Yeah you are probably right. There aren’t really any ways in telling whether one is more efficient than the other and chances are, it’s probably not gonna matter much which system they study first. However, I just want to raise 2 points. One, I think HKese encounter SC first (Cantonese uses simplified characters to translate things I think) and some of them subsequently learnt TC from publications/media etc. which is why they can understand SC better. Two, not all Taiwanese “turn their noses up” when they see simplified characters, in fact, I think the % of Taiwanese actually refused to see SC is quite minimal. err I hope I dont get too many bashings for saying this, but… I think it is understandable why some of them would refuse to even see any simplified characters. it is not as stupid as it may sound. I am sure there are Americans out there now who would oppose to see arabic writings even if they can understand the words fully because of the increasing threats US received from the terrorists
…is it? o.O scratches head
hmm lets forget about Chinese for awhile and concentrate on how English has evolved over the last decade. Thanks to computers and cellphones, most teenagers nowadays can use and understand the leet language (a.k.a. 1337), abbreviations (e.g. WTF, OMG) and simplifies their writings to save time (e.g. l8r, txt). They sure are simplifications and they sure save people a lot of time, but do they improve literacy? I doubt it.
Simplified characters are not limited to nations where Chinese is (one of) the national languages.
My friends who took Chinese language in university in western Canada were taught the simplified characters.
In my personal opinion, I like the traditional characters. To me they are beautiful and the words retain their pictographic base. I can read some simplified characters, but it is not something I would go out of my way to learn to read and write. Unless, of course, it becomes the law in Taiwan.
as putonghua gets more established in the PRC i hope that the half-baked simplified script scheme reaches maturity: phonetic + determinant= character.
for sake of argument, let’s have every “ma” character incorporate either HORSE or the HEMP signs as phonetics. attach to these(when needed) determinants such as HAND. the horse sign is a clear MA clue. such is fine in the majority of characters, but then we get stuff like “ma bu” (table cleaning cloth) that gives no phonetic clue as to pronounce as it is composed of HAND+table. juggling it, perhaps a MA phonetic + CLOTH determinant would be a bit clearer for all involved.
such a truly simplified system for the basic 3000 chinese characters could be constructed in week and would greatly reduce the amount of rote memorization needed to get a grasp on chinese writing.
[quote=“pkwarrior”]…is it? o.O scratches head
hmm lets forget about Chinese for awhile and concentrate on how English has evolved over the last decade. Thanks to computers and cellphones, most teenagers nowadays can use and understand the leet language (a.k.a. 1337), abbreviations (e.g. WTF, OMG) and simplifies their writings to save time (e.g. l8r, txt). They sure are simplifications and they sure save people a lot of time, but do they improve literacy? I doubt it.[/quote]
In terms of improving literacy, I think that depends on the definition of literacy and the number of people who meet that definition. My guess is that the concept behind simplified characters is that such a system of writing might be more accessible to more people. Additionally, the definition of literacy could also be “adjusted” by whomever is tallying the figures. Either one of these factors could produce an increase in reported literacy. Together, the effect would be even stronger.
So, the simplified characters might have the ability to bring illiterate people into the literate world, to some degree. I agree with pkwarrior that people who are already literate would not likely be made more so by simplified characters, except to say that if a simplified language is easier to remember and manipulate, literate people might retain more of what they are exposed to for future use.
As to the shorthand that is now popular in chat rooms and on text phones, etc., I can see its utility when communicating via some constrainted medium. However, when it left that medium and began to show up in high school and college term papers in the U.S., that is when, in my opinion, it transformed from a limited use tool or harmless fad into a language virus.
Having first been exposed to TC and then moving to China the simplification process seems to lack logic.
For example the non-radical part of piao1 (rinse) is not simplified but the identical non radical part of biao1 (mark or lable) is.
These may be trivial examples, but try to find kai1 (open) or guan1 (close) in an SC radical index. In the only SC paper dictionary I own, they appear under men (door) which does not appear in the character.
The radical input method in NJStar gets confused at times - I don’t know if this is NJStar problem or due to lack of logic in the simplification process.
I would be interested if someone could point me to some information on the logic or rules of simplification.
Short cut English (with phonetic similarity or obvious connection to English words) has been in use on the Telex since at least early 1960s when it was first widely available, maybe from 1930 when it was first commercially available. Morse code telgraph used shortcuts from 1854 but they were generaly abbreviations with no phonetic conection or similarity to the English words
For those who never heard of it telex is also known as teletypewriter. It was widely used until the fax became generally available in the late 1970’s
I guess telex operators were not kids using the medium for fun and this prevented the usage creeping into every day language.
Shorthand English never caught on for telegrams because you were charged by the word and not by the character.
There is an SMS chat room on one of the Phillipines TV channels I get here. Most is in some sort of “English”, however the use of words that you might find in a dictionary appears to be prohibited.
The best way is just to learn both, then you can read anything. It’s better to learn the traditional characters first, and once you’ve got, say, the most common 2,000 down, then learn the simplified, which shouldn’t take much time at all. Problem solved.
What is baffling, though, is why the avant-garde and forward-looking Communist reformers merely simplified the script, and then in only a very, very limited way, thus keeping the whole system essentially intact.
Why not go the whole hog, and do like the Koreans did and design a completely new script?
Any attempt to do it now is bound to meet much more resistance than forty years ago. Missed opportunity?
EB
I can read and write both traditional and simplified Chinese.
I find that it is relatively easy for a TC user to learn SC (as nearly all of my Taiwanese friends have accomplished)
Whereas it is slightly more difficult for a SC user to learn TC (as nearly all of my Singaporean friends have shown)
This might be due to the fact that in the simplification, many of the radicals (bushou) have been lost, and also many different characters have been combined into one. Whereas in TC - 3 characters have 3 meanings, in SC it may have been simplified so that 1 character has 3 meanings.
[quote]What is baffling, though, is why the avant-garde and forward-looking Communist reformers merely simplified the script, and then in only a very, very limited way, thus keeping the whole system essentially intact.
Why not go the whole hog, and do like the Koreans did and design a completely new script? [/quote]
Korean follows has completely different language structure and belongs to a different language family. And - in Korean there are instances where confusion occurs - where originally Chinese characters were used.
Most importantly, SC or TC, they take the same time to type on the computer - so why not pick the more aesthetic of the two - and make yourself seem better educated - (as SC was originally introduced so that the poorer educated could write and read) - learn TC
You can read stuff in Taiwan? Not sure about the whole debate but that’s why I learned traditional characters. I suppose it depends on your plans; I can’t see them (Taiwan’s characters, not your plans.)changing any time soon.
It does, especially if this is where you live. If you know traditional characters, you often can see where the changes have been made in their simplified version and still “read” them. Plus, many of the more basic characters are unchanged. If you want, learn simplified simultaniously. Put simplified characters next to the traditional ones on flashcards. Programs like Plecodict and Rosetta Ston as well as some texts allow you to see simple and traditional side by side.
You can read stuff in Taiwan (which is where you live), Hong Kong, and most Chinese communities outside of China, and Chinese writings even within China that were written prior to the 1950s. Plus it will give you a solid basis upon which to learn simplified characters.
It’s easier for a reader of traditional characters to learn simplified than the other way around.
All that everyone else said. Additionally, there is a logic at work which is more often apparent in the full form characters. As such, they are actually easier to get your head around.
I learnt simplified then moved onto unsimplified. I prefer unsimplified to the point now when I get simplified in a document, or when wriIing, I’ll convert to unsimplified and flick it back before sending it on.
