Category Archives: tone marks

Do Chinese characters save paper?

Posted on by
20

A common claim about Chinese characters (Hanzi) is that they take less space than alphabetic systems and so using them “saves paper.” After all, there aren’t spaces between words when writing in Chinese characters, and Chinese characters handle entire syllables rather than having to spell them out letter by letter. So this claim would seem to be self-evident. But things don’t always work out as expected.

cover of 'Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?' by Martin Gardnercover of the Mandarin translation of 'Did Adam and Eve Have Navels' 愛迪生，你被騙了！：你必須打破的27個科學迷思

A few weeks ago I was browsing the shelves of the enormous, wonderful Eslite bookstore near Taipei City Hall. (Nobody seems quite sure how the so-called English name of this chain is supposed to be pronounced, so many foreigners here prefer the Mandarin name: Chéngpǐn (誠品).) In many of the store’s sections, English-language originals and their translations into Mandarin are shelved right next to each other. So, after looking at a science book in English I pulled out the Mandarin Chinese translation of the same work and browsed through it. While I was doing so, I noticed something unexpected: the Mandarin version was longer than the English-language original.

This sparked my interest, so I pulled out some more paired titles, more or less at random, off the shelves for the purpose of comparison.

I did my best to keep the comparisons fair. In almost all of the cases I compared pairs of trade paperbacks: standard trade paperbacks in English with standard trade paperbacks in Mandarin.

Also, I didn’t count the pages taken up by indexes, since none of the translations into Mandarin had indexes. (Alphabets win hands down over Chinese characters when it comes to creating and using indexes, and I saw no reason to penalize the English books for this by counting pages that the ones in Chinese characters didn’t have the equivalent of.)

In addition, I avoided old books, since I wanted to be fairly sure the Mandarin Chinese translations were from the same English text as I was looking at. (I do, however, have one book written in German and translated into English. I didn’t check to see if the Mandarin version was done from the German original or the English translation.)

Of course, comparing across scripts and languages is certainly not the same as comparing simply across scripts (Hanzi vs. Hanyu Pinyin); but one does what one can.

Later, when I was supplementing my survey at the Eslite bookstore on Dunhua South Road when I noticed an error in my original method: I had forgotten to check where in the book page 1 fell. Many (but not all) English-language books mark the first page of the first chapter as page 1; many (but not all) books printed in Taiwan, however, include the front matter in their pagination, which leads to the first page of the first chapter being page 10 or so. So to help compensate for my oversight, it might be fair to subtract 10 pages from the Mandarin versions of those titles below followed by an asterisk. (The ones without an asterisk are those I examined most recently — and more carefully.)

Here are the results of my admittedly brief and unscientific survey:

Chronicles, Vol. 1, by Bob Dylan
English: 291 pp.
Mandarin in Hanzi: 295 pp.

Collapse, by Jared Diamond
English: 560 pp.
Mandarin in Hanzi: 609 pp.

The Death of Vishnu, by Manil Suri
English: 283 pp.
Mandarin in Hanzi: 287 pp.

Deep Simplicity: Bringing Order to Chaos and Complexity*, by John Gribbin
English: 235 pp.
Mandarin in Hanzi: 255 pp.

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience*, by Martin Gardner
English: 310 pp.
Mandarin in Hanzi: 367 pp.

The Elegant Universe*, by Brian Greene
English: 428 pp.
Mandarin in Hanzi: 463 pp.

The Enigma of Arrival, by V.S. Naipaul
English: 350 pp.
Mandarin in Hanzi: 422 pp.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, by J.K. Rowling
English: 607 pp. (hardback)
Mandarin in Hanzi: 716 pp.

Laboratory Earth*, by Stephen H. Schneider
English: 169 pp.
Mandarin in Hanzi: 227 pp.

The Long Tail, by Chris Anderson
English: 226 pp. (hardback, slightly larger than the Mandarin trade paperback)
Mandarin in Hanzi: 313 pp. (written left to right)

Perfume*, by Patrick Su?skind
English: 255 pp. (translation from German)
Mandarin in Hanzi: 278 pp.

Tough Choices, by Carly Fiorina
English: 309 pp.
Mandarin in Hanzi: 341 pp.

Vernon God Little, by D.B.C. Pierre
English: 275 pp. (mass market paperback)
Mandarin in Hanzi: 325 pp.

In every instance, the books in Chinese characters are longer than those in English. Moreover, the pages in the Mandarin-language trade paperbacks are somewhat larger than those in the English-language trade paperbacks. So that’s even more paper consumed by the books written in Chinese characters.

Although I certainly do not believe that all pairs of books in English and Mandarin translation follow this pattern, a pattern this very much appears to be.

My guess would be that books printed in China would have fewer pages than those printed in Taiwan. (Anyone want to check some of the above titles? Or does anyone have pairs of other titles in unexpurgated editions?) In general, books in China simply aren’t designed and printed with the same degrees of competency, attention, and concern for the reader as books in Taiwan — not to mention books in the United States and Britain. (Or have things changed very much in this regard since I lived in China?) So, among other factors, the characters tend to be smaller, along with the leading and the margins.

