Teachers who teach Traditional Characters?!! Why?

[bokane]

I agree with Jose.

I dislike the terms "simplified" and "traditional" because they project a bias that isn't in the Chinese <i>jianti</i> and <i>fanti</i>. As Skylee mentioned, a lot of the simplifications arose from cursive forms of the characters; others actually predate the "traditional" characters. 云, for example, originally meant cloud, then had 雨 addid to it after 云 was borrowed for the homophonous word "to say." 无 existed alongside 無 ever since the character first appeared; both are a picture of a dancer (which is the basis of 舞.)

In my experience, going from <i>jianti</i> to <i>fanti</i> in one's studies isn't measurably more difficult than going the other way. I started out learning the two alongside each other, then switched to <i>jianti</i> after the first semester. Several years later, I began studying classical Chinese texts that required me to be literate in <i>fanti</i>, which I went back and picked up without too much difficulty. (Though I should note that my <i>fanti</i> ability is limited to reading; I can't write without a great deal of concentration.) The most important thing is to build up a good visual memory, and become adept at recognizing the components of characters, and you can get that skill with either character set.

[shibo77]

Hehe, I think that the mental process to remember and retrieve the characters in both the traditional and simplified versions are much the same. But the traditional sure adds alot more strain to your hand...

Another point is that for computer displays, and small journal fonts, some traditional characters with many strokes changes into a black block. This sometimes happens with the simplified version as well, but much less often. I would like to be able to read a character in the journal, and be able to copy it exactly onto paper, and finding it in the dictionary as well, without any change in the shape of the character or having difficulty distinguishing between the strokes. Printed materials of the simplified version seems much clearer in this aspect. Perhaps saving some bytes on the memory of a computer as well. I think it is better for technical writing.

But for aesthetic values, literary writing, and traditional works, I think the traditional version is better.

-Shibo

[Jose]

Shibo,

In a previous post I said that handwriting speed is, in my opinion, the only advantage of simplified characters. You mention a second possible one: The readability of small characters. I see your point, but I tend to disagree, though, because there are a lot of quite complicated characters that haven't been simplified at all. Think of characters like 嚷，履, 藏 or, my favourite, 囊.

By the way，isn't it surprising how, if the simplification was so well thought out as its proponents claim, some very complicated characters weren't touched at all whereas some easy ones, like 車,東, or 見, were simplified?

Anyway, even if we accept that possible second advantage of simplified characters, we should not forget that the original reason for the script reform was to increase the literacy of the masses, not to make people write letters faster, or read the small print more easily.

[ala]

By the way，isn't it surprising how, if the simplification was so well thought out as its proponents claim, some very complicated characters weren't touched at all whereas some easy ones, like 車,東, or 見, were simplified?

Because 車, 東, 見 are frequently radical components, hence reducing strokes for them in effect reduces strokes for many many more characters.

Anyway, even if we accept that possible second advantage of simplified characters, we should not forget that the original reason for the script reform was to increase the literacy of the masses, not to make people write letters faster, or read the small print more easily.

No, both are quite related.

[Jose]

Because 車, 東, 見 are frequently radical components, hence reducing strokes for them in effect reduces strokes for many many more characters.

Yes, of course. If the goal is to reduce the average number of strokes of Chinese characters, such simplifications are great. The same can be said of the simplification of radicals as in, for example, 说/說 , 银/銀 , 饭/飯, 问/問 , 红/紅.

But my point is that all these simplifications don't make those characters any easier to learn. As some kind of handwriting shorthand they're great, but I dispute the idea that characters are easier because of them. Why there was any need to officialise this form of writing characters is what I don't understand.

I insist, I don't think the difficulty in learning a character is proportional to the number of strokes it has. As an example, compare the characters 品 (9 strokes) and 希(7 strokes). I think most people find the second one more difficult to learn.

I think considerations such as symmetry, or whether the character can be easily analysed in terms of more basic components, account for the relative difficulty of each character. Also, because of the way characters are written, closed shapes such as 口 or 田 require more strokes than open shapes like 又 or 十, but they can all be remembered as atomic units. The obsession with stroke reduction means that many closed shapes have been replaced with open shapes as in, for example, 區/区 or 婁/娄. The reduction in the number of strokes in those two pairs don't make the simplified version any easier to remember (at least for me. I'd be interested to hear from people who think otherwise)

I don't dispute that a few characters are easier to learn in their simplified form. Compare 庆 and 慶, or 还 and 還 , for instance. However, my point is that such cases are actually few. (And I can also think of cases where the simplification process has made some characters harder to learn)

In general, I find that simplified characters are not easier, and for the reasons I said in my first post in this thread, I don't like them.

