Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den
| Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den | |
|---|---|
 A stone lion | |
| Traditional Chinese | 施氏食獅史 |
| Simplified Chinese | 施氏食狮史 |
| Literal meaning | The story of Mr. Shi eating lions |
| Hanyu Pinyin | Shīshì shí shī shǐ |
| Bopomofo | ㄕ ㄕˋ ㄕˊ ㄕ ㄕˇ |
| Gwoyeu Romatzyh | Shy-shyh shyr shy shyy |
| Wade–Giles | Shih1-shih4 shih2 shih1 shih3 |
| Tongyong Pinyin | Shih-shìh shíh shih shǐh |
| IPA | [ʂɻ̩́ ʂɻ̩̂ ʂɻ̩̌ ʂɻ̩́ ʂɻ̩̀] |
| Yale Romanization | Sī-sih sihk sī sí |
| Jyutping | Si1-si6 sik6 si1 si2 |
| IPA | [siː˥ siː˨ sek̚˨ siː˥ siː˧˥] |
| Hokkien POJ | Si-sī si̍t sai sú |
"Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den" is a short narrative poem written in Literary Chinese that is composed of about 94 characters (depending on the specific version) in which every word is pronounced shi ([ʂɻ̩]) when read in modern Standard Chinese, a dialect based on the Mandarin Chinese spoken in Beijing, with only the tones differing.[1]
The poem was written in the 1930s by the Chinese linguist Yuen Ren Chao as a linguistic demonstration. The poem is coherent and grammatical in Literary Chinese, but due to the number of Chinese homophones, it becomes difficult to understand in oral speech. In Mandarin, the poem is incomprehensible when read aloud, since only four syllables cover all the words of the poem. The poem is somewhat more comprehensible when read in other varieties such as Cantonese, in which it has 22 different syllables, or Hokkien Chinese, in which it has 15 different syllables.
The poem is an example of a one-syllable article, a form of constrained writing possible in tonal languages such as Mandarin Chinese, where tonal contours expand the range of meaning for a single syllable.
Explanation[edit]
The Chinese languages are tonal—meaning that changes in pitch can change the meaning of words. When written using a romanized script, the poem is an example of Chinese antanaclasis.[2] The poem shows the flexibility of the Chinese language in many ways, including wording, syntax, punctuation, and sentence structures, which gives rise to various explanations.[3]
The poem can be interpreted as an objection to the romanization of Chinese, demonstrating the author's critique of proposals to replace Chinese characters with Latin letters—a move that could potentially lead to the marginalization or elimination of traditional Chinese script. The 20th-century linguist Yuen Ren Chao utilized this poem to illustrate the complexities and unique attributes of the Chinese language, arguing that simplification and romanization would undermine its rich tonal and logographic system.[4][5]
Utilizing this poem, Yuen Ren Chao aimed to highlight the challenges of translating the nuanced tones and homophones of Classical Chinese into a romanized script, potentially diminishing the language's depth and historical richness. This demonstration contrasts Classical Chinese's literary and formal tradition with the spoken vernacular languages of China, emphasizing the intrinsic value of the written Chinese language over attempts to phoneticize it for everyday use.[4]
The written poem is easy to understand for those familiar with Chinese characters, each of which is associated with a distinct core meaning. It remains intelligible in its spoken form in varieties of Chinese other than Mandarin. However, in its romanized form or when spoken in Mandarin, it becomes confusing.[4]
Evolution[edit]
 |
The loss of older sound combinations in Chinese over the centuries has greatly increased the number of Chinese homophones. Many words in the passage had distinct sounds in Middle Chinese, but over time, all of the varieties of Chinese have merged and split different sounds. For example, when the same passage is read in Cantonese (even modern Cantonese) there are seven distinct syllables—ci, sai, sap, sat, sek, si, sik—in six distinct tone contours, producing 22 distinct character pronunciations. In Southern Min, there are six distinct syllables—se, si, su, sek, sip, sit—in seven distinct tone contours, producing fifteen character pronunciations. Therefore, the passage is barely comprehensible when read aloud in modern Mandarin without context, but easier to understand when read in other Sinitic languages, such as Cantonese.
See also[edit]
- Homophonic puns in Standard Chinese
- List of linguistic example sentences
- James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
- Neko no ko koneko, shishi no ko kojishi
- "The Chaos"
References[edit]
- ^ Behr, Wolfgang (2015). "Discussion 6: G. Sampson, "A Chinese Phonological Enigma": Four Comments". Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 43 (2): 719–732. ISSN 0091-3723. JSTOR 24774984.
- ^ Forsyth, Mark (2011). The Etymologicon. Cambridge: Icon. pp. 62–63. ISBN 978-1-848-31322-4.
- ^ Hengxing, He (2018-02-01). "The Discourse Flexibility of Zhao Yuanren [Yuen Ren Chao]'s Homophonic Text". Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 46 (1): 149–176. doi:10.1353/jcl.2018.0005. ISSN 2411-3484. S2CID 171902133.
- ^ a b c Peng Zerun (彭泽润) (2009). 赵元任的"狮子"不能乱"吃"——文言文可以看不能听的原理 [Zhao Yuanren's "lion" cannot be "eaten": the reasons why Classical Chinese can be read instead of being listened to]. 现代语文：下旬．语言研究 (in Chinese) (12): 160.
- ^ Zhang Juling (张巨龄) (11 January 2015). 赵元任为什么写"施氏食狮史" [Why Zhao Yuanren wrote Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den]. Guangming Daily (in Chinese). Retrieved 22 May 2019.
External links[edit]
- The Three "NOTs" of Hanyu Pinyin has a similar but different text
- 對聯：30. 巧聯妙對
- How to Read a Chinese Poem with Only One Sound has a transcription of the passage in Traditional and Simplified Chinese, as well as a Pinyin transcription and a translation.