Editing Chinese classifier (section)

== History ==
=== Classifier phrases ===
[[File:Shang_dynasty_inscribed_tortoise_plastron.jpg|right|thumb|An [[oracle bone inscription]] from the [[Shang dynasty]]. Such inscriptions provide some of the earliest examples of the number phrases that may have eventually spawned Chinese classifiers.|alt=An off-white, ovular turtle shell with an inscription in ancient Chinese]]
[[Historical linguistics|Historical linguists]] have found that phrases consisting of nouns and numbers went through several structural changes in [[Old Chinese]] and [[Middle Chinese]] before classifiers appeared in them. The earliest forms may have been ''Number&nbsp;–&nbsp;Noun'', like English (e.g. 'five horses'), and the less common ''Noun&nbsp;–&nbsp;Number'' ('horses five'), both of which are attested in the [[oracle bone script]]s of Pre-Archaic Chinese (circa 1400&nbsp;BCE to 1000&nbsp;BCE).<ref name=Peyraube107Morev78-9>{{Harvnb|Peyraube|1991|p=107}}; {{Harvnb|Morev|2000|pp=78–79}}</ref> The first constructions resembling classifier constructions were ''Noun&nbsp;–&nbsp;Number&nbsp;–&nbsp;Noun'' constructions, which were also extant in Pre-Archaic Chinese but less common than ''Number&nbsp;–&nbsp;Noun''. In these constructions, sometimes the first and second nouns were identical (''N1&nbsp;–&nbsp;Number&nbsp;–&nbsp;N1'', as in "horses five horses") and other times the second noun was different, but semantically related (''N1&nbsp;–&nbsp;Number&nbsp;–&nbsp;N2''). According to some historical linguists, the ''N2'' in these constructions can be considered an early form of count-classifier and has even been called an "echo classifier"; this speculation is not universally agreed on, though.<ref name=Peyraube108>{{Harvnb|Peyraube|1991|p=108}}</ref> Although true count-classifiers had not appeared yet, mass-classifiers were common in this time, with constructions such as "wine&nbsp;–&nbsp;six&nbsp;–&nbsp;{{uline|yǒu}}" (the word {{lang|zh|酉}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|yǒu}} represented a wine container) meaning "six {{Transliteration|zh|yǒu}} of wine".<ref name=Peyraube108/> Examples such as this suggest that mass-classifiers predate count-classifiers by several centuries, although they did not appear in the same word order as they do today.<ref name=Peyraube110Wang171>{{Harvnb|Peyraube|1991|p=110}}; {{Harvnb|Wang|1994|pp=171–72}}</ref>

It is from this type of structure that count-classifiers may have arisen, originally replacing the second noun (in structures where there was a noun rather than a mass-classifier) to yield ''Noun&nbsp;–&nbsp;Number&nbsp;–&nbsp;Classifier''. That is to say, constructions like "horses five horses" may have been replaced by ones like "horses five {{uline|CL}}", possibly for stylistic reasons such as avoiding repetition.<ref name=Morev78-9>{{Harvnb|Morev|2000|pp=78–79}}</ref> Another reason for the appearance of count-classifiers may have been to avoid confusion or ambiguity that could have arisen from counting items using only mass-classifiers—i.e. to clarify when one is referring to a single item and when one is referring to a measure of items.<ref name=Wang172>{{Harvnb|Wang|1994|p=172}}</ref>

