trad characters have spent 3,000 years on top. Simplified have only been around 50 years. Most of the stuff that was published in the past 50 years will be in the dustbin of history in another 50. I’d bet on trad charcters to win in the long run…
plus simplified charcters are an ugly abomination, and you can use them to write anyway…
The modern, standardized PRC set yes, but actually, there have been simplified versions of characters as long as there is a recorded history of them. The oracle bone graphs, for instance, are often simplified versions of the same words written on bronzes, presumably because of the difficulty of engraving into the hard bone surface, and the ease of writing with a stencil in clay. Ever since then, there have cropped up variant versions of characters that are either more or less complex than the previous one, and sometimes the simpler one lived on while the other died out. Some of the characters we use today are simplified variants that were established thousands of years ago.
The modern, standardized PRC set yes, but actually, there have been simplified versions of characters as long as there is a recorded history of them. The oracle bone graphs, for instance, are often simplified versions of the same words written on bronzes, presumably because of the difficulty of engraving into the hard bone surface, and the ease of writing with a stencil in clay. Ever since then, there have cropped up variant versions of characters that are either more or less complex than the previous one, and sometimes the simpler one lived on while the other died out. Some of the characters we use today are simplified variants that were established thousands of years ago.[/quote]
[Extraneous personal attack removed. Stay on topic please. --MOD]
But as for the basic argument - the trad charcters that are used in Taiwan are pretty much exactly the same as the inscriptions you see in Palace Museum from about 500BC. That horrible mainland junk is ok for Japanese etc, but I dont think it will catch on…
It’s not. 
Forget it. 
I think a useful essay on the topic is “Simplified” versus “Complicated” — “Language” and “Script” Are Not the Same. It’s available in not only English but also Mandarin (in Pinyin, in traditional Chinese characters, and in simplified Chinese characters – take your pick 
).
[EDIT: Ad hominem content removed. --MOD]
Thanks as always for the excellent sources, cranky! 
The modern, standardized PRC set yes, but actually, there have been simplified versions of characters as long as there is a recorded history of them. The oracle bone graphs, for instance, are often simplified versions of the same words written on bronzes, presumably because of the difficulty of engraving into the hard bone surface, and the ease of writing with a stencil in clay. Ever since then, there have cropped up variant versions of characters that are either more or less complex than the previous one, and sometimes the simpler one lived on while the other died out. Some of the characters we use today are simplified variants that were established thousands of years ago.[/quote]
I know dat. People on this forum never miss a chance to show off…
But as for the basic argument - the trad charcters that are used in Taiwan are pretty much exactly the same as the inscriptions you see in Palace Museum from about 500BC. That horrible mainland junk is ok for Japanese etc, but I don’t think it will catch on…[/quote]
this is typical of people who have some emotional, irrational attachment to Trad. Only they would say one is ugly and the other superior. But really, it’s just people clinging onto a particular system, because that’s what they are used to, no other reason. It’s like me saying that Hanyu Pinyin input is superior to Bopomofo. They both get you the same result; difference is I like ABC keyboard, and others like bopomofo keyboard.
These are the kind of people I would write off. Rather, if people like Maozedong (or his Chinese language commission, rather) or more importantly, folks like Hu Shi thought a simplified version was better for the Chinese people (as a whole, for communication purposes, for education and literacy purposes, rather than for aesthetic reasons, e.g. using trad in calligraphy), then I give those people WAY WAY more weight.
[quote=“steev”]trad characters have spent 3,000 years on top. Simplified have only been around 50 years. Most of the stuff that was published in the past 50 years will be in the dustbin of history in another 50. I’d bet on trad charcters to win in the long run…
plus simplified charcters are an ugly abomination, and you can use them to write anyway…[/quote]
ok, I’ll stop my incorrect information.
trad characters have spent 2,182 years (from Qin dynasty unification to 1949. Source: wiki) on top. Simplified (as an integrated universal system used by mainland Chinese communists) have only been around (about) 50 years. Most of the stuff that was published in the past 50 years will be in the dustbin of history in another 50 (prediction that cannot be verified). I’d bet on trad charcters to win in the long run…
plus simplified charcters are an ugly abomination, and you can use them to write anyway.
I think the basic argument still holds. There may be more books published from 1949-2011 in libraries at present, but I expect many of them will get discarded or rot away by 2061. French was the lingua franca in the 18th century but it didnt last…
The modern, standardized PRC set yes, but actually, there have been simplified versions of characters as long as there is a recorded history of them. The oracle bone graphs, for instance, are often simplified versions of the same words written on bronzes, presumably because of the difficulty of engraving into the hard bone surface, and the ease of writing with a stencil in clay. Ever since then, there have cropped up variant versions of characters that are either more or less complex than the previous one, and sometimes the simpler one lived on while the other died out. Some of the characters we use today are simplified variants that were established thousands of years ago.[/quote]
I know dat. People on this forum never miss a chance to show off…
But as for the basic argument - the trad charcters that are used in Taiwan are pretty much exactly the same as the inscriptions you see in Palace Museum from about 500BC. That horrible mainland junk is ok for Japanese etc, but I don’t think it will catch on…[/quote]
this is typical of people who have some emotional, irrational attachment to Trad. Only they would say one is ugly and the other superior. But really, it’s just people clinging onto a particular system, because that’s what they are used to, no other reason. It’s like me saying that Hanyu Pinyin input is superior to Bopomofo. They both get you the same result; difference is I like ABC keyboard, and others like bopomofo keyboard.
