Rethinking about Qian Zhongshu and Classical Chinese

Xiaoyin: Whether we like it or not, Qian Zhongshu is a well-known cultural phenomenon in contemporary China, a well-known institution. The formation process of this phenomenon and its formation mechanism still need to be deeply studied by researchers in various fields, such as sociology, political science, literature, and history. I myself study social sciences, linguistics and literary translation, so I am willing to make a little contribution to related research from these aspects.

I think that learning is, in the final analysis, a process of breaking through what others say, breaking through existing mindsets or authority to gain new knowledge. After my essay was published, some money fans questioned my Qian Zhongshu theory. There is no problem with questioning, and questioning is crucial to clarifying problems and advancing new knowledge. Anyone who is serious about academic research welcomes questioning, and scholars or viewpoints that do not welcome questioning or cannot be questioned are, without exception, rogues, zombies, or dogmas.

But what's interesting is that most of the defenders who are willing to take the lead seem to be following others' opinions, and they can't make much sense. This phenomenon is very interesting.

I don't know if Qian Zhongshu would cry or laugh if he was still alive to see this phenomenon, or he would not know whether to laugh or cry. But this phenomenon may also reflect the current atmosphere in another aspect. This makes us have to ask: When did this practice become a considerable climate when you don’t know what to do, copy what others say, and spray shit when you don’t agree or even confront each other?

The climate phenomenon itself may be more important or more relevant than the question of Qian Zhongshu and classical Chinese, including political and military significance. The clamor of "retaining land but not people" in attacking Taiwan Island was born in this general environment where wanton spraying of feces has become a commonplace and routine.

Undoubtedly, this climate has something to do with the birth and growth of Qian Zhongshu as a cultural phenomenon. But it may also be related to the Internet age - in the Internet age, face-to-face communication has decreased and online communication has increased, and online communication allows people not to directly face the reactions or consequences caused by inappropriate remarks, which induces many people to choose reckless Squirting or venting.

Most of Qian Zhongshu's fans pretend they don't understand or spray dung as a defense. How did this phenomenon come about? This is another topic worthy of careful study. To be honest, using this topic is totally worthy of doctoral dissertation-level research. A good study of this question is enough to climb to the top of international sociology, politics or China studies in one fell swoop.

On the other hand, there seems to be further discussion on the issue of manure spraying.

I don't think there's any problem with the discussion questions being sharp, intense, and sarcastic. It is normal for people involved in academic discussions to be emotional. After all, a living person is not a robot without emotions, and the reason why a living person is a living person is mainly characterized by the ups and downs of emotions or emotions. In addition, participating in a discussion with emotions or showing emotions in a discussion is a good thing in a way, it can even be a compelling rhetoric. Discussion and clarification of many issues depend on more people paying attention.

Rhetoric is about controlling the proportions just right. The display of emotions must also be restrained, and academic discussions should not be turned into emotional vents. In any case, it's disgraceful to spray shit during an academic discussion or any issue. Because spraying feces is not only a barbaric act that tramples on basic courtesy and hinders discussions, but spraying feces is equivalent to announcing that he is a loser, an unlucky person, and a loser. Only those who are poor in reason and at the end of the road will spray dung. Reasonable people are mostly confident enough to believe that they can convince people with reason.

The following are my thoughts on Qian Zhongshu's literary translation and classical Chinese issues published through Douban Broadcasting, as well as my discussions or debates with Douban friends and neighbors. It is assumed that the relevant thinking and debate touches on some crucial academic issues that need to be studied and discussed in depth. These problems mainly focus on three aspects:

1. What kind of attitude to learning should be upheld as a scholar;

2. How should one view one's social responsibility as a citizen rather than a subject;

3. How valuable is it to write classical Chinese/ancient Chinese as a modern person..

Each of the above three questions is currently a so-called open question in the English-speaking world. Under the current circumstances, the first two issues cannot be openly and fully discussed or debated in mainland China, but the fragmented and inadequate discussions/debates are also very interesting and can be used as very good thinking skills.

The third question can be discussed relatively openly and fully, but for some reason there is almost no discussion related to it in the discussion after the publication of the essay " How Can Qian Zhongshu Play with Classical Chinese ". Up to now, only one friend mentioned that Qian Zhongshu used classical Chinese to write Guan Zhui Bian during the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" so that many people could not understand it so as to protect themselves.