No, both are quite related.

If you mean that reducing the average numbers of strokes makes the system easier, I disagree for the reasons I've already mentioned.

If what you mean is that the goal of simplification was broader in scope than increasing literacy, and that the committee that designed the reform also had in mind the issues of handwriting speed or allowing smaller printing fonts, then I will admit that they succeeded in these minor issues, but I don't see the point.

[ala]

Yes' date=' of course. If the goal is to reduce the average number of strokes of Chinese characters, such simplifications are great. The same can be said of the simplification of radicals as in, for example, 说/說 , 银/銀 , 饭/飯, 问/問 , 红/紅.

But my point is that all these simplifications don't make those characters any easier to learn. As some kind of handwriting shorthand they're great, but I dispute the idea that characters are easier because of them. Why there was any need to officialise this form of writing characters is what I don't understand. [/quote']

No, they do make characters easier to learn. First having less strokes for radicals make them easier to count, and being easier to count makes them easier to look up in dictionary strokes index.

The obsession with stroke reduction means that many closed shapes have been replaced with open shapes as in, for example, 區/区 or 婁/娄. The reduction in the number of strokes in those two pairs don't make the simplified version any easier to remember (at least for me. I'd be interested to hear from people who think otherwise)

Maybe not easier to remember, but definitely easier to look up, which is a very important part of literacy.

[madizi]

I like Traditional characters because they are beautiful and also like Simplified characters because they are easier to learn (less strokes) and easier to write (but not all Simplified characters are this way, as Jose already pointed out). For example: 听 is much easier to write and to memorize than 聽.

As sinologist, I had to learn both types of characters during the study. I asked my self many times why. But I found out why when I came to Taiwan. Without knowledge of Traditional characters I would be lost! And the second occasion for using Traditional charatcers was, when I wrote my graduation paper. I had materials in Traditional and Simplified characters.

Knowing both types of writing is also useful when surfing internet. One not only reads Mainland China's sites, but is also able to read Taiwan's, HK's,....

And last, but not least: learning Chinese characters is good for training the brain.

[wushijiao]

I think traditional characters are more beautiful and are worth knowing. But I think it's hard to deny the time saving value of simplified. If you have ever seen a rural school in China, and over 80% of China is still rural, it would be hard to argue against any system that makes learning easier. Students need to balance their time studying math, science, history, other languages along with Chinese. It's my view that studying simplified saves massive amounts of time in route memorization.

(I've often wondered....if China had converted to pinyin, then students would only need to have good audio instruction in standard putonghua- i.e., the teacher, tapes, the radio. Then they could learn pinyin by age 7 0r 8, and essentially be 100% literate, freeing thousand of hours for other things). Of course, that subject has already been debated to death.

As it is though, simplified saves a lot of time in route memorization. Whether it is worth switching to tradtional to save a few years of studying is a valid question, I guess. Of course, people will say, Hong Kong and Taiwan have almost 100% literacy and they use traditional. Well, true. But the mainland had something like 20% literacy in 1949 and was much more economically ruined. Something drastic had to be done, and it seemed like pinyinization was going to win out in the 1950's. In light of that, I think choosing simplified was a good compromise between pinyin and keeping traditional.

However, when I am more sceptical, I feel that simplified is like an 1984ish plot to control thought in the Mainland. Switch to simplified, educate the masses in simplified, then burn and destroy all the old books in the CR. Then control and censure all publishing houses in the country. Like 1984, young people wouldn't even be able to understand books written before the regieme came to power. It's a crude but effective way to make sure there's no crime think.

[Jive Turkey]

As it is though, simplified saves a lot of time in route memorization.

Please show us some empirical evidence from an objective source to back up this assertion.

Of course, people will say, Hong Kong and Taiwan have almost 100% literacy and they use traditional. Well, true. But the mainland had something like 20% literacy in 1949 and was much more economically ruined.