And then there’s the fact that translations in China sometimes omit sentences or entire sections, especially if they are deemed “sensitive.” (I doubt, however, that the books I examined suffered from Beijing’s censors.)

Also, China’s left-to-right format might have an advantage over Taiwan’s predominant top-to-bottom style in terms of space.

Shanxi / Shaanxi

Posted on by
8

road sign that gives SHANXI LU for 山西路 and SHANXI LU for 陕西路
A sign in Tianjin, China, points toward two roads, which, although they have different names, are both labeled “SHANXI LU”.

The two roads are named after adjacent Chinese provinces: Shānxī (山西), whose largest city is Taiyuan, and Shǎnxī ( 陝西 / 陕西), which contains Xi’an. So “Shanxi” would appear to be appropriate for both if tone marks are omitted, which is, obviously, sometimes definitely a bad idea.

But because these names are both often used and leaving off the tone mark in their romanized forms could lead to confusion, the PRC authorities long ago decided to alter the romanization of Shǎnxī by borrowing a trick from Y.R. Chao’s tonal spelling system; in this exceptional case, a doubled a is used to represent the third-tone a in Shǎnxī, rendering the province’s name as “Shaanxi”. (This is not intended to change the pronunciation in the slightest, which is still Shǎnxī in modern standard Mandarin. Pronouncing “Shaanxi” with a drawn-out a — Shaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanxi — is incorrect.)

In Gwoyeu Romatzyh, a first-tone a is spelled simply a, so “Shanxi” could be said to use this as well. And in the old postal system romanizations that predated Hanyu Pinyin for the names, the provinces were “Shensi” and “Shansi”.

So the signs in the photo should read “SHANXI LU” for 山西路 (Shānxī Lù) and “SHAANXI LU” for 陕西路 (Shǎnxī Lù). The local authorities, however, say they can’t do anything to change this:

Tiānjīn Shì Dìmíng Bàngōngshì de gōngzuò rényuán biǎoshì, ànzhào “Tiānjīn Shì dìmíng guǎnlǐ tiáolì” de guīdìng, dìmíng de Hànyǔ Pīnyīn Fāng’àn yào yǐ Hànyǔ Pīnyīn hé pīnxiě guīzé wéi biāozhǔn, bùdé shǐyòng wàiwén pīnxiě. Tóngyàng, Tiānjīn Shì yǔyán wénzì péixùn cèshì zhōngxīn de gōngzuò rényuán yě biǎoshì, xiàng Shānxī Lù hé Shǎnxī Lù de Hànyǔ Pīnyīn pīnxiě fāngshì quèshí wúfǎ gēnggǎi.

(天津市地名办的工作人员表示，按照《天津市地名管理条例》的规定，地名的汉语拼音方案要以汉语拼音和拼写规则为标准，不得使用外文拼写。同样，天津市语言文字培训测试中心的工作人员也表示，像山西路和陕西路的汉语拼音拼写方式确实无法更改。)

This is absurd. “Shaanxi” is not a “foreign-language spelling” (wàiwén pīnxiě). The name is in Mandarin, China’s official language, and Shaanxi is China’s own spelling for this, as should be no mystery to anyone who has access to a map of China published in the last few decades. Also, Hanyu Pinyin’s rules — which are based on words, not syllables, and most definitely not on Chinese characters taken in isolation — take this exception into account. Using “Shaanxi” to refer to 陕西 Province is perfectly acceptable in Hanyu Pinyin.

map of China, showing the locations of Shaanxi and Shanxi

source: ‘SHANXI LU’: Nín cāi shì nǎ tiáo lù? (SHANXI LU 您猜是哪条路?), Měirì xīn bào (每日新报), December 29, 2006

Gaoxiong (Kaohsiung) MRT

Posted on by
Reply

Looking through Hao’s photos (linked to in his comment on yesterday’s post) reminded me that the MRT system in Gaoxiong is at least partially open. Since Gaoxiong is in Tongyong land, and since the signage there mixes romanization and English, and since no tone marks are given, I thought I’d share with everyone these Hanyu Pinyin guides I just made.

Here are the stations of the Gaoxiong subway system as given in Hanyu Pinyin (with tone marks), Hanyu Pinyin and English, Chinese characters, and Tongyong Pinyin and English:

See also Hao’s photos of the KMRT.

I don’t know Gaoxiong well, having been there only once, so if I got the word parsing for any of the stations wrong, please let me know.

Taipei street names

Posted on by
5

I’ve finally put online here on this site my list of Taipei street names in Chinese characters and Hanyu Pinyin. The list includes versions both with and without tone marks, as well as in pure Hanyu Pinyin and the mix of Pinyin and English that is generally found here in Taiwan.

I’d like to say some more about this, but I just don’t have the time now.

tone marks on signage: a debate

Posted on by
1

Check out the “dueling laowai” debate over whether to use tone marks on street signs in Taiwan. This is a series of pieces written by Mark of Doubting to Shuo and Prince Roy of Prince Roy’s Realm. Unfortunately, some of the comments have gone off into the land of myths and shadows, and I just don’t have the time or the energy to deal with all of that now. But the basics of the tone-mark debate are well worth reading.