This view seems to have been first seen by the scholar Lei Yi. On May 31, 2016, Phoenix TV's "Qiangqiang Threesome" program, Lei Yi said, "He has some heretical thoughts that can only be expressed in the language that others cannot understand. It is also a kind of self-preservation, and also his cultural habits."

Lei Yi's statement seems very plausible, but when you think about it, there are obvious obstacles and difficulties. For example, the writing of "Tanyilu" was not carried out during the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution", so it makes no sense to explain that Qian Zhong wrote classical Chinese to protect himself. All that seems to be valid now is just a "cultural habit" or writing/writing habit left.

Lei Yi's statement actually originated from Qian Zhongshu himself. Ke Ling, an old friend of Qian Zhongshu, wrote in his 1989 article "Knee Gossip Zhongshu Jun" that he once asked Qian Zhongshu why he used classical Chinese to write the two volumes "Tan Yi Lu" and "Guan Zhui Bian". For academic works, Qian Zhongshu's answer was: "Because they were all written in an era that was difficult to preserve, and it was also a test of how flexible the old style was to accommodate new ideas."

Qian Zhongshu's own statement is as difficult as Lei Yi's, because it is written in classical Chinese, which has limited circulation and is not conducive to preservation. As for the purpose of writing books in classical Chinese to "test the flexibility of the old style to accommodate new ideas", his experiment was obviously a failure, because his frequent mistakes in translating foreign languages from classical Chinese clearly showed that the old style of classical Chinese was used. Inability to express new ideas thoughtfully. And the significance of his experiment is exactly what question 3 above questioned.

It is no exaggeration to say that the above three unresolved issues are of great significance, and the three issues and related discussions can be recorded in history and literary history.

-----------------------------

Qian Zhongshu was deceased, and there was no point in whipping a corpse or dancing on the grave of a dead person. Besides, he had no grievances or enmity with me. In the circumstances at the time, he was a rare good person who consciously refused to participate in evil. But as a descendant, I think it is very important to have a correct understanding of the pros and cons of the words and deeds of the predecessors, otherwise we can only roll in the mud pits of the predecessors for the rest of our lives. We should know that it's easy to say one-liners, even I can. But it's hard to be good at learning.

Continue to say [It's easy to say one-liners, even I can say it. But it is difficult to do well in learning.] The so-called one-liners in learning mean that a person suddenly has an idea when he is reading, his association is activated, and he sees some similarities between writers and works, so he points out. It's like someone saw that the root of He Shou Wu is very similar to the human body, so they made an article about it. But this kind of knowledge is unsustainable, He Shou Wu is indeed not human, and it is poisonous.

Qian Zhongshu seems to have a lot of fans right now, but I guess most of them are blind worship following the trend. Many people spread rumors and say that he has shocked many famous Western scholars. In fact, they are all nonsense. His novels are first-rate whether short or long, but his knowledge is mostly third-rate or not. His biggest problem is that he likes to be smart too much, but he is the most taboo in learning to be smart, because most people who are smart can't explain things clearly.

This humble article discusses the academic and technical issues of Qian Zhongshu as a scholar. It is entirely from the perspective of learning and technology that Qian Zhongshu eats rice that plays with words, but word games are neither good-looking nor fun. Because he likes to be clever, but being clever is mistaken by cleverness. He thinks that his classical Chinese and prose can be masterful, free to do whatever he wants, but in fact he is stretched and suffocated. Not pretty. This is a serious lesson.

Thinking about it carefully, saying that Qian Zhongshu lacks in-depth reasoning ability probably misses the point. A more accurate statement seems to be that the problem of money is not a problem of ability, but a problem of courage, wisdom, and morality. He is very smart, but lacks courage, wisdom, and morality. Take his short article "Opening up of newspapers is a general trend" as an example, it is hard to say that he does not understand reason, but he is ignorant of reason and conscience, and he is clever to cater to some people's wishes. Bad.

Strictly speaking, Qian is not lacking in the ability to reason, but he is too fond of being clever all his life, and he is unwilling to put in the effort to reason well. From an academic point of view, this is very problematic. There are at least three aspects to the problem: 1. Laziness; 2. Cheap vanity; 3. He obviously doesn't understand and refuses to speak the truth, so his brain will be short-circuited, and over time, he will gradually lose his ability to reason. His late performance did have this problem.