Hong Kong and Taiwan had similar or lower literacy rates than the mainland in 1949. Why in the world would you think that Taiwan, which had been a Japanese colony for 50 years, would have a higher Chinese literacy rate than the mainland? Why would a colony full of unskilled immigrants and no government support whatsoever for Chinese education have higher literacy rates than the mainland? Why would you say that Taiwan's or HK's economy was any better off than the mainland's? HK had just experienced four years of economically ruinous Japanese occupation and it was cut off from its hinterland after the war. Taiwan's economy was 100% geared toward commodity exports to Japan; Taiwan's only market completely dried up during and after WWII.

You seem to think you know all about this subject. Please enlighten us.

[shibo77]

Okay okay, sorry to bother, here follow my opinions again...

Traditional script is not perfect.

Simplified script is not perfect.

Traditional script is older.

Simplified script is quite old as well, but not formalised until the last century.

This was a centuries-long even millenia-long process, not simply the work of a decade in the 中国文字改革委员会. Due to the handwritting nature of the simplified script, it starts out by cutting down the number of strokes of frequently used characters which has many strokes. 旧jiu4龙long2龟gui1听ting1 and many more frequently used many stroked characters. This is why there are still many characters that were not simplified, simply because they were not frequently used, or maybe they didn't see a need for the simplification. (they as in the people who wrote in Chinese for the past millenia, not the 中国文字改革委员会). Here is my bad analogy: if old English started with "aplantegretjiuold" for the meaning of "old", and it being a frequently wrote word, people started to make simplifications to it, much like the "gonna", "shoulda" of today. Over the centuries, it became "old", 舊"aplantegretjiuold" >> 旧"old".

Much less strokes, means good news for all the students who have to copy a character over and over in school. Remember 抄生字, 抄生词? Even with the simplified script, after a few pages, my hand start to become numb. I don't know how much more painful it would have been if I copied with the traditional script.

I have two copies of 鲁讯Lu Xun's «呐喊Na Han -the Shout». One is from 1943 with the traditional script printed up and down, right to left. Another from 2001 with the simplified script left to right, up and down. I read both with the same characters, and I consider 鲁讯Lu Xun's choice of characters are very simple and basic, characters that a secondary school child should be able to understand. I counted "black blocks", 艇聽, both simplified and traditional. I found the simplified had much less and was much easier to skim (of course, there is also the factor that I learnt simplified first). While the traditional at best had 4 or 5 lines without any "big black blocks", but on average a "big black block" appears every half to 2 lines. While the Simplified can go on a page without more than 3 "big black blocks". You can also try this by copying an article(with frequently used words, nmot a technical/historical paper) written in both simplified and traditional onto a word processor, then start minimising the font until they turn tiny, and count how many "big black blocks" there are.

These are my opinions.

-Shibo

[madizi]

Did Taiwan also simplified some of characters? When I was in Taiwan, the word "Taiwan" was sometimes written as 臺灣 and sometimes as 台灣. I think (but I'm not sure) that gui (return)歸 is sometimes writen as 皈.

[Guest Yau]

Did Taiwan also simplified some of characters? When I was in Taiwan, the word "Taiwan" was sometimes written as 臺灣 and sometimes as 台灣. I think (but I'm not sure) that gui (return)歸 is sometimes writen as 皈.

Yes they do, and so do hongkong too.

That's why I always insist that simplication of chinese isn't a sin. I only object communist's way to do it that only conduces to an extra diversification over chinese cultures.

[hparade]

communist's way isn't all bad i would say, some are renewal of old characters, and some are quite logical IMO: e.g. 从， 众,

when i used to read traditional, i'm used to the "big black blocks", becauses there was no comparison, but after reading simplified and returned to traditional, the eyes do feel tired....

i think both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, simplification isn't bad, but more research and consult to all users should be done

[Guest Yau]

i don't think the disadvantage of communist way is justified. It doesn't solve the literacy problem, as it claimed. And even worse, without the consensus by all authority in the "Greater China" area, the simplification of chinese only drives was efficient to diversify chinese culture, and that is what the mainland chinese gov't always object to do.

some simplified strokes such as 龟, 众, 国 doesn't compensate the loss we're facing today.

[Jose]

I have had a look at this thread after a few days, and it seems to me that nobody has come with any good arguments to support simplification.

