Re: The pitfall of Chinese/Mandarin

On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, [iso-8859-1] Cheng Zhong Su wrote:

>  Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> > > Many languages use the same word for `he' and
> > `she'.  (Finnish and
> > > Swahili come to mind.)  It's not a "mistake",
> > merely an extreme
> > > example of the simple fact that different
> > languages classify the
> > > universe differently.
> > Certainly, but why is it even extreme? How is it
> > more extreme
> > not to include that category than some languages
> > whose deictics
> > include lots of categories like plant/nonplant,
> > animal/nonanimal,
> > human/nonhuman, shape, size, and whether it's a
> > force of nature
> > or not?
> Answer: I think every language has some where
> ambiguous. It's better improve it, not leave it alone.
> Su Cheng Zhong
Why?  Ambiguity is a good thing.  It makes possible word play, which makes
possible poetry.

Take Chinese, for example.  One of the most annoying things about Chinese
is the writing system (at least, for those of us learning the langauge as
a second or third language).  Yet it's this very frustrating, illogical,
seemingly random writing system that gives rise to much of the power of
Chinese poetry, which is what -- for me -- makes the language worth
learning.

Ambiguity in language is not a flaw, and all languages with ambiguities
can avoid them if necessary.  If you manage to remove ambiguity, you
create a language incapable of playful poetry, and therefore -- to my
mind, at least -- devoid of fun.

--Patrick



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prurio modo viri qui in arbore pilosa est.
                        ~~Elvis

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply