Thread 24621298

Imagine all syllables in:
>re-mem-ber
>re-call
>re-mi-nisce
>re-trieve
could be rearranged to from the same meaning word AGAIN!
>trieve-nisce
>mem-call
>ber-re

Stupid fucking language. The ideograms have clearly been bastardized over the millennia as well. The whole language needs a reformer to bring it up to standard.

>>24621298 (OP)
what are they saying tho??

>>24621298 (OP)
This is one reason it's "not easy" to translate. Each of these synonyms carries a slightly different "feeling" compared to the rest and sets a particular tone, especially prominent in other words.

>>24621540
none of these words except for Ping, Chong, Ding and Dong are even possible in chinese chinese.

Another insane thing about Chinese; how regulated and limited their pronunciations are.

>>24621589
can you show the difference between 回想,回忆,回念,回溯,回顾,回首 and 回味?

>>24621298 (OP)
Part of the issue is that because of the nature of the Chinese writing system (what with no spaces), it's hard to draw a clear distinction between "words" and "phrases/expressions". As Mark Rosenfelder says in this page
https://zompist.com/yingzi/yingzi.htm
in which he imagines if English were written in a Chinese-style writing system:
>The nature of the writing system would encourage lexicographers (and English speakers) to think of everything in the language as built out of yingzi. There wouldn't seem to be a great difference between "words" like storehouse, storage, restore and "expressions" like shoe store, store up, store detective, store manager; or between blackboard and black eye, or between alphabet and alpha male.
>Many morphemes that now live out a shadowy existence, forever bound to other morphemes, would take on an independent existence; for instance the volve in revolve, evolve, involve, devolve, which would have its own yingzi, and would seem as much a "word" or component of the language as the match in rematch, mismatch, unmatch. There would be a tendency to describe the meanings, vague or miscellaneous as they might be, for such characters.

>>24621298 (OP)
>another beginner language learner complaining that the language is wrong and need fixing

>>24621699
I don't personally know Chinese at the requisite level, but Glosbe suggests (different grammatical forms of the same word omitted):
>回想: recollect, recall, remember, retrospect, call to mind, think, ruminate, ponder, recur, reminiscence, echo, etc
>回忆: recall, remember, recollect, reminisce, memory, retrieve, memento, think, echo, recur, represent, call back, call up, think back
>回念: (no definitions or even example sentences for some reason)
>回溯: trace, backtrace, backdate, retrace, review, recall, backcasting, retrospect, look back
>回顾: review, retrospect, remember, retrospection, brushup, retrace, critique, critical review, look back
>回首: look back, recollect, turn around
>回味: aftertaste, relive, taste, afterglow, live over, ponder over, reflect on
These groups of translations seem to point to somewhat different clusters of meaning if you triangulate them, even if there's some overlap between them. As for how to translate them in any given context... well, that requires a strong intuitive sense for both languages.

>>24621298 (OP)
Isn't part of it just that Chinese has an incredibly long and vast literary tradition and any word from that whole history is still in principle a licit word in the present-day language even if it may come off as obscure or literary?

>>24621689
Depends on whether or not you're listening with a native ear, e.g. “重庆” ("Chóngqìng") sounds like "chong ching" to Anglophones.

>>24623020
>welcome to china, now show my your language skills: how would you say you remember what happened yesterday?
>umm...回忆?
>lmao nice try white pig, better luck next time

>>24621689
>None except for half of them
What did he mean by this

>>24623051
kek savant whiteboys who whimsically decide to study mandarin and approach conversational competency within years are literally gods to me. don't know how they do it.

>>24621689
>CHONG CHING
重庆
>WING
翁
>WONG
王
>PING PONG
乒乓
>DING
鼎
>DONG
董

>>24623051
Its really disappointing how little effort native Chinese put in to understanding foreigners learning their language.
My HSK books used to often describe the students increasing competency level by
>1: Can communicate with their teacher
>2: Can communicate with persons focusing on foreign visitors
>3: Can communicate with natives
or something similar. Literally describing how much active brain power the people are willing to use to understand foreigners. It's not an unreasonable distinction, but its ridiculous that it is so stark it needs to be pointed out unlike in other languages (not even French for example.) Imagine if English speakers would have this arrogance of "not understanding" foreigners butchering the pronunciation let alone grammar.
>>24623063
it's a joke, anon

>>24621689
That's Mandarin in particular.

>>24623152
English speakers are exposed to a lot more butchered English than Chinese are exposed to butchered Mandarin, though, no?

b