Readers may find my Romanized Chinese Names, Places and Terms not consistent with what they are used to. Maybe I should explain a little:
We have generally adopted what have been Anglicized for us in Romanizing geographic names in China – Beijing (earlier Peking), the capital of China; Xi’an, the city that is rich in history; Shanghai, Guangzhou (earlier Canton), so on and so forth. But come to think of it, we should ask ourselves this question: Are they right?
In Chinese, geographic names are made up of characters each of which has a specific meaning. Beijing is 北京 (Bei Jing). Bei is “north” and Jing, “capital”. Taken together, they mean the Northern Capital. Xi’an is 西安 – Xi is “West” and “An” is “Peace”. Similarly, Shanghai and Guangzhou are each made up of two characters with specific meaning or definition for each of the components. In the case of Shanghai, Shang 上 (more accurately to be pronounced as “sung”, the past participle of “sing”) means Upper, and Hai, Sea; and for Guangzhou, Guang 广 means “Vast”, and Zhou 州, a major administrative division.
While their Romanization or Anglicization is phonetically close to their Chinese names, they do not reflect coherency. The slipshod manner has resulted in some laughable results. A case in point is the name Xi’an, the Romanization of which has led many to pronounce it as “Sian”!) I would argue that the city should be spelt as Xi-An.
Another example: Kunlun Shan 昆仑山 – the
character山 (Shan) tells us that it is a mountain,
and Kunlun (昆仑) is its name. But Kunlun is made up of two
separate characters and each has its own meaning. To me, this proper noun should
be spelt as Kun-Lun Shan. But Kunlun Shan appears to be the accepted form now.
However, the non-conformist in me would like to play rebel when it comes to other names and terms. I especially want to find fault with the Pinyin varieties. Earlier, many counted on the Wade–Giles system, which was developed in the mid-19th century, to do the job. It has largely been replaced by Hanyu Pinyin (汉语拼音) now. Even the Romanization of this term Hanyu Pinyin is flawed to me. This proper noun should have been spelt as Han-Yu Pin-Yin to denote two important clusters: Han-Yu, which means, the Han language, and Pin-Yin, the near-pronunciation.
For example, Chiang Kai-shek is usually how the one-time president 蔣介石of China is spelt. But in the Wade-Giles format, it should be “Chiang Chieh-shih”. But the pin-yin way spells it out as Jiǎng Jièshí, the pronunciation of which is certainly closer to standard Mandarin than the Wade-Giles’. But it fails to convey to the uninstructed that the given name Jièshí is made up of two separate characters each with its own meaning. 蔣 (Chiang or Jiǎng) is the surname or the family name, and 介石 (Chieh Shih or Jiè Shí) taken together is the given name. In Chinese you cannot say 介 (Chieh or Jiè) is the middle name and 石 (Shih or Shí) is the last name, or for that matter, 介 (Chieh or Jiè) is the first given name and 石 (Shih is Shí) the second given name. The two components, though each has its own meaning, are meant to supplement the other.
The Wade-Giles and pin-yin versions do take into account the surname-given name protocol. But they are not quite correct in one respect. By using a lower-case alphabet to spell the S in Shih (also after the hyphen), Wade-Giles implies that shih or shí is ancillary or complementary to Jiè in the given name. In the pin-yin version, Jiè got lumped in to form Jièshí, like what mainland China does today. This does imply that it is a word by itself,
A case in point is the spelling for Mao Zedong (毛泽东) and Xi Jinping in the way they are Romanised in China’s pin-yin format.
As a matter of fact, the anchor word for some Chinese given names is actually the second character. In the case of Soong sisters, the three were Soong Ai-ling 宋蔼龄, Soong Ching-ling, 宋庆龄, and Soong Mei-ling 宋美齡 (respectively, Sòng Àilíng, Sòng Qīnglíng; Sòng Měilíng in pin-yin). The common “denominator” in the three names is in fact “Ling” or龄. If the Wade-Giles is to be followed, then the given names should have been ai-Ling, qin-Ling, and mei-Ling!
I would argue that the correct way to standardize the naming system should be this:
蔣介石 – Jiǎng Jiè-Shí (or Jiang Jie-Shi, if you want to do away with all the tonal symbol needs),
毛泽东 – Mao Ze-Dong
And, 习近平
– Xi Jìn-Píng
Or better
still, JIANG Jiè-Shí, MAO Ze-Dong and XI Jin-Ping or even JIANG Jie
Shi, MAO Ze Dong and XI Jin Ping (a separate word for each,
with the family name in upper case)! (Readers are not wrong in
concluding that I am trying to split hair!)
As for non-person proper nouns, like the great novel “The Romance of the Three Kingdoms” (三国演义 Sān Guó Yǎn Yì), my logic calls for it to be spelled as “Sān-Guó” (Three Kingdoms), followed by “Yǎn-Yì” (“The Plays” (not “Romance”, really!)). The hyphens are to show that each pair has to be read and understood as a term separately.
The pin-yin in this book generally reflects the author’s advocation along this line. (Maybe all the tonal symbols should also be done away with, since they make typing clumsy for amateurs like me! But without tonal differentiations, many totally unrelated Chinese characters would sound the same when Romanised![1] A compromise may be needed. Suggestion: When a more exact pronunciation is desired to carry its true meaning, like in Sān-Guó Yǎn-Yì above, then the tonal symbols are necessary; however, if it is a name where meaning is not important to listeners, then maybe they can be dispensed with. (Like my given name, who cares whether it is the more correct version Yǒu-Mù, or the name Yu Book that is registered as my identity in the country where I was born?)
Out of respect for tradition, where proper nouns – persons’ or places’ – are concerned, I will follow those that have already been established by the “authoritative” sources (examples: Xi Jinping, Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai-shek, Tsai Ing-wen, Wang Gungwu, Xi’an, Chang’an, etc.) As for the rest, I shall use my own logic to present them. Readers, please feel to disagree. (Experts are not always right, though.)
[1]
A case in point is the “gou” without
tonal emphasis. It can use to mean “dog” (狗), or “enough” (够), “drain” or “connect” (沟), or “purchase” (购)
(and maybe more), but one needs to pronounce dog
as gǒu, drain or connect as gōu, enough as gòu and
purchase as gòu. They are all different characters in Chinese writings!
There are many similar situations.
Yi can mean more than 100 characters in Chinese! Just to name a few: “One” is 一, “Second” is 乙, “right conduct” is 义, “hundred million” is 亿, “already” is 已, “to discuss” is 议. “native, barbaric” is 夷. “clothes” is 衣, “to heal” is 医, “to rely” is 依, “suitable” is 宜, and “to change” is 易! They sound alike, but they are all different characters!
Without tonal emphasis or differentiation, the context for each pin-yin has to be understood, lest it will be quite a task for one to pin it down to a particular Chinese character and vice versa.
Wonder why Chinese minds are so complex?
No comments:
Post a Comment