And Nick showed an unrelated site having this "modern" eight as the "old" form. So, whats the point?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Originally posted by ashibaka
YES, it's an eight NOW, but not in the time frame we're TALKING ABOUT!
I just gave you selections from a book that uses { for its modern 8. "8" and "many" were not combined until hundreds of years after the etymological thing we're talking about, as the excerpts prove. Unless if there is a vast, anti-eight conspiracy after all!
Originally posted by s0uljah
And Nick showed an unrelated site having this "modern" eight as the "old" form. So, whats the point?
Originally posted by s0uljah
This controversy about whether that character is an eight has been very enlightening. Something so simple is clouded by the atheists...very telling, thanks.
Originally posted by seebs
I think you owe the people on this board who are actually seeking the truth an apology here.
Originally posted by s0uljah
My sister-in-law is Chinese. She said it is definitely an eight. I believe her.
Originally posted by seebs
And, finally, in all of this, I haven't seen you address the observation that the correct etymology of the word doesn't assign separate meanings to the two halves of the phonetic component.
Originally posted by ashibaka
[post deleted] Yoohoo... post #136? X_x
Originally posted by seebs
s0uljah, the "clouding" is not a result of some kind of atheist conspiracy. It's a result of gradual changes over time in Chinese, such that it's not always easy to say for sure whether or not a given character changed.
If you were to take the writing of "chuan" in my Chinese dictionary, and show it to a native speaker, and ask what the thing in the upper-right was, I suspect there'd be roughly no one who'd call it an 8.
Really, that was one of the more offensive and hateful things I've seen you do - you're assuming that the disagreement is *necessarily* a result of bad faith among "atheists". I'm not an atheist, and I don't think it's a simple or cut-and-dried case; I've long since retracted my original claim that the "eight" reading was obviously wrong - clearly, the word is drawn different ways in different fonts, suggesting that no one really cares what it is, because it's just a phonetic part anyway.
I think you owe the people on this board who are actually seeking the truth an apology here.
Originally posted by npetreley
What about it? You successfully proved that ascii slashes and parens don't look anything like Chinese characters. So what do you want us to do, call the papers with this breakthrough?
Originally posted by seebs
s0uljah: My point is that other people here are also earnestly seeking truth, and you owe them an apology for implying that this is being clouded by some atheist conspiracy. I admit that my phrasing implies that you aren't also seeking truth; this was not intentional, and I apologize for it.
I guess, the problem here is that you seem to have come through a long and detailed discussion showing that the way a component of a character is drawn is inconsistent in different sources, and come to the conclusion that one of them is "right", and since it disagrees with one of my claims, that my claim is therefore *totally* wrong. However, since the character is also drawn *other* ways, I think it's fairly clear that the contrary claim ("that is unequivocally an 8") is *ALSO* wrong. So, both sides are partially right. That character might be an 8, or might not, depending on how the word was drawn. To find out, we turn not to how it's drawn today, but how it used to be drawn, and what the symbols meant at the time.
When we do that, we find out that the right-hand-side of the original character is a single phonetic, which goes back far enough that the symbol had different meanings anyway, so that even if it looks like an 8 *now*, it wasn't an 8 when it became part of the word.
Originally posted by seebs
S0uljah: I did send them a note.
The problem here is, if they *really* cared, they would have, for instance, presented me with their counterarguments, and discussed them. They don't want to do that. They want to post their "rebuttal" and sell copies of the original 1979 book that started it all.
You will notice, for instance, that they responded only to *ONE* of about ten distinct factual claims about Chinese characters.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that we get the Thought Police to destroy every Chinese dictionary or font that draws "chuan" with the symbol that looks like ji, rather than ba.
The fact is, even then, we *STILL* find huge problems with the alleged etymology... problems which were *NOT* addressed at all in their "rebuttal", and which I am distressingly confident they will never choose to refer to or discuss in any way.
I confronted them with many concerns; you will notice that their response does not address the question of why we should associate meaning with the phonetic components of characters.
Touché!Sometime in the past 20 years, the monks at AIG scraped all the bits off the webpage to reuse it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?