***

Xi Yan: However, some things do not need to be reasoned in depth, they are obvious when they are laid out.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: The problem is, it's just not very valuable to put it on. For example, the very serious problem of educational injustice now (the candidates from other provinces are dozens of times more difficult to get into a good university in mainland China than the candidates in Beijing), is it useful to just show it? It has to be reasoned in depth to be useful, doesn't it? Therefore, in-depth reasoning is very important and necessary. But it is difficult to reason deeply (it is difficult to make it clear, and it is difficult to express it). Things that are not easy to do are often more valuable than things that are easy to do.

***

On June 3, 1988, Guangming Daily published Qian Zhongshu's short article "Opening up of newspapers is a major trend". The full text is as follows:

We are now an opening society, and the reform of newspapers is a manifestation of opening up. The degree of openness of newspapers this year has been surprising to some people, and this is a general trend. Mandarin is no longer popular, but there is more to say; as long as there are officials, there cannot be no Mandarin. "Guangming Daily" has a great influence, and you have a great responsibility for running a newspaper. The so-called transparency, there is always a limit, such as people, transparent enough to wear no clothes or even peel off the flesh, it is not enough. Don't think that the politics of the bourgeoisie are completely transparent. They have things that are tightly wrapped, and of course, any burden will inevitably have flaws or holes.

Qian Zhongshu liked to be witty all his life, and in his later years, he even became obsessive, as shown in the above short article. His brain is indeed clever, but unfortunately it is not used in the right way. He is clever (cunning, slick, shrewd), but not wise (wise, wise). I am afraid most of his fans are embarrassed to express support or agreement with these words of his. Because he shakes his wit in a posture of annihilating right and wrong or non-relativistic, similar to saying to someone who has been violently sexually assaulted, [Change your mentality, and the feeling of being inserted can be a kind of enjoyment]. This is a shameless wit, and a taboo for scholars and gentlemen who cherish feathers.

***

" Looking at How Qian Zhongshu Can't Play Classical Chinese " This humble essay was published on Douban with twists and turns. It was first published for two years and was inexplicably banned, and it was revised, supplemented and republished. Then, if there is a typo, it will be revised and supplemented before publication, and then it will be reviewed in the black box. Thank goodness it sees the light of day again now. Watching it move in and out of the world like this is like witnessing a person being waterboarded—the head is pressed into the water, almost suffocated to death, then pulled out, just gasping for two breaths, and then pressed into the water, and so on and so forth. three.

Friends and neighbors raised a good question related to this article: ordinary students and enthusiasts cannot identify their knowledge, why did he get official praise? Maybe he's always been a playful goodie, a pug, seemingly sharp, but always docile. These words seem harsh, but in the preface he wrote to Yang Jiang's "Six Records of Cadre School", he said that in the face of injustice, he can generally do not actively participate, but he never dared to protest. He was quite frank.

After seeing "How to play Qian Zhongshu can't play classical Chinese", there will definitely be money fans jumping. But if the money fans are not mentally retarded, after reading the truth I said calmly, they should have to obey. My reasoning is actually very simple, that is, as a modern person, it is impossible for him to travel back to the ancient times to speak for the ancients, nor can he use ancient prose to describe things that the ancients have not seen (hey, what would Sima Qian call a VPN). So it can be said that he has been walking a dead end.

In this article, Qian Zhongshu's translation of foreign writers' words in classical Chinese/ancient Chinese is often lost. It seems like an accidental accident, but it is inevitable. It was all the product of his deliberate and exhaustive thinking. This is the case. It can be seen that the classical Chinese/ancient Chinese translation is indeed a dead end. Whose classical Chinese is better than Qian Zhongshu's? Qian Shang is so miserable, it would be unwise to refuse to accept the lesson and insist on walking the dead end. This is very clear.

Why do modern people write ancient prose as if they were handcuffed and shackled and tripped over themselves? The reason is very simple: you are not an ancient person, no matter how well you write ancient prose, the ancients cannot read it, and you are unlikely to write well. In addition, there are too many things in modern life that the ancients have not seen, from computers to jeans to erotic lingerie to condoms to Antarctic travel, there are simply no ancient texts. You are not asking for trouble and embarrassment by writing in ancient Chinese, you are sick.

When it comes to the question of Qian Zhongshu's translation in classical Chinese, the fact that Zhuowen did not mention is that all the translations he translated are fragments of foreign languages. It is relatively easy to translate fragments, and he is so full of errors and omissions that it would be appalling to translate a large piece. Qian Zhongshu is so adept at classical Chinese. People who are not familiar with classical Chinese must be confused when translating in classical Chinese. For example, Gu Zhengkun translated Shakespeare in classical Chinese. Almost every line is outrageous or hilarious.