Historians agree that at some point in history the order of words in this construction shifted, putting the noun at the end rather than beginning, like in the present-day construction ''Number&nbsp;–&nbsp;Classifier&nbsp;–&nbsp;Noun''.<ref name=Peyraube106Morev78-9>{{Harvnb|Peyraube|1991|p=106}}; {{Harvnb|Morev|2000|pp=78–79}}</ref> According to historical linguist Alain Peyraube, the earliest occurrences of this construction (albeit with mass-classifiers, rather than count-classifiers) appear in the late portion of [[Old Chinese]] (500&nbsp;BCE to 200&nbsp;BCE). At this time, the ''Number&nbsp;–&nbsp;Mass-classifier'' portion of the ''Noun&nbsp;–&nbsp;Number&nbsp;–&nbsp;Mass-classifier'' construction was sometimes shifted in front of the noun. Peyraube speculates that this may have occurred because it was gradually reanalyzed as a [[modifier (linguistics)|modifier]] (like an adjective) for the head noun, as opposed to a simple repetition as it originally was. Since Chinese generally places modifiers before modified, as does English, the shift may have been prompted by this reanalysis. By the early part of the [[Common Era]], the nouns appearing in "classifier position" were beginning to lose their meaning and become true classifiers. Estimates of when classifiers underwent the most development vary: [[Wang Li (linguist)|Wang Li]] claims their period of major development was during the [[Han dynasty]] (206&nbsp;BCE – 220&nbsp;CE),<ref name=He3>{{Harvnb|He|2001|p=3}}</ref> whereas Liu Shiru estimates that it was the [[Northern and Southern dynasties]] period (420–589 CE),<ref>{{Harvnb|Wang|1994|pp=2, 17}}</ref> and Peyraube chooses the [[Tang dynasty]] (618–907 CE).<ref name=Peyraube111-117>{{Harvnb|Peyraube|1991|pp=111–17}}</ref> Regardless of when they developed, Wang Lianqing claims that they did not become grammatically mandatory until sometime around the 11th century.<ref name=Wang3>{{Harvnb|Wang|1994|p=3}}</ref>

Classifier systems in many nearby languages and language groups (such as [[Vietnamese language|Vietnamese]] and  the [[Tai languages]]) are very similar to the Chinese classifier system in both grammatical structure and the parameters along which some objects are grouped together. Thus, there has been some debate over which language family first developed classifiers and which ones then borrowed them—or whether classifier systems were native to all these languages and developed more through repeated [[language contact]] throughout history.<ref name=Erbaugh401Wang2>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|p=401}}; {{Harvnb|Wang|1994|p=2}}</ref>

=== Classifier words ===
Most modern count-classifiers are derived from words that originally were free-standing nouns in older varieties of Chinese, and have since been [[Grammaticalization|grammaticalized]] to become [[bound morphemes]].<ref name=Shie76Wang173>{{Harvnb|Shie|2003|p=76}}; {{Harvnb|Wang|1994|pp=113–14; 172–73}}</ref> In other words, count-classifiers tend to come from words that once had specific meaning but lost it (a process known as [[semantic bleaching]]).<ref name=Peyraube116>{{Harvnb|Peyraube|1991|p=116}}</ref> Many, however, still have related forms that work as nouns all by themselves, such as the classifier {{lang|zh|带}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=帶}})&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|dài}} for long, ribbon-like objects: the modern word {{lang|zh|带子}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|dàizi}} means "ribbon".<ref name=Shie76>{{Harvnb|Shie|2003|p=76}}</ref> In fact, the majority of classifiers can also be used as other parts of speech, such as nouns.<ref name=GaoMalt1130>{{Harvnb|Gao|Malt|2009|p=1130}}</ref> Mass-classifiers, on the other hand, are more transparent in meaning than count-classifiers; while the latter have some [[Etymology|historical meaning]], the former are still full-fledged nouns. For example, {{lang|zh|杯}}&nbsp;({{Transliteration|zh|bēi}}, cup), is both a classifier as in {{lang|zh|一{{uline|杯}}茶}}&nbsp;({{Transliteration|zh|yì {{uline|bēi}} chá}}, "a {{uline|cup}} of tea") and the word for a cup as in {{lang|zh|酒杯}}&nbsp;({{Transliteration|zh|jiǔbēi}}, "wine glass").<ref name=Chienetal92>{{Harvnb|Chien|Lust|Chiang|2003|p=92}}</ref>

