<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Please be careful not to misrepresent what I said. I said nothing about abstract thinking at all. Where did you get that? And I didn't say that Chinese characters hindered math development in China; rather that the lack of a Chinese zero was responsible. Thank you for correcting me about the high level of algebra in China; algebra, I suppose, not really needing a zero. </P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>And when I look at my Chinese dictionary, I find that almost every single syllable, that is every sound I can make, has a well defined meaning. Since there are not nearly enough sounds to cover the vocubularly of any modern language, especially one as large as Chinese, there are lots of homonyms. That is what I meant by a monosyllable language; perhaps there is a better word. </P>
<P>Of course, there are many two syllable words in Chinese but they are a combination of two separate meanings, ie. two short words put together. So when you write it out phonetically you keep seeing lots of homonyms. For this reason I find it is easier to read Chinese in characters then it is to read it laid out in pinyin. Presumably that is why Chinese never adopted an alphabetical system until Mao was able to force pinyin on them. And the same for Korean. Rather than all hangul, as the North Koreans do it, I find it easier to read Korean with Chinese characters thrown in for the Chinese origin words. Do you disagree? </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>The best example of this is the word han as in hancha, hanmun, hangook etc. Spelled the same in any alphabet, the sound "han" is used both to represent Korea and the Chinese people. How confusing can you get?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>From: <DBAKER@INTERCHANGE.UBC.CA></P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: [KS] Misunderstanding Hanja
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 08:34:56 -0700
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>I thought one of the linguists on the list would reply to William Brown's comments about the alleged barriers Chinese characters and the Chinese language raise to abstract thinking. However, since no one else has responded, I'll step forward.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>He says, "there was no algebra, calculus etc. in China until the modern era." That is incorrect. In fact, for most of the last 2,000 years mathematics in China (and in Korea as well, since Koreans learned their math from China) was more advanced in many areas, including algebra, than the West was. Li Yan and Du Shiran's history of Chinese mathematics, as well as volume 3 of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China, provide plenty of evidence for the high level of algebra in traditional Chinese mathematics. Chinese characters clearly did not present a barrier to abstract thought by mathematicians.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>He also says that Chinese is a monosyllabic language,and that the monosyllabic nature of Chinese vocabulary items has hindered abstract thinking not only in China but in Korea and Japan as well. John DeFrancis laid that myth to rest in his chapter on "The monosyllabic myth" in The Chinese Language, Fact and Fantasy. Anybody who has spent much time reading texts written in Hanmun, or even just looking through Chinese language dictionaries, is well aware that there are many multi-syllabic words in Chinese. As for Chinese characters being a poor tool for expressing abstract ideas, just try translating Neo-Confucian concepts such as li and ki into English!
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>--
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Don Baker
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Director, Centre for Korean Research
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Interim Head, Department of Asian Studies
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>University of British Columbia
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2 CANADA
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Tired of spam? Get <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2734??PS=">advanced junk mail protection</a> with MSN 8.</html>