Teacher Discussion Forums

So there I was looking stuff up in my Oxford Pocket Chinese Dictionary, and my eye fell upon 'venom' (which is literally 'poison liquid', du2ye4, in Mandarin). Anyway, it occured to me that e.g. snakes can be said to secrete venom, and not knowing what 'secrete' in Chinese would be, I decided to look it up.

The English-Chinese half of the dictionary has two senses for the verb 'secrete', 1: fen1mi4 (the "physiologically secrete" meaning) and 2: yin3cang2 (the "secrete money in a drawer" sort of meaning) - all well and good, but I then noticed that there were two noun senses; basically these were the verb ones (Chinese doesn't inflect), reversed no less (!?), and representing the word 'secretion', which I thought only occured in English (I can't really comment for Chinese) in the sense of 'the product of a physiological process' (?!'material external object(s), often valuable(s), that somebody has secreted/hidden away'?!).

Am I right in thinking that the 'something hidden away' usage is just a "latent" or nonce-ish one? I suppose it might exist/be attested somewhere, but listing it as the first meaning of the "noun in English-to-Chinese" at least would seem to contradict the order of the verb entries for a start.

Edit: I've just also noticed that the apparent Chinese equivalents of 'secretion' (or should that be the Chinese equivalents of apparently the two meanings of the English noun according to Oxford LOL) are preceded by a and [C] respectively, which would suggest that a mistake has been made with the ordering at least - that still leaves two rather than only one translation of the English noun!

The equivalent(s) in other languages could perhaps be informative...

Much ado about nothing ultimately, but reading this might have beat finishing the crossword eh!

secretion
1646, from Fr. sécrétion, from L. secretionem (nom. secretio) "separation," from pp. stem of secernere "to separate, set apart" (see secret). The verb secrete in this sense is a back-formation first attested 1707."

secret
1378 (n.), 1399 (adj.), from L. secretus "set apart, withdrawn, hidden," originally pp. of secernere "to set apart," from se- "without, apart," prop. “on one's own” (from PIE *sed-, from base *s(w)e-; see idiom) + cernere "separate" (see crisis). The verb meaning "to keep secret" (described in OED as "obsolete") is attested from 1595. Secretive is attested from 1853. Secret agent first recorded 1715; secret service is from 1737; secret weapon is from 1936.

etymonline.com



I have an Oxford Chinese-English learners dictionary that's fantastic (lots of collocations and examples, most of which are in pinyin too - I can't read characters). What's the pocket one like?

Hi again Heath!

The OPCD is basically a 1999~ revision of the venerable Oxford/Commercial Press famous little red Concise E-C/C-E Dictionary (which may also have been revised since 1986 or so). To call the OPCD a pocket dictionary is a bit of a misnomer though, as it is a good 25% bigger in the length dimension (higher?), twice the width, and perhaps about a quarter thicker (almost 5cm, though this is primarily due to using somewhat thicker paper) than the somewhat more pocket-sized Concise (you'd still a need pretty big pocket though even for the Concise!). But it is good to be able to read all the characters thanks to the appreciably larger font (more complex characters in the Concise can become illegible blobs, though there is a deluxe sort of red-cloth effect gold-embossed edition sold in mainland China ironically which has reasonably clear printing), and the OPCD isn't so large or heavy that it doesn't sit easily enough in the hand or fit into bags. I now prefer using it so the too small, "brick"-like Concise (which is hard to open up, hold and consult with only one hand even the characters are relatively simple and clear, due to its width not being much greater than the thickness of its spine and binding i.e. it is not as flexible as the OPCD). Sorry to go on about the size and "handling" of the dictionaries, but these could be important factors for some buyers.

(Edit: Actually the OPCD seems to have been retitled as the Oxford Chinese Dictionary around 2004 - Oxford probably realized that the title was a bit misleading!).

I'm not quite sure what your Oxford Chinese-English learners dictionary is like, but I'm guessing it is a bilingualized one-way (i.e. E-C only) edition of one of Oxford's monolingual learner/EFL dictionaries (such as the OALD). If so, those are great for their wide range of examples from English into Chinese, but are obviously of no use for looking up characters (for which you'd need something like the bilingual OPCD or Concise, which have a radical index halfway through them [or rather, indexes of characters arranged by radical], between the E-C and C-E sections, in which one can look up characters that one doesn't know, or have forgotten, the exact the pronunciation of). If however you mean one of the various editions of the bilingual two-way (E-C/C-E) beginner's work by Boping Yuan and Sally Church (which I doubt, but I'll just mention it for the potential benefit of others reading this thread), that is a nice little dictionary with a fair bit of good introductory stuff/sections/info for beginners, but a bit too small for serious/continued study, or even for travel purposes.

Yeah, the Church and Yuan one. "Starter Chinese". Simple, but nicely designed with plenty of stuff I find useful.

