<p>I think this is a result of the underlying assumptions made in a language.</p>
<p>Case: if you assume case is necessary, you need to differentiate each noun and adjective for case, that is declension. If you have 6 cases, each noun or adjective needs 6 forms.</p>
<p>Inflection: if you assume verbs must be inflected, you need to add syllables. A typical verb in Attic Greek will be a set of 250+ words.</p>
<p>All other words are 'particles' and &quot;§139. Particles are the four Parts of Speech that do not admit of inflection; viz. Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunctions, Interjections.&quot; NEW LATIN GRAMMAR BY CHARLES E. BENNETT</p>
<p>The Chinese language did not make these assumptions. You can see imminent case in Chinese, but it was not deemed necessary. 我 is I and me and my. The words known as verbs are just a word, not 250+ words. Most of the time they are nouns.</p>
<p>If you add a stroke to a Chinese character, you change it completely: 免、兔。 That makes it a bit hard to decline or inflect.</p>
<p>I admire Chinese for its penetratingly logical and succinct approach to expression. I hope to understand it properly one day.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-09T07:09:18.027Z
Note that more words do not necessarily mean more different syllables, if these are repeated. But it is true there could be some some correlation.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-09T00:59:13.527Z
2020-08-09T00:59:13.527Z
Pedroski
<p>Why does Mandarin Chinese have a smaller inventory of unique syllables? What are the possible historical/linguistic reasons behind this? Is there some relationship with the writing system, as Mandarin Chinese uses characters?</p>
<p>I support the point of view that the reason for Chinese having fewer syllables is related to the writing system of the language. The way the Chinese language was taught in the past is called 反切. In the method 反切, you have to define the pronunciation of a new word with 2 words that you already learned. There are only a limited number of Chinese characters in the Chinese writing system. Those characters must be separated group by group to make it easy to read and remember. Therefore, Chinese has to drop many less popular syllables from the last generations and from the local dialects. The Chinese writing system not only greatly restricted the spread of the languages used by local people, but also established a strong barrier to prevent the creation of any new syllables.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-03-17T17:50:36.867Z
2023-03-17T17:50:36.867Z
PdotWang
<p>From <em>San Duanmu, The Phonology of Standard Chinese</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While Middle Chinese (about AD 600) had over 3,000 syllables (including tonal
distinctions), modern <strong>Standard Chinese (SC)</strong> has just over 1,300. Thus, <strong>over a period of 1,500 years, Chinese lost more than half of its syllables.</strong> Moreover, <strong>the syllable inventory of modern Chinese continues to shrink.</strong> In addition, about 200 of the 1,300 syllables in SC are now rarely used. From a functional point of view, what is happening in Chinese is quite counter-intuitive and mysterious: <strong>why is it that the high homophone density has not prevented syllable loss in SC or at least slowed it down?</strong> I suggest that there are two parts to the answer. In the first place, <strong>most lexical ambiguities are clarified by context</strong>. For example,
although sun and son are homophones in English, there is hardly any context
in which they would cause ambiguity. Therefore, homophone density
rarely impedes how people speak. Secondly, <strong>paradoxically, high homophone
density may in fact speed up syllable loss.</strong> <strong>Studies on frequency effects show that frequent words are more likely to undergo reduction than infrequent words (Bybee 2001).</strong> Because Chinese has fewer syllables than
English, Chinese syllables are used more frequently, and so they are more
likely to undergo reduction and loss of contrasts.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On the other side, the reason why there are so many <em>homophone words</em> in Mandarin is that it is a <a href="https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-so-many-homophones-in-the-Chinese-language" rel="noreferrer">monosyllabic morpheme language</a>, which means that every syllable corresponds to a character with a meaning—a word. Other languages like Japanese, might have a smaller number of different syllables but also less homophone words, as they do not require each syllable to be a word.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-09T19:27:29.217Z
As I noted on your other question, I believe you are misreading that Wikipedia quote about syllabaries being "monomoriac" - it is not the _languages_ which have simplified over time, it is the _syllabaries_. This is stated quite clearly for the example: "bimoraic syllables are now written with two letters".
IMSoP
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-08T18:34:30.060Z
2020-08-09T22:59:24.920Z
2020-08-09T22:59:24.920Z
Puco4
<p>From <a href="https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/36906/30349">How languages compare with the number of different syllables from all words?</a>, considering the 20,000 most frequent words in each language, <strong>Mandarin Chinese has 1274 different syllables</strong> (see also <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/a/31282/25265">3</a> and <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/14596/how-many-syllables-does-chinese-have">4</a>). Compared to other languages, such as English with 6949 different syllables or Spanish with 2778 syllables, it has a small number of different syllables.</p>
<p>This might be the reason why Chinese has many characters repeating phonemes and why I wondered <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/39695/does-chinese-require-more-context-to-avoid-ambiguities-than-english">Does Chinese require more context to avoid ambiguities than English?</a></p>
<p><strong>What are the possible historical / linguistic reasons behind this?</strong> Is there some relationship with the writing system, as Mandarin Chinese uses characters?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-07T13:01:57.507Z
国语 (i.e.: TW MSM) cuts out a lot of 翘舌音; I'm sure they would have even less syllables if you calculated it.
Mou某
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-07T14:15:32.077Z
I often wonder about this in relation to pop music, I've been told rap has become popular in china but I can't imagine how good it is with so few possible rhyming combinations
小奥利奥
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-07T14:18:27.170Z
@小奥利奥 well, few possible rhyming combinations might make it easier to rhyme :)
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-07T14:21:07.897Z
@Puco4 which would result in a drop of quality, no? imagine what the state of english rap would be if the best MCs could only rhyme simple things like cat and bat
小奥利奥
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-07T14:33:51.930Z
Chinese has a closed set of syllables. While English, syllable can be made up freely using phonemes.
fefe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-07T14:35:58.187Z
@fefe I guess the question is *why* Chinese has a closed set of syllables. When a new word is created, why is not used a new syllabic combination?
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-09T19:33:24.243Z
@fefe I'm not sure how true that is; English has plenty of restrictions on what syllables are "allowed", it just has a relatively large set. Check out [this podcast episode](https://lingthusiasm.com/post/187039068846/lingthusiasm-episode-35-putting-sounds-into) or [its transcript](https://lingthusiasm.com/post/187363610231/transcript-episode-35-putting-sounds-into).
IMSoP
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-10T00:30:39.107Z
It's not clear to me that Chinese has an unusually small syllable inventory. The list of languages that you cite is not enough to demonstrate statistical significance, especially because it is overrepresents certain language families or parts of the world.
Colin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-10T05:30:46.083Z
Regarding ease of rhyming, there is a bit about that in Duanmu's The Phonology of Chinese cited in the answer below. He basically agrees and says that folk poetry (I forgot what word he actually uses) is more popular partly because it's simply easier than in languages where rhyming is harder.
Olle Linge
<etymology><history><phonology><linguistics>
Why does Mandarin Chinese have a smaller inventory of unique syllables?
# Why does Mandarin Chinese have a smaller inventory of unique syllables?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-08-07)

