5 ms·

> The simplified characters are not actually "remarkably different". You're incorrect. As a simple example look at the difference in the character horse betwee

> The simplified characters are not actually "remarkably different". You're incorrect. As a simple example look at the difference in the character horse between the two character systems. You might be able to sort of figure it out if you knew ahead of time what it meant. Just plopping a whole pile of text in front of you with no translation in the language you're familiar with is fairly incomprehensible. >Have you ever seen how Chinese actually write many common characters with a paper and pen? Yes, I have written some stuff in chinese and I have friends who write sloppily. The strokes are still suggested if not perfectly expressed. Have you any experience? > Orthography reforms happen in non-authoritarian countries, too. Although there since it's not enforced, you end up with a plurality of languages, like India. You can change any individual language but still have to support the old way.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
> As a simple example look at the difference in the character horse between the two character systems. If you are a foreign learner just looking at typeset ways of representing this character, then the difference may seem great between traditional and simplified. But in fact, the rapid way of writing 'horse' before the script reform, is where the simplified form was eventually taken from. > The strokes are still suggested if not perfectly expressed. No, rapid writing often drastically limits the number of strokes. I’m sorry, but I must question your experience with Chinese, because all this is covered in any reasonable introduction to the script reform. Even Wikipedia's article [1] is pretty clear on this: "Character forms that have existed for thousands of years alongside regular, more complicated forms ... Some simplifications were based on popular cursive forms embodying graphic or phonetic simplifications of the traditional forms." This is why Taiwanese and Hong Kong readers, though they may find mainland China’s system culturally alien, do not generally consider it a barrier to understanding. > Although there since it's not enforced, you end up with a plurality of languages, like India. You are very mixed up here. One moment you are talking about orthography, the next about multilingualism. They are distinct things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters
- jimmywanger 8y ago
  > writing often drastically limits the number of strokes. I’m sorry, but I must question your experience with Chinese, because all this is covered in any reasonable introduction to the script reform. No, it's not the same. When you make the abbreviated strokes you try to simulate things. It's not turning four apostrophes into a straight line. I also like the little dig about my knowledge about Chinese writing. > This is why Taiwanese and Hong Kong readers, though they may find mainland China’s system culturally alien, do not generally consider it a barrier to understanding. It is in terms of familiarity. Just like reading Shakespeare. Or the KJV if you're used to reading modern English. Try filling out a DMV form written in Chaucerian English. > You are very mixed up here. One moment you are talking about orthography, the next about multilingualism. They are distinct things. No, not at all. Maybe I should explain myself more. Orthography if rigorously enforced by ALL parties leads to acceptance. If you start accepting old scripts and language, you start causing multilingualism.
  - Mediterraneo10 8y ago
    > It's not turning four apostrophes into a straight line. Yes, it definitely is. The reduction of four strokes to one at the bottom for the character for "horse" is a perfect example of how the simplified form proposed by the Chinese state merely copied the rapid way of writing the traditional character. Again, I must question your familiarity with this subject.
    - jimmywanger 8y ago
      > Yes, it definitely is. The reduction of four strokes to one at the bottom for the character for "horse" is a perfect example of how the simplified form proposed by the Chinese state merely copied the rapid way of writing the traditional character. Again, we're talking about mutual legibility. You can scan through traditional sloppily written chinese because there are still subtle cues that you're used to. With simplified there is none of that, as well as the upper part of the character being just a straight line when it was a vertical line with two lines crossing it. If you scribble something there you still make things vertical and a bit bumpy to suggest the original shape. Traditional is legible sometimes, as not all characters have changed and some changes aren't important. Take the symbol for country. That is completely puzzling. You seem to be arguing from how you think things work logically. However simplified is very difficult to figure out from traditional sometimes, no matter how you slice it.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago

> As a simple example look at the difference in the character horse between the two character systems. If you are a foreign learner just looking at typeset ways of representing this character, then the difference may seem great between traditional and simplified. But in fact, the rapid way of writing 'horse' before the script reform, is where the simplified form was eventually taken from. > The strokes are still suggested if not perfectly expressed. No, rapid writing often drastically limits the number of strokes. I’m sorry, but I must question your experience with Chinese, because all this is covered in any reasonable introduction to the script reform. Even Wikipedia's article [1] is pretty clear on this: "Character forms that have existed for thousands of years alongside regular, more complicated forms ... Some simplifications were based on popular cursive forms embodying graphic or phonetic simplifications of the traditional forms." This is why Taiwanese and Hong Kong readers, though they may find mainland China’s system culturally alien, do not generally consider it a barrier to understanding. > Although there since it's not enforced, you end up with a plurality of languages, like India. You are very mixed up here. One moment you are talking about orthography, the next about multilingualism. They are distinct things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters

jimmywanger 8y ago
> writing often drastically limits the number of strokes. I’m sorry, but I must question your experience with Chinese, because all this is covered in any reasonable introduction to the script reform. No, it's not the same. When you make the abbreviated strokes you try to simulate things. It's not turning four apostrophes into a straight line. I also like the little dig about my knowledge about Chinese writing. > This is why Taiwanese and Hong Kong readers, though they may find mainland China’s system culturally alien, do not generally consider it a barrier to understanding. It is in terms of familiarity. Just like reading Shakespeare. Or the KJV if you're used to reading modern English. Try filling out a DMV form written in Chaucerian English. > You are very mixed up here. One moment you are talking about orthography, the next about multilingualism. They are distinct things. No, not at all. Maybe I should explain myself more. Orthography if rigorously enforced by ALL parties leads to acceptance. If you start accepting old scripts and language, you start causing multilingualism.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  > It's not turning four apostrophes into a straight line. Yes, it definitely is. The reduction of four strokes to one at the bottom for the character for "horse" is a perfect example of how the simplified form proposed by the Chinese state merely copied the rapid way of writing the traditional character. Again, I must question your familiarity with this subject.
  - jimmywanger 8y ago
    > Yes, it definitely is. The reduction of four strokes to one at the bottom for the character for "horse" is a perfect example of how the simplified form proposed by the Chinese state merely copied the rapid way of writing the traditional character. Again, we're talking about mutual legibility. You can scan through traditional sloppily written chinese because there are still subtle cues that you're used to. With simplified there is none of that, as well as the upper part of the character being just a straight line when it was a vertical line with two lines crossing it. If you scribble something there you still make things vertical and a bit bumpy to suggest the original shape. Traditional is legible sometimes, as not all characters have changed and some changes aren't important. Take the symbol for country. That is completely puzzling. You seem to be arguing from how you think things work logically. However simplified is very difficult to figure out from traditional sometimes, no matter how you slice it.