{{Quote box | quote=Where do these classifiers come from? Each classifier has its own history. | source=— {{Harvtxt|Peyraube|1991|p=116}} | align=right | width=20% | bgcolor=#FFFFE0  | salign=right}}
It was not always the case that every noun required a count-classifier. In many historical varieties of Chinese, use of classifiers was not mandatory, and classifiers are rare in writings that have survived.<ref name=Erbaugh401Peyraube>{{Harvnb|Peyraube|1991}}; {{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|p=401}}</ref> Some nouns acquired classifiers earlier than others; some of the first documented uses of classifiers were for inventorying items, both in mercantile business and in storytelling.<ref name=Erbaugh401>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|p=401}}</ref> Thus, the first nouns to have count-classifiers paired with them may have been nouns that represent "culturally valued" items such as horses, scrolls, and intellectuals.<ref name=Erbaugh401428>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|pp=401, 403, 428}}</ref> The special status of such items is still apparent today: many of the classifiers that can only be paired with one or two nouns, such as {{lang|zh|匹}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|pǐ}} for horses<ref group=note>Today, {{lang|zh|匹}} may also be used for [[bolt (fabric)|bolts]] of cloth. See "[http://chinesenotes.com/ref_measure_words.htm List of Common Nominal Measure Words]" on ChineseNotes.com (last modified 11 January 2009; retrieved on 3 September 2009).</ref> and {{lang|zh|首}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|shǒu}} for songs or poems, are the classifiers for these same "valued" items. Such classifiers make up as much as one-third of the commonly used classifiers today.<ref name=Erbaugh403/>

{{anchor|other names}}Classifiers did not gain official recognition as a [[lexical category]] (part of speech) until the 20th century. The earliest modern text to discuss classifiers and their use was [[Ma Jianzhong]]'s 1898 ''[[Mashi Wentong|Ma's Basic Principles for Writing Clearly]]'' ({{lang|zh|马氏文通}}).<ref name=He2>{{Harvnb|He|2001|p=2}}</ref> From then until the 1940s, linguists such as Ma, Wang Li, and [[Li Jinxi]] treated classifiers as just a type of noun that express a quantity.<ref name=He3/> [[Lü Shuxiang]] was the first to treat them as a separate category, calling them "unit words" ({{lang|zh|单位词}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|dānwèicí}}) in his ''Outline of Chinese Grammar'' ({{lang|zh|中国文法要略}}) published during the 1940s, and finally 'measure words' ({{lang|zh|量词}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|liàngcí}}) in ''Grammar Studies'' ({{lang|zh|语法学习}}). He made this separation based on the fact that classifiers were semantically bleached, and that they can be used directly with a number, whereas true nouns need to have a measure word added before they can be used with a number.<ref name=He4>{{Harvnb|He|2001|p=4}}</ref> After this time, other names were also proposed for classifiers: Gao Mingkai called them 'noun helper words' ({{lang|zh|助名词}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|zhùmíngcí}}), Lu Wangdao 'counting markers' ({{lang|zh|计标}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|jìbiāo}}). The Japanese linguist Miyawaki Kennosuke called them 'accompanying words' ({{lang|zh|陪伴词}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|péibàncí}}).<ref name=He5-6>{{Harvnb|He|2001|pp=5–6}}</ref> In the {{ill|italic=y|Draft Plan for a System of Teaching Chinese Grammar|zh|暂拟汉语教学语法系统}} adopted by the [[People's Republic of China]] in 1954, Lü's measure words ({{lang|zh|量词}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|liàngcí}}) was adopted as the official name for classifiers in China.<ref name=He7>{{Harvnb|He|2001|p=7}}</ref> This remains the most common term in use today.<ref name=Li1116Hu7WangHe8/>

=== General classifiers ===
Historically, {{lang|zh|个}} {{Transliteration|zh|gè}} was not always the general classifier. Some believe it was originally a noun referring to [[bamboo]] stalks, and gradually expanded in use to become a classifier for many things with "vertical, individual, [or] upright qualit[ies]",<ref name=Erbaugh430>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|p=430}}</ref> eventually becoming a general classifier because it was used so frequently with common nouns.<ref name=Erbaugh428-30Ahrens205>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|pp=428–30}}; {{Harvnb|Ahrens|1994|p=205}}</ref> The classifier {{Transliteration|zh|gè}} is actually associated with three different [[homophonous]] characters: {{lang|zh|个}}, {{lang|zh|個}} (now the [[Traditional Chinese character|traditional-character]] equivalent of {{lang|zh|个}}), and {{lang|zh|箇}}. Historical linguist Lianqing Wang has argued that these characters actually originated from different words, and that only {{lang|zh|箇}} had the original meaning of "bamboo stalk".<ref name=Wang114-5>{{Harvnb|Wang|1994|pp=114–15}}</ref> {{lang|zh|个}}, he claims, was used as a general classifier early on, and may have been derived from the orthographically similar {{lang|zh|介}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|jiè}}, one of the earliest general classifiers.<ref name=Wang95>{{Harvnb|Wang|1994|p=95}}</ref> {{lang|zh|箇}} later merged with {{lang|zh|介}} because they were similar in pronunciation and meaning (both used as general classifiers).<ref name=Wang114-5/> Likewise, he claims that {{lang|zh|個}} was also a separate word (with a meaning having to do with "partiality" or "being a single part"), and merged with {{lang|zh|个}} for the same reasons as {{lang|zh|箇}} did; he also argues that {{lang|zh|個}} was "created", as early as the [[Han dynasty]], to supersede {{lang|zh|个}}.<ref name=Wang115-6158>{{Harvnb|Wang|1994|pp=115–16; 158}}</ref>

Historically, {{lang|zh|个}} was the only general classifier used in Chinese. The aforementioned {{lang|zh|介}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|jiè}} was being used as a general classifier before the [[Qin dynasty]] (221{{Nbsp}}BCE); it was originally a noun referring to individual items out of a string of connected shells or clothes, and eventually came to be used as a classifier for "individual" objects (as opposed to pairs or groups of objects) before becoming a general classifier.<ref name=Wang93-5>{{Harvnb|Wang|1994|pp=93–95}}</ref> Another general classifier was {{lang|zh|枚}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|méi}}, which originally referred to small twigs. Since twigs were used for counting items, {{lang|zh|枚}} became a counter word: any items, including people, could be counted as "one&nbsp;{{lang|zh|枚}}, two&nbsp;{{lang|zh|枚}}", etc. {{lang|zh|枚}} was the most common classifier in use during the [[Northern and Southern dynasties]] period (420–589 CE),<ref name=Wang155-7>{{Harvnb|Wang|1994|pp=155–7}}</ref> but today is no longer a general classifier, and is only used rarely, as a specialized classifier for items such as pins and badges.<ref name=Erbaugh428>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|p=428}}</ref> Kathleen Ahrens has claimed that {{lang|zh|隻}} ({{Transliteration|zh|zhī}} in Mandarin and {{lang|nan-Latn|chiah}} in [[Taiwanese Hokkien]]), the classifier for animals in [[Standard Chinese|Mandarin]], is another general classifier in Taiwanese and may be becoming one in the Mandarin spoken in Taiwan.<ref name=Ahrens206>{{Harvnb|Ahrens|1994|p=206}}</ref>

=== Topological variation ===
Northern dialects tend to have fewer classifiers than southern ones. {{zhi|c=個}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|ge}} is the only classifier found in the [[Dungan language]]. All nouns could have just one classifier in some dialects, such as [[Shanghainese]] Wu, [[Jin Chinese]] in Shanxi, and dialects spoken in [[Shandong]]. Some dialects such as [[Northern Min]], certain [[Xiang Chinese|Xiang dialects]], [[Hakka Chinese|Hakka dialects]], and some [[Yue dialects]] use {{zhi|c=隻}} for the noun referring to people, rather than {{zhi|c=個}}.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Graham Thurgood|author2=Randy J. LaPolla|editor=Graham Thurgood, Randy J. LaPolla|edition=illustrated|publisher=Psychology Press|year=2003|page=85|isbn=0-7007-1129-5|quote=In general, the Southern dialects have a greater number of classifiers than the Northern. The farther north one travels, the smaller the variety of classifiers found. In Dunganese, a Gansu dialect of Northern Chinese spoken in Central Asia, only one classifier, 個 [kə], is used; and this same classifier has almost become the cover classifier for all nouns in Lánzhou of Gansu too. The tendency to use one general classifier for all nouns is also found to a greater or lesser extent in many Shanxi dialects, some Shandong dialects, and even the Shanghai dialect of Wu and Standard Mandarin (SM). The choice of classifiers for individual nouns is particular to each dialect. For example, although the preferred classifier across dialects for 'human being' is 個 and its cognates, 隻 in its dialect forms is widely used in the Hakka and Yue dialects of Guangxi and western Guangdong provinces as well as in the Northern Min dialects and some Xiang dialects in Hunan.|title=The Sino-Tibetan languages|volume=3 |series=Routledge language family|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5MeWSTQ7F44C&dq=wugang+dialect&pg=PA85|access-date=2012-03-10}}</ref>