***

Wan Shanshen: First of all, ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign, and classical vernacular are three pairs of concepts that intersect vertically, rather than one-to-one correspondence in time and space. If you don't even have this simple way of thinking, it means that you didn't even understand the meaning of the first chapter of "Tanyilu". Second, you don't have to take a sarcastic stance to everyone who doesn't fully agree with you, as if you want to be different and can't stand it. Finally, if you do not welcome dissent and discussion, you can completely close the comment area and forward it, or indicate that you are a glass heart at the end of the article, and we will take care of you.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: My dear sir, I am not glass-hearted. You see I publish articles just to get criticism so I can learn and improve myself. By the way, do you really understand or pretend to understand "Tanyilu"? I don't want to ridicule you, I just challenge you. I think this is the correct attitude and attitude to do learning. If you say you understand, I have hundreds of questions I want to ask you, and I wonder if you can answer one or two. If not. I'm going to wonder if you're pretending to be coercive or not. Please tell me if you have any opinions or explanations on the issues I pointed out in "Tanyilu". I am willing to listen.

You don't study translation, that's fine. However, people who are learned need to be serious. When they see something wrong with what others say, they can of course criticize them, or they can criticize them sharply. But be careful not to bullshit. [First of all, ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign, and classical vernacular are three pairs of concepts that intersect vertically, rather than one-to-one correspondence in time and space], you are a typical nonsense, and you have a rich style of writing books, which is not good. Let me tell you a unique trick for learning: Anything with super-high premise is basically nonsense and a joke. That's what you said. Because if you start a conversation, you will immediately be full of loopholes. Do the learning to try to avoid saying such things.

***

Wan Shanshen@Σκρυτινιυμ: Then he can point out the problem seriously, instead of yin and yang under every forwarding. I have no intention of targeting him at all. If you really have a jade in your heart, why are you willing to pack it in a garbage bag? -

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: Honey, a [Yin-Yang Weird Qi] exposed your glass heart, didn't it? You refused to tell me what my problem was, and refused to refute me, but you kept accusing me of being yin and yang. Excuse me, what is the definition of yin and yang? As long as it's not your favorite expression, it's yin and yang? Sir, you are being lewd. You'd better keep your garbage bags. good.

***

Wan Shanshen: Look at all my replies again. If this is not "speaking well" or "refuting it well", then I really don't know how to "speak well". I would like to ask whether Qian wrote these two books to translate or to discuss his own ideas? Is it necessary to deliberately insert a vernacular translation into the long classical Chinese in order to accommodate the translated arguments? The foreign language material is just an argument. For the harmony of the whole book, the classical Chinese translation is adopted, so that there are errors in the details and meaning, it is understandable. Of course, if there is an error that affects the point of view, please let me know and I will learn from you.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: Dear Sir, I think you are a serious person, I want to talk to you seriously, no joke. Yes, I think you didn't say it well, and refute it well. First of all, as a translation researcher, can I read books written in classical Chinese by Qian from the perspective of translation? I guess you would say: yes. In that case, can I point out his translation errors/problems? I guess you will probably say again: yes. That being the case, your comments to me here are not nonsense? Isn't it bad to say it well, not to refute it well? Dear sir, do you see any sense in what I am saying?

***

Wan Shanshen@Σκρυτινιυμ: Qian has not received any modern translation education, so he is harsh from the perspective tempered by translation theory; at the same time, Qian’s level of classical Chinese is indeed very high, which cannot be achieved by most people under the education of modern vernacular, but only Modern people seem to be pretending. May I ask where I have questioned your Haitian teacher that may displease him? Am I not agreeing with his criticism of money? Your Strait teacher is a meal of yin and yang.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: Dear Sir, you are obviously not very knowledgeable. A friend of mine has listed in my diary the English translation by Qian Zhongshu in the vernacular, which is very accurate and vividly proves my point. That is, his use of classical Chinese is unwise, he is cutting his feet to fit his feet, and he is asking for it. Unlucky, looking for embarrassment, and stumbling on yourself. This has nothing to do with his lack of modern translation education. If you have anything else to say, please say it.

