PreBabel Chapter seven

 

One,

Here’s a summary of the article from PreBabel Chapter seven:

---

Overview

This chapter critically examines traditional Chinese linguistic theories, especially the structure and interpretation of Chinese characters, and contrasts Chinese and Western perspectives on the Chinese writing system. The author argues that the true nature of Chinese characters as a root-based, axiomatic system has been misunderstood or overlooked for over two millennia.

---

Key Points

1. Misconceptions About Chinese Characters

• Many Western sinologists, such as John DeFrancis, have argued that Chinese characters are not ideographic but phonetic, debunking the idea that they convey meaning directly without reference to sound.
• The chapter asserts that there has never been a true ideographic writing system, and Chinese characters are not an exception.

2. The 六書 (Six Ways of Constructing Chinese Words)

• The 六書 (liù shū) are six traditional categories for constructing Chinese characters, first mentioned 1,900 years ago but never elaborated beyond six sentences in the ancient text 說文 (Shuō Wén).
• The six categories are:
1. 指事 (pointing/assigning)
2. 象形 (pictographic)
3. 形聲 (phonetic loan)
4. 會意 (sense determinators)
5. 轉注 (synonymize)
6. 假借 (borrowing)
• The author claims that the traditional 六書 system was never truly understood or used as a classification system, and that their own analysis is a reinvention based on actual character data.

3. Critique of Sinologists and Philologists

• Both Chinese philologists and Western sinologists have failed to recognize the logical structure and connections within Chinese characters, often dismissing them as solitary symbols without logical order.
• The author argues that there are clear logical connections between characters, which have been overlooked.

4. The Composite and Root-Based Nature of Chinese

• The Chinese writing system is described as a composite system, similar to the structure of the physical universe: from roots to compounds, words, phrases, and sentences.
• The author introduces the concept of “root fusion” and the inheritance of meaning and sound, likening it to DNA inheritance.

5. Mnemonic Devices vs. True Etymology

• Popular mnemonic methods for learning Chinese characters (e.g., Heisig’s “Remembering the Hanzi”) are criticized for lacking true etymological substance and sometimes spreading misconceptions.
• The author argues that understanding the true etymology of characters provides a natural mnemonic device and deeper understanding.

6. The Five Traditional “Bibles” of Chinese Characters

• The five foundational texts for Chinese characters are:
1. 爾雅 (the earliest thesaurus, edited by Confucius)
2. 說文 (Shuō Wén)
3. 康熙字典 (Kangxi Dictionary)
4. 詩韻集成 (a rhyme dictionary)
5. 對韻 (a thesaurus of antonyms)
• None of these works describe the Chinese character system as an axiomatic, root-based system, which the author claims is its true nature.

---

Conclusions

• The traditional understanding of Chinese characters, both in China and the West, is incomplete or incorrect.
• Gong proposes a new etymology, viewing Chinese as a logical, root-based, composite system, which makes it, in their view, the most logical and easiest language to learn—contrary to common belief.
• Modern Chinese education and scholarship had totally neglected this perspective (before Gong’s work), focusing instead on rote memorization or phonetic aspects.

 

Two,

Here are the details on how Chinese philologists and Western sinologists have failed to recognize the logical structure and connections within Chinese characters, often dismissing them as solitary symbols without logical order, along with specific examples from the chapter:

---

Failure to Recognize Logical Structure

1. Dismissal as Solitary Symbols

• Many renowned Chinese philologists, as well as Western sinologists, have historically viewed Chinese characters as isolated symbols with no logical connection between them. For example, Dr. F.S.C. Northrop described the Chinese written language as "denotative and solitary—no logical ordering or connection the one with the other".
• The author argues that this view is incorrect and that there are, in fact, logical connections between characters, which can be observed even by newcomers to the language.

2. Examples of Overlooked Logical Connections

The chapter provides groups of Chinese characters and challenges readers to find relationships among them, demonstrating that such connections exist but have been ignored by traditional scholars:

• Example Groups:
• 史, 吏, 使
• 里, 重, 動, 慟
• 垚, 堯, 燒
• 中, 串, 患
• 乃, 秀, 莠, 盈
• 可, 哥, 歌, 河
• 工, 左, 佐, 差, 嗟, 江
• 豆, 鼓, 鼙, 豎, 戲
• The author points out that, despite the apparent relationships (for example, between 史 and 使, or 動 and 慟), "all of the great Sinologists do not find any logic from the above word groups, nor from 六書" (the traditional six categories of character construction).

