[dwohnitmok]

I'm actually with colorincorrect here. There's a nontrivial overlap between formal modern Chinese and Classical Chinese.

This is especially evident if you ever read contemporary Chinese works about Chinese history. Large tracts of Classical Chinese are discussed without translation assuming the reader understands the text in question and often the contemporary work itself can read very classically.

Modern literature can also occasionally lapse into Classical Chinese constructions for a sentence or two.

And anecdotally I don't think I've ever met a Chinese high school graduate who didn't have some proficiency with Classical Chinese.

I've said this before elsewhere, sometimes it's useful to think of Classical Chinese as a separate language from modern Chinese, sometimes it's useful to think of it as an extremely elevated register of modern Chinese. Modern literary works can be more or less "classical" in nature depending on the whims of the author.

[thaumasiotes]

> There's a nontrivial overlap between formal modern Chinese and Classical Chinese.

> This is especially evident if you ever read contemporary Chinese works about Chinese history. Large tracts of Classical Chinese are discussed without translation assuming the reader understands the text in question and often the contemporary work itself can read very classically.

If you read some non-contemporary early modern English literature, you may find Latin, classical Greek, or French discussed or used without translation in the expectation that the reader will be able to understand it directly.

But this is evidence that the reader is expected to have undergone significant training, not that English speakers can understand ancient Greek without training.

> And anecdotally I don't think I've ever met a Chinese high school graduate who didn't have some proficiency with Classical Chinese.

We can be even more definite here: this is because Chinese high school graduates have all received training in Classical Chinese.

[dwohnitmok]

You can successively "classical"ize a Chinese work that you can't do with English or French vis-a-vis Latin. I can take a sentence and iteratively make it more and more classical. Here's the sentence "His name is John," successively made more classical. Every version except the last can be found in all sorts of modern Chinese written works. Conversely every version except the first is valid Classical Chinese.

Even within Classical Chinese you can be more or less "Classical."

他的名字叫约翰。

其名为约翰。

其名约翰。

其名约翰也。

Moving away from examples in the language itself, high-level programs of advanced modern Mandarin comprehension, both for foreign speakers and native speakers test for some knowledge of Classical Chinese.

Every modern Chinese language for foreign speakers learning program I know of dedicates at least one (if not multiple) module at the advanced level to Classical Chinese (this is separate from a dedicated Classical Chinese course that goes in more detail) with Classical Chinese readings.

For ILR level 5 modern Mandarin fluency the U.S. State Department explicitly lists knowledge of Classical Chinese (to the level of a native speaker) as a prerequisite (and in fact Classical Chinese shows up on a sample test I cannot find at the moment).

It is also a component of the HSK level 6, which suggestively calls it “能读懂略带文言色彩的文章“, that is "can read articles with a slight amount of Classical Chinese flavor" hinting again at a register-like relationship.

And of course Chinese comprehension tests for native speakers in China and Taiwan have a Classical Chinese component.

I would be very surprised to find any similar standard for Latin and English or Latin and French. What ESL program teaches Latin?

Note this isn't just cultural pride from China. These are foreign institutions that have deemed a certain amount of Classical Chinese necessary to understand the modern Mandarin corpus (more so than just set phrases such as sine qua non in English, but true grammar and independent vocabulary).

Sure everyone receives training in Classical Chinese, but that's because it's a symbiotic relationship. Because everyone knows Classical Chinese it influences the modern language. Because it influences the modern language it becomes a prerequisite for Chinese language programs (even those for foreign speakers).

[thaumasiotes]

> And of course Chinese comprehension tests for native speakers in China and Taiwan have a Classical Chinese component.

> I would be very surprised to find any similar standard for Latin and English or Latin and French. What ESL program teaches Latin?

> Note this isn't just cultural pride from China. These are foreign institutions that have deemed a certain amount of Classical Chinese necessary to understand the modern Mandarin corpus (more so than just set phrases such as sine qua non in English, but true grammar and independent vocabulary).

It is just cultural pride from China, but cultural pride with many ramifications.

Literacy standards including Latin for high registers of English don't exist now. But they used to. And standards of Latin for high registers of French are of course even more historically normal -- there was a long period where Latin was the highest register of French (exclusively in writing).

You're making the point that Chinese people receive extensive training in Classical Chinese and are therefore familiar with it to differing degrees. But you know what they're not familiar with to differing degrees? Their modern language, which they all know natively. The fact that they can read some Classical Chinese after being trained in it just isn't evidence that they could read it before being trained in it.

[dwohnitmok]

I'm saying Classical Chinese and modern Chinese are to an extent inseparable and that this is reflected in every Chinese teaching program domestic or foreign.

Can you show me a sentence that is both Latin and English or both Latin and French? There are plenty of such examples for Classical Chinese and modern Chinese.

At times there's a blurry line between Classical Chinese and modern Chinese. It's a false dichotomy to say that you can train in advanced modern Chinese without training in some Classical Chinese.

Here's a non-exhaustive list of things in Classical Chinese you'll be exposed to because they're still widely used in modern Mandarin.

Its most common pronouns (especially first and third person): 我、其、之 etc.

Its connectives: 为、于、乃、因、与etc.

Its lack of 是 as "to be" and instead leaving "to be" implicit between verbs and nouns: take e.g. the PRC's constitution. Many paragraphs use 是 as "to be" zero times. Few use it more than once or twice.

On a similar note its demonstratives: 此、彼、兹、indeed even 是 again.

And when it comes to standard vocabulary, most of the time a classical meaning of a character remains productive in modern Chinese.

There's certain Classical Chinese works I'd be comfortable using to assess a foreign speaker's modern Mandarin comprehension. For example if a speaker cannot read the 2nd century poem 凤求凰 (especially the first part), they almost certainly cannot read a modern newspaper article. It reads almost exactly like how a modern angsty teenager might try to write a modern Mandarin love poem.

Just about the only category of things you won't see in modern Chinese from classical Chinese are its interjective particles (兮、也、矣、etc) which have no semantic meaning.

What makes Classical Chinese difficult to read for a modern Chinese reader is its extreme concision and its grammatical flexibility. Its vocabulary is only a secondary concern. I would say if you know modern Mandarin, you know probably around 70% to 80% (depending on the text) of the words you'll see in a classical Chinese text, especially for texts after the Warring States period. You're definitely not going to totally understand the text and it's going to be feel laborious picking over each paragraph, but you will understand the gist of what's going on, just based on your modern Mandarin knowledge.