***

Blue Apple: Although Qian Zhongshu often omits the details when he translates foreign languages in classical Chinese, he is quite reliable when he translates in vernacular. All the details of the original have been preserved:

The lunatic, the lover, and the poet

Are of imagination all compact.

One sees more devils than vast hell can hold;

That is the madman.

The lover, all as frantic,

Sees Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt.

The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,

Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;

And as imagination bodies forth

The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen

Turns them to shapes, and gives to aery nothing

A local habitation and a name.

The madman, the lover, and the poet are full of solid imaginations. The madman sees more devils than the vast hell can hold. The lover is as mad as a madman, and he sees the beauty of Helen in the face of an Egyptian. The poet rolls his eyes, with a subtle madness in them, from heaven to earth, and earth to heaven. His imagination forms the forms of things that no one has ever known, and he traces their appearances, so that the illusory things have their exact dwellings and names.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: Yes, you are right at all. I have also seen the example you gave and paid attention to it. But I was afraid that the article would be too branchy, so I didn't put it in. But this example illustrates my point very well, that is, classical Chinese is a shackle, not a weapon, to him. It should be added that his use of classical Chinese is indeed a confused move to promote weaknesses and avoid strengths. He is obviously not an ancient person, but it is stupid to pretend to be an ancient person.

***

Academician of China Duo Academy: Anyone who has read the books of Double Metaphysics and Ci Enzong will not say such stupid words

Phantom of Tsugaru Strait: Dear Academician, can you understand Qian Zhongshu's books (such as "Tan Yi Lu")? If you can understand, I have 876 questions to ask you, can you answer one or two? If you can't understand it, why are you acting like that? I like to treat trolls the most, and I like to play with people who are pretending to be forced. You are just having fun. Let's play and see who can play who? Yes, learning is a game. The rules of the game are that you can't pretend, and pretending doesn't count. clear?

Academician of China Duo Academy: No problem, the consultation fee is 30,000 RMB for one question, please pay first and then answer.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: My dear, don't ask me to ask me a question for 30,000 yuan. If you pay me 30,000 yuan, I will stay away from you. I'm just interested in teasing you. Now I know you have a serious lack of humor. I don't know if it's fun or not, honey, you can do it. I love you.

Academician of China Duo Academy: You're going to die, you middle-aged demented bitch pretending to be a greasy pervert

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: Dear Mr. Academician, your swearing gesture is a little unsightly. dear~

***

Suddenly, I thought of an important problem in Qian Zhongshu's use of classical Chinese to write "Tan Yilu" and "Guanzhuanbian". " and "Guan" are both collections of shaking and clever works. I think I've made a major discovery. The traditional Chinese culture does not emphasize in-depth reasoning but emphasizes the point to the point. The result is that the reasoning is unclear and confused for thousands of years.

Chinese traditional culture emphasizes epiphany and consonance, while Western culture, represented by ancient Greek civilization, emphasizes reasoning. As long as the Chinese understand the righteousness, they will be done, while the Westerners will seek to explain the truth. For example, what is bravery, traditional Chinese literati will give two examples to pull down, but Socrates will discuss it, discuss the relationship between boldness and wisdom and bravery, and clarify the connotation of bravery. Money lacks this reasoning ability.

***

[Cancelled] : I just love to watch Qian Lao Shao and wit. "Every little helps", as the old lady said, when she pissed in the sea. Qian Lao translated it as "The old lady left behind in the sea and said to herself: There is no small supplement."

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: He translated this sentence really well. It's a stroke of genius.

***

Lost in conviction: Classical Chinese cannot be reasoned in depth, only the author is an idiot and has never read such classical Chinese.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: Dear Sir, if you have read the in-depth classical Chinese prose, you should take it out quickly, why hide it. If you can't take it out, you're an idiot, aren't you? Excuse me, are there any in-depth explanations like Aristotle's "Politics", "Ethics" and Socrates/Plato's "Republic"? If there is, you have made a great contribution to world civilization. Dear Mr. Stupid, you are so cute and stupid.

***

Lost in conviction: isn't this just saying that the translation is wrong? Where is the classical Chinese language not working?

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: Dear Sir, Qian Zhongshu cannot translate well in classical Chinese. Does this count as being unable to play classical Chinese? He can translate well in the vernacular, and the translation is very good. Dear sir, if you don't understand and pretend to understand, you are ignorant about what you say, you are confused, and you call other people stupid, you are funny enough.

