# Annoying language conceits in "Paper Mage" and elsewhere **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 12, 2008, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236 "2008-02-12T01:45:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/21 "2008-02-13T01:55:46Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] the repetition of “swallow” at the end would be stupid. [/QUOTE] But the word “swallow” was not repeated at the end. With the use of synonyms and proper names, nothing is actually repeated. It reads fine, just like this would: > [@](#): > > “Might I have the honor of knowing your name?” he asked, very formally. > > “My family name is Fu, my formal name is Xi Wen, but everyone calls me Doe Tern.” > > “‘Doe’ as in deer?” the man asked. > > “Yes,” Doe Tern said. And ‘Tern’ as is the bird, the little brown one, that Wang Tie-Tie tells me stories about, that would die before it stole food." > > “A shorebird,” the man said. > > “Correct,” Doe Tern replied. In this situation, Doe Tern can be a homophone for Dough Turn or D’oh Terne hence the man’s clarification. And I sincerely apologize if I have insulted you. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/22 "2008-02-13T03:01:54Z")
> [@Controvert](#): > > “‘Doe’ as in deer?” the man asked. A female dear? Ray, a sparkling drop of sunshiiine. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/23 "2008-02-13T03:12:20Z")
[QUOTE=The Controvert] Well, if the author had written that, then **Left Hand of Dorkiness** or some other pedant would run in here complaining that nobody traces words in the air. (You always trace onto your hand or other flat surface otherwise the observer sees a mirror-image of the word if you are facing them.) [/QUOTE] Ah, I see. I’d learned that in the air was done as well during my (admittedly brief) Chinese linguistics studies. Or I thought I had, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Punkyova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@The\_Punkyova](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Punkyova)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/24 "2008-02-13T04:54:27Z")
My Chinese friends and I use the “write in air” method. I’ve also seen it referred to in various textbooks, and seen it done in a couple of movies. I agree with **Terminus Est**. It’s a (slightly) clumsy attempt to show a normal Chinese conversational practice, and the book is now on my list to look for. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/25 "2008-02-13T05:32:23Z")
[QUOTE=The Punkyova] My Chinese friends and I use the “write in air” method. I’ve also seen it referred to in various textbooks, and seen it done in a couple of movies. [/QUOTE] Well, maybe so, but it doesn’t work as well because people don’t see where you start writing and it’s hard to tell where you lift up the pen. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Punkyova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@The\_Punkyova](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Punkyova)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/26 "2008-02-13T05:59:45Z")
[QUOTE=The Controvert] Well, maybe so, but it doesn’t work as well because people don’t see where you start writing and it’s hard to tell where you lift up the pen. [/QUOTE] To be honest, I think this works because in this situation, we’re asking for clarification. For whichever spoken word is being referred to, there are usually only a few possible characters, and we’re watching for the key strokes that distinguish among them. If we were just playing “name that random character!”, it would be hard. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/27 "2008-02-13T23:24:44Z")
[QUOTE=Terminus Est] _shrug_ We’re trying to explain certain features of the Chinese language, of which you appear not be aware, that makes the quoted conversation not inconceivable. You seem to have already decided that this is absolutely unacceptable. [/QUOTE] Yes, I’ve already decided that, because I’ve read the passage. What you describe about the Chinese language is almost certainly true; I don’t doubt it. It was not conveyed in the passage, which is intended as literature, not as a lesson on Chinese homophones. It failed as literature, and it failed as a lesson on Chinese homophones. Its realism is not the point, unless the intended audience is bilingual Chinese-English readers. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/28 "2008-02-13T23:42:56Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] It failed as literature, and it failed as a lesson on Chinese homophones. Its realism is not the point, unless the intended audience is bilingual Chinese-English readers. [/QUOTE] Have you ever read the Lord of the Rings? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/29 "2008-02-14T01:08:41Z")
As I understand it, folks’ objections to the OP hinge on 6 points: 1. In ancient Chinese, “small” has a synonym. 2. In ancient Chinese, “small” has a homophone. 3. In ancient Chinese, “sparrow” has a synonym. 4. In ancient Chinese, “sparrow” has a homophone. 5. The author was intending to convey points 1-4 through the quoted passage. 6. The author succeeded at point #5 well enough that the passage should not be mocked. I can accept points 1 and 2 and 4 no problem. 3 seems unlikely to me, given that there’s no such synonym in English (excluding taxonomic terms), and English has vastly more words than ancient Chinese. 5 seems seriously unlikely to me, and 6 seems laughable. [QUOTE=Sage Rat] Have you ever read the Lord of the Rings? [/QUOTE] Yes. Do you own any plaid garments? What do you think about giraffes? How about them Lakers? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/30 "2008-02-14T01:31:39Z")
