Forbes wrote:

A word about classifiers. I looked up "classifier" in my dictionary (a very good one) and it does not define it! I turned to dictionary.com and found the following definition: A word or morpheme used in some languages in certain contexts, such as counting, that indicates the semantic class to which an item belongs. For example, hon is used in Japanese in counting long slender objects such as sticks or pencils. I do not think that classifiers in that sense exist in English. Whilst one can say "a head of lettuce" that way of speaking is something of an optional extra and one can say "some lettuce" or even just "lettuce". When you use "a head of" you are not putting "lettuce" into any semantic class, but rather referring to the particular form the lettuce is taking at the moment you are talking about it.

I agree that this definition is simple, but I also consider it to be simplistic.

According to dictionary.com, the meaning of semantic is:

Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language

I do not understand how you consider that Chinese classifiers divide nouns into semantic categories. The Bantu languages do this, but not the Asian languages. Classifiers divide nouns not based on semantic categories, but on arbitrary attributes, the most common one being physical attributes. “Long slender objects” is not a semantic distinction, is it? In Chinese, the classier zhang is used for objects that are thin, small, and basically rectangular. Paper fits into this category, and so is counted using zhang. So are things such as blankets and sheets. What is the semantic relationship in your mind between sheets and paper? I consider their relationship to be a sharing of physical attributes, not a relationship of the semantics of the nouns.

 

Speaking of sheets, there is a noun in English, sheet, that refers to a type of object that is thin, flat, and rectangular. When we count objects of a similar shape, regardless of semantics, the word sheet is often used to assist in counting. For example, when we count paper, we count the number of sheets. When we count plywood, we count the number of sheets. When we count plastic, if it is in the shape of small, thin rectangles, we count the number of sheets. There is no semantic relationship implied, yet this is similar to the Chinese concept of counting objects based on similarity of shape.

 

When we count objects using the word cattle, we count using their heads. When we count cabbage or lettuce, we often employ the same concept, the similarity of shape with a head to count how many head of lettuce/cabbage. This is in my mind similar to the Chinese system of counting using words that indicate shape, rather than the semantic distinctions that you alluded to.

I do no know any Chinese, but I do know a little Thai. The following are examples of how classifiers work in that language: English is not like that. I think if you say that English has classifiers you are trying to explain English in terms of Chinese!

Cute. Because you can demonstrate that Chinese uses more classifiers than English, then you think that you have demonstrated that English has no classifiers.

You also say that the Chinese verb has a present tense. Again going by the example of Thai, I think it is more useful to say that the verb is invariable for tense, as well for for person, number, mood, etc.

In a very important sense, I quite agree with you. However, I think that your definition is made for utility reasons. If we ignore all of the semantic implications of tense and focus only on structure, then your definition is far more useful than mine. If we wish to probe the semantic implications of tense, then your definition is worthless, as it ignores the situation entirely.

 

Similarly it is often said that Thai nouns have no plural, but it is equally reasonable to say that they have no singular. It is more useful to say that the noun is invariable and that "barn" can mean "house" or "houses".

Again, you seem to be focusing entirely on superficial structure, without regard to the deep meaning. Thai nouns have a singular form. They never evolved to plural forms. Your definition skirts the issue of what this phenomenon is and why it occurred, and instead focuses on a useful way to describe only the superficial structure. I agree that you definition is useful. I do not think that it is more useful, unless we stipulate that we care only to describe superficial structure, which it does seem that you are doing.

Anyway, I think I had better not get into a discussion about these matters. Thank you for your participation; it has been a very interesting debate.

OK. Thanks for the talk.

My basic point is that Chinese is monosyllabic, and that contentions that it is not are attempts to make sense of Chinese grammar from a non-Chinese standpoint. I do not consider such attempts or contentions are useful.

This is, as you can see, the sign of a closed mind. This particular Anonymous user is hiding behind the fact that he/she can speak Chinese and his/her interlocutors can not to put down any assertions he/she doesn't agree with. The mere fact of speaking Chinese does not make Anonymous correct.

There are plenty of objective arguments in favour of Chinese as a non-monosyllabic language. These are not attempts to "make sense of Chinese grammar from a non-Chinese viewpoint"; they are attempts to objectively describe the language.

Chinese speakers who take the view that their language is monosyllabic ignore the fact that the combination of characters into "words" cannot be predicted. There are plenty of compounds of which the meaning is not apparent from the constituents. The meaning must be known by the speaker. Anonymous, being a Chinese speaker, takes it for granted that his/her own knowledge of word building doesn't need to be explained. Unfortunately, this is an unfounded assumption. "Bearcat" (meaning "panda" in Chinese) is one thing; "commerce-weigh" (meaning "discuss") is another. You can't predict the meaning of "shangliang" from its component monosyllables. This is an example I've come up with on the spur of the moment; there are many more far more telling examples. To exclude this from any attempt to describe Chinese on the basis that "we Chinese all know that; if you try to explain it you're just a foreigner" is simply intellectually dishonest.

Then there is the problem of word building vs grammar. Anonymous is trying to tell us that when two monosyllables come together in Chinese, they don't form a "word", they remain two independent "monosyllables". This fails to answer the question of what they actually do in the sentence. Even if the Chinese don't use the term "word" for it, any objective analysis of Chinese, whether by Chinese native speakers or foreigners, must recognise that these so-called "monosyllabic words" come together to form single units in their grammatical function. Whether Anonymous wants to call them "words" or something else, denying their reality is just poor linguistics.

Quite simply, there is no need to be intimidated by Anonymous's assertions of superior analysis on the basis of "being Chinese" or "having done research". To dismiss insights brought by people (foreigners) who don't share his/her unquestioned assumptions is, I'm sorry to say, not a sign of superior knowledge but of narrow-mindedness.

Anonymous wrote:

This is, as you can see, the sign of a closed mind. This particular Anonymous user is hiding behind the fact that he/she can speak Chinese and his/her interlocutors can not to put down any assertions he/she doesn't agree with. The mere fact of speaking Chinese does not make Anonymous correct.

You seem to be attempting to show that if you can be insulting, it will somehow lend power to your arguments. . I think that you do not know what you are talking about, and you feel that insults will hide the fact that you are claiming to know that which you really have no idea of.

There are plenty of objective arguments in favour of Chinese as a non-monosyllabic language. These are not attempts to "make sense of Chinese grammar from a non-Chinese viewpoint"; they are attempts to objectively describe the language.

I understand how difficult it must be for you to make this point without your lead-in of insults. (edited) I accept your point.

Chinese speakers who take the view that their language is monosyllabic ignore the fact that the combination of characters into "words" cannot be predicted.

I wonder how it is that you can claim to know what others think? Perhaps such people think that your argument is not as powerful as you think.

There are plenty of compounds of which the meaning is not apparent from the constituents. The meaning must be known by the speaker. Anonymous, being a Chinese speaker, takes it for granted that his/her own knowledge of word building doesn't need to be explained. Unfortunately, this is an unfounded assumption.

This seems to be your assumption. I do not make it. Nor do I think it particularly relevant.

"Bearcat" (meaning "panda" in Chinese) is one thing; "commerce-weigh" (meaning "discuss") is another. You can't predict the meaning of "shangliang" from its component monosyllables. This is an example I've come up with on the spur of the moment; there are many more far more telling examples. To exclude this from any attempt to describe Chinese on the basis that "we Chinese all know that; if you try to explain it you're just a foreigner" is simply intellectually dishonest.

