[In two sections, because I'm just that long winded.]
It's not even really a question of getting it right or wrong. There isn't just one way of transliterating Chinese into roman characters. Peking and Beijing can be pronounced the same way. For that matter, there isn't just one way of pronouncing Chinese words, there being a lot of different dialects - and what we call Mandarin is actually a pretty modern creation, though it's strongly based on North-Eastern and especially Beijing speech. (And make no mistake - Mandarin and Cantonese are probably further apart than Italian and French. The written languages are *supposed* to be the same, though they aren't, entirely, either. Before I moved to Cleveland, Shifu would take me to the Four Family Association dinner every year, and we'd both sit there trying to puzzle out what they were saying, both of us speaking Mandarin and only understanding a little Cantonese. She, of course, is a native mandarin speaker, but I used to hang out with the then mostly Cantonese students in the Chinese student association.)
*wry* I try to look at it all as an exercise in non-attachment.
Keep in mind that European concepts of nobility don't really map to China.
The traditional explanations tend to describe it as an ebb and flow - families would work their butts off, accumulate money, manage to get a few members through the imperial examinations, get position, get property... and then over several generations piss it all away, rinse and repeat. The same description was often applied to dynasties - the founders would be very charismatic effective leaders of a rebellion, would set the country to rights, and some number of their successors would be as well. But after enough generations they'd either get caught up in internal politicking, become absorbed in other activities, or otherwise become ineffective and not do the important business of keeping the country running, things would get generally more and more chaotic... and eventually there would be another rebellion.
Of course, that's a simple model with a lot of philosophical biases. And it's not like the basic rule that them that has, gets was circumvented. But throughout all of this, anyone with both the money to educate a son and a bright and hardworking son could aspire to have their kid pass the examinations and get a governmental position, which was a path to power and influence, so a lot of resources were funneled in to that. Meanwhile, once they passed the exams, at least at first, they were usually sent off somewhere else, without much in the way of influence or backup, and often ended up having to rely on the local people with money and power to get anything done. (If you've ever seen Chinese Ghost Story, that's the position the male lead is in setting out - brand spanking new tax collector - yeah, way to make friends and influence people - not!)
no subject
It's not even really a question of getting it right or wrong. There isn't just one way of transliterating Chinese into roman characters. Peking and Beijing can be pronounced the same way. For that matter, there isn't just one way of pronouncing Chinese words, there being a lot of different dialects - and what we call Mandarin is actually a pretty modern creation, though it's strongly based on North-Eastern and especially Beijing speech. (And make no mistake - Mandarin and Cantonese are probably further apart than Italian and French. The written languages are *supposed* to be the same, though they aren't, entirely, either. Before I moved to Cleveland, Shifu would take me to the Four Family Association dinner every year, and we'd both sit there trying to puzzle out what they were saying, both of us speaking Mandarin and only understanding a little Cantonese. She, of course, is a native mandarin speaker, but I used to hang out with the then mostly Cantonese students in the Chinese student association.)
*wry* I try to look at it all as an exercise in non-attachment.
Keep in mind that European concepts of nobility don't really map to China.
The traditional explanations tend to describe it as an ebb and flow - families would work their butts off, accumulate money, manage to get a few members through the imperial examinations, get position, get property... and then over several generations piss it all away, rinse and repeat. The same description was often applied to dynasties - the founders would be very charismatic effective leaders of a rebellion, would set the country to rights, and some number of their successors would be as well. But after enough generations they'd either get caught up in internal politicking, become absorbed in other activities, or otherwise become ineffective and not do the important business of keeping the country running, things would get generally more and more chaotic... and eventually there would be another rebellion.
Of course, that's a simple model with a lot of philosophical biases. And it's not like the basic rule that them that has, gets was circumvented. But throughout all of this, anyone with both the money to educate a son and a bright and hardworking son could aspire to have their kid pass the examinations and get a governmental position, which was a path to power and influence, so a lot of resources were funneled in to that. Meanwhile, once they passed the exams, at least at first, they were usually sent off somewhere else, without much in the way of influence or backup, and often ended up having to rely on the local people with money and power to get anything done. (If you've ever seen Chinese Ghost Story, that's the position the male lead is in setting out - brand spanking new tax collector - yeah, way to make friends and influence people - not!)