3. Critique of Authority

• The chapter asserts that not only Dr. Northrop but also other prominent figures like Dr. John DeFrancis and Dr. J. Marshall Unger have made similar errors, either dismissing the system as illogical or misunderstanding its structure.
• The author concludes that "all (each and every) great Sinologists and Chinese philologists are not better than [Northrop]" in this regard.

---

Summary Table of Examples

Character Group					Logical Connection (Implied by Author)
史, 吏, 使					Shared radicals/components, semantic links
里, 重, 動, 慟					Phonetic or semantic relationships
垚, 堯, 燒					Common roots or etymological evolution
中, 串, 患					Visual or conceptual connections
可, 哥, 歌, 河					Shared phonetic or radical elements
工, 左, 佐, 差, 嗟, 江					Structural or functional similarities
豆, 鼓, 鼙, 豎, 戲					Thematic or morphological links

---

Author’s Position

• The author maintains that these logical connections are obvious and accessible, even to beginners, and that the failure to recognize them is a significant oversight by both Chinese and Western scholars.
• The chapter further argues that the 六書 system, as traditionally understood, was never fully developed or applied, and that a new etymological approach reveals the true logical and root-based structure of Chinese characters.

 

Three,

Heisig’s “Remembering the Hanzi” is a popular book and method for learning Chinese characters, especially among Western learners. The approach relies on mnemonic devices—imaginative stories and visual associations—to help students remember the shape and meaning of each character, rather than focusing on the characters’ historical etymology or linguistic structure.

Gong’s Critiques of Heisig’s Method

In PreBabel Chapter seven, Gong (the author) offers a detailed critique of Heisig’s approach, arguing that it lacks true etymological substance and often spreads misconceptions about the origins and meanings of Chinese characters. Here are the main points and examples:

1. No True Etymology

• Gong asserts that Heisig’s method is “100% a mnemonic device, having zero substance on etymology.” The stories and primitive elements Heisig uses are often invented and do not reflect the actual historical development or structure of the characters.

2. Spreading Misconceptions (Examples)

• 胡 (hú):
• Heisig: Associates the character with “recklessly,” using the story of a full moon and people acting “loony.”
• Gong: Explains that the character actually means “the skin under the chin” (as in “beard”), and is composed of the roots for “ancient” (古) and “meat” (月, a variant of root 96). The meaning “reckless” is a derived usage, not the original etymology.
• 頁 (yè):
• Heisig: Interprets the character as “page,” with elements like “one” over “shellfish,” and creates a story about a “Pearl of Wisdom.”
• Gong: Points out that 頁 is actually a pictograph of a human head, as confirmed by the Kangxi dictionary. The character’s meaning as “page” is a later development, and the mnemonic story is misleading.
• 頂 , top of the head
  項 , back of the head
  順 , following the head, obeying
  須 , makeup on the head, such as beard, hair, etc.
  頑 , slow head, dumb or stubborn
  頓 , lowing the head
  頭 , another word for head
  頒 , many heads, award to many heads
  頗 , leaning head (not fair)
  領 , back of the head (collar)
  額 , the forehead
  頜 , lower chin
  頸 , neck
  顆 , the unit (or number) of head
  There are another hundreds of examples. Why does 頁 also mean "page" today? It is a long story. 
  
  
• 亡 (wáng):
• Heisig: Uses the image of a “top hat on a hook” to represent “deceased.”
• Gong: Explains that the character is composed of the root for “heavenly” (亠) and a disappearing stroke, meaning “dead or disappear.” The mnemonic story does not reflect the true structure or meaning.

忘 (forget) is 亡 over 心 (heart). The heart wonders away is "forget." 
忙 (busy) is "a variant of heart" + 亡. The heart disappears into ..., it has no time to consider others. 
巟 (desolate or lack of) is 亡 over 川 (flowing water). Flowing water disappears ....

o        荒 (desolate field, not managed garden) is root 49 (grassy plant) over 巟

                                            i.慌 (nervous) is "a variant of heart" + 荒. The heart is facing a desolate situation, not knowing what to do.

                                          ii.謊 (lie or untrue words) is 言 (speech) + 荒. When the words are as not managed garden (big mess) or desolate, it cannot be true words.

• In all these words, 亡 does not give any hint of an image that "a man is hanging up a hat while kicking the bucket". 
  