(edited) as you do not really seem to understand the situation, yet you feel that insults are the best way to lend power to your otherwise weak argument. I say weak, because your points, although superficially quite true, are not universally recognized as being relevant. I, for example, think that your points are not at all relevant. You would tell me what I can or cannot predict. Even so, so what? Can you predict the meanings of all English words on the basis of the meanings of the various roots? Of course not. And why not? Is it possible that perhaps you do not have the cultural context to recognize the development of all words on the basis of their roots? If you were, for example, 60 years old, then there are a great many modern English words that you would not be able to piece together because you lack awareness of the cultural context of the youth that created the words, although most youth would recognize these clearly. Clearly, the Chinese needed to express greater meanings. In order to do this with their mono-syllabic set of phonemes, they had to pair words. Chinese does this as a matter of course. There is no law of language that requires that such word pairing must be done within the context of the word, rather than within the context of the phrase, as you demand. I wonder on what basis you feel qualified to demand that this differentiation be done at the word level.

Then there is the problem of word building vs grammar. Anonymous is trying to tell us that when two monosyllables come together in Chinese, they don't form a "word", they remain two independent "monosyllables". This fails to answer the question of what they actually do in the sentence.

There are many things that it fails to answer, such as the question of what is the meaning of life. So what?

Even if the Chinese don't use the term "word" for it, any objective analysis of Chinese, whether by Chinese native speakers or foreigners, must recognise that these so-called "monosyllabic words" come together to form single units in their grammatical function. Whether Anonymous wants to call them "words" or something else, denying their reality is just poor linguistics.

You are being funny, aren't you. Since this word pairing plays a role that you determine must be at the word level, then we must call it words, or else it is poor linguistics. You of the tremendously open mind claim to know what good linguistics is, and you are dreaming that insults will empower your otherwise quite weak point. You say what "any" objective analysis will recognize, in the face of an objective analysis that does not recongize this. You are therefore making a point that you know is already disproven. Your notion of "single units" shows that you do not understand what you claim to be an expert on. Perhaps if you were to do a little more research and a little less posturing, you might be able to hold a discussion.

Quite simply, there is no need to be intimidated by Anonymous's assertions of superior analysis on the basis of "being Chinese" or "having done research".

. (edited) I wonder what your real point is.

To dismiss insights brought by people (foreigners) who don't share his/her unquestioned assumptions is, I'm sorry to say, not a sign of superior knowledge but of narrow-mindedness.

Since you do not understand what you are talking about, you believe that insults will lend credence to a point that you otherwise have no understanding of or justification for.  Please explain for us, without the need for insults to pseudo-strengthen your opinion, why Chinese words absolutely MUST be recognized to be poly-syllabic words, and that the notion that such constructions absolutely cannot be thought of as a different method of bonding of mono-syllabic words along the idea of "bearcat". I don't care if you want to think of Chinese words as poly-syllabic. I think that for a reasonable, although superficial, understanding of Chinese grammar, the notion of poly-syllabic words can make life easier. It clearly does so for you. However, how can you claim that the notion of mono-syllabic words, which is clearly more popular among speakers of the language, is not a valid way of thinking.

 

I apologise if Anon1 feels my comments were insulting. My post was prompted by the tone of his/her posts which basically said:  "I'm Chinese, I've studied this, and I've decided that the polysyllabic approach is wrong. I know what I'm talking about and I'm right. You don't know what you're talking about and you're wrong". While Anon1 does not resort to overt insults, the tone is rather insulting to the intelligence of other people who, despite Anon1's comments, might know more than he/she suspects.

Anon1 asks: "How can you claim that the notion of mono-syllabic words, which is clearly more popular among speakers of the language, is not a valid way of thinking?" In response to this, I would like to raise the following points:

1. Linguistics involves the analysis of language and it is quite possible, in fact, often desirable, for such analysis to depart from popular perceptions. For instance, I think it is safe to say that English speakers believe words to be made up of 'letters'. Linguists normally see words as made up of phonemes. That is not to deny the psychological reality of 'letters' for native English speakers because the writing system obviously impacts on the way language is perceived. However, naive native-speaker beliefs about the nature of their language should not be uncritically accepted in trying to make a linguistic description of that language.