Shibo mentions that you can read simplified characters with a smaller font size. This is true, in general. However, I still think that if you are using a font size that gives you a few black boxes, the font is probably too small. An ideal font size should be one that doesn't produce any black boxes. Such a size should be fine for both simplified and traditional characters. Let's face it: Chinese characters require bigger font sizes than Latin letters.

Ala brings up an argument that I find a bit far-fetched, to say the least: The fact that less strokes can save some time ( how much? a few tenths of a second?) when counting the strokes in order to look up a character in a character index. A possible counter-argument would be that the reduction in the average number of strokes results in there being more characters that have the same number of strokes, which can make the lists of characters for a given radical and a given number of strokes longer, so that browsing through it to find a character could take more time, and that might offset the time gain in the stroke count operation. Anyway, I can't believe that I'm arguing about something like this. Even if Ala is right, the time difference should be negligible when compared with other processes involved in the lookup process: going through the pages of the dictionary to find the pinyin entry, locating the character, and finding the explanation or translation one is looking for.

If dictionary lookup speed is so important, and you're willing to throw thousands of years of tradition in the bin to improve that, shouldn't you support romanisation? Romanised spelling should win hands down when it comes to lookup speed.

The problems with all the reasons I've heard mentioned to support simplification is that they actually make the case for romanisation. That's why supporters of simplified characters find it difficult to find good arguments. If tradition is important, and we should preserve the Chinese writing system as it has been used for centuries, then traditional characters should have been kept (this is my opinion). If, on the other hand, making the language more "efficient" (whatever that may be) can justify putting aside sentimental views about traditon, and reforming the language, then romanisation is better than simplification.

I disagree with Wushijiao's view that simplified characters are easier to learn. This is not my experience and, as I said in my first post in this thread, I have actually been more exposed to simplified characters than to traditional ones during my years of study. I don't understand why you say that "something drastic had to be done". Illiteracy cannot be solved overnight with any bold crash measures. If the current literacy levels among native speakers of Somali are very low, what would you recommend they do? Reform the Somali language? There is no magic recipe. The solution lies in economic development so that people will have more access to education. This is what China has been doing so successfully during the last few decades. In my opinion, economic development, and not simplification, is the reason for the impressive improvement in literacy levels in China.

If China had not reformed the script, I think the current literacy levels would still be the same as they are, and the geographical and historical split in the language would have been avoided. I suppose there is no way this situation will ever be reversed, but I think it was a mistake.

One last thing: Some people claim that simplified characters were popular variants that had existed for centuries alongside the official pedantic complicated characters. However, I always hear the same few examples used to support this. What about all the other thousands of characters that were simplified? I don't know much about this issue, but I would certainly like to know what percentage of the current simplified characters were widely used and understood before the Committee published its lists of simplified characters.

[shibo77]

I didn't really know about the purpose of this thread, I just joined in in the middle.

But one common misconception is that people think it is the doings of the communist government and 中国文字改革委员会, but most of the characters were simplified and re-simplified ever since the Han dynasty with 草书 the grass script. 中国文字改革委员会 only made a few changes. 中国文字改革委员会 is like 新华字典, they take in what is used in society, and record it/standardise it. They don't impose the system onto people. 中国文字改革委员会 started with the First version, then it was revised and many simplified characters were reversed back to their traditional original. Some of these First standard characters are still used by people, even though they were later revised back to their traditional forms. Then came the Second version, because many more people were writting even more simplified characters. But it wasn't accepted because the majority of people thought it was uneducated writing. Basically, most of the characters were used in the simplified forms throughout China. 中国文字改革委员会 only helped to standardise it and make it acceptable educated writing. When the masses did not accept certain forms as acceptable/educated writing, they compiled a revised version. Ten years later, even more simplified forms were popping up on signs, and 中国文字改革委员会 decided to compile a Second version. But most people did not see it as educated writing. Now we are stuck with the First version revised. It has less to do with communism than it has to do with how people really write. People even in Hong Kong, and Taiwan write with simplified forms occasionally. Sure, changing into the Roman alphabetic script would be much much faster, but that is not what the (majority of) people wants. How would that have anything to do with comparing simplified and traditional?

I think many arguments here are one-sided. One argues what one wants.

