How do foreigners watch English TV in China? Foreign friends don't understand Chinese and want to watch English TV. what do you think?

A very unique language phenomenon in Chinese is quantifier, which is believed to be a learning difficulty for many foreigners.

Quantifier is one of the most important differences between Chinese and western languages, which not only reflects our unique grammatical rules, but also reflects the differences in the way we interact with the world. Even foreign linguists will come to study quantifiers in our East Asian languages.

When we study English, we often use quantifiers in Chinese to understand "one slice" or "one dozen" in English. In our impression, we will feel that there are quantifiers in English.

In fact, quantifiers are a unique linguistic phenomenon and a unique grammatical rule in East Asian culture. In English, quantifiers are often used before uncountable nouns.

Many foreigners who are not familiar with Chinese often joke. For example, they might say "a person" or "a cat". The problem is that they still can't master the rules of using quantifiers.

What is a quantifier? We usually talk like this-"a handsome guy", which is a quantifier.

Quantifiers can be said to be a common linguistic phenomenon in our China language. It is very sad for a foreign friend to learn Chinese, because he has never understood why China people add quantifiers.

When I was a child, I loved to watch those revolutionary war movies and found that the quantifiers in them were particularly complicated. For example, a pistol must say "pistol"; Machine gun, you have to say "a machine gun"; If you mean Grenade, you have to say "Grenade", but "Grenade" is ok, but it is not good for you to say "Grenade"

To say rifle, you can say "rifle" or "rifle", but it is wrong to say "rifle". It is definitely wrong to say "rifle".

A bullet can be said to be a "bullet", a "bullet" and sometimes a "bullet", but it is wrong for you to say "a bullet".

Sometimes a noun can be preceded by several different quantifiers, and sometimes it can only be followed by one. The mystery here is too deep.

Foreigners are crazy to study here. Why? In most cases, foreigners only need to mention one, two or three nouns before saying them. He says a book, and he doesn't need to say quantifiers. When he wants to say pen, he only needs to say "a pencil" or "a pen". Why do you want to add the word "knowledge"? I am full.

For example, when must foreigners add a quantifier in English? That is to say, something is an uncountable noun, and a quantifier should be added before it.

For example, beer, you say a glass of beer, if this glass is a glass, you say "a glass of beer", because you can't take out the beer glass by glass.

So foreigners don't understand. Obviously, this pencil can be taken out one by one. People in China still say "a pencil". Why do you want to add the word "points"? Is this full?

Quine's two explanations of East Asians' use of quantifiers

This is an interesting question. Why?

Because language communication should conform to the principle of economy in principle, if you add this redundant information, it may destroy this principle. Aren't China people tired?

Quine was the first western philosopher to discover that this problem became a problem.

During World War II, Quinn was recruited by the US Navy to decipher Japanese codes because he was a mathematician and logician.

When he was studying Japanese, he found that there were quantifiers in Japanese. Japanese quantifiers are similar to Chinese, and there are also expressions similar to "three cows". As for cars, we usually say "a car". The Japanese are similar. He can say "a car" or the same thing.

Anyway, we Japanese won't be surprised to see this expression of the Japanese, because we think that Chinese and Japanese cultures are of the same origin, so what's the fuss about their expression like ours?

Quine is stupid at first sight. Why?

His mother tongue is not Chinese but English. He translated a Japanese code, "A light chariot". What does that mean?

"light chariot", that is, light chariot. What is the word "Taiwan Province" in front of it? Because I don't know Japanese, the word "Taiwan Province" sounds like another adjective, which seems to mean that this chariot has other characteristics besides lightness. This feature should be clarified, otherwise it may be very important military information.

He pondered for a long time and asked a Japanese language expert. Japanese language experts say that you can ignore the word "Taiwan Province", so you can use it as a light chariot. Taiwan Province doesn't need to be seen. This is the virtue of Japanese speaking, and the word "Taiwan Province" should be added.

Quine asked why, what did he mean? Why do they waste precious information bytes and express a redundant message?

The expert spread out his hand: Don't talk nonsense. Japanese people have been talking like this since childhood. If you ask me this question, who should I ask? Anyway, if you don't talk, your Japanese is not good. Hearing this, Quine won't be entangled in this problem any more.

After the end of World War II, Quine put forward this example when he was writing some works about the philosophy of language. He said that he was too busy during the war to think about it in detail, so I want to think about it after the war.

For example, when the Japanese say cows, why do they add the word "head" of "three cows"? He gave two explanations-please note, these two explanations are both from the standpoint of westerners, which we in China think sounds a bit strange.

What did the first explanation say?

In other words, the word "head" of "three cows" plays a role in supplementing the number "three". Perhaps the Japanese think that the number "three" is not enough by itself. Only by adding "head" can this cow be defined as a complete unit.

However, from the standpoint of China people, as cultural relatives of the Japanese, we in China will find it very strange why "three" needs the supplement of "head" to become a complete meaning, and "three" itself has a complete meaning.

Is "head" added here to supplement "three"? If you can use "head" to supplement "three", why use other quantifiers to supplement the previous figures in other occasions?

For example, we are not talking about cows, but apples, so we should say "three apples" and "three apples" is feasible, but you can't say "three apples". In the same way, you can say that "three cows" works, but "three cows" doesn't.

Obviously, this implies that which quantifier is used has nothing to do with numbers, but with the nature of the nouns behind the quantifiers.

Say "head" before "cow" and "A" before "apple", not after "three". Therefore, we in China scoff at the first explanation.

I think the second explanation is even more ridiculous. What did Quinn say?

He said why the word "head" should be added and "three cows" should be said, because the Japanese think that cows, like beer and air, are countless and endless substances.

Take air for example. Foreigners should add a quantifier to their English. You can't say "one air". What is "one air"? It doesn't make sense. Only saying "a bottle of air" makes sense.

His point of view is that both China and Japanese believe that cattle are as diffuse as air, so quantifiers are needed to individualize the object of "cattle".

This statement is also very strange, because it seems to assume that we East Asians, such as Japanese and China, have different eyes and nervous systems from their foreigners. In fact, as long as all human beings are similar, of course, cows can also be counted one by one.

You can't finish your beer. Without a container, there is no boundary between beer and beer.

This is not stipulated by language, but by our sensory system. Even this reflects the objective nature of the physical world to some extent.

It is said that we East Asians don't recognize these things one by one with words, so we think that cows are piece by piece. Isn't this a blatant lie? I believe that various conclusions of child psychology and cognitive psychology do not support Quine's statement.

Quine finally gave two explanations, which I think are quite nonsense. Quine didn't say which explanation was right. He said, you see, this shows that translation is difficult.