<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Hi, Don,</P>
<P>thanks for your remarks. As for why the linguists on the list are so reluctant to join this discussion, I think, most of them want to save their time and not join a seemingly fruitless discussion, which pops up now and then. These discussions mostly end with frustration, because it seems so hard to leave the area of one's own prejudices regarding "Own and Other".</P>
<P>There is, however one more general point, which is bothering me. I believe it is most dangerous to look at cultures from the point of view of "What is lacking?" When describing something, it makes more sense to decribe "what is there" rather than <BR>"what is NOT there". For a bird the observation that fish and land animals have wings must be a wonderful starting point for thinking. But in order to understand what swimming or running are about, the negative observation of "no wings" does not really help much. "I, the bird have wings, the other animals do not, and therefore cannot fly": so what.</P>
<P>Greetings, Your Werner<BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: <DBAKER@INTERCHANGE.UBC.CA>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
<DIV></DIV>>To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: [KS] Misunderstanding Hanja
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 08:34:56 -0700
<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>>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>>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>>Don Baker
<DIV></DIV>>Director, Centre for Korean Research
<DIV></DIV>>Interim Head, Department of Asian Studies
<DIV></DIV>>University of British Columbia
<DIV></DIV>>Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2 CANADA
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Help STOP SPAM with <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAEN/2731??PS=">the new MSN 8 </a> and get 2 months FREE*</html>