3 ms·

I don't think quoting Mao is doing your argument any favors. >It's conceivable to me that China could benefit from a move to alphabetic writing, and translatio

by knolax 8y ago

I don't think quoting Mao is doing your argument any favors. >It's conceivable to me that China could benefit from a move to alphabetic writing, and translations of Classical Chinese into vernacular The issue is not that classical texts become illegible, the issue is that all written language becomes illegible. For example, in the other DeFrancis source you provide, he uses the term "shuangwenzhi", the meaning of which I simply could not figure out. I saw the English "digraphia" below, at which point I assume he may have meant "双文zhi" but I am still unclear what he meant by "zhi". As of right now only 66% of the phrase he used has any semantical meaning and I am still unclear as to what he meant to say by "shuangwenzhi". Without the English translation I don't think I would've deduced any of the semantic meaning of that term. >So, the idea that the Chinese writing system is too cumbersome is by no means new, You are correct, this argument isn't new, it's outdated.

FabHK 8y ago
Nicely put :-) The emergence of smart ubiquitous always-connected computers (with Unicode) does change the evaluation maybe. I think one of the fundamental arguments against the Chinese script (it takes about twice as long to learn than alphabetic writing) stands, while others are outdated, indeed (nobody struggles with building Chinese typewriters anymore). However, there are many arguments put forward against switching to an alphabetic script that strike me as misguided (that the Chinese language is so special, that it has so many homonyms, that characters are uniquely suited to it and indeed indispensable, that it allows speakers of different "dialects" to communicate, etc.). At any rate, good discussion.
- knolax 8y ago
  >At any rate, good discussion. Agreed.
beat 8y ago
Mao led the development of the simplified character system, iirc, so it's relevant. That was part of the push for universal literacy. It is much easier to learn than traditional characters.

by knolax 8y ago

FabHK 8y ago

Nicely put :-) The emergence of smart ubiquitous always-connected computers (with Unicode) does change the evaluation maybe. I think one of the fundamental arguments against the Chinese script (it takes about twice as long to learn than alphabetic writing) stands, while others are outdated, indeed (nobody struggles with building Chinese typewriters anymore). However, there are many arguments put forward against switching to an alphabetic script that strike me as misguided (that the Chinese language is so special, that it has so many homonyms, that characters are uniquely suited to it and indeed indispensable, that it allows speakers of different "dialects" to communicate, etc.). At any rate, good discussion.

knolax 8y ago
>At any rate, good discussion. Agreed.

beat 8y ago

Mao led the development of the simplified character system, iirc, so it's relevant. That was part of the push for universal literacy. It is much easier to learn than traditional characters.