The simplification simplified many characters, this is not only reducing the strokes of many characters, many radicals, but also the reduction of the total number of characters needed for literacy. Regular dictionaries with simplified characters in the mainland have much less characters than regular dictionaries with traditional characters in Taiwan. Not only dictionary look-up (counting strokes, the reduction in the number of radicals, searching through the word list...) is faster, the number of characters needed for literacy is much lower.

Most people in China would agree that writing using the simplified script is better, but they would also agree that the traditional script is needed for calligraphy/aesthetic values/ historical documents etc. It is not dumping out traditions.

A secondary school child can learn less characters, write less strokes/faster than a person using the traditional characters if one wanted to read and copy a 鲁讯 novel.

Simplified script have eased learning (reducing number of characters/strokes), therefore influenced the increase in literacy to a minor/minute extent. (mostly from better education and economic factors)

Simplified script have to a minor/minute extent, eased printing, computer scripting, dictionary radical look-up.

Are those not somethings to be good for?

-Shibo

[zh-laoshi]

I learned the traditional characters before the simplified ones. I found it easier to understand a character better in the traditional form - its original meaning. The simplified characters do that, but a lot are different than what they originally were.

Before starting my online language courses, I taught the traditional characters to a student when they asked for Chinese. But when I put my website up, I started offering the simplified forms. I see the simplified forms as they were originally intended to be. An easier to write system of Chinese, easier to learn and help combat illiteracy.

As for using the traditional forms for a type of "snobbishness", I like to think of it as the way we write Ye Olde Englishe for certain advertisements or other writings - gives it an antique, classical look.

But that's just my thoughts.

[wushijiao]

I disagree with Wushijiao's view that simplified characters are easier to learn. This is not my experience and, as I said in my first post in this thread, I have actually been more exposed to simplified characters than to traditional ones during my years of study. I don't understand why you say that "something drastic had to be done". Illiteracy cannot be solved overnight with any bold crash measures. If the current literacy levels among native speakers of Somali are very low, what would you recommend they do? Reform the Somali language? There is no magic recipe. The solution lies in economic development so that people will have more access to education. This is what China has been doing so successfully during the last few decades. In my opinion, economic development, and not simplification, is the reason for the impressive improvement in literacy levels in China.

Thank you, Jose, for disagreeing with my ideas without insulting me personally. After thinking about all of this for quite a while, I think that you are right in that literacy probably wouldn't have been different had the mainland not changed. One question that bugs me is: if most informed people came to the conclusion that simplification wouldn't change literacy much, what was their true motivation to change from traditional?

I'm not so sure about the economic development thing, however. Most communist countries educated massive amounts of people (think Cuba, the USSR, the eastern Bloc, and China) while giving them poop for economic development. China has never been richer than today, yet because it has gone to a pay-for-education basis, I think the have-nots are not becoming anymore literate than before. Anyway, some of my Chinese friends have told me that China spends a very low percentage of GDP on education compared to other countries. Maybe, one might argue, the goal of educating the masses is no longer a high priority compared to other issues, like space travel, dams, roads, electric rainbows or missiles.

In any case, I now argee that any argument in favor of "simplification" leads towards alphabetization, which I feel isn't possible.

[Claw]

One question that bugs me is: if most informed people came to the conclusion that simplification wouldn't change literacy much, what was their true motivation to change from traditional?

Some people say that simplification was originally conceived as just one step towards abolishing all characters and using something like pinyin instead. Once that happens, the populace would no longer be able to read their past history. It's somewhat of a "1984" (book by George Orwell in case you hadn't heard of it) scenario, but it's somewhat evidenced by the Cultural Revolution when everything from the past was shunned and many artifacts destoyed.

[sfr@rcn.com]

This is a FWIW post. I've always believed that China made jian ti (simplified) their standard exactly because it differentiates them from all the other Chinese-speaking countries and outposts. (Much as the Jews reckoned their kinship matrilineally (you're Jewish if you're mother is Jewish) to differentiate themselves from the non-Jews around them. This, by the way, is not to say that the Jewish tradition is not sexist--it's as sexist as any other Middle Eastern religion.)

For any newbies reading this, FWIW means for what it's worth. And if you need to translate any other abbreviations like that, go to http://acro.harvard.edu/GEI/smileys.html. And and, off track: does anyone know of a Website that shows Chinese smilies, which seem to be written hoizontally instead of vertically like western smilies?

Sandra