From the Beijing Morning Post (in Chinese)
Shanghai Daily English summary:
THE United Nations will only use simplified Chinese characters after 2008, the Beijing Morning Post said today, citing linguists.
The UN is currently using both versions of Chinese characters — simplified characters and the original complex form. But the UN has decided to rule out the complex form after 2008, said Chen Zhangtai, chief of the Chinese academy of practical linguistics.
Another noted linguist, 100-year-old Zhou Youguang, also said the UN is preparing to use only simplified characters in all its Chinese files, as it is unnecessary to employ two kinds of characters.
“Meanwhile, the number of people learning Chinese is rising due to China’s increased international influence,” he said. “This will also make simplified characters the unique criterion of Chinese speakers gradually.”
Experts also said simplified characters are also spreading among overseas Chinese people. Although the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government hasn’t issued a special policy, it is popularizing simplified characters. In Taiwan, a number of people are also using simplified characters.
Chinese ranked second in the world’s most widely used languages in 2005, the Post said.
“…in Taiwan, a number of people are also using simplified characters.”
A number of people! haha, I wonder how close the number is to zero.
haha Corey - “A number of people” as in a number of his close buddies he hired to make this point somewhat valid.
The Taiwanese are very steadfast about this whole adaptation thing. My Taiwanese teacher feels very strongly that this simplified form is yes… more user-friendly, but it removes alot of the history of the meanings. She said that this form inspired “lazyness” among the Chinese.
Personally, I’d rather keep learning traditional way, as from there I can decypher the simpler characters.
When I was living in Taiwan I noticed occasional use of simplified characters in handwriting, which isn’t odd since a large number of the simplified characters are traditional “abbreviations” that people had been using in casual writing for quite some time, particularly with the radicals.
This is a part of Chinese communist propaganda.
Total bullshit.
I think makes more sense to have a single written language, and personally I think simplified characters look nicer.
I think traditional chinese characters look a lot nicer and easier to read…. They have less “space” inside the words. The words are easier to teach as well; since each part of a word have their own meanings, children learn the words’ meanings a lot easier…. i.e. the words’ meanings are retained. Another name of chinese characters is “shape words” (象形文字), is it not?
e.g. the character for “door” and “close”.
traditional > simplified
門 > 门; 閉 > 闭
By looking at the traditional character; door - you can visualise a door that pushes open left and right; close - you can visualise a person kicking the door close.
By looking at the simplified character; the door doesn’t even look like a door anymore…..
名 愛爾蘭
This is IRELAND in traditional character.
It’s a work of art.
IRELAND in simplified character,unintersting,boring!!
I’ll wade in - all I can say is having 2 systems makes it a lot harder to learn.
In north america almost all newspapers are in Traditional because most immegrants are from Hong Kong and Taiwan. Most Hong Kong movies have the traditional subtitles. The 2 chinese tv stations in Canada pretty much only use traditional characters. I decided a long time ago to keep learning traditional (using pinyin instead of bwopwomwofwo) and once in a while review simplified. Almost all magazines available in Canada are in Traditional characters. Finally, I find the media from HK and Taiwan much more interesting than that than the government drivel that comes out of china (artsy movies excepted).
I think it is easier to learn traditional and switch to simplified than vice versa. I learned traditional characters and don’t have much trouble reading simplified; if I don’t immediately recognize a character I can normally figure it out from context. Writing is a different matter; It’s harder to guess what the simplified character would be.
By the way, if you know BoPoMoFo and traditional you can use to the “HanWangKaiMediumChuIn” font,
( www.travelphrases.info/gallery.....ional.html)
that automatically adds pronounciation to the characters. I find it a great reading and learning tool.
Much less distracting then pinying.
Since my eyes are so much conditioned on western letters,
I find that if the chinese text has pinying subtitles I end up ignoring the characters and just reading the pinying.
With the BoPoMoFo font, I find myself doing the opposite, paying attention to the chinese characters first,
and reading of the BoPoMoFo only if I’m not sure of the pronounciation.
I’ve heard jokes about simplified characters, mostly stemming from the removal of radicals. e.g.:
Relatives (亲): In Mainland China you can’t see (見) your relatives (親).
