3 ms·
I suspect that, with notable exceptions, academics gain the level of proficiency they need. However, practically everybody can at least read the characters of
by bsder 5y ago
I suspect that, with notable exceptions, academics gain the level of proficiency they need.
However, practically everybody can at least read the characters of Latin.
I find this interesting to contrast to academics studying Ancient Chinese. Evemn native Chinese speakers require lots of training before they can even begin decoding the scripts and characters, let alone things like the poetic forms.
Now THAT'S a difficult language to do research in.
- Ericson2314 5y agoMmm the characters themselves are largely unchanged, precisely because they are so largely artificial! But yes, merely recognizing the character doesn't mean one has much of a leg up decoding it.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> Mmm the characters themselves are largely unchanged, precisely because they are so largely artificial! Your mileage may vary. https://hanziyuan.net/#%E8%99%8E https://hanziyuan.net/#%E8%99%8E Granted, that one starts out as non-artificial as it's possible to be. But compare https://hanziyuan.net/#%E7%94%B2 https://hanziyuan.net/#%E7%94%B2 , where the original character is 十 and it develops through 田 and various intermediate forms into the modern form 甲. You don't get more abstract than 甲.
- Ericson2314 5y agoOracle is quite a bit different, sure, but Seal is a lot more clear, and Clerical is completely clear.