From [How languages compare with the number of different syllables from all words?](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/36906/30349), considering the 20,000 most frequent words in each language, **Mandarin Chinese has 1274 different syllables** (see also [3](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/a/31282/25265) and [4](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/14596/how-many-syllables-does-chinese-have)). Compared to other languages, such as English with 6949 different syllables or Spanish with 2778 syllables, it has a small number of different syllables.

This might be the reason why Chinese has many characters repeating phonemes and why I wondered [Does Chinese require more context to avoid ambiguities than English?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/39695/does-chinese-require-more-context-to-avoid-ambiguities-than-english)

**What are the possible historical / linguistic reasons behind this?** Is there some relationship with the writing system, as Mandarin Chinese uses characters?

**Tags:** etymology, history, phonology, linguistics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 国语 (i.e.: TW MSM) cuts out a lot of 翘舌音; I'm sure they would have even less syllables if you calculated it.  
> **username_2**: I often wonder about this in relation to pop music, I've been told rap has become popular in china but I can't imagine how good it is with so few possible rhyming combinations  
> **username_0**: @username_2 well, few possible rhyming combinations might make it easier to rhyme :)  
> **username_2**: @username_0 which would result in a drop of quality, no? imagine what the state of english rap would be if the best MCs could only rhyme simple things like cat and bat  
> **username_3**: Chinese has a closed set of syllables. While English, syllable can be made up freely using phonemes.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 I guess the question is *why* Chinese has a closed set of syllables. When a new word is created, why is not used a new syllabic combination?  
> **username_4**: @username_3 I'm not sure how true that is; English has plenty of restrictions on what syllables are "allowed", it just has a relatively large set. Check out [this podcast episode](https://lingthusiasm.com/post/187039068846/lingthusiasm-episode-35-putting-sounds-into) or [its transcript](https://lingthusiasm.com/post/187363610231/transcript-episode-35-putting-sounds-into).  
> **username_5**: It's not clear to me that Chinese has an unusually small syllable inventory. The list of languages that you cite is not enough to demonstrate statistical significance, especially because it is overrepresents certain language families or parts of the world.  
> **username_6**: Regarding ease of rhyming, there is a bit about that in Duanmu's The Phonology of Chinese cited in the answer below. He basically agrees and says that folk poetry (I forgot what word he actually uses) is more popular partly because it's simply easier than in languages where rhyming is harder.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2020-08-08. Score: 7 | Accepted answer

