That's what the fact is, anything etymological contrasts there might be, the significant works of each and every culture are available to interpretation. But in the present China there is a development called social nativism (bentu zhuyi) that fights that the Chinese language is novel and that Chinese characters are a statement of the 'public soul'; they enter its kin's contemplations and its aggregate oblivious (or dreams). At the end of the day, they can be viewed as a feature of the Chinese people groups' social DNA. Predictable with this conviction, social nativists are requesting are go to 'local examinations', as well as a finish to the act of reformatting old style Chinese texts utilizing current (for this situation Western) classifications. Furthermore, they are especially hateful of Western sinologists, but gifted, for lacking what they call 'social relationship'. What is being guaranteed is that a non-Chinese speaker, even one who has dominated the language, can never truly grasp China or its kin. As such, the Chinese language is basically muddled to non-Chinese.
This is all garbage, obviously. Anyway unfamiliar a text might show up on first experience, it can continuously be converted into another dialect: to that end we have a world writing. Thoughts can be conveyed across time and culture. Eventually, social nativism is a telling illustration of an issue with a well established edified conviction that each informed individual in the world ought to try to gain proficiency with a language other than his own. That is the reason, to cite the Nobel Prize victor Gao Xingjian, language is 'a definitive crystallization of human civilisation'. He takes note of: 'The composed word is likewise mysterious for it permits correspondence between discrete people, regardless of whether they are from various races and times. It is additionally in this manner that the common present time in the composition and perusing of writing is associated with its everlasting profound worth.'
Furthermore, what is the act of worldwide relations, asked the researcher Michael Oakeshott, in the event that it isn't what he called broadly 'the discussion of humanity'? It merits citing him finally:
Yet again in discussion 'realities' show up just to be settled into the conceivable outcomes from which they were made; 'convictions' are demonstrated to be burnable, not by being carried into contact with other 'assurances' or questions, however by being encouraged by the presence of thoughts of another request; approximations are uncovered between countries regularly remote from each other. Contemplations of various species take wing and play around each other, answering each other's developments and inciting each other to new effort. No one asks where they have come from, or on what authority they are available; no one really tends to think about what will happen to them when they have had their influence. There is no doorkeeper to inspect qualifications.