RECENTLY some Chinese scholars have complained that the inclusion of many English abbreviations such as NBA (National Basketball Association) in a newly published Chinese dictionary violates current laws and regulations governing the use of Chinese language.

They claimed that the main body of the newly published "Modern Chinese Dictionary" includes 239 entries containing letters from the Latin alphabet, which are treated as if they are common Chinese words.

In a joint letter, around 120 scholars said that as an authority on the correct use of the Chinese language, the dictionary's inclusion of so many English words is a threat to the purity of the Chinese language, resulting in linguistic damage probably unprecedented in modern history.

While the perceived damage is yet to be assessed, I think the threat these scholars alert us to is very real.

Sadly, their initiative has not gone down well with the general populace. Most of the media comments call these scholars alarmist, conservatives who are eminently out of touch with reality, or pedants seeking attention by creating a stir.

'Practical' objections

The objections are "practical": If we're not allowed to use GDP, CPI, or CT, we would be hard pressed to find any Chinese equivalents so succinct and expressive. We might face the dilemma of never being able to suggest these wonderful things.

Or is it because these abbreviations obfuscate so well?

How many Chinese officials enthused about GDP know this metric that has come to encapsulate all that they can aspire to in their political career is no more than some "products."

The same is true of CT. It saves the patient - probably doctors too - the trouble of knowing what it actually is. In spite of this, enunciating the letters flatters their vanity.

Some say that knowledge is power. Actually ignorance empowers even better. Look at those chic ladies and girls sporting handbags marked LV, or C, or YSL. Their lack of understanding about what these esoteric symbols stand for actually heighten their pleasure in exhibiting these handbags.

Similarly, when an economist divulges on the latest PMI, PPI, or EEI, he is spared the trouble of explaining in what ways these measures concern our daily life.

Due to linguistic peculiarities, much can be lost in translating a Chinese poem to English. But it would be ridiculous to claim that GDP, CPI, or CT are untranslatable.

Any suggestion that the Chinese language is too clumsy to absorb new concepts could only have proceeded from ignorance, and a disdain for the language.

We can imagine that if the United States and the United nations were founded today, they would have a higher chance in China of being called by their English original, rather than the cumbersome and slightly misleading meiguo or lianheguo.

Nothing shows the "the grass-is-greener-on-the-other-side" mindset better than the labels and advertisements around us.

If you look around, nearly all the computers, handsets, shoes or toys around us are made in China. Do you notice how many of them are branded, labeled, or explained in Chinese?

A couple of days ago on the Metro, I found the "Emergency Call" sign much more conspicuous and "dignified" than its Chinese counterpart. Does this practice conform to the relevant law on language use?

When a thoroughbred foreign label is not available, pinyin can also impress the uninitiated.

Some have observed that part of Haier's success lies in it having a brand name that many mistake for German.

Motorola and Nokia have the misfortune of being translated into Chinese, albeit phonetically, but Apple no longer finds it necessary to turn iPhones into Chinese. Both Motorola and Nokia are now in trouble.

In line with this mindset, we are not only abstaining from doing the disservice of translating a good brand, we are also beginning to reconsider some fairly established earlier Chinese renderings.

For your information, today the preferred translations for "party" (a social gathering) and "show" (display) are paidui and xiu, which sound more like the original.

If you are smart enough, to adorn your speech with a fair sprinkling of English terms can add enormously to your prestige.

Impact on children

The influence on the children can be more serious. While many adults pretend to be ignorant of the Chinese equivalents, many children's upbringing and education means that they are sometimes more comfortable with the English expressions.

They "Yeah!" when excited, "wow" or "My God" when surprised, "bye-bye" when parting, and "quack," "peep," and "bow-wow" when mimicking the cries of some domestic beasts. The next edition of "Modern Chinese Dictionary" can consider some of these as new entries.

Some media critics can be so critical of the scholars' purist efforts exactly because one can easily commit a linguistic sin with impunity.

For instance, right above a Chinese commentary (September 3, Oriental Morning Post) lashing the above-mentioned scholars as fussy trouble makers, was the name of the page not only in Chinese, but also in English as "Comment & Analysis."

What would they think of an English or American local tabloid having each of its pages designated in Chinese?

I have also seen the English "or" or "and" inserted in headlines of some Chinese tabloids. These excesses violate the legal provision that "when foreign words have to be used at all in Chinese publications, they must always be explained in Chinese."

And according to the law, the Chinese language law should govern the use of Chinese in media, signs, advertisements, and packaging of commodities.

Obviously, to include these unnecessary abbreviations in a Chinese dictionary would effectively legalize these imports, for a dictionary is deemed an authority on not only what is being used, but also about the correct and good usage.

As some experts have pointed out, even English dictionaries are fairly discreet about including new words, and the decision is often subject to the advice of a panel when a usage is problematic or controversial.

Yes, there is the progressive and fashionable trend of treating words, phrases, and syntactic structures in a descriptive approach, which tends to record the language as it is actually used, rather than in a prescriptive approach, which lays down rules for correct usage.

The descriptive approach would encourage permissiveness, resulting in accelerated corruption of the Chinese.

We have good reasons to expect a more prescriptive role played by our educators, writers, journalists, TV anchorpersons, and, most of all, lexicographers.

A language should be valued for what it is. It has nothing to do with efficiency, with computer input, or Internet access.

Over 100 years ago, the Fowler brothers warned in their "King's English" of the "real danger of our literature being americanized." To illustrate their contention, they observed that Rudyard Kipling's style "exhibits a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency in the choice of epithets and other words that suggests the application of colored photography to description; the camera is superseding the human hand."

In a certain sense, the decision of dictionary compilers should have the force of the law, institutionalized through the media and publications.