[John Leland 1789]

Writing from Shanghai.

Actually, 5,000 years would be more like it. Not 8,000.

Chinese is a real language, but it is one of the most general, non-specific languages yet on earth.

Unlike English, to which new words can be continually added, Chinese words themselves (the characters or pictographs) cannot be increased in number. Therefore, for modern technology and science, the characters must be used in new combinations to describe modern things. Chinese people learning modern technology and science must continually refer to the English language for help, and that they do. It can be said that, in China, where English study is readily available, the country advances. Where English language skills are at their lowest, China virtually remains in the 18th and 19th centuries.

[mr jakob]

Chinese people learning modern technology and science must continually refer to the English language for help, and that they do. It can be said that, in China, where English study is readily available, the country advances. Where English language skills are at their lowest, China virtually remains in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The Japanese seem to get by pretty well on the technical field using Chinese characters. Japanese medical and engineering (except CS) words are almost exclusively written in Chinese characters (many of which are identical in Chinese). The Japanese are also notorious for low levels of English proficiency. Thus, the problem isn't the script, but the education level. Educated people in China also happen to learn English. This is an obvious case where correlation doesn't equal causation.

Also, Chinese words and Chinese characters are two separate concepts. "Shehui" (society) is one Chinese word consisting of two Chinese characters. There is not a single native Chinese speaker who would read "shehui" as two separate words. Combining morphemes (in the case of Chinese, characters) to make new words is nothing new. German does this for practically all of its modern vocabulary. Is Germany also stuck in the 18th and 19th century?