These are the kind of people I would write off. Rather, if people like Maozedong (or his Chinese language commission, rather) or more importantly, folks like Hu Shi thought a simplified version was better for the Chinese people (as a whole, for communication purposes, for education and literacy purposes, rather than for aesthetic reasons, e.g. using trad in calligraphy), then I give those people WAY WAY more weight.[/quote]
I dont have any irrational atttachment to trad. If you exclude aesthetic appeal, which i don’t class as irrational…
obviously pinyin is superior to bopomofo for any Western-raised person - it requires a matter of minutes to learn, and is impossible to forget. Anyone who argues otherwise is the irrational one. If you would like to give Maozedong so much weight, maybe you shoould move to some place llike North Korea where they still practice his ideology. I go by an argument’s validity, not by who made it.
And I never write people off, even stupid ones.
I think the problem is, i don’t even see your argument, much less talk about its validity.
by irrational, I do not demean aestheticism; rather I’m claiming it only has an emotional appeal ie not a rational one.
as for MZD, I did put in parens, I was referring to his literary commission… on top of that, I emphasized Hu Shi.
If you dont see my argument, how am i supposed to argue with you?
I’m arguing that simplified characters (as the main medium for published material, not for personal correspondence) are a passing fad ( the 2,189 years vs 50 argument). Their domination is inextricably linked to the CCP, not to any inherent superiority, and as soon as the CCP falls they are likely to get the boot, too.
Not only are they very ugly, but they screw around with the basic logic of the Chinese writing system.
[quote=“Chaon”][quote=“ironlady”]Why is this temped, rather than split and pruned?
[/quote]
Too late. It’s in Temp now, where it receives the benefit of my bountiful knowledge:
Simplified characters are like fluoridated water, or vaccines. They look like a good idea at first glance, but are actually a communist plot to weaken the population and sap our moral fiber. Another problem is that simplified characters cannot be stored or indexed on any computer, no matter what the software or operating system. In order to get simplified character data into a computer database, you must scan the text and upload it as a bunch of images. Since there is no standardized way to do this, every upload requires the user to write a GUI interface using visual basic to map the IP address of the system where the simplified character images will be stored. I’ve been using computers since 2004, and I have lived in Taiwan for 15 months already. So I am pretty much an expert at this stuff.[/quote]
I find it hard to believe that no computer in the mainland can handle simplified. (I’m guessing I’ve been using computers since before you were born, and living in Taiwan since about then, too. But dont take that personal!)
[quote=“Jack Burton”]I think the problem is, I don’t even see your argument, much less talk about its validity.
by irrational, I do not demean aestheticism; rather I’m claiming it only has an emotional appeal ie not a rational one.
as for MZD, I did put in parens, I was referring to his literary commission… on top of that, I emphasized Hu Shi.[/quote]
Also, Mao Tzedong’s support for simplified dovetails very nicely with his hatred of the intellgentsia… simplified are great for teaching the mass peasantry to read when they dont have the benefit of 12 years compulsory schooling, and thereby pullling the rug out from beneath the intellectuals…
The CCP claims that simplified “Simply make sense”, and dont mention the massive ideological agenda. The Taiwanese pro-Trad agenda and its attendant ideological baggage is much easier to see, as they’re in the minority position and have to justify themselves…
(Insert uncomfortable squirming emoticon here.) Sigh. Ok, it’s not important to the main point, so I’ll resist.
this is also why China failed in the 20th century… oh gee, we’ve had confucianism for over 2000 years. Confucianism can beat a modern navy and guns, oh yea… fail.
by that token, we should all revert to oracle bones, because that’s been in use for more than 2200 years…
the past is not a guarantee of future results… so oft said by investment people. i think that applies here.
and yes, your analogy of French as lingua franca is no analogy at all. fail.
and it’s “don’t take it personally” not “personal” fail.
and yes, I still don’t understand your argument, because you haven’t really given one. other than simplified is ugly and the CCP is evil.
I’m game!
He’s clearly being remarkably disingenuous (or extremely badly informed) when he states:
“The simplified characters have been employed by the common people and calligraphers starting more than two thousand years ago. They are not the invention of the Chinese Communist Party and do not have much to do with old Mr. Mao.”
The fact that almost all books in China are published in simplified and that is the main script taught in school has a huge amount to do with “old Mr Mao.” The writer’s either a communist apologist or an idiot.
The writer – who happened to be the associate editor of what is probably the best Mandarin-English dictionary and knew a thing or two about Chinese characters – is neither a communist apologist nor an idiot.
What I really want to say is, “Oh, man, not another Lithuanian!” But that just wouldn’t be right. 
Also, have any of you wondered why we havent got around to simplifying English yet (if you ignore the minor American effort)? Like by replacing it with KK yinbiao…
After all, its a real pain in the neck for non-native speakers… and compares very unfavourably with languages such as German and Italian…
[quote=“cranky laowai”]The writer – who happened to be the associate editor of what is probably the best Mandarin-English dictionary and knew a thing or two about Chinese characters – is neither a communist apologist nor an idiot.
What I really want to say is, “Oh, man, not another Lithuanian!” But that just wouldn’t be right. [/quote]
How then does he appear to know nothing about the history of the adoption of simplified characters by the CCP? To suggest that such a massive change in society (equivalent to Chin Shi-huang’s burning of the books) was nothing to do with “old Mr Mao” is clearly absurd… who does he think was running that place from 1949-1970?
As what he is writing is either idiotic or a communist apology, I stick by my point… and I dont care what other stuff he wrote. He’s very very wrong on this point.