I agree with you about it being not that useful for 'serious/continued' study, but I couldn't imagine someone needing more than that for travel purposes. As vague as giving a general level is going to sound, my spoken Chinese is probably good Pre-Int level, and there's plenty in that dictionary for me still.

Well, just comparing the first page of the English-Chinese half of the Yuan & Church with that of the Langenscheidt bilingual dictionary (which I would consider a better dictionary for travel purposes), at 'about' there's the useful phrase What's it ~ ? (book, film) jiang3shen2mede? in the Langenscheidt, but only a book about China yi4ben3 guan1yu2 Zhong1guo2 de shu1* in the Yuan & Church (the C-E half of either dictionary meanwhile is inconclusive/uninformative at both jiang3 and guan1(yu2) with regard to using either phrase in questions relating to plots for example); then, there's both 'abnormal' and 'normal' in the Langenscheidt's E-C half (and corresponding entries in its C-E half), but only 'normal' (and its corresponding entry in the C-E half) in the Yuan & Church.

Sure, the "omission" in the Yuan & Church of 'abnormal' < > bu2zheng4chang2 isn't an insurmountable problem for anyone with an elementary knowledge of Chinese (i.e. how to negate linguistic items), but it is a slight inconvenience, and the Langenscheidt lists hundreds of bu... entries whilst the Yuan & Church manages only two dozen (you never know, there might be people who'd want to learn and/or be "absolutely sure of" a few negatives at once), and it again allows quicker checking due to the doubling up i.e. having not only the unmarked positive entries but their negated counterparts allows look up at either.

Then, there are items (drawing on the Langenscheidt appendix of mainland PRC versus Taiwanese usages, though the mainland ones all appear in the dictionary proper too) such as DVD (shu4zi4 shi4pin2 guang1pan2/ shu4wei4 xian3shi4 guang1die2) and Band-Aid (TM LOL)/adhesive plaster (now apparently not the good ol' xiang4pi2gao1 "rubber ointment" of the OPCD, but rather chuang4ke3tie4/OK beng4) that simply do not appear in the Yuan & Church. So the Langenscheidt is a great dictionary, in the words of the editors "rich in sense distinctions" such as "is the mouse you need for your computer...the same in Chinese as the mouse you don't want in your house?". (Again, the Yuan & Church lack the computer term, but the Langenscheidt provides not only the PRC term but also the Taiwanese equivalent...not that the character for mouse doesn't appear as one half of each regional bisyllabic compound, or that one couldn't mime the object and its use in say a computer store! The OPCD has the PRC term, by the way).

The only "problem" however with the Langenscheidt is that, like the ABC dictionaries, it is completely alphabetized by Pinyin, which can take a bit of getting used to for those who've previously had only "first character('s Pinyin) in compound"-sorted dictionaries like the Yuan & Church (though the OPCD has the more prototypical presentation of this time-honoured type of sort order). For example, -an... compounds (in Pinyin-characterS) in the ABC and Langenscheidt get interrupted by -ang... ones, which can get tiring as the size of the dictionary and thus the list of items gets longer. But generally completely-Pinyinized ordering is the quickest look-up if you know at least the rough pronounciation (whereas with "first-character sort", you need to get not only the tone right but will also find it helps to know and look for what the first stroke of the character is, especially in those sections such as 'shi', or 'yi' etc! That is, dictionaries like the OPCD assume a greater familiarity with characters than may be the case with the average user in a hurry).

Anyway, if you're thinking of buying another dictionary, the OPCD isn't bad 'cos at least it's two-way (E-C/C-E), but you might like to consider the ABC Comprehensive Chinese-English Dictionary for a great one-way bilingual, and the Far East Chinese-English Dictionary (Simplified Character edition**) isn't bad either (beware the Pinyin-ordered spin-off rather than original Kangxi radical-ordered edition however, as I believe the Pinyin-ordered effort is only about half the size).

Heh, sorry to go on again, but I do enjoy using and comparing dictionaries, and assume that at least some of what I'm saying will be of interest!

*The very same example appears in the OPCD, IIRC in the C-E section at guan1(yu2).

**The words SC should perhaps be in scare quotes (thus: "Simplified Character" edition) because although the main entries indeed supply the simplified form alongside the traditional for any given character (where such a difference exists), the dictionary's indices (by radical, or by total stroke count) only deal in traditional forms (wed to a Kangxi arrangement), thus making it impossible to look up non-trivial (e.g. having more than just something like the simpler 2-stroke rather than traditional 7-stroke left-side "speech" radical) simplified characters on the basis of their graphic form. For example, one will search in vain in this radical index for the simplified 2-stroke "cliff" radical-resembling form of, and thus character number/entry for, chang3 'factory' - only the traditional 15-stroke form is to be found, and then only under the 3-stroke "broad roof" radical.

