[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

[philbutrin]

that's really interesting. i took some mandarin classes & tutoring a couple years ago, but haven't had any exposure to the classical or pre-classical language.

it's fascinating to see how character usage and meanings have evolved over time.

[bluebear2]

I see some of these characters all the time living in Vancouver. I know 不 and 勿 which I have come to think of as "not" and "forbidden".

[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.