Factory (产): Production is bad because the 生 has been removed from the factories (產)
Also there is no wheat in the bread (麵包没有麥 because in simplified it is 面包)
I think the Queen’s English has a lot more depth and beauty than American English, but let’s face it–the world wants American English right now. It’s the same with China and simplified characters. Do the ‘traditionalists’ really want to make it harder than it needs to be for the huge Chinese population to gain literacy and education?
I’m no huge fan of CCTV, but I’d side with the ’simpletons’ on this one. I wish those out there asking for ‘tradional’ character support from Cpod would be a little bit more patient, they are a SHANGHAI-based company, it’s like asking an American company to spell …yikes…I dunno, whatever words the Brits spell diferently, and for me to pronounce ‘been’ as bean instead of bnn. Get the point?
Now, where is that Mao hat of mine? And yah–I’m American studying simplified. I sure am in an obnoxious mood, hope people out there take this all ‘tongue in cheek’.
the Communist party is destroying our culture by destroying our language
if they want to rise the literacy rate,
they should do that by putting more money into the education system,
and build more schools in rural areas, not by destroying our language!
i urge all foreigners who wants to learn Chinese , please learn TRADITIONAL Chinese, please!!
Bazza 吴白锐:
> … and personally I think simplified characters look nicer.
I realize this may be a matter of taste, but given that the Chinese themselves developed their writing to be well-balanced characters, mostly nicely filling a square, 厂 for example just doesn’t look right to me. It’s looks unfinished and unbalanced compared to 廠. Unicode fonts even contain special characters to show how Chinese is supposed to be composed, not sure if this will show here but let’s try: ⿰⿱⿲⿳⿴⿵⿶⿷⿸⿹⿺⿻ These shapes are used to teach writing and character composition, you may have seen them before if you had a good teacher. Notice that all except perhaps the last one fill a square. Many simplified characters don’t follow this practice anymore and I’d argue they are therefore also not as beautiful. It’s also quite telling that even on the mainland, everyone who is serious about calligraphy - certainly the most beautiful way of writing - uses traditional characters.
Lantian:
> I think the Queen’s English has a lot more depth and beauty than American English,
> but let’s face it–the world wants American English right now. It’s the same with China
> and simplified characters. Do the ‘traditionalists’ really want to make it harder than it
> needs to be for the huge Chinese population to gain literacy and education?”
The funny thing is, the literacy rate is still significantly higher in Taiwan and Hong Kong where people learn traditional Chinese than in China where they “simplified” things decades ago (Source: CIA World Factbook). Why is that? Maybe the reason is not in the writing system after all?
In fact, it may sound counterintuitive, but I’d say traditional characters are actually easier to learn - esp. for foreigners. The simplifications are often based on pronounciation, e.g. 历 based on 力 lì vs. trad. 歷. For the Chinese, who learn speaking first as children this MAY make sense, but as an adult learner, you naturally try to make sense out of the characters and with simplified that’s a lot harder. The 力 (power) in 历 (history, past) makes no sense at all. The 止 in 歷 means “stop”. Obviously, something that has stopped is past, history. In addition, you may recognize the 厤 or even 秝 in there, which are all pronounced lì. I don’t need the nonsensical 力.
I can take this even further: Guess what the simplified form of 厤 is? It’s 厤! And how about 止? It’s 止！ So if you learn simplified, you have to learn 厤 and 止 anyway, and then you still have to learn a completely different third form for 历. The guy who learns traditional simply (no pun intended) combines 厤 and 止, and arrives at 歷 - easier AND makes more sense.
The same goes for the first example 廠. You think you “save” learning going with the simplified 厂? Think again. You will still have to learn 敞 becasue that’s also a simplified character. And it adds sense, not just beauty to 厂, which you will miss out on. Besides, as lukelightning pointed out, you think an empty factory is a good thing? Esp. to the highly superstitious Chinese?
Funny episode: When I was in Beijing, I saw 鸡面 on a menu. I could figure out that 鸡 means “chicken”; and I also knew 面, the exact same character in traditional. So, “chicken faces”? I was irritated. It wouldn’t be the first time to see a chicken head on a plate in China, so it’s possible, right? Of course, later I found that in simplified 面 is just a bowdlerized form of 麵 (noodles). Pronounciation-based simplifying. Never mind that 麥 (wheat) is the defining part here, as noodles are made from wheat, not from faces.