  
• 頑 (wán):
• Heisig: Associates the character with “stubborn,” using a story about “blockhead” and “grimace.”
• Gong: Shows that the character is made of 元 (“beginning”) and 頁 (“head”), referring to a newborn’s head and, by extension, qualities like stubbornness or mischievousness. The mnemonic device misses the etymological logic.

4.                  頑 (example 58, lesson 4, page 43 of Heisig's book)

a.                  Heisig

                                                                    i. keyword -- stubborn

                                                                  ii. primitive elements -- a blockhead, at the beginning

                                                                iii. imaginative story -- Abel and Cain seeking favors of heaven, with stubborn grimace on their faces.

b.                 Tienzen's etymology

                                                                    i. word in roots (or radical) -- 元 (beginning) + 頁 (human head)

                                                                  ii. direct reading -- as a newborn's head (not the physical head but is about its mental capability).

                                                                iii. usages 
頑 皮 -- playful in a mischievous or nuisance sense. 
頑 劣 -- as a rascal, cannot be educated 
頑 固 -- stubborn. By selecting "stubborn" as the keyword for 頑, it shows that not only does Heisig not know its etymology, but he does not know the true meaning of the word.

 

• 首 (shǒu):
• Heisig: Sees it as “horns” over “nose,” imagining a moose head.
• Gong: Explains it is actually 八 (“dividing”) over the root for “human head,” and is used for “leader” or “head” in both literal and abstract senses. The mnemonic story is inaccurate.
• 首 (example 67, page 46 of Heisig's book)
• Heisig
•  keyword -- heads
•  primitive elements -- horns, nose (自, see his example 32, on page 32)
•  imaginative story -- the picture of a moose head hanging on the den wall. with a note: ... a frequent metaphorical use of the term..., as head of state
• Tienzen's etymology
•  word in roots -- 八 (root 176, dividing) + root 47 (human head, 𦣻)
•  direct reading -- combing the head or dressing up the head
•  usages -- the abstract head of anything, leader, etc.
•  the descendant words -- 道 、 導

Obviously, Heisig does not know anything about the root 47 (human head, 𦣻) and mistakes it as a horn over the nose (自). In fact, there are many words from root 47 without the horn, such as, 

• 憂 (worry) -- root 47 (the human head, 𦣻) over root 205 (covering, 冖) over 心 (heart) over root 17 (pacing, 夊). Direct reading -- the heart is covered by the head while pacing to and fro. Higher generation words -- 優 、 擾 etc. 
  
  夏 (the name for Chinese race, also means summer) -- root 47 (human head) over root 17 (pacing, 夊). Direct reading -- a cultured head pacing. Higher generation words -- 廈 
  
  
  
• 丁 (dīng):
• Heisig: Associates it with “fourth” and uses a story about waiting in line.
• Gong: Explains 丁 is 一 (“heaven’s chi”) over 亅 (“rooted chi”), meaning “rooted.” This root appears in many words, and the mnemonic device does not help explain their meanings.
• 丁 (example 86, page 54)
• Heisig
•  keyword -- fourth
•  primitive elements -- fourth of enumeration... a lunar calendar
•  imaginative story -- someone waiting fourth in line, using a giant metal spike as a makeshift chair. 
  His note: When used as a primitive, the character changes its meaning to nail or spike.
• Tienzen's etymology
•  word in roots -- 一 (root 1, heaven's chi) over root 5 (rooted chi, 亅)
•  direct reading -- heaven's chi has rooted
•  the usages 
  盯 (keep eye on ...) is 目 (eye) + 丁 (rooted) 
  釘 (nail) is 金 (metal) + 丁 (rooted) 
  打 (hitting with hand) is "扌, a variant of hand" + 丁 
  叮 (repeated reminders or sting with a mouth) is 口 (mouth) + 丁 
  訂 (place order or sign agreement) is 言 (speech) + 丁 
  亭 (a permanent hilltop pavilion, as an ancient road site rest area) is root 208 ( , high ground) over root 205 (冖, cover) over 丁. Direct read -- a permanent (丁) covered place on the hilltop. 
  停 (stop) is 人 (man) + 亭. Direct read -- at 亭, man stop for a break. 
  寧 (tranquility) is root 118 (宀, roof) over 心 (heart) over 皿 (cookware) over 丁 (rooted). Direct read -- cookware is set (rooted) under roof (house), the heart is in peace. 
  
  Can Heisig's 丁 provide the meaning for those words? What is the fourth eye? Fourth metal? Fourth hand? Fourth mouth? etc. The correct etymology is already the best mnemonic device for those words. Heisig's error cannot be excused by claiming them as simply imaginative mnemonic devices.

