語言文字

Hi,
I just stumbled upon this article by following a link in your app. I think it's topic is very interesting but Google's translation leaves much to be desired. Would you translate your article? Thanks!
Ps: Here's Google's take on it :

anguages
Whenever we refer to China, we inevitably think of vocabularies such as “a long history” and “civilized heritage”, and we are also proud to have no doubt. Compared with other "civilizations", the reason why Huaxia Civilization called itself the only ancient civilization that had not been cut off was because the language did not cut off.

From the regular script to the official script and from the official script to the regular script, the historians told us that the evolution of the script was the same strain; in the 20th century, the Oracle scriptures were found in different contexts but their veins were still visible. After the establishment of the seal, the greatest change in later generations is simply the simplification of the two thousand characters, but it is still a form of script. This is what we know. It is also a fact that everyone knows or even feels that they are scratching their ears. But intentionally or unintentionally, we seem to have forgotten that language is “linguistic writing”—in addition to words (shapes) and languages ​​(tones).

Indeed, the change in language itself is far more difficult to describe than textual changes - texts are recorded, in-kind, and can be written and drawn, but voices can hardly be recorded in the days when there were no gramophones. The ancestors did their best and only used the transcription and the method of writing to partially describe the change of speech—this is the only regret of our ideographic writing. Fortunately, ancient speech was not completely buried in time, and phonologists still found ways to try to restore the face of ancient sounds - through such works as "Rhyme", plus anti-snaught phonetic transcriptions of ancient times, plus poems and poems. My understanding of the aspect of this aspect has gone so far, but at least I have captured one of the important messages: the evolution of speech can also be traced.

This recognition led to my recognition of the contemporary standard Chinese (Putonghua) pronunciation regulations. As if I were aware of the question, "Why does the character think of jue, but someone still reads Jiao? The following answer says:

And most people will think very sparsely that "language is changing so you shouldn't be entangled." My opinion is: "Some pronunciations are acceptable (according to the laws of evolution), and some pronunciations are unacceptable. (not in line with the evolutionary laws), and believe that "the official standard should try to take the middle way."

The basic cognition of this cognition is that language is a tool for communication, but it is not only a tool for communication with people of the same generation, but also a tool for communication between former and future generations. The best choice is obviously both, and if not, choose the one with less harm based on the best possible balance. Unfortunately, in most cases, people/institutions will give priority to taking care of the former—after all, they are people of the same generation, not historical or descendants.

Today I saw an article titled "Say Shu hackers? Mount qí? I'm afraid it is a fake school! " The article", (again) the number of language reform commission to do things on the voice standard, let me both fortunate and helpless: the language reform commission or the language reform commission that year - brain damage, eat rice.

In recent years, the language reform commission has done the most to modify the pronunciation of Putonghua texts, and the purpose of the amendment is almost invariably in order to “conform to the public’s perception.” In other words, “Reading more than one will be correct. ". This is a typical disregard for history, and its role in the exchange of contemporary people is probably extremely limited. The self-learning ability of the people is much stronger than that of the literary reform magistrates. We can understand and understand that other people and our different pronunciations refer to the same vocabulary. Even if they don’t understand, they can “inquire”. If we say that this is to reduce the burden on education, it is even more slippery. There will always be (not a small part of) people who are different from the pronunciation of “standards” (whether because of dialects, misunderstandings, historical evolution, or anything), and so it is always necessary to popularize “standards” in primary and secondary education. Since there is a need to popularize "standards," this effort is always needed, and these times are always spent. In this case, it doesn't make much sense to consider “more students need to focus on memory standards” or “more students need to focus on memory standards”.

One thing that was specifically pointed out in the article was that some of the “standards” were changed from “consistent with history” to “consistent with most contemporary people’s perceptions” (and not to mention whether the sample is representative) and changed to “conform to history”. This incident also shows that the NDRC does not have its own understanding of what standards it defines.

Of course, it looks like, "Say hackers? Mount qí? I'm afraid it is a fake school! " The public's demand for these words is still a slight standard of ethical speech" - its authors either believe that "(phonetic standards) only need to meet the needs of the contemporary people like", or just a habitual taunt. First, the author seems to think that one can only choose between "do not change at all" and "arbitrarily change." Secondly, according to the author, the people’s attitude towards changes in the standard of speech is mostly "I support my habits. If I don't, I oppose it." - This is because the author listed several "previous" speech and even semantic changes. And saying that people have no idea about this. In the end, the author seems to think that the people are only passive recipients of the standard of speech, and all changes depend on the master of the NDRC.

However, I cannot agree with these three points.

As mentioned above, the choice of voice should be a trade-off process, and we should “choose the one with less damage” on the basis of the best possible balance. Its core is not to consider "change" or "invariability", nor is it to consider "which person to listen to", but to consider the balance between history and current. As mentioned above, in fact, no matter what the standard is, the impact on the current situation is negligible, so I think we should focus on history. The current response to the standard changes is predictable: some (yes, always only part of) people will object. So, why can't the standard setters promulgate the reasons for issuing standards? People are not fools. As long as they are right, most people will listen.

The author does not seem to know that in some areas of the World Wide Web, many people are constantly rediscovering the original meaning of the word, the reasonable pronunciation of the word, and spontaneously sum up the rules and systems, and continue to tell others what these things should be like. . The author may think that these people are too few, but what I see is that these people are more and more, and more and more people have accepted the "correct" popularity. Only because this change is too muted, the author may have seen its conclusion, but did not realize where it came from.

As for the standard setters, that is, the Language and Reform Commission, I always ridiculed them. If we agree with the People’s Republic, then the NDRC should work diligently to seek a balance between contemporary and historical and explain to the people rather than the corpse meal as it is now; if it is the ancient scholars’ establishment, then the NDRC should insist on the primacy of the king. It is not easy to change the number. No matter what kind, the NDRC did not do the right thing, so it was not wrong to be ridiculed by this sarcasm. Regardless of whether it is ancient or modern, whether it is Eastern or Western, the government should always listen to and even be appointed to the people. The fact that some departments are not doing so now is not the reason why we should recognize their actions. On the contrary, this is the reason why we should work harder to point out and oppose.

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Directorate of Education and Department of Human Resource is going to announce AP DSC Notification with a complete schedule along with district wise vacancies positions for Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT), Language Pandit (LP), School Assistant(SA), dsc2019.in Physical Education Teacher (PET) Posts, Trained Grade Teacher, Post Graduate Teacher, Music, Craft, Art, Drawing Teacher Posts in shortly.