2. My point in my earlier posting was that even while literate Chinese may believe that their language is made up of 'zi' (characters), there is more to their knowledge of the language than this. It is quite possible to grant the psychological reality of the 'zi' and at the same time grant that Chinese cannot be explained purely by recourse to 'zi'. In reading Chinese, even native speakers must carry out an unconscious grammatical analysis in order to interpret the written text correctly. This includes deciding which characters belong together to make larger meaningful units with a particular grammatical function. Any analysis in some way has to take into account the way in which 'zi' come together to make 'ci' (words), which function as grammatical units in the sentence and the meaning of which cannot be predicted merely by inspecting the parts. I find it interesting that Anon1 rejects the traditional (Western) division between syntax and morphology and would be interested to see what new analysis he/she can come up with to replace it.

3. Even native-speakers' understanding of their own language can change over time. The Kangxi dictionary (Qing dynasty) confined itself to listing characters. Modern Chinese dictionaries have taken a leaf out of Western linguistics and list character compounds, which to a large extent correspond to 'words'. Chinese linguists have also embraced the word ("ci"). From Anon1's posting one gains the (perhaps mistaken) impression that he/she would prefer to deny the "ci" and go back to a purely Kangxi approach to Chinese. I think the onus is on Anon1 to make clear what kind of model of Chinese grammar he/she has in mind.

Finally, it has been suggested that discussion should be confined to languages that people know. Actually, Chinese is now becoming one of the more widely known languages. If you rule out Chinese, how many languages are there left to discuss?

Anonymous wrote:

"I'm Chinese, I've studied this, and I've decided that the polysyllabic approach is wrong. I know what I'm talking about and I'm right. You don't know what you're talking about and you're wrong".

That was not my intent. I was hoping to enter into a discussion where Forbes and I could discuss the issue. Unfortunately, Forbes seemed to have come to a solidly accepted determination that he could not defend, such that a discussion was not possible. He had read the work of others second-hand, and he had come to accept their reasoning, but due to lack of ability to do his own analysis, our discussion boiled down to his citing the work of others, and giving me the opportunity to fight an uphill battle to challenge these other sources. Either way, he could not evaluate the merit of such arguments from the perspective of his own analysis, but simply be swayed or not by competing opinions of others. My point was that the opinion of these others should not be determined as clearly correct, as there are competing opinions and he has no ability to analyze the evidence directly.

While Anon1 does not resort to overt insults, the tone is rather insulting to the intelligence of other people who, despite Anon1's comments, might know more than he/she suspects.

I do not doubt that you might know quite a bit, as to the best of my knowledge I have read none of your previous writing, but I did not agree with your opinion or the way that you presented it, which I did not consider conducive to entering into a discussion. Do you?

Anon1 asks: "How can you claim that the notion of mono-syllabic words, which is clearly more popular among speakers of the language, is not a valid way of thinking?" In response to this, I would like to raise the following points:

I am in no way claiming that popular opinion is right. I am claiming that its popularity is not evidence that it is wrong.

2. My point in my earlier posting was that even while literate Chinese may believe that their language is made up of 'zi' (characters), there is more to their knowledge of the language than this. It is quite possible

Of course it is possible. This is why we have disagreement.

Any analysis in some way has to take into account the way in which 'zi' come together to make 'ci' (words),

What is this way seems to be the nature of our disagreement.

which function as grammatical units in the sentence and the meaning of which cannot be predicted merely by inspecting the parts. I find it interesting that Anon1 rejects the traditional (Western) division between syntax and morphology and would be interested to see what new analysis he/she can come up with to replace it.

I am rejecting the superimposition of certain ideas onto a grammar where I do not consider it to be accurate without modification. I wonder on what basis you consider that it is accurate. I have read your opinion. I do not know the basis for it.