My main objection to the OP is that it’s silly to completely and irrevocably reject a book because of an arguably clumsy attempt at more-or-less transparently conveying additional information to the reader as to the meaning of a character’s nickname, when the method presented actually reflects the way real Chinese people will try to clarify with each other what exactly is meant by various similar-sounding syllables. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/31 "2008-02-14T03:17:50Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] As I understand it, folks’ objections to the OP hinge on 6 points: 1. In ancient Chinese, “small” has a synonym. 2. In ancient Chinese, “small” has a homophone. 3. In ancient Chinese, “sparrow” has a synonym. 4. In ancient Chinese, “sparrow” has a homophone. 5. The author was intending to convey points 1-4 through the quoted passage. 6. The author succeeded at point #5 well enough that the passage should not be mocked. I can accept points 1 and 2 and 4 no problem. 3 seems unlikely to me, given that there’s no such synonym in English (excluding taxonomic terms), and English has vastly more words than ancient Chinese. 5 seems seriously unlikely to me, and 6 seems laughable. [/quote] Just homophones. I don’t think anyone has mentioned synonyms. But realise that what is being talked about is much more “syllables” than “words.” Japanese–and I presume Chinese–doesn’t have individual letter sounds, just syllables. In total, they have something like a hundred different syllables, like ka, shi, su, ta, wa, etc. But, the spoken language was invented before the written language was, and when they chose to go with a hieroglyphic language set, that meant that they had to attribute characters to their words that would match the pronunciation AND the meaning. Say that I wanted to write “water” and “ice” in my own set of hieroglyphics, but I would like to be able to have the same pronunciation for any characters they share that mean the same thing. Thus, I’ll say that “wa” and “i” sound similar enough that we’ll join them together to be “wi” (rhymes with “lie”), which will be a single glyph that looks like [this](http://www.aahz.com/random/wi.gif). And since that’s shared, that one means “water”. “ter” we’ll replace with “ta” just since that is a more share-able sound, and we’ll take to mean “loose”, represented by [this glyph](http://www.aahz.com/random/ta.gif). “ce” isn’t quite a syllable, so we’ll make it “su” with the meaning “contained” and represented by [this](http://www.aahz.com/random/su.gif). So that gives us three characters that we can use in future words, and two words: [wita](http://www.aahz.com/random/wita.gif) -\> water loose -\> “water” [wisu](http://www.aahz.com/random/wisu.gif) -\> water contained -\> “ice” The syllable “water” isn’t the **word** “water”, it’s just a character that represents it in meaning but really needs to be paired with other characters to fashion a word. There might well be a couple dozen hieroglyphs that all mean “water” simply because other water-related words didn’t have a sound that could be perverted into a “wi” sound, and so more glyphs with different syllable-sounds were invented to make it work that still just meant “water” at heart. And there will be any number of characters pronounced “wi” that don’t mean “water”. When I create hieroglyphs for the words “wire” and “wile”, I’ll probably make them from glyphs that don’t mean “water”, but instead makes sense for those words and fit the pronunciation. > [@](#): > > Yes. Do you own any plaid garments? What do you think about giraffes? How about them Lakers? Well, I mean if you want to complain about a book spending excess time on enlightening you about the languages and peoples, though it have nothing to do with the tale at hand… At least this is dealing with a language that actually exists, no? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/32 "2008-02-14T11:47:36Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] Just homophones. I don’t think anyone has mentioned synonyms. [/quote] People have been suggesting that the characters were using synonyms to clarify which of the homophone pair they were using. > [@](#): > > But realise that what is being talked about is much more “syllables” than “words.” Japanese–and I presume Chinese–doesn’t have individual letter sounds, just syllables. In total, they have something like a hundred different syllables, like ka, shi, su, ta, wa, etc. But, the spoken language was invented before the written language was, and when they chose to go with a hieroglyphic language set, that meant that they had to attribute characters to their words that would match the pronunciation AND the meaning. > > The syllable “water” isn’t the **word** “water”, it’s just a character that represents it in meaning but really needs to be paired with other characters to fashion a word. There might well be a couple dozen hieroglyphs that all mean “water” simply because other water-related words didn’t have a sound that could be perverted into a “wi” sound, and so more glyphs with different syllable-sounds were invented to make it work that still just meant “water” at heart. And there will be any number of characters pronounced “wi” that don’t mean “water”. When I create hieroglyphs for the words “wire” and “wile”, I’ll probably make them from glyphs that don’t mean “water”, but instead makes sense for those words and fit the pronunciation. > Well, I mean if you want to complain about a book spending excess time on enlightening you about the languages and peoples, though it have nothing to do with the tale at hand… At least this is dealing with a language that actually exists, no? See, what YOU just wrote, THAT is enlightening about the language. The passage I quoted above has none of that information in it. It wasn’t enlightening, it was clumsy exposition. Perhaps the writer thought it wasn’t clumsy because of her knowledge of Chinese, but she didn’t explain any of that to the reader. As I said, unless the intended audience is her fellow English-Chinese bilingual folks, it was poorly done. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/33 "2008-02-14T12:03:37Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] See, what YOU just wrote, THAT is enlightening about the language. The passage I quoted above has none of that information in it. It wasn’t enlightening, it was clumsy exposition. Perhaps the writer thought it wasn’t clumsy because of her knowledge of Chinese, but she didn’t explain any of that to the reader. As I said, unless the intended audience is her fellow English-Chinese bilingual folks, it was poorly done. [/QUOTE] If he knows Chinese all that well, it could very well just not have occured to him. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/34 "2008-02-14T12:20:30Z")
I don’t know about “xiao” or small, but in explaining “yen” it is perfectly possible to say “yen zi”. In fact, that’s what I would do. Actually I would transliterate it as “yan zi”, but you would probably read that as “yan” as in “yan can cook”, when it sounds more like how you would pronounce “yen”. Normally, “yan” alone could mean a lot of things, including the bird, but “yan zi” is more specific - it means the bird. So it’s perfectly normal to say “yan zi de yan?”, which when translated would mean “swallow as in swallow?”. That of course makes no sense, but there you go. At least it’s better than saying “examine as in swallow”? (“yan” can also be translated as “test” or “examine”. Or rather, it sounds exactly the same as the word for test or examine.) “yan” can mean bird. “yan zi” also means bird. But when explaining exactly which “yan” you’re talking about, “yan zi” enables the listener to identify which “yan” we’re talking about. Perhaps a more helpful, although less authentic, translation would go something like “My name is Yen Ling”. “Yen as in yen zi, the swallow?” “Yes, that’s right. Yen as in yen zi” Of course, then people would pick on swallow being repeated. Or you could try “Yen as in yen zi (i.e. swallow)”? To my ears, though, that passage is a perfectly normal way of introducing yourself and which characters make up your name. For example, when I’m telling people my chinese name, I would go something like “My name is **build strong**. **Build** as in **construction** , \*\*strong \*\*as in **strong healthy** ”. Literally translated and bolding the equivalent bits, it would read something like “My name is **jian qiang** , **jian** as in **jian zhu** , **qiang** as in **qiang zhuang**.” If I simply said “jian qiang”, people might think the “jian” was the iconograph for “healthy” (understandable, as the sound is generally translated as strong with undertones of healthy, “jian” as in “jian kang”, which is better translated as “in the pink of health”) … you know, this is a lot simpler when you have a chinese name. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/35 "2008-02-14T23:37:00Z")
[QUOTE=Tabby\_Cat] “My name is Yen Ling”. “Yen as in yen zi, the swallow?” “Yes, that’s right. Yen as in yen zi” [/QUOTE] That would’ve been fine: it would’ve made it clear that the characters were using synonyms within their language, and would’ve been a much more elegant way of getting the idea across. The passage as written (and others; this was just an example) appear as though people are translating words for the benefit of other native Chinese speakers, when it’s very clear that the author is really translating them for the purpose of non-Chinese-speaking readers. It’s very poor exposition. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/36 "2008-02-15T00:35:18Z")
I don’t see how **Tabby\_Cat** ’s suggestion is any better. If run through the **LHOD** filter it would become: > [@](#): > > “My name is Bird Ling”. [assuming “Ling” is simply the surname] > “Bird as in swallow, the swallow?” > “Yes, that’s right. Bird as in swallow” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/37 "2008-02-15T03:49:50Z")
[QUOTE=Terminus Est] I don’t see how **Tabby\_Cat** ’s suggestion is any better. If run through the **LHOD** filter it would become: [/QUOTE] What on earth is your stake in this, dude? That’s an ungenerous reading, one that’s biased by personal antipathy, and I don’t know you from Adam. Try again, or better yet, find some other Wheaties to piss in. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/38 "2008-02-15T04:41:18Z")
I have no stake whatsoever in this, dude. As I said, I haven’t read the book. I’m just applying what you said in your OP, where you imagined translating everything into English, to what you later deemed acceptable. Doesn’t seem to be terribly consistent. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236/39 "2008-02-21T16:23:57Z")
[QUOTE=Terminus Est] My main objection to the OP is that it’s silly to completely and irrevocably reject a book because of an arguably clumsy attempt at more-or-less transparently conveying additional information to the reader as to the meaning of a character’s nickname, when the method presented actually reflects the way real Chinese people will try to clarify with each other what exactly is meant by various similar-sounding syllables. [/QUOTE] What about my reason for rejecting the book (mentioned in post #4): unnecessary use of adverbs. It’s literature, dude. Clumsy use of language is a perfectly justifiable reason for rejecting it. You find the passage in question unobjectionable. **Daniel** and I don’t. Taste in literature doesn’t have to be terribly consistent. Why fuss over it? ETA: I also find **Tabby\_Cat** ’s suggestion far more felicitous than the original. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-language-conceits-in-paper-mage-and-elsewhere/437236.md?page=1)