Lost in conviction: This old idiot has long been famous on Douban, and the concept of stealing is famous, but I still admire him, and he is full of energy.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: Hey, dear, do you think you are stupid? It's a typical idiot symptom, isn't it?

***

Lost in conviction: Isn't there a lot of detailed explanations in "Mozi", "Han Feizi", "Ming Confucianism", and Buddhist scriptures? I really don't understand why you are so stupid.

The Phantom of the Tsugaru Strait: Dear Mr. Stupid, is the reasoning of Mozi and Han Feizi more detailed than that of Aristotle's "Politics", "Ethics", and Plato's "Utopia"? Why don't you go to an international academic conference to announce your great discovery and win the title of the world's number one idiot. Dear, you idiot, you don't know how to pretend to understand and hope to fool people by bluffing. This is not good. Also, are Buddhist scriptures native to China? The Chinese translation of "Politics" means that "Politics" originated in China?

***

Lost in conviction: If I can speak classical Chinese and cannot reason in detail, then I can't say anything, and it is impossible to wake up a person who is pretending to be asleep. It is very unfair to use translation to conclude that Qian Zhongshu's classical Chinese cannot be played well. We should go to Guanzhuan and find it in Tanyi Records. Which of his sentences is grammatically wrong. It's like paraphrasing someone else's words and missing some information, but you say he can't speak well, when in fact what he said is grammatically correct.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: Dear Mr. Stupid, do you know how to use double quotation marks? I said you "[lose confidence] call yourself a fool", are you willing to admit it? Why don't you want to admit it? Because it's not your own words, right? Qian Zhongshu's translation in classical Chinese also uses double quotation marks, but there are many mistakes and omissions. Is this a problem? You say, Qian Zhongshu is a scoundrel, or is he not good at classical Chinese? You can choose any answer.

***

Lost in conviction: either the old fools have secretly changed the concept of the first-class, and the classical translation of Buddhist scriptures can show that it has the ability to express accurately, rather than being unable to reason in detail because it is not native. Whether or not the reasoning is nuanced has a certain relationship with the length of the discussion. To a certain extent, the larger the length, the more nuanced the reasoning. Han Feizi's reasoning in a single aspect is obviously too small. This is not a problem of language performance.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: Dear Mr. Stupid, let me teach you a little more. [Han Feizi's reasoning from one aspect, obviously the space is too small, this is not a problem of language performance], the first half of your words is good, but the second half shows your foolishness. May I ask who limited the length of Han Feizi? Is it not his mind? Isn't he incapable of reasoning in depth and detail? Dear Mr. Stupid, I didn't want to scold you, it was you who came up with the title of Stupid.

Also, dear idiot, according to what you said, you have translated other people's things, for example, you have translated a broad-minded philosophy book from other people, so you are profound and profound? Don't be so cruel to make me laugh to death, okay? I beg you, you just made me laugh so hard. You are so bad, Mr. Stupid. It seems that you are really not stupid, you can laugh and kill. Dear Mr. Stupid, where did you learn this trick? Also from traditional culture?

***

Lost in conviction: Isn't the question you raised at the beginning that classical Chinese is not suitable for in-depth and detailed reasoning? This is from the perspective of tools. When I said that classical Chinese can be used as a tool for meticulous reasoning, you also said that people who use tools can't. Isn't this a problem?

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: My dear, I want to praise you for not spewing feces this time. But I still have to criticize you for being out of your mind. Let me ask you, since classical Chinese can reason in detail, why is Qian Zhongshu unable to speak in classical Chinese, so he is often stretched out? Are you trying to imply that Qian Zhongshu is stupider than you?

Lost in conviction: You always infer that a tool is not good by the person using it that it is not, when in fact the tool can be good.

Tsugaru Strait Phantom: My dear, I would like to commend you again for resisting the urge to spray feces and making a reasonable effort this time. Like~. Then, I want to ask you, have you ever thought that classical Chinese is a special product of China, but Chinese people have never been able to use it to write in-depth and detailed articles, why? Is it because the Chinese are inferior? Not really. Isn't there a problem with the classical language itself? Even Qian Zhongshu can't reason well in classical Chinese, is that Mao? think about it.

References:

1. From Ke Ling's letter about Qian Zhongshu (whb.cn)

2. Lei Yi: Qian Zhongshu used classical Chinese to write "Guanzhuanbian" is a kind of self-preservation_Phoenix Satellite TV (ifeng.com)