<p>it depends on the topic; style of writing, and translation. </p>

<p>[for alphabetic language, one word might contain numerous characters, while for ideographic language, one word = one character]</p>

<h1>when classical chinese is longer</h1>

<p>"traduttore, traditore" (to translate is to betray) - 迻譯即背叛　⋯　2 vs 5 words</p>

<p>nautical terms, such as cutter, ketch, schooner; in which, one can grep its meaning and form an mental image directly.</p>

<p>in classical chinese, the word is longer</p>

<p>cutter - 雙頭帆小船　⋯　1 vs 5 words</p>

<p>ketch - 高前桅雙桅帆船　⋯　1 vs 7 words</p>

<p>schooner - 高後桅雙桅帆船　⋯　1 vs 7 words</p>

<p>or, buddhism terms, such as:</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%98%BF%E8%80%A8%E5%A4%9A%E7%BE%85%E4%B8%89%E8%97%90%E4%B8%89%E8%8F%A9%E6%8F%90" rel="nofollow noreferrer">अनुत्तरा सम्यक् सम्बोधि (anuttarā samyak sambodhi) </a>
- 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提　⋯　3 vs 9 words</p>

<p>bhūtânityatā - 諸行無常　⋯　1 vs 4 words</p>

<p>bhūtânātmatā - 諸法無我　⋯　1 vs 4 words</p>

<p>śāntaṃnirvâṇam - 涅槃寂靜　⋯　1 vs 4 words</p>

<p><a href="http://cbeta.kepan.org/sahant/7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://cbeta.kepan.org/sahant/7</a></p>

<p><a href="http://cbeta.kepan.org/sahant/37" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://cbeta.kepan.org/sahant/37</a></p>

<h1>when classical chinese is shorter</h1>

<p>well, chinese poem should be the shortest, amongst any languages.</p>

<p>taoism related text is, also. e.g. in 周易參同契:</p>

<p>金伐木榮．三五與一</p>

<p>cutting down by metal, the wood prosperous; three, five and one. (frankly, i don't think this book is "translatable"; i just give a word-to-word translation here, omitting background knowledges, assumptions; and implications)</p>

<p><a href="https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&amp;file=99940&amp;page=59" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&amp;file=99940&amp;page=59</a></p>

<p>now, 8 classical chinese word vs 11 english words.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>when a lengthy document or a book is translated into different languages, will the classical Chinese be the shortest translation</p>
</blockquote>

<p>imo, again, it depends on the topic; style of writing, and translation.</p>

<p>have fun :)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-29T01:38:38.217Z
You are confusing words with characters. For instance, `cutter - 雙頭帆小船` is 1 vs 1 word, 6 vs 5 characters.
Betty
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-29T01:45:54.910Z
interesting interpretation, think again what’s “character” & “word” in english, and chinese; please 
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-22T07:48:45.857Z
I think the comparison is unfair. For example, one that has not heard of `cutter` cannot infer what a cutter is, but in the Chinese version  雙頭帆小船, I can at least guess that it is a small boat with a double sail.
Wong Jia Hau
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-22T08:13:52.813Z
“nautical terms” is mentioned beforehand 
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-01T13:50:01.700Z
2019-04-01T13:50:01.700Z
水巷孑蠻
<p>yes，Classical Chinese is the shortest language（in my memory）.</p>

<p>classical chinese：</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>关关雎鸠，在河之洲。窈窕淑女，君子好逑。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>modern Chinese：</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>关关鸣叫的水鸟，栖居在河中沙洲。善良美丽的姑娘，好男儿的好配偶。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>English：</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>merrily the ospreys cry, on the islet in the stream.gentle and graceful is the girl,a fit wife foe the gentleman.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>if you read the 《山海经》(Classic of Mountains and Seas or Shan Hai Jing),pre-Qin China book.you will know it.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-01T06:10:40.160Z
2019-04-01T06:10:40.160Z
ixzzV
<p>Generally speaking, when a lengthy document or a book is translated into different languages, will the classical Chinese be the shortest translation?</p>

<p>To put in another way, if the same book is printed in different languages with basically the same font size, will the classical Chinese one be the shortest?</p>

<p>For example, for Psalm 119 from the Old Testament:</p>

<ul>
<li>English (King James Version): 2,598 words.</li>
<li>German (Hoffnung für Alle): 3,050 words.</li>
<li>French (La Bible du Semeur): 2,574 words.</li>
<li>Japanese (聖書新改訳): 7,348 characters.</li>
<li>Korean: (현대인의성경): 7,099 characters.</li>
<li>Classical Chinese (<a href="https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E8%81%96%E7%B6%93_(%E6%96%87%E7%90%86%E5%92%8C%E5%90%88)/%E8%A9%A9%E7%AF%87#%E7%AC%AC%E7%99%BE%E5%8D%81%E4%B9%9D%E7%AF%87" rel="nofollow noreferrer">文理和合</a>)：3,417 characters. Since "<a href="https://www.actranslation.com/chinese/chinese-wordcount.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">each 1000 Chinese characters will usually be translated into about 600-700 English words</a>", this is roughly 2,000 English words.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-01T05:24:17.070Z
然也 ( 確是这样;  It is correct)
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-01T05:33:04.440Z
Instead of comparing words and characters, just convert English, German and French to characters.
Mou某
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-01T05:55:00.903Z
Mostly Yes, but notice it's mainly written(with the ideographic script, which in most cases use only one square-shaped symbol to represent some meaning, so it's very compat ), spoken ancient Chinese can vary and is not similar with the written form.
炸鱼薯条德里克
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-01T06:00:50.083Z
Modern standard Chinese written form still use hanzi, but becomes much more 言同书 with modern Mandarin, and use much more multiple-syllable words, which is written as multiple square-shaped symbols.
炸鱼薯条德里克
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-01T06:03:01.447Z
Spoken modern Chinese itself is not short at all.
炸鱼薯条德里克
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-27T17:53:58.827Z
It can be one of the shortest, but a mystery for most of the people :)
r13
<classical-chinese><comparison><number>
Is Classical Chinese the shortest language?
# Is Classical Chinese the shortest language?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-01)

Generally speaking, when a lengthy document or a book is translated into different languages, will the classical Chinese be the shortest translation?

To put in another way, if the same book is printed in different languages with basically the same font size, will the classical Chinese one be the shortest?

For example, for Psalm 119 from the Old Testament:

* English (King James Version): 2,598 words.
* German (Hoffnung für Alle): 3,050 words.
* French (La Bible du Semeur): 2,574 words.
* Japanese (聖書新改訳): 7,348 characters.
* Korean: (현대인의성경): 7,099 characters.
* Classical Chinese ([文理和合](https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E8%81%96%E7%B6%93_(%E6%96%87%E7%90%86%E5%92%8C%E5%90%88)/%E8%A9%A9%E7%AF%87#%E7%AC%AC%E7%99%BE%E5%8D%81%E4%B9%9D%E7%AF%87))：3,417 characters. Since "[each 1000 Chinese characters will usually be translated into about 600-700 English words](https://www.actranslation.com/chinese/chinese-wordcount.htm)", this is roughly 2,000 English words.

**Tags:** classical-chinese, comparison, number

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 然也 ( 確是这样;  It is correct)  
> **username_2**: Instead of comparing words and characters, just convert English, German and French to characters.  
> **username_3**: Mostly Yes, but notice it's mainly written(with the ideographic script, which in most cases use only one square-shaped symbol to represent some meaning, so it's very compat ), spoken ancient Chinese can vary and is not similar with the written form.  
> **username_3**: Modern standard Chinese written form still use hanzi, but becomes much more 言同书 with modern Mandarin, and use much more multiple-syllable words, which is written as multiple square-shaped symbols.  
> **username_3**: Spoken modern Chinese itself is not short at all.  
> **username_4**: It can be one of the shortest, but a mystery for most of the people :)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-04-01. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

it depends on the topic; style of writing, and translation.

[for alphabetic language, one word might contain numerous characters, while for ideographic language, one word = one character]

# when classical chinese is longer

"traduttore, traditore" (to translate is to betray) - 迻譯即背叛　⋯　2 vs 5 words

nautical terms, such as cutter, ketch, schooner; in which, one can grep its meaning and form an mental image directly.

in classical chinese, the word is longer

cutter - 雙頭帆小船　⋯　1 vs 5 words

ketch - 高前桅雙桅帆船　⋯　1 vs 7 words

schooner - 高後桅雙桅帆船　⋯　1 vs 7 words

or, buddhism terms, such as:

[अनुत्तरा सम्यक् सम्बोधि (anuttarā samyak sambodhi)](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%98%BF%E8%80%A8%E5%A4%9A%E7%BE%85%E4%B8%89%E8%97%90%E4%B8%89%E8%8F%A9%E6%8F%90) 
- 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提　⋯　3 vs 9 words

bhūtânityatā - 諸行無常　⋯　1 vs 4 words

bhūtânātmatā - 諸法無我　⋯　1 vs 4 words

śāntaṃnirvâṇam - 涅槃寂靜　⋯　1 vs 4 words

<http://cbeta.kepan.org/sahant/7>

<http://cbeta.kepan.org/sahant/37>

# when classical chinese is shorter

well, chinese poem should be the shortest, amongst any languages.

taoism related text is, also. e.g. in 周易參同契:

金伐木榮．三五與一

cutting down by metal, the wood prosperous; three, five and one. (frankly, i don't think this book is "translatable"; i just give a word-to-word translation here, omitting background knowledges, assumptions; and implications)

<https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=99940&page=59>

now, 8 classical chinese word vs 11 english words.

> when a lengthy document or a book is translated into different languages, will the classical Chinese be the shortest translation

imo, again, it depends on the topic; style of writing, and translation.

have fun :)

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: You are confusing words with characters. For instance, `cutter - 雙頭帆小船` is 1 vs 1 word, 6 vs 5 characters.  
> **username_5**: interesting interpretation, think again what’s “character” & “word” in english, and chinese; please   
> **username_7**: I think the comparison is unfair. For example, one that has not heard of `cutter` cannot infer what a cutter is, but in the Chinese version  雙頭帆小船, I can at least guess that it is a small boat with a double sail.  
> **username_5**: “nautical terms” is mentioned beforehand   

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2019-04-01. Score: 1

yes，Classical Chinese is the shortest language（in my memory）.

classical chinese：

> 关关雎鸠，在河之洲。窈窕淑女，君子好逑。

modern Chinese：

> 关关鸣叫的水鸟，栖居在河中沙洲。善良美丽的姑娘，好男儿的好配偶。

English：

> merrily the ospreys cry, on the islet in the stream.gentle and graceful is the girl,a fit wife foe the gentleman.

if you read the 《山海经》(Classic of Mountains and Seas or Shan Hai Jing),pre-Qin China book.you will know it.


---

