another rather than as a single static posture, as when we describe vowels.
> So once again it is better thought of as prosody than as articulation.
>
> Take a look at this:
>
> https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> 1186/2196-419X-1-2
>
> Halliday's model is not as idiosyncratic--or as language specific--as it
> seems. A lot of linguists agree that phonemes are essentially reifications
> of graphemes, and that syllables are a better model for understanding
> spoken phonology. In fact, when we read Vygotsky, we see that he uses the
> term "phoneme" in a rather strange way: he doesn't mean vowels and
> consonants, because these actually DON'T have any meaning except in
> comparison to other possible selections a speaker might have made but
> didn't. In fact, the example he gives of "phonemes" in the Lectures on
> Pedology are Russian case endings. Russian case endings are actually not
> phonemes at all but morphemes.
>
> Vygotsky went to school with Jakobson and probably studied with Trubetskoy.
> So for him a "phoneme" is really what we would call a morpho-phoneme. More
> like a Chinese character than a vowel or a consonant!
>
> David Kellogg
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Ivan Uemlianin <ivan@llaisdy.com> wrote:
>
> > Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological
> > difference in Mandarin between 慢 and 焖?
> >
> > Ivan
> >
> > --
> > festina lente
> >
> >
> > > On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even
> > then
> > > it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of
> > analysis
> > > is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The
> > > dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or
> a
> > > consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the
> > > syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels
> and
> > > consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so
> > > it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested in
> > > them..
> > >
> > > Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English
> puts
> > > articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological
> > > description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be
> > > peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe
> > > every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features:
> > > initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or closed),
> > and
> > > of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use
> > > vowels or consonants.
> > >
> > > I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very
> > > well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to
> > > antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is
> introducing
> > > two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on
> > > non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific
> > > dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great
> > antiquity,
> > > and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu"
> are
> > > more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better!
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one 炉火纯青 is the
> > "subject-predicate"
> > >> type, for example, 刚柔相济 masculinity and femininity are complementary
> to
> > >> each other; the second one 出神入化 the "symmetric relation" type, for
> > example,
> > >> 字正腔园 (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and
> perfect
> > >> execution of the tone.
> > >>
> > >> James
> > >>
> > >> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk
> > >>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thanks David,
> > >>>
> > >>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in
> > different
> > >>> ways to nuance and shade meanings.
> > >>>
> > >>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one
> > >>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how
> the
> > >>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis.
> > >>>
> > >>> All the best,
> > >>>
> > >>> Rod
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> > >>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
> > >>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28
> > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus
> > >>>
> > >>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of
> four
> > >>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate
> > >> vowels
> > >>> and consonants).
> > >>>
> > >>> 炉火纯青
> > >>> 出神入化
> > >>>
> > >>> Lú huǒ chún qīng  (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue)
> Chū
> > >>> shén rù huà (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in)
> > >>>
> > >>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels
> on
> > >>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or
> > >> "superb"
> > >>> communicate the thought.
> > >>>
> > >>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese
> > >>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley
> > >>> "automatized" rather than visualized.
> > >>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the
> > way
> > >>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the
> > >>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring
> Festival
> > >> in
> > >>> the the countryside
> > >>>
> > >>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of
> > >>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language.
> > >>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in
> > >>> English.)
> > >>>
> > >>> David Kellogg
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I often find it interesting to read David’s words, good and
> catalytic
> > >>>> to me.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I’ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce’s idea
> of
> > >>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative
> > >>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to “a dialectical leap”. To me,
> > >>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued
> > >>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the
> > >>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical
> > >>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> By the way, on the face of it, “a dialectical leap” is a more
> > >>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from
> Mainland)
> > >>>> due to historical reasons.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor’s privileged
> access
> > >>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be
> > >>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the
> > >>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are
> > >>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However,
> in
> > >>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex
> since
> > >>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination
> > >>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical
> > >>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the
> > >>>> essence of Peking opera: 炉火纯青 consummate, and 出神入化
> > >>>> superb.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> James
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *James Ma*  *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
> > >>>> <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>   *
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a
> > >>>> self-organizing
> > >>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the
> > >>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at
> > >>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe
> > >>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic
> structure
> > >>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in
> > >>> contexts).
> > >>>> So
> > >>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into
> > >>>> syllables
> > >>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form
> > >>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to
> > >>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this
> > >>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the
> words
> > >>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting
> > >>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the
> > >>> stones that compose them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels
> (at
> > >>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of
> > >>> consonants.
> > >>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning
> > >>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional
> > >>>>> Consonant)
> > >>>> Mandatory
> > >>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the
> > >>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same
> > >>>>> trick at any
> > >>>> level
> > >>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can
> > >>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you
> > >>>>> have a
> > >>>> clause
> > >>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are
> > >>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the
> existence
> > >>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the
> > >>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my
> > >>>>> preceding one, and mine
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential
> > >>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which
> > >>>>> language
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has
> > >>>>> something to
> > >>>> do
> > >>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people
> > >>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example
> > >>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in
> > >>>>> "Shajiabang" or even,
> > >>>> as
> > >>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that
> vowels
> > >>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are
> > >>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality).
> > >>>>> Consonants, on the
> > >>>> other
> > >>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing
> > >>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a
> > >>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy
> > >>>>> orisons be all my
> > >>>> sins
> > >>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking
> > >>>>> are
> > >>>> both
> > >>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and
> > >>>>> no
> > >>>> less
> > >>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> David Kellogg
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> ________________________________
> > >>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http:
> > >>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > >>>
> > >>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
> > for
> > >>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> > >>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> > >>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely
> on
> > >> it.
> > >>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> > >>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are
> not
> > >>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
> > accepts
> > >>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
> > >> emails
> > >>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> > responsibility
> > >>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> > >>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
> > accompanied
> > >>> by an official order form.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>