I will also never forget how my teacher introduced 東. A sun 日 is seen behind a tree 木 just after it rose above the horizon. The sun rises in the east, so 東 means “East”. I never forgot the character again. Stories like this helped me tremendously and made studying easy and fun. Now try this story with 东!
There’s more. Simplified characters are often simplified to the point where they become very similar, perhaps even differ only by a dot. Take 买实 头 vs. trad. 買實頭. Which is easier to tell apart at one glance? More strokes, yes - but also much more obvious differentiation.
More strokes, that’s the only downside in traditional characters. But it really only is an issue when you handwrite. And who writes long texts by hand these days? When you type, the computer puts the characters on screen or paper for you. It doesn’t matter how many strokes there are, you just have to recognize them to make sure it’s the right one. And recognizing (which brings us back to literacy) will be easier the more clues you have.
So to tie this up, preferring tradiotional over simplified is not just a question of style as in British vs. American English. There are many very real and very practical reasons. I think of simplified Chinese as one of those radical change ideas from the early communist times when they wanted to break with everything old. Unfortunately, while most of the ideas from the cultural revolution and great leap forward are a thing of the past, simplified Chinese is certainly here to stay. What a loss.
Hi Sven, very well said.
On the topic of aesthetics of simplified vs. traditional: While I think traditional look a lot better and more balanced, part of my impression might be because the fonts I’ve seen used for simplified are just ugly. Most Mainland Chinese official signs/banners/whaterver look terribly blocky and inelegant, like they are going for the exact opposite of calligraphy.
It looks like people who prefer Traditional are the more passionate
Here’s my cost benefit analysis.
Later on, I expect to encounter Traditional characters. fairly often.
My computer seems to have more toys for Traditional at the moment, but they’re harder to draw and most learning resources are in Simplified.
I have access to both kinds books.
So, what I’m planning is to learn to hand write simplified, and to read both, from the beginning as I learn each word. That is only about 10% extra effort, as I will explain.
For each new word, I have six things to learn already: English pinyin, pinyin character, character English. (Compare 2 things for European languages e.g. German English)
Therefore it’s little extra effort, proportionally, to add a look at the Traditional character each time. For some but not all words, I will have a seventh unidirectional step Traditional -> Simplified.
Starting Chinese from scratch outside of China, doesn’t that make sense?
If circumstances change after learning, I can concentrate on one or the other without a great amount of extra effort or waste of prior effort.
Oops, my double headed left/right arrows didn’t appear above between English-pinyin and so on, but I think you’ll get the idea.
Lantian, I enjoyed your tongue in cheek posting above, but let me show you another view on one of your points.
I don’t agree that the world wants American English right now. The USA wants it, but the rest of the English speaking world shuns it. I would buy a crappy English or Australian or New Zealand textbook in preference to a good American one any day, and would never buy a used car from someone who didn’t sound like Paul Hogan
Some American books have been refused publication here because their language or spelling was too USA. I don’t like Queen’s English either, but with the deluge of USA English (because their net access is faster and much cheaper) any suggestion that it is my own language causes a gut reaction. I physically cringe at the sight of “color” or “mom”, blush whenever one of our swear words is used as an everyday term, and translate/re-spell any USA written material before passing it on to others, and I’m not alone.
That’s why I say no, the whole world doesn’t want USA English, but the USA does. It also helps me appreciate the feelings of those who want to use traditional characters but are bombarded by simplified characters being presented as the one true way. And the same for those who feel bombarded by traditional characters advocacy.
Let’s keep on accepting our differences enjoy the luxury of diversity, lest we lose it.
I think rather than dropping traditional chinese characters, they should drop simplified. As the fact of the way they had translated it “Traditional.”
And by doing that, if i remember correctly, Hong Kong is still using traditional chinese characters as well as Taiwan. Traditional Chinese has the beauty of Chinese Characteristic.
As by saying this you may think i’m childish(and indeed i’m only 18)
Once my Mandarin teacher back when i was still in Taiwan thought me.
“the character of ‘love’ in traditional and simplified.
in traditional chinese is 愛, simplified is 爱, the same word same meaning, but traditional has a ‘heart’(心) in it, that’s how you feel the love and to give. on the other hand, simplified chinese had excluded the ‘heart’ part and made it ‘easier’ to write.
