[mbivert]

Ah, I perhaps should have read all the comments before posting here, because it seems that you're answering my question, and confirm this idea that phonetic interpretation of written Chinese is a "recent" development.

This idea seems to be foreign to all native Chinese speakers I've encountered, and this seems to be in contradiction with what I can grasp from research.

If I may, I've got another related question: Chinese speakers all parrot this idea that literary Chinese is to modern (let's set aside character simplification) Chinese what (ancient?) Greek is to English.

But it's not my impression, at all; my intuition is that they don't properly understand neither Greek nor literary Chinese. For example, a modern Chinese speaker can be expected to read literary Chinese and at least make some sense out of it, but a modern English speaker won't even be able to read (ancient?) Greek, let alone interpreting it.

[CorrectHorseBat]

>confirm this idea that phonetic interpretation of written Chinese is a "recent" development.

As I understand it, this is a recent development as in the science of language is a recent development. We might not have known about it but it was always there.

I think the comparaison with Greek or Latin is a good one. I can read modern French and Chinese, and my understanding of Latin and Classical Chinese is about the same: virtually nonexistent, at most a word here and there. The reason why Chinese understand it is because they learn it at school.

[naniwaduni]

There's no great analogy where the modern language is English, because English does not position itself as a successor of a long, linguistically-continuous literary tradition. That said, there is certainly an Anglo tradition of education in which well-educated schoolboys were expected to be able to puzzle through a smattering of horribly butchered Greek and Latin.