[Multilingual Monday] Archaic Chinese, Negation, And Mood

[aadroma]

Pre-classical Chinese is a curious beast for me. My inexperience with Classical Chinese (outside of various writings I've procured that were written by the Japanese in CC) yet my knowledge that no one spoke the way they wrote in, say, the seventeenth century led me to believe that the language was spoken the way it was written centuries before

Comments

[muckefuck]

If 否 fell out of use in the Han period, than it's long since been revived, at least in Chinese legalese. For a recent example, have a look at the second page of the current visa application for the PRC: http://us.china-embassy.org/eng/hzqz/zgqz/t84240.htm.

Have I already recommended Pulleyblank's Outline of Classical Chinese grammar to you? It has a very lucid explanation of these different negative particles and their use. Unfortunately, it's at the other house so I can't refer to it now. One reason for their greater number in the early stages of the written language is that they sometimes included pronominal clitics.

[aadroma]

That's new to me -- I've never seen anyone outside of forms actually use 否 to be a self-standing "no" (and, as you can attest having been TAUGHT Chinese, that going around using 否 for when you want to say "no" is simply wrong). Why it's okay here, I don't know, other than the fact that it IS legalese and perhaps a more terse "classical" set of vocab is fallen back on? Or perhaps it's short for another phrase?

I've seen 否 in works like Mencius, but later commentaries end up then feel the need to translate the meaning of 否.

It is quite possible that the advent of the information age, forms, and even needing a single translation in, say, computer strings for "NO" has led to the character's revival as a NO, the same way 是 has become a general "yes".

[aadroma]

And nope, ths Classical Chinese grammar book recommendation is new to me. So, the book covers just general Classical Chinese grammar, or does it go back further? I would assume not with the title, but the terms of "archaic" and "classical", etc., can be a bit vague, hence why I ask.

That's a fascinating reasoning for so many negatives -- I'd love to see some examples!

[muckefuck]

Pulleyblank concentrates on Classical Chinese in the narrowest sense (so there are lots of quotes from Mencius). He makes the occasional reference to patterns observed in pre-Classical or Archaic Chinese which help to explain Classical Chinese usage or to developments in post-Classical which anticipate Modern Standard Chinese, but this is not his focus.

[aadroma]

... but Mencius would be pre-Classical, ne?

[muckefuck]

How do you figure? The Chinese of the Spring and Autumn period is what defined Classical. After all, what is Literary Chinese but the result of countless generations of scholar trying to write like the Analects?

[aadroma]

Ahhhh here the confusing terminology is screwing us up. I use Classical Chinese to mean the period after the Han Dynasty -- Literary Chinese, which stayed in use until the 20th century. This is misleading as, since the Analects are such a cornerstone of literature, "classical" is a natural term to use, I suppose.

But by the time you get to Late Han, it's clear that works like Mencius or the Analects are not readily understandable, hence the wealth of commentaries and interpretations that REINTERPRET what had, at that point, become a foreign language to those in the Han Dynasty. Even then it had become clear that certain aspects of the Chinese of Mencius' time was NOT understandable to those in the time of the Han Dynasty, like allegro forms, etc.

[muckefuck]

Sorry, that's what I meant by "Classical Chinese in the narrowest sense", i.e. the Chinese of the Classical period in Chinese literature. "Literary Chinese" is the term that Pulleyblank and most other modern Sinologists use for the post-Han, pre-Báihuà written standard. It's parallel to the use of "Classical Latin" to refer solely to the language of the Classical age in Roman letters, as distinguished from the plethora of post-Classical written forms.

[aadroma]

Heheh, whereas I have a different mindset; if you ask me what Chinese the Analects were written in, for example, I'd say 上古漢語, as opposed to 文言文, and I always associate the latter with "Classical Chinese". :: laugh ::

Well now that THAT's been clarified ... :: laugh ::