Jeremy's Reviews > The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy

too bad its mostly bunk....

How so?

Jeremy wrote: "How so?" Normally I wouldn't speculate, but I consider Tony's content free comment to give me license to do so with abandon.
My guess would be that Mr. Insightful doesn't "do" nuance. That, and the fact that the book treats received wisdom- you know how sage Chinese we tend to be, without what, I imagine, Tony considers its due deference.

Yafen wrote: Normally I wouldn't speculate, but..."

That's probably a fair guess. It seems we'll never know, since he's failed to respond after a year and a half :-)

Yafen wrote: "Jeremy wrote: "How so?" Normally I wouldn't speculate, but I consider Tony's content free comment to give me license to do so with abandon.
My guess would be that Mr. Insightful doesn't "do" nuance..."

The book was written by a wingnut who with no care for reason or logic

for example the fact that John Defrancis admits Taiwan's high literacy rates was because of GOOD EDUCATION which destroys his claim that hanzi prevents a country from being literate

Also india uses an alphapet and yet it still has literacy problems far more then China

Tony
A "wingnut"? Do you even know who John DeFrancis was? This is just silly.

By saying that Defrancis "claims that hanzi prevents a country from being literate" shows that you do not know what you are talking about.

That and your India comment shows that you have problems with understanding cause and effect and the logical notion of sufficient versus necessary. You yourself are showing just completely muddled thinking, truly devoid of "reason or logic".

Jeremy wrote: "Tony
A "wingnut"? Do you even know who John DeFrancis was? This is just silly.

By saying that Defrancis "claims that hanzi prevents a country from being literate" shows that you do not know what y..."

thats what he said in his book not i that hanzi is supposedly a barrier towards literacy, i know who John Defrancis was, a communist professor who taught chinese at the university of Hawaii

No my India comment shows that saying characters have literacy barriers show that his notions about hanzi are totally wrong

Tony wrote:"

So now you're calling him a communist, when he wasn't one. (Are you referring to the McCarthy era allegations which were completely unsubstantiated?) This is called an "ad hominem" attack because you are trying to attack the man instead of the argument. You see, even if he was a full-on raging communist that would have nothing to do with this book or the study of linguistics as long as it was scientifically valid, which it is.

Moving on, you seem incapable or unwilling to understand the arguments he puts forth. I'm afraid you are showing very two dimensional thinking. It can be subtle so think about it: Did he say that Hanzi prevents a country from attaining literacy? (as you claim he says) Or does he say that it would be easier and quicker for a people to attain literacy if they used an alphabet system instead of a character based writing system? Think before you respond. You probably know the right answer now. He talks about how long it takes to attain literacy and in some cases even the distinction in some groups between full literacy and illiteracy.

As for your India comment, you still dont understand your failure in logic. Think a bit about Cause & Effect and Necessary vs Sufficient. (http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman/34...)
These can be subtle distinctions and a lot of people have problems untangling them.

since when did being a called a communist count as an insult (especially in this context)

Not a very cogent response. You're grasping at straws, dude. It looks like we're done here.