3 ms·

Your examples are excellent in pointing out the many to many mapping during the simplification process. Many people assume chinese characters are somehow "stati

Your examples are excellent in pointing out the many to many mapping during the simplification process. Many people assume chinese characters are somehow "static" and that the modern traditional characters are not aggregately mapped from older characters. Your last point is also very important as the top questions I've come across language learning forums is traditional vs simplified. This seemingly trivial issue to people fluent in Chinese often get exaggerated and politicized to the detriment of Chinese learners. The best analogy I can think of between traditional vs simplified is akin to American English vs British English, except English learners don't make a big fuss about which version they should learn first.

4cao 6y ago
> The best analogy I can think of between traditional vs simplified is akin to American English vs British English, except English learners don't make a big fuss about which version they should learn first. There isn't really much of an analogy here, and on a general note, trying to approach a new problem by seeking an analogy to something we already know isn't really the best way to gain insight: simply put, not everything we are about to see is going to be like something we have already seen, or even close to it. With that in mind, if you really wanted to compare this to the varieties of English, I can offer this analogy: The word "curb" in American English has a number of meanings related to 'restraint', or it can also mean 'a raised edge of pavement'. However, in British English, when used to mean the latter, the word is spelled "kerb." So, if you are familiar with British English and want to learn American English, all you have to do is remember to always spell it "curb" and never "kerb." However, if you are going the other way, you have to remember the new spelling of "kerb," but also only to use it with a certain meaning, and not the others. In this example, going from British to American English is easier than the other way round, just as going from traditional to simplified characters is easier than the opposite. Yet another example could relate to the distinction between "shall" and "will," which some people make, and many (if not most) don't. If you are used to making the distinction, and want to stop (go "simplified"), it is effortless: all you have to do is to start using "will" all the time. However, going the other way you'd have to learn the rules of using it, or face the risk of drowning: (a) "I shall drown, no one will save me!" (b) "I will drown, no one shall save me!" Which one do you choose to be rescued? Answer here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will#Uses_of_shall_and_will_in_expressing_futurity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will#Uses_of_shall_a...
- coolgod 6y ago
  > There isn't really much of an analogy here, and on a general note, trying to approach a new problem by seeking an analogy to something we already know isn't really the best way to gain insight: simply put, not everything we are about to see is going to be like something we have already seen, or even close to it. My analogy isn't meant for people fluent in both Chinese and English that understand the nuances between variants of languages. The analogy is much more informative for people deciding to learn Chinese than your any of your 發/髮 → 发 examples and analysis. Clearly there are distinctions between traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese, your earlier posts contain many valid examples and analysis which are suitable towards a Chinese etymology audience rather than the general English speaking audience who are curious about Chinese. FWIW I'd teach my kids traditional Chinese, but overexaggerating the difference between the two variants is not helpful for Chinese learners.
  - 4cao 6y ago
    > overexaggerating the difference between the two variants is not helpful for Chinese learners I wholeheartedly agree. In the grand scheme of learning Chinese, this is a relatively minor consideration. It wasn't my intention to play it up (and in fact I don't think I did), it's just how the discussion progressed from the original comment.

4cao 6y ago

> The best analogy I can think of between traditional vs simplified is akin to American English vs British English, except English learners don't make a big fuss about which version they should learn first. There isn't really much of an analogy here, and on a general note, trying to approach a new problem by seeking an analogy to something we already know isn't really the best way to gain insight: simply put, not everything we are about to see is going to be like something we have already seen, or even close to it. With that in mind, if you really wanted to compare this to the varieties of English, I can offer this analogy: The word "curb" in American English has a number of meanings related to 'restraint', or it can also mean 'a raised edge of pavement'. However, in British English, when used to mean the latter, the word is spelled "kerb." So, if you are familiar with British English and want to learn American English, all you have to do is remember to always spell it "curb" and never "kerb." However, if you are going the other way, you have to remember the new spelling of "kerb," but also only to use it with a certain meaning, and not the others. In this example, going from British to American English is easier than the other way round, just as going from traditional to simplified characters is easier than the opposite. Yet another example could relate to the distinction between "shall" and "will," which some people make, and many (if not most) don't. If you are used to making the distinction, and want to stop (go "simplified"), it is effortless: all you have to do is to start using "will" all the time. However, going the other way you'd have to learn the rules of using it, or face the risk of drowning: (a) "I shall drown, no one will save me!" (b) "I will drown, no one shall save me!" Which one do you choose to be rescued? Answer here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will#Uses_of_shall_and_will_in_expressing_futurity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will#Uses_of_shall_a...

coolgod 6y ago
> There isn't really much of an analogy here, and on a general note, trying to approach a new problem by seeking an analogy to something we already know isn't really the best way to gain insight: simply put, not everything we are about to see is going to be like something we have already seen, or even close to it. My analogy isn't meant for people fluent in both Chinese and English that understand the nuances between variants of languages. The analogy is much more informative for people deciding to learn Chinese than your any of your 發/髮 → 发 examples and analysis. Clearly there are distinctions between traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese, your earlier posts contain many valid examples and analysis which are suitable towards a Chinese etymology audience rather than the general English speaking audience who are curious about Chinese. FWIW I'd teach my kids traditional Chinese, but overexaggerating the difference between the two variants is not helpful for Chinese learners.
- 4cao 6y ago
  > overexaggerating the difference between the two variants is not helpful for Chinese learners I wholeheartedly agree. In the grand scheme of learning Chinese, this is a relatively minor consideration. It wasn't my intention to play it up (and in fact I don't think I did), it's just how the discussion progressed from the original comment.