So where is the love?”
Same as Canadians spell “centre” but Americans spell “centre”
why don’t the UN do something about it then?
(in TW a number of people using simplified… only those junior high kids do that)
it’s traditional Chinese has the beauty of chinese character
everything is unique in this world, why do you want to destory that kind of beauty.
ops.. typo up there
american spells “center”
Re: Sven’s: “There’s more. Simplified characters are often simplified to the point where they become very similar, perhaps even differ only by a dot. Take 买实 头 vs. trad. 買實頭. Which is easier to tell apart at one glance? More strokes, yes - but also much more obvious differentiation.”
Amen to that! I can’t tell you how many times I mix up 广 and 厂 in pronunciation whereas 廣 and 厰 leave no room for that error. (Hm, I didn’t realize it before, but 鸡 actually makes more sense than 雞 though.)
lukelightning - have you heard the one where they take the 心 (heart) out of love 爱? corny I know. 产 Is almost always used with 生 which I case is the simplified folks’ justification for taking 生 out of 產??
I don’t think you can escape writing altogether. I’m often at the post office and bank needing to write. While I way prefer reading traditional, it IS a lot easier to write simplified which I find myself doing even though I’m living in Taiwan temporarily. Aside from a few words, I don’t actually think TW use the mainland form of official simplified characters — they just have this fast scribble way of writing a word without picking up their pen.
IN FACT it is a lot EASIER to learn traditional chinese after you reach a certain level. Writting in simplifed Chinese is easy at first and all………yeah i know, but if you really want to learn it and be able to read it or use it in reality, traditional Chinese is the best choice. Let me tell you why.
It is like trying to take away prefix, root, suffix and all that kinds of stuff, which will help you
to recognize the meaning of the characters even if you have never encounter any of them before.
I think it is really hard to score high in GRE and GMAT if you just memorize all the words and without studying the root and prefix.
Take “biography” as an example. Bio means “life” and graph means “write”. I know that it is really simple for people reading these English articles but biography this word can be really difficult for foreigners to learn, but when that happens, we can always guess the meaning if we knew “Bio” means “life” and graph means write. The same thing can happen to foreigners learning Chinese.
Also, a lotof the prestigious graduate schools in mainland China has set the ability to read traditional chinese as one of their criteria in enrollment of the school, it is the uneducated people that support the idea of abolishing traditional chinese.
Last , you can always learn how to read simplified Chinese if you have mastered traditional chinese, it is really easy, trust me.
However, it is pain in the ass for mainland people to read traditional chinese, why not choose the first one? Most of the historical datas are written in traditional chinese, in few decades, there will be no one that can recognize and interpret the historical datas…..
Hopefully UN will recognize what they are doing. They’re not just destroying the beauty of chinese characters, they’re also making it harder for foreigners to learn chinese.
Though I am a “traditionalist” I’ve started making effort to learn simplified. Despite all the reasons I think traditional characters are better, given the fact that the majority of Chinese people in the world use simplified I figure it’s best to “go with the flow.”
因为很懒惰我自己宁可写字时用简体字，打字看書時用繁體字（尤其看書時為了以前提出詞源的缘故）。
Because I’m lazy, I personally prefer to use simplified Chinese when writing (by hand), but traditional characters when typing or reading （especially reading because of the afore-mentioned etymological reasons).
Against UN abolishment of Traditional Chinese!!!!!
Traditional Chinese is used in Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Taiwan and many other oversea countries.
Why change the situation, how it is like now? Everything works great? Isn’t it so?
Is it really necessary? Can’t the billions of people who speak and write (Traditional) Chinese keep doing whatever they’re doing without caring how the UN writes its documents? How often does a typical person read a UN document? Anyway - I don’t know that I ever have.
Those countries how use Traditional Chinese Characters will get into trouble after 2008, because their official documents and formal school education will not support Simplified Chinese, they only use Traditional Chinese…
* Traditional Chinese lies in the culture artifacts from craving/inscriptions on stones, century-old books down to modern day printed materials in Hong Kong, Taiwan & Overseas. Millions of people have been learning it and using it. What should the people do with the century-old books. In the future nobody will be able to read from it.
