黄仁宇说汉字“要将可以眼见耳闻的事物极度地延伸，才能成为可以理解的观念（有如‘抽象’即系抽出其相，与‘具体’只具有其体相对）”，这话从何说起，又要如何理解？

谢谢各位了！

的确比较费解，但是百度一下，联系上下文还是能看出一点黄所希望表达的内容的。

“只是既有长处也有短处，其引用起来，不管是一条吊慰的短柬或是一张实验室的报告，同样要从摆方块的形式作起点。中文的前置词和联系词少，抽象的意义只能重楼叠架构成(如本书文句中之“的”后带“之”，“之”后又“的”)。也要将可以眼见耳闻的事物极度地延伸，才能成为可以理解的观念(有如“抽象”即系抽出其相，与“具体”之具有其体相对)。其为单音字，又要写上十个字才能代表十个音节。文人用笔，通常省略当中某些环节(例如“一将功成万骨枯”，只有两个子句，当中无联系词，也不知道所说系理论抑是事实)，虽说言简意赅，却不是严谨、正确的通信工具。”

我的理解是黄认为汉字文法会比较随意，其实往往在字面下有着很复杂的“抽象"的意义，所以要读的人“极度地延伸”体会一段文字，才能得到“可理解的观念”……

他的例子就是“一将功成万骨枯”，我粗俗的按照英文的方式翻译，一个将领成功了/上万的白骨枯朽了。这的确是需要一些“延伸”才能体会作者的思想的。当然这个例子没有到“极度”的地步罢了。

不过倒想看看他英文版里是怎么叙述这些话的。

最后一句点醒了我。去查阅了英文版，原文如下：

“But within its strong points comes its weakness. It turns every line of thought to the same process of combining the square scripts, be it a note of condolence or a laboratory analysis. Auxiliaries serving as prepositions and conjunctions are few. Abstract concepts can only be laboriously presented, usually by overstretching the meaning of the solid elements, thus converting the perceptible into the conceivable. The monosyllabic language furthermore demands an equal number of characters to keep appointment with the tones pronounced. A convention practiced by the literati is to omit some parts of speech, which, while making the writing elegantly terse, inevitably impairs its usefulness as an instrument of precise communication.”

那一句“”的原文是：

“Abstract concepts can only be laboriously presented, usually by overstretching the meaning of the solid elements, thus converting the perceptible into the conceivable.”

粗略翻译一下，应该是“抽象的意义只能被费力地提出，通常通过‘过度延伸具体形象的涵义’这一方式，继而才能将直观的事物转换成想象中的事物”

这样就很好理解了。黄一定是在恶意卖萌啊，对于他自己所说的汉语缺陷身体力行什么的太那啥了……

最后一句点醒了我。去查阅了英文版，原文如下：

“But within its strong points comes its weakness. It turns every line of thought to the same process of combining the square scripts, be it a note of condolence or a laboratory analysis. Auxiliaries serving as prepositions and conjunctions are few. Abstract concepts can only be laboriously presented, usually by overstretching the meaning of the solid elements, thus converting the perceptible into the conceivable. The monosyllabic language furthermore demands an equal number of characters to keep appointment with the tones pronounced. A convention practiced by the literati is to omit some parts of speech, which, while making the writing elegantly terse, inevitably impairs its usefulness as an instrument of precise communication.”

那一句“要将可以眼见耳闻的事物极度地延伸，才能成为可以理解的观念（有如‘抽象’即系抽出其相，与‘具体’只具有其体相对）”的原文是：

“Abstract concepts can only be laboriously presented, usually by overstretching the meaning of the solid elements, thus converting the perceptible into the conceivable.”

粗略翻译一下，应该是“抽象的意义只能被费力地提出，通常通过‘过度延伸具体形象的涵义’这一方式，继而才能将直观的事物转换成想象中的事物”

这样就很好理解了。黄的注释不仅有多余之嫌，甚至把前面应该协同理解的一句“抽象的意义只能重楼叠架构成”给隔开了。这一定是在恶意卖萌啊，对于他自己所说的汉语缺陷身体力行什么的太那啥了……