From *San Duanmu, The Phonology of Standard Chinese*:

> While Middle Chinese (about AD 600) had over 3,000 syllables (including tonal
> distinctions), modern **Standard Chinese (SC)** has just over 1,300. Thus, **over a period of 1,500 years, Chinese lost more than half of its syllables.** Moreover, **the syllable inventory of modern Chinese continues to shrink.** In addition, about 200 of the 1,300 syllables in SC are now rarely used. From a functional point of view, what is happening in Chinese is quite counter-intuitive and mysterious: **why is it that the high homophone density has not prevented syllable loss in SC or at least slowed it down?** I suggest that there are two parts to the answer. In the first place, **most lexical ambiguities are clarified by context**. For example,
> although sun and son are homophones in English, there is hardly any context
> in which they would cause ambiguity. Therefore, homophone density
> rarely impedes how people speak. Secondly, **paradoxically, high homophone
> density may in fact speed up syllable loss.** **Studies on frequency effects show that frequent words are more likely to undergo reduction than infrequent words (Bybee 2001).** Because Chinese has fewer syllables than
> English, Chinese syllables are used more frequently, and so they are more
> likely to undergo reduction and loss of contrasts.

On the other side, the reason why there are so many *homophone words* in Mandarin is that it is a [monosyllabic morpheme language](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-so-many-homophones-in-the-Chinese-language), which means that every syllable corresponds to a character with a meaning—a word. Other languages like Japanese, might have a smaller number of different syllables but also less homophone words, as they do not require each syllable to be a word.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: As I noted on your other question, I believe you are misreading that Wikipedia quote about syllabaries being "monomoriac" - it is not the _languages_ which have simplified over time, it is the _syllabaries_. This is stated quite clearly for the example: "bimoraic syllables are now written with two letters".  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2020-08-09. Score: 3

I think this is a result of the underlying assumptions made in a language.

Case: if you assume case is necessary, you need to differentiate each noun and adjective for case, that is declension. If you have 6 cases, each noun or adjective needs 6 forms.

Inflection: if you assume verbs must be inflected, you need to add syllables. A typical verb in Attic Greek will be a set of 250+ words.

All other words are 'particles' and "§139. Particles are the four Parts of Speech that do not admit of inflection; viz. Adverbs, Prepositions, Conjunctions, Interjections." NEW LATIN GRAMMAR BY CHARLES E. BENNETT

The Chinese language did not make these assumptions. You can see imminent case in Chinese, but it was not deemed necessary. 我 is I and me and my. The words known as verbs are just a word, not 250+ words. Most of the time they are nouns.

If you add a stroke to a Chinese character, you change it completely: 免、兔。 That makes it a bit hard to decline or inflect.

I admire Chinese for its penetratingly logical and succinct approach to expression. I hope to understand it properly one day.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Note that more words do not necessarily mean more different syllables, if these are repeated. But it is true there could be some some correlation.  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2023-03-17. Score: 0

Why does Mandarin Chinese have a smaller inventory of unique syllables? What are the possible historical/linguistic reasons behind this? Is there some relationship with the writing system, as Mandarin Chinese uses characters?

I support the point of view that the reason for Chinese having fewer syllables is related to the writing system of the language. The way the Chinese language was taught in the past is called 反切. In the method 反切, you have to define the pronunciation of a new word with 2 words that you already learned. There are only a limited number of Chinese characters in the Chinese writing system. Those characters must be separated group by group to make it easy to read and remember. Therefore, Chinese has to drop many less popular syllables from the last generations and from the local dialects. The Chinese writing system not only greatly restricted the spread of the languages used by local people, but also established a strong barrier to prevent the creation of any new syllables.


---