* After decades of differences in political and cultural growth, the use of the Chinese language has changed so much. The new vocabulary and usage of Traditional Chinese had already deviated among the Hong Kong people & Taiwanese people. The differences between that and the Simplified Chinese used in mainland China are even greater. How can 3 versions be replaced by one - Simplified Chinese? To help UN save paper and money? To help UN to please the ego of PRC?
* Besides, it is illogical to force the more advanced and progressed users of the language to adopt the lower standard of the fall-behind.
* The disadvantage of forcing people to accept Simplified Chinese as the only official Chinese language: it is likely to sow the seeds of bad feelings regarding the inequality and bias.
* The benefits of reverting to Traditional Chinese: (1) facilitate the communication between people from PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong people & Overseas, bridging the gaps of the political sea. (2) facilitate contemporary people to read the original Traditional Chinese text in monuments, stone-craving & ancient scripts in China & in Japan; bridging the gap of eras. (3) as the ruling party, the best tradition
should be adopted as the leading unifying written form, not using a sub-standard written form created for the illiterates. (4) win the hearts of Chinese people in Taiwan, Hong Kong & overseas.
* When China as a nation become rich and strong, and when the number of illiteracy fall below a certain percentage, it is likely that Traditional Chinese will be revived. It was rather short-sighted for the UN to use only one version of Chinese - the Simplified form, which was created out of the relatively temporary need to remove illiteracy.
Most people all over the world use Simplified Chinese? Really? Who counted them? Here … some other facts
Literacy in China:
total population: 90.9%
male: 95.1%
female: 86.5% (2002) (www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html)
A high percentage of the people from Mainland China are illiterate!!!!
800 million farmers are living in China, most of them can’t read/write.
1/3 of China’s population are older than 70.
… were those people counted/rated?
Last, but not least …. Say NO to United Nations’ abolishment of Traditional Chinese in 2008 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It shouldn’t become a dead language like Latin!
What about British English and American English? he? The Americans wouldn’t either change anything, right?
Traditional Chinese forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The United Nations should swith to Traditional Chinese! … Use Traditional Chinese!!!!
@ “jordan02″
I think he’s right! I’m from Hong Kong and I think the U.N. should NOT change anything!
Everything should remain like it is!
I have friends from Singapore and they even wouldn’t change the situation!
(Even people from Japan told me that)
As this is a sensitive subject, I wonder why I dare post a comment. Perhaps just to get some perspective? I am new here, so please be patient with me.
For sake of clarity, what are we talking about? The U.N….who really cares what the U.N. is publishing? Did anyone actually here ever read a UN sponsored study (I must admit I am guilty of this, but only because it was on the reading list for one of the courses during my studies)? It’s sure not my way of spending a quiet evening. The enws article did not say anything about focing people in Taiwan & HK to adopt Simplified Characters, therefore I do not share the anger of some of the posters.
On to the more interesting question of traditional vs simplified characters:
1. Traditional Characters are generally more beautiful and esthetically pleasing
2. Traditional Characters have evolved over thousands of years to their current from - reading traditional characters therefore could be seen as being connected to years of tradition
3. Writing is, besides many other things a form of communication. If simplified character would enable more people in China to reach a certain level of literacy then I would say “go for it”. It is a fallacy to compare literacy rates in China to those in much smaller, wealthier places as HK & Taiwan - they have a much more equal income distribution, they are smaller - so schooling efforts are much easier to direct at specific target groups). I have not seen any studies confirming whether the simplified characters are any good in raising literacy rates in China, but I believe the idea of simplifying the writing system is not a bad thing per se.
4. English could have used some major spelling in the past 500 years, esp after the great vowel shift. I have always found the inconsistent spelling in English somewhat odd and annoying.
5. The alphabet is a much more efficient means for writing than Chinese Characters - now I have done it…shoot me
Official literacy rates in the Chinese speaking world hide the ‘ depth ‘ (there is probably a better word for this) of each person’s literacy. If you would compare the average literacy ‘ depth’ of Taiwanese to Americans or Europeans, you would find that your average American (ouch) has a much wider reading vocabulary than your average Taiwanese. The simple fact is that using a sound based system such as the alphabet (or the arab script, which is slightly less efficient than the alphabet) is more efficient in increasing literacy - why? Because language is based on speech - people can speak so many words - if you use a sound based system you will almost always be able to decipher the meaning of a word - unless it is an obscure latinism.