Most of the Chinese people I know, Beijinger and North-Eastern, say "beng (4) di (3)" (not 100% sure on the tones) for Band-Aid. Have you come across that one too?

Nope, can't say/claim I really know that one (bear in mind that I was in Japan the past eight years!), but then, I usually could find boxes of 'em easily enough in Chinese pharmacies, and always carried a few (plasters LOL) in my wallet (this was China, remember), so I never needed to actually ask for any - not that that would be much help to someone with the Yuan & Church who was trying to look the item up and/or needing to ask!

But who needs dictionaries when they've (still) got native speaker informants to hand? (You in China, or a Chinatown somewhere, Heath?). It's enough to make one jealous, or at least start reminiscing a bit!

I'm in Beijing.

But don't ask how long. How little my Chinese has improved is embarrassing. I'm like the final evidence of the need for a balance of exposure and study...

Most people in China have been studying for 10 years but haven't had any exposure - huge vocabularies and passive understanding of structures and patterns. I've been exposed for years but haven't studied - comfortably fluent with a rather limited vocabulary, no understanding of tones, and completely illiterate.





What was Japan like?

Sorry for the delay responding - was busy trying to complete a few bits and pieces of projects.

Japan on the surface at least is generally a more comfortable place to travel or live - better service, amenities, products etc. I'm not sure though which place is better for working, wining and dining, socializing. I suspect that inflation and a reduction in any perks have made the standard of living worse for FTs in China, whilst Japan has always seemed to me a bit less genuinely easy and gregarious a place (I could make fast frienships just walking down the street in China, but in Japan, unless you have a reason and an "in" into a place or organization, then you can be more or less ignored - which is good in some respects, but obviously bad sometimes in others. Just comparing my time on "countryside" JET - very comfortable but a little too sedate sometimes - with my later "adventures" working and commuting around Tokyo for dodgy dispatchers).

Have you been to Japan yet, Heath? Just wondering how you yourself reckon they('d) compare. And I'd be interested in hearing any opinions and experiences that people have of other Asian countries.

Just out of interest, a bit about my Chinese study:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/job/viewtopic ... 165#737165

And about studying (being able to, or not) while working abroad:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/job/viewtopic ... 013#721013

More secrets from the "Ox files"...

The original Oxford/Commercial Press little red Concise E-C/C-E Dictionary (1986), on which the O(P)CD is based, had the following entry:

proof 1 /pru:f/ adj ~ (against) &#19981; &#33021; &#31359; &#36879; &#30340; bùnéng chu&#257;ntòu de; &#33021; &#25269; &#25377; [&#25803;] &#30340; néng di3dang3 de: ~ against bullets, 'bullet-~ &#38450; &#24377; &#30340; (fángdàn de - FH) > foolproof. &#61543; vt &#20351; &#38450; &#27700; shi3 fángshui3; &#20351;...&#19981; &#34987; &#31359; &#36879; shi3 bú bèi chu&#257;ntòu.
proof 2 n .....

I don't know about anyone else, but the proof against bullets struck me as odd ('proof' in that phrase sounds more like a verb, or a noun), but then, the COBUILD Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives does have a section (ADJ against n) with the example The houses had to be made proof against flies, scorpions and mosquitoes among other less "unusual" ones e.g. Other doubts are whether the tunnel could be made safe against terrorism or accidents (i.e. 'safe' is much more an adjective than 'proof' will probably ever seem [to me at least!], especially considering that the 'proof' sentence could be expressed as 'made fly-, scorpion- and mosquito-proof', or 'had to be proofed aganst...' instead, eh!).

Anyway, the O(P)CD has the following entry instead (which is probably an improvement on the 1986 Concise's*, if only because the order/prominence given to the respective word classes is reversed [as it should be]; there is no mention/treatment of the verb at all though - one is presumably meant to take one's cue from just the adjective's details):

proof 2 /pru:f/ adj (&#29992; &#20197; &#26500; &#25104; &#22797; &#21512; &#35789; [used in forming compound words - FH]) &#25239;...&#30340; kàng...de; &#38450;...&#30340; fáng...de; &#32784;...&#30340; nài...de: ,bullet-~ 'glass &#38450; &#24377; &#29627; &#29827; (fángdàn b&#333;li - FH). 'water~ &#38450; &#27700; (fángshui3 - FH).

Oh, and FWIW, the 1986 Concise only has the "physiological" sense for the noun 'secretion', but marked and [C].

Anyway, the point of all this is that no dictionary is perfect, and what you might gain on the swings you can lose on the roundabouts.

*Note however that the Concise is now available in a Third edition. It would be interesting if anyone with a copy could comment on the similarity or difference in entries between the "two" dictionaries nowadays (me, like I say, I updated to the O(P)CD but not to a new edition of the Concise, as I'm assuming the new Concise is very similar to the O(P)CD).