<p>NOTE: I don't have any interest in writing in English, because I would like to use Chinese to satirize the OP.</p>

<p>阁下妙论，澳洲雪雹也乎？其立也高，其势也疾，接地砉然有声，力透琉璃之窗。怙林火，恃烟霾，笼盖旷野，赤白交灰。九州炎嗣，莫不啖烧肉以观。至于贵国上民，安然享之，略加指点以寰宇气象，其必是也。</p>

<p>（想起猪肉和一缕烟那篇文章，再看看题主这个调调，我不知道不表达任何概念的符号谈何文字？鬼画符还有个意思呢。本来谈及各国语言文字的政治正确就是不分高低，这下好，我不说你欧洲诸语那些毛病，你倒自以为是地批评起中文来了，结果斗大的字还不认识一个，真是给人笑死。在新知识概念层出不穷的今天，欧洲语言利用各种词根造词，或者复合多个词，或者旧词翻新意表达新概念，与中文有什么区别？各种千奇百怪的语法屈折都趋向于简化，就是因为这些语法框架应对新的概念过于死板，英语早就已经简化成近乎于分析语，而汉语老早就是如此，明明是非常高级的形式，题主置若罔闻，只会在那里口嗨。你还是自己删掉为好，在中文板块发这种非常冒犯而毫无根据的个人观点，我也没什么好话给你，就像某大陆自己灾祸连天还管我们吃不吃猪肉一样恶意揣测。）</p>

<p>另及：您这篇文章虽然看起来处处疑问句和委婉语气想表示表示客观，殊不知像CNN的假新闻一样令人厌恶，要骂人你直接说就好了，用不着扭扭捏捏心里想着反正你们听不出来sarcasm。</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-23T03:46:21.200Z
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/103591/discussion-on-answer-by-toosky-hierot-why-is-does-the-chinese-language-hardly-i).
Mou某
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-28T07:03:02.350Z
What a great way to get the OP back into reality!
Admirer of the dragon flag
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-22T14:36:20.113Z
2020-01-22T14:51:11.703Z
2020-01-22T14:51:11.703Z
Toosky Hierot
<p>Every once in a while, I would use sarcasm earshot to some Chinese people . To my surprise, Chinese people, especially the older generation, giggle thinking what a ridiculous person I am for thinking so, which I don't. That's the point.</p>

<p>Kinda stupid as you only have to have the foggiest notion of sarcasm. Or, have the sensibility to know that the statement is so absurd that the person can't actually think so &amp; is therefore joking.</p>

<p>Is this a cultural thing?</p>

<p>Is this limitation inherent in the Chinese language? I turned my sight on written Chinese. I've encountered many people saying that written Chinese is very telling of the Chinese way of thinking. I know the characters represent words &amp; concepts (Logograms, as they're called, just looked it up). This being the case, could you say written Chinese is limited in that you don't work at a literal level that humans think fundamentally? You wouldn't have the fine control that a spoken language provides, something that the Chinese would be more used to as well. Since they talk. I would say further that it would limit the use of many literary devices (such as sarcasm; let's just figure sarcasm IS a literary device) that allows someone to imaginatively say new ideas in a few words. As opposed to having to say it in spans of sentences, making it sound more like a narrative? Boring medium of communication, isn't it? I could just imagine your literature. This is would also explain why Chinese thinking is based on many assumption &amp; just can't work from other points of view. To read the text, they would have to work on a bunch of set assumptions all the time. True, a different assumptions can be established for a new text, but it seems they just don't want to bother.</p>

<p>This one's a bit of further off, but is it also because written Chinese is just a bunch of concepts &amp; ideas &amp; less literal, that one just casually copy it? Encouraging the practice of just copying everything &amp; instead relying heavily on memorization, rather than mastery of principles &amp; concepts. Then again, they usually just fool themselves with understanding something or when creating a school of thought (kung fu, chinese medicine, etc) as they rely on their own sloppy "logic", rather on harder logic.</p>

<p>Do you think that instead of written Chinese being telling of the Chinese way of thinking, it's the other way around &amp; the written Chinese limiting the Chinese way of thinking?</p>

<p>I would say a tiny notion of sarcasm is all that's needed. You don't have to be sophisticated (as that is asking too much from the Chinese, though they insist on having a "complex culture"). They just don't want to think differently even if they are at a different setting (place) already.</p>

<p>What are your other thoughts?</p>

<p>I just want to know as Chinese people, according to themselves, are the smartest in the world!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-23T03:46:10.257Z
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/103590/discussion-on-question-by-dehbop-why-is-does-the-chinese-language-hardly-if-eve).
Mou某
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-25T12:36:45.620Z
What an interesting piece of text you got there!
obe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-28T07:03:42.383Z
You don't know what you're talking about.
Admirer of the dragon flag
<literary-chinese>
Why is does the Chinese language hardly, if ever, use sarcasm
# Why is does the Chinese language hardly, if ever, use sarcasm

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-01-22)

Every once in a while, I would use sarcasm earshot to some Chinese people . To my surprise, Chinese people, especially the older generation, giggle thinking what a ridiculous person I am for thinking so, which I don't. That's the point.