6. Tradition is important - not everyone is in a position to think much about thousands of years of history - any reading system would do for poor people trying to improve their lives.
7. I wonder how many Taiwanese/HKese fully appreciate all the tradition behind the traditional characters - there will be quite a few, no doubt. As there are on the Mainland as well - so interested, educated people will always be able to use traditional characters . Does this mean they should expect newspapers or movie subtitles in characters drenched in tradition? For some yes - but for others I am not so sure - luckily I do not have to make this choice - I am not too good in reading either.
8. Traditional characters are in many cases easier to memorise for readcing - in many cases they are also more difficult to memorise for writing….and it does not help I have no knack for drawing.
Just some thoughts - would be good to see your comments.
Interesting article on this rift from the San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....INAOP1.DTL
The UN hasn’t been using traditional chinese characters since 1971, and the article written in the morning post was a simply not true. This however is trivial anyways, since almost all communication at the UN is done in English, and when is the last time you read a UN document? Learning chinese without taking the time to learn the traditional form is completely nonsensical. Outside of the mainland, namely Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the vast majority of communities overseas will keep using traditional, and will keep using it for the rest of your lifetimes. Unless you plan on spending the rest of your life in Mainland China, and don’t care about being able to read media outside of this area (which is rediculous in itself because of the low grade quality of Mainland mouthpiece ‘journalism’) then I guess you wouldn’t need to learn it. It really doesn’t take that much more time to learn traditional if you are learning both concurrently, and empirical data proves time and time again that traditional chinese is actually easier reading wise, since the meaning and memory cues haven’t been stripped away like the simplified characters. In short, learn both, read traditional/simplified, write simplified. If you go any other way you are simply hurting yourself in a big, big way.
I just read the comment posted above mine and want to add a quick comment. I have tried to study the empirical evidence on the effects that simplification had on literacy rates in mainland china. to make a long story short, it is virtually impossible to isolate and judge the effects that this poicy had, since it was part of a much more comprehensive set of policy changes, not to mention the effects that the increased opportunities for education as well as the income effect that economic reform has had. Basicallly, anyone who tries to claim that simplifiction had a definit positive effect on literacy rates is lying.
Jamie,
I think you make soem good points here and I think I accept your point about simplification having little efect on literacy. One point, however. You say
“Basicallly, anyone who tries to claim that simplifiction had a definit positive effect on literacy rates is lying.”
I think there is the possibility that someone is guessing rather than lying. You come across it all the time - one set of academics interprets the data one way, while another interprets it another way.
Administrator,
You’re right, I should have worded it differently. It would be more appropriate to say that anyone who claims that simplification has had an undeniably positive effect on literacy rates is wrong - it’s virtually impossible to verify. And any theories on simplification that a person wanted to try and establish would need to have that disclaimer.
I am actually going through the process of learning simplified chinese right now. Having been trained at the ICLP program at National Taiwan University (best thing I could have done, HIGHLY recommended if you are serious about learning), simplified chinese is non existent in any of the texts. My teachers would always just say “don’t worry, it will take you a week, and most of it is obvious. I really, really wish I had of learned them concurrently
Although I can understand the motivation for simplification, I must say that I personally liken learning traditional first and then moving on to simplified somewhat like walking through a beautiful museum that has been vandalized. I know that’s a negative metaphor, but that’s the feeling that it gives me.
Semi-serious point: I don’t think writing Chinese phonetically would work: too many words sound too similar. I can get my head around a text of characters pretty quickly, but working with the phonetics, whether pinyin or bopomofo, is a heck of a lot harder. Not that I’m above writing “wo” instead of 我 when quickly taking notes.
Less serious: anyone see an analogy between this and movements to simplify English spelling? To me, they both seem somewhat logical but ultimately wrong-headed.
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
By Mark Twain
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter “c” would be dropped to be replased either by “k” or “s”, and likewise “x” would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which “c” would be retained would be the “ch” formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform “w” spelling, so that “which” and “one” would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish “y” replasing it with “i” and Iear 4 might fiks the “g/j” anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez “c”, “y” and “x” — bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez — tu riplais “ch”, “sh”, and “th” rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
(I’m now grinning to myself imagining what would happen if George Bush were to impose his ideas of English upon the rest of America… and then whether or not the UN would impose that kind of English on UN operations forty years later. After all, most native English speakers are American, right? Oh, and here in Taiwan they DO care about AMERICAN English–again and again I try to explain that British English isn’t “wrong”, although it’s not as bad as a decade back when Brits had trouble finding work because of fears their pronunciation would “sully” the little learners here.)