 

3. Potential Harm

• Gong argues that learning characters through invented stories can “poison the learner’s mind for a true understanding of Chinese characters.” The true etymology, Gong claims, is the best mnemonic device, as it flows naturally from the logic of the character’s structure.

4. General Conclusion

• Heisig’s mnemonic devices are ultimately misleading and do not provide a foundation for genuine understanding of Chinese characters.

 

Four,

Here’s a detailed explanation of the 六書 (liù shū), its historical lack of elaboration, and the consequences for the perception and fate of the Chinese writing system:

---

What Are 六書 (liù shū)?

The 六書 (“six ways of constructing Chinese words”) are six traditional categories used to classify Chinese characters. They were first mentioned about 1,900 years ago in the ancient text 說文 (Shuō Wén), but the explanation was limited to just six sentences, with no further elaboration or systematic development.

The Six Categories:

1. 指事 (Pointing/Assigning)
2. 象形 (Pictographic)
3. 形聲 (Phonetic Loan)
4. 會意 (Sense Determinators)
5. 轉注 (Synonymize)
6. 假借 (Borrowing)

---

Historical Lack of Elaboration

• After their initial mention, the 六書 were never expanded upon in any meaningful way. The text 說文 did not use these categories as a central rule for classifying or explaining its 9,000 words, instead relying on 部首 (radicals).
• For nearly 2,000 years, no scholar—Chinese or Western—made any advancement beyond these six sentences. Even in modern times, major libraries contain thousands of books on Chinese characters, but none use 六書 as a foundational framework.

---

Consequences: Misunderstanding and Denouncement

1. The System’s True Nature Was Overlooked

• Because 六書 was never properly elaborated, no one realized that the Chinese writing system is a root-based, axiomatic, and composite system—what Gong calls “the perfect language in human history”.  
• This lack of understanding led both Chinese philologists and Western sinologists to make dismissive or even derogatory statements about the system, viewing it as illogical, solitary, or denotative without internal structure.

2. Denouncement and Near Abolition

• The misunderstanding contributed to the negative perception of traditional Chinese characters (TCcs), especially during and after the May 4th movement. Some Chinese scholars began to view TCcs as “the worst language of human history and the greatest shame of Chinese people,” leading to efforts to abandon it in favor of Romanization and the Pinyin system.
• The lack of a clear, logical framework made it difficult for both native speakers and learners to appreciate the system’s internal logic, further fueling calls for its simplification or abolition.

3. External Reference

• For more on the catastrophic history and denouncement of the Chinese writing system, see https://chineselanguageetymology.blogspot.com/2025/12/prebabel-chapter-four.html .

---

Summary Table

Aspect	Details	Citation
Origin	First mentioned 1,900 years ago in 說文 (Shuō Wén)	[PreBabel C...pter seven | Word]
Elaboration	Never expanded beyond six sentences; not used as classification rules	[PreBabel C...pter seven | Word]
Consequence	System’s logical, root-based nature overlooked; viewed as illogical and solitary	[PreBabel C...pter seven | Word]
Denouncement	Led to negative perceptions and near abolition of traditional Chinese characters	[PreBabel C...pter seven | Word]
Further Reading	https://chineselanguageetymology.blogspot.com/2025/12/prebabel-chapter-four.html

 

 

 

Key Points from "PreBabel Chapter Four – A Linguistic Catastrophe and Its Great Salvation"

1. Attributes of a Perfect Language

• Gong argues that a perfect language should:
• Allow unlimited vocabulary from a finite set of tokens.
• Enable pronunciation of every word from its written form.
• Allow the meaning of every word to be read from its written form.
• English is seen as scoring highly on these attributes, while traditional Chinese was historically seen as lacking.

2. Criticism of Chinese Characters

• Both Chinese and Western scholars historically viewed the Chinese character system as denotative, lacking logical universals, and not scientific.
• This led to early 20th-century movements to abolish Chinese characters in favor of Romanization, with simplification as an interim step.

3. Historical Attempts to Reform

• The May Fourth Movement and subsequent decades saw strong criticism and attempts to replace Chinese characters.
• Prominent figures like Lu Xun and Qian Xuantong advocated for radical change.

4. Western Sinologists' Views

• Scholars such as Dr. F.S.C. Northrop, Joseph Needham, and John DeFrancis debated whether Chinese characters are ideographic, pictographic, or phonological.
• There was significant disagreement and misunderstanding about the system's logic and structure.

5. Contemporary Chinese Philologists

• In recent years, some Chinese academics have labeled efforts to scientifically analyze Chinese characters as pseudoscience.
• Official institutions have denounced claims of the system’s superiority over alphabetic systems.

6. Shift in Perspective and “Salvation”

• The publication of works such as "Chinese Word Roots and Grammar" and "Chinese Etymology" by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong in the early 2000s led to a reevaluation.
• These works argue that Chinese characters are a root-based axiomatic system, allowing for efficient learning and logical structure.
• This new understanding influenced policy reversals, with China abandoning Romanization efforts and reaffirming the value of traditional characters.

7. Conclusion

• The chapter concludes that the Chinese character system, once widely criticized, is now recognized as a "perfect language" due to its root-based structure and logical attributes.
• Gong claims to have played a major role in this transformation, describing it as a victory for Chinese culture and humanity.

 

Five,

Chinese characters were nearly abolished due to a combination of historical, cultural, and linguistic factors:

---

1. Perceived Lack of Logic and Universality

• Both Chinese philologists and Western sinologists historically viewed the Chinese character system as lacking logical structure and universality. It was seen as a set of solitary, denotative symbols without internal connections, making it difficult to learn and use scientifically.

2. Influence of Western Linguistic Ideals

• The rise of Western linguistic models, which emphasized alphabetic systems and phonetic transparency, led many scholars to believe that Chinese characters were outdated and inferior compared to languages like English.

3. The May Fourth Movement and Modernization

• During the early 20th century, the May Fourth Movement promoted modernization and reform in China. Intellectuals and reformers advocated for the abandonment of traditional Chinese characters in favor of Romanization (using the Latin alphabet) and the adoption of Pinyin as an interim measure.

4. Government Policy and Simplification

• The Chinese government implemented policies to simplify characters and even scheduled the complete Romanization of the writing system (by 2016). The goal was to make literacy more accessible and align with global trends.

5. Educational Challenges

• The complexity and perceived illogical nature of Chinese characters made them difficult to teach and learn, even for native speakers. This reinforced the push for reform and simplification.

6. Reversal and Rediscovery

• Only after new research (such as Gong’s root-based etymology) revealed the logical, axiomatic structure of Chinese characters did attitudes shift. This led to a reevaluation of the system’s value and the abandonment of plans to abolish it (scheduled for 2016).

---

In summary:
Chinese characters were nearly abolished because they were widely misunderstood as illogical and inefficient, especially compared to alphabetic systems. This misunderstanding led to strong reform movements and government policies aimed at replacing them, until Gong’s new scholarship demonstrated their underlying logic and value.

 

Six,

Here’s the timeline between Gong’s published work and the reversal of Chinese government policy on abolishing Chinese characters:

---

Timeline Overview

1. Pre-2006:
• For much of the 20th century, Chinese intellectuals and policymakers, influenced by both internal and external criticism, viewed the traditional Chinese character system as illogical and a barrier to modernization. There were active efforts to simplify and even abolish Chinese characters in favor of Romanization (Pinyin), with a scheduled plan for full Romanization by 2016.
2. 2006:
• Gong (Tienzen Jeh-Tween Gong) published the book “Chinese Word Roots and Grammar” (US copyright # TX 6-514-465), which argued that the Chinese writing system is a root-based, axiomatic, and logical system—a “perfect language.” This work challenged the prevailing academic and governmental views.
3. 2006–2016:
• Gong’s research and advocacy gained attention, leading to a reevaluation of the Chinese character system among scholars and policymakers. The new understanding highlighted the logical structure and efficiency of Chinese characters, countering the arguments for abolition.
4. 2016:
• The Chinese government, which had previously scheduled the complete Romanization of the writing system for 2016, reversed its policy. The plan to abolish Chinese characters was abandoned, and the value of the traditional character system was reaffirmed. This reversal is attributed to the influence of Gong’s published work and the new etymological perspective it provided.

---

Summary Table

Year	Event
Pre-2006	Policy and academic consensus favored simplification and eventual abolition of characters
2006	Gong publishes “Chinese Word Roots and Grammar,” introducing a new etymological model
2006–2016	Growing recognition of the logical structure of Chinese characters
2016	Chinese government reverses policy, abandons Romanization plan, reaffirms character system

---

In summary:
There was roughly a 10-year period between the publication of Gong’s influential work (2006) and the official reversal of the Chinese government’s policy to abolish Chinese characters (2016), with Gong’s research playing a deciding role in this shift.