Kinda stupid as you only have to have the foggiest notion of sarcasm. Or, have the sensibility to know that the statement is so absurd that the person can't actually think so & is therefore joking.

Is this a cultural thing?

Is this limitation inherent in the Chinese language? I turned my sight on written Chinese. I've encountered many people saying that written Chinese is very telling of the Chinese way of thinking. I know the characters represent words & concepts (Logograms, as they're called, just looked it up). This being the case, could you say written Chinese is limited in that you don't work at a literal level that humans think fundamentally? You wouldn't have the fine control that a spoken language provides, something that the Chinese would be more used to as well. Since they talk. I would say further that it would limit the use of many literary devices (such as sarcasm; let's just figure sarcasm IS a literary device) that allows someone to imaginatively say new ideas in a few words. As opposed to having to say it in spans of sentences, making it sound more like a narrative? Boring medium of communication, isn't it? I could just imagine your literature. This is would also explain why Chinese thinking is based on many assumption & just can't work from other points of view. To read the text, they would have to work on a bunch of set assumptions all the time. True, a different assumptions can be established for a new text, but it seems they just don't want to bother.

This one's a bit of further off, but is it also because written Chinese is just a bunch of concepts & ideas & less literal, that one just casually copy it? Encouraging the practice of just copying everything & instead relying heavily on memorization, rather than mastery of principles & concepts. Then again, they usually just fool themselves with understanding something or when creating a school of thought (kung fu, chinese medicine, etc) as they rely on their own sloppy "logic", rather on harder logic.

Do you think that instead of written Chinese being telling of the Chinese way of thinking, it's the other way around & the written Chinese limiting the Chinese way of thinking?

I would say a tiny notion of sarcasm is all that's needed. You don't have to be sophisticated (as that is asking too much from the Chinese, though they insist on having a "complex culture"). They just don't want to think differently even if they are at a different setting (place) already.

What are your other thoughts?

I just want to know as Chinese people, according to themselves, are the smartest in the world!

**Tags:** literary-chinese

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/103590/discussion-on-question-by-dehbop-why-is-does-the-chinese-language-hardly-if-eve).  
> **username_2**: What an interesting piece of text you got there!  
> **username_3**: You don't know what you're talking about.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-01-22. Score: 3

NOTE: I don't have any interest in writing in English, because I would like to use Chinese to satirize the OP.

阁下妙论，澳洲雪雹也乎？其立也高，其势也疾，接地砉然有声，力透琉璃之窗。怙林火，恃烟霾，笼盖旷野，赤白交灰。九州炎嗣，莫不啖烧肉以观。至于贵国上民，安然享之，略加指点以寰宇气象，其必是也。

（想起猪肉和一缕烟那篇文章，再看看题主这个调调，我不知道不表达任何概念的符号谈何文字？鬼画符还有个意思呢。本来谈及各国语言文字的政治正确就是不分高低，这下好，我不说你欧洲诸语那些毛病，你倒自以为是地批评起中文来了，结果斗大的字还不认识一个，真是给人笑死。在新知识概念层出不穷的今天，欧洲语言利用各种词根造词，或者复合多个词，或者旧词翻新意表达新概念，与中文有什么区别？各种千奇百怪的语法屈折都趋向于简化，就是因为这些语法框架应对新的概念过于死板，英语早就已经简化成近乎于分析语，而汉语老早就是如此，明明是非常高级的形式，题主置若罔闻，只会在那里口嗨。你还是自己删掉为好，在中文板块发这种非常冒犯而毫无根据的个人观点，我也没什么好话给你，就像某大陆自己灾祸连天还管我们吃不吃猪肉一样恶意揣测。）

另及：您这篇文章虽然看起来处处疑问句和委婉语气想表示表示客观，殊不知像CNN的假新闻一样令人厌恶，要骂人你直接说就好了，用不着扭扭捏捏心里想着反正你们听不出来sarcasm。

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/103591/discussion-on-answer-by-toosky-hierot-why-is-does-the-chinese-language-hardly-i).  
> **username_3**: What a great way to get the OP back into reality!  

---