This discussion is interesting, though I think much of it misses a significant point, namely the question of whether our linguistic rules should be prescriptive or descriptive. Language is constantly changing and evolving, and attempts to fix language as immutable are bound to fail. A clear cut distinction between traditional and simplified characters is not possible; some simplified characters are actually much older than their ‘traditional’ equivalents, and in some cases, the process of simplification was actually a reversion to an older form of the character (淚-泪). Moreover, even in places like Taiwan, some simplified characters are often regularly used in place of the traditional form (witness 台and 臺). Even in the name “Taiwan”, one only sees the traditional form of “tai” on license plates and on the occaisional road sign. Many young students in Taiwan, influenced by Japanese (and to a lesser extent, Mainland Chinese) culture, use some simplified characters for notes, diaries and casual writing. For instance, I encountered many teenagers who used the simplified form of 國, and even replaced 的 with the Japanese hiragana, ‘no’, which has the same grammaticla function. In Japan, the evolution of characters has been much less radical than on the mainland; some characters have undergone simplification(國-国), while others have retained the traditional form (電).
While I prefer traditional characters, as I find them much easier to recognize (and generally, much more aesthetically pleasing), I think some simplification is both reasonable and desirable. The efforts of the Communist Party to radically simplify the language went way too far however, and I think the written form (or typed form, as is largely the case today) should be allowed to evolve and develop naturally. For this to occur, traditional characters must not be supressed, so as to expose Chinese speakers to both forms and permit them to develop a natural and efficient system.
Unfortunately, the shear volume of publishing coming from the Mainland is likely to make these decisions a moot point, as simplified texts vastly outnumber traditional ones. However, I was surprised by the number of signs and advertisements I saw on the mainland that were written in traditional characters. Perhaps the Mainland Chinese will cause the pendulum to swing the other, despite the best (or worst) efforts of their government.
On another note, contrary to the claims of some previous correspondents, the script of government and education in Singapore is simplified, not traditional.
I study in 福州师范大学 and i can read both 简体 and 繁体 writing , well thats another thing ~ i write bad ~ type quick but write like a 3 year old. Simplified has nothing to do with communism, really thats just a pathetic thing to say, and simplfied is so much better for your eyes ~ i lived in japan and looking at some of those tiny complicated characters hurts my eyes….i dont get this problem with siplified!
so if you ask me. simplified is cool and traditional looks nice on postcards!
Later sisters!
sam x
Sorry for posting my article so late.
I was born in Singapore and studied simplified Chinese under the
Singapore Education system. I found that to be very easy and I
can learn another second language with ease which is English.
I have recently started to learn traditional Chinese as I do not
have to take any simplified Chinese examinations. The conclusion
is that I have great difficulty in learning traditional Chinese
because there are simply too many strokes to write. Now, I learn traditional Chinese only to learn Japanese as I feel that all
Chinese need to follow the global flow and learn simplified
Chinese in order to communicate easily and better with one another.
“the Communist party is destroying our culture by destroying our language”
To wipe out a language you would have to kill it’s speakers.
Writing reforms are common in all societies. Look at, i.e. English from the 15th century. You will have problems to understand it.
I can not see how the very very modest reform the PRC did can have any negative outcome.
PS: Character simplification was not invented by the communists.
Just brought up by SPAM, but let’s do a comment anyway:
1. There is not a single UN member country using traditional Chinese.
2. The UN is bound to do what it’s members agree on.
3. And who is going to read it anyway?
4. You don’t know simplified Chinese? Just read English then.
paul says:
Just because they can tap into a very rich set of symbols and use them for commercial purposes doesn’t mean the pendulum is swinging back. It just gives them more ways to express their creativity in culturally meaningful ways. Just because we sometimes use medieval illumination, uncial or gothic script doesn’t mean the pendulum is swinging back either
Yv
Traditional will and should die out.
Actually, Jemini, characters will and should die out.
From the UN perspective, I wonder how many languages they